Furthest Right

Can Traditionalism Fuse With Classical Liberalism?

Many of us on the Right form a nexus between anarchism and social order. That is, we believe some things are needed for a civilization to be healthy, such as a strong central command structure with only one path to power and accountability, and we like the idea of everyone being on the same page in terms of genetics/biology, general outlook, culture/religion, and the like.

On the other hand, we have a high tolerance for eccentricity and difference. We do not care if you grow marijuana or poppies in your backyard and consume the results; we do not care if Dave and Phil are more than “traveling companions” and live together in a little cottage with a white picket fence and salmon walls. We do not care if someone explores the Dark Arts in their attic, or if Dan and Stan are swapping wives every other Saturday night. We are not interested in censoring what you can see, read, and learn; we are interested, however, in restricting what gets seen in public, so no gay Pride parades, Satanic masses, or swingers conventions can exist.

As part of our belief in something like anarcho-monarchism, we are not interested in Control, or the limitation of what methods you can engage in. We care about goals and results. That is, we want society to have a goal — health, identity, evolution — but not to tell you that you cannot use certain ways of achieving that end. We like natural selection, which means opportunity presents itself and whoever fulfills that need (opportunity is need plus lack) wins bigly. We also like eugenics, meaning that if people are outright broken, retarded, stupid, insane, criminal, promiscuous, or the like, we want them out of our society by any means necessary. If we can, we exile them to Mexico. If not, we drown the defectives in swamps.

Our political system, inherently Leftist because of the egalitarian nature of democracy, refuses to acknowledge such things, but we are basically at the intersection between classical liberalism (let people do what they need) and traditionalism, which says there is one world with many interpretations of it, and each society needs its own interpretation with everyone basically on board, instead of constant adversarial jockeying for power as you see in democracy and consumerism.

Leftism gives us two options: allow anything, or control everything. Since people are “equal,” we cannot admit natural selection; we have to either let them do whatever and save them from the consequences, or force them to do what is right so that they do not face consequences. The intermediate idea — anarchy without subsidies — occurs to no one because, of course, “the optics are bad.” Anarchy means people dying in the street because not everyone is sane. It includes the idea of the Wild West, or people shooting bad guys. We dialed it back from anarchy because it is too far gone, but taking it to the other extreme, and demanding that we subsidize the insane and stupid so that they do not face the consequences of their actions is a terrible idea.

When we escape Leftism and go to realism, we say simply that we measure any action by its results in reality. This means that we ignore the optics, feelings, social judgments, and media. We look toward reality. This requires us to formulate a goal — note: egalitarianism does not, since in egalitarianism the method (equality) is also the goal — which requires us to figure out what we can do in reality. Then, it makes sense to pick that which produces the best results, which in turn vaults us into judgments of quality. With qualitative thinking, we have transcended being reactive to our world, and instead are designing a future that we would want to live in, giving ourselves a meaningful choice and a sense of how to make that choice. This outlook takes us to a place where we set up a goal, reward those who help achieve it, punish those who act against it, and ignore everyone else. Parallels to natural selection apply since it is a reward-based, not punishment-based system.

Most of us on the Right do not seek to manage individuals through “control,” or regulation of method; we seek to reward good achievements and behavior, while reducing bad. We know there is no Utopia. We can only minimize the human bad while lifting up the good so people know what to follow. Mainstream conservatives, seeking to emulate the Left, get this wrong, whether American Republicans (generally morons) or National Socialists (brutes). We stand for social order and authority because these work, but not for micromanaging lives.

Tags: , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn