The Edgiest

*WE’VE FOUND IT. *

edge
After almost two years of bitter debates, ceaseless research, and countless triggerings, our efforts have finally borne fruit.

From the darkest recesses of the Earth, TRS has finally discovered the edgiest political stance one can possibly take.   Specifically, Michael Enoch found it.

Perhaps this position will come as a surprise to many.  Perhaps not.  I would argue that we were moving this way from the moment the blog started.

*Trigger Warning: Reality.  *

Edgiest political position you can take: Things actually aren’t that bad, and in fact some things are quite nice. The US government is stable and not evil, resources are abundant and people are living longer and happier lives than they have in the past.

…Wait, what?

I admit that this stance doesn’t appear so challenging at first glance: there is no mention of anarchy or race realism, nothing about 9/11 or lizard people or Hitler.  No theocracy, ZOG,  slavery, transhumanism or any of that stuff.  This actually seems pretty bland.

Except our initial testing of this stance has shown something unusual.

Democrats will dismiss it as the work of the Kochs and/or the patriarchy.  Republicans will call it the typical thinking of an Obama drone.  The libertarians will lump this opinion in with whatever particular flavor of statist “sheeple” they prefer (commienazi).  The reactionaries will call the stance blue-pilled, mindless support of the cathedral.

Strange, isn’t it? Contentment in any degree is seen as anathema, heresy.  To point out that the modern world isn’t quite so hopeless makes you a collaborator with or pawn for whatever bugaboo happens to be destroying civilization from behind the scenes.*  *No matter if you personally agree with some or even all of their political prescriptions otherwise.**

This standpoint reveals an odd, perhaps disturbing similarity in all of the narratives, both mainstream and edgisphere.  They all share an underlying need for a villain, for opposition, for hatred.  We have to be this close to utter annihilation.  It doesn’t matter that our world offers abundant material wealth and almost limitless means for one to find self-actualization, that in many ways all of this posturing is vanity, actually being content in any way is unthinkable.

I now find myself wondering, what exactly can any of these esoteric or popular ideologies fix if they are more interested in opposing a phantom? When did utopianism become dystopianism? What if the problem is that we as a population are too busy modeling fedoras to actually interact with the real world in a meaningful way? What if our current “hopeless” political situation is really a result of people utilizing this atomized special snowflakism in a way to win majorities?

melt

Author image
Bulbasaur is a blue collar worker and part-time polemicist from the Southern U.S.