Why the Dissident Right Is Considering Political Arson
by Joey Oliver
With the Trump administration’s outright betrayal of its base, a few prominent but otherwise far-right figures have taken yet another controversial political stance. There is now a proposition making the rounds online which asserts that it’s time for the America First faction of the right wing to vote for the Democrats.
Given my recent essay which explicitly laid out the reasons why I believe there is no conversation to be had with the left, I don’t want anybody to think I’m contradicting my previous stance. All I am intending to do here is articulate what the elements underpinning that argument actually are and to focus on the master-slave dynamic embedded within it. This is not an endorsement of the strategy.
I still very much believe that we have no practical way to reconcile with the left through discourse, compromise, or common goals. A left-right coalition which would seek to pursue objective and shared outcomes still is not viable. But while I stand firmly by that belief, I also understand the true essence of what is being proposed by these figures, and I think it’s necessary that everybody is able to understand it as well.
The proposal to vote for the Democrats has nothing to do with uniting with the left. It is simply a matter of whether or not we will choose to continue to accept our position as slaves to the GOP and the mainstream right.
The distinguishing factor of whether or not you are in a state of slavery is your ability to willingly say no to whatever is being asked of you. However, what is important to note here, is that while many people generally do technically ‘have’ the power to say no in many instances, that isn’t as relevant as whether or not they are seriously willing to use it.
Plenty of people in their daily lives find themselves in a perpetual state of submission. Yet they’re able to rationalize their slavery because they claim that they could say no and walk away if they really wanted to. But the problem is that there is basically nothing that would cause them to actually walk away.
Since they will not use their power to walk away, they might as well be wearing physical shackles. It makes no difference. If you ever find yourself in a situation in which you are either unable or unwilling to say no, regardless of the conditions being forced upon you, then you are operating as a slave.
The ability to say no is inextricable from freedom. It keeps your involvement voluntary and your submission both temporary and conditional. While you should not be perpetually obstinate just to prove to yourself and others that you do have your freedom, you should have certain, pre-established and explicit lines that, if they are crossed by the other party, your decision to willingly walk away is automatically made for you.
Honest self reflection in this domain is extraordinarily difficult. Many people feel that they do have strict boundaries of what they are willing to tolerate. When no real pressure is being applied, they will loudly assert that they would proudly and enthusiastically tell someone to buzz off if they were ever asked to do something immoral, unfair, or undignified. We romanticize this idea of sacrifice. Unfortunately, we would all like to be a sacrifice that still gets to live on. That is the key, underlying issue. What we usually find in the real world is that people are rarely willing to suffer the consequences of noble and costly opposition. Most of us are typically alright with following the goalposts to wherever they move, so long as our comfort is preserved.
ULTIMATE GUIDE TO THE RIGHT
The three-volume translation of Alain de Benoist’s ideological platform, brought to you by Arktos, is an encyclopedic history of ideas that addresses the philosophical, spiritual, scientific, and cultural-historical foundations of the European heritage.
This is particularly common in the context of work. How many people would really put their career on the line over a small transgression? How many would outright refuse to work a weekend and insist that they will not come in early and stay late, simply because of their principles? Not many.
Don’t think I am arguing that any extra requests should always be necessarily rejected or even accepted. What I am saying is that if there is nothing that would functionally cause you to quit your job or refuse to comply, you are, by extension, totally subservient to whatever your boss commands of you.
When we take this unconditional submission to its logical conclusion, it quite literally ends with women claiming that since Eric Swalwell was their boss, they were mandated to do whatever he asked of them. That is the true slave mindset. Only slave-like, unconditional submission would lead someone to try to conclude that, because it was their boss who asked them to do something sexual and transgressive, they were therefore forced into doing it.
This doesn’t apply just to the commercial realm, though. If there is nothing your wife or girlfriend could do that would make you leave her, then she also holds all the authority over you. She can, in theory, act with total impunity if she knows that there are no boundaries which, once transgressed, would lead you to end the relationship.
Everybody’s line for walking away will always be different, but if you don’t have a line, then you are ensuring that you’re entirely powerless to whatever the particular force is ruling over you. It doesn’t matter if you think you have your dream job or your dream woman, if you don’t have a line in which you will simply say no and walk away, then you fundamentally cannot negotiate. Under that premise, you are being held as a slave. Maybe you happen to serve benevolent rulers, but not everyone is as lucky.
The master-slave relationship is so important to understand, especially in a political context, because it is the exact dynamic of right wing American politics. The mainstream right and the GOP are currently operating as the masters, ruling over their dissenting slaves on the dissident right.
This isn’t my opinion. It is demonstrably true. It has become undeniable that the America First side of the right was simply pandered to in order to secure our votes in 2024, while none of the administration’s promises were kept.
Nick Fuentes recently gave one of his famous updates on the ‘Golden Age’ we were supposed to have entered. It includes:
• Regime Change War with Iran
• “High Value” immigrants welcome
• MAGA Amnesty
• Blaspheming Jesus Christ
• Attacking the Catholic Church
• Threatening genocide on Easter
• Disavowing Alex Jones and Tucker
• Endorsing Lindsey Graham & Mark Levin
Let us not also forget about all the short positions that have been placed just before the administration has taken drastic geopolitical measures. Curiously, these actions have all been miraculously and totally in line with what would benefit those exact short positions.
This betrayal certainly wasn’t a surprise for many of us, and political treachery definitely isn’t a new phenomenon. However, the degree of the betrayal has been so stark that it cannot be dismissed as merely being the nature of political compromise. As these betrayals have become gratuitous and insultingly obvious, there is no longer an argument to be made that the dissident right has any power over the direction of the GOP and its policies.
Lots of the remaining MAGA cohort will claim that we simply need to ‘chimp out’ whenever the administration does something we don’t like. But that isn’t a real strategy. It’s as sophisticated as a two-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because his mother won’t buy him the toy he wants.
If that is our best approach, then there truly is no mechanism which the dissident right could use to collectively exert influence. At the moment, the spread of power is 100% on the side of the mainstream GOP and 0% on the dissident right.
THE RISE OF THE NEW RIGHT
From Dominique Venner and Alain de Benoist to metapolitics, ethnopluralism, populism, and the struggle against liberal modernity, Alexander Markovics maps the thinkers and movements reshaping the European New Right into a continental intellectual force.
As we’ve all collectively voiced our dismay, what has the mainstream right’s rebuttal to our accusations of treachery been? Well, they say that we should be grateful for the things we have gotten. They point to the Democrats and say ‘at least we aren’t that!’ They insist that because the border is closed, we should just be quiet and show some gratitude. All while states like Texas import legal Indian immigration that could possibly be even more damaging to the country than illegal immigration.
Although I would agree that there are certainly aspects of a Republican administration that are preferential to a Democratic one, at least according to the metrics, it is all still framed under the premise of ‘the lesser of two evils.’ Because at best, all the Republicans are offering is a managed decline. A slow and soft descent into further anarcho-tyranny with the flavor of South Africa or Brazil.
We therefore have to ask ourselves a question: are our material conditions the only thing we care about? Do we have no regard for our own dignity? Are we willing to live like slaves, just because to say no to our master might lead to an outcome that’s materially worse? Should a man stay with his cheating spouse because, at least he’ll still have a wife and someone to share a bed with, even if she hates and has no respect for him?
Is living on your knees really preferable to dying on your feet? Generally, I say that it’s not. However, that’s just the emotional argument being made. For those who crave retribution, an appeal to the romance of a glorious last stand might be all it takes. But there is also a practical argument to be made for this move as well.
The only way to even hope to exercise any semblance of power over the mainstream right is to show the GOP that they cannot act with impunity. If they can always rely on our vote, regardless of what they do, then they have no incentive to adjust their actions to serve our interests. But if the dissident right is a large enough faction to swing the election for the Democrats, then we become a bottle of water in the desert. What we can charge for it becomes drastically more than what a corner store in New York City can.
Many people often insist that the dissident right should just abstain from voting altogether. The problem is that, in this context which assumes voting is actually a legitimate process, abstaining from voting cannot necessarily facilitate action on its own. The GOP would have to be convinced that our abstinence would lead to their defeat. Reducing the GOP’s vote tally while simultaneously increasing the Democrats’ appears to be the only mechanism of force that this small segment of the right could ever hope to activate within the current system.
Again, this doesn’t mean that political promises will all magically be kept even if the Republicans do make concessions. But until the GOP is willing to make concessions at all, then we don’t have any power. Being willing to actually lose on principle, without bluffing, seems to be the only way the dissident right feels that they could tip the scales at this point. It may be a Hail Mary, but it at least has a logic to it.
Now, I obviously agree that another administration similar to Biden’s could certainly destroy the country through another round of mass immigration and who knows what else. I also agree that if you were to merely view this situation through a lens of practicality, it probably wouldn’t make sense to vote Democrat at all. I am not even advocating for the position. I personally feel that voting is likely just window dressing at this point. The only real solution will likely have to be external. But those on the dissident right that have proposed this action are finally asking themselves whether or not it’s worth metaphorically risking death and defeat to prove a point, even if we don’t know for certain that we will end up successful.
Many people have and will insist that I’m contradicting my stance about the left and right being irreconcilable. But this essay is merely an analysis, not a directive. The actual concept that is being engaged with here is the master-slave dynamic. It isn’t advocacy for a left-right coalition. With our current position as perpetual slaves to the Lindsey-Graham-like GOP, the proposition of the dissident right voting left isn’t some type of childish rebellion. It’s not an op funded by the Democrats. At its core, it has real emotional, moral and logical justifications. It would be an inter-party attack against the mainstream right, with the hopes of freeing ourselves from our slavish bonds.
Joey Oliver currently writes from Miami. 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 has been published by Arktos Media.
