Paul Gottfried
592 words
Paul Gottfried is an esteemed scholar who has done yeoman’s work for the cause of the Dissident Right. He deserves our respect, and his words must be taken very seriously. As such, it is with great sadness and a certain degree of trepidation that I find myself in disagreement with Professor Gottfried concerning his article “Resurrecting the Old Right” in the September issue of Chronicles magazine.
The gist of Gottfried’s article is that the Right must eschew not only neoconservatism but also White Nationalism if it is to gain political power; that is, it must return to being the Old Right. It is not entirely clear what Gottfried means by the Old Right, but one can infer that it is something akin to the Paleoconservative Right of the 1990s as exemplified by the Pat Buchanan insurgency of that era.
I believe that Professor Gottfried’s conclusion is both wrong and naïve, and is rooted in the hyperindividualism of Reagan-era conservative thought. Gottfried is dismissive of the Dissident Right’s concern about intelligence as an indicator of civil and social suitability, and accuses the Dissident Right of wanting our society to be nothing more than a meeting of the Mensa Society. Gottfried points out that the problems faced by the United States are the result of the treachery of highly-educated white Leftists who probably have above-average IQs. While he is correct in pointing out that Negroes and mestizos have so little agency that all of the anti-white gains made by those groups have been brought about by perfidious whites, Gottfried overlooks (or willfully ignores) the fact that the Dissident Right’s emphasis on IQ is based on group, not individual, levels of achievement.
Notwithstanding Thomas Sowell, Negroes as a whole are at an intelligence level one standard deviation below that of whites. Negroes and mestizos also have vastly higher levels of pathological behavior in all areas of measurement. Furthermore, Gottfried’s correct assertion that white perfidy is the real cause of America’s decline does not obviate the effects of Negro and mestizo pathologies. Just because white Leftists support decriminalization of feral Negro behavior does not make Negroes any less feral. A white woman who is raped and murdered by a Negro is neither less raped nor less murdered because her rapist was released from prison by the efforts of Leftist lawyers and judges. The savagery of a mestizo MS-13 gang member who chops off a white girl’s limbs while she is still alive is not mitigated by the fact that the mestizo’s illegal presence in the United States has been abetted by Leftist political agencies and “charities.”
What this proves, contra Gottfried, is that race is real and that racial politics is here to stay. Professor Gottfried may not believe in race, but race definitely believes in Professor Gottfried. Leftists may be the Typhoid Mary of our current contagion, but the sequestration of the Leftist agent of contagion will have little effect if the contagion is allowed to spread unabated.
Let the slow cleanse of the Negroes and mestizos begin apace. After the revolution, we can administer Nuremberg-style justice to the white traitors in our midst. A sentimental yearning for the good ole days of Edmund Burke, Calvin Coolidge, Russell Kirk, and Ronald Reagan is just an old man’s lament for his lost youth. I sometimes find myself lamenting the loss of those halcyon days, but then reality obtrudes upon my reverie and I am forced to admit that the Old Right no longer obtains. The Old Right is dead. Long live the Dissident Right!
11 comments
Resurrecting the Old Right would require resurrecting Old America, which was entirely white, with a mostly pacified Negro population, with a white ruling class which did not see fit to let feral Negros run loose and to flood the country with browns, and which ruling class was not disproportionately Jewish. And this we cannot do.
Agreed. To resurrect the Old Right we’d have to resurrect the Old America, which would mean limiting the number of Jews allowed into Harvard, Princeton and Yale. This won’t happen. Racial and ethnic segregation is coming back, but it will be ugly. Gottfried wants it to be nice.
I also have respect for Dr. Gottfried. His book on Fascism has a special place in my library. Since I subscribe to Chronicles, I read Dr. Gottfried’s essay a while back, but really didn’t pay much attention. It was obvious that he was trying backstop the Old Right paradigm against the coming wave of racial nationalism, at least in part because it makes much of his work obsolete.
The problem I think for the Elders of the Right is that, ultimately, racial nationalism doesn’t track well with the Left/Right/Conservative/Liberal arrangement that, more or less, got us into this situation and because they carry the ideological patterns of thought created by WWII where the Axis nations were all ‘race-base’ nations of one kind or another. There are some exceptions, of course, and Samuel Francis comes to mind easily.
As Nicholas Jeelvy makes clear in his previous comment, the Elder Right comes from a time where, to a great extent, racial policies were decidedly in place, but were also present when those policies became unraveled. They remain mired in a notion of ‘individualism’ that allowed that unraveling to occur. There is also a tendency all of the problems causing the rise of racial nationalism are due to immigration. This is the game that the Israelis that ran the National Conservatism conference also want to play.
The Elder Right still yearn for the ‘one nation, indivisible’ that the race dissident grassroots have already concluded does not — and can not — work.
Essentially, Liberalism in all its forms — including its ‘conservative’ form — is dying. I respect the fact that our elders find this disconcerting as it upends much of what they have believed most of their lives. However, I also think that race realists cannot be beholden to their limitations.
Racial nationalism (like Fascism) is a revolutionary paradigm in our current situation (though clearly it has been around for some considerable time) and any revolutionary paradigm is going to find resistance from all factions of the prior paradigm.
Your comment about the old Right being mired in individualism is spot on. This is the reason why that tendency kept returning to libertarian/capitalist positions – positions which were corrosive to our peoples.
It’s also the reason why Gottfried is right to reject the obsession with IQ. I prefer my low-IQ cousin over some high IQ person from a whole other culture. I want a nation of my extended family tree – the organic nation – for good or ill.
A New Nationalism should reject both hyper-individualism and the spergy obsession with IQ.
.
I agree. Whether the new immigrants are smarter or dumber than us, if they are not of the same race as us, then either way there will be trouble. Folk first!
To me, it’s obvious that in his article Prof. Gottfried is counter-signalling Richard Spencer and his milieu, given his former relationship with Spencer and the mainstream media’s efforts to link Gottfried to Spencer’s Alt Right. I doubt he is very familiar with Counter-Currents and Greg’s conception of WN.
I didnt know Gottfried was back at Chronicles. I know he left a decade or so ago — one of the many chased out by Fleming.
Last time I checked out Chronicles it was a pale comparison to its peak in the early 1990s. A bunch of ham & eggers engaging in theology.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.