Winning in politics is hard, personally draining and time consuming. A prerequisite for winning is having the desire to do so. If you have the will, you still need a bit of luck and an incredible amount of hard work and reliable allies. But what if you lack the will to win? In various circles arguments have been floating around that we shouldn’t want to win. Defeat is preferable. Let me give you an example. People argues that it would have been preferable if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 US presidential election. Why you ask? Because she and her party would get the blame when the system collapses. It is true that the US is facing massive economic trouble down the road. The incomprehensibly large US national debt and the staggering amount of unfunded liabilities are two great factors in this coming collapse. The belief is that people will correctly attribute the coming downturn to the correct causes. In other words, blaming statism, Hillary, the Democrats and fractional reserve banking.
In my humble opinion that is a ridiculously far-fetched pipedream. That belief is not based in any reality I know of. Just look at how recalcitrant and militant the MSM has been since Trump’s election. Do you really think they wouldn’t do everything in their power to obfuscate and obscure the truth? In the meantime, until the collapse judicial activism would get a B12-shot straight up its ass with appointments all the way from the lower benches to the Supreme Court. Illegal immigration and the demographic crisis would accelerate at an even more perilous pace. The disastrous social justice movement would become even more entrenched. The morale of Trump supporters and the freedom movement in general would suffer a near mortal blow. We would have the knowledge that we failed to defeat the globalist and statist machine. Is that preferable to having even a modicrum of influence like we do now?
The problem comes when we are in a death struggle with forces that want to see the end of Western civilization and the values we stand for. Even if we all stand perfectly united it is a steep uphill struggle. Without unity, the odds become stacked even more against us. Will some people misallocate their blame once the shit hits the fan? Yes, but that would have happened anyway. At least now we have some influence. Judicial activist now has opposition, the demographic crisis might be partially averted and the Supreme Court in the US might become a force for (some) good again. Losing is easy, if you chill out on your couch all day while stuffing your face full of Cheetos that is what you get. Winning requires sacrifice and tough personal decisions, it is therefore desirable for some people to find excuses to avoid winning in order to avoid having to put anything on the line.
A parallel can be drawn to the debate over religion. I just finished “Against the Gods” by Stefan Molyneux. In it he makes a compelling case against agnosticism. In essence, the agnostic position is only ever applied to the question of god’s existence, never to other issues. If it were it would collapse of its own weight. It is also self-defeating in that it goes against truth statements. Agnosticism is a position that avoids the personal conflict that arises from taking the principles stance of atheism. In this sense, it is similar to the defeatist attitudes found in politics. The most important part of Molyneux’s book is of course the central part of the argument. But apart from that, his discussion on the personal consequences of debating the question is what spoke the most to me. There is great explanatory power in looking at the personal consequences following various positions on friendships, family and work relationships.
I hope that people without the “killer instinct” would at least get out of the way so others can fill up the battlefield.