The Three Options Dissidents Can Choose From
I have noticed that many people are often confused about the possibilities for “fixing” our current government system. Many of these people don’t know what they actually believe in, because they haven’t actually thought any of the options through. Dissidents included.
This is most often evident in emails. I get emailed frequently from people proclaiming their desire for a return to “traditional America” (whatever that means, it varies by person), or asking if I support “going back to our roots”, or some other form of restorationism. I receive an email like this every month, without fail. This article is for them.
There aren’t actually that many options, and they can all be summed up with the 3Rs: Restoration, Reformation, Revolution.
If you are a dissident, you believe in one of these. Because to be a dissident you have to dissent from the current order, so you clearly wouldn’t support the continuity of the current system, which is the only other option aside from these three. Most leftists are progressive continuists (whether explicit or implicit).
So, if you don’t favor trannies chopping off the genitals of children or a weaponized FBI hunting down all the political opposition of a fraudulently elected president, then you believe in one of the 3Rs. Welcome to the club.
The question is: Which one?
I give some leeway to the reformers. I don’t agree with them, as you will see below, but I use kid-gloves when addressing this genuine (albeit, in my opinion, misguided) population. The same is not true for the restorationists—That position is retarded, and it must be stated as such to save as many sprouting truth-seekers as possible from its intellectual void. I personally favor the revolutionary approach.
With that said, let’s discuss these three. So you can find out where you belong.
Defining The Dissident: Restorationist, Reformist, Revolutionist
the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over time
If you affirm this position, then you would want the United States (Weimerica) to continue on the exact path it is now. No changes. Everything is great and our progress is glorious, comrade.
If you read my writings and are not employed by the ADL, you are clearly not this. It is the most insane of the positions. So, no further time will be spent with it.
Moving on to restoration:
the act or an instance of bringing something damaged or worn back to its original state
If you adhere to this position, you want to return to the traditional American republic with no changes. You believe the country has lost its way, and we simply need to return to the mindset and/or conditions of some older year America and everything will be resolved.
Next up, we have reformation:
the act, process, or result of improving something by removing flaws, problems, etc.
If you agree with this stance, you are identical to the restorationist above, but want to return to a historic American republic with certain key changes that would differ from the original. You want to alter some things here and there, change some foundations, remove some things you didn’t like, and so forth. You’ll restore a lot, but reform a bit, too. This type of dissident could work with where we are currently and improve it by bringing in some historic components and fixing up some modern pieces.
You will not simply restore the prior republic, but improve it. This requires serious, fundamental changes to the prior republican system. Not changes like simply revoking an amendment or changing some policy—They have to be substantial enough to qualify as a systemic reform.
This theory only holds water if you can explicitly detail exactly what improvements you believe need to be made.
a complete change in the established social order or government, in favour of a new system.
Within revolution, there are two subcategories: True Revolution and Rerun Revolution.
A True Revolution:
a sudden, complete, or radical change in something | a complete upheaval of the current order for something never before tried.
A Rerun Revolution:
a complete upheaval of the current order to a new order, but an order of a former nature.
If you adhere to this stance, you desire a new form of government completely; a complete overturn of the current order in favor of something new.
The difference between true or rerun revolution is minor, but noteworthy. The true revolutionist will want to try something completely new, whereas a rerun revolutionist would be fine with a transition to a new rule-by type (e.g. Switching our American republic to an American monarchy, or altering Switzerland’s democracy to a right-wing junta, or whatever else that would require a framework transition but to an already-tried form).
Our only dividing point here is whether the new form is something truly new that has never been attempted (true revolution) or a revolution to a government framework that has already been tried in the past (rerun revolution).
A monarchist, communist, fascist, natsoc, and empire-proponent would thus all be rerun revolutionists.
A true revolutionist is rare, because there are few new, untried systems. Within good reason, they are hard to develop and advertise. I would obviously be one with my attempt at Enclavism. But there are a few select others in the dissident sphere, such as Charles Haywood (Worthy House) and his development of Foundationalism. We exist, we just aren’t as well known compared to the rule-by-one fans or republicans.
That concludes the three options:
- Restoration, Reform, Revolution[True or Rerun].
You could probably think of better names, but this is the best I’ve got. If you are a dissident, you are one of these.
Pick one akin to your own nature and understanding of the world. However, before you get that far, let me try to convince you why you should definitely not be a restorationist.
A Bullseye On Restorationism
- The Anti-Restorationist Argument
As I mentioned above, the continuity argument is the most asinine. If you want to continue down this path that our nation-state is currently undertaking, you would likely favor hell itself, because our surroundings are quickly becoming how I envision an eternal absence of God. No thanks.
However, restorationism is a close second in terms of insanity.
Restorationism postulates that we can simply teleport back to some previous stage of the American republic and be happy there, with no tangible, fundamental reforms to the society.
A lot of your average joe conservatives that get disgruntled with the system take this route.
There is a popular saying: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results“. This applies in the case of restorationism, but is even worse. It is worse because the conditions and environment that were prevalent in the past are no longer applicable today. So not only would a restorationist try it repeatedly, but they’re trying it under even worse conditions than what had already failed.
But even if we took the belief at face value, the old republic didn’t work last time. Why would it work this time?
The answer is, it wouldn’t. In fact, it would probably fail in double or triple the time, given modern technology. Instead of taking us 70 years before we had a civil war and a transition to an empire, if we’re lucky we’d make it 35. Instead of having 150 years between the formation of the empire and trannies mutilating children, we likely wouldn’t even get 75. Technology is an Achilles’ heel of modern democratic systems, because it allows the centralizer to indoctrinate the grey masses with ease.
The restorationist imagines we can just teleport back to the culture of the early 1900s (or whenever), but under the current technological advancement, demographic situation, and geopolitical situation of the modern day. This belief is completely absent of rational thought. Our country was founded by white protestants of a certain ethnic persuasion, and those Mayflower ship whites are now a minority. Our current technology does not allow for a primitive, localized, unconnected republican system, and there is no realistic way to regress to that, excluding a worldwide nuclear apocalypse that wipes out all technology which would bring about its own issues.
The conditions that allowed the republic to act in a certain manner previously in our history no longer exist. We cannot take three hundred million people back to the technological era of your preferred American republic time period. For instance, if you wanted to return to the “good ole days” of the first 50 years after the founding, then you need to restrict voting to less than 10% of the voting population:
This is what always makes me laugh about the restorationists. They haven’t reconciled their beliefs with the reality of those time periods. If you honestly want to restore the traditional republic, then we must go back to only 5-10% of the voting population (white, male, landowner, somewhat educated/intelligent) being able and willing to vote. A primary problem with the modern “republic” is that franchise expansion.
But restorationists would never admit that. They want to somehow “restore” the republic but keep the 50%+ voter turnout and demographic quagmire.
Restorationists want to return the traditional things that they personally like, but not the traditional things that are now inconvenient. But that’s not how it works. The reason we had those traditional things they like is because of those traditional things that of which are now inconvenient.
If you truly want to “restore” the republic (which you shouldn’t), I recommend you start with shifting us back to a 10% voter turnout.
Voting would be only one thing you would have to restore. Out of thousands, many of which are now impossible given the modern age. Even if you could restore the cultural attributes of that time period, it wouldn’t be instilled in all the varying demographic cultures that now have taken root in the United States. They would all need to be deported first. And even if they were all deported, the conditions that allowed them to invade would just arise again, given enough time.
Restorationists rarely provide a specific time period to restore, because then their position could be targeted. Should we go back to the first 80ish years with those harsh modern “democracy” restrictions? (Things like no women voting, blacks enslaved, and constant state in-fighting – Many dissidents would consider it, but actual normiecon restorationists would cringe at the thought).
Or should we go back to the 1860s to the early 1900s when half of the country (the South) was under the boot of a few select northeastern Yankees and we had a quasi-empire from the civil war causing massive disunity? When one particular American nation dominated the thirteen different American nations?
Or should we return to the 1900s war era, where the American empire sought global hegemony through imperialism and the beginning of the export (and import) of massive degeneracy? The stage that directly led us to the crisis of the modern age?
What the above paragraph demonstrates is the underlying cause of the restorationism belief. It is a pathos appeal, not logos or ethos. The issue with the restorationist is that it is an emotional response; a nostalgic reflection of how they were taught to view America. They see some unspecified point in the past as ideal—as an illusionary image—based on their own internal desires even though it never actually existed.
Some restorationists argue that restoration will work, because if the situation later degrades again, our later generations can just restore it again. However, there is no guarantee of this possibility. That next generation could fall under communism or some new age AI-feminist-transgender dictatorship.
However, even if it didn’t and the restorationists are right, the harm that occurs during these stages of degeneration far exceeds the benefits derived from the healthy years. It causes more damage to us to live through these years than anything we gain during those few decades that the republic actually worked adequately enough.
Still, I don’t even believe that restoration is a possibility, given the cycle of collapse. We can only go forward, not back.
Many [restorationists] have the perspective that the level of degeneracy they grew up with is the appropriate level, but that the current level is too far.
This is an interesting conundrum they place themselves in, because the current state of things is the logical progression of the prior ideas, so you have to accept the ramifications of all of it or none of it. The 1970s degeneracy led to the 2020s degeneracy. [We needed that degeneracy to get where we are now]. To desire a return to the degeneracy of the past is merely setting up for the degeneracy of the modern era again, but at a later time.
There is no way to sustain with an unsustainable point in the same system that already failed.
There is no “preferred” level of degeneracy that is sustainable. Either you stamp it all or you merely stamp out a worthless level of it. Degeneracy acts like mold. If even the smallest amount is left, it will continue to spore.
It is akin to taking poison and claiming you were fine for the first half hour, and then the next 30 mins weren’t great but tolerable, and the last hour is catastrophic. But the issue is that the [restorationist] still took the poison. No matter their “tolerance” level, the poison will always still lead to the same end. Going back to the first thirty minutes of the poisoning will not solve the issue.
We either reject degeneracy or we accept the current level of it and whatever is to come, because any level that is not zero will inevitably lead to the current form. Degradation is natural in our current form of government. Without changing that government to a more hardened version, there is no level of it that will not return us to where we are right now and where we are heading.
They are progressives, but want to conserve a few steps behind the modern progressive’s current ideal. In many ways, their ideology is a “return to [prior] progress”, which implies believing in the leftist framework of a linear pathway to betterment. This is contrary to the traditional perspective.
This is key. The cycle of collapse demands that a beneficial system degenerates into a damaging system. We are under the damaging system, and the restorationist looks back with nostalgia at the beneficial stage. However, the restorationist believes we should revert to the beneficial stage because they don’t recognize that we’ll go right back to the damaging stage.
Our current clown world is naturally where our republic would conclude. If we go back, we’ll just return to clown world again at a later time. There is no permanence to the old republic. It can’t sustain, as it has already literally demonstrated (as have dozens of others throughout history). If it could sustain, we wouldn’t be here right now. We’d all be out frolicking in fields, voting the days away, and not worrying about politics. But that’s not what happened in reality. In reality, it failed. So trying to return it is insanity.
The system cannot sustain. Thus, to restore it is to damn a future generation to the exact horrors you are now facing. That is evil.
Give up the restorationist utopian dream. It is harmful nostalgia. Let it go, brothers and sisters.
Join us in the reformation or revolutionary camp. It’s the only hope.
A Note On Reform and Revolution
Many dissidents are reformers. They want a republic (or something similar), just with a few changes they think will work. I don’t hate these guys, but I don’t agree with them.
The above arguments that I presented against restorationism also hold for reformationism. If you read my articles on the cycle of collapse and anacyclosis , you will learn that I don’t believe that any of these current frameworks can sustain. So, if we try to take a rule-by-many and make a few adjustments to it, it will still end up like every other rule-by-many throughout history. Nothing will change. It will still degenerate and collapse into a rule-by-few, like every other instance.
Even then, the reforms in question need to be tangible and fundamental changes to the rule-by-many republican system. They can’t be small little policy changes that are meaningless, like changing an amendment to the constitution. These “reforms” can be tossed aside as easy as they were in the prior system after the pivotal generation dies off.
And many reformationists won’t even tell you what these changes should be. They just imagine that we’ll figure them out later once we win. That didn’t work out too well for the historical examples, and it won’t work out well this time. Waiting until after is what doomed our own republic, and what demolished nearly every other modern right-wing government (Franco, Pinochet, etc. that lasted one generation). It is utterly too hopeful optimism; I prefer realism. We need a solution, now. Not later.
Maybe the reforms implemented will delay the inevitable degeneration. Maybe they won’t. My belief is that we should at least be aiming for longer system sustainments than what we have seen in the past with right-wing governments, especially under modernity. We won’t get that with a reformed republic.
We need something completely new, a revolution.
But, I would even differ from many of my other fellow revolutionists, in that I call for trying something completely new. I am a true revolutionist in that I want something completely unprecedented—an entirely new system and framework to try. My beliefs are being crafted into the idea of Enclavism, but I’d love nothing more than for dozens of other ideas to spring up alongside my own. I don’t have all the answers, nor do I want a monopoly on new possibilities—I just want those new possibilities to arise. I don’t want to keep trying the same old thing repeatedly.
This is why I do not personally favor a rerun revolution, because a rerun revolution will just return us to another rule-by-few or rule-by-one, which all have their own cycles of collapse and will lead us to the same anacyclosis cycle of degeneration.
I want something unrivaled, a way out of this cycle. Or at least something that is developed with it in mind, so we can delay it for far longer.
So, while I’m still good friends with many reformationists and rerun revolutionists, I depart from them in this belief. I’ll still stand with them in our communal fight against the evil of the modern world, and if they get a chance at reform, I will work with them and pray it works. But I just don’t believe their approach will end in the success we need.
But I will keep picking on the restorationists. They need to get past the baby stage of dissidence. They are just dragging us down, not creating any tangible solutions and detracting from those who could. It’s time to move on.
I treasure all my fellow dissidents, but eventually the restorationists have to grow up and realize there just ain’t no going back.
It’s time to join your brothers and sisters on the right side of dissent.
If you enjoyed this article, give us a bookmark and check back often for new content. New articles every weekday.
Help us fight the censorship – Share this article!
Finally, please consider supporting my work. Every donation is immensely helpful to keep us growing.