Counter-Currents
Left of the Scotsman:
Answering Vox Day’s Disavowal of the “Fake Right”
C. B. Robertson
1,802 words
What is a true right-wing position? What is truly on the left?
Recent debates between Vox Day and Greg Johnson, and with Andrew Anglin, have called into question the true political allegiance of the German National Socialist Party, as well as that of national socialism more generally. It is a conversation matched by others in the alternative media, as well as by more mainstream commentators.
Finding where National Socialists, libertarians, communists, and others fit in the political puzzle requires an understanding of what the Left and the Right are.
It is no use going to the French Revolution, where the supporters of the king aligned on the president of the assembly’s right, while those opposed to the king stood on the president’s left. The political distinctions in interests and motivations between the left and the right long predated France, and have existed in virtually every society in which debate was allowed.
Vox Day defines the right based upon certain political policies, including religious freedom, abortion, gun control, state money standard, private property, freedom of the press, national sovereignty, standing army, state schools, and central state authority. These are convenient benchmarks for determining whether a 20th or 21st century American is of the right or of the left, but it isn’t so useful when looking elsewhere around the world, or even further back in American history.
Consider that religious freedom was unheard of in most of Europe and even in much of the United States, prior to Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut. In fact, much of the divisions between the early colonies were founded exclusively on theological differences. This is why Rhode Island is separate from Massachusetts, for example.
This means that the sorts of people who stood on the right side of the aisle in France, for God and King, would be defined as “left-wing” by Vox Day, at least as far as their religious intolerance and preference for centralized authority in a monarch were concerned.
Similarly, “the freedom of speech” has become a right-wing talking point, but it entered into American legal precedent courtesy of explicitly left-wing intellectuals (namely Learned Hand and Harold Laski). Prior to 1919, the First Amendment guaranteed to Americans in binding law what was tacitly granted to Englishmen: the freedom of speech. But “the freedom of speech” didn’t mean what we think of today. In common law parlance, the freedom of speech meant the prohibition on prior restraint–you could say what you wanted without censorship, but the government could still come in and arrest you afterwards if they didn’t like what you said. Laski and Hand persuaded their friend, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., to dissent against his own ruling from a year and a half prior in the Schenck case, and redefine the “freedom of speech” to mean freedom from any government sanction or punishment at all.
Where did Laski and Hand get this intellectual argument? From the liberal-party member and women’s suffrage advocate John Stuart Mill, of course.
The point is not to say that Vox Day’s particular policy litmus tests are bad ones, but to say that any political litmus test used to determine whether an idea is “right” or “left” will be flawed, because the right and left don’t align with policy positions, but with different outlooks on the world.
In his book A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell argued that the political left–whatever their particular policies–reflected an unconstrained vision of human potential, whereas the political right reflected a constrained vision of human potential. Modern neuroscience seems to support this theory: liberals on average had more grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, which is active in navigating social situations, whereas conservatives on average had more grey matter in their amygdala, which (among other things) orients us towards potential dangers and threats. Liberals see options and opportunities; conservatives see risks and dangers.
Free Speech has been in place for about 100 years with no obviously disastrous side-effects, so it is understandable why it can be taken as a right-wing position now. The leftists of today have different goals, because they are pursuing different possibilities, and free speech is now more of an impediment than an aid. From a policy-delineated view of the right-left divide, this reversal makes no sense, but from the orientation perspective, this is perfectly understandable.
Can a socialist be of the right?
The answer is that it depends on where you live and when. Adolf Hitler’s policies were broadly built off of Otto von Bismarck’s social policies of the 1870’s, which means that, for optical gain or loss, Hitler’s socialist leanings are not leftist by fiat. Bismarck himself was a conservative, albeit a wily and triangulating one, skilled in realpolitik dealings with the Social Democratic Party, which he successfully banned in 1878. Yet he instituted an innovative socialized health-care program, and invented the pension plan. Does this make him a socialist? Does this make him left-wing?
These are bad questions, because they misconstrue what the left and right are. When politics is known as the “art of the possible,” it is both false and unfair to characterize a socialist as absolutely “left-wing” if they are attempting to move their country marginally rightward in a socialist-monopolized country, such as Mexico or Sweden.
More common than reference to Sowell is breaking down the left and right between Plato and Aristotle, with Plato as the Leftist, idealistic dreamer, and Aristotle as the hard-nosed, right-wing empiricist. I think there is a similar breakdown that can be made between Homer’s Iliad, which is a poem about nobility and principle, even in the face of death, and the Odyssey, in which the hero chooses life and family over fortune, dignity, and even over a happy life married to a goddess. The Iliad is a fundamentally leftist book, in choosing principle over life to fulfill potentialities for glory, whereas the Odyssey is an essentially right-wing book, in choosing life over abstract moral principles.
Notice that there is no criticism of leftism per se here: I myself prefer the Iliad to the Odyssey. The point is that calling the German National Socialist Party “leftist” is wrong, because it misidentifies (or at least oversimplifies) the motivations of the NSDAP. More importantly, it blatantly misses the motives of modern members of the Alt-Right, however misguided, who borrow from the iconography of the Third Reich.
How big of a movement would this be if the white race were not presently under conscious and planned attack? Is survival or visionary dreaming the more likely motive behind the intentional revival of symbolism aligned with what society has been repeatedly told to be the highest form of evil? As a deterring defense, it almost seems reasonable. As a welcoming marketing strategy, perhaps not.
We can all agree it’s a bad idea, for multiple reasons. But that doesn’t make it left-wing. The motives of the “Alt-Reich” stem from a sincere concern about immigration, about safety, about their homeland, their culture, and about the survival and future of the White Race. None of these are even remotely left of center, no matter which policies they think will be most prudent in pursuit of these right-wing, life-embracing ends, even if they align with a left-wing party’s platform somewhere in the world. Embracing an aesthetic designed to make foreigners feel unwelcome is certainly not left-wing. To argue otherwise is a no-true-conservative fallacy, of a kind which would not benefit a Supreme Dark Lord, leading an evil legion of evil.
I like Vox Day. I considered it among the greatest compliments when my book was compared to Vox in style, and I continue to read his blog more regularly than any other site, and recommend his books to my friends and family. I myself am not a fascist, nor a national socialist, and so I do not have any dog in the fight on where it fits in the spectrum. I do believe that Greg Johnson is probably correct, however, in guessing that Vox has been gaslighted by press and less mature components of the Alt-Right, particularly in the aftermath of Charlottesville.
Being sent photoshopped images of family members being gang-raped by migrants will also take its toll. We can all guess which sort of people on the right might send such things. Vox can say it doesn’t bother him all he wants, but it sure as hell would bother me.
In short, I think the right-wing denouncers of Vox Day are at least as culpable of injustice as Vox Day is for characterizing National Socialists as “fake right.” It is a criticism which would not be relevant were it not for the insidious “don’t punch right” argument. National Socialism need not be left-wing to be wrong, just as Freedom of Speech need not be right-wing to be right. To put family first, and to be loyal to one’s friends, is about as right as we can get, and on this point, Vox Day is an ally, or at least a model, for anyone looking to the right for a solution to the problems of progressivism, globalism, and nihilism which have arisen out of the modern left.
Why bother defending the “Alt-Retards?”
I’m not. I think National Socialism is economically unsound, intellectually arrogant, and aesthetically counterproductive, especially in today’s age. But I do think that there are good people in the Alt-Reich, who share our concerns, who care about our future, and who, if their minds are to be changed, have to be taken seriously, and not dismissed as crazy. That rhetoric may work on SJWs, but no one voluntarily waving a swastika is worried or concerned about being written off as beyond the pale. They’re past that.
Our loyalty should extend not to people who merely share our beliefs, but to people who share our end-goals and our values. If the replacement of a native population–our native population–is of concern to me and to you, then we have an interest in at least taking each other seriously and listening to each other, even if we do not necessarily agree on the best way to act. This is especially true if we are in a minority. At the end of the day, people who hate whites are still going to hate whites, whether we disown those we disagree with or not. For them, more division is better.
This is not to say that we should not disavow based upon character. Recent events have taught us that. But political opinions will always vary within a group that shares a common goal, and disavowing entire schools of thought as fraudulent is divisive and self-defeating, even if you believe their conclusion to be incorrect.
If Vox Day wishes to wash out the taste of the underwhelming Andrew Anglin debate sometime, I would be happy to take up the challenge.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
24 comments
The Right believes in private property, hierarchical social order, and human nature is mostly unalterable……The Left believes in ‘equality,’ a leveling tendency in society,
and the ultimate perfectibility of Man.
National Socialism was part of the revolutionary Right- before world war 2, a large state apparatus could also be a guardian of tradition, custom, and the race ( Disraeli, Bismark, etc.) Socialist economics was not always thought to be automatically leftist in the way the autistic Libertarians think of government intervention now. Vox Day is stuck because he only looks at recent definitions of the issue.
What constitutes Right Wing and Left Wing is not debatable.
Politics can be modeled with its constituent beliefs, on the Left and the Right, in the same way that a math equation can model part of reality.
Political systems do not follow what someone has been told, or what they emotionally believe or wish to be true, but instead they follow the logic of how reality is.
Thus, those who incorrectly argue in regard to what constitutes Left and Right, at this stage in the game, have to be considered as we consider special education students who cannot grasp addition. We can coddle them if they are well intentioned, but don’t let them ruin the year’s progress for the rest of the class. Treat them with the same intellectual respect that we offer SpecEd students.
Here’s the logic that all adult politically engaged persons need to arrive at, lest they be eligible for the State funding that will have the short bus stop in front of their houses every morning:
Politics is about one thing: power.
What does political power do? It affords those who wield it the ability to exert their will over opposing groups or, if we were to take it one step further in the chain, it allows them access to resources commensurate with their power. This purpose reflexively reinforces the underlying mirror purpose of group preservation. To wit, politically powerful groups gain power to preserve a politically powerful group to gain power….etc.
Now we know the purpose of politics. So, when discussing what constitutes Left and Right, which are obviously not just different tribal groups but different political systems, what is the logical question that needs to be first answered?
When we are answering a question about what policies constitute opposing political systems, which are methods of incubating power, we have to come to the conclusion that first we have to answer this question as a guide to answering that question: How is political power incubated?
This is the question that will define what constitutes the policies, or framework, of both the Left and the Right.
What creates political power?
Some questions to keep in mind as this logic unravels:
1. Do you think that there are two probable best ways of creating political power, correlated with the Leftist and the Rightist systems, respectively?
2. If so, why would both survive? Would not one method perish in the Darwinian political power struggle and the other remain?
3. If it is improbable that there would be two surviving systems for political power incubation, then what are the possible reasons for existence of the other system other than power incubation?
Most of the history of war and cold war has been a contest between two nationalist groups, essentially both using the same political system for themselves. So, why, now, is there a second system that, instead of pitching one tribe against another, supposedly pitches one political system against another (or does it)?
The answer to this question lies in what could be considered one definition of politics.
To review:
First, we defined the purpose of politics: which was power.
Second, we clarified, using this purpose, the question that needed to be answered to define politics. How is power incubated?
Third, we are now answering that question.
Spoiler: Political power is incubated when two or more person’s decide to cooperate toward a goal. The political power created is consummate with both the effectiveness of that cooperation and how high and wide the cooperating network reaches.
The answer to this question will stand as the clearest definition of a functional political system, and will thus stand as a rough guide by which we can categorize policies.
That is, policies that assist with interpersonal political cooperation can be lumped together, and policies that inhibit it can be lumped together.
Spoiler: Policies that encourage interpersonal cooperation are Right Wing by definition, and those that disrupt it are Left Wing by definition. Why and how that is will be explained further below.
Politics (or the incubation of the smallest measure of political power) is when two individuals decide to cooperate with one another to achieve a goal. The effectiveness of that cooperation, as a start, will determine how effective those cooperating individuals are at achieving their goal and thus, by definition, will determine the strength of the political power created.
So, what allows for the strongest means of interpersonal cooperation toward a goal?
Here are some possibilities to consider:
Family relations
Race/Ethnicity
Being neighbors
Being from the same general place
Being in the same socioeconomic class
Belonging to the same political party
Belonging to the same social club
Having gone to the same schools
Being from the same country
Some of these relationships lead to much strong political cooperation than do others.
What are some behavioral hallmarks of truly close political cooperation?
Free information exchange both within and across generations (political information, business information etc).
Passing along political connections within and across generations.
Passing money in-between generations.
Goal consistency between generations.
Resiliency of individuals within the group (few dropouts).
Political parties don’t meet these hallmarks. The only groups that will meet the hallmarks of truly effective political cooperation are those who identify with a race or racially centric ethnicity.
This means that, according to the laws of hos political power is formed, well-functioning racial groups will always be the most politically powerful groups. No other group will pass so much between generations or be so resilient in both goals and membership.
Thus, racial politics form the basis of all true politics because no other political form can match this form’s ability t0 incubate political power. Also notice that these racial politics, by definition, are not individualistic.
Group politics are the politics of the Right.
Individualist politics are the politics of the Left.
Any policy that assists a racial-ethnic group in more effectively cooperating is, by definition, both a legitimate political system and Right Wing.
Any policy that individualizes someone away from a racial or ethnic group is, by definition, removing that person’s ability to effectively incubate political power.
The status for someone with zero political power is the equivalent political status of a slave.
Individualism is the politics of the slave class. Thus, for me, any system that individualizes the populace is an anti-political system because it reduces political power.
This brings us to the purpose of the Leftist system. Instead of being a legitimate political system, which incubates power, its sole purpose is to break down Right Wing power under the guise of the false political system of class association. However, class is a weak social bond and can never compete with or replace racial bonds in terms of politics. Money, information, etc will never be passed among the class warriors inter-generationally. See the ghetto for confirmation.
The point is to replace natural Darwinian (reinforced by power) political association of race with the powerless social affiliation of class. In spite of communist claims, class power always has to be enforced and regulated within a large state system, likely run by Right Wing slavemasters, because otherwise people will naturally re-associate according to ethnicity and race because it is within that framework that they can actually gain power and resources.
For politics, thought experiments at the poles are useful. Taking individualist Leftist politics to the extreme pole gives us the political framework of the slave class.
Taking group politics of the Right to the extreme pole gives as an extremely politically powerful group. Any inclusion of outsiders, by degree, will lessen the will and ability of the group to effectively politically cooperate. At this point, there will undoubtedly be knee jerk reactions that defend the value of outsiders. Conceded. However, the model remains true nevertheless. If the Amish diversified, they would be much less politically effective. If the Jews diversify, they will be much less politically effective. And so on. The laws of politics do not change because they make one feel reactively empathetic.
Look to modern blacks for example. They are a freed slave class, but are still full slaves in their political behavior because they inherently lack the ability to cooperate effectively across the group at large. Thus, they remain befuddled. Any group that kills so many of their own annually, by definition, lacks the ability to cooperate among themselves in a manner that competes with other group’s politics. There is no larger signal that disqualifies them from a characterization that they behave effectively. They are inherently individualistic (and arguably murderous as a result), they are inherently politically ineffective, and they are inherently slaves by their own group behavior.
To wrap it up, socialism is an irrelevant argument insofar as politics is concerned. As are all dogmatic economic arguments. Simply, the Right Wing economic system is the one that best helps the group gain more political power, or better survive, at the time. The Left Wing economic policy will be whichever policy politically weakens the group in the short or long term. In reality, economic policies will be malleable as circumstances dictate. Modern economic arguments always have the subtext of starving or supporting one group in our multicultural nation to either the benefit of expense of the other, and so it is impossible to have a principled argument in this context that is outside of a homogenous, essentially national socialist, society. For the best current example in the West, see Israel.
I think you’re on to something.
The author addresses a few different definitions of right/left, avoiding the most obvious definition and understood in USA for at least 80 years – placing government power on the X axis.
This is an omission by design because taking this most popular definition puts fascism of all kinds squarely on the Left. I call that admission by omission. The rest are a lot of words.
The problem with State power is there is no one to trust with it. We can discuss “common good” and “what’s best for society” but no one has the knowledge of what that is. We can guess. Maybe in hindsight we can try to link a cause with its effect but never definitively. And the last person I would trust with that power is someone who claims to know.
I find the BUGSers distinction of pro-White vs anti-White far more useful than right vs left. I don’t care whether or not a given historical political movement fits a certain term which different people have understood in different ways at different times. I care about finding the best strategies to help us secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
As an aside, I’ve no idea why you’re giving Beale more press. The guy’s proven himself to be completely untrustworthy. Almost as bad, judging by his recent behavior he apparently has all the intellectual depth of Sean Hannity. I literally couldn’t believe he came at Greg with such vapid boomer-tier tripe during their ‘debate’.
How is “nobility and principle, even in the face of death” a “left-wing” thing?
The Right is tradition, which defines a society as an organism. Hence the ‘left’ in France stood for free trade; the Right for social organisation.; the left for social disintegration, the Right for hierarchy based on social duty. That is why Spengler can for example refer to ‘Prussian socialism,” and Yockey to ‘ethical socialism’, and both say that the Right seeks to transcend capitalism, the Left merely to co-opt it.
The core difference between left and right is egalitarianism/non-egalitarianism. I think one should have put more emphasis on that in this article.
However, equality is a very relative thing, as one thing is only equal or inequal to another in a certain sense or on a certain level. So we can always see a mix of equality and inequality in any state or society. Any realistic and just right wing outlook on society will take that into account. Leftist ideologies since 1789 are aiming to turn equality into an absolute thing, an end in itself, which is absurd from a right-wing p.o.v.
National Socialism was certainly very anti-egalitarian in its outlook and therefore “on the right”, but it promoted a sort of radical equality among racially defined “Volksgenossen” which aimed to overcome class divisions and class struggle (a real thing, which increased the appeal of communism in Weimar Germany). In the context of post-Wilhelminian Germany this was a left-wing, “revolutionary” streak, and many social measures were taken to f.e. improve the position of the working class, which in the pre-war 1930s was certainly better off than in the “worker’s paradise” of the Soviet Union. The early regime propaganda movie “Hitlerjunge Quex” was specifically made to convince commie and working class voters that NS was the better kind of “socialism”. That “left-wing”, social or socialist (even “democratic”) side of NS was one of the main reasons why it appealed to many young people, alongside a strong nationalism fueled by the 1918 defeat and the Versailles treaty injustice. However, the “Volksgemeinschaft” and who was part of it and who not was ideologically too narrowly defined, as is always the case in a single party state, and this was one of the many mistakes that lead to an internal failure of the NS-state (also it didn’t do any good to copy many bolshevik methods such as Gulags/KZ, NKVD/Gestapo, suppression of free speech, Gleichschaltung of the press and institutions, ideologisation of the arts, the installation of a “political religion” in the sense of Voegelin etc.)
However, the “Volksgemeinschaft” and who was part of it and who not was ideologically too narrowly defined
Oh no, it was correctly defined, with reference to the ancestry: Volksgenossen were people of German origin, but other “aryans” could become ‘Volksgenossen’, too. More or less what we consider here, when we talk about a ‘White Ethnostate’.
it didn’t do any good to copy many bolshevik methods such as Gulags/KZ
That’s one of the many misconceptions :
Before WWII, the KZ were considered a more human variety of prisons, there were
– few of them (Dachau) and essentially
– for criminals and
– people considered ‘detrimental’ (Gypsies, vagabonds).
Very few were jailed for opposing actively National Socialism. In particular, before WWII, Jews were not put in KZs because of being Jews.
Apart from that – as is well known – internment camps are neither bolshevik nor NS inventions, but have been practised by many countries before, notably the British in South Afcrica (Boer War).
I would like to shortly share with you my experience, of how I got red-pilled concerning immigration (sorry for eventual language mistakes, I am from Europe and English is not my mother tongue).
It wasn’t encounter with people of other races that made me into an opponent of immigration, but it was when I got to know the kind of people who populate various NGOs promoting immigration, that I saw the reality for what it is.
There you have a bunch of middle-aged women (many of them divorced, some of the never married, sometimes living with a child born out of wedlock, a small amount of them have a husband and family) who almost literally WORSHIP those young men who came to Europe as so-called refugees. It is especially this relation between middle-aged women of European extraction and young men of Middle Eastern origin that struck (and disgusted) me most. These “boys” are in a way sacred to the hags I am talking about. Whatever they do, these women won’t stop adoring them. Even if they commit rape, they will be exculpated by them (you know, trauma etc.) I wouldn’t say they treat these young males as equal human beings though. It appears me they are to those women like some kind of cherished pets. They patronize them, they give them money and sometimes shelter. A young man of 19 years is called “child” by them. Some of these witches sometimes take the aliens to their house. I heard of cases when an alien raped daughter of one of these women-volunteers. Inspite of that, she didn’t repent having brought him to her home in the first place. Some of the couples, especially older couples, take these types as “foster children”. Although the “children” in question may be 20 or more years old. By what criteria can they be called “children”? The latest London attacks were committed by two young males who were foster children of a British couple…
Then you have some type of men promoting immigration. Most of them are not effeminate cosmopolitans (as one would assume) , but of a type resembling that of a Protestant preacher from USA. They are full of self-righteousness, extremely doctrinaire, intolerant and ready to burst in anger at slightest remark that would put in question sacredness of immigrants and their “right” to come to Western Europe and the White world in general.
Don’t ever assume these enforcers of immigration are some kind of naive humanitarian souls, bleeding hearts who believe in human goodness and refuse to see reality. No! They only use the bleeding heart rhetoric to seduce the gullible through the method of emotional blackmail. In reality, they are vicious people pursuing an agenda and they are very fanatical about it. When I say “agenda”, I am not referring to a conspiracy of sorts, but to a vision of world they believe in. When they say something like “I’ll rather have rapists than racists”, that is no rhetorical exaggeration, but they really mean it. Whatever happens, no matter what terror attacks get committed, these scumbags want change their point of view, not an iota. The saddest thing is that this kind of people are not treated as some exotic cult on the margins of society, but their ideology has deeply penetrated into the mainstream and not insignificant portion of the population came to agree with them. A large part of the ruling elite supports this vision or at least has nothing against it (they are protected from terror attacks and rapes anyway).
This testifies to the deep sickness of our mondern Western (in)culture and (pseudo)-civilization. This worship of aliens doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. Not in China, not in the Muslim world, not in Russia and not even in Eastern Europe. The West is unique in this and this makes me deeply disgusted with this mocern culture I live in. I agree with the Left when they say we should rather focus on our own faults than on judging others, but I mean it in totally different (opposite) way.
It’s the fallacy of the No Good Rightist…
Vox appears to think that what he thinks is good is right by default.
Leftists do the same thing with defining the left. If it’s good it’s left automatically.
Regarding free speech, the author is correct in his account of things: free speech (stemming from press and print freedom) in the classic English sense was freedom from prior restraint, and the U.S. inherited this concept, and free speech then evolved in the 20th. century to take on a more absolutist form so that it now means any form of honest speech, even if mistaken or said or published for malicious motives. This is surely right. Frankly who cares if the legal impetus came from the Left?
So far after over 2000 years it seems only National Socialism had to right balance of left/right ideas that transcended both, and more importantly had the teeth to successfully deal with the j problem….it’s only flaw was the leadership principle that placed too much power in the hands of one man, and that’s too much responsibility for anyone to bear with what was at stake…a civilization should not be destroyed because one guy makes a foolish military decision…I’m convinced ns governed by an aristocratic elite council of aryan elders is the way to go. There is no other time when the entire Jewish program was not only halted but reversed…until we can again rest power from their hands..power that controls the belief patterns, thought process, and actions of a majority of our people, and hence our collective fate…all abstract and philosophical discussion about almost anything is not only irrelevant, but absurd. Left or right, universal nationalism v. exterminations, what kind of society post-revolution (libertarian or totalitarian), what kind of foreign policy (universal nationalist v. Imperialist/ colonial/exterminations), etc., What religion we should have, and on and on…it’s all larping. I’m guilty too though, j admit it. All these debates are essentially meaningless until we figure out the best Machiavellian methods, techniques, tactics or strategy to take power back for our people and away from the chosen. Should we focus on reeducation of our people to apply grassroots pressure from the bottom in a decentralized way…or worry about gathering a revolutionary critical mass that can coordinate or function as a traditional military structure would to fight this metapolitical war?
The Left is the Cult of Equality; the Right is the resistance to it. It does date to the French revolution, or at least to the period of intellectual ferment that preceded it. What we are dealing with here is the emergence of a new religion in history, one that seeks to remodel society according to its tenets. Just as Islam obliterated the identities and traditions of the countries and peoples it subsumed, so, too, will the Religion of Equality. Unless the Right stops it.
Even though the Daily Stormer publishes my articles most days, I don’t really consider myself part of the Alt Reich. But I’m also not convinced it’s a bad idea. Although I found the Nazi iconography shocking at first, I am now desensitized to it. And other people are going through the same psychological change process.
It’s clear that the immigrationism of our ruling elites, at least the ones who are members of our ethnic group, is fundamentally irrational. And at the core of this irrationality is the Hitler/6 million mythos. Alt Reich memes desacralize and desolemnize this history, thus bringing it back within the ambit of the rational.
“Our loyalty should extend not to people who merely share our beliefs, but to people who share our end-goals and our values. If the replacement of a native population–our native population–is of concern to me and to you, then we have an interest in at least taking each other seriously and listening to each other, even if we do not necessarily agree on the best way to act. This is especially true if we are in a minority.”
Though I have quite a few disagreements with and reservations about some main ideas of this article regarding its take on Alt-Right/Reich and a few others, I heartily identify with the above quotation which truly resonates with me. This is a great and important truth all true members of our movement should bear in mind and use to guide their own words and activism.
By the way, could some one kindly inform me of the new site of the formerly shut down Daily Stormer if they do have a new functioning site now? I’ve tried dailystormer.ru and dailystormer.al according to some tips online, both not working anymore unfortunately. Some one please tell me if you have an idea. Many thanks!
https://dailystormer.is/ (Iceland)
You can always access it using the Tor browser at this address:
http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/
Daily stormer is on available on Tor browser.
It’s also available on the real web at dailystormer.is.
Andrew is also on Gab where he posts links and updates.
Thank you guys, your kind and prompt helps were deeply appreciated. 🙂
There’s a lot in these comments, but a lot of it seems to boil down to equality v. hierarchy.
I don’t disagree that this is true, but is not the true origin point of the Left-Right dichotomy: equality is an ideal, which truly emerged in the 18th century, but is only one of many kinds of ideals which left-minded people strive for. Idealism and survival as symbiotic means, but opposong emotional motives, existed prior to the ideal of equality, and will continue after the myth is put to rest.
I’d argue the left-right dichotomy as we know it only emerged in the 18th century as well.
“It is no use going to the French Revolution, where the supporters of the king aligned on the president of the assembly’s right, while those opposed to the king stood on the president’s left. The political distinctions in interests and motivations between the left and the right long predated France, and have existed in virtually every society in which debate was allowed.”
One wonders, then, why ages and thinkers prior to that Revolution never proposed anything approaching a universal monodimensional political spectrum.
The special terms “left” and “right,” since the beginning of their use in modern times, have been strongly associated with specific ideologies. Put more precisely: the left has been associated with specific ideologies, and the right with resistance to the same. The author wishes to detach “left” and “right” from any particular ideologies, and to connect them instead to contentless and transhistorical approaches to political things. But this, it seems to me, cannot avoid falling almost at once into serious difficulties.
An example: if “leftism” is merely seeking to effect any non-actualized ideal, then it seems clear that many in our cause are “leftists,” and it is equally clear that we will become moreso, the more that society transforms in accord with the globalist scheme. Yet it would be at the least very strange to call us leftists simply because we have a certain ideal of society. It is not our relation to the ideal, but the content of our ideal, which places us (albeit very problematically) on the “right.”
On the other side, the left was originally associated with an attempt to remodel society on the basis of rational principles, and the early Enlightenment thinkers sought to establish a form of government which would be eminently realizable, precisely as against the “ideal” of classical philosophy. They would thus appear to belong to the right, by the author’s estimation. Yet the Enlightenment was precisely what gave birth to the political left in our day.
Or again: the author identifies the left with “nobility and principle,” quite as if “nobility and principle” could not be deeply connected to the defense of one’s nation or the desire to maintain what is, as against any number of encroaching ideals.
The distinction which the author proposes between “idealism” and “realism” is surely a valid one in a great many cases, and can surely be of use in helping us explain a variety of phenomena. I very much doubt, however, they have anything essentially to do with the dichotomy between left and right—or that they can substantially aid us in the comprehension of that dichotomy.
What is considered Left or Right changes over time. In the 1960s, the Left offered a tempting alternative of the stifling culture of the 1950s. A culture that was authoritarian, conformist and puritanical by today’s standards. A culture that promised a dreary job with a nasty boss and a nagging wife for 40 years, and then you died and your nagging wife inherited all your money. The culture of the mid-1960s was a kind of liberation from a world that was in black in white (the way TV had been) to a world that was suddenly in color.
Leftists had tried to get the American people to support socialist and communist ideals ever since the Russian Revolution and had failed. America was just not having it. Then, the culture itself changed. The change first manifested itself in the Beat poets. Next came the folk singers. Next came the hippies. At that point, social justice meant nothing more than being nice to anyone and everyone. But at the same time, there was a draft that was pulling young Americans into a brutal war in Asia. Because of the cultural “flowering” already under way with rock music (my father called it “jungle music”) and hippies, the sense of duty that had existed during the Korean War was gone. The young didn’t want to go and die for no good reason in a jungle or rice paddy half way around the world. The older generation lost its grip on the young. So did authority figures in general. And many of those authority figures joined the young in their rebellion.
In the meantime, there was a strange symbiosis between the assassination of the much loved and admired President Kennedy and the fight for civil rights in the South. The assassination of Kennedy could only be compensated for through social justice. So what had begun as a breaking away from “bourgeois values” was now something much more complex. And something much more sinister, because drugs were entering into the picture. Riots by blacks were taking place in just about every major city in the country. And crime was out of control.
Steps were taken to “solve” these problems. Civil rights were given to blacks. Blacks were put on welfare and kept safely in their ghettos. The draft was ended, and the Vietnam War was ended as far as American soldiers were concerned. Sentences for crimes were stiffened and liberal judges were reined in. And so society reached a state of equilibrium. But one would be naive to think that the Left was satisfied with this result. Throughout this period, the Left had hoped for a political revolution and the complete destruction of the capitalist system. That hadn’t happened. It seemed that the working class was too comfortable to rebel. Something had to be done.
The Left decided to create a cultural revolution that it hoped would lead to a political revolution later on. Thus began the Left’s “march through the institutions” — the arts, entertainment, Hollywood, the universities, the media, the schools and colleges, etc. This was a process that was going to take a while. But in many cases, the Left didn’t have to do much at all. The cultural institutions were already on its side. They just had to become more on its side. The Left had a great advantage because the business and political establishment had very little interest in cultural institutions. That stuff — going to the symphony and things like that — was for women and effeminate men. So while Daddy was voting Republican and making money in the stock market, his little Johnny was being indoctrinated in left wing values by his school teachers, college professors, the news media, Hollywood and the entertainment industry. And this indoctrination, mild at first (“We should be nice to blacks) became more and more extreme.
I won’t go into what the result is today. We already know what that result is. My point is that the person who leaned liberal, as I did in the sixties, in no way resembles a liberal or Leftist of today. I do not think that I have changed. The political landscape has changed.
So whatever is defined as right or left is pretty much guaranteed to change in a given society, depending on the circumstances.
I do not really see my motivation for supporting the goals of what we now call white nationalism or the alt-right as being political in nature. It is not about right or left, it is about my being attacked as a white male. And for those of you who criticize boomers like me, and ask what the hell we were doing to prevent this attack, again I must frame my answer in terms of change over time. No one was aware, for example, that the 1965 immigration act was going to radically change American demographics. We were deliberately lied to about that, and the change was gradual. I only really noticed it in 1992 in San Francisco when I had to go to an office that was in the same building where immigrants were being processed. I saw a line around the block of nothing but brown people who didn’t speak English. And I mean hundreds of them. I could barely make my way through the mob in the entrance to get to my appointment. And apparently, these long lines of immigrants formed up every day. The country was being invaded, thanks to our government.
I did object repeatedly to affirmative action policies that discriminated against white males. To no avail. It was only later in life that I understood that our government has never — in my lifetime — had the slightest interest in promoting the welfare of the majority of (white) Americans. Now, after study and analysis, I believe that the reason for this is Jewish influence as it has (again, in a very hidden or occult way) manifested itself in central banking, finance, the media and so on. It took me a while to reluctantly become anti-Semitic. I had had mixed relations with Jews, some very good, some very bad. I could still be friends with a Jew. But I see the Jews in general as my mortal enemy.
So what — besides these revelations — has led me to white nationalism? Well, I’ve always been very tribal about my whiteness. I’ve always admired my race, been glad and proud that I am white, been proud of the achievements of white Western Civilization, and believed that whites are superior to other races and should come first. Let’s keep the focus on defending whites and not get too sidetracked by politics and economics. If communists supported my race and no one else did, then I would be a communist.
Non-Jewish European people and non-jewish whites in the Americas have lost control of their lands and the systems that control their societies. Politics will have a role in every power struggle but at this point in time I see the conflict as intense and little is being done in politics by any actor. The battlefield is no longer the courts or the Congress, it is the street. The debate over left and right is marginal. The left is definitely anti white, whatever ideals you might have held, whatever your knowledge of history amounts to, you cannot call yourself a progressive and do anything that will be good for white people at the same time.
As G.J. often says, and accurately so..you don’t bring a knife to a metapolitical/cultural war of ideas, hearts and minds. However with the polarization brought by Trump and the awakening to our actual situation of European genocide globally..some might conclude the knife fight is about to be at your doorstep. But we must not be premature in our strategy.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment