Dear Centrist

Dear Centrist,

I hope this letter finds you doing well, though I realize in these tumultuous political times that might not be the case. Sadly I do not see a return to “normal” in our immediate future, and so I thought it important to reach out to you before things progress much further.

I expect that with a certain degree of pride you have thought yourself quite above the fray of the “extreme” elements of the political spectrum. You may have thought this a symbol of your sensibility and open mindedness. Perhaps you think yourself a libertarian. While I sympathize with this view, I write today to inform you that you are misguided.

Dear Centrist

Dear Centrist

The political winds in America, and indeed throughout the world have (as you’ve likely noticed) lent themselves ever more to extreme political elements as of late. Today, a war rages on in which one side must eventually destroy the other in a cataclysmic clash of rivalrous and incompatible world views. The left and right can no longer share a system of government or geopolitical territory without constant and catastrophic bloodshed.

The prize in this conflict, is you, dear centrist. We are competing for your support both in democratic elections and in martial conflict. Thus, while you have to this date thought yourself quite above the fray, you are in fact beneath it at the moment. You have chosen not to be a player in the game, and this has made you the field instead. You are the ground into which we sink our cleats and run across to deprive our rivals of your possession. We both seek to command you, and in the end one of us ultimately will.

I’ll not pretend that you have much of a choice in the matter. I will leave that treachery to our rivals. I am here to level with you. The truth is, you wield little to no influence over who your rulers are. Your vote counts so little that in due time we’ll simply stop counting them at all. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t vote, only that you should not get your hopes up about what impact it will have.

Rather, I would invite you to pick a side ideologically so that you can have some concept about what is happening around you. The soothing calls for inclusion, diversity, equality, and fairness that you have become so used to are not what your television has portrayed them to be. My greatest hope, sad as this may be, is that the latest “civil rights” struggle over men being allowed into women’s bathrooms and locker rooms makes this obvious to you.

It’s easy to feel some sympathy for blacks over slavery and Jim Crow laws. One can even understand to some degree the plight of the homosexual in an age when their consensual sex acts were punishable by law. Be they true or false, the stories we’re told about Jewish persecution certainly elicit horror. But my hope is you can see the pattern developing, that now it is a crime to hire or promote a white over a black, town clerks are jailed for following their state constitutions, a presidential candidate saying “America First” is considered anti-Semitic, and now we are to believe that it is bigoted to simply recognize the difference between a man and a woman.

The truth, dear centrist, is that what you have been told is the voice of moderation and tolerance is anything but. Left wing political influences are an autoimmune disorder of our body politic and they will see us killed if we do not stop them. Healthy in group preferences are deemed racism. Production, trade, and the prosperity they bring are labeled “corporate greed” and taxed and regulated into oblivion. Dysgenic breeding is encouraged by the welfare state, while birth control and abortion are subsidized for those responsible enough to plan their families. Far from avoiding war, they engage in perpetual global conflict while inviting the enemy to live amongst us.

This is not tolerance, it is suicide.

So you have no choice to remain above the fray. You cannot simply dismiss both sides as extreme and take a little from each. That’s not the way this works. You can either be a right wing extremist, or you can be a useful idiot for the left’s sabotage of our civilization. You can choose for yourself, or the choice can be made for you, but the choice will be made one way or the other.

Choose wisely.

 

This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my affiliate links. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

 

  • Ozziedood

    Amazing essay.
    I hope you can do an audio version for this one since fence-sitters are probably one of the worst things in political discussion.
    I seem to say it alot, but if anyone has heard Common Filth ever address anti-SJWs, it should make you despise them for how much political ideology they hate yet support the people who fabricate the environment where they thrive.

  • Don Duncan

    How does voting help? How does picking one side in an authoritarian fight help? You assume not voting is apathy? Why? I don’t vote, because I recognize the only way to win a rigged game is to not play. If 20% boycotted the vote and refused to pay tribute to authority, or recognize it as moral or legit, the whole scam would come crashing down. It would be a paradigm change.

    • Oogabooga

      You don’t win by not playing, you literally can’t win if you don’t play.

      • Don Duncan

        Win what? The title of “good citizen”? The good feeling of “going along to get along”? The false sense of security of being a player in the grand picture? Your vote counts. It shows you are one of the multitudes of self enslavers who fantasize they can forfeit their sovereignty and be protected. It takes away your right to complain about your rulers. You had your say, remember? How’s that working out for you? Feel betrayed? Feel helpless? That’s normal. It’s one of the more healthy reactions, unlike some who refuse to admit they got fucked again, for the 20th time in a row. Want to know who to blame? Look in the mirror.

        • Oogabooga

          Well given that I have never voted until this years election (I was too young) I don’t think I am to blame for the current state of affairs. The only thing you get from opting out is letting someone else decide your fate. As long as there still is a government ruling over us we might as well vote for the lesser of the evils. It takes what? 10 Minuets? 10 Minuets of your life and then you can get back to overthrowing the government.

          • Don Duncan

            Votes are used by TPTB to justify their actions as being “the will of the people” or “a mandate”. They claim that after you vote, your part is done, and whatever they do after is justified and authorized, as in we are “the authorities”. When they clearly go against the consensus they justify that as “voting out of conscience” (the bank bail out) as if they had some special knowledge that is too complex for their voters to understand so they won’t even bother to explain further. When they vote with the consensus they are “just representing their constituents”. Either way, the bad consequences of their actions are not their fault, and not for their benefit (forget the lobby money). This is what I meant when I say “You can’t win by playing”. It’s a rigged game, and you lose by voting. You validate you’re compliance in systemized, institutionalized violence. Can you, morally, complain that the violence does not benefit you? No, because they will explain that you are not seeing the big picture; that you are sacrificed for “the common good” or that it was an unintended consequence, a mistake.
            They hate low turn outs. It reflects badly on them. In some countries they have made voting mandatory. Do you see the irony? How can a right be required? Besides, you have no “duty” to pick a master, to forfeit your sovereignty. Refusing to vote is rejecting all the candidates or rejecting the idea of voting. Both are valid. Both weaken their claimed authority. They hate and fear that. And that’s “one small step” you can take to overthrow govt.

          • Oogabooga

            Low turnouts might reflect poorly on the elected officials but it won’t prevent a election from taking place. I hope your spending every second of that 10 minuets that your not going to be voting subverting the US government. If not your all talk and no action. Voting in America has never been mandatory in fact I think it should be more restricted. I’m pretty sure everyone who pays attention knows that the political system is rigged, good examples: Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump. The only difference is Trump’s candidacy has shown even when the R. Party and media is arm flailing to try to stop him, they can’t when there are overwhelming #’s of voters. Like Cantwell says the overthrow of the government will take physical violence, guns, helicopters and death will be necessary. Sitting on your ass on voting day is not a revolutionary act.

          • Don Duncan

            Low turnouts don’t prevent elections overnight, but it’s a long road to fix a problem that has existed for millennia, i.e., faith in force. Institutionalized violence grows out of the superstitious belief that using force as a primary strategy for achieving social goals is most efficient. You seem to agree. I don’t. I assert that the remedy for this belief is to change the paradigm, and doing that requires a significant % of the “true believers” to wake up (about 10-15%) and stop supporting the myth. I woke up in 1980 after working for years in the Libertarian Party and seeing a negative result. I don’t vote as one step. Not voting is a choice, an action which subverts the state. It’s considered unpatriotic and therefore is not popular. That opinion is a symptom of the problem. It shows people haven’t figured out that choosing a delegate to initiate force is just as immoral as them doing it directly. Telling them different is a revolutionary act. And not a safe one. Speaking truth to power can be dangerous.

          • Oogabooga

            Well, as I am new to the process I am surely not the most knowledgeable, but are you saying that if 15% of the population didn’t vote something would happen? I do very much like the “nonaggression principle” not initiating force unless force is initiated upon you. You seem to agree that any form of government authority backed by a gun is proxy violence so doesn’t that mean that force has already been initiated upon us giving us the right to use defensive force to ensure our freedom? I am in agreement that voting won’t accomplish much, but I think we are in a fairly dire situation and it’s up to us to play every card in our hand. It’s about strategic moves.

          • Don Duncan

            Strategically, open violent resistance is suicide. Morally, open violent resistance is self defense. I can morally refuse to pay taxes (be robbed), and then I become a ward of the state (best case scenario). I have used better strategies and been successful. You are limited only by your imagination and your tolerance for the insanity all around you. Don’t let it get you down. Find a way to blow off steam. I recommend self improvement study, including anger management. It helped me a lot in the seventies.

            If about 15% were convinced govt. is impractical/immoral, they would start movement that would eventually bring it down. That “critical mass” is growing, thanks to the ‘net.

          • Oogabooga

            Hierarchy is necessary and inevitable, anarchy and to some extent libertarianism are impractical and unrealistic. In situations where there is no hierarchy some group or person takes authority, I’ve seen it happen in the occupy movement. I think the best thing that could happen for America is a military coup d’etat and the installment of an ethnonationalist/isolationist government. Support for a lawful and just authority that promotes the well-being of its people is the ideal.

          • paendragon

            Er … what’s “TPTB” (the party to beat)?

          • Don Duncan

            “The Powers That Be”

          • paendragon

            Oh, “them!”

            😉

          • steven

            I suspect you could convince yourself that taking a shit is a revolutionary act. Actually, at least taking a shit is taking some action. You sit on your ass and spend your time imagining reasons why doing nothing, so long as it’s YOU doing nothing, is the ultimate revolutionary action. If only enough people would sit on their asses and do nothing as well as you, the great revolution would transpire! Great way to post-rationalize why your non-action actions aren’t really accomplishing the great things you imagine them to be doing.

            Feeling helpless. betrayed, frustrated? Just do nothing, but concoct fantasies about how doing nothing is the ultimate something to do! You’ll feel so good about yourself, and you can feel superior to all the morons doing something, because they are just sheeple, not God-like, do-nothing revolutionary heroes!!

            Fuck me, I have never seen someone so self-involved that they can elevate doing nothing into the ultimate act of heroism. You don’t just say “screw it,” you have a whole goddam huge storyline worked out explaining how your nothing is the ultimate something! I would be impressed if you were 6 years old and if I wasn’t so fucking appalled. Social media has corrupted our society – action is now defined as sitting on your ass typing bullshit. Newsflash: We are both wasting fucking time here. Only difference, I know I’m just wasting time. You think you are some brave Generalissimo taking a stand against tyranny.

            I suppose you’ll convince yourself that I must be a Liberal ass-kisser, not just a man tired of whiny little turds who think they should be the new elite leaders because they spin masturbatory fantasies about the revolution that they will lead, just as soon as they get everyone else to take a shit with the zeal that they do. ROFLMFAO.

    • paendragon

      All politicians these days seem to think this way:

      “We don’t care what you think, ever since you decided to defer your rights and responsibilities to think for your selves by hiring (‘electing’) us to do all of your thinking for you, peons!”

      As soon as they’re elected, they become arrogant elitists.

    • I suggest that you stick your head between your legs and kiss you ass goodbye if you are that certain all is hopeless.

  • paendragon

    Legitimate GOVERNMENT Vs Criminal SOCIALISM

    All politicians these days seem to think this way:

    “We don’t care what you think, ever since you decided to defer your rights and responsibilities to think for your selves by hiring (‘electing’) us to do all of your thinking for you, peons!”

    As soon as they’re elected, they become arrogant elitists.

    Do these TRAITORS ever even bother to ask WHY all the muslim Arab countries adjacent to Syria itself – like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, or even Iran – had the means to accommodate those rapefugees, yet CHOSE not to take in ANY of them?

    Do they ask their constituent citizens if any of them WANTED to take money for such a risky endeavor?

    Do they or do they not take oaths of office to defend the safety of their constituent citizens, or do they take oaths to take their tax monies to support their sworn foreign enemies instead?

    Were they elected to local and national governments, or were they, as they all seem to presume, elected to the global leadership of all of “diverse” mankind, “fairly” and “equally”?

    And – what was that penalty for TREASON, again?

    PEOPLE – ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE – NEED TO BE MADE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT AND CRIMINAL SOCIALISM:

    The purpose of government is that it’s to act as an insurance company, based on temporary needs.

    The purpose of socialism is to act as slanderous extortion, based on idolatrous, static wants: to have “equality.” To permanently have rights without any concomitant corollary responsibilities.

    All children are born with nothing, but have parents to sustain them until they can compete. Whether they choose to compete or not, and how much effort they are willing to expend on it, is entirely up to them – it’s a choice.

    Government does not exist to support their choices, either way. If and when they choose to compete, government is not there to reward them at the expense of other people’s tax money.

    If and when they choose not to compete, they aren’t victims of anyone or anything else save their own choices, and so are not to be bailed out by everyone else’s taxes for that choice.

    But socialists proclaim that everyone must have an equality of outcome, not only an equality of opportunity; thus they would enslave those who would compete to those who would not do so.

    Socialists are delinquent criminally negligent parasites who assert that there is no free-will choice, and that we are really ever only all helpless victims of inevitable, predetermined, predestined forces.

    And no reciprocal concomitant corollary responsibilities are allowed to infringe on “victims” rights!

    Parents who make more than others are to have their wealth confiscated to pay for the other, lesser-competitor’s children. In fact, to be “fair” and “equal” all children should then be removed from their birth parents entirely, and put into the “care” of the government systems.

    Competitive men should be enslaved to support women, but no woman should be chained to a man.

    socialists hold that women are smaller, weaker, less competitive than men; therefore, as perpetual, inherent “victims,” they cannot ever be held to have any responsibilities, only permanent rights over men.

    …….

    When people are born under socialist governments, they can – and will be, deliberately – fooled into conflating and equating the two diametrically-opposed proposals as being one natural “system.”

    Since government is an enforced (taxed) and un-rivaled insurance company, it resembles socialism.

    But socialism is not a legitimate form of government, it’s nothing more of less than slanderous criminal extortion leading to slavery.

    ;-(

    Contrast that with Government, (best conceived of by Albert Einstein as the largest collectively-owned insurance company) is a great idea if and when it doesn’t compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it’s OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens’ rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!

    And it’s based on individual property rights and people’s free-will choice to associate with others:

    People have rights to freely associate and form insurance companies, and to restrict others within their own properties to, say, buy insurance while therein.

    BOTTOM LINE? We can expect that ALL of these political parasites will keep letting endless hordes of “muslim” criminals come in and murder us forever, bilking us endlessly out of our tax money for “more studies to understand radicalization” until we’re all completely broke and dead. Their sick criminally negligent motto has always been “THERE’S NO MONEY IN SOLUTIONS!”

    ;-(

    • Don Duncan

      “As soon as they are elected, they become arrogant elitists.” Ah, no, most, probably 99%, were elitists before, but hid that fact until elected. They are con artists, actors putting on a show in the biggest scam in the world. They can’t win if no one plays. They need people to believe the myth of govt. They need the public to be willing victims. They need what Ayn Rand called “the sanction of the victim”. And when people buy the lie that reality is determined by perception of the voters, that democracy is real magic; that is their strength. They become demigods, the chosen.

      • paendragon

        Good, valid points. Yes most are self-promoting salesmen who start in their 20s when they know less than nothing, yet feel entitled to inflict that ignorance on us all anyway.

  • Mozère Phoquèrz

    Your best letter yet.

  • The joke is on us. Trump at least presents himself as a moderate. In the empire of lies truth is treason even for a moderate nationalist.

  • Richard Chiu

    I have to disagree. People who are still on the fence are hopeless and utterly powerless, and both sides know it. Nobody is fighting over them. They aren’t the prize, they aren’t even the field, they’re just the grass. It’s more pleasant to play on a field covered with grass, but those in the game don’t spare the grass or care how much of it they destroy in their competition. If grinding a bit of the grass into the dirt gains any player a moment’s advantage, however slight, they do it without hesitation.

    I get that you’re appealing to the sheeple to vote in their own defense. That would be worth doing if we still had a valid electoral process, or at least a democratic one. Let’s face it, a valid electoral process wouldn’t be letting the sheeple vote anyway. I guess you’re also inviting them to stop being sheeple. That’s worth doing, but implying that there is still a chance of voting our way out of this doesn’t really help them confront the harsh reality they’d need to face if they’re going to stop being sheeple.

    We know that this election is going to be decided by massive vote fraud. We also know that the sheeple don’t care, so long as nobody steps on them personally. They look at other sheeple crushed into the dirt and hide behind the belief that those other sheeple must have done something wrong. They all compete with each other to be the closest to the center of the herd, in the hope that the two packs of wolves sate themselves on the sheeple at the edges. But the wolves are hungry tomorrow and the next day too, and both packs will keep taking sheep till they’re driven away or killed.

    Okay, it’s a weirdly mixed metaphor at this point. We can think of them as tasty snacks or a bit of ablative cushioning on the field, either way they don’t get to decide who benefits from using them. Neither side is honestly asking them to make a choice.