Furthest Right

Fragile Conservative Ecosystem Under Threat From the Inner Crowd

Those of us who are legitimately on the Right, meaning those who want to preserve civilization against the constant human chaos driven by self-interest and vainglorious megalomania both, find ourselves navigating a narrow middle path between cuck RINOs and insane neo-Nazis.

This is not to say that Nazism is wholly bad, since we are beyond good and evil here, and can recognize that there are good ideas in many places. The last year of riots has shown that Hitler was right about diversity being terrible, even if his methods were dubious.

The cucks show us the influence of the voters, who tremble with fear at the thought of Change. Angela Merkel stays in power in Germany because the voters want a conservative, but not one who will rock the boat and start another world war, so they get the compromise candidate, a Leftist with some conservative economic and social leanings.

In the aboveground or public “Right,” Americans must suffer the GOP Establishment, which favors those who lose gracefully while bringing in lots of money by banging on about symbolic but useless issues like abortion, prayer in schools, Satanism, homosexuality, and other nonsense.

The underground “Right” screws up in a different way, namely by talking about Negroes and Jews and ignoring all other questions of civilization, including the need to avoid toxic socialism, the all-invasive State, and the mind-warping “Big Lie” of equality.

On the Left, they have noticed how effective the underground Right has become, and have offered up a generic but insightful criticism of the influencer culture which underscores it:

The emergence of the influencer from the swarm is inherently full of tensions: too distinct and they become detached from the group that gives them power; too indistinct and they lose traction, dissolving back into the swarm. Their relationship with the swarm is therefore, ultimately, tense, and their status relies on their ability to give it continual stimulation and articulation. They are the key nodes of what Steve Bannon has called “a politics of mobilization,” are less and less concerned with the organization of a coherent group with a stable agenda, and more and more concerned with the incitement of feeling. Far-right influencers are the main dealers in a culture of dosing on outrage.

Novelty plays a huge part in the question of how outraged someone can feel. Outrage is built on the sudden shock of new, unwelcome, information. It is difficult to maintain outrage — even fabricated outrage — without a sudden revelation. However, only a very small number of topics really hit the mark. Thus, novelty comes not from broadening out the politics to other issues, but from stating more and more extreme positions on a select few fixations.

The swarm’s conventionalism is the conventionalism of extremism, a progressive narrowing of focus. If influencers stray even a little too far from its narrow set of beliefs, the swarm will reject them. Between these two demands — the demand that you say something unique and the demand that you stay with what everyone already thinks — lies the thin path of the successful influencer, but it sets in motion a pattern of radicalization which frequently runs afoul of the platforms on which it depends.

In other words, influencers repeat whatever is trending in a unique way in order to get their share of the fame, but cannot deviate too much from what the audience expects, which is defined by the trend itself and not what is happening in external reality outside human opinion.

It is Crowdism in action: groups, focused on unity, invert themselves by aiming to preserve that unity through compromise, which causes them to avoid the offensive — that which disrupts the fiction-absolute — and focus on the easily transmissible, which always means symbolism over reality.

To get around this, we need to refocus the Right on its core, which is the preservation of civilization through radical realism and transcendental idealism, then explain all of our other concerns in those terms.

For example, we oppose diversity because society needs a culture and genetic continuity, and diversity abolishes both of those. We oppose equality because it promotes incompetence over competence. We oppose socialism because it makes people passive and parasitic.

This seems like heady stuff, but these are not hard concepts. Transitioning to these would require a bit of groundwork, but then everything would make sense, since right now few people understand what conservatism is.

In democracy, leaders depend on the voting habits of the majority, which are oriented toward gut feelings and gotchas more than theory or history. Our leaders both depend on this group, and hate them, since there is a class distinction here which alienates them:

I noticed that blue-collar men process information and content differently than my college-educated peers. The attention spans of the former are not trained to read dense books or listen to long podcasts packed with information; they much prefer shorter snippets and sound bites to get to the essential truth of the matter, which I imagine is why politicians and corporations create memorable slogans. Blue-collar workers also don’t waste time participating in political activism or getting to the bottom of intricate cultural issues. They don’t have a vague mission to “spread the truth” or “improve society.” They care more about getting through the day and then getting paid on Friday. They hate communism, love guns, smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, engage in more direct communication without a labored sensitivity for other people’s feelings, are more masculine, are less politically correct, like making fun of gays, and curse in every other uttered sentence, if not every sentence.

This sounds roughly like me, except that I was born with an “autistic” need to explore concepts as structured ideas, sort of like parsing computer code, architecture, or the metaphor structure of postmodern novels. Of course, I also like dense books, but mainly as paperweights.

Influencers aim for those “shorter snippets and sound bites…memorable slogans.” This attracts attention, but like the metaphors behind conspiracy theory, can lead to our metaphors becoming confused with the underlying truth, sort of like happens in fundamentalist religion.

Mainstream conservatives do the same. Nineteen identical candidates got on stage at the Republican primary and bleated out the same message — defense, free markets, Jesus/Israel, and patriotism — because this attracts the conservative donors, most importantly, and middle class mainstreamers who work office jobs.

At this point, the medium is the message in that the form in which conservatism must be expressed controls conservatism as a living concept around us. Rather than rail at the RINOs, cucks, and neo-Nazis, we should look at how this egalitarian condition afflicts us.

Our ancestors recognized the need for social hierarchy in all things, meaning that your more astute people (Odysseus, Davy Crockett, Socrates, Francis Galton) had higher social status than others, and we let them interpret the complex stuff and pass it down to the rest of us.

Until we get back to that kind of organization, we are doomed to be ruled by simplistic messages from our own side, not to mention the constant mind control peer pressure conformity flowing from the schizoid neurotics of the Left.

Tags: , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn