Part Two of Three.

In Part One of Three, we discussed the problem of modern conservatives who want to be truthful: an alienated underground “vanguardist” element who talk too violently about race, and a mainstream neoconservative element who don’t tackle any problem that conflicts with the diversity dogma of the mainstream left.

We are struggling with a hard problem. Democracies by their nature favor popular notions, not difficult choices. As a result, they rapidly become generators of wish fulfillment scenarios, where people talk about “could have been” and “maybe if” positions that have zero bearing to the actual consequences of our actions. Instead, we talk about feelings, emotions, possibilities, new theories and popular ideas.

As Friedrich Nietzsche and later Christopher Lasch have warned us, the problem with being human is that we have the ability to shut out the world and pay attention to only our own thoughts; social thoughts, like those of others or the memory-impressions of movies and pictures, also seem like our own thoughts. Soon we are living in a fantasy world where consequences are unimportant; conservatism is the force combating this weird human dysfunction.

From an unusual source:

But I reckoned without any knowledge of the human content of the ‘right-wing’. From the millionaires to the scared little people who attend the endless, pitiful ‘conservative’, ’100% American’, ‘old-fashioned’, ‘constitutional’, ‘states’ rights’ meetings, I learned by bitter experience that the human material of the right-wing consists 90% of cowards, dopes, nuts, one-track minds, blabbermouths, boobs, incurable tightwads and — worst of all — hobbyists, people who have come to enjoy a perverted, masochistic pleasure in telling each other forever how we are all being raped by the “shhh — you know whos,” but who, under no condition, would risk their two cars, landscaped homes, or juicy jobs to DO something about it.

I also grew to know the people my wife and I came to call the “die-hards”, for some obscure reason I can’t recall. These were the perennial ‘patriots’, the eternal attendees of meetings, the inexhaustible babblers, the super-clever know-it-alls who are going to ‘throw the election into the house this time’ and the disgusting hobbyists who discharged their pent-up ‘patriotism’ once a week or so in the masochistic orgasm they seemed to obtain by flagellating themselves with the latest outrages of the Jews. These people seemed to have been ‘fighting’ the Jews all their lives, decade after decade. Their standard reaction to anything they didn’t think up themselves in the way of new schemes for sneaking up on the Jews was, “I was fighting this thing before you were born, son.” This was supposed to send the upstart packing, as if people who had spent forty or fifty years fighting so unsuccessfully had any business opening their mouths at all. These “die-hards” would insist on bending one’s ear endlessly and at all hours of day or night. Any attempt to escape from them was taken as a personal insult. My wife and I grew to dread the sessions with the “die-hards”, who were not interested in doing anything except talk and were World Champions at the pastime. – Counter-Currents

This is an excerpt from the writings of George Lincoln Rockwell, an American National Socialist (Nazi). I don’t know much about Rockwell, but in the piece above he reveals a good deal about where conservatives are stranded: we are split between a mainstream that won’t tackle the underlying issues of our civilizational decline, and an alienated vanguard who will discuss these issues but do nothing effective about them. It’s a horrible place to be.

In Rockwell’s case, he sees the culprit as organized Jewish-Americans and Zionists; I, being more of a grim Nietzschean, see the culprit as masses of disillusioned and self-pitying people who believe in nothing but themselves. These narcissists collaborate to destroy social mores so that they feel less like failures and more like they have a purpose, but in reality, nothing will fill the holes in their souls.

The average liberal is an inwardly miserable, neurotic, self-hating, society-hating, fear-ridden and indecisive person. They cluster together to let social mores dictate the decisions they’re afraid to make themselves; at least that way they have someone to blame but themselves when things go wrong.

Either way, we as conservatives face a brutal prospect: our opposition has ideas that will always be more popular than ours because they:

  • Make excuses for individual human failures
  • Provide an “in-group” identification with a dogma
  • Point the people toward a clear scapegoat
  • Replace social order with a messianic crusade
  • Create dreams of a new social order where dogma trumps reality

It is a perfect virus. If anything goes wrong in your life, you want to hear that it isn’t your fault; the big corporations screwed you; you should quit that stupid job and become an activist, artist or musician; you will lead your people like Moses toward a new Enlightenment; when it arrives, they will all recognize you as the inner genius you secretly are.

Fast-foward back to reality, and you’re still an embittered office assistant living in a basement with more credit card debt than positive prospects. The credit card industry feasts on you because you’re the perfect victim. But in this wish-fulfillment fantasy of liberalism, you get to take your revenge and be a hero, too. It’s an immaculate daydream.

The problem is that the far right has bought into this same liberal narrative.

In their vision, which is equal parts Mein Kampf and They Live, a bunch of shadowy Semites have taken over Western civilization; things go wrong for good people because The JewsTM engineer it; you might as well quit that stupid job and become an activist-cum-jihadi; when the “Day of the Rope” arrives, the traitors hang and America transitions to a National Socialist government, you’ll be seen as the hero who never gave up in the face of adversity.

Mainstream conservatives have a similar mythos, but it’s actually much simpler: there’s a right way to do things, and a wrong way. We’ll do them the right way. Some day, when either Jesus comes back or society runs into greater instability, it’s going to be clear that We were right and everyone else had their heads where the sun don’t shine.

The problem with all of these is the same: they are projections into our future of moral judgment on a world that is not morally aware, and is governed by individuals whose individual emotional outbursts and narcissism dictates its downfall more than any organized oppressor, whether The Jews, The Racists, The Corporations or even Jesus Himself.

Until we are willing to look at the present time, and realize that politics is more than personal, we are doomed to repeat our past errors. It’s not about who was right, or will be right. It’s about avoiding patterns of behavior that we know from history are destructive and pointless. It’s a fallacy to think we lack data about our potential decisions in politics; we know each option and its approximate outcome.

Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a “brake on the vehicle of progress,” I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. – F.A. Hayek

For conservatism to be anything more than a rearguard action, it must leave behind its desire to hinder progressivism and instead invent its own idea of progress. As liberal society grinds all good things into dust, this becomes more visible and conservatives are starting to articulate it.

Parts: I II III


  1. crow says:

    There is, in reality, little to choose between far-right and far-left.
    I have exposed myself to each, and find each to be as bad as the other.
    Hatred of the perceived culprit is a common characteristic they both share.

    The future, if there is to be one, must lie in some vaguely central zone, where balance is respected, striven for, and adhered to.
    To do things differently than we have, is an evident necessity.
    Differently “how”, is the challenge.

  2. Agree that far-right and far-left usually end up with the same move. Emphasizing antagonism against the current ‘establishment’, hoping for a revolutionary occurrence or awakening of the masses. They also have in common that they focus on one issue and make that the heart of a political agenda (for example economical class difference or ethnic race difference).

    I follow your (Crow’s) reasoning, this is the intellectual move that happens: Both far-right and far-left are wrong (one might reason that libertarianism taken to the extreme leads to oligarchy, liberalism taken to the extreme leads to anarchy, socialism taken to the extreme leads to communism, and conservatism taken to the extreme leads to fascism). Therefore! The best ideology must be well-balanced course that respects the center ground and trods the path of the ‘golden-middle-road’.

    Except that is exactly what leads to:
    1 – ‘business as usual’ establishment politics
    2 – cynical power-play masking under the motto of ‘realism’
    3 – a pragmatism that is ‘value-netural’ and therefore doesn’t inspire anyone
    4 – radical ideologies provide radical solutions, but at least they have an edge of sharpness that makes them effective. Compromises between such ideologies dull the sharpness of their solutions and therefore make them less radical but also utterly ineffective

    –> Allow the proposal of drastic solutions, but subject them to rational inquiry, tests of effectiveness on small scale, before unleashing them on large scale
    –> Allow ideological stories about long-term values, transcending visions, noble ideals, but demand that politicians formulate their proposals as workable responses to the reality that surrounds us

    With other words: A summary of everything that I’ve written in ‘Our own special breed of pollen’. That article really contains a solution to your problem. The crux of the problem is that politics, if not based on objectivity, are doomed to fail. Extreme right/left movements often get so carried away by their rhetoric that everything they want falls away the moment their views and proposals face the test of objectivity. On the other hand: If everything must be objective, what are the consequences for our inspiration, our values? The answer can be found in a universal historical analysis. This points out which values lead to success and human elevation, and which lead to ruin.

  3. crow says:

    Nice. Well designed, laid out and executed, Nicholas.
    A crow can know unusual stuff, but not the nuts and bolts of human politics.
    Thanks :)

  4. Ann says:

    This whole idea that the far-right and the far-left are the same as each other is a hoax. This ties into the leftist idea that everything is equal or the same. It’s the same lie that Christianity and Islam are the same or that men and women are the same. Nicholas Marveille don’t fall for it. This is relativist, nihilist leftist talk from “crow”. Ignore him. It is only the left who desires to blur distinctions between right and wrong, truth and lies. He loves to talk about a “balance” but this “balance” is anything that is leftist. Leftist= moderate and rightist= radical. Please Nicholas Marveille do NOT listen to “crow”. He is trying to subvert conservatism from within. He is akin to right-liberals such as libertarians and neoconservatives.

    1. This is relativist, nihilist leftist talk from “crow”. Ignore him. It is only the left who desires to blur distinctions between right and wrong, truth and lies. He loves to talk about a “balance” but this “balance” is anything that is leftist.

      We accept your criticism along with any others, but request you do not post any identifying information about our commentators.

      I have no idea where crow is coming from on this, but to me, conservatism is clearly an ethic of its own. However, leftism is a mental disease. Most leftists are under the surface conservatives, but they are confused.

      I enjoy crow’s comments for their devil’s advocacy as well.

      Leftist= moderate and rightist= radical.

      I could never buy into that, however :)

  5. Ann says:

    From Peter Arnold at

    “I second Dr Charlton’s disapproval of desecrating the holy name of religion, especially that of the truth – Christianity – by comparing it to the foul modern liberal disease.

    “It’s a frequent, and erroneous, imputation from reactionary atheists to scorn religion as causing this evil when of course it was the eradication of religion, and Christianity in particular, which generated the demon of modernity.

    “Rather than conceiving of our foe in satanic, or unholy terms, they paint it as the (distorted) emanation of Religion.

    “Modernity is and always has been purely, positively atheistic and rationalistic.

    “It believes it is impossible for God to exist, and that Reason is not a mere tool of the human mind but a key which can unlock every mystery.”

    Nicholas Marville I warn you of this trend of liberalism where it masks itself as conservatism and tries to blame the consequences of liberalism and liberal failure on conservatism. Please don’t fall for it.

  6. Hami says:

    I don’t recognize the forms of government you speak of.

  7. Ken says:

    There is a developing unity of thought in the wider Conservative movement and this article shows signs of a developing world view. This is reflected in the unity of critique of the many abuses we suffer and the growing realisation that the mainstream “Patriotic Conservatives” the patriotic establishment have held us back. This has been true of some so-called Conservative sites that maintain a parochial approach while we are in this together, throughout Europe and the Anglosphere.

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 0.940 seconds