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.
Excellent. I have pondered on many of these points myself at some stage or other. Every point has its own merits and is worthy of an article unto itself but that might be overdosing on the blackpills l think.
Technology is a hard one: it presents new opportunities and is liberating as such but too much of it becomes self-inhibiting and counter-productive both to the individual and the broader movement.
Your point on reactionary thinking inspired me to comment on a controversial issue, and one that even as a Traditionalist is frustrating to debate, precisely because Left and Right think the issue is one of "either/or". If you haven't guessed it already, it's the Abortion debate, where it is truly NOT a simple matter of pro-life versus pro-choice but a deeper issue pertaining to a society that simply doesn't know Discipline and heroic action. Actually, I just realized that pro-life/pro-choice also showcases one of the other points you raise, since this is an issue exclusively for the "christian right" rather than for pagan or traditionalist right wing folks (hence a lack of common values).
Any right-winger who is unconditionally pro-life is an idiot, because that would imply that a white woman raped (and impregnated) by an African migrant is technically-obligated to birth this mixed race child. Isn't it more a matter of defining circumstances such as these when Abortion is permissible, since it would actually benefit the White-Aryan race? Also, I told our kind before that it is better to have 1 healthy child than 5 unhealthy ones. There are several medical and racial reasons why white right-wing folks should think abortion beneficial (in such circumstances where it would be wise and heroic to do so).
Although this is the praxis, as far as theory goes, the issue is beyond abortion. It is a question of reeducating people to have a disciplined lifestyle overall, and to end the prevailing sexually-promiscuous and sexually permissive culture we live in. Perhaps abstinence and focus on procreation would reduce the number of unwanted but consensually-conceived pregnancies. As far as rape is concerned, it is truly awful and we must remember that in no noble society would honest and virtuous men consider doing such a thing, so instead of focusing on the rape victim we should focus on removing rapists and sex-offenders and the debate should be less about "should a rape victim carry her unwanted child?" to "should we sterilize, or eliminate sexual deviants?"
"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"
It's here to stay right until the point it disappears or becomes priced out of reach for most. We will not be immune from the Seneca effect of growth being slow but ruin rapid. People always assume their civilization and tech will last forever but the arc and cycle of history tends repeatedly towards 'dark ages' where technologies collapse and disappear from common use for large periods of time.
I don't agree that railing against it is futile entirely either - cloning is something we have the technology to do but due to pushback it has not happened, same with gene editing and other such bio-technological innovations.
My contention was that hostility to technology "as such" is futile. It may be possible to restrict the development of particular technologies or divert them towards better uses than might otherwise be made of them. Furthermore, total collapse is extremely unlikely. Collapse typically involves a reversion to a less advanced state, not a complete loss of technology. "Collapse" in our system would look more like a great power losing the ability to put men in space, not all of the lights going off.
Collapse is not a doomsday lights go off all or nothing deal. Collapse is a process of decline that starts with inability to put men in space and progresses. Complete loss of technology may not be in our lifetime or perhaps even our children but I don't think it is inconceivable. The civilizational technology we have is entirely contingent on cheap energy. If we are thinking generationally (as we should be) this isn't a trivial concern, we have never existed at a time with such cheap energy but nothing is infinite.
I'm a person 'of the left' so when I'm reading this list, I keep asking myself, 'How are these right-wing problems?' P1 and P3 are both tendencies that are more 'Right' than not. P1 because of the Right's embrace of the 'great man' theory of historical change and P3 because it is hard for me to imagine any historical version of right-wing thinking that doesn't embrace the notion of 'fate'.
I bring this up because the 'folkish' material published on this block could, with some minor adjustments for terminology, easily be embraced by people far-removed from the political and economic Right.
What I'm trying to say is that 'the right' maybe isn't the best description of where this political-economic-social tendency actually is.
Maybe you're pigeon-holing yourselves.
Maybe the essence of what's being worked out is a transcendence of the politics of delayed adulthood that has persisted for almost a thousand years.
Maybe its time we stopped talking to the masses as children or trying to seduce them with shiny baubles and, instead, seek to craft a discourse that allows us to talk to them like adults.
Some of these problems are to be found on the left as well; but I am not interested in helping them, so this post was addressed to the right. I am well aware of the difficulties with the term "right". However, there is a broad grouping of people who share some views in common with myself who call themselves "right-wing". Therefore, to draw these people in, to make clear that this message is for them, I used the term "right". Personally I use the term "folkish" to describe my own views. Obviously the goal in the long-run is to bring as many people as possible over to this worldview, but I would like to consolidate the group that calls itself "the right" first.
The way political conversion works is that a cluster of interrelated ideas (ideology) emerges that provides the framework onto which people hang their preexisting desires and dislikes in such a way as to displace the centrality of their prior commitments and to center the overt and implied commitments of the new cluster of ideas.
A political posture that upholds the value of race, culture and the natural world while rejecting universalist fantasies (like 'equality' or 'human rights') is one that could erase most existing political differences and create a new central tendency in political-economic discourse (and policy).
'The Right' is the incubator for this discourse because the dissident Right is better organized than the dissident Left (believe it or not). The opportunity is for 'this side' (whatever you want to call it) to craft the ideology for the future. Or not.
I see great promise in the folkish texts you've published. I think the core concepts of people-place-land-culture embedded in a discourse of protection and cultivation has the potential to deal the deathblow to liberal universalism.
The Left is not going to be saved.
But neither is the Right.
When this is all done, none of those positions will make any sense at all.
Excellent summary of some of the main issues we face. Each point generated several ideas; great food for thought.
Clearly a bit of a balancing act is needed between spiralling into theory, and going off half cocked without defining what you're trying to achieve.
A good list for anyone trying to break away from the "10 year old liberal ideas" model of most modern right wing political groups.
Great stuff…a lot to think about here.
Excellent. I have pondered on many of these points myself at some stage or other. Every point has its own merits and is worthy of an article unto itself but that might be overdosing on the blackpills l think.
Technology is a hard one: it presents new opportunities and is liberating as such but too much of it becomes self-inhibiting and counter-productive both to the individual and the broader movement.
Your point on reactionary thinking inspired me to comment on a controversial issue, and one that even as a Traditionalist is frustrating to debate, precisely because Left and Right think the issue is one of "either/or". If you haven't guessed it already, it's the Abortion debate, where it is truly NOT a simple matter of pro-life versus pro-choice but a deeper issue pertaining to a society that simply doesn't know Discipline and heroic action. Actually, I just realized that pro-life/pro-choice also showcases one of the other points you raise, since this is an issue exclusively for the "christian right" rather than for pagan or traditionalist right wing folks (hence a lack of common values).
Any right-winger who is unconditionally pro-life is an idiot, because that would imply that a white woman raped (and impregnated) by an African migrant is technically-obligated to birth this mixed race child. Isn't it more a matter of defining circumstances such as these when Abortion is permissible, since it would actually benefit the White-Aryan race? Also, I told our kind before that it is better to have 1 healthy child than 5 unhealthy ones. There are several medical and racial reasons why white right-wing folks should think abortion beneficial (in such circumstances where it would be wise and heroic to do so).
Although this is the praxis, as far as theory goes, the issue is beyond abortion. It is a question of reeducating people to have a disciplined lifestyle overall, and to end the prevailing sexually-promiscuous and sexually permissive culture we live in. Perhaps abstinence and focus on procreation would reduce the number of unwanted but consensually-conceived pregnancies. As far as rape is concerned, it is truly awful and we must remember that in no noble society would honest and virtuous men consider doing such a thing, so instead of focusing on the rape victim we should focus on removing rapists and sex-offenders and the debate should be less about "should a rape victim carry her unwanted child?" to "should we sterilize, or eliminate sexual deviants?"
"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"
It's here to stay right until the point it disappears or becomes priced out of reach for most. We will not be immune from the Seneca effect of growth being slow but ruin rapid. People always assume their civilization and tech will last forever but the arc and cycle of history tends repeatedly towards 'dark ages' where technologies collapse and disappear from common use for large periods of time.
I don't agree that railing against it is futile entirely either - cloning is something we have the technology to do but due to pushback it has not happened, same with gene editing and other such bio-technological innovations.
My contention was that hostility to technology "as such" is futile. It may be possible to restrict the development of particular technologies or divert them towards better uses than might otherwise be made of them. Furthermore, total collapse is extremely unlikely. Collapse typically involves a reversion to a less advanced state, not a complete loss of technology. "Collapse" in our system would look more like a great power losing the ability to put men in space, not all of the lights going off.
Collapse is not a doomsday lights go off all or nothing deal. Collapse is a process of decline that starts with inability to put men in space and progresses. Complete loss of technology may not be in our lifetime or perhaps even our children but I don't think it is inconceivable. The civilizational technology we have is entirely contingent on cheap energy. If we are thinking generationally (as we should be) this isn't a trivial concern, we have never existed at a time with such cheap energy but nothing is infinite.
I'm a person 'of the left' so when I'm reading this list, I keep asking myself, 'How are these right-wing problems?' P1 and P3 are both tendencies that are more 'Right' than not. P1 because of the Right's embrace of the 'great man' theory of historical change and P3 because it is hard for me to imagine any historical version of right-wing thinking that doesn't embrace the notion of 'fate'.
I bring this up because the 'folkish' material published on this block could, with some minor adjustments for terminology, easily be embraced by people far-removed from the political and economic Right.
What I'm trying to say is that 'the right' maybe isn't the best description of where this political-economic-social tendency actually is.
Maybe you're pigeon-holing yourselves.
Maybe the essence of what's being worked out is a transcendence of the politics of delayed adulthood that has persisted for almost a thousand years.
Maybe its time we stopped talking to the masses as children or trying to seduce them with shiny baubles and, instead, seek to craft a discourse that allows us to talk to them like adults.
Some of these problems are to be found on the left as well; but I am not interested in helping them, so this post was addressed to the right. I am well aware of the difficulties with the term "right". However, there is a broad grouping of people who share some views in common with myself who call themselves "right-wing". Therefore, to draw these people in, to make clear that this message is for them, I used the term "right". Personally I use the term "folkish" to describe my own views. Obviously the goal in the long-run is to bring as many people as possible over to this worldview, but I would like to consolidate the group that calls itself "the right" first.
The way political conversion works is that a cluster of interrelated ideas (ideology) emerges that provides the framework onto which people hang their preexisting desires and dislikes in such a way as to displace the centrality of their prior commitments and to center the overt and implied commitments of the new cluster of ideas.
A political posture that upholds the value of race, culture and the natural world while rejecting universalist fantasies (like 'equality' or 'human rights') is one that could erase most existing political differences and create a new central tendency in political-economic discourse (and policy).
'The Right' is the incubator for this discourse because the dissident Right is better organized than the dissident Left (believe it or not). The opportunity is for 'this side' (whatever you want to call it) to craft the ideology for the future. Or not.
I see great promise in the folkish texts you've published. I think the core concepts of people-place-land-culture embedded in a discourse of protection and cultivation has the potential to deal the deathblow to liberal universalism.
The Left is not going to be saved.
But neither is the Right.
When this is all done, none of those positions will make any sense at all.