Counter-Currents
  • Private Events
  • T&C
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
  • Webzine
  • Books
  • Podcasts
  • Donate
  • Paywall
  • Crypto
  • Mailing List
  • About
  • Contact
  • RSS
    • Main feed
    • Comments feed
    • Podcast feed
  • Advertise

LEVEL2

  • Webzine
  • Books
  • Podcasts
  • Donate
  • Paywall
  • Crypto
  • Mailing List
  • About
  • Contact
  • RSS
    • Main feed
    • Comments feed
    • Podcast feed
  • Advertise
  • Private Events
  • T&C
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
Print June 27, 2019 9 comments

What is the Metaphysics of the Right?

Collin Cleary

5,486 words

In my essay “What is the Metaphysics of the Left?” I identified the fundamental presuppositions underlying the Leftist worldview. In the present essay, I intend to build on that analysis by showing how it can enable us, with relative ease, to identify our own metaphysics, the metaphysics of the Right. In short, my approach is indirect: I intend to arrive at our own most fundamental presuppositions by, in essence, negating the metaphysics we reject and revile. First of all, however, a few very brief introductory remarks and disclaimers are necessary.

First, given my methodology, it is obviously the case that one will only agree that what I present really is the metaphysics of the Right, if one agrees with my analysis of Leftist metaphysics in the previous essay. I am confident, however, that most of my readers will concur with that analysis, at least in its broad outlines. This means that my approach may have the benefit of helping us to overcome some divisions within the Right, by identifying the most fundamental, metaphysical convictions we share in common. By adhering to this “indirect” methodology, I believe I have pitched a “big tent.” As the reader will see, I advocate a kind of “metaphysical pluralism,” and I avoid making certain sorts of claims – including those that some readers might expect me to make. For example, I don’t claim that this metaphysics commits us to pagan polytheism.

Further, while I have written many essays on metaphysical themes, the present essay does not attempt to weave together everything I have said elsewhere (though readers familiar with my work will see where certain ideas are incorporated). Also, as noted in the previous essay, my starting point is not a review of Western metaphysics – again, my starting point is a critique of Leftist presuppositions. No attempt has been made to synthesize ideas from the Western philosophical tradition. However, attentive readers will notice where those ideas wind up being recapitulated. This is unavoidable since some (not all) of Western metaphysics is true. Finally, I must emphasize that the present essay presupposes familiarity with the previous one. At every point in the present essay, I am, in effect, responding to the tenets of the Leftist metaphysics discussed in the other essay – but it is up to the reader to see this.

So, let us begin.

The first and most basic tenet of the metaphysics of the Right is that there is a reality that exists independently of us. We might as well call this nature: it is the non-human world out of which the human emerges.[1] We have not created nature, and it would continue to exist if human beings were completely wiped out. Nature is the reality that it is independent of our ideas, theories, emotions, hopes, wishes, or fears.

Nature is a world of individuals. These possess definite identities, which are not conferred on individuals by human beings, and which continue to exist even if human beings remain unaware of them, or deny them. Identity consists in possessing, or not possessing certain features. These include potentialities for behaving in certain ways, and for acquiring (or losing) other features. Since some individuals possess features in common, it is possible for us to speak about natural kinds. At this juncture in our metaphysics, it is possible to go in either a Platonist or an Aristotelean direction: to say that natural kinds (forms, universals, natures) have an existence independent of the physical world, or to say that, while natural kinds are real, they have no existence apart from the individuals that exhibit them.

I will make no judgment about this, and Rightists could embrace either position. The metaphysics I am outlining here is pluralistic in the sense that it is open to the existence of different sorts of entities. So called “non-material” beings (forms, souls, spirits, etc.) may – or may not – exist. We believe in the existence of a nature that exists independently of our subjective states – and (as I discuss later) we appeal to that nature as a standard by which those subjective states are judged. But this does not necessarily entail metaphysical materialism. I do not believe it is essential that a Rightist metaphysics take a position on the existence of non-material beings. (In other words, one can take whatever position on this one likes and still be on the Right.) One position we cannot embrace, however, is nominalism: the theory that universals are mere words with no objective correlates. In the entire history of Western philosophy, no one has ever succeeded in developing a nominalism that does not reduce to the position that universals are inherently arbitrary, non-objective human inventions and that human beings may conceptually carve up the world in any way they like. (It is nominalism that is at the root of claims that such things as race and “gender” are “socially constructed.”)

Individuals (of whatever kind) exist in certain objective states of affairs. These are called facts. Seeking to know what these are is the same thing as seeking to know truth. One of the features of individuals is their relationships. Individuals are related to other individuals in countless ways. In fact, everything is related, in one way or another, to everything else. (See Part One of my essay “Ancestral Being.”)[2] We seek to know the truth about individuals, which always involves the truth about their relationships.

While we live in the world with these natural objects, we also live in another world, one of our own creation: this is the world of human culture and human ideas. Much of human thought and culture is a way of shaping and understanding that first, natural world, and our relationship to it. This “world of the subject,” for lack of a better term, has a secondary, derived status. Our ideas and our feelings are consequent upon our engagement with the world. In other words, immediate engagement with the world around us, in the form of sense perception, occurs prior to the formation of ideas about the world. It is the world around us, a world of individuals and their properties in relation to each other, that is primary, not the “subjective world” of thoughts, feelings, and theories. That subjective world may, in certain respects, faithfully reflect the objective world. Or it may not. For example, a theory may be confirmed – or disconfirmed – by evidence.

Though we create a human world that is distinct from what exists in nature (i.e., what is simply given), our human being “contains” the natural as well. We possess natural characteristics that we have not chosen, and that will continue to exist regardless of what we think or feel about them. Much of education and enculturation consists in honing and refining natural characteristics. For example, we have a natural aptitude for language; i.e, this is a heritable, natural property of human beings. Education actualizes this aptitude by teaching us a specific language and refining our use of it. We have aptitudes for certain types of bodily motion. Education and enculturation teach us specific ways in which these aptitudes can be realized – for example, through athletics and dance.

However, every aptitude or potential we possess comes with certain natural limits beyond which we cannot stray – or beyond which we stray at our peril (as when we misuse natural aptitudes in ways that are destructive to the body, mind, or character). We are free only up to a point. Specifically, we are free to see and to think – or to choose not to do so. To take an example, I can choose to see my natural limits, or I can choose to live in denial of them. The problem of “free will” is not as big a problem as you think it is. Just consider this: You are willing to allow that certain people (e.g., liberals) live in denial of natural limits and natural differences. And you reproach them for this. This means you believe that they could, if they wanted, be aware of those limits and differences, and affirm them. We have the choice to see or not to see; to be awake or to be asleep.

What seems to be unique about us in nature is that we are the animals that are aware of nature. We are the only animal that is struck with wonder at nature; the only animal, indeed, that is struck with wonder at the fact that things are at all. We try to capture what is, in one way or another: to understand it, to analyze it, to depict it, to predict it, to grasp our relationship to it, or simply to bear witness to it. This gives rise to different modes of the human relationship to what is: philosophy, science, art, poetry, religion, mysticism, and so on.

To actualize this grasp of what is – which, again, seems to be our unique role in the scheme of things – we have to be open to the ways in which the world shows itself to us. The opposite of this would be to insist on interpreting everything according to fixed ideas or theories, or to live with a censored awareness that denies certain facts. We have an obligation to honor what the senses tell us – an obligation to honor evidence, of whatever kind. Heidegger is correct when he speaks of truth as unconcealment: to discover the truth means to bring things to light; to bring them from out of darkness into light, to reveal them. And in doing so, we bring ourselves into the light.

What is it that it is unconcealed? The identities of things in the world, and their relations, as spoken of earlier. Our ideas, opinions, theories, and even our emotional responses are all judged in terms of whether they are faithful to what the world actually reveals to us; in other words, in terms of whether they are faithful to truth. To strive always to think in accord with truth – in accord with facts we have brought to light – is what it means to be logical, in the most fundamental sense of the word.

We have no obligation to believe anything; no one can say, in other words, that we must believe some claim because believing in it is good in a moral sense. However, we do have an obligation to believe any claim that is supported by sufficient evidence. The flipside of this is that we have an obligation to disbelieve claims for which insufficient evidence exists. Whenever ideas contradict each other, or when our thinking leads to contradiction, we know that we have arrived at falsehood and impossibility. The reason for this is that literal contradictions cannot exist in reality.[3] We have an obligation to avoid contradiction, and never to simultaneously believe two or more ideas or claims that contradict each other.

One can use the discovery of truths as a means to alter certain features of the world. Famously, for example, scientific discoveries have technological applications, which always involve the alteration of natural givens. However, our openness to the truths of nature reveals to us certain respects in which we cannot alter the identities of things, and their relations, without endangering ourselves and the network of human and natural relations of which we are a part. Things are not infinitely malleable. To insist that they are requires a deliberate denial of the intrinsic characteristics they reveal to us – which is the opposite of the attitude of openness I discussed earlier. I previously discussed the importance of recognizing limits on our ability to alter our own natural characteristics, in the context of discussing human freedom.

In order to go into more detail concerning human nature and potentialities, I must return for a moment to the metaphysically basic topic of individual things and their identities. I already discussed how part of the identity of individuals consists in their relations. In a certain way, however, it is possible to understand an individual’s relations to others as constituting the whole of its identity. This is because identity is always identity in difference. In other words, the identity of anything is constituted through the ways in which it is different from other things. An individual thing is brown and not green, straight and not round, living and not non-living, six feet tall and not five-foot-eleven, male and not female, occupying this space and not that one, and so on. (See my in particular my essay “Asatru and the Political” for more information on this basic idea of identity in difference.) Indeed, it is differences that makes individuals individual: each is a unique combination of traits. Any two things that seem absolutely identical (such as identical twins) will, nonetheless, possess at least some differing traits, else we would not count them as two. (If nothing else, they occupy at all times different physical spaces.) We can thus say that is fundamental to existing things is that they are always other.

This fundamental otherness manifests itself in myriad ways, not just the possession of different traits. The otherness of things frequently places them in antagonistic relationships. They bump into each other and create friction; they displace each other in their roles or locations; they compete in various ways. For all of the above, we could find illustrations involving either living or non-living things. In addition, living things devour each other, desire each other, and seek to undermine each other in various ways.

Difference or otherness is expressed in two fundamental forms, both of which can be the basis for antagonisms:

  1. Difference in kind: minerals have a definite chemical composition, rocks do not; the mammal is warm-blooded, the reptile is not; the collie barks, the basenji does not; John has blue eyes and Mary does not; the raven can mimic, the sparrow cannot.
  2. Difference in degree: gold has only one stable isotype, whereas silver has two; elephants are larger than hedgehogs; one collie barks louder than another; Mary’s eyes are bluer than Steve’s; Steve is smarter than Mary; the parrot can mimic more sounds than the raven.

Differences in degree are inequalities, and inequalities are found throughout nature. Some things are greater than others: larger, swifter, stronger, more durable, smarter, heavier, more industrious, more aggressive, and so on. In some contexts, this means that some things wind up dominating others (as the male animal dominates the female, one animal devours another, some men rule over others, some animals and men defeat others in forms of competition, etc.). It is basic to the metaphysics of the Right that we affirm the existence of superiority and natural inequality, and, indeed, the reality of difference in general.[4] This does not mean, however, that we endorse the childish idea that “might is right,” for we do have a conception of justice and of law.[5] If Steve mugs Mary and steals her purse, we don’t simply accept this because Steve is stronger. Nor do we simply shrug and affirm that “might makes right” when confronted with the superior wealth, influence, and firepower of deracinated, globalist elites who seek to rob us of our freedoms and replace us in our own countries. Further, we do seek to ameliorate certain sorts of natural inequality. For example, if Steve’s vision is poorer than the other boys’, we don’t refuse to equip him with glasses.

It is possible to see all of existence as an expression of a struggle for dominance or power, to see this as a primary (or the primary) element in existence, as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche did (though there is no good reason to follow them in hypostatizing the “will” that things exhibit, and in thinking it is some kind of entity that exists distinct from its expression). It is only living things that strive in the literal sense (non-living things “strive” only figuratively or poetically). The striving for dominance is an effort to . . .

  1. Maintain one’s existence as an individual, against challenges and threats (especially those posed by other living things, including things of one’s own kind).
  2. Elevate that existence above influences that would retard the natural expression of one’s properties or potentialities.
  3. Expand one’s sphere of influence in order to control situations or things, including things of one’s own kind.

Related to these forms of striving are two others. The first is the striving to, in effect, duplicate oneself through reproduction. In some individuals (especially males), this striving expresses itself in part or in whole as the production of works that are intended to survive the death of the individual (discoveries, conquests, monuments, novels, musical compositions, works of philosophy, etc.). Another, related form of striving is the striving to understand the world. This can be understood as an expression of the striving for control (number 3 above), given that understanding things reduces their otherness or alienness, and allows us to manipulate them in various ways.

Strategies for dominance basically divide into three types:

  1. “Primary” (for lack of a better word): One uses one’s own strength (of whatever kind) to dominate or win against others.
  2. “Secondary”: One affiliates with or serves the stronger in order to dominate others or achieve some objective.
  3. “Parasitic”: One dominates not through one’s own strength, or through allying oneself with the strong, but through in some way feeding off the strength of others, or even using their strength against them. This can be a simple strategy for achieving basic subsistence (Greek parásitos literally means “one who eats at the table of another”; and we see this form of “parasitism” throughout nature). It can become a dominance strategy, but only through considerable cleverness. An example would be Nietzsche’s “transvaluation of values,” in which the weak convince the strong that their virtues are vices, and that they only gain merit in serving the weak. This may even become the long-term strategy of an entire group.

Primary dominance is associated with greater reproductive success, a greater likelihood of achieving the top position within hierarchies (or coming very close to it), and greater life-satisfaction. Those who are less strong or less dominant achieve success (in reproduction, social position, life-satisfaction, etc.) by affiliating upwards (the secondary strategy). They will likely never be top dog, but they are able to accept this situation through achievement of a kind of derived status; achievement of virtue associated with “service,” and so on.

There is a qualitative difference between these two strategies and the third, “parasitic” strategy. We sense this in our strong intuition that there is something loathsome about individuals who pursue this strategy. This difference in human types is inscrutable, and ultimately, there may be no way of understanding why certain individuals are, to use Nietzsche’s language, slave types.[6] I will suggest – though I do not wish to insist on this point – that this difference in human types may reflect a broader dualism inherent in existence itself: a split between a kind of “will” towards order, health, and the achievement of ideal type, and an opposing “will” toward undermining order (i.e., producing chaos), undermining health, and retarding the expression of natural forms. This is a rather Manichean position, but I find myself drawn toward it. And I increasingly find myself drawn toward the position that the Left (and slave morality generally) is a social expression of the latter sort of “negative will.”

Life is not entirely about struggle and dominance, however. As Empedocles saw, the force of “Strife” is balanced by “Love.” Individuals are not just different, they are also similar. It is on the basis of similarities that they affiliate and form bonds. Here I am speaking primarily of living things, but this principle holds true even in the case of some non-living material objects. Living things always form bonds or alliances on the basis of similarity, never in the basis of difference. Arguably, the only exception to this is the bond between male and female, though even in this case they bond on the basis of certain shared values or desires (e.g., the desire for children). The “diversity” ideology of today’s Left is, of course, completely contradicted by the basic biological fact that creatures tend to bond exclusively with others like themselves. It is unity that is always sought, not diversity.

I will deal with two counter-examples. Don’t men with radically different views bond together in order to create such things as debating societies? Yes, but they bond on the basis of strong, shared values: valuing debate, and valuing the rules of civil discussion. Second, what about all those cute animal videos on YouTube that show cats and dogs cuddling or mother cats nursing baby weasels, and such things? These sorts of relationships are obviously not natural. They have been created by keeping the animals in an artificially infantile state – and keeping them well-fed. If resources became scarce, they would immediately turn on each other. Superficially functional “diverse” cities and neighborhoods face the same problem.

Similarities bond people together. Our strongest bonds tend to be with those to whom we are genetically similar. And this is not, of course, true only of human beings; we see this throughout the animal kingdom (“birds of a feather . . .”). Genetic ties are not a matter of choice (they are, in a sense, chosen for us) and the feelings they engender are not chosen (again, much of who and what we are is not under our control). Our genetic nature is a fundamental part of our being. (See again my essay “Ancestral Being.”) Genetic bonds can be visualized as a series of concentric circles. At the very center is immediate family. Moving outwards from the center we come to extended family, clan, tribe, ethnicity, and race.[7] An ethnicity and a race can be considered as a very large, extended family of genetically similar people. Ties to ethnicity and race are obviously weaker than ties to family, but people are naturally drawn to and prefer their own ethnicity and race just as they prefer (or at least give some kind of priority to) their own families.

It is true that there are individuals who seem to have a weak bond with their families, and even to prefer their “chosen families” (close, genetically unrelated friends) to their own kin. But these people tend to be W.E.I.R.D. (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic; see my essay on Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind). It is also obviously true that bonds across ethnic/racial lines are possible, but these tend to be the weakest bonds of all. For the most part, the flipside of genetic attraction is that most people feel ill at ease with those who are very genetically different.[8] It is primarily for this reason, as my readers know well, that the multicultural/multi-racial society is a recipe for perpetual conflict and tension.

Within societies of genetically similar individuals, a struggle for dominance still takes place. This is particularly the case where social status is concerned. This can serve the interests of group security and group cohesion, since (theoretically) the strongest and most capable will rise to the top and occupy leadership positions. That is, unless conditions arise which make this difficult or impossible. (For example, democracy – in which the mob’s resentment against superiority is allowed free rein, and only those willing to flatter and placate the mob can succeed in gaining power over it.) In an ethnically homogeneous society, in which conditions allow the strongest and most capable to rise to the top, leadership will consist primarily in safeguarding the ethny, its territory, and its culture. (In weaker sets of conditions, leadership may be focused on its own enrichment and self-aggrandizement, even to the point of disadvantaging the ethny and its culture.)

While struggle for dominance within a society does not, under normal circumstances, undermine the society (and may even, as I have said, strengthen it), societies struggle with other societies, effectively in a kind of “state of nature,” without any higher law-giving authority that may limit their actions. This struggle between societies is a struggle to undermine or disadvantage each other, from the outside (or from the inside, if some societies have agents that act within other societies to somehow weaken their defenses). Societies have been known to form alliances with each other or to make treaties, and even to form transnational assemblies for adjudicating disputes. But these are largely ineffective.

Differences between genetically similar groups are profound. Human groups have evolved under markedly different sets of circumstances. As a result, they exhibit pronounced anatomical and behavioral differences. Because human groups possess these physical differences and have encountered different sorts of environmental and historical circumstances, the cultures they have evolved are very different. This means that it is entirely possible that if an individual of race X finds himself in a culture evolved by race Y, he may (or may not) be ill-equipped to function and achieve various sorts of success within that culture (happiness, material prosperity, formation of family). It is very difficult, and usually impossible, to impose a culture on a people that has not evolved it. We cannot make everyone like us.

The profound differences in groups include fundamentally different ways of seeing the world. Because of this, it is impossible for groups ever to fully understand each other. I have read and profited from the Tao Te Ching, but I am quite convinced that I could never understand it in the way a mature and educated Chinaman could. Nor could he ever understand the Iliad or Beyond Good and Evil as I can.

However, this does not entail cultural relativism or the trendy assertion that people of different cultures “live in different realities.” Recall that our metaphysics holds that there is a reality (just the one) that exists independently of our minds, as well as our different culturally-embedded beliefs and presuppositions. Because of this, those beliefs and presuppositions can be judged in just the same way that those of an individual can be judged: in terms of whether they account for, or accord with, perceivable, testable facts of reality, and whether the inferences they involve are cogent. For example, if Barbara thinks that she has an alien implant in her left wrist, we can, with a little effort, easily test and refute this belief. So, too, with cultures that believe molesting a child will cure them of AIDS.

Radical Leftists (especially those in academia) will assert that such thinking is cultural imperialism, since it attempts to judge another culture’s beliefs on the basis of logic, which is a Western “invention.” Aside from the dubious charge of “imperialism,” there is some truth to this. Logic is Western: it is Western philosophers, beginning with Aristotle, who codified logic. It is true to say that logic is a product of our culture – but it is not our “invention,” it is our discovery. In just the same way, calculus is Western – a Western discovery, not a Western invention (it was discovered independently by Newton and Leibniz). Like mathematics, logic works not just here in the West, but here, there, and everywhere. Western logic and mathematics even work in outer space, whether the astronauts are American or Chinese.

Is it the case that logic, as a way of dealing with the world and organizing our thoughts, might be particularly suited to us Westerners? Yes, indeed. But this does not make the case that logic is “culturally relative,” especially given its spectacular success regardless of where and when it has been used. Rather, what it shows is that cultures are not equal. At least in this particular case, it is the West that has been far ahead of the rest of the world in developing tools that can bring things out of the darkness and into the light – as Hegel clearly saw (see my essay “The Stones Cry Out: Cave Art and the Origins of the Human Spirit.”). It is simply the case that some cultures have noticed features of reality that others have not. Some are better equipped to understand nature than others.

* * *

This completes my survey of the metaphysics of the Right. Obviously, a great deal more could be said. However, I have tried as much as possible to restrict myself to essential points – and I have inferred these, once again, from a consideration of the features of Leftist metaphysics we strongly reject. I think of us loosely as “The Reality Party”: ours is the position that honors what is; that honors evidence, even when it suggests that the world we live in is far from ideal. This standpoint stands in sharp contrast to that of the Left, which is preoccupied with ideal visions of a world that can never be, and which denies evidence and persecutes those who dare to mention it.

I will close by saying that if you feel some essential point has been left out of my account – some point essential to a Rightist metaphysics – I would challenge you to provide an argument for why it is essential. For example, you will have seen that I take no position (in the present essay) on the existence of God, or gods. If you disagree with me and think that this is essential, why? Would an individual cease to be on the Right if they rejected your position? If so, why? My major preoccupation in this essay (and the one that preceded it) has been truth. But I also think that the minimalist results of my inquiry serve to unite us, rather than to divide us.

Notes

[1] Strictly speaking, “reality” includes whatever exists, which includes our ideas and other subjective states. In other words, “reality” and “nature” are not strictly synonymous. In the present context, however, the “reality” I am keen to assert is the one denied by Leftists: an independently existing nature, that is what it is independent of how we think or feel.

[2] Consistent with my commitment to metaphysical pluralism, I will also make no judgment on the issue of whether it is individuals or relations that can be said to be “ontologically primary.” I tend to think that it depends on how you look at the matter, and that both positions are valid. Again, see Part One of “Ancestral Being.”

[3] There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what a contradiction is. A contradiction is “X and not-X.” The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be X and not-X at the same time and in the same respect. So, while it is possible for it to rain in one location at 12:00 and not rain at 2:00, it is impossible for it to rain and not rain in the same location, at the same time. A standard example of why contradictions cannot exist in reality is the legendary “square circle.” The assertion that there could be a square circle is a contradiction, because it claims that something that has no angles has angles. There are ideas and claims that conflict, but to call them “contradictory” is usually a loose way of talking. For example, it is loose talk to say that liberalism and conservatism are “contradictory.” However, to take one example, the assertion that “gender” is both “socially constructed” and is not “socially constructed” does seem contradictory, unless one claims that certain things about gender are socially constructed, and other things are not.

[4] The “inequality of the sexes” is natural, though in many respects, the differences between them are not “inequalities.” For example, it would be mostly pointless to argue about which is “better” or “superior”: having a penis or having a vagina. For the most part, the differences/inequalities between the sexes complement each other. The sexes have only been placed in competition with each other in the modern period due to the poisonous influence of feminism.

[5] We cannot cede the idea of “justice” to the Left. It is not justice we reject, but the Left’s peculiar idea that justice excludes all inequality. Some inequalities are just, others are not.

[6] Many of these individuals may be burdened by physical inadequacies or born into low status. But these situations do not always produce slave types. Some individuals who are physically weak exhibit great spiritual strength, and no signs of ressentiment. And some individuals born to low status choose to affiliate upwards, and also exhibit no signs of hating or envying their betters. Some fundamental differences in character type remain, and may always remain, a mystery. The ultimate unintelligibility of individuals may be precisely what makes them individual. At least, this was an implication of Plato’s metaphysics.

[7] I am using “ethnicity” here to mean what is sometimes called “nationality” – for example, German, English, French, Spanish. The race subsuming these ethnicities is obviously white.

[8] I assume I do not need to lecture this audience on how “small” genetic differences make huge differences in how animals look and how they behave. Humans share 96 percent of their DNA with chimps. That little 4 percent makes all the difference in the world. It is the difference between spending one’s days chomping on bananas versus writing (or reading) The Phenomenology of Spirit.

Related

  • The Union Jackal, July 2022

  • ماهية المرأة

  • What is the New World Order?
    Part 2

  • Why White Americans Care about Abortion

  • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 458
    Gregory Hood & Greg Johnson on Burnham & Machiavellianism

  • White Advocacy & Class Warfare

  • Christianity is a Vast Reservoir of Potential White Allies

  • Christopher Pankhurst’s Numinous Machines

Tags

Collin Clearymetaphysicsnaturerealitythe leftthe Right

9 comments

  1. Brian Bowden says:
    June 27, 2019 at 11:00 pm

    Nihilism. No God, no belief. The more astute will delve deep enough to find meaningless, nihilistic tendency. It is where such philosophical rabbit holes end. (Ecclesiastes). But you say you live for this life, for the future generations. All better to not be born, or of no significance either or. All go extinct. You are granted consciousness, to dwell on meaning(less), mortality. A travesty for such a animal with no future. A belief system or hope is desirable for the more inquisitive.
    Stronger, smarter, traits are relative to surroundings. If we crash as a civilization desired traits will be different than current societal desired traits. There is nothing static, nor desirable traits possible of being static. As we created our own environment within nature we may become utterly dependent on our creation, as we slowly encapsulate our own evolutionary process. So while we are limited by nature we are not limited to the extent of effecting our own evolution by our own systems of invention. There will always be hierarchy, there will always be selection. The question as we seperate ourselves further from nature is if nature doesn’t decide the hierarchy and selection who does? Our “kind” is changing. If not through multiculturalism through our own systems we invent that inherently effect the evolutionary and natural selection process. For no matter though. If no God or belief it is all for nought. There may be a saving grace in hoping the species in general will elevate to the point of overcoming death. Whether that be good or bad a matter of philosophical debate in itself. In such instance they will most likely be white, in fact possibly everyone may be white. As 10000 years of enclosing ourselves in our own invented optimal atmosphere with nice safe artificial sunlight and pills will surely effect the melatonin.
    Or, our inventions bring great demise, and the future if one is one begins again with making mud bricks. The white identity is not the primary issue. As the evolution that created us continues yet. Time does not stop. Atmospheric conditions change. The primary issue is a cultural one and wisdom based for the future. This is in my opinion the future. As if we may be able to clone more white people, or develop them just in sustaining our personally developed atmospheric conditions, or a tweak in the dna code. The right does not seem to be looking toward the future. And it’s dilemmas perhaps should be scrutinised against expected technological breakthroughs. Either/or. Those of a thousand years from now whether white or not, will be very less in similarity to us. Perhaps even products of Eugenics and A.I. The upward mobility of species is a necessity, especially if one believes in no God, as we need to become Gods.

  2. Vehmgericht says:
    June 28, 2019 at 12:09 am

    A very good piece, though nowadays chinaman is a term encountered only in cricket, if at all.

    One might add that Inequality is the very engine of nature, for without it, change cannot occur. Free Energy (as in Helmholz & Gibbs, rather than Popular Mechanics) is the technical term in physical science.

    Perhaps one might stretch the analogy into History by venturing that whereas the Right strives to harness that Energy to create Civilisation, the Left consumes it to excrete Entropy?

    1. Brian Bowden says:
      June 30, 2019 at 2:47 pm

      Couldn’t agree more.

  3. eyeslevel says:
    June 28, 2019 at 8:45 am

    A mother loves her baby. We love our own kind. There’s no need to justify or explain that.

  4. Synchronistic Child says:
    June 28, 2019 at 1:15 pm

    Thank you very much for these three essays, Mr. Cleary. They are all extremely clear and illuminating. In my opinion, the trio makes an excellent intro to the New Right. They are perfect as a first reading for the uninitiated, and for those who, like me, have only been aware of the movement for a few years. Reading these pieces crystallized multiple notions in my head like very few others.

  5. Porcius says:
    June 29, 2019 at 12:33 am

    Surely a nominalist could say that although we could carve up and categorize the world in any we like, there are only a certain number of credible and pragmatic ways to do so.

    For example, we may say that race is a useful and pragmatic way to categorize people into groups. While we on the right may defend this categorization with genetic clusters and phenotypic differences, the left has no way to oppose it with hard facts.

  6. Nyklot says:
    June 29, 2019 at 11:28 am

    This brings up an interesting question that I would like to ask Colin Cleary. How do you view Nietzsche and nominalism? Many post-modernist like to claim him as part of their intellectual foundation, and his ideas could be congenial to a type of nominalism. I believe in “On Truth and Lies” he states that something is forgotten from that movement of the original experience to the concept, that the unequal is made equal, and the dissimilar is made similar. I think this can be consistent with a type of metaphysical realism in that what is real is the vital essence or power that is the core of our subjective experience, and not the eidectic reduction in the sense that Husserl sees it as a list of essential predicates of that subjective experience. Yes, it is hard to capture the true reality of an experience in words, but that does not mean the reality does not shine forth. I think the main difference between the rightist and leftist view of Nietzsche is that the Right will acknowledge that there is some vital or transcendent reality to certain experiences, which words cannot capture perfectly, whereas the Left will see everything as a social construction. To give an example, I remember once watching an episode of the Brady Bunch, and Marcia called Greg “groovy”, and I laughed at the word. The reality is that “groovy” is clearly a social construct of the world of the 70’s, whereas when I read Heidegger’s description of the Greek experience of thaumazein, which is speechless wonder at that which is, I saw something “transcendent” in that word, that is connecting one to a greater reality. I guess for the Left they are deaf or blind to the meaning of words like thaumazein, and everything would be equivalent to “groovy”, just a social construct of the time with no connection to anything greater.

  7. Grímnir says:
    June 30, 2019 at 9:28 pm

    So realism? I don’t think realism implicates adhesion to any particular political ideology.

  8. JB says:
    January 11, 2020 at 6:13 pm

    Thank you for writing both articles on the metaphysical presuppositions of the left and the right as I was recently inclined to be thinking “presuppositionally” about political views , as I seemed to realize that unless these assumptions are addressed, then both political sides continue to speak past each other and nothing is actually accomplished….

    However, you mentioned that belief in the existence of God, was not necessary for the right’s metaphysics (I’m aware that some on the right are atheists, but I believe they are inconsistent, ) … Belief in the existence of God is necessary, as without the existence of God, there is no such thing as objective mortality, no such thing as objective human rights, no objective value and no objective purpose; living consistently with atheist presuppositions would create a highly undesirable world (even worse than what we normally see); adrift in a chaotic sea without the possibility of stabilization or anchor.

    Atheists are forced to say that rights come from government (and not from God) and are therefore not inalienable (or unalienable, both words are correct); contradicting the very basis for rights and freedom that the Declaration of Independence asserts, and even atheists have received the benefit of protections for themselves because of such stated rights that must originate from a God Who objectively exists; or such rights are mere arbitrary human opinions that have no existential weight (no basis in actual reality) and only subjectively exist.

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.

  • Recent posts

    • The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022

      Jim Goad

      10

    • Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 6

      James J. O'Meara

      1

    • The Journey:
      Russian Views, Part One

      Steven Clark

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 473
      Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • This Weekend’s Livestreams
      Ask Me Anything on Counter-Currents Radio & Anthony Bavaria on The Writers’ Bloc

      Greg Johnson

      1

    • The Counter-Currents 2022 Fundraiser
      Raising Our Spirits

      Howe Abbott-Hiss

      5

    • Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 5

      James J. O'Meara

      11

    • The Freedom Convoy & Its Enemies

      Gunnar Alfredsson

      3

    • The China Question

      Nicholas R. Jeelvy

      52

    • Rozhovor s Alainom de Benoistom o kresťanstve

      Greg Johnson

    • Your Donations at Work
      New Improvements at Counter-Currents

      Greg Johnson

      11

    • Mau-Mauing the Theme-Park Mascots

      Jim Goad

      18

    • The Overload

      Mark Gullick

      11

    • Knut Hamsun’s The Women at the Pump

      Spencer J. Quinn

      3

    • Remembering Knut Hamsun
      (August 4, 1859–February 19, 1952)

      Greg Johnson

      8

    • Tito Perdue’s Cynosura

      Anthony Bavaria

    • Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 4

      James J. O'Meara

      4

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 472
      Hwitgeard on The Writers’ Bloc

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • Ask A. Wyatt Nationalist
      Is it Rational for Blacks to Distrust Whites?

      Greg Johnson

      29

    • سكوت هوارد مجمع المتحولين جنسياً الصناعي لسكوت هوار

      Kenneth Vinther

    • Europa Esoterica

      Veiko Hessler

      21

    • Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 3

      James J. O'Meara

      4

    • Yarvin the (((Elf)))

      Aquilonius

      12

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 471
      Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson & Mark Collett

      Counter-Currents Radio

      1

    • The Worst Week Yet:
      July 23-30, 2022

      Jim Goad

      37

    • Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 2

      James J. O'Meara

      2

    • Real Team-Building

      Nicholas R. Jeelvy

      10

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 470
      Greg Johnson Interviews Bubba Kate Paris

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • This Weekend’s Livestreams
      Bubba Kate Paris followed by Mark Collett on Counter-Currents Radio & Hwitgeard on The Writers’ Bloc

      Greg Johnson

      2

    • Význam starej pravice

      Greg Johnson

    • The Counter-Currents 2022 Fundraiser
      Reasons to Give to Counter-Currents Now

      Karl Thorburn

      1

    • Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 1

      James J. O'Meara

      16

    • I Dream of Djinni:
      Orientalist Manias in Western Lands, Part Two

      Kathryn S.

      31

    • مأساة الأولاد المزيفين

      Morris van de Camp

    • Announcing Another Paywall Perk:
      The Counter-Currents Telegram Chat

      Cyan Quinn

    • I Dream of Djinni:
      Orientalist Manias in Western Lands, Part One

      Kathryn S.

      33

    • The Great White Bird

      Jim Goad

      43

    • Memoirs of a Jewish German Apologist

      Beau Albrecht

      7

    • Je biely nacionalizmus „nenávistný“?

      Greg Johnson

    • The Union Jackal, July 2022

      Mark Gullick

      11

    • Normies are the Real Schizos

      Nicholas R. Jeelvy

      24

    • The West Has Moved to Central Europe

      Viktor Orbán

      26

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 469
      Pox Populi & the Dutch Farmer Protests on The Writers’ Bloc

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • Serviam: The Political Ideology of Adrien Arcand

      Kerry Bolton

      10

    • An Uncomfortable Conversation about Race

      Aquilonius

      24

    • The Intermarium Alliance

      James A.

      38

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 468
      Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson & Beau Albrecht

      Counter-Currents Radio

      1

    • Reflections on Sorel

      Greg Johnson

      10

    • The Worst Week Yet:
      July 17-23, 2022

      Jim Goad

      35

    • George R. Stewart’s Ordeal by Hunger

      Spencer J. Quinn

      6

  • Classics Corner

    • Blaming Your Parents

      Greg Johnson

      29

    • No Time to Die:
      Bond’s Essential Whiteness Affirmed

      Buttercup Dew

      14

    • Lawrence of Arabia

      Trevor Lynch

      16

    • Notes on Schmitt’s Crisis & Ours

      Greg Johnson

      8

    • “Death My Bride”
      David Lynch’s Lost Highway

      Trevor Lynch

      9

    • Whiteness

      Greg Johnson

      30

    • What is American Nationalism?

      Greg Johnson

      39

    • Notes on the Ethnostate

      Greg Johnson

      16

    • Heidegger & Ethnic Nationalism

      Greg Johnson

      14

    • To a Reluctant Bridegroom

      Greg Johnson

      26

    • Lessing’s Ideal Conservative Freemasonry

      Greg Johnson

      16

    • Restoring White Homelands

      Greg Johnson

      34

    • Introduction to Plato’s Republic, Parts 1 & 2

      Greg Johnson

      2

    • White Nationalist Delusions About Russia

      Émile Durand

      116

    • Batman Begins

      Trevor Lynch

    • The Dark Knight

      Trevor Lynch

    • Leo Strauss, the Conservative Revolution, & National Socialism, Part 1

      Greg Johnson

      22

    • The Dark Knight Rises

      Trevor Lynch

      22

    • Introduction to Aristotle’s Politics

      Greg Johnson

      16

    • Hegemony

      Greg Johnson

      11

    • Pulp Fiction

      Trevor Lynch

      46

    • Reflections on Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political

      Greg Johnson

      14

  • Paroled from the Paywall

    • What Is the Ideology of Sameness?
      Part 2

      Alain de Benoist

    • On the Use & Abuse of Language in Debates

      Spencer J. Quinn

      26

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 462
      The Best Month Ever on The Writers’ Bloc with Cyan Quinn

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • A White Golden Age Descending into Exotic Dystopian Consumerism

      James Dunphy

      1

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 460
      American Krogan on Repatriation, Democracy, Populism, & America’s Finest Hour

      Counter-Currents Radio

      2

    • Cryptocurrency:
      A Faustian Solution to a Faustian Problem

      Thomas Steuben

      1

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 458
      Gregory Hood & Greg Johnson on Burnham & Machiavellianism

      Counter-Currents Radio

      3

    • Brokeback Mountain

      Beau Albrecht

      10

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 457
      Greg Johnson & Millennial Woes on Common Mistakes in English

      Counter-Currents Radio

      12

    • Deconstructing Our Own Religion to Own the Libs

      Aquilonius

      20

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 456
      A Special Juneteenth Episode of The Writers’ Bloc with Jim Goad

      Counter-Currents Radio

      2

    • “I Write About Communist Space Goths”:
      An Interview with Beau Albrecht

      Ondrej Mann

      6

    • Christianity is a Vast Reservoir of Potential White Allies

      Joshua Lawrence

      42

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 455
      The Counter-Currents 12th Birthday Celebration, Part 2

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 454
      Muhammad Aryan on The Writers’ Bloc

      Counter-Currents Radio

      8

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 453
      The Counter-Currents 12th Birthday Celebration, Part 1

      Counter-Currents Radio

      3

    • Look What You Made Me Do:
      Dead Man’s Shoes

      Mark Gullick

      4

    • Rome’s Le Ceneri di Heliodoro

      Ondrej Mann

      8

    • Anti-Semitic Zionism

      Nicholas R. Jeelvy

      11

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 452
      The Best Month Ever on The Writers’ Bloc with Stephen Paul Foster

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • No More Brother Wars?

      Veiko Hessler

    • After the Empire of Nothing

      Morris van de Camp

      2

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 451
      The Writers’ Bloc with Josh Neal on Political Ponerology

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 450
      The Latest Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson

      Counter-Currents Radio

      3

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 449
      Greg Johnson & Gregory Hood on The Northman

      Counter-Currents Radio

      2

    • Paying for Veils:
      1979 as a Watershed for Islamic Revivalists

      Morris van de Camp

      3

    • Céline vs. Houellebecq

      Margot Metroland

      2

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 448
      The Writers’ Bloc with Karl Thorburn on Mutually Assured Destruction

      Counter-Currents Radio

      1

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 447
      New Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson

      Counter-Currents Radio

      3

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 446
      James J. O’Meara on Hunter S. Thompson

      Counter-Currents Radio

      3

  • Recent comments

    • Just A Point Of Racial Order Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 5
      There is an excellent documentary that came out a couple of years ago about Thompson's bid for...
    • Just A Point Of Racial Order Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 6
      Hunter S Thompson counted amongst his good friends Ed Bradley, and Muhammed Ali amongst his heroes...
    • Enoch Powell The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
      And from this formerly beautiful city the white God-botherers rented busses and went down to that...
    • Shift The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
      Of course, the Bible unequivocally endorses abortion.  Right next to the part where it says, "Be a...
    • Concerned Suburbanite The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
      Black crime continues across the three thousand mile transcontinental stretch from Portland to...
    • Shift The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
      Sheesh.  Poor Whoopi.  It's like George Washington meets Moms Mabley.
    • Mrdislaw The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
        Morgan's mother was very articulate in explaining her failures in raising her son. "I...
    • James J. O'Meara The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
      So, basically the War on Whites was a secret plot to increase course enrollment? When academics are...
    • Kevin The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
      If I remember correctly, Iowa experienced some type of natural disaster, flooding or tornadoes,...
    • Beau Albrecht The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
      Well, I can't really blame the Sioux for wanting to preserve their culture and religion.  Maybe they...
    • James J. O'Meara The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
      Abrams argument is the traditional Protestant argument for freedom of religion/thought: you can't...
    • Leroy Patterson The China Question Yes, I also thought that the statement about Chinese inexperience in naval matters was poorly...
    • James J. O'Meara Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 5
      You're welcome. BTW Regardie's book has been republished now as Teachers of Fulfilment (and a cheap...
    • Hamburger Today Hunter S. Thompson:
      The Father of Fake News, Part 5
      I never saw 'magickal' activity the same after reading Guenon and most particularly after reading...
    • Beau Albrecht Brokeback Mountain Indeed, it looks like Brokeback Mountain is the film in which (as the proverb goes) the camel got...
    • Diomedes The China Question Not even the Vietnamese maintain resentment over what they call the “American War.” Of course China...
    • Rearguard Your Donations at Work
      New Improvements at Counter-Currents
      Excellent work at Counter-currents! By the way, when will you guys comment on or repost Jim Bowery's...
    • Dumb The Worst Week Yet:
      July 31-August 6, 2022
      In one of the news accounts about the Brooklyn fries shooting a street in the neighborhood was...
    • Greg Johnson The Counter-Currents 2022 Fundraiser
      Raising Our Spirits
      I am sure we will be seeing more writing by Robert Hampton in the future.
    • Kök Böri Ask A. Wyatt Nationalist
      Is it Rational for Blacks to Distrust Whites?
      Here I want to ask,  SINCE WHEN the Blacks (in America) hate the Whites. As I am not American, I can...
  • Book Authors

    • Anthony M. Ludovici
    • Beau Albrecht
    • Buttercup Dew
    • Christopher Pankhurst
    • Collin Cleary
    • F. Roger Devlin
    • Fenek Solère
    • Francis Parker Yockey
    • Greg Johnson
    • Gregory Hood
    • H. L. Mencken
    • Irmin Vinson
    • J. A. Nicholl
    • James J. O’Meara
    • Jef Costello
    • Jim Goad
    • Jonathan Bowden
    • Juleigh Howard-Hobson
    • Julius Evola
    • Kerry Bolton
    • Leo Yankevich
    • Michael Polignano
    • Multiple authors
    • Savitri Devi
    • Spencer Quinn
    • Tito Perdue
    • Trevor Lynch
  • Webzine Authors

    Contemporary authors

    • Howe Abbott-Hiss
    • Beau Albrecht
    • Aquilonius
    • Anthony Bavaria
    • Michael Bell
    • Alain de Benoist
    • Kerry Bolton
    • Jonathan Bowden
    • Buttercup Dew
    • Collin Cleary
    • Giles Corey
    • Jef Costello
    • Morris V. de Camp
    • F. Roger Devlin
    • Bain Dewitt
    • Jack Donovan
    • Ricardo Duchesne
    • Émile Durand
    • Guillaume Durocher
    • Mark Dyal
    • Guillaume Faye
    • Stephen Paul Foster
    • Fullmoon Ancestry
    • Jim Goad
    • Tom Goodrich
    • Alex Graham
    • Mark Gullick
    • Andrew Hamilton
    • Robert Hampton
    • Huntley Haverstock
    • Derek Hawthorne
    • Gregory Hood
    • Juleigh Howard-Hobson
    • Richard Houck
    • Alexander Jacob
    • Nicholas R. Jeelvy
    • Greg Johnson
    • Ruuben Kaalep
    • Tobias Langdon
    • Julian Langness
    • Travis LeBlanc
    • Patrick Le Brun
    • Trevor Lynch
    • Kevin MacDonald
    • G. A. Malvicini
    • John Michael McCloughlin
    • Margot Metroland
    • Millennial Woes
    • John Morgan
    • James J. O'Meara
    • Michael O'Meara
    • Christopher Pankhurst
    • Michael Polignano
    • J. J. Przybylski
    • Spencer J. Quinn
    • Quintilian
    • Edouard Rix
    • C. B. Robertson
    • C. F. Robinson
    • Hervé Ryssen
    • Kathryn S.
    • Alan Smithee
    • Fenek Solère
    • Ann Sterzinger
    • Thomas Steuben
    • Robert Steuckers
    • Tomislav Sunić
    • Donald Thoresen
    • Marian Van Court
    • Dominique Venner
    • Irmin Vinson
    • Michael Walker
    • Aylmer Wedgwood
    • Scott Weisswald
    • Leo Yankevich

    Classic Authors

    • Maurice Bardèche
    • Julius Evola
    • Ernst Jünger
    • D. H. Lawrence
    • Charles Lindbergh
    • Jack London
    • H. P. Lovecraft
    • Anthony M. Ludovici
    • Sir Oswald Mosley
    • National Vanguard
    • Friedrich Nietzsche
    • Revilo Oliver
    • William Pierce
    • Ezra Pound
    • Saint-Loup
    • Savitri Devi
    • Carl Schmitt
    • Miguel Serrano
    • Oswald Spengler
    • P. R. Stephensen
    • Jean Thiriart
    • John Tyndall
    • Francis Parker Yockey
  • Departments

    • Book Reviews
    • Movie Reviews
    • TV Reviews
    • Music Reviews
    • Art Criticism
    • Graphic Novels & Comics
    • Video Game Reviews
    • Fiction
    • Poems
    • Interviews
    • Videos
    • English Translations
    • Other Languages
      • Arabic
      • Bulgarian
      • Croatian
      • Czech
      • Danish
      • Dutch
      • Estonian
      • Finnish
      • French
      • German
      • Greek
      • Hungarian
      • Italian
      • Lithuanian
      • Norwegian
      • Polish
      • Portuguese
      • Romanian
      • Russian
      • Slovak
      • Spanish
      • Swedish
      • Ukrainian
    • Commemorations
    • Why We Write
  • Archives
  • Top 100 Commenters
Sponsored Links
Alaska Chaga Antelope Hill Publishing Paul Waggener Breakey Imperium Press American Renaissance A Dissident’s Guide to Blacks and Africa The Patrick Ryan Show Jim Goad The Occidental Observer
Editor-in-Chief
Greg Johnson
Books for sale
  • Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema
  • The Enemy of Europe
  • Imperium
  • Reactionary Modernism
  • Manifesto del Nazionalismo Bianco
  • O Manifesto Nacionalista Branco
  • Vade Mecum
  • Whiteness: The Original Sin
  • Space Vixen Trek Episode 17: Tomorrow the Stars
  • The Year America Died
  • Passing the Buck
  • Mysticism After Modernism
  • Gold in the Furnace
  • Defiance
  • Forever & Ever
  • Wagner’s Ring & the Germanic Tradition
  • Resistance
  • Materials for All Future Historians
  • Love Song of the Australopiths
  • White Identity Politics
  • Here’s the Thing
  • Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy
  • Graduate School with Heidegger
  • It’s Okay to Be White
  • The World in Flames
  • The White Nationalist Manifesto
  • From Plato to Postmodernism
  • The Gizmo
  • Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch’s CENSORED Guide to the Movies
  • Toward a New Nationalism
  • The Smut Book
  • The Alternative Right
  • My Nationalist Pony
  • Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right
  • The Philatelist
  • Confessions of an Anti-Feminist
  • East and West
  • Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come
  • White Like You
  • Numinous Machines
  • Venus and Her Thugs
  • Cynosura
  • North American New Right, vol. 2
  • You Asked For It
  • More Artists of the Right
  • Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics
  • The Homo & the Negro
  • Rising
  • The Importance of James Bond
  • In Defense of Prejudice
  • Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)
  • The Hypocrisies of Heaven
  • Waking Up from the American Dream
  • Green Nazis in Space!
  • Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country
  • Heidegger in Chicago
  • End of an Era: Mad Men & the Ordeal of Civility
  • Sexual Utopia in Power
  • What is a Rune? & Other Essays
  • Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
  • The Lightning & the Sun
  • The Eldritch Evola
  • Western Civilization Bites Back
  • New Right vs. Old Right
  • Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations
  • The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity
  • I do not belong to the Baader-Meinhof Group
  • Pulp Fascism
  • The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition
  • Trevor Lynch’s A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
  • And Time Rolls On
  • Artists of the Right: Resisting Decadence
  • North American New Right, Vol. 1
  • Some Thoughts on Hitler
  • Tikkun Olam and Other Poems
  • Summoning the Gods
  • Taking Our Own Side
  • Reuben
  • The Node
  • The New Austerities
  • Morning Crafts
  • The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories
Sponsored Links
Alaska Chaga Antelope Hill Publishing Paul Waggener Breakey Imperium Press American Renaissance A Dissident’s Guide to Blacks and Africa The Patrick Ryan Show Jim Goad The Occidental Observer
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
Copyright © 2022 Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd.

Paywall Access





Please enter your email address. You will receive mail with link to set new password.

Edit your comment