Assessing the Alternatives to 'Clear Them Out'

In this article I will explore my reasons for seeing no alternative to ‘Clear Them Out’ as a strategy for dissidents. This is not some random position; it is one to which I have come after adopting and then coming to see the futility of the alternatives. These alternatives are:

1.     Reverse Gramsci: Retaking the institutions through infiltration.

2.     Vote them out: Focusing on electoral politics.

3.     Parallelism: Building alternative communities akin to Trumpton.

Before I consider each of them in turn, it is worth fully articulating what ‘Clear Them Out’ entails. It is, in fact, a four-step strategy that requires some parallelism. The four steps are:

·       Step 1: Establish an intellectual vanguard capable of forming a counter elite.

·       Step 2: Build a coalition based around ‘Clearing Them Out’ (which in practice should be done at the same time as Step 1).

·       Step 3: Clear them out.

·       Step 4: Vanguard moves with ruthless coordination to take power from other groups in the coalition.

Although this four-step plan will seem fanciful and far-fetched to many, it is both achievable and realistic given that it is based on how every formal revolution in history has worked. I say ‘formal’ because there have been ‘informal’ revolutions; for example, the cultural revolution that took place in the United Kingdom charted by Peter Hitchens in The Abolition of Britain, which culminated and achieved final victory under The Dark Lord, Tony Blair.[1] Curtis Yarvin has identified at least three informal revolutions in the history of the United States: under Lincoln, under FDR and under LBJ.[2] Although these informal revolutions have had transformative effects on their respective nations, if we are to be precise, we have to say that they have taken place in the framework of reform, which is to say there has been maintained the appearance of regime continuity. A formal revolution is much more marked: the Tsar replaced by the Bolshevik dictator, the Shah replaced by the Ayatollah, and so on. In our case, it means that the type of leader would change from the suited lawyers and other such professional liars who tend to be the leaders in liberal democracies to men of a quite different stripe. ‘Clear Them Out’ wedded to vanguardism thus belongs to the category of revolutionary political strategy, while the alternatives belong to that of reform.

Before we get to any specific strategies of reform, it is my view that ‘reform’ as a category lends itself to Cthulhu swimming left and boiling the frog slowly – the conservative idea that reform is always better than revolution is the number one reason why Britain today is a progressive hellhole. ‘Reform’ as a strategy puts the right in the role of permanent pro-wrestling jobber whose job it is to take losses to the left. However, the regime does not treat the right as a jobber but as a super villain, but secretly super villains are glorified jobbers most of the time too: Skeletor taking Ls week after week to He-Man. This gives us the infamous ratchet effect in which each new generation of conservatives permanently cement the gains of the last generation of leftists. This is ‘reform’. Can advocates of ‘reform’ give me a single instance of it happening in a socially conservative direction? I won’t hold my breath. If you are on the right ‘reform’ is a losers game. Let us now consider some individual strategies.

Reverse Gramsci

Given that the left captured practically every institution from the inside, by infiltrating and then taking over all the key positions, it seems attractive to those on the right to imagine that this process might be engineered in reverse. There are at least two problems with this. The first is obvious: the left, unlike their counterparts, understand power and will simply fire anyone even remotely suspected of being right-wing. Practically every major right-wing intellectual of the past forty years has been hounded out of institutional positions or employed by thinktanks in a liminal space outside academia proper. The second is less obvious, which is that the leftwards direction was not some random organic process but rather one that was from the outset backed by power including Wall Street and the CIA. When viewed from this perspective, the institutional ‘success’ of the left was always a rigged game. In other words, for ‘Reverse Gramsci’ to work the right would either have to be so clandestine as to be virtually invisible or else backed by forces as powerful as Wall Street and the CIA. The left was not particularly clandestine in its ascendency, by the way, its adherents were always forthrightly drunk on their own righteousness from the get-go and relied on power to ensure the path was cleared for them at every stage. Those who are still blue-pilled will yowl and point to McCarthyism in the 1950s, but I’d suggest reading James Burnham or Sam Francis on this topic to learn that the regime basically sided with the communists and McCarthy had almost no power whatsoever.[3] It for reasons like this that Francis Parker Yockey came to view the USA are the ultimate enemy above and beyond the USSR.[4] All these writers came to see that right-wing resistance to progressivism in America is and always has been a façade.

You should view the prospects of Reverse Gramsci almost like the idea that a libertarian might have used this strategy in Stalin’s USSR or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – it is total folly to imagine this could ever work. In the brief period that I did myself, back in 2017, I had not yet realised the magnitude and totality of the problem. In other words, to entertain the prospect of Reverse Gramsci is to believe the lies that liberal democracy tells about itself (its mask) rather than its true face, which is that it is an absolute system that can brook no dissent. It is not simply that power backs the left, the law backs them too – I’m not talking about what is written down but he who decides the exception. The idea of a neutral rule of law in 2022 should be frankly laughable to anyone reading this. If you cannot see there is a two-tier justice system which discriminates based on race and gender (i.e., against white men) and based on political belief (i.e., against conservatives), then you have more faith in the system than I do – you’re also just lying to yourself.