Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

THE ALT-RIGHT PRIMER

(I had to create a new post)

THE ALT-RIGHT, NEW RIGHT, THE “RESIGNED” RIGHT.

CLASS STRUCTURE;

The evolving new right consists of a series of class related discourses among which are the academics (genetics, law, intellectual history, history), the conservative libertarians (economics), the middle class ‘alt-light’, the working class ‘alt-right’, and the underclass “national-socialist-wanna-be’s”. The new right is not a class but cross class movement, that makes arguments and media for consumption for each class.

STRATEGY:

The new right has adopted the left’s use of ridicule, rallying, shaming, and identity politics, but not the left’s use of (a) pseudoscience: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor/Keynes, (b) or the postmodern use of ‘reality by chanting’ of outright falsehoods: IQ, equality of genetics (class and race), diversity, underclass reproduction; And they have combined this with hyperbolic reciprocity: Masculinity, Cultural Superiority, Racial Superiority, Separatism, and exclusivity of the family instead of the individual as the object of policy.

All of these tactics make use of techniques invented by the left (socialism: feminine reproductive strategy) as a means of rallying political control against western civilizations use of meritocracy (aristocracy: masculine reproductive strategy.)

So what you see, is the use of ridicule, and threat, in the form of hyperbolic reciprocity (doing the same but more exaggeratedly ) just as, say, Marxist radicalized the underclasses, and Alinsky radicalized the lower, working, and lower middle class. And just as the Marxists, socialists, and postmodernists promoted a means for women and males who could not otherwise climb the dominance hierarchy through merit, a method of using chanting, propaganda, pseudoscience, and pseudo-rationalism, and outright lying in order to obtain the political power necessary to overthrow the west’s Aristocratic civilization. (just as jews had, christians had, and muslims had done before the left.)

The hole in the right’s argument has always been it’s reliance upon christianity. And the right is abandoning christianity and the christian ethics and returning to aristocratic ethics, and thereby removing the left’s ability to criticize the right by suggestion that the left’s selective use of pseudoscience and empirical science was superior to the right’s use of history, science, pseudoscience and religion.

This is why the right will succeed: they are rapidly abandoning Abrahamism (the art of collective lying) and the christian ethic (tolerance) and returning to their martial aristocratic ethic (zero tolerance, truth, property, family), faster than any social change has occurred in western history -ever.

The west has always been led by a small minority of men willing to use aristocratic ethics and zero tolerance to domesticate and reduce the size of the underclasses by the use of sovereignty over life, body, action, kin, and property: reciprocity, the common law of reciprocity, the superiority of the sovereignty common law of reciprocity over all all discretionary rule, and the consequential development of ‘markets in everything’ meaning: association, cooperation, marriage, production of goods, services, and information , production of commons (houses of commons), and the production of polities (many small independent kin-states.

THE FAILED CENTURY:

The world wars and the defeat of the last aristocratic families led to the possibility of defeating Maxwell, Darwin, Pareto, Durkheim, Weber, Spencer, and Nietzsche’s restoration of the west, and the evolution of the second ‘re-crhistianization’ and therefore re-conquest of the west in the forms of marx’s restatement of christianity in pseudoscientific secular prose, and the introduction of psychological shaming by Freud, and the introduction of cultural shaming by the frankfurt school, the Right, lacking an articulated set of arguments for their aristocratic civilization other than the combination of the common law, natural law, the works of the enlightenment, doubled-down on their previous methods leaving open the door for the sale of pseudoscience to the newly economically mobile middle, lower and underclasses, by public intellectuals, the academy, and the state.

During the early half of the century, western philosophers and scientists tried to counter the left’s pseudoscience and propaganda, but were unsuccessful in completing what in retrospect was the Operationalist Revolution that would have completed the enlightenment. This failure, and the state’s use of fiat currency, and national debt, plus the circumstances of the depression, the wars, and the need for postwar recovery, were insufficient to counter the vast change in movement of the people from the farm and urban peasantry to the factory and home ownership, and a first generation’s access to higher education.

But throughout the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, the western aristocracy remained hopeful that the newly enfranchised would ‘grow up’. This never happened. And by the late seventies, when both Johnson’s great society program’s attempt to import russian relocation methods had failed, and the oil crisis had ended, conservatives understood that they had to create ‘think tanks’ to counter left’s pseudoscience, and that either the left would bankrupt the private sector and leave no choice but socialism, or the right could bankrupt the state and leave no choice but the private sector.

Unfortunately, at the time, the right did not understand that the left’s success at importing underclasses was to be so successful as to accomplish with underclass immigration to the six major immigrant cities, what could not be accomplished through advocacy of their ideas. Rather than abandon their ideas as having been successful at enfranchisement into rule of law, the left sought to destroy western aristocratic civilization, rule of law by reciprocity, markets, and then the white race in general. Nor did the right understand how successful the left’s attack on the family as the central institution of aristocratic civilization, and to replace the family with the state, and the social consequences and poverty that would result from it, reversing the success at previous integration of immigrants into rule of law by reciprocity, meritocracy, the absolute nuclear family, and the intergenerationally independent household, and the community of small businesses.

ABANDONMENT OF TRADITIONAL LIMITS

So the new right has abandoned its traditional limits so central to aristocratic civilization:

a) HONOR: The duel was practiced for all our history until the liberation of women the home by the industrial revolution. And honor was practiced because the west relied so heavily on the militia and military codes of conduct. Using ridicule or insult could be met with death. And until the 1970’s it was possible to find one’s self in a fistfight, if not a fight for one’s life if one spoke disrespectfully. However the left was successful at ‘decriminalizing dishonourable speech’ including the near removal of libel and slander. So as a consequence the working, middle, classes are actively making use of the same underclass strategies developed and mastered by the left. The difference is that it is not possible to control the internet as the left controlled centralized media, and as the monarchies controlled the press and speech. So just as the left mastered the industrialization of propaganda under mass media, the right is mastering the mass production of propaganda by individual actors over the internet by the same means. Just as the islamists have been doing. Just as the marxists did with telegraphs, telephones,world postal services, mimeographs, loudspeakers, radio, television, and the academy.

It is no longer dishonorable to use ridicule, shaming and rallying, which were previously considered ‘unmanly’ and ‘Women’s Talk’.

b) TOLERANCE AND c) NON-AGGRESSION:

While christianity, like the other abrahamic religions of judaism from which it is an heretical offshoot, and like islam, which is an heretical offshoot of christianity, relies upon the central tenet of extending kinship love to non kin – effectively ‘hyper tolerance’ so that primitive people’s can exhaust tit-for-tat tests and develop into people with whom we do not conflict over petty matters, and with whom,we can hopefully develop association, cooperation, customers, and mates across otherwise high friction clans, tribes, and nations.

This exaggeration of the optimum game theory strategy can be abused once the scale of cooperation becomes large enough (non kin) such that the investment in future cooperation can be exploited continuously as a form of parasitism.

So what is occurring is that the new right has abandoned christianity’s high tolerance in games of tit for tat, and has returned to nationalism as the limit of political tolerance, and returned to ZERO TOLERANCE within that political order, and to AGGRESSION outside of that political order.

This abandonment of ‘hopeful altruism’ even to their own kin, and especially to their ‘undesirable’ (read ‘undesirable liberal’) women, has, rapidly caused the end of christian influence and the restoration of aristocratic martial ethics – although the expression of it as such is evidently different for each class in the hierarchy.

c) VIOLENCE

At present the right is (a) expecting, planning a civil war during which they expect any one of a range of solutions, the majority of which will be met by the localization of normative (cultural) law and the limit of the federal government to its original charters of conflicts over interstate trade (narrowly defined) and conflicts beyond the borders (war). (b) developing an identity or set of identities in response to identity warfare conducted by the left in their search for power. (c) increasing their numbers; developing alliances; creating portfolios of arguments, and in general, spreading the word that this movement will be successful. The reason being that the Government, the economy, and the society has never been as fragile as this, even prior to the civil war. And that as we have learned from the muslims a very small number of men can bring down an entire country in just two weeks by nothing other than impeding the transport of goods, information, power, and water. And that demonstrations in the streets in the model of the french revolution are now immaterial. The usa is larger, but it can easily be brought down by overtaxing its internal and external institutions. Not the least of which is becuase the country has so many enemies both within and without, that all that needs to happen is for one to start (we thought black lives matter would do it. We thought Antifa might do it. ) But once one starts the others will. And while it is possible to kill one idea, it is impossible to kill that many factions.

CLOSING

All political revolutions seem impossible in prospect but obvious in retrospect. All social revolutions seem impossible in prospect but obvious in retrospect. All entrepreneurial revolutions seem impossible in prospect, but obvious in retrospect. All technological revolutions seem impossible in prospect but obvious in retrospect.

Every dark age has been preceded by a migration of inferior peoples due to their adoption of some of the technologies of superior peoples. The only means of preventing dark ages, is to domesticate and rule inferior people, rather than being invaded and destroyed by them.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine