No Compromise



I am dedicated to an ideologically pure form of anarcho-capitalist thought in the libertarian style, following the mold of great thinkers like Murray Rothbard.

There can be no negotiation.

This needs to be a fundamental understanding of anyone on the right, from the moderates to the reactionaries.

Not Your Countryman is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The left has moved increasingly to a post-truth worldview. The right, in whichever form it takes, still believes in truth.

There can be no negotiation between those for whom linguistics is a tool and those who believe in truth.

There is no compromise and no middle ground between reality and unreality. A story, half-real as it may be, is still unreal.

But there is something real, and rejecting reality is sin. Those who reject rightful authority to a degree where they would deny the reign of truth over their life have given themselves over to destruction. I say this as an anarchist, and no lover of authority, who recognizes only God and the eternal law as the basis for good and moral life.

Winning the War

We are in a war. That much is true.

When the left came for your jobs—and there have been enough instances of this that I could pick from among a half-dozen that are likely to strike down—these were not the actions of someone who sought peacefully to share a society with you.

These are overlords or exterminators. I adhere to the non-aggression principle: that those who do not start fights should not be subject to any interference. The non-aggression principle, much like the Biblical injunction to meekness, does not mean that we should consider all actions just and good except overt murder.

It is as much a sin to justify a robber or cover for their actions as it is to rob or conspire to rob.

When you interact with the left, you must consider it a skirmish in a war. Comport yourself well. Act with strategy. Refuse to associate with degenerates and criminals. Ultimately, in this culture war we will need many generals and many footsoldiers. There is an urge to concentrate forces under a central banner, especially for those of us with a deontological view of morality.

But we are fighting a guerilla war, and we should manage it accordingly. Cells do better than armies when your enemy has control of every institution and you have Twitter and Substack accounts shouting into the void.

This keeps us from having the proverbial flaw of putting all our eggs in one basket.

We must also be prepared to accept, in the style of Jünger, that there may be nothing we can do to save ourselves. His The Forest Passage presaged many of the issues of our day, where mass censorship and the control of the medical state have become a threat to our way of life and our political sphere.

Of course, when I say nothing we can do to save ourselves, I do not mean that the situation is hopeless. We are, more likely than not, in the decline of the empire. This is something to be viewed with concern, because not only could it go in dreadfully wrong directions (there are, after all, barbarians at the gates, as politically incorrect as that statement might be in modern days) but it also means tremendous human suffering.

But it also means opportunity for the dissident.

The Dawn of the Right

There is opportunity in the aftermath of any collapse. The distinction between right and left is what we make of it—the left has focused many of their efforts on bringing about the collapse, something that will be apparent to anyone who is in the lower or middle classes. Those of us with roots in proletarian origins and even the comfortably bourgeois have been able to put a finger on the economic damage, and all of us on the right have noticed the cultural decay—accepting that this is the state of the current order is the hallmark of the modern rightist.

We must position ourselves to be resurgent in the new orders that will follow the Pax Americana. This will look different than the Pax Americana, and I am not a prophet enough to speak of any certainty to what will come out on top. I pray, of course, that it would be people like me, but I’d settle for people enough like me that my successors (spiritual or biological) should live in a better day than this one.

I am a historian by formal training (or at least most of one) and a political scientist by hobby. There are central objectives that can be set, and if we complete these objectives—hopefully in the next ten years, but likely within a century—we will survive the decline of the empire as Christianity survived the decline of Rome.

If we fail, we will perish, but I am not a pessimist. I think that the potential lies in our hands and we need only find it.

1. Become the Ruling Class

The first step is to become the ruling class.

I am not a democrat, I am an anarchist, and for anarchists this means creating strong natural hierarchies (family, church, business, mutual aid—preferably through the church, and culture). There’s also a little public ostracism (and worse) of anyone who pretends to be the new bandit king.

However, because I am not a democrat, and because all kings are fundamentally bandit kings (there are just better and worse varieties), I have no attachment to the current social order and I believe that if the new social order cannot be a libertarian one it would be wise to establish an explicitly right-wing one. We will likely not bring back a monarchy, but aristocratic arrangements (in the philosophical sense, I am not endorsing a feudal hereditary system despite being a medieval anarchist), are a good start.

The way the right wins this is by centering moral alignment—beginning with simple moral virtues like “thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill” and expanding into virtues like charity, modesty, and honesty—as a claim to legitimacy. Religion works well here, though I would be hesitant to endorse theocracy as it corrupts the church.

The return of politicians claiming to be serving God, especially on the conservative right, is a good sign that we are headed in the right direction. This may not be a path to electoral victories, but our adversaries are determined to be both evil and wrong on every count so you really just need to be the better option and not the winning option.

However, there is another point here—once you’re the ruling elite you pull the ladder up after yourself. The progressives have done a good job doing this with their endless bureaucracies and DIE systems. The institutions can survive a lot of incompetence if you uphold them at the end of a rifle barrel, as progressives do despite all their attestations to the contrary. Politicizing every institution and flooding it with candidates so that they can pick ideologically reliable ones has become a problem for the American citizen, but it’s nonetheless better.

The right needs to adopt a similar approach. Some of the hazards of this are mitigated by the fact that those motivated by an honest search for truth will recognize errors and be less prone to the progressive dogma (remember, Comrade, we are not in a recession!) but this will also require hones introspection.

In the end, however, it is important to remember that the goal is to prevent other people from occupying the ruling elite, not to maintain an ironclad control over it. When power becomes a meal-ticket, it gets corrupted, and it is better to create a system where nobody can win than one that feeds a coddled elite but creates incentives for entryists and the jealous to take over.

In short, create austere government, refuse to give it power, and purge everyone left of center (as well as criminal and degenerates on the right), or better yet create no government at all and rely on voluntary institutions (since these are harder to corrupt when they have a core vanguard of dedicated rightists).

2. Destroy your Enemies

There is no room in the libertarian social order for communists, syndicalists, democrats, or fascists. Hoppe’s thesis is correct because these are all totalizing ideas. We, on the right, have some totalizing ideas, and I don’t think that totalizing itself is the problem so much as the context for the ideas—for instance, I have no problem denying access to my property to anyone who rejects my political beliefs, and no problem colluding with others to do so.

Intolerance, contrary to what the modern progressives say, is not a vice. In fact, the Proverbs are full of injunctions to turn away not from wickedness but also those who do wicked things. Early Christians were told to turn their backs on those who rejected the faith and move to greener pastures.

The origin of tolerance comes from egalitarianism, which is ironic because it is an inherently totalizing idea.

I do not espouse racism, considering it degenerate (there is a better filter to prevent crime and degeneracy, which no race has a monopoly on), or nationalism, or any other simple discrimination. These things are ultimately counter-productive where they are not immoral, because they blind to the real point.

One must brutally persecute the bearers of sin and evil—the leftists who deny the existence of truth (how ironic it is that they call all who oppose them denialists of one kind or another?) so that they can shape the world in their own Luciferian image. They must not have succor within your territory, they must be regarded as weeds among grain.

Of course, it should be possible to take care of them without violence. Parasitic as they are, they will move to greener pastures or (one can hope) reform themselves when the opportunities for government sinecure, celebration of their identities and social backing disappear.

Root them out by creating and controlling institutions that reject parasitism and degeneracy. These are long-term tools of the left, the insidious counterparts to their claims of fraternity and egalitarianism.

3. Form a Remnant

Focus on ideological purity within your own cells. I do not think that it is correct for the broader right-wing movement to shoot inside the tent (though I am perhaps more strict in my definition of right-wing than others), but one must absolutely create a society in which your ideas are passed on and passed on well.

This is one reason why the left is so fond of their language games. If you can’t defeat an epistemological foundation of Christianity or right-wing thought, you can certainly weaken its supporters until their brains are soft mulch by controlling the media and educational institutions. If people cannot understand wisdom, they have little discernment with which to accept truth over folly.

It is important to have, in addition to the dedicated lay members, a hardline vanguard that passes on the ideas of the right to their descendants. This is true in the church, it is true in political thought, it is true in economic thought, it is true in historical thought, and it is true in  philosophy. These are the five pillars in which remnants can and must form to guarantee power to the right.

The left has assaulted these pillars. This is a major problem because they are levers to understanding. There is no left-wing or right-wing science. There is a modern Lysenkoism of the left, but even they would see it as non-science the moment it stopped serving their ends.

It is necessary to establish both clear and definitive (though not necessarily exclusive—in-fighting is counterproductive) right-wing schools of thought in these areas and defend them with the zeal of inquisitors.

No Compromise

The important thing is to be what your enemies fear most—an extremist. They should not be able to win the long game after losing elections because there should be no compromise. They should not be able to have a seat at the table.

There must be no consequences with liars, Pharisees, and Philistines. They must be driven out and shown the consequences for dismantling the very nature of existence.

Progressivism must be destroyed, and the 20th century must be repealed.

Not Your Countryman is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.