The Extraneous Nature of American Political Parties

Two party system. For many young Americans it is all they have ever known and for those slightly older, it is all there can ever be. It is taken as an issue of strictest faith that America must have two parties, each counter-balancing the other and that, should there be but one party or a true third contender, the whole balance of the world would be swiftly o’er thrown.


To begin with, no provision is made within our constitution for political parties of any kind. It is not that the authors of the constitution were unfamiliar with the concept but rather that they saw no need for them; what’s more, many of them detested the idea. There was and is absolutely no need for political parties in America. One man, one vote. The man that get’s the most votes takes up leadership for the country. The man who gets second-most is awarded with the vice presidency. Simple and straightforward. Elegantly so. Where here is there room for parties? What, really, is their function? Nothing but needless divisiveness. Since the election of Donald Trump, the 45th president of these United States, there have been untold amounts of squealing about “political divisiveness.” Yet, very, very seldom does one hear it said that this is largely a product of the sham party system. To make matters all the worse, even though the public is brought to loggerheads over their political differences both of the major parties propose and instantiate essentially the same progressive equalitarian measures, meaning, of course, that most Americans, most of the time, are fighting for absolutely no good reason.


A academic survey conducted in 2014 by the impressively non-partisan Pew research Center found that Today 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican. More disconcertingly, the study also finds that divergence from party doctrine for both Republicans and Democrats has decreased over time. What this means is that independent thinking within party politics has decreased as party zealotry has increased.


To circumnavigate this foolish dance of self-cannibalism I advocate the complete and utter abolition of ALL American political parties.

There should only be one party, The American Party. No exceptions. Anything else is treason as Jefferson well realized.

Navigating The Spectrum: Future Universalistic vs. Present Particularistic

In my previous article, On the Prospects of Popular Right-wing Unification in America: The Starting Point of Unification, I wrote,

“To speak of unification with those who are counterpoised to order (and thus, opposed to civilization) is to beat one’s head against a wall. With that being said, unity is absolutely desirable among the right in as far as it is possible given the prolific predominance of Leftism (the ethos of the US is, let us not forget, one that is fundamentally communistic), specifically for the purposes of civilizational maintenance and restoration, as civilization is birthed and bound by unity. America can be greatly transformed by chaos as it has numerous times before (emancipation, civil rights, sexual revolution) but that transformation itself will then only be able to be sustained by its opposite; that is to say, a largely unified political body that stands for order.”

However, before we can even begin to talk about political unification we must clearly define who and what we are unifying – that is, the political right. So let us set ourselves to clearly defining our terms. I’d first like to hastily dispense with economic differentials, that is to say, the well-tread: capitalist vs. socialist. Far too facile. Yes, yes, Ben Shapiro might well define Italian Fascists as “Leftists” but he is in a unquestionably small minority. I wholly reject this Shapiroesque differentiation, it is far too particularist, for it means that no matter how nationalistic, no matter how concerned with thede and loyalty, a particular political party might happen to become, if it doesn’t have some variation of “free” market capitalism then it is “Leftist.”

No, the fundamental distinction between the political left and the political right is to be found, not principally in adherence to economic particulars, but rather, in loyalty. Leftists devout themselves to abstract ideals and tailor their loyalties accordingly. Rightists, in stark contrast, devout themselves to people, their people, and adjust their ideals accordingly.

Take the communists or international socialists, for instance, they do not give their fealty to any social body, to any man. Their principal failing is in pledging themselves to man as they wish he were rather than to man as he is. They give their unflinching loyalty to a kind of Rousseauian industrialism, rather than those of their flesh and blood – kith and kin matter little when placed side-by-side with the “Brotherhood of Man!” Secular Humanists follow a similar trajectory, their immediate loyalty is to the expansion of empathy to all humanity – in so thinly spreading their physiological resources they end up neglecting their own countrymen, their very own neighbors and families for the sake of people whom they will never meet, nor even see other than in photograph. Leftists only give their loyalty (with few exceptions) to other members of their in-group due to their ideological adherence (as can be easily seen by how swiftly they are currently devouring themselves – “You’re racist!” “No, you’re the racist!” “No, you two are both racists!” ect.), failing this, the dissident is silenced and cast off, exiled. This is not, of course, to say that the ring-wing does not sometimes exercise their own forms of ideological in-fighting, purity spiraling and shunning, but the scale and frequency of such action is simply incomparable.

There will always be a certain degree of ideological dissimilarity that prevents two groups from acting in harmonious concord. If group X wants peaceful cooperation and group Z wants the subjection of all groups not Z then there can, obviously, be no parsimony between X & Z. Such is axiomatic. What I am attempting to drive at is that forces typically connected to leftism, such as socialism, communist, globalism, deconstructionism, sexual freedom, ect, are all fundamentally predicated upon the notion that one’s primary, nor secondary nor even tertiary duty is not to their own people (whomever that may happen to be) but rather to one’s self OR to some version of the personal self that has yet to become a extant reality.

Primacy of the individual is a phrase often used by both the political right and left but the left’s highest values are bound up not merely in the primacy of the individual, it is, rather the primacy of all individuals, everywhere in the world, at all points in time even those periods of time that have yet to come to pass. 

This is obviously and axiomatically impossible, since not all individuals will be able to have the power to act as perfectly self-governed actors nor does it accurately account for moral hazard, for personal failing and the intense need for corrective oversight (children for instance, are now given absurd leeway due to the ethos of the “primacy of the individual,” to such a degree that one is now seeing a rise in child-transgenderism – if Tommy says he’s a girl, who are you to say otherwise? You’re not a bigot are you???).

Due to the obvious corrosive effects of future-extrapersonal loyalty, the ethos of empathy widening rather than correct distribution and control of empathy and general governmental universalism (as opposed to particularism), the political right should ever affirm loyalty to one’s own people as a a foremost principal, subordinate only to order itself, or, a different formulation: loyalty to order as the highest principal – for there is no lasting of those other splendid things, most cherish in human life, without stability.

In contrast to The Left (as a political establishment or burgeoning political body), who looks upon his dissident brother and says, You must be corrected or expunged! The true Right (not merely those playing the pose) looks upon his brother and takes his full measure first and foremost before committing to judgement.

In short,

The Left is future universalistic, whilst The Right is present particularistic.

The Opposition Identity of the Anti-Tribe

I’ve long been skeptical of the negation crew, the “anti” crowd, those individuals or groups who when asked who they are and what they stand for reply, “I am against X!” There are the “skeptics” who are wholly against all and any religions; the SJWs who are wholly against anything that they perceive as masculine, aggressive, racist or sexist; there are the puritanical religious – the deniers of the body – who gasp and flail at the faintest stirring of erotic passion; then there are the “new ageists” who are perhaps the epitome of the skeptic foil, those who languish in a jellied slush of “mystical” half-measures, neither a creature of faith nor truly one of hard verticality. There are also the anti-statist who, like Rousseau, seek to see man placed outside the grasp of “The Tyrants,” who pervert his very nature by their iron programs and thus stymie his ability to live in the rightful state of peace and freedom. Then there is the ironycel, who wages total war on forthright meaning and serious (“I was just joking – don’t take everything so seriously, bro…”) and also the hedonist who stands in total opposition to any and all impulse restraint. The list could go on and on; reams upon reams, enough to fill up the center of the earth, with enough left over to blot out the sun.

It is not for our purposes to trace the origins nor map the structures of any of the aforementioned groups – rather it is to remark upon the one thing they all share – they are all, without exception, defined either largely or entirely by what they oppose. Theirs is a identity of opposition. They are reactive, rather than proactive. Defined by circumstance rather than defining it. For stable construction, in any serious political sense, such tribes can offer one nothing, for they have nothing but derisive jeers – hardly the solid stuff one should be seeking. They have not the glue to hold a body politic together for they do not themselves know who they are nor what they stand for all that they know is that they are not what they oppose. They are NOT X, but not necessarily Y or Z.

What defines a body politic is its identity, this also drives such entities to oppose others; that is to say, when tribe X’s culture (the manifestation of their identity) finds itself incongruent with tribe Y, it behooves tribe Y to push back against it and make X conform (at least to some more desirable degree) to their outward expression of collective self. Failing this, there can be naught but war. But the anti-collective – the group who knows not who they are, nor what they stand for, nor where they are going – can not take the path of reprisal for they can not form a coherent political body (and even if they could they could only keep it so long as “the other” whom they opposed remained a active and present force, whether actually or mythically). The ephemeral formalism of the anti-tribes, useful for short-span guerrilla combat of the mind, is wholly useless for times of peace (and there should be little distinction made between peace from real-world combat and combat of a more ideological persuasion) as they do not have internal structure to their various, tangentially related collectives (often they have no reason for being a collective at all once their “threat,” their pet-problem, is removed). Due to the fact that the anti-tribes persist only so that X,Y & Z shall not, when another problem arises that is falls not within the purview of their own problem-set, they are like to ignore it or sublimate themselves to it (the case of the modern American Christian who constantly wails about Muslim “invaders,” but shows little to no concern about Zionist radicals destabilizing his nation).

It is, for all these aforementioned reasons, pertinent for those who are seeking a more stable ordering to things to treat the anti-tribes with the greatest of caution. For, as the old adage goes, it takes but one rotten apple to ruin the entire barrel.

Value Ordination: Political Paradigm as Argumentation

Innumerable are the number of political compass tests which one can take online, from Playbuzz to to the 8 Values Github Test, all of which are sifted through and poured over, studied and analyzed by the takers thereof as if in the action of so doing they will confer some hidden and eldritch wisdom unto the reader. The popularity of political compass tests however, does not lie in their viewing by the takers thereof but in their viewing by everyone else. People that are likely to take political compass tests are also likely to be highly engaged in politics and thus are already well aware of their own political views and where they are likely to lie on any given political compass test (unless the given test happens to be poorly constructed, and thus, woefully inaccurate). They are not really seeking out what their ideological positions are but are rather looking for a shared visual platform where their ideological uniqueness can be shown to others. A narcissist’s past-time.

The fixation here is more upon the position of the individual along the political compass than upon the ideas which place them there. This is reflective of American political discourse more generally, where discussions are generally started with the prompt, “Well The Left,” or, “You see this is just what The Right has been trying to do for years now-”

Right and Left are, of a certainly, highly useful linguistic tools but there is here a problem which manifests itself whenever a particular political moniker becomes more important that being correct, that is to say, logically parsimonious (utilizing economy of explanation to arrive at a conclusion).

That may sound like a obvious truism; certainly it is true but it is far less discernible that it is readily obvious. Such is evidenced by popular internetisms like, “There is nothing to the Right of me but the wall.” Meaning, of course, that there is no one more Right-wing than the person whom is spouting the aforementioned phrase. This is only a positive however if the Right-wing views which the speaker holds are actually correct. That is to say, Right and Left are not arguments in and of themselves, nor is a statement of any ideological inclination. To say, “That is a Communist position!” is only a sufficient position in as far as it is actually wrong/illogical; it is not wrong merely by dint of being associated with Communism (which, by and large should be suspect for its historical record of death and intense political instability). Thus, for the previous example, it should, make the argument more suspect but it should not incline one to dismiss it out of hand.

Such is also true with rebuttals like, “But that is Authoritarian!” Well… why is that a bad thing? One should really be asked to explain.

In short, in the American context, the political Left and Right are all too often interjected in place of argumentation. Whenever the words Left-wing and Right-wing are utilized as a argument unto themselves, rather than as placeholders for extremely wide-ranging idea-sets, one knows that one’s opponent has woefully lost the plot.