The fatal flaw of the dissident Right

end_of_drive_test_parking

Any change in thought faces an in-built hurdle: escaping the previous thought enough. For all that we on the dissident Right have achieved, we still face the inescapable difficulty of making sure that our thinking is not infected by that of the Left (and its parent philosophy, Crowdism) which is dominant in this age.

Nothing better illustrates this than the recent kerfuffle over sex/realism writer Roosh V, who found himself under attack from some in the altright for not being white. In response, he pens:

If an internet movement is decentralized and based on open admission from outsiders who can steer its direction, particularly women and homosexuals, it will fail. That doesn’t mean it won’t have an effect upon society, but it will fall very rapidly after its peak. The alt right likely peaked with introducing the term cuckservative in terms of mainstream influence. Their initial viral hits concealed problems that may have been there all along, and which I myself missed. The fact that diehard anti-SJW’s and anti-feminists who don’t have the approved Nordic lily whiteness are viciously attacked by the alt right mob with SJW help shows that they’re long gone in terms of strategic effectiveness.

I worry not about women and homosexuals for the same reason I worry not about non-whites joining the dissident Right. Some of our best advocates have always been not white, from Malcolm X through Paul Gottfried and Laurence Auster, not to mention all of the near-whites of Southern, Eastern or Irish European extraction.

The question remains and has always been: do they understand what we are going on about? If they do, let them in, because they have the rarest of abilities which is to see the legitimacy and realism of our point of view. If they do not, even if heterosexual, Nordic and male, letting them in amounts to entryism and will destroy us.

Our challenge on the Right is that of every majority called on to defend itself. We do not have a cause like the Left, which styles itself as the victim of inequality and therefore creates a new religious-style morality based on only equality being good. Like the point of a knife, that is a focused and simply explained belief with an inherent demand.

The majority faces a more complex task: it must defend its way of life and its satisfaction with it. How can we be happy when others are suffering, somewhere? The answer is that we found something that works, and as we have deviated from that, our fortunes have fallen, and that we must assert both (1) self-interest in pursuing what works for us and (2) the supremacy of our method in the long-term, even if we could serve up the seed corn to stop suffering now.

We are not defending what is now; we are arguing for Restoration, or the return of what worked for us. We have been under assault by insane Leftism for a thousand years and it has ruined our society. If anyone has rights, we have a right to break away from the method used by The Rest that will end in misery, and to instead achieve for ourselves a better life. If only to prove it can be done and show how, we should do this; however, those who fear they cannot do the same will always oppose us, because our success makes them look bad, in their view.

What is restoration? A conversation between Auster and Mencius Moldbug reveals a wonderful snippet:

Restoration is an anti-entropic process. A little restoration does not lead to a lot of restoration. It is an intrinsically futile act—a candle that soon goes out. Rather, if order is to be restored, it must be restored entirely in one step. A house can be ruined incrementally. It cannot be renovated incrementally.

We do not defend anything; we fight for a different world. We strive for a world of beauty, justice, honor, excellence, ascendancy, reverence and truth. We want to burn all that exists now and replace it with something far better. Our self-interest takes the form of a desire to exceed what is now and achieve greatness. Nothing else will do.

Right-wing movements have never been able to coordinate like Leftists mostly because of a lack of agreement on what we find wrong and what we desire. We are not ideological zombies like the Left, but this makes us less effective. This is why the Right grows through dissident movements that organically bring ideas to the table and give them symbols so that others can see something new to aspire to.

And that is what the altright needs: aspiration. We need to realize in our heart of hearts that this world is an unforgivable Hell and a sin against all that is good, and that we can have a Restoration. We can do better and we cannot inch toward it. We must leap from the top window of this Tower of Babel and soar. We are the future. As a wise man once said, “the next thousand years are ours.”

I have lived for too long in darkened corridors attempting to pretend that the small amount of leaking light constitutes a hope. I have spent too long restraining my desire to set it all ablaze. I have wasted too many years in an atheistic, materialistic and self-destroying frame of mind. I am ready for war. This is the mindset we need on the dissident Right.

As one writer who has contributed more than anything to the Right wing renewal had to say, modern life is unconscionable and yet everyone is too cucked to speak up and scream:

I hadn’t seen any novel make the statement that entering the workforce was like entering the grave. That from then on, nothing happens and you have to pretend to be interested in your work. And, furthermore, that some people have a sex life and others don’t just because some are more attractive than others. I wanted to acknowledge that if people don’t have a sex life, it’s not for some moral reason, it’s just because they’re ugly. Once you’ve said it, it sounds obvious, but I wanted to say it.

We are all dead men walking so long as we remain on this path. We know how it ends and we cannot respect ourselves if this is what we leave to our descendants. This evokes the Roosh controversy, because it shows us men clawing at an invisible enemy on their backs. The real purge is within: we must purge ourselves of hopelessness and helplessness, admit we have seen the Hell that is coming, and strike out in honesty to Restore goodness.

Anything else is just spitting in the wind, entertaining ourselves by being internet rebels while the battlefield languishes. Anything else puts us below the lowest homosexual Other casual sex participant because we, unlike others, know toward what we march. Victory or death. There is no other way.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “The fatal flaw of the dissident Right”

  1. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    “I am ready for war.”

    You and me both. I’m ready to kill.

  2. fodderwing says:

    I think that the Alt-Right in all its variety is a harbinger of the return of Western Patriarchy, though many these days use other less direct terms for this. When its time came, I expected that it would be swift, chaotic and interesting. Patriarchy will will assert itself, and Patriarchs will again comprehend manliness in the traditional roles of men.

    I want to like Roosh for his wit and level-headedness, but he is completely femenised. His sexual obsessions, whoremongering, and the waste of his young manhood were one ultimate goal of the feminists for his generation and he has not disappointed.

  3. josef H says:

    Roosh V was discarded by many on the Right because he blogs from his mother’s basement. when this was brought to the open, it dealt a mortal blow to his image and no conservative wanted to be associated with someone whose image took such a hit. his lifestyle negates all that is conservative, right leaning and radical although his trolling is priceless and he offers very valid points. the problem is that many rightists now cannot go past the destroyed image of Roosh, in order to see that quite a lot of what he says makes sense. image is everything in this social paradigm, and many rightists are shaped by this notion.

  4. JPW says:

    OK, the Dissident Right needs what the Left used to have. We need a two-prong strategy.

    1) We need a public strategy. We need to support, regardless of party or affiliation, the political figures most closely aligned to American Nationalism, Small Governments, and Freedom of Association.

    2) We need a movement strategy. We need to identify, promote, and protect figures who best encapsulate the philosophies I stressed political support for above. We need to have a system of down-voting and cleansing the movement of people who practice SJW Entrism to water those beliefs down.

    This methodology is how the Left got momentum and pretty much rolled American Culture.

  5. Different T says:

    Brent:

    It appears the choice presented as “Creation or Restoration” was not understood. Here is an attempt to reframe that choice more accurately, from both a practical and theoretical perspective.

    You stated: “We want to burn all that exists now and replace it with something far better.” Assuming we agree that the “something far better” is organic (that is, needs time to actually grow and become strong, as it is alive) “burning all that exists” under the complete faith in humanity (read: reactionaries [you may disagree with this characterization of faith, and I would disagree with you]) appears rash. “Burning all that exists” may increase the possible rewards of success, but it also dramatically increases the risks of failure.

    You also stated: “I am ready for war. This is the mindset we need on the dissident Right.” This may be the “mindset” needed, but actually pushing for “war” (assuming you mean civil) is also desired by forces far stronger than reactionaries/the right and completely opposed to such a movement’s flourishing/competition. As a practical concern; China, Russia, and probably even certain European nations would be licking their chops at the prospect of a new American internal conflict and the concomitant recession in American global influence. Its all fun and games to congratulate China and Russia for being far less infected with proggies and having governments that are far more racist/nationalist than the US government. That is, it’s all fun and games while we sit in the country with the greatest military force the globe has ever known. Assuming you are not Russian or Chinese, how do you think the world will look when racist/nationalist governments of which you have no claim are the strongest on the planet?

    Theoretically; victory in “war” promises all sorts of things to men, but what does it deliver? This is from Artxell Knaphni (emphasis mine):

    “… there are four levels of sovereign security. These are peace, order, law, and freedom.”
    Is this calculus of superveniences not an enforced imposition, an arbitrary regimentation that is specifically not to be characterised according to the metaphorics of a suddenly emergent ordering, the abrupt production of a crystalline harmonious polity. Why? Because the first stage, of ‘peace,’ is merely a cessation of overt hostilities, one that shouldn’t be mistaken for an overall consensual agreement. It is a state of forced expedience, not that of amicable understanding. The state of war transitions from the battlefield to the realm of unresolved, sullen resentments. Any subsequent ‘order’, ‘law’, or ‘freedom’ is often only a veneer over this basic irresolution. This can only be exacerbated by iniquitous applications & distributions of this veneer. Can one really call this ‘peace’?
    That this is so, is testified to by increased balkanisation & ‘independence’ movements.

    Assuming you are familiar with MM’s interpretation of the birth of America, it still speaks volumes that America was created by protestants who simply exited. Would victory in a civil war by the Puritans against the monarchy and Church of England have resulted in “America” simply being birthed on European soil? What would the globe have looked like without the British Empire?

    Obviously, your decision and “the right’s” choice is their own to make. But it would be very beneficial to accurately frame that decision. Both the possible rewards and the possible risks.

  6. Doug says:

    One can admit a mistake they made five minutes ago but feeling regret for a centuries-old decision made by their bloodline is out of the question. Dispensing entirely with not only efficiency concerns but also our uniquely human ability to draw conclusions from empirical data, concurrent with our intelligence there is this adolescent tendency to blindly accept any and all social enhancements as necessary and good after sufficient passage of time. When it becomes codified that if a cancerous enhancement like diversity were indeed such a bad idea it could not have possibly survived this long, any chance of steering the car out of the hydroplane decreases in reverse proportion to the resultant cause/effect discernment depletion.

    Bratty, brazen contempt for hindsight continues the middle finger extension even as investigators work overtime to collect evidence from by far the largest crime scene in history. Hope has miraculously emerged amid a reacquaintance with primal clarity and humility. If posterity has any say in the matter, this seedling will be nourished in lieu of proceeding to watch this bitch burn with popcorn in hand.

  7. […] is Neoreaction? (Snarl.) The bargain. The way out is forward. Death by Utopianism. Lifeboat ethics (also). Distributed blind conspiracy. Institutional capture. A failed fitness test. Social media as a […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>