CONSERVATIVISM IS A DEAD END
		A Short Introduction to the Post-Right
		tettsui77, 5/18/21

	Post-right anarchism, inasmuch as it is even a real thing and not a half-ironic shitpost, is the rejection outright of the typical tactics and goals of "the right" - but more specifically a critique of libertarian (and ancap) ideology and praxis.  It is the belief that not only is nothing meaningfully changing for the better, but that typical lib-right ideas about how to achieve that change are at best misguided - and that, moreover, the changes those ideas propose to achieve are (again, at best) misguided themselves.
	Post-right anarchism rejects electoralism.  There are no (and can be no) in-the-system wins, and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar, a grifter, an opportunist, or - even worse - a childish fool who actually believes it.  No election, no Supreme Court decision, no victory in some petty LP faction squabble on Twitter, has any bearing on actual liberty or improving this godawful (and rightfully godforesaken) neoliberal hellworld.  Electorialism is a tool of the minarchist, not the anarchist.  Minarchism is in and of itself misguided and milquetoast, largely tied to the same sense of half-assed and limp-wristed lib nationalism as "the duopoly".
	Post-right anarchism rejects nationalism.  No state entity is legitimate and certainly not, as a fantastic example, the United States of America.  While libertarians seem to often still fall for retconned bullshit about American exceptionalism, post-right anarchism rejects this entirely.  This country is not a good place and never has been, its stated freedoms illusory and subject to erasure at a whim when and where "they" feel like it.  This seems to be both self-evidently and demonstrably true, and assertions to the contrary once again seem to come from the lips of liars, grifters, opportunists, or children.  Post-right anarchism rejects that very notion that "Give me liberty or give me death!" coming from the mouth of a slaveowner is a relevant sentiment.  As for nationalism as a concept itself, there are times and places where nationalism is a liberatory struggle, but its expression past this point is only capable of turning the oppressed into the oppressors, a la Israel.  American nationalism is, in any case, a fucking cancer and America's current borders are imaginary lines enforced through authoritarian tyranny - rather than according to any sort of coherent cultural divides.  Sure, someone in Guadalajara is quite different culturally from someone in Maine, or whatever - but the people on the border itself sell each other tamales through and play volleyball over the fences.
	Post-right anarchism rejects the culture war narrative anyway, but from a social darwinist standpoint.  The culture that crumbles (or perceives itself as crumbling) in the face of, say, trans teenagers on the internet, more than deserved to crumble for being this weak, this incapable of providing an alternative that's not some nazi-tier reactionary bullshit.  In fact, such a death at the hands of pronouns-in-bio 16 year olds would be a mercy.  Western culture's institutions are pathetic, its motivations corrupt, its entire ethos based on some set of theoretically sacrosanct principles and documents which work only to reinforce belief in these increasingly illusory freedoms and prop up an oligarchy which hates and scorns the pillars supporting it.  Most tediously and painfully, "the right" tends to point at the signs and symptoms of its own meekness and internal decay as the causes of society's supposed moral decline.
	Post-right anarchism rejects secular moral objectivism.  The Constitution is of no more use for guaranteeing or securing rights than toilet paper; the NAP is a meaningless abstraction at best, and a cringe-inducing starting point for some hypothetical future generation's "anarcho common law" at worst.  Aggression is itself not objective, and justice is a mythical notion.  Who determines when you've been aggressed upon?  Who says non-threat words or behaviors do not often warrant an initiation of violence?  Who determines, in any case, what is an actionable threat?  The entire framework upon which libertarian morality is based is flimsy, ill-defined, and self-castrating.  The things libertarianism takes for granted as the foundations of its morality are "spooked" so to speak, and require no more and no less coercive enforcement than any proposed variation of communism might be supposed to.
	Post-right anarchism rejects capitalism.  While the issues with capitalism could certainly just be an entirely separate essay, this is important to mention at least in passing.  It rejects both globalist "crony capitalism" as it exists at present, as well as the usage of the word "capitalism" itself as tainted and inadequate.  It rejects that "haha they said real communism hasn't been tried" is a meaningful argument when ancaps will endlessly fucking insist that real capitalism hasn't been tried.  It rejects prevailing notions of property "rights" as very fundamentally rooted in the current system, in fact an intrinsic part of it.  Rather than continuing indefinitely with this particular point, let it suffice to say that post-right anarchism certainly owes an intellectual debt to the individualist anarchists (American and European) more than Ron Paul, or some capitalist economist or another.  Really, it owes an intellectual debt to internet discourse with all sorts of other anarchists (though, perhaps particularly the post-leftists) more than any traditional libertarian or ancap theorists whatsoever - nor their boring books.
	Post-right anarchism rejects that the left-right dichotomy itself is even especially meaningful.  Or at best it is, whatever the case, certainly not useful.  The post-right anarchist would rather have a single Emma Goldman as a friend and ally than roughly infinite normie libertarians.  The post-right anarchist would prefer to live in Makhnovia than Ancapistan.  Post-right anarchism does not see itself as "right wing" or "libertarian" or "conservative" for the reasons described thus far, and has no qualms with seeking new alliances.  The post-right anarchist recognizes that tens of thousands of boomers who gleefully brag about cleaning up after their gun rights rally are less effective at bringing about change, for better and/or for worse, than burning a single Foot Locker or smashing a single cop car window.  Post-right anarchism is honest with itself about the history of anarchism as a movement, and sees itself as part of this and not some other, separate, more "morally-upright" and "right-wing" thing.
	In short, post-right anarchism rejects the dead-end that is conservativism, and its entire useless toolset.  It rejects that mainstream conservatives are a plausible or even desirable ally for any cause.  It rejects the subservient constitutionalist mindset, it rejects that the purview of present state entities' governments could be scaled down, and it rejects that attempting to do so is a viable goal or use of anyone's time.  It rejects that any trial or election is fair, that any law whatsoever is just.  It rejects civility as a virtue.  It seeks new alliances, and new modes of existence, rather than looking to a Frigidaire commercial past sold as tradition.  The post-right anarchist is at war with all aspects of the current system, and knows there is no future for liberty without their utter and complete collapse and destruction.  Post-right anarchism implores the right-winger to stop riding the breaks like a little bitch and hit the gas.  Or throw some on the fire.  Or fuck off and die.