The Triviality of the Right

Because people like when things come in threes, I will divide problems into three groups for the purposes of this article:

1. Policy problems

2. Systemic problems

3. Existential problems

Policy problems are problems that can be solved instantly with a simple policy change. “Cancel the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” for example.

Systemic problems cannot be solved instantly or even quickly. Systemic problems are problems such as the neocon capture of the State Department.

An existential problem is a problem that literally threatens the existence of the civilization itself.

Something like “black crime” might sit on the edge between policy problem and systemic problem, but it is not existential. The takeover of the southern American states by immigrants is an existential problem.

We can also apply these three categories personally. A personal policy problem might be: “I need to add potatoes to my grocery list.” A systemic personal problem might be: “I’m overeating.” An existential personal problem might be: “I’m addicted to a life-threatening degenerate behavior and might literally die.”

The other day, I had a thread about women’s “issues” and how their own personal issues become everyone else’s problem, too:

https://twitter.com/charlesmayne69/status/1670163809498202112

For us men of the Right, our personal issues should be our own, our families’, or our close friends’, at most. It is simply not manly to project your personal problems into a societal problem. Whether or not your problems are policy, systemic, or existential, they are your problems. For the Right, we are here to solve social problems collectively in the social problem-solving space, a.k.a. politics. And “we” are mainly “here” — and by “we” and “here,” I mean that we of the genuine Right are here on these cyberspaces where we talk to each other — because we want to solve existential social problems.

It’s fine to inform friends about routine activities that might actually be subtly harming them, but the cottage industry of turning personal health minutiae into public health problems is a feminine behavioral pattern. Unless something poses an obscene and severe immediate risk, such as mystery injections for pandemics, it is not appropriate to be shoving these issues constantly in peoples’ faces, whether it’s seed oils or toilet paper.

https://twitter.com/Babygravy9/status/1680615676300480513

Our country is being flooded with migrants, but the Right is in feminine hysterics about what it is wiping its ass with. We don’t have the bandwidth to be filling our political cyberspace with this trite nonsense.

I was watching Batman Forever the other day. One of the film’s sub-plots is that Bruce Wayne’s butler Alfred was dying of some illness, but he had not told anyone about it because “it’s not civilized,” or something to that effect.

Fitness as a masculine social activity is absolutely something that belongs in the public space. Hand-wringing over daily activities that may have an infinitesimal negative effect on your health does not. We aren’t called here to micromanage each other’s personal lives.

We can see another good point made here by Carl Benjamin in response to a random attack on his “masculinity”:

https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/1681330378278154241

The comment had nothing to do with addressing any of the points about Tate and Fuentes — it was simply a feminine insult about “looks.”

When you think about the aesthetics of the Raw Egg Nationalist, do you think that guy in the picture in real life was fretting about his toilet paper?

No, of course he wouldn’t; he wouldn’t be making himself worried over every little thing. He would be focusing on reaching his actual goal, and I can guarantee that the type of fitness regime he used to obtain that physique did not involve a specific brand of toilet paper.

I realize that this is just one post, but it serves as an example of the type of thing that takes our eye off the ball. We are inundated with distractions every day. There is no need for us to add to that. I only single out Raw Egg Nationalist’s post here because it is a particularly good example of this. If you aren’t quite getting what I am saying, this comic from Po illustrates the problem as well:

Here we have an inversion where the husband is “self-hen-pecking.” The wife is dutifully serving coffee, and normally, a parody like this would see the wife hen-pecking the husband over whatever he is drinking. Instead, the husband is allowing some foreign entity to interrupt what would otherwise be a perfectly fine situation. He should just be a man and enjoy his coffee.