As the political polarization within American society continues to expand with seemingly no end in sight, we’ve seen a fairly surprising proposition crop up. Many on the right wing have been suggesting that we should extend an olive branch in the hopes of reconciling with the left, at least temporarily, to fight a more consequential and common enemy together. While on the surface this may seem like a good faith, pragmatic and proactive approach for making real political progress, it is, unfortunately, totally unviable.
I say this not because I am happy about it, or because I’m trying to needlessly push for further division in the name of accelerationism. I say it because inherently embedded within the current discourse between the left and right is the glaring reality that each side no longer wants the same thing for this country. This may sound totally trite - obvious, even. The warring factions in any dispute almost always want different things. That is, of course, the typical reason for fighting. But my pessimism surrounding the viability of an alliance between the left and the right has a deeper philosophical justification. It isn’t pure obstinacy.
At one point in American politics, whether fully accurate or not, political disagreements were said to be anchored by an underlying presumption that each side of the political divide wanted the same thing for America. The ideal outcome for the country was believed to be broadly the same for all Americans. The actual disagreement was said to be over which particular steps would be required to ultimately achieve that ideal outcome. Richard Nixon famously said as much in his 1960 debate with John F. Kennedy: “I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as I do, but our disagreement is not about the goals for America, but only about the means to reach those goals.”
If what Nixon described was indeed the premise underlying political discourse at one time, both sides would then naturally hold a similar vision for the nation. A shared vision allows general definitions to remain cohesive enough to discuss something like ‘prosperity’ and still have it mean almost the same thing to everyone despite whatever party membership card they happened to carry in their wallet.
With a mutual agreement on definitions, distinct outcomes can be viewed as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ throughout the entirety of the populace. This is because the collective definitions of these words are roughly the same for all. But good and bad, in a general sense and not in a metaphysical or moral sense, are just simple labels applied to particular conditions. Finding something to be good or bad is reliant on an understanding of what those words actually represent in the physical world.
Many of us on the right assume that something like ‘cleanliness’ would be universally seen as ‘good’ throughout society. But as we witness the tragedy of liberal cities, it has become obvious that this unanimity is not actually the case for all. As these broad definitions change for one side while remaining the same for the other, these terms are no longer able to describe particular conditions as being uniformly good or bad for everyone.
Once these definitions diverge far enough from each other, reconciliation quickly becomes impossible. As each side’s ‘ideal’ becomes mutually exclusive, a policy option that can appease both sides vanishes. We continually see this exact type of definitional breakdown in other domains, too. When I studied architecture in college, my professors were almost exclusively fans of modernism. They fawned over the Bauhaus school of design and the works of Le Corbusier. That was what they considered to be beautiful. I found it all to be repugnant. And yet, their scholarly direction never changed. They demanded that we, as designers, ‘design something beautiful’.
Most of the students, whether genuinely enthralled by this style of design or not, were happy to hand in sketches of the most basic rectangular structures to then receive excellent marks for designing something the professors deemed beautiful. My traditionalist-inspired work was dismissed entirely. I didn’t mind, though, because I always knew that what underpinned the entire review process was the fact that our definitions of beauty simply did not align. For my professors to find my work beautiful, it would’ve required them to adjust their own definition of beauty. And for me to appease their tastes, I would’ve had to abandon what I thought was truly beautiful, acquiesce to their definition, and ultimately design something modern. But that is not compromise, that is submission.
Our perspectives were completely inverted. What was beautiful to me was ugly to them. And what was ugly to me was beautiful to them. And this exact inversion of definitions is what has occurred in American politics between the right and left. Even though this is painfully obvious, many still refuse to recognize it. This failure often leads to oversimplified, virtue signaling slop from midwits like Joe Rogan, who will say things like, ‘you know, pretty much everyone out there just wants to live a good life. That’s all they really want.’
The implication of Joe’s statement being that if we just directed all our efforts toward bringing everyone a life they consider ‘good’, then it would allow us to come together and focus on what ‘really matters’. The directive presumes that we can all broadly and mutually recognize our vast, foundational agreements and then discuss and ultimately compromise on the 20% of things that we disagree on. Fundamentally, it assumes that ‘good’ looks more or less the same to everyone. But the problem is that not only do we not agree on what ‘good’ means anymore, but in fact, good to the right wing is bad to the left wing, and vice versa.
In everyday life, the inverted perspective we see in the current political realm is almost never the case. Each side of most broad disagreements usually share a fundamental core that’s taken for granted. Imagine a corporation and a labor union assemble for their yearly contract negotiations. As the union brings forward their proposal, the company reviews the terms and returns the contract with their mark-ups. Of all the requests made by the labor union, the company happens to find 80% of what was originally asked for to be acceptable. The corporation’s red lines mark the remaining 20% of the contract’s language that they disagree with.
Once returning the proposal, the two parties then attempt to find a way to reconcile the disputed 20% in a way in which everyone finds acceptable. The result of that is a compromise. One that is able to find a ‘generally good outcome’ for all, or at least good enough to make a deal. But in our American political arena, we no longer have a broad foundation of 80% agreement upon which we can work out the 20% of things we disagree on.
To analogize this further, if the right and the left were the two parties negotiating in the positions of the corporation and the labor union, the discussions between the two would simply be the labor union demanding that the corporation close their business, and the corporation countering by telling the labor union that they need to disband. These views are irreconcilable because they are existential threats to each other. I don’t mean this in the sense that there is inherently vitriol. It simply means that the fundamentals of each outcome negate the other. A right wing victory in America threatens the ‘existence’ of the left’s way of life, just as a left wing victory threatens the right in the very same way.
Multicultural egalitarianism is antithetical to a racially homogenous, meritocratic hierarchy. These two types of societies cannot simultaneously coexist, definitionally. There is no possible middle ground. One side must submit or be defeated. Amicable compromise is, unfortunately, and I do sincerely mean unfortunately, impossible.
While this would appear to be self-evident, we still see a striking number of people who keep insisting that we can, at least temporarily, reconcile things between the right and the left in order to fight a more consequential battle together. Many notable voices on the right have gone out of their way to continually insist that our dire situation in America is not a matter of left and right. They are adamant that the quibbles between the right and left are simply a distraction, and that the true fight is the American people versus Jewish power. They say that the left and right paradigm is merely a construct to keep us perpetually occupied while leaving the real villains free from our wrath.
Dan Bilzerian, and many others, rightly point out that most of our societal problems are indeed an outgrowth of Jewish influence. And while I agree that this is the most fundamental problem we face as a society, the proposal that we can reconcile with the left is still totally inactionable. Because though the diagnosis is accurate, there is still no mechanism that would magically restore a cohesive understanding of broad definitions between the left and the right. Nor is there anything that would suggest that the differences between the left and the right would naturally resolve if the left were to identify and then detach itself from Jewish influence.
The modern left is undeniably an automaton constructed from the implanted ideologies of Jewish power. This isn’t much of a secret, either. They often admit it themselves, just as Batya Ungar-Sargon, the Jewish journalist, noted during a debate in 2025:
“And the thing that makes this so appalling is that Jews built the left in this country. We built the labor movement, we wrote the New Deal. 70% of lawyers who worked on civil rights cases were Jews. We’ve been at the forefront of every liberal and leftist issue in this country. The absolute chutzpah of saying ‘you’re not welcome here.’
You know what it reminds me of? When they banned smoking in bars. As a smoker, I was so outraged. If there’s going to be a turf war over this, surely the smokers should have gotten the bars, okay? You can so easily imagine a counterfactual in which the left in America said, ‘Wait a minute, we can’t oppose Zionism because we would lose our beloved Jews who have been there with us at the forefront every minute that we built this movement. We have to find a way to make sure that Zionists still feel welcome.’ How could we ever do that to them? And they didn’t do that, they did the opposite.”
Her frustration is primarily due to the fact that the left, much like Frankenstein’s monster, no longer needs its creator to remain animated. And that is what makes it such a wild card at this point.
While the left is not only unaware of its true origins, it also wouldn’t care if it knew. Even if the average leftist could be convinced that most of their views were merely the result of Jewish power deploying them in an intentional attempt to subvert and destroy white society, that revelation wouldn’t change their minds one bit. They have become infatuated with their ideology and its grand promise of utopian equality. Even if they came to accept the circumstances of its birth, it wouldn’t make any difference. Would a coal miner complain after striking gold just because he wasn’t explicitly looking for it?
The left is cemented in its perspective, with or without any additional context. We must come to terms with the fact that the left will not be changing its views, no matter what we unveil to them. Regardless of the truth surrounding the left’s masters, we still have to contend with the fact that the average democrat would celebrate your personal assassination, and certainly mine. Charlie Kirk’s murder has proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the sake of argument though, let’s say you could somehow manage to get past the left’s bloodlust for you. Let’s assume that the left was willing to join together and focus all their attention on defeating Israel and rooting out Jewish influence. You would then have yet another impossible task ahead of you. And that is, agreeing on a strategy to actually defeat them.
Because you see, the left does not have the same critique of Israel that the nativist right does. While they may be opposed to Israel, much like their hatred of Donald Trump, their reasoning for it is almost the exact opposite of ours. In fact, the left believes that Jews are simply a sub-category of whites. This is an extraordinarily common opinion across the entire political spectrum.
We have all seen Elon Musk, someone who would not consider himself to even be on the left, parrot this exact opinion many times. On October 1st, 2025, he posted to X that: “The vast majority of Jewish people are White, if not peak White, so this really makes no sense.”
While this is a common perspective on each side of the aisle, it is far more consequential in the context of the left. Because as this logic is extrapolated, we find that the core of the left’s opposition to Israel is their perception that it is operating as a ‘white supremacist state.’ Their critiques of Israel are foundationally rooted in their opposition to ‘racism and colonialism.’ Our critique of Israel and Jewish power, like our general definitions of good and bad, are almost the exact opposite. And even if there does happen to be some marginal overlap in our collective opposition to Israel, that still doesn’t reconcile the fact that our objectives would still be totally misaligned.
When parts of a coalition have such deeply incongruous objectives, strategy becomes practically impossible. It would be like two doctors agreeing that a patient is sick, and although they both want to help the ill man get better, one wants to treat him for cancer, and the other insists that the problem is a bacterial infection. While it may be a nice thought to imagine all Americans uniting as a people to defend our national sovereignty, we will find no allies on the left. We will have to fight a multi-front war. Whether we like it or not, the dissident right is on its own.
Joey Oliver currently writes from Texas. After completing his undergraduate degree at the turn of the last decade, he moved away from the Pacific Northwest to escape his liberal home state. Though he has primarily worked in real estate development since completing college, he also did a short stint at Tesla and even published a novel. In addition to his career, he is earning a Master’s degree while also writing and recording political commentary for his YouTube channel, The Right Wing Coalition. His book American History Z was published by Arktos Media.
It's becoming increasingly evident that the Right and Left are founded upon two diametrically opposed metaphysical presuppositions which influence the philosophical semantics that inform the two political positions.
The Right *affirms* Reality and wants to operate properly according to it's designs, the Left *denies* that Reality can be affirmed and employs a humanist/emotionalist utilitarianism to construct a moral baseline and then tries to cram Reality into being in conformity with this arbitrary standard, even if the metaphysical and practical components of Reality work in the opposite direction.
So the standard definition of "good" is taken on two different registers which is why the Left and Right can never agree; for the Left, "good" is that which makes the most people feel negative emotions the least, and for the Right, "good" is that which is in conformity with Reality and its designatory natures, regardless of emotional outcomes.
Surprised that the avg guy on the right is delusional enough to need to hear this this late in a decade long international cold war. But I'll take what we have to work with. To truly realize opposition to this regime requires a radical re-education. I too had to take my first steps.
It's becoming increasingly evident that the Right and Left are founded upon two diametrically opposed metaphysical presuppositions which influence the philosophical semantics that inform the two political positions.
The Right *affirms* Reality and wants to operate properly according to it's designs, the Left *denies* that Reality can be affirmed and employs a humanist/emotionalist utilitarianism to construct a moral baseline and then tries to cram Reality into being in conformity with this arbitrary standard, even if the metaphysical and practical components of Reality work in the opposite direction.
So the standard definition of "good" is taken on two different registers which is why the Left and Right can never agree; for the Left, "good" is that which makes the most people feel negative emotions the least, and for the Right, "good" is that which is in conformity with Reality and its designatory natures, regardless of emotional outcomes.
Surprised that the avg guy on the right is delusional enough to need to hear this this late in a decade long international cold war. But I'll take what we have to work with. To truly realize opposition to this regime requires a radical re-education. I too had to take my first steps.