For a change, the Right should demote loudmouths

on_the_internet_no_one_can_tell

The Roosh V drama brought to light a troubling aspect of the Right, which is that we tend to give credence to angry, simplistic voices demanding ideological when we should look toward more realistic solution. These “loudmouths” infest every right-wing movement and inevitably drive away good people because they are fanatical without reason.

Against Roosh they raised, repetitively, two basic points: he is not white, and he writes about casual sex. The first point is non-serious, since anyone who is saying anything that supports our viewpoint is an ally and keeping them out because they are not of Us is the most reductionist form of nationalism. We should accept truths found anywhere and make them work for us. The second is something I find troubling as well, but when I see a voice that is partially broken and partially fixed, especially if it has gone from broken to mostly fixed, I see an ally who is only improving in clarity. We all have our mistakes to regret.

More importantly, however, the loudmouths clarified their role as destroyers. Simplistic approaches to our task result in “policing” of membership as a means of selecting only those with strong simple statements of ideology, which produces fanatics who cannot consider any of the subtleties of applying their beliefs — and are thus likely to engage in the thuggery, sneering superiority complexes and other behavior which will drive normal, well-adjusted people away. Loudmouths destroy the right by sacrificing its future audience for its present clubhouse mentality.

Strong statements appeal to the right because we face a mental virus, liberalism, which succeeds because it is simple. Liberalism boils down to a single idea: individualism, or the notion that the individual should not be accountable to social standards or results. Phrased as “equality,” this belief polarizes people because it appeals to their fear of being insufficient or wrong and demands they be included and tolerated despite mistakes. Conservatives have always thirsted for a similar statement that in its simplicity conveys strength.

At this blog, it has been suggested for many years that conservatism is not actually that much more complex. We have two basic beliefs, realism and transcendentalism. Realism means we take the world as it is and act on it according to its order, not our desires for what “should be”; transcendentalism means that while doing so, we steer ourselves always to what is best and not merely utilitarian or adequate. We have the simple, clear path we need.

However, as any realist will remind you, people are unequal — and minds are unequal. Each person understands what he can comprehend and those at the lower end of the curve will over-simplify to their level of understanding. In human groups, the tendency is to go after emotional statements or ideologically extreme simplistic ones because those are easily understood.

For this reason, the Right must police itself, but not in the simple “blue team vs. red team” way that the loudmouths desire. We need a hierarchy where the more accurate voices come out on top, not the clearer (i.e. simpler, louder, angrier) ones. We do not need to replicate Fox News in the alternative Right, new right, underground right, etc. We need to return to the days of statesmen and orators where the whole truth was heard.

We can see the loudmouth travesty play out wherever conservatism appeals because liberalism has failed. A normal person goes seeking answers, and gets back a rant on God, guns and the flag (plus “working hard” at do-nothing, pointless jobs). Someone goes to a white nationalist and instead of finding a working solution, encounters angry people who are more concerned with harming other races than promoting their own. Naturally, people of sound mind flee from these crazies, which gives the crazies the clubhouse they want: everyone inside must bow to their authority now, or be driven out and called nasty names.

In my experience, most of these loudmouths are only partially extracted from liberalism. They are still seeking the great simple ideological imperative through some kind of victimhood status. If given power, they will degenerate conservatism into a right-flavored form of liberalism as a result. Our hierarchy needs to push the loudmouths down to the bottom where they can stop driving away everyone who does not share their simplistic perspective.

As conservatives, we are grim realists who can understand that diversity, democracy, pluralism and equality are illusions which will never work. We can see that our society is in full decline and must be arrested by radical action. But we are not radicals for radicalism’s sake, which is what the loudmouths are, nor are we acting out emotional fantasies as they are. It is time to recapture our initiative from these people who will destroy it.

Published by

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens has written about realism since the late 1980s. His work can be found at RightOn, American Renaissance, Return of Kings, Counter-Currents, Alternative Right and Aristokratia.

22 thoughts on “For a change, the Right should demote loudmouths”

  1. Well said, Brett. Couldn’t agree more. Like cuckservatives, the Alt-Right loudmouths are more interested in being holy than in achieving power. These are not reasonable, pragmatic people seeking realistic solutions.

    And of course, the loudmouths themselves are not in a position to demand purity. If, for example, the Alt-Right were to ban Asian race-fetishists, video game nerds, autistics, spergs, virgin incels, and anime enthusiasts, the loudmouths would likely find themselves out in the cold.

    If we’re going to start policing the Alt-Right, let’s be thorough about it.

  2. One word stands out and screams WRONG.
    I notice it, more and more, from conservatives, and that word is ‘ideology‘.

    The right seems to be increasingly doing the left, who are the originators of ideology.
    I submit that conservatism is the lack of ideology, and the presence of Reality.

    By constructing an ideology, self-defeat gets woven right into the fabric, ensuring it will fail.

    Things are a certain way, and that way is Reality. Humans have nothing to do with it, and may either fit themselves to it, or set themselves against it. Reality will remain what it is, no matter what stance humans adopt, no matter what their ideology.

  3. In that case there is really only one belief because transcendentalism is dwarfed next to realism. Realism is so much, in itself, that transcendence comes with it. Or you could call it humility, serving reality by finding your place. A small part in a much greater scheme.

    1. Maybe, but here’s why Transcendental beliefs are crucial: Realism alone cannot tell us what our AIMS should be.

      But once we have decided on certain aims, whatever they may turn out to be, it is THEN that we apply a realistic method to achieve those ie. a method that is likely to achieve those aims in the real world, not just something that flatters people’s egos (until the shit hits the fan, of course).

      1. Aims are not part of Reality. They are what we reasonably decide are worth striving for, given our understanding of Reality.
        Therefore transcendence is, itself, an aim.

        1. I also think we humans need the two to balance one another; reality is our language, transcendence our direction. One describes, and the other prescribes.

          Reality is all that which is not us, although (paradox, seemingly) we are part of it, and we understand it entirely through ourselves.

          1. We only think we understand Reality.
            Transcendence involves the realization that we don’t, can’t, and should not aim to.
            To run with it, in the direction it travels, is the key to humans becoming part of Reality.
            This is what transcendence is: not rising above, but humbling ourselves to the greater Reality. It is the essence of what conservatives strive for, without realizing what they do, or how it’s done.
            If your aim is to be part of Reality, understanding it is hardly relevant. Becoming it, joining with it, is.

      2. It’s important to remember where this split between realities and goals originates: David Hume. Hume considered real only what we can ascertain with our senses. In his strict view, that excludes things like history and causation. From the current state of the world it is impossible to decide what the future state of the world should be.

        However, when having aims, we must presuppose our conscious work can lead towards those aims. That means we have to presuppose past, causation, and future even though those are things we can’t see, smell, or touch. When we leave Hume’s premises, we must also question his conclusions.

        Whatever the aims, we need to be able to reach them. From past experience we can see there is an order in nature, and studying that order shows there are ways that can reach almost any goal. These are virtues.

        To know how to walk, all we need to ‘transcend’ are Hume’s strict boundaries of ‘correct thought’. Accept history, causation, and future, and you reach – after a time spent observing reality – virtues.

        Study enough, and you will know that human life doesn’t end with you. It is no longer a necessity, but many of us find our ambitions reaching beyond our lifespans. I’d venture to say love is unknown to those who don’t. This is why virtue, too, reaches outside of our lives. We live well to set an example, we are harsh so our loved ones don’t grow weak. Nurturing virtue in future people and societies is a goal as in ‘a future state of the world to aim for’.

        These aren’t the necessities of a logical model a la Hume, but that doesn’t make them arbitrary.

        1. “Whatever the aims, we need to be able to reach them”

          Yes – the technique we apply to reach them should be based in reality. But I disagree that being reality based ALONE can allows us to determine those aims (if that WAS what you were trying to say).

          Philosophical disagreements on the internet are practically always caused by the two parties each thinking of slightly different connotations to the term under discussion. The fact that you’ve brought Hume into the discussion shows that you have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

          Yes, I too have read his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (AND his Treaty of Human Nature, for that matter) several years ago and, yes, he does split realities and goals (though it didn’t really start with him) – but only because he rejected the Transcendent, and this for the reasons you then gave: he had the fundamental belief that empiricism was the only justifiable framework for making statements about reality. I was arguing that you need both transcendent aims AND an empirical approach (ie. using sense-data to learn from nature and, by extension, history) together, whereas Hume was only arguing for the latter.

          And having GOOD fundamental beliefs (eg. a belief that Beauty and Goodness exist not wholly subjectively) is, roughly, what I mean by having Transcendental aims. So what you said was all true, though only strengthens my point further.

  4. Love this. I’m really sick and tired of these obnoxious, self-righteous, hypocritical, and puritanical loundmouth white nationalist here on the alt-right who want to attack all non-white minority allies for whatever reason they do it. In fact the alt-right is growing more and more mentally unstable by the day with it constant ideological civil wars and liberal subverting tearing it apart with ease. Also their self-rightous attack on the manosphere is self-destructive since the manosphere is vital gateway to the alt-right as i can personally atest to this fact and i’m not a fan of them either. Their personal lives seem to be in shambles if it exist at all. More and more alt-righters are distancing themselves from the alt-right for the reasons stated above.

    I’m not optimistic about the alt-right at all in their ability to combat the left. In fact Donal Trump, the manopshere, and the /pol/ gang are doing a much better job at fighting the left then they are.

    1. There’s hope for anyone who recognizes the value of Trump. It doesn’t matter who or what else he is, it is his opposition to PC that defines his immense value.
      PC should be the target of choice. It, alone, reduces humans to the level of termites. Anything or anyone who illustrates this, is a high-value ally.

    2. We don’t have allies outside of our race. There are reasonable non-White people out there but, they are not the allies of the Alt-Right. They want to try to fix the existing system. Anything beyond that, and they are by nature our competitors. Many Alt Right friends of theirs get awfully self righteous about “transcending” their races and having black friends “in lieu of their views.” That’s why people talk shit about it. As for the 1488 types, they attack everybody of other races, not just reasonable people of other races.

      The manosphere is dead and should have been planned to be temporary just like gamer gate.

      1. The manosphere is far too huge compared to the alt-right to be considered dead. Hence the media crying about Roosh. Both are a small part of something much larger in my opinion. Both are still relevant. A moment only becomes dead when it becomes irreverent, like feminism, moderates and mainstream conservatism for examples.

        1. The manosphere was transitional. The reason is because it takes the role of being a sub-culture. Once a subculture mainstreams in any shape, way or form then, it is dead. It has dies without serving its proposed purpose. As for the illusion of so called relevance: every crusader in this day and age rides dead horses. This has been the case since the Revolutionary War. Furthermore, there are numbers behind MGTOW. Is MGTOW not dead?

          1. “The manosphere was transitional. The reason is because it takes the role of being a sub-culture. Once a subculture mainstreams in any shape, way or form then, it is dead. It has dies without serving its proposed purpose.”

            Looks like the alt-right will share the same fate as it is also and sub-culture. No?

            Of course MGTOW is dead by definition as it serves no purpose at all.

            1. Of course it will. Once it becomes mainstream, it will no longer be alternative. It would be even better if it became the status quo. Of course, I would prefer NRx to be the focus. I would settle for Her Majesty having absolute power if it meant real leadership. That and, as a child of the Empire, I kind of view the English Empire with rose tinted glasses as the “good old days.”

  5. The first thing that came to my mind when reading this was Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly. Then I realized you were probably talking about internet personalities who are flat out Alt Right.

  6. Well said. The distinction between right-wing loudmouth and the smart ones, are extremely important. I had not thought of this distinction so explicity, so thanks for pointing it out.

    In Denmark, we have some smart conservatives MP’s. I hope, the same is true for other countries. What i do, is sharing their best facebook updates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *