Win the Fight.
The right has traditionally been squeamish when it comes to defending their lives and livelihoods. It’s time to embrace the warrior spirit of our forefathers and get to work.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F02b2e79c-af91-4195-b0ac-7ef36dcc454e_1621x1080.jpeg)
This past weekend, the nation watched in horror as President Trump was shot during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The President turned his head to examine a chart on immigration statistics at the exact moment the shot was fired, causing a narrow miss and altering the course of history forever. What would have been the most gruesome assassination in American history instead turned into a moment of triumph, as Trump took the bullet in his ear and sprung up tell his supporters to “fight, fight, fight!”.
A more inspiring moment would be difficult to conjure in recent memory, as courage and other aspirational qualities are looked down upon by the ruling elites as outmoded or characteristic of white supremacy. This nonsense is part of a wider push by the ruling Regime to neuter its political opposition, hanging heavy albatrosses around their necks to hamper resistance and demoralize anyone who dares to stand in the way of a Regime which has consistently made it clear that they would like nothing more than to kill us all.
The failed assassination attempt has shown that we face not merely a political battle or a conflict of philosophy, but a war for the future of human dignity. The left has consistently proven itself to be ontologically evil: castrating children, funneling rapists into once safe communities, releasing murderers onto the streets, running pedophile rings, worshipping demons, spreading war, pestilence, and misery around the globe. They’ve even enacted a pogrom of ethnic cleansing against their own citizens, perhaps going so far as to facilitate the assassination attempt against President Trump through malicious negligence.
This isn’t some vague disagreement over policy. This is a theological conflict, a war of the soul of mankind, survival vs extinction. The days of quaint political sparring are long gone, buried by mountains of lies, broken promises and parasitic abuses by the powerful against the people. Yet despite all of this, many on the right are still deeply allergic to picking up their proverbial swords to join the fight.
My father has often compared the political right to the image of Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown’s foot before he can kick it. The left overreaches, breaks some sacred rule, goes too far, or destroys an institution’s credibility, creating an opening for the right to swing the pendulum back in favor of sanity. But time and time again the right fumbles the bag, before lining up to try again in endless futility. This failure is often self-inflicted, using vague “principles” as an excuse to paralyze themselves to the point of inaction, fearing the “backlash” for “appearing mean” to leftists who salivate over the thought of their heads on pikes.
In this case an assassination attempt failed against the leader of the Regime’s political opposition in broad daylight on live television, giving the right more ammo than it has ever had, the chance to truly change hearts and minds. This is an opportunity to gain real ground. The left, ever incapable of remorse, took this chance to accelerate the situation, gloating about the death of a man in the crowd who valiantly sacrificed himself to save his family and openly praising the assassin, hoping that in their words “they won’t miss next time”.
Naturally this horrific behavior deserves to be punished, right? After all, we witnessed people lose their jobs simply for refusing to use made up pronouns, or daring to call a riot a riot, or refusing to be vaccinated at gunpoint, or exercising during COVID lockdowns. Surely advocating for the assassination of the President and lusting for the blood of his voters would warrant some sort of reprisal?
For readers who follow Libs of TikTok, you are likely well aware of Chaya Raichik’s effectiveness in the culture wars. She was able to pinpoint some of these vulgar posts (from people on their public profiles mind you) gloating about the death of the Trump rally attendee Corey Comparatore. Some of these people were fired from their jobs – notably a cashier from Home Depot, who wished the assassin was “a better shooter”.
Immediately, this claimed scalp ignited a controversy among the more moderate sect of the right, who argued over whether or not this amounted to “cancel culture”. Many claimed they wanted to win, but not like this. They lamented that a lowly cashier is a “bad target”. This split within the right over tactics has caused a debate over how far the right should go to defend itself. Should we hold back, or should we steer into the skid and do everything we can to win the fight now while we still have a chance to maintain the integrity of the country while doing so?
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F32568711-3437-4718-bb4a-31235602953d_950x950.jpeg)
Many correctly pointed out that getting someone fired for wishing death upon the President is significantly different than, say, ruining the life of a child for wearing the outfit of his favorite football team. It’s clear that, given every chance, leftists would happily wish for your death for the crime of being a Trump supporter, or a Republican, or a Christian, or for simply disagreeing with them on a single issue. If you need a reminder, here’s a look back from some of the most egregious examples of leftists destroying ordinary people’s lives for daring to oppose them during the chaos of 2020.
The left has consciously and gleefully dismantled the history, ideals and institutions of this nation, but the right is still somewhat in denial of this simple truth. Their nostalgic memory of having civil disagreements is preyed upon to manipulate the right into inaction. This is a relatively new paradigm, one unfortunately which the left has been free to make. Many refuse to participate in it, thinking they can remain high above it all and still win. But this would be like deciding to sit and play a gentlemanly game of chess in the middle of a Roman gladiator match in the Colosseum.
The left has littered the field of battle with weapons of mass societal destruction, and they’ve fundamentally changed the rules of engagement. We can either keep getting cut down or pick some of those weapons up and fight back to establish parity. If you tell someone that their actions have consequences, and then refuse to enforce the consequences when you have the chance, then the rules don't matter. That's why we are here.
It’s a similar argument to the death penalty, or penalties for shoplifting, or drug legalization. On the one hand, many would like to think of themselves as “more evolved”, and so they open the door just a crack. But the criminal doesn’t change. He doesn’t care about the rules. He still kills, steals, and shoots up on the street regardless, emboldened by the opening created by the cultured sensibilities of the ignorant. Refusing to enforce rules leads to their eventual dissolution, and one only need to look at the streets of San Francisco or Philadelphia to see where that leads.
Men must be governed. Ceding control of that governance to leftists of ill rebuke doesn’t mean we reduce the constraint of the rules overall: it just means that someone else gets to decide what they are, who they apply to, and who they don’t. We must enforce the rules now that we have a slim opening to do so, to show that the rules still exist. Or else nothing matters, and we can just skip to the civil war. I’d like to think one last shot at reestablishing societal order is worth appearing to be “mean” by the left’s absurd standards.
So, with such high stakes, why are many so afraid to fully commit themselves to the fray?
This psychological aversion stems from an illusory nostalgia. They just want to go back: back to a simpler time when, they imagined, people were on an equal footing, when disagreements were “civil”, when people “just got along”, when one could be left alone to live as they wanted to live. To them, the last 20 years have been a strange nightmare, an aberration that sprung from the plains like the spring grasses. They think that once it’s over, we can act like it’s 1995 again. This is a naïve and foolish dream.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that we were never on “equal” footing with the left to begin with. If you need any evidence for this, I suggest reading Chris Rufo’s book “America’s Cultural Revolution” (on sale now and a great read) which details the left’s long march through the institutions; bullying, burning and killing as they went. They have been waging an aggressive campaign of conquest since the 1960’s and the right has been sitting on the sidelines making the same excuses about fighting back for over half a century.
This perpetual refusal to accept reality has caused many to want to turn back the clock: not to when our national decline began, but to some point halfway, a time and place where they could pretend to be liberal enough on social issues to be seen as “cool” without it totally tanking our society. They seek acceptance by the leftists in their lives to keep the peace. But obtaining the approval of leftists is impossible. The revolution always wants more, demanding increasingly absurd proof of loyalty and escalating the pace of societal change exponentially. Society begins to collapse under the pressure, and eventually the train comes off the tracks.
Instead of hitting the breaks and saying no, many conservatives and so-called “moderates” want to pick and choose what they say “no” to. They want to have it both ways: some aspects of the leftist revolution, but only the ones that make them comfortable or feed their vanity. The problem with revolutionary leftism is that you don’t get to pick and choose. There is only power, who wields it and for what purpose. One side wants to be left alone, the other doesn’t; one side wants to get along, the other doesn’t; one side wants to coexist, the other doesn’t.
Leftists know this and are happy to force you into agreeing that child mutilation is ok by contriving absurd counterfactuals and hypotheticals, or by threatening your job, or by ruining the lives of your family. The right has been afraid to use the same tactics because they misinterpret the evil of leftism from its tactical approach, rather than its outcomes. “Using the power of the state to enforce things is bad – I would never do that” they proudly say while the left happily seeks their death and actively uses the state to achieve this goal. The refusal to fight allows the left to continue dictating the rules of engagement. They cry out about “imagine if the roles were reversed”, never actually doing what is necessary to reverse them to see what might happen.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F65336b4d-85eb-4593-86a0-11214a2c2e50_2000x1333.jpeg)
This obsession over tactics is a red herring. The evil of leftism isn’t just in its institutional structures, protest methods, or underhanded political scheming. We can clearly see they are dishonorable, petty and dangerous. The true evil of leftism comes from what it’s using those tactics for – the values, moral proposition, and way of life that they are trying to force the world to adopt. Tactics are not at issue here: what those tactics bring about, is.
In a peaceful vacuum and stable society in which everyone agrees to the rules, tactics can certainly be debated for their moral cost. But this isn’t a philosophy classroom. This is a total psychic war. Handcuffing your soldiers while the enemy charges at you in a suicide vest is a losing proposition. So why do some people on the right, even after an assassination attempt against their Presidential candidate, so stubbornly refuse to engage in the battle? The answer lies in the unique human interpretation of time.
Everyone dreams of their childhood. Even if it was brief or marred by tragedy, we yearn for a time when everything was taken care of, when all aspects of the world were fun, when all our friends got along, when things were simple and when times were plentiful. We cherish those memories. They become a part of who we are later in life. Our childhood informs our worldview and everything else about ourselves.
To ensure nothing can intrude on this inner sanctum of the self, many of us put our childhood in a protective mental box to preserve its perfection. This idealized past becomes an indispensable totem of stability for our adult selves. So too do we do this with our community, our town, our era, and our nation. At heart, the refusal to accept reality is the denialist, desperate preservation of that totem for fear of what its destruction might implicate or cause us to become.
Ultimately this argument over "imagine if the roles were reversed" is about the difference between the civilian and the warrior archetypes in relation to this sanctified past. The civilian fears the intrusion of the world into the perfectly protected, idealized memories of his youth. The warrior, rather than fearing it, understands and embraces it. Many conservatives are deeply afraid and trapped in the denial of the profound loss they feel over the destruction of old America. They have been trained by leftist systems to be solely a civilian movement, incapable of understanding the cycle of human struggle which has kept us sharp for generations. For decades the right ceded the fight to the left for fear of losing that precious totem - their idealized version of the “America” that they once knew.
That America has been decimated. But he wants to keep it in a neat little box, not touching it, barely even looking at it for fear of "becoming like the people who ruined it". But this is paradoxical. If it's been damaged, then how can one preserve it? He is merely preserving a ghost: dancing in the shadows cast by the waning light of a dying empire with a corpse bride for the sake of his own vanity. In the back of his mind he knows something is wrong, but he fears what would happen to his precious totem and ultimately to himself if he dared to face facts. Over time, the box he’s hidden this memory in degrades anyway, since he refuses to fight for it. Its disintegration causes him much consternation, resulting in his desperate covetousness for comforts to lull him back into his reverie.
This is the frustrating naïveté of the civilian. The glories and innocence of youth, the infinite hope of children, the bountiful long days and endless summer nights, the always available comforts, the unimpeachable totemic memory of the past. Its power has a great hold over us, especially in an era where technology allows us to relive its facsimile at the push of a button. As much as he loves these unblemished echoes, the civilian is always in denial of how his paradise was built in the first place. He is shielded from the darkness lurking outside the walls, imagining himself to be “morally superior” to his forefathers for his refusal to engage with it.
But the world he loves is not of his making. It is someone else’s calloused fingers which dug the foundations; it is their implacable hearts which laid the keystone; it is their timeless souls which carved the gates; it is their visionary will which opened the well. It was the warrior who sacrificed for the future, and who knew the price of paradise.
The warrior is the keeper, the builder, the fighter. He represents the cold passions of winter, the desperate pull of the final harvest, the urgency of the fire, the harsh need to survive the short, dark days, the urge to build and to rise. He is the shield against the cold when the desolate north winds blow civilians out of their merry dancing shoes and into their warm beds. The warrior understands the blood price he must pay to survive. He does not fear or deny it. He sees the wolf prowling behind his flock and does not pretend it isn’t there: instead, he hunts the wolf himself. In the heart of the warrior, naïveté is replaced with understanding, denial is replaced with acceptance, and innocence is replaced with wisdom. The civilian may pray for rain: but the warrior brings the storm.
The warrior is Faustian, pushing himself and his people relentlessly onward through the blood memory of the mountains and forests of his harsh ancestral lands, infinitely striving to assert dominance over the unforgiving life which he knows in his bones is a temporary gift. He accepts his fate as a man born to die, developing a deeper and more complete understanding of the innocent past and a ferocity to pass it on to his children that the civilian will never know.
The civilian preserves the past for his own vanity and to seek the constant realization of his comfort. But the warrior preserves the past for the honor of his ancestors and the duty to his tribe. He carries the fire to ensure those after him will have the luxury of a summer breeze and a good harvest. He bleeds in the snow to preserve the truth of the past - the people, the land, the worship, the history - while the civilian watches and complains about his tactics from a comfortable hearth.
The civilian will always be in thrall to the past, forever reminiscing, deferring to those in power to keep his cage gilded with bright trinkets and shiny baubles, fettered to the totem of the perfect past. But the warrior is willing to let go of his comfort and fight back tenfold to preserve what is actually still left to save, unleashing his being against the wicked.
Many of the warriors who built this glorious nation of ours are long gone. As technology removes us further and further from our Faustian past, more and more people find themselves in the civilian archetype. But the warrior spirit cannot be extinguished: for no matter how much mankind’s machines change our society, warriors can always be forged from civilians. The warrior archetype lets go of the idealized past and embraces the truth of it, its legend and myth, its truth and fiction, its warnings and lessons.
If you still worry over civility, then President Trump has shown us what fighting in that world while remaining civil looks like. He has adopted the spirit of the warrior. He is the final attempt at fighting this war through conventional means before it moves inevitably to the next barbaric phase. Does such a man hate the past? Of course not. He loves America, its history, people and traditions more than anyone. He is desperately trying to save it. But he knows we will have to let go of some of the propagandized tropes which so many people have come to rely on to maintain their sanity in a world swirling with chaos.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc154dc2a-c201-49da-a8f9-08c1cb3883ea_1600x900.jpeg)
Donald Trump is offering us this chance, one chance, to fight via peaceable means and offer up a true resistance to the evil in our midst before the conflict grows any further. He even took a bullet to do so, and yet many civilians still refuse to join him for fear of what it might mean to their psychic construction of the past.
This is why the civilian always loses. Their fear causes inaction which leads to their conquest by the powerful. He constantly adapts in order to preserve his corporeal form and his comfort. In doing so he ultimately betrays the past in favor of a merely material future determined by others who are hostile to him. He has no destiny but enslavement. The warrior honors the past by stepping off his high horse and into the arena for the good of those who follow after him. His destiny is victory and glory, in life or in death.
If conservatives continue to seek comfort and approval from their enemies, then they will continue losing this existential battle for the future. Luckily the tide has begun to turn, spurred by the heroism of one man of destiny who faced down his own potential death with a warrior’s spirit. It’s time to either join the warriors, or step aside and let them get to work.
It’s time to win the fight.
“It is important to note that it is precisely the most vigorous life that sacrifices itself most willingly. It is better to go down like a bursting meteor than to go out trembling.”
― Ernst Jünger, War as an Inner Experience
Exactly. Arguing about the moral nature of your actions after you've won is one thing. But worrying about getting some lady fired when the enemy is trying to eradicate you, your family, your friends, your entire race, your history, any evidence at all of your existence, seems to be rather silly. Just win, baby. Shut up about how you feel about it until after its done. No ones is gonna give a shit how you feel if you lose.
Bypass normie-cons and get shit done. People respond to success. The Conservative Movement of William Buckley failed to protect our people from the menace of communism, and at enormous cost to us. The upcoming movement of rightists need only demonstrate success to displace them.