Sunday, January 29, 2017

Brief thoughts on the Alt Right, Dissident Right and Multiculturalism

Things have been silent on my blog recently because I've been trying to catch up on some of my reading. However commentator Maple Curtain left this message in the last post which I felt warranted a reply.
Whenever I read something on your site, it seems to me that you find it easy to oppose White Nationalists, but you advance no real plan to oppose globalist multiculturalists.

There is an existential battle for civilization ongoing.

You appear to be on the side of the Jews and against the Whites.

If it is otherwise, you might want to spend more time explaining yourself and less time attacking the Alt-Right.
Firstly, I agree that there is an existential battle for civilisation going on. It's been going on for at least 100 years so I guess that there is no point of disagreement there.

Secondly, as regular readers of this blog will know, I am opposed to multiculturalism but where I and the Alt-Right differ are our the reasons.

As I've said before, Richard Spencer with help from the Mainstream media, has now co-opted the name Alt-Right in the minds of public and has achieved semantic association with his brand. So when I use the term Alt-Right it represents the ideas of Spencer & Co. i.e.

(1) The Alt-Right is hostile to Christianity.
(2) The Alt-Right believes in Genetic Calvinism. (It's understanding of the the human person is, as Trotsky would say, grounded in "Zoological Materialism")
(3) The Alt-Right believes in the ideas associated a with Ariosophy.
(4) The Alt-Right is irrationally Anti-Semitic and this irrational focus on the Jews cause it to chase the mote instead of extracting the beam in its own eye.
(5) The Alt-Right is historically revisionist.
(6) The Alt-Right as defined by Spencer is objectively Fascist--as defined by Griffin--represents a series of ideas which represent a conscious departure from the "traditional ideas of European civilisation" and replace them with a Modernist volk based nationalistic palinogenisis.(7) It rejects truth if it conflicts with its own understanding of things.

(1)(5) and (7) and partially (6) are common to Socialism. (4)(5) and (6) are common to Nazism. (3) is a New Age religion based upon end of 19th Century romantic navel gazing which came about with the abandonment of Christianity. (1) and (7) it also shares with the Neocons.

The Dissident European Right believes in;

(1) The subordination of any preconceptions to the Truth.
(2) The truth of empirical observation.
(3) The truth of Christianity or at least it's possibility. (I'm not going to go into this into detail now as I have covered this before.)

Now its obvious that Christianity and the seven points listed above are incompatible, both in values and in their metaphysical metaphysical underpinnings. It's these ideas and their metaphysics which seperate  it from the ideas which made up the "Old Europe". The aim of this blog, and those who are in sympathy with it, is to restore the "Old Europe". But it's clear from an analysis of history that the "Old Europe" had problems which for a variety of reasons (Hello Traditionalists) ensured the birth of Modernist movements which are currently in the process of destroying her.

While my analysis is still incomplete the problems with "Old Europe" were primarily cultural and religious. Namely;

(1) A false anthropology which ignored the instinctual nature of man and over emphasised his rationality.
(2) A morality which gave too little acknowledgement to instinct. (this is important with regard to multiculturalism)
(3) A morality which expected instinctual override without due understanding of the consequences of this failure.
(4) A morality which failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of the erotic dimension of human nature.
(5) A failure to appreciate the consequences of the massive increase in population in the 19th Century.
(6) A failure to appreciate the consequences of the transformation in society bought about by technology in the late 19th Century.
(7) (1) set up the legitimisation of Democracy, (5) ensured that the franchise was extended to everyone and (2) meant that practically, societal control shifted from the rational to the instinctual.

How does this all apply to my differences with the Alt-Right?

Returning to multiculturalism when the Alt-Right criticises multiculturalism it does it through the understanding that other people are hostile elements with regard to the realisation of its potential. "Become what you are" is only possible if the darkie is kicked out of the group. The other practicle problem is what to do with the suboptimising elements. "Ovening" them might be "ironical" but given the materialist conception of the human person, it might be a bit "yucky" but its pretty convenient. As a side note, while its true that Nazi Germany did not like the Jews it initially had no plans of "ovening" them, but as the war progressed and without an ideology of moral limits,  as the options became limited it became a "good" idea given the circumstances. Aryanism v2.0 turns you into a bastard who everyone hates.

On the other hand a Dissident Right opposition to multiculturalism would rest up the notion that human being are instinctual and that homophily is one of the strongest and most easily observable human behaviours. Trying to make people live against the grain of instinct is possible but its hard and the requires a strong government hand. It's "entropically unstable" with terrible consequences if the guiding hand is lifted in any social crisis. So it is best for people to live in their own groups with their own customs.  Christianity would assert that all people have a human dignitiy and therefore any manner of social reorganisation needs to be humane and done with dignity to all parties concerned.  There's no "ovening."

Oh but Slumlord, the Christians have been vicious to other peoples in the past! It's true, but it in the past it was understood that what the Christians did was bad and therefore the  Christian system tended to self correct limiting the evil.  On the other hand, the Nazi's and Communists that murdered were considered good by the ideology and therefore the murder kept multiplying.











Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Ring Fencing the Dissident Right

Speaking of Spencer and of himself, Gottfried said, “I think it is probably a trick that history plays on thinkers. But I think you’re right—he says that I’m his mentor. I think I’m his reluctant mentor, I’m not particularly happy about it.” He sighed. “Whenever I look at Richard, I see my ideas coming back in a garbled form.”*

A few weeks ago Nick B Steves posted a image which attempted to define the boundaries of the Alt-Right, something I want to make a few comments on.

I want to start off by saying that this is not a dig at Nick, rather it's criticism, in good faith, of several problems that I see with it.

Firstly, Richard Spencer and his ilk own the Alt-Right brand. This ownership hasn't been conferred to him by anyone in particular, but the fact is that mainstream usage of words confers upon them their meaning. To be fair, the Spencerites have always assumed the title but now that the media sees Spencer as the official embodiment of the Alt-Right the mainstream usage of the word has become associated with him and his ideas. And the ideas are certainly not those advocated by Gottfried when he first raised the term.  Spencer, working with the media, have been able to twist its meaning.

What this means is that anyone who is opposed to mainstream "Conservatism" and who is opposed to Aryanism v2.0 needs to find another name to call themselves to stress that distinction in the public sphere. As far as I'm concerned the term, Dissident Right, is as good as any. It's also important for the Dissident Right to make a public disavowal of the Alt-Right, since the Alt-Right's main tactic--assisted by the mainstream media--is to be to claim other non-mainstream Right movements as their own. Given that some of the Alt-Right's positions give the appearance of being in agreement with the Dissident Right this tactic causes conflation errors amongst cognitive misers--i.e. most of the public--who associate all these movements as one.  The odium of Aryanism gets spread onto other movements by this mechanism and people like Gottfried have to spend their time defending themselves from beliefs that they don't hold.

Spencer might be a likeable, courageous and edgy guy, but his ideas and more importantly, the metaphysical garbage they bring with them, are toxic. It needs to be remembered that solution for left wing stupidity is not right wing stupidity and for a Christian like me, materialism repackaged as Aryanism v2.0 is stupid.

Secondly, what this image needs despite the graphic difficulty is a third (z) axis labelled Positivist and Trancedentalist, because this is where the serious ideological battles of 20th Century lay. Spencer's  vision is Positivist;  I'm not, therefore any "Right" that Spencer belongs to mutually exclusive to mine.

The Great Battle in Western Civilisation has been between Christian Transcendentalism and Materialist Positivism. Positivism got the upper hand about the time of World War 1 and has been reigning triumphant since. The major ideological battles within the 20th Century have been between the various positivistic factions and quite simply the argument about how to arrange the deck chairs of societal institutions misses the bigger picture of the ship sinking.  There is no survival of the West without a break from Positivism. Anybody who doesn't grasp this fact is arranging deck chairs.

I feel that the minimum membership criteria for inclusion into a Dissident Right which represents Western Civilisation should be:

1) A belief in the Truth.
2) An intention to calibrate act and understanding towards the Truth.
3) A belief in empirical data.
4) The belief in a Christian Transcendentalism, or at it's very minimum, a non-hostility towards it.

I want nothing to do with the Alt-Right and disavow them.

I belong to the Dissident Right.


*The article from which this quote was pulled  is a lot of rubbish in my opinion, but Gottfried's quote was good.



Sunday, December 25, 2016

Merry Christmas





It's been one hell of a year!

To all my long suffering blog readers and commentators, a very Merry Christmas to you all!




Monday, December 12, 2016

Peterson on Biopolitics

Jordan Peterson gave this really good interview with Rebel media with regard to the origin of Social Justice Warriors. It's a very good talk because Peterson is able to expand upon several topics that this blog has touched upon in the past.

In the past, this blog has tried to raise awareness on the subject of System 1 and System 2 thinking. System 1 thinking, the "low effort cognitive state" is strongly influenced by personality and disposition, System 2 being less so. As Peterson--and his assistant--point out in this video, the dividing lines between Conservative and Liberal are based primarily in their dispositional states. In other words, for most people the political divide is as a result of motivated "low effort cognition" and is not the product of dispassionate reasoning on the various aspect of the political economy.  What this means is that politics, for many is an instinctive response, something Orwell directly alluded to when he wrote, "Ingsoc bellyfeel good."

Prior to the First World War, when at least in Europe, power was held by the ruling cultured and educated elite, there was a good chance that political decision making had a degree of rationality about it. However, with the democratisation of the West, the enfranchisement of the masses has meant that when it comes to political decision making, the center of gravity has drifted from the rational to the instinctual.  For the majority, Left and Right are "bellyfeel"--intuitive--associations.

Peterson also goes into the dispositional states which lead to totalitarian personality types, especially with the need for order. Interestingly, Peterson recounts how the Frankfurt school was able to influence psychology in denying outright the existence left wing authoritarianism which has hampered the study of it. This in turn ties nicely with Griffin's recognition that our understanding of Fascism has been strongly influenced by the Marxist nature of academia.

What's really interesting is the how the "maternal" dispositional type steers politics to the Left, or more significantly to "compassionate" societies.  From a biopolitical perspective, Testosterone is the hormone of the Right and Estrogen the hormone of the Left.  Restricting the democratic vote to men resulted in a battle between High T and low T, adding women to the franchise, shifted it profoundly towards "compassionate" big government. That's universal suffrage for you.

Peterson recognises that there are a lot of similarities between Left wing and Right wing totalitarians. The Right aims at homogeneity by exclusion, whereas the Left aim at homogeneity by inclusion. The important point here is that action is strongly influenced by biologically inherited disposition modified by environment.

Peterson recognises that that people see the world through their temperament and some are able to get beyond it, but as the work of  Stanovich, Kahneman and Tversky demonstrate, very few are capable of rationality.  The "temperamental" lens, I think, should be a foundational instrument of the Dissident Right with regards to analyzing the effects of democratic movements in the 20th Century.

It's a very good presentation which I'd strongly recommend my readers to view.

Friday, December 09, 2016

Peterson on Tradition



In the previous post, there was a very interesting segment where Jordan Peterson expounds on the relationship between dogma and innovation. I think this is a very important segment since it highlights a problem that many Rightists miss. While it is quite easy to recognise the errors of liberalism, a rigid Traditionalism is just as toxic.

It's this blogs' contention that Traditionalists were the midwifes of the modern world. By placing Tradition above Truth, the Traditionalists ensured that doctrinal developments which would have given the Faith the capacity to combat the modern world were left stillborn.  Notice how Peterson formulates the the need to be vigilant and observant, and to update Tradition in accordance with the Truth, not fashion or preference.

A good example of this tension between Tradition and Truth is currently at play in the Catholic Church. While I'm not an enthusiastic fan of Francis, and am fully aware of the indissolubility of marriage, there does appear to be at least some Biblical legitimacy for "non mortal" divorce. There is a predictable pushback from the Conservatives against the Pope which I find hilarious, as these same Conservatives were the ones who previously insisted on the need for the faithful to be obedient on the grounds of Papal Authority alone. As I've said before, the Liberals are the easy to identify villains, the less obvious ones are Conservatives, who stop any form of doctrinal development and regard the faith as complete.

The segment in question can be found here.

Monday, December 05, 2016

Social Pathologist Approved

Commentator Greg sent me a Youtube link to this video for which I'm extremely grateful.

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian academic who spoken out against the Gender Pronoun laws in Canada and fully understands where this is going. It's a long video but that last 25 minutes are worth the view.
It also links up with my last post, making TRUTH the cornerstone of Rightist thought.

Peterson is one righteous bastard.

Honour and Respect.


Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Right Club


I am not a Conservative. Sometimes I have used the term loosely, especially when I was first called to on publicly to classify myself. I have since been as circumspect as possible in using the term about myself. I say: I am a man of the Right

Whittaker Chambers.
 One of the things that became apparent in reading Weaver's, Right Wing Critics of American Conservatism, is that "membership" of the Right was predicated primarily on being in opposition to the Left. I don't want to blame Weaver too much for this approach, since it is pretty much reflects the mainstream understanding of the Left/Right dichotomy. Weaver attempts to give the division some more philosophical rigor by placing the divide along the lines of those who oppose the idea of equality--the Right--and those who embrace it, i.e. the Left.

If you think about it, there are several serious problems with this approach.

Firstly, it tends to make the Left the reference metric with regard to the determination of the Right and by definition "frames" our understanding of the Right by defining it as NOT(Left). Now the Left understands itself as the only true revolutionary force and that its all of its opponents are reactionary elements hence, anyone who rejects the Left's definition of itself is automatically a Rightist. This also includes Leftist sectarians who are "not with the Program." Stalin, for example, was intellectually consistent from a Left perspective when he claimed that Trotsky, who was not with the program, was a fascist.

Unfortunately given the Leftward drift of our societies, this view is given a lot of mainstream credence, even amongst the unthinking Right, so that anyone "who is against them is with us". Or, in other words, we don't punch to the Right--that is the Right as defined by the Left. Part of the reason why this approach works is that human psychology judges on the appearance and not the substance and as long as progressivism can be given a "Right" veneer, it will be understood by the Lumpenproletariat as "Right Wing".

Take Fascism for instance, the Left defines it as a Right wing phenomenon, and intuitively it feels so, however upon closer scrutiny, we see from a study of history is of Fascism is that it is a heresy that arose from Socialism, its bastard child, so to speak, and therefore shares the same genetics. On the other hand, throne and altar Integralism arises from a totally different intellectual lineage which is opposed to the fascists/socialist DNA. Yet under a Left mandated taxonomy it puts both of them in the same camp.

But suppose we made the reference metric Traditionalism instead of Leftism, then the worlds ideologies could be divided into those which are traditional and those which are progressive. Under this metric both Fascism and Socialism are seen as part of the same progressive grouping.

Indeed, where one sits on the political spectrum is dependent on what one uses as a measuring stick. Unfortunately, for the Right, we've been quite happy to use other peoples metrics to define ourselves and this I believe has seriously hampered our ability to fight back, since many of our percieved allies have ultimately undercut us either explicitly or by being based upon a philosophical systems which are ultimately mutually incompatible. NeoConservatism, for example, has its philosophical roots in the Left and its triumph over Paleoconservatism shifted the Conservative establishment to the Left.

Secondly, by failing to define what it means to be "Right wing" on its own terms has meant that the Right has been awful in its discrimination when it come to choosing allies with who to fight the Left.

Take for example the Spencerian Alt Right. Spencer's advocacy of ethnic nationalism appealed to many people, as it does to me to a certain degree, but underlying philosophy which motivated Spencer is opposed to any type of  Western Tradition. His advocacy of abortion, his anti-Christianity, his tolerance of sexual degeneracy and his genetic determinism are staples of progressive thought which has more in common with the Left than the Traditional Right. Should the broader Alt-Right have won any battle it soon would be in conflict with the Alt-Reich for control and the movement as a whole would self destruct. My opposition to Spencer was the he was a Leftist in Right wing clothing.

What I think is most important task for the Right, at the moment, is to define itself explicitly. I've got a couple of suggestions, but before I do that, I want to return to Weaver's understanding of the Right as being those who are opposed to equality.

Why, exactly, is the Right opposed to equality? I personally don't think that it is a result of simple value preference, rather, the empirical experience of life demonstrates the manifest fact of inequality.  In other words, the Right believes in inequality, because human inequality is a TRUTH of life.

The concept of TRUTH is the core of the Left-Right divide, both in its understanding of what constitutes the TRUTH and the willingness to bend the knee to it. Quite simply, to be a man of the Right it means to believe and bend the knee to the TRUTH. To be a man of the Right it means living as if the TRUTH matters.

Now the Philosophical treatment of the concept of the Truth is beyond the scope of this blogpost but if I had to define what it means to belong to the European Right, as understood for the last two millennia, I would say the following;

Firstly, a belief in a reality that exists outside of ones self.
Secondly, a belief that the totally of reality that is only partially perceptible (i.e a rejection of Positivism)
Thirdly, of that which is perceptible, the truth of empirical observation.
Fourthly, the validity of logic and reason.
Fifthly, a belief in a Christian God, which as a result of our limitation to fully perceive reality, has given knowledge of Himself and His wishes through the act of revelation.

European Civilization rests on these five points. Reject any one of these and you're not a man of the European Right.