Forward

Part One of Three.

Conservatism fractured in 1945. With the defeat of the Axis powers, mainstream conservatives moved away from traditional views on Social Darwinism and race. This in turn drove many conservatives underground into enclaves which increasingly distanced themselves from mainstream discourse.

However, in order to achieve change in a Western nation, and not just a democracy, political actors must engage with mainstream discourse and master it as a conduit for their views. This clashes with the demands of the already-alienated to remain ideologically “pure.”

For us to understand why this split is important, we need to look at one of the basic pitfalls of human cognition — cause/effect logic (forward thinking) and its inversion:

  • Forward: They see an effect, and trace it back to its cause, knowing that until you understand the mechanism of cause and effect, you cannot simply correlate events proximate in time and claim those as the causes. You must find out what actually caused it. This the root of our scientific method and any logical analysis we perform; it is thwarted when people think linearly, and correlate proximate cause or proximate event to effect, and so never understand the underlying mechanism.
  • Backward: These act on impulses they do not understand, and then justify them to others, because people who act on impulses they do not understand are unable to conceive of a world beyond human judgment, whether their own or that of others. These people operate on emotions, feelings, appearances, and social popularity. They are oblivious to the consequences (effects) of their action as they are oblivious to all cause/effect linkages.

Someone who thinks in a forward way may seem to miss the “spirit” or “big point” of an issue, while someone who thinks in a backward way may be easily understood, seem to be truthful, and yet be preaching a good game as a justification for their actions or impulses after the fact, and not as a reason for deliberate action on their part.

Jane Austen, a brilliant observer of social pathology, noted this in her groundbreaking Pride and Prejudice.

A certain fellow named Wickham seems to be good, moral and honest; but he is working backward, or getting himself into situations and then explaining his way out of them using social tokens we all understand, like morality, false honesty, goodness, compassion and so on. The intelligent young woman protagonist stumbles into his web, but extracts herself as she sees a lack of deliberate, cause/effect oriented behavior on his part.

On the other hand, the semi-autistic nerdly aloof fellow who she thinks is completely off-base turns out to be a good guy; he is always working toward a goal of doing right, and so never appears to be right as he is wholly unconcerned with appearance. If you want to appear right, you have to be furtive. If you want to do right, you have to act on things before everyone else in the room knows they are important.

People who think forward are harder to spot. They are not busy entertaining you with actions designed to be symbols, tokens or signals. This entertainment covertly manipulates your opinion of the backward-thinker. They are programming your mind with a series of assumptions or expectations so that, when they do need something, you will be compelled to favor their case.

In politics, this presents a problem, because manipulation is far from reality and eventually replaces discourse about real issues. This has devastated both mainstream (Republican) and underground (White Nationalist) conservatism:

The major flaw of contemporary American nationalists, racialists, or (crudely put) “right-wingers” is that they often define their national awareness by harping on one single issue while neglecting the broader picture of cultural hegemony. Pat Buchanan is one of the rare American patriots who understands the vital point of culture warfare as a tool in obtaining political power. Many American nationalists and self-proclaimed racialists, including even some cultivated racialists, cannot help but framing their nationalism in terms of race discourse only. Some, on the other hand seem to be solely obsessed with Jews. Some will rave and rant eternally against illegal Mexicans.

These types of one-issue conservatism are repellant to the broad American masses and they definitely cripple the credibility of American White nationalists. As laudable as any of these single-issue approaches may be, when taken separately they are non-starters for obtaining cultural hegemony. A single-issue approach makes American nationalists appear in the eyes of European nationalists as too reductionistic, to put it academically — or as a laughing stock, to put it non-academically.

Many American sociobiologists and race theoreticians of staggering erudition have made path-breaking inroads in the study of human behavior and particularly in the role of IQ in politics. But there is a common tendency of overspecialization and the neglect of a sense of the sacred, the role of myths, the role of art, or the social and political factor of European sagas. Such a purely mechanistic attitude can never elicit a positive response among White American masses at large, who in their vast majority have a poor sense of racial consciousness and are badly in need of a true role model. Whoever visited MENSA gatherings knows that these meetings can be incredibly boring. – Culture: The Missing Link in Euro-American Nationalism, by Tom Sunic

All human civilizations as they break down become two groups: a dogmatic group that believes in the face value of the stated ideology of the civilization, and a covert group who understand the ideology is backward thinking and therefore can be avoided in favor of the real agenda, which never varies (power, money, status). This split occurs on left as well as right, but only the right has something to lose — the left has never cared about the consequences of their actions, only the ability to seize power.

Unfortunately for the right, our dogmatic group includes both mainstream and underground conservatives. Mainstream conservatives, in order to appeal to the broad liberal voting base provided by the Baby Boomers, shifted the justification for their actions to the left and began to appeal to granular ideas such as individualism, consumerism, “freedom” and tolerance. This helped us beat back the Soviets, but fundamentally twisted conservatism from conserving tradition to defending business and individual profit-making.

Even worse things happened in underground conservatism:

The vanguardist is a peculiar species of White Nationalist with a range that extends across cyberspace. This political animal has a number of discernible, trademark characteristics. Specifically, a “vanguardist” is someone who believes:

(1) Conservatives are worthless.

(2) Ordinary people are lemmings.

(3) Worse is better.

(4) The system is broken.

(5) A collapse is coming.

(6) They will benefit from this collapse.

(7) A massive Jewish conspiracy is responsible for their plight.

(8) Revolution is the only solution.

Instead of engaging the cultural and political mainstream, a vanguardist is someone who favors withdrawing from the system, sealing themselves off in enclaves, and organizing around a dynamic leader. – Why Vanguardists Can’t Win, by Hunter Wallace

Vanguardists have a point: mainstream conservatives flee the room when issues like diversity, race, sexual liberation and pre-emptive geopolitics enter the discussion.

However, vanguardists need to realize that the reasons conservatives flee now versus the reasons for their flight in 1968 are different. In 1968, they didn’t want to be put on the losing side of a cultural war guaranteed by the flood of Baby Boomer children, who having been raised by two working parents during the WWII and recovery years, were naturally a neurotic mess, and so turned liberal en masse.

Right now, the reason mainstream conservatives won’t touch racial issues (for example) is because vanguardists exist — and instead of beating back the left who call any critic of total anarchy a racist, the vanguardists are fulfilling the stereotypes of Hollywood movies of angry, violent racists who have no real political plan or solutions to the breadth of problems that we face.

Even worse, much like liberals who when their plans fail blame either racists or corporations and thus redouble their efforts to implement those failing plans, vanguardists embrace a paranoid and defensive mentality such that they want to move further from mainstream politics and deeper into basements where they can stockpile weapons and plan for that ultimate race war that remakes modern society into NSDAP with legal marijuana:

White Nationalism will never triumph if it remains confined to the political right. White consciousness must become hegemonic up and down the political spectrum. White liberals and leftists will have to realize that their values are not universal aspirations of all mankind. They are, instead, expressions of a distinctly white consciousness and will not survive or flourish in a non-white society. – West Coast White Nationalism, by Greg Johnson

The origin of this thinking comes from here:

But although we are Rightists, we are not conservatives. Conservatives share some of our values, but they don’t share all of them, and they certainly don’t share our goals. In fact, it is hard to speak of conservatives as goal-oriented at all. Conservatives are backwards-looking or fixated on legalism, procedure, and rights, but they do not have an image of a perfected society that is the proper goal of political activity. White Nationalists, like leftists, do have such a vision.

Conservative goals, such as they are, are confined to piecemeal resistance to the implementation of the grand designs of the left. As often as not, conservatives are just trying to hold on to the leftist programs of the past.

William F. Buckley’s description of conservatism as “Standing athwart the tracks of history yelling stop” pretty much captures this mentality, as unseemly as it is for a serious-minded individual. We White Nationalists, however, want to be in the engine of history, steering it toward our goal, and cheerfully pouring on the steam when the Buckleys of the world try to get in our way. – Why Conservatives Still Can’t Win, by Greg Johnson

It is understandable because conservatism has been since 1945 a reactionary movement that in the process of making itself more socially acceptable (“politically correct” to those of you born after 1970) it adopted much of the liberal ideology as its motivation, and so by the 1980s became a conservative-flavored jihad to bring liberal democracy (individualism, freedom, globalism) to the entire globe, so as to defeat the Communist Soviets. In so doing, conservatives traded a victory against Communism for the adoption of Socialism within their own party and thus, the legitimization of more extreme left elements in the Democratic party in order to distinguish it from its opposition.

The problem with this tack is that it succumbs to the same error — or rather, two errors — made by mainstream conservatism. As a result, both parties remain marginalized. The voters turn to the right when the left screws up, which then catapults Republicans into a situation they cannot fix, which forces the return of the left to power. No truly winning or even dynastic move has been made:

In short, we have two problems. We have to somehow break the wall against the legitimization of our ideas in the media. (This is well-exemplified by the hysteria surrounding the fact that CNN interviewed Peter Brimelow and James Edwards on the reactions to the decline of Whites. My guess is that CNN will not repeat this, and other mainstream media outlets will learn from their “mistake.”

Secondly, the system where all the economic and social status benefits accrue to those to oppose explicit assertions of White identity and interests has to end. We have to be able to provide careers to people who are on page with our ideas. – On the Western Tendency to Moral Universalism, by Kevin Macdonald

The Right is an amazing paradox because for an ideology so based in “common sense” and practical solutions, it can never seem to get organized. Its enemies thrive because the mainstream right is afraid to be conservative, and the vanguardists fulfill every leftist stereotype they use to scare their supporters into fighting the right. In fact, the left could not find a better advocate for the left than the vanguardists, who trot out in public and demand we Name the Jew (if not outright gas him), plant pipe bombs on parade routes, shoot up random non-whites and endorse conspiracy with other superpowers such as Russia and China so long as those superpowers are racist.

What’s killing the right is that it has left its common sense behind.

The left basically invented modern politics, which is demagoguery — all of it. To win elections, you go out there and promise a giant disaffected mass that:

  • Their problems are not their problems. Nope, instead they are victims. Find someone who victimized them. If you can’t use corporations, use racists. If you can’t use racists, try terrorists or pedophiles. You need to invent some kind of Satan and fast so that you can be the cure to that Satan. It’s no different than being a traveling preacher. Satan killed your crops, and Satan walks among you, and you need me to lead you out of that state.
  • That a very simple solution exists. Kill Satan. You have now removed all the “bad,” so what is left is the “good.” This simplistic logic applies in some situations, like rotten apples in a barrel. In politics, it forgets that there is a middle range of things that are neither bad nor good, but are simply not fully to where they should be. Are parking tickets bad? No, but we can find a better method, and in its absence we spread frustration. Bonding together on the idea of killing Satan forges a simplistic but effective group identity.
  • …which conveniently allows them to rise above others. Some of the best brands (Apple, Specialized bikes, Mercedes-Benz) and the best political campaigns unite people on the idea that there is one simple truth which applies in every circumstance, and those who know that are now the Elect who should rule the nation by reason of their superiority, and those who did not figure it out should serve them because they are stupid, morally bad or degenerate. This is different than judging people based on their characteristics; it’s judging them based on whether or not they went along with one political agenda.

All of this pandering creates a sense of victimhood among the electorate. They were wronged; they will fix it with this one simple method which conveniently allows them to feel superior to their neighbors. If you want to know why Democracy is really good at mobilizing on hot button issues, and really terrible at fixing underlying long term problems, there’s your answer.

The right is at a disadvantage in this scenario because it has nothing to pander with. The right is not based on good-looking answers, but on answers that turn out to work. That is why we are consequentialists, who believe that results are more important than intentions, and why we say that all things are means to an end, and we make moral decisions to achieve that end regardless of the methods we use.

However, both facets of the right have chosen to pander and instill victimhood. The mainstream right tells taxpayers they are victims for having to pay such vicious taxes and tolerate so many rules; there’s truth in this, but it’s ultimately a leftist strategy, pandering to the individual with victimhood. The underground conservatives do the same thing, but with disillusioned and alienated people looking for a cause through what eventually boils down to if not racial supremacy, at least intellectual supremacy over African-Americans and moral supremacy over Jews.

Parts: I II III

7 Comments

  1. fugitive says:

    Even if you could somehow prevent the FBI and ADL from supplying them, you could never completely eliminate “vanguardists” :
    http://rjenkins.public.dev.nationalreview.com/articles/221724/old-time-religion/john-derbyshire?page=2
    (…)

    It is a fact, a sad but a true one, that grassroots political activism, the heart and soul of any democracy, attracts a lot of lunatics. I used to be a constituency activist for the Tory party in Kings Cross, London. Of the twenty or so people who turned up regularly to meetings, four or five were noticeably deranged (or, as an elderly fellow-Tory was wont to murmur in my ear when one of these cranks sought the meeting’s attention, “not quite sixteen annas to the rupee”). One or two were barking mad. My favorite was a gent with an Albert Einstein hairstyle and a permanent ferocious glare who, at every darn meeting, would try to advance his pet project for a law against class discrimination. (This was at a time, in the early 1980s, when laws against racial discrimination were being passed, to much controversy.)

    If it’s like that in the Tory party, one of the Anglosphere’s oldest and solidest, at the heart of an ancient metropolis, I can imagine how thing are further away from the political center. A friend of mine, a brilliant, charming, and highly civilized man I shall call X, runs a fringe political group here in the U.S. He invited me to one of the group’s annual conferences. Not sure what to expect, I asked a mutual friend, name of Y, who had attended a previous year’s conference. “Well,” said Y, “there are a dozen or so people like X, thoughtful and well-informed — people you’d be happy to hang out with. And around them buzzes this big cloud of latrine flies.” I decided not to take up X’s invitation.

    (…)

    The complete futility of minor party politics in the US guarantees that the “latrine files ” will predominate in the minor parties. That’s probably why someone invented low-threshold PR about 100 years ago. Most people are conformists (surprise) who want social approval and are therefore fearful about deviating too much from the conventional wisdom/ hegemonic ideology. Please note that many states grant local governments “home rule ” powers that include the ability to restructure the government.

  2. [...] also identifies mass resentment politics with low-minded “liberalism,” which he contrasts to high-minded, elitist conservatism. He also claims that thinking of [...]

  3. [...] Stevens – “Forward“, “World War I, Continued“, “The Man in the Mirror“, “Against [...]

  4. [...] Part One of Three, we discussed the problem of modern conservatives who want to be truthful: an alienated underground [...]

  5. [...] Right now, the reason mainstream conservatives won’t touch racial issues (for example) is because vanguardists exist — and instead of beating back the left who call any critic of total anarchy a racist, the vanguardists are fulfilling the stereotypes of Hollywood movies of angry, violent racists who have no real political plan or solutions to the breadth of problems that we face. – “Forward” [...]

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.334 seconds