Thread by @CCrowley100

1/ There is no greater lie than the illusion of Left versus Right.

The illusion begins not with eternal truths of politics but with the intellectual vanity of the Enlightenment. In the eighteenth century, European thinkers proclaimed that mankind could be remade through reason, that centuries of tradition could be overturned by argument, that the fabric of authority woven from throne and altar could be dissolved by pamphlets and constitutions. The Enlightenment was not only a philosophical movement but a political wager: that society could be rationalized, equalized, and universalized, that men could be abstracted from their peoples and treated as identical units of an ideal humanity.

This experiment culminated in the French Revolution, when the old order was swept aside in the name of “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” It was in this moment of destruction that the terms Left and Right were born, not as metaphysical categories but as a matter of physical seating. Deputies who favored revolution sat on the left side of the National Assembly, while those who wished to preserve the monarchy sat on the right. From this trivial arrangement a new political cosmology was fabricated, as if the placement of men in a hall determined the destiny of nations.

The categories hardened in rhetoric even as their meaning shifted. What had been a geographical convenience became a moral code. The Left was said to embody progress, the Right to embody reaction. The Enlightenment dream of remaking mankind was projected onto the chamber itself, where sides of the room now stood for sides of history. In truth, what was born was not a science of politics but a myth of polarity, a binary that would mask the deeper realities of descent and power, and in time serve as an instrument to strip Whites of their identity while cloaking their dispossession in the language of ideology.

2/ From their accidental birth, the categories of Left and Right never held firm. They stretched and twisted with each generation until the terms no longer marked consistent principles but only shifting alignments of power. What counted as liberal in one century became conservative in the next; what was once condemned as reactionary later reappeared as reform. The binary proved incapable of anchoring political reality because it was never founded on anything more substantial than expedience.

The nineteenth century revealed this mutability with merciless clarity. Liberals who once defended property and the free market against aristocratic privilege became, in time, the advocates of universal suffrage and redistribution. Conservatives who once upheld hierarchy and tradition soon made their peace with industrial capitalism, defending not throne and altar but profit and parliament. By the twentieth century, entire regimes could switch places on the spectrum without altering their essential methods: communism and fascism both claimed to be revolutionary, both were accused of reaction, both were denounced as Left or Right depending only on who wielded the label.

The present age is no different. Causes that only yesterday were the banners of progress, such as same-sex marriage, unrestricted speech, and suspicion of concentrated wealth, have been abandoned by progressives themselves, who now demand censorship and celebrate corporate power as long as it drapes itself in the language of diversity. Conservatives, once defenders of religion and restraint, now defend pornography as free expression and global finance as the essence of liberty. That the same terms are used to describe such shifting positions is proof enough that Left and Right are not realities but symbols, empty vessels into which elites pour whatever serves their interests, while the deeper facts of ancestry and peoplehood are excluded from consideration.

3/ If the categories of Left and Right lack substance, why have they endured? The answer lies not in truth but in control. They function as masks by which regimes disguise the real axis of power. By dividing Whites into rival camps and encouraging their quarrels, the ruling order prevents recognition of deeper realities: the permanence of descent, the continuity of genes, the unity of peoplehood, and the material interests of elites. The spectacle of Left against Right is a managed performance, staged so that Whites expend their strength in empty disputes while the true structure of domination remains untouched.

This explains why both sides, despite their advertised differences, converge on the same prohibitions. Whether labeled progressive or conservative, the establishment is united in hostility toward Whites organizing in their own collective interest. One wing cloaks the denial in the rhetoric of progress and equality, the other in the language of color-blind individualism. Yet race is not reducible to the pigment of skin but to the deeper inheritance of blood and memory, the transmission of culture and character through generations. And when the moment of crisis comes, when a White man is assaulted not for what he believes but for what he is, no one asks his opinion on tax policy or foreign wars. The mask slips, and the reality beneath is revealed.

The fraud of Left and Right is therefore not a harmless confusion but an instrument of dispossession. It divides Whites into hostile camps while ensuring that both camps serve the same masters. It offers the illusion of choice while concealing the continuity of power. By keeping Whites trapped in the false quarrel of ideology, it prevents them from awakening to the truth that politics begins and ends with their survival as a people.

4/ Against the fluidity of ideologies stands the permanence of biology. A man may change his creed, his party, or his convictions, but he cannot alter his descent. The genetic line persists through time, binding generations together with a continuity no revolution can dissolve. In the moment of danger this truth asserts itself with brutal clarity. In prison yards, in riots, in wars, men do not divide by tax policy or theories of government; they divide by kin, by color, by visible markers of blood. Ideology collapses, and what remains is ancestry.

This is why debates about Left and Right ultimately lack seriousness. They orbit abstractions that vanish when measured against the concrete reality of inheritance. The quarrel between progress and reaction, between liberal and conservative, is a quarrel within a single framework that presupposes man as an interchangeable unit. Yet no society has ever been founded on such abstraction, nor could one endure if it tried. Peoples are not formed by the clash of doctrines but by the unity of descent, memory, and destiny.

Ideologies are fashions; they change with the decades. Biology is the substance that endures. To build politics upon ideology is to build upon sand. To build upon ancestry is to build upon rock. The fraud of Left and Right consists precisely in luring Whites away from what is permanent into the shifting quarrels of what is not, so that they remain blind to their deepest bond and most natural allegiance.

5/ History reveals the emptiness of Left and Right by the way they continually exchange positions. Each side eventually takes up the slogans of the other once it seizes power, proving that the binary measures only circumstance, not conviction. What is praised as progress in one era is denounced as reaction in the next, and what is scorned as tyranny is later rehabilitated as tradition. The same ideas are dressed in new colors, yet the underlying struggle for dominance remains unchanged.

One generation’s radicals become the next generation’s conservatives. The Progressives of 1905, who spoke of economic reform, defended free speech, upheld private property, and affirmed national vigor, would today be condemned as reactionaries. The conservatives of the same age, who honored hierarchy and religion, would now be dismissed as authoritarian and out of step with modernity. In truth, both currents were absorbed into a single stream of liberal modernity, which merely altered its vocabulary while pursuing the same trajectory of dissolution.

Revolutions themselves illustrate this cycle. They claim to overthrow tyranny, yet they preserve its structure while substituting one mask for another. The heirs of revolutions betray their founders, turning liberty into bureaucracy, equality into privilege, fraternity into suspicion. What began as a cry for liberation ends as a new form of domination. The names of Left and Right may be traded back and forth, but the underlying pattern is always the same: ideologies devour themselves, while the continuity of White descent and peoplehood endures through the wreckage.

6/ The persistence of Left and Right is not only the result of confusion but of design. The binary endures because it serves the interests of those who rule. It functions as a weapon of distraction, ensuring that Whites exhaust themselves in quarrels over ideology while remaining blind to the deeper basis of politics. As long as they can be convinced that their fate depends on whether the Left or the Right prevails, they will not recognize that both wings conspire in denying them the right to exist as a people.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the treatment of Whites. Both sides, in their present forms, declare that ancestry is irrelevant, that descent is a fiction, that organizing on the basis of kinship is forbidden. One wing cloaks the demand in the rhetoric of progress and equality, the other in the rhetoric of color-blind individualism. Yet the outcome is the same. Whites are stripped of identity and prevented from forming any collective defense, while every other group is encouraged to rally openly around its descent, to act in the name of blood and history.

The fraud of Left and Right is therefore not a neutral error but an instrument of dispossession. It divides Whites into hostile camps while ensuring that both camps serve the same masters. It offers the illusion of choice while concealing the continuity of power. By keeping Whites locked within the false quarrel of ideology, it blinds them to the deeper truth: that politics begins and ends with their survival, and that only the permanence of White descent and peoplehood endures through every mask the system wears.

7/ To persist in the quarrel of Left and Right is to remain trapped within a theater of illusions. The categories have no permanence, no substance, no truth. They are shifting masks worn by the same order of dissolution, an order that divides Whites against themselves while their foundations are eroded. The man who thinks he has chosen wisely between Left and Right has in fact chosen nothing. He has only selected the costume in which his dispossession will be carried out.

If politics is to regain seriousness, it must abandon the abstractions of ideology and return to first principles. The true ground of political life is not doctrine but descent. Men are not interchangeable, and nations are not voluntary associations of opinions. They are living continuities of blood and memory, bound together across generations by ties stronger than any manifesto. To defend one’s kin, one’s land, and one’s destiny is not Left or Right, it is the eternal substance of politics.

The future will not be won by those who cling to the fraud of ideological binaries, but by those who see through it and act upon what endures. Ideologies will rise and fall, parties will betray their followers, slogans will be traded back and forth like banners in a ruined battlefield. Yet beneath all this play of surfaces, the deeper struggle remains. It is the struggle of Whites to survive, to command their space, and to shape their destiny. The only clarity worth having is to place biology over ideology, life over doctrine, and truth over illusion.