What do you think?
I’ve personally struggled with this issue.
“Charles Haywood: Stephen Covey wrote a once-famous book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Six of the habits are forgettable, and should be forgotten. But the seventh — that is everything! “Begin with the end in mind.”
What is our end? That is easy — winning. What is the winning condition? It is the total, permanent defeat of the Left, of the ideology at the heart of the Enlightenment, with its two core principles of total emancipation from all bonds not continuously chosen, and of total forced equality of all people. When this defeat is accomplished, Right principles, those based in reality and recognizing the nature of man, his limitations, and his capabilities, can again become ascendant.
Winning does not mean electoral victory such that Right principles may be voted into law, and then nullified or voted out again. It means the total, permanent elimination of all Left power, and, even more importantly, the total discrediting, both on a moral and practical basis, of all Left ideology. What is Left should be seen for what it is, evil, and it should be seen as not only destructive in practice, but laughable, the ideology of losers and idiots, or at most something from the discredited past, viewed with vague curiosity, as the cult of Mithras is today.
If we begin with the end in mind, we see that any firepower directed at the Right is necessarily antithetical to the goal of destroying the Left. Any contentious discussion with those on the Right, wherever exactly they may fall on the spectrum of “not Left,” should instead be done privately and be strictly tactical, to agree on how may we cooperate to achieve our joint ends. We may occasionally choose to ignore some on the Right, as charlatans, simpletons, or fools, or simply too different, even malevolent, in their beliefs, but attacking them publicly only serves to make it harder to reach our end.
The phrase “no enemies to the Right” is merely the expression of this approach. It is the sound adoption of a universal Left tactical principle, first enunciated by Alexander Kerensky before the Bolshevik Revolution. Yes, it turned out to be an unwise principle for him personally, but he was entirely correct that the principle was crucial for Left domination. It has been a key component of Left success for a hundred years, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Why, then, do many putatively on the Right, such as Dreher, save their fiercest attacks for those on the Right? They complain, endlessly complain, about the Left and its evils, but never do they wield actual power against the individuals about whose behavior they complain, which could advance their claimed goals. Instead, they only wield what power they have against individuals whose beliefs they regard as to their own right. These are the same individuals as those targeted by the Left, and the more so they show any tendency to become leaders or network nodes on the Right. (In this case I have made no effort whatsoever to find out exactly of what Dreher accuses his target, because it does not matter. At all.) …”
Normally, I would criticize Rod, but I have been chastened by too many bad experiences.
“Understand that Charles Haywood is so filled with hatred of the Left that he happily claims a Nazi sympathizer as his ally, and says I’m a cuck for not being cool with that. In which case, Haywood does me a very big favor with his bilious invective. It is useful to get that learned. But I wonder: how would Haywood explain to his friendly Ethiopian-American interviewer in this podcast that it doesn’t matter that the Right has among it activists who think black people are subhuman? Seriously, unless Haywood believes right-wing politics are properly about nothing but White Power, then he’s got a big problem. …”
I will give you an example.
Just look at what happened to the Alt-Right.
After over a decade of keeping the NSM at arm’s length over all sorts of ideological, cultural and tactical differences, we ended up marching together in public with them at Unite the Right in Charlottesville. Jeff Schoep abandoned the organization to become an antiracist activist. We torched our brand and got nothing out of it except being saddled with a crippling multimillion dollar lawsuit.
We went to Charlottesville and attended the same rally with James Fields, Jr. who crashed his Dodge Challenger into a crowd. Everyone and their mother got sued and doxxed and deplatformed from the internet because of what happened that day. We didn’t know James Fields, Jr. We had never met James Fields, Jr. We didn’t have the same ideology. We had already left Charlottesville when he crashed his car into the crowd. We were blamed for his actions simply for being at the same event with him.
What about Richard Spencer? Think about all the people who gave him money or got doxxed attending his events or who went to jail for him. He repaid the loyalty of his friends and lieutenants by trying to have sex with their wives and girlfriends. He threw all of those people under the bus and became a libtard.
Did the CofCC benefit from being linked in the public mind with Dylann Roof? We didn’t know Dylann Roof either. He torpedoed the organization. We lost countless Confederate monuments because of Dylann Roof. We would have been better off not being associated with Dylann Roof.
I could sit here all day and come up with more examples of why this doesn’t work.
In my experience, “No Enemies To The Right” sounds good in theory, but hasn’t worked out so well for us in practice because it enables clowns and fringe retards who engage in sociopathic behavior. We have tried this approach and it objectively didn’t work out for us. It weakened us.