Posts Tagged ‘right’

What Do “Right” and “Left” Mean?

Thursday, August 10th, 2017

The salient fact of modernity is that without a natural hierarchy in society, all actions must be accomplished through mass popularity. In order to gain approval of the herd, called consensus, leaders or commercial actors must mobilize a large army of warm bodies who claim to be excited about the idea.

Understanding hierarchy requires understanding the concept of order, or the idea that many unequal parts can work together in balance toward a purpose, guided by principles which ensure the evolution of that work. The opposite of this is mass culture, in which all are equal and are controlled by a force which manipulates them through images, bribes, terrors and guilt.

Mass culture therefore removes all meaning to terms by using them flexibly to argue for whatever is needed or desired. Any term like “Left” or “Right” will be abused, but that does not change the underlying meaning any more than an apple becomes a banana when referred to by the wrong term.

As written about before on this site, the nature of the Right is twofold and emerges from its primary goal, which is to conserve. This outlook recognizes that entropy and selfishness are the eternal enemies of humankind and also the pitfalls that are with us constantly in everything we do or fail to do, and so our goal becomes conservation of what works best.

While this is positive, it is also too backward-looking, and so we dig further into the historical and linguistic roots of conservatism, and find that it is conservation of order, arising from Plato’s “good to the good, and bad to the bad” statement, along the same lines as morality and Darwinism. It sorts people into a hierarchy from good to bad, and promotes the good while beating back the bad.

In this sense, conservatism is a folkway, or a time-honored tradition of choosing not just what works, but what produces the best possible results so that life is inspiring to our fellow citizens. It is the opposite of an ideology, which is a commandment about what “should” be true according human mass desires, instead of a revelation of what is true and how to maximize it.

When it manifests in politics, this way of life becomes the Right:

Historically, however, the famous terms “left” and “right” are around 300 years old. They have their roots in the “Assemblée des États”, the assemblies of the estates. Because of the belief of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God (the hand in which a man usually holds his sword in), the places right to the ruler were considered to be the more honorable seats. Therefore, aristocracy and clergy were sitting to the right hand of the king, the “lower” representatives of the free cities, the citizens, to his left.

This polarity carried on after the king was overthrown because those on the Right fundamentally wanted to restore the ancient order because they knew that aristocracy provided for greater stability than mob rule, and that while mob rule will always be popular with humans, so are many destructive things.

Naturally this created tension. It is impossible to work within a system you oppose without either compromising your principles, or being outright hostile to it and therefore unable to get anything done. The system selected for people who were willing to compromise, which explains why the West has steadily shifted Leftward since 1789 no matter what the Right seems to do.

Even worse, the fundamental conservative idea does not emphasize a change in direction because of its backward-looking desire to “conserve.” In this sense, backward-looking is not looking backward in time, but as a sense of retreat, where the conservatives try to defend a few vital institutions and ideals against a constant onslaught of Leftism. This strategy has not worked well either.

Most conservatives seem to accept society as a lost cause. To them, a society is born in a new state, rises to power, then becomes bloated with fools and parasites like every other human endeavor, and then lapses into a fallen state where conservatives just have to grin and bear it, keep paying taxes and supporting the military, and hope to silently pass into history, one presumes.

They rationalize their behavior with “work hard, pray hard” or The Benedict Option, but both are postures more than attempts to achieve anything. The modern conservative accepts defeat and, with his head held down low, trudges on through life, becoming bitter and passing that on to his family.

Launching a forward-looking conservative movement proves difficult because conservatives generally rationalize their way out of radical change. They also have no way to explain to people who are living the easy life why they should sacrifice and work hard in order to achieve a new system that looks like something from centuries before.

Any conservative party thus becomes a target for opportunists who are willing to cast aside the actual values of conservatism and replace them with pragmatic ones. They realize they can be the opposition party and still have power without having to do much of anything because they know and expect. To them, it is just another job, and they focus on the financial side of it.

Having given up on actually maintaining society, conservatives then treat politics as a business and try to compete, which dooms them because they are up against people who specialize in bribing voters with promises of free stuff. This is how conservatism ends up doing the work of the Left for them; by competing, it adopts Leftist methods, and soon becomes effectively Leftist:

The Progressive era of the West arrived by way of Bismarck and Germany. Otto, being a conservative, was, by that characteristic alone, a natural born progressive. He sought to stay the power and the rise of the Socialists in Germany. He did so thinking like a socialist, calculating as a socialist, and preempting socialist aims by providing what Socialists had not yet the wherewithal/power to dole out.

In the above, we see the classic pattern of conservatives “competing” by achieving socialism before the socialists. This way, the conservatives stay in power, but they also defeat themselves, much as American conservatives have by defending Leftist ideals and programs despite recognizing that these are anathema to their actual values.

This makes it clear as to why people are confused on “Right” and “Left.” When the Right acts like the Left, and the Left depends on the Right to keep the financial side of government operational, the dual parties seem like two heads of the same Hydra. In truth, the Hydra is the Left, and it maintains a public party as a means of forcing others to act out its agenda.

When considering this Hydra, it is worth realizing that it can take on many forms. The fundamental and only idea of the Left is egalitarianism, which means that bad and good alike can participate in society. This is their means of overthrowing any natural hierarchy and replacing it with a popularity contest so that the bad can seize power and profit from it.

In this way, the Left is an instance of both entropy and Crowdism, which is how all human endeavors fail by allowing everyone to participate, thus erasing hierarchy, at which point the Crowd demands the endeavor be made to fit its new audience, which inverts its meaning and adulterates its potency. That is what happened to conservatism as well: assimilation from within by people dedicated to nothing greater than themselves.

Humanity stands at a crossroads. We either find a way to beat this form of simian entropy, or we give on having advanced civilizations that can produce great art, literature and space travel. At that point, we will be assimilated from within by genetics, slowly introducing enough trace admixture to effect a soft genocide of our people, without whom civilization cannot be reborn.

The Alt Right shows promise by being willing to affirm the need to restore Western Civilization, which requires seizing power and driving out the parasites. In this way, it takes the ideals of the Right and the methods of the Left, uniting them toward a temporary force which can put civilization back on track, at which point it can develop naturally to its full potential.

Few will find it surprising that therefore the most intense appeal of the Alt Right comes from those who are existentially stranded in a boring modern existence and dreaming of exploring the stars.

What Are “Right” And “Left”?

Monday, March 20th, 2017

Amazingly, most people have no idea what political “Right” and “Left” are, even professionals writing in the field.

To understand this division, we should go back to the origins of the terms. This is a technique sometimes used to trace the meaning of a word over time, and to figure out why it was originally used, because that generally indicates what was so different from the norm that it required a new term.

In the case of “Right” and “Left,” these terms arose after the French Revolution when parties in the national assembly sat on one side of the aisle or the other. Those who liked the new order sat on the left; those who favored the old way and wanted to resist the new as much as possible sat on the right.

From that we get these simple terms which correspond to our cultural conception of handedness: the right hand is the one where action and signaled intent are the same, where the left is the hand that does the opposite of what signaled intent suggests. Historically, this is because the right hand can be used to shake while the left hand draws a blade.

And so we must ask what the “new order” actually stood for, which requires looking at what it wanted. This one is easy; it wanted to overthrow the kings, and in order to do so, it proclaimed equality (as an opposite of hierarchy) so that all people were equal. This meant that none had the right to rule over the rest, and the mob would choose its own path via voting.

Take a moment to get over your laughter. Yes, once upon a time, people were so gullible that they thought that mass voting was a way to make decisions! It is comedic in retrospect that people somehow convinced themselves that groups, most known for panics and stampedes and ignoring crimes, would be better leaders than someone specialized. But humans are prone to denial, projection and fantasy…

The Left stands for one thing and one thing only: egalitarianism, or the idea of equality. This allows them to escape social consequences for being less accurate in their thinking than others. From this, all of Leftism flows naturally. It is not a very complex philosophy, which is why it is disguised in endless play-acting “theory” by its adherents.

On the other hand, the Right stands for what came before egalitarianism: time-honored ways of being, which means they are based in consequentialism or results instead of appearance, and in order to have direction, are also “transcendental” or geared toward qualitative improvement on the former. The Right is complex, nuanced, and has many layers.

The division is this simple: the Left believes egalitarianism will solve our problems and give us direction, where the Right thinks that egalitarianism is a distraction from the real task, which is to discover how our world works and what are the best results we can achieve through known working methods of adaptation to it.

Now where this gets interesting is that the Left has incentive to hide their actual meaning. Like the left hand move, their goal is to separate their public intent from their private actions. Altruism is a great cover story, like politicians kissing babies. It lets you give a few percent of your wealth or time for public image, then do whatever you want with the rest.

The Right, on the other hand, have no way of summarizing their intent. Rightism is inherently complex because it is based not on a human theory, but on many and dissimilar methods for making human civilization improve in quality. As a result, it is a philosophy that requires an esoteric or unequal and cumulative approach to understand.

Humans naturally prefer the Left because we are self-deluding creatures. We know what we want more than what we are. As a result, our desires reflect illusions based on what we want to be, and reflect very little who we are, or in other words, our actual needs. As a result, the Left is perpetually popular, just like circuses, bread, television and pretense.

Whenever the Left appears, it uses egalitarianism as its method of forcing acceptance and shaming those who resist it. Who can, socially speaking, oppose the idea that everyone is accepted? Using this passive-aggressive method, Leftism bullies its way in, and sets up an alternate power structure which then rules with tyranny.

We know this and can speak out against it without having to swing to symbolic opposite extremes like “freedom”, “liberty,” and “meritocracy,” which are Leftist proxies for the idea of reducing everyone to a minimum and then selecting those with the (politically) correct ideas to rise. We can instead point again to history.

When the French Revolution was won, the new government set about doing things differently than the old leadership. After a period of murdering whole families on nothing more than the word of someone on the street, the new regime set up its People Power and promptly drove the nation into worse famine and poverty than ever seen before.

As that settled in to the public consciousness, the regime distracted by declaring what was essentially the first world war and attempting to conquer Europe, an attempt that first brought victory and then great defeat. The result was that the war in the name of the people ended up making life worse for them.

After that, things settled down to the Right versus Left view we have now. Naturally, the Rightists who gave in and adopted the Leftist idea of equality found themselves more popular, and so the mainstream Right gradually eroded until it became a variety of Leftism as today. But that does not change the idea itself.

If we are to make sense of this political question, it first makes sense to go back to our roots and see what Right and Left mean. The Left means egalitarianism; the Right means time-honored solutions producing the best results. Obviously, these are incompatible, which is why the West is currently fragmenting along these lines.

Recommended Reading