10 Tendencies to Combat on the Right

The right has its fair share of problems. In this post I identify what I consider to be some major issues with the right that are holding it back. They include both behaviour and ways of thinking. Some of them stem from the right not having a single consistent worldview uniting it. Others result from the fact that a radical movement will naturally attract a disproportionate share of cranks, schizoids, narcissists and sociopaths. Notably, several of the problems apply not just to the radical right, but the mainstream right as well.

________________________________________

P1. Excessive focus on personalities over systems. The dependence upon a single charismatic personality has been the death of many rightist organisations over the years. There are two basic issues with this tendency:

a) We may not achieve our ultimate goals within our lifetimes, and therefore we must devise a system that can reproduce itself over several generations, replacing leaders as each generation dies off. If we make ourselves dependent upon a particular leader of collection of leaders, with no provision for replacing them with people of similar quality, then the organisation will die with the leaders.

b) It can produce an environment in which there are constant struggles over who ought to be leader, with each potential leader forming his own following. If one wins and the others can’t accept his victory, or no settlement can be made, then a split will occur, dividing rightists into tiny organisations that are constantly fighting each other and have no prospect of attaining power. Members of an authoritarian movement must accept that somebody has to take the role of leader and others must be led. To paraphrase Dave Martel, at some point you have to bend the knee.

P2. Excessively conspiratorial thinking. The attribution of every political event or development to the hidden hand of an all-powerful elite not only requires quite considerable mental gymnastics, but also suggests that whatever we do, we will be countered by this omnipotent elite, and therefore the struggle is pointless. (Some have even pushed this tendency so far as to suggest that the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine is not really happening, and is merely a show the elites have arranged. This borders on lunacy.) To reject conspiratorial thinking is not to say that there aren’t real conspiracies, or that elite agency doesn’t matter: it’s simply rejecting the habit of reducing everything to conspiracy. It may well be that the system we have is self-reinforcing, such that different groups who are integral to the system respond to situations as they arise in similar ways to each other, because their interests dictate that this is how they ought to behave. A proper explanation of why things happen the way they do will involve taking many factors into account, including great individuals, pressure groups, economic and environmental factors, and biology.

P3. Belief in inevitable outcomes, used to absolve us of the need to act. This tendency comes in two forms:

a) The belief in a self-correcting mechanism that will produce our desired result without us having to do anything. Capitalist market dogma, certain philosophies of history, and other intellectual tendencies represent this.

b) The belief that our defeat is inevitable. This may derive from cyclical historical theory, or certain kinds of racialism (Gobineau). I firmly believe that many people on the radical right have a perverse liking for declinist narratives. They would rather be the unheeded prophets of doom than take action to defend what they claim to value.

As an alternative to this tendency, we must stress that we have agency, and are capable of changing things. This is both an attractive and a self-serving position. Our opponents are correct that we live in a civilisation that is unique in world history. We have tools to address civilisational and biological decline that have never existed before, and we have also have better information on the fall of previous peoples and civilisations than ever before. Let’s make use of these things.

P4. Blackpilling generally. People don’t appreciate how counterproductive this is. The system couldn’t do a better job of demoralising us than our own side do. Showing people endless boats of “refugees” arriving or whatever doesn’t harden our resolve—it just breaks peoples’ spirits and contributes to burnout. I cannot count the number of times I have looked through comment sections and seen “it’s over”, “just make the most of what’s left while you can”, etc. People can be forgiven if they check out of the scene when this is what they are surrounded with. Participating in this scene should be psychologically rewarding, providing comradeship, a sense of a higher mission in life, and a means of gaining an income that one doesn’t find objectionable. We can’t reasonably expect to attract or to keep high-quality people working with us unless we meet these conditions.

P5. Aimless discussion of theory. Theory is extremely important so that we know why we are fighting, what we are fighting, and what we are fighting for. It can also inform our practical approaches by providing a theory of praxis itself. However, I would say that discussion of theory is more often used as an excuse to not discuss the often more difficult questions of how to actually achieve our aims. Even people who talk about praxis often fall prey to this tendency: in theory, they’re interested in praxis; in practice, they’re more interested in theory.

P6. Reactionary thinking. (By “reactionary” I mean a tendency of always forming ourselves in reaction to our opposition, and not taking initiative in shaping our own image according to our own decisions.) This puts us on the back foot and cedes the initiative to the opponents. As a result, they are in the driving seat and get to dictate the direction in which society develops. This tendency finds its most extreme form in what some call “lightswitch brain”. This is the habit of wanting to have the opposite take to your opponent, without giving any critical thought to the matter. It is generally aligned with the assumption that there are only two points of view on some issue. The Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid pointed out this problem in the 18th century: “Let us remember how common the folly is, of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite.” For example, one may be confronted with a Stalinist and, assuming that there are only two options on economics—fully planned and fully “free” economies—one turns to free market capitalism instead. This tendency is not restricted to doctrine, but also extends to praxis. Our opponents have been making steady gains for decades. If they can do this for an ideology whose basic principles are completely insane and out of touch with reality, then there must be something in their praxis that we can learn from. Rejecting effective methods because our opponents used them is equivalent to saying that we can’t win, because that’s what our enemies do.

P7. Calling people a “grifter” for trying to make a living from being in the dissident scene. This relegates the radical right to the status of amateurs. In order to make a serious impact, we need money, and we need people who can work full-time for the cause. Our opponents have them in droves. And let’s not forget that there are many hard-working people in the scene who really deserve to be paid for the content they create. (No, this is not a solicitation!)

P8. Hostility to modern technology. Excluding a world cataclysm, which it is not in our power to bring about (even if it were desirable), modern technology is here to stay. Railing against it or advocating for its removal is futile. Technology is the specific adaptation of human beings which they use to compete with other human beings, and it provides such an advantage over other groups that any group that renounces it will be either subjugated or destroyed by one or more of the others. Therefore, the renunciation of technology is a non-starter. We must use it for our own benefit.

P9. Conceptual confusion. This arises when we haven’t properly defined our words and the concepts they denote, and where we have gotten into the habit of applying them to the wrong things, or where we are mistaken in our categorisation of the things that exist. The problem is multifaceted, but I will outline some forms conceptual confusion takes:

a) Words can be used in such a way that they push one’s thinking in a liberal-egalitarian direction. Think, for instance, of the popular term “human race”. The term makes no sense as a label to describe humanity, because a race is by definition a subdivision of the human species. Using this term implies greater unity within the species than is really the case. Another example is the use of the term “individualism” to describe any system in which people can step out of the mass. Thus, one can see “individualism” in Bronze Age Greece! Since the heroism of Ancient Greece is obviously laudable, if we misuse the term “individualism” we may end up seeing a continuity between the conditions that enabled this heroism and the principles of our current system, which are in reality completely different. (I should stress that this is not a contrived example, and people have really fallen into this trap.) This is a case in which someone is tied to liberalism by their improper use of terms. “Individuality” or “personality” (often used by folkish thinkers) are much better terms here, since they avoid ideological taint.

b) Emotionally charging words to the extent that they cease to mean anything other than “good person” and “bad person”, and which, when used, place the individual to whom they are applied beyond the pale. Good examples are “Fascist” and “racist”. Everyone in “polite society” knows that you're not meant to be Fascist or racist, but society as a whole has no common conception of the semantic content of the words, only their emotional content. The purpose of the words, used in this way, is not to communicate a neutral fact about a person's beliefs, but to express a command: “like this person” or “dislike this person”, “help this person” or “harm this person”. Rightists are often guilty of this as well, when they used the term “leftist” as a pejorative. Often I have seen people object to an idea on the grounds that it is “leftist”, even in cases where the so-called leftist is actually correct.

c) Words that denote our identity, or aspects thereof, can be incorrectly defined or applied. This can result in things which ought to be separate being brought together, and things being separate which ought to be joined. For example, if one is a civic nationalist, one is working with an incorrect definition of “nation” which disregards ancestry, and which leaves the door open to anyone to potentially join your in-group. In addition, think of the term “Abrahamic” which stresses kinship between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and is often used these days in the context of interfaith dialogue. I would ask a Christian: regarding religion, are you “Christian” first or “Abrahamic” first? Your answer to this will have significant consequences.

These are some examples, but many more could be found.

P10. Excessive focus on internet praxis which assures that we make no real-life progress. While our enemies control the government, banking, commodity production, and so on, we colonise small portions of digital space. Go out and meet people in real life. Form a family. Build your own business, or try to rise through the ranks in your field to acquire money and power. There is no irony in making this point on the internet, since this is where most of the right currently are, and so I can reasonably expect to gain some audience for this message here.

---

More points will be forthcoming in the future, but I felt that these were some of the most urgent. Hopefully some others will have noticed these problems, and will be able to identify further issues with the right and suggest how we can get around them.