Counter-Currents
2,006 words
Matthew Rose
A World after Liberalism: Philosophers of the Radical Right
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021
Countless books and articles have sought to explore the “Alt Right” over the past five years. Most amount to little more than point-and-sputter journalism, expressing horror in every paragraph that people would dare to believe such things as we do. You don’t learn anything about what the radical Right believes from them; they merely provide a few soundbites designed to achieve maximum shock value among a liberal audience.
Matthew Rose’s A World after Liberalism: Philosophers of the Radical Right is not that kind of work. Readers are not treated to lurid tales about movement personalities or moral diatribes about how evil the Alt Right is. Instead, we find a book that takes the movement’s ideas seriously and explains them to an unfamiliar audience.
Rose is no fan of the radical Right; he has written several articles over the years deriding it as racist and anti-Christian. Yet, he’s able to assess its ideas without heavy-handed condemnations. He simply lets the ideas speak for themselves. Rose properly understands these ideas and where they’re coming from, in spite of being deeply opposed to them.
A World after Liberalism focuses on five figures he believes best represent the radical Right. They are Oswald Spengler (who he calls The Prophet), Julius Evola (The Fantasist), Francis Parker Yockey (The Anti-Semite), Alain de Benoist (The Pagan), and Sam Francis (The Nationalist). There is a chapter dedicated to the life and thought of each. The final chapter concerns “the Christian Question.” The chapter on Francis was previously published as an essay for First Things. The Christian Question chapter is mostly based on essays previously published in the same magazine.
Much of Rose’s focus throughout the book is on how these writers perceive Christianity. He believes all five could not be called Christian and display a strong hostility toward the faith. Rose is a Christian conservative who believes the answer to the crisis in liberalism lies in Jesus Christ. He primarily opposes the radical Right because it offers an alternative answer: that the solution to the crisis lies in racial solidarity.
Rose argues in his Introduction that we live in a post-liberal moment. He claims the ideology is losing its grasp on the Western mind, and that the greatest threat to it comes not from foreign adversaries but from disaffected Western intellectuals. He points to a new conservatism arising that dispenses with the platitudes and dogmas of the old. It’s no longer thrilled with the liberal project, and seeks an alternative to the present malaise.
So far, this is typical thinking for an average First Things writer. Many conservative intellectuals now proudly declare themselves to be “illiberal,” but most of them are very different from Spengler and Yockey. Many of these “post-liberal” conservatives insist that racism is bad and even argue that white people don’t exist. They keep their critiques within the framework of acceptable discourse determined by liberals.
This is where Rose parts ways with most other conservative intellectuals of today. He fortunately does not pay attention to such writers or their influences. If he did, the book would’ve likely ended up being a hagiography of Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen, and how the two tenured professors somehow threaten the entire global order. He instead focuses on the influences behind the “Alt Right,” which suggests that the book was conceived before “respectable” anti-liberals began hogging the limelight.
Rose highlights aspects of all five figures that make them relevant in our present moment, and discusses how their influence can still be discerned in the contemporary Dissident Right. Most of the characterizations are spot on, but Rose often gets minor details wrong. He claims Sam Francis showed no concern for culture, for example, despite the late polemicist’s obsession with English literature and the many articles he wrote on cultural issues. He’s particularly loose with exact years and ages. But overall, the book is accurate in its assessments.
Oswald Spengler is portrayed as the man who gave the radical Right its pan-European mindset and warned of the dangers of a future colored world revolution. The Hour of Decision receives more attention than The Decline of the West, with Rose believing the former better represents the radical Right’s contemporary concerns. Spengler believed Europeans are one distinct people and that their Faustian spirit made them better than the rest. Rose notes that Spengler was not a biological racialist and argued that being a Westerner was more of spiritual/cultural category than a racial one.
Spengler acknowledged the importance of Christianity for the West, but claimed that Faustian man made Christianity and not the other way around. We adopted it and shaped it to our being, making it what it is today. Rose asserts that the German intellectual felt there could be no Western civilization without Christianity and that it was a faith exclusive to Western man. Spengler was nevertheless aware of the corrosive elements within Christianity and of how it has helped bring about Western decline. He believed that in its early form, it was a kind of primitive socialism that caused its believers to pine for another world. Spengler’s primary contribution to the Dissident Right, according to Rose, is his positing of a unique identity for whites that unites them with the distant past and other peoples from across the West.
Rose sees Julius Evola as more of a dreamer than Spengler. The Baron aimed to educate modern people about the concept of a primordial Tradition, with a capital T, that animated the world and which is being suppressed in our time. Evola’s Tradition was not necessarily religious, according to Rose. Tradition turned mortal necessities into sacred events. It created rituals around war, eating, birth, and death to provide meaning and order in everyday life. Without this Tradition, the terror of time overcomes man.
Rose notes that Evola saw Christianity as hostile to Tradition and did not want to see it returned to the center for European life. The book also discusses Evola’s authoritarianism, elitism, his contempt for the modern world, and his aloofness from contemporary politics. Like Spengler, Rose points out that Evola likewise had an ambivalent relationship with fascism and could not be described as a fascist. Evola and Spengler were both pessimistic about the political prospects of the world they lived in, but Evola offered a utopian vision for the Right to dream about.
You can buy The World in Flames: The Shorter Writings of Francis Parker Yockey here.
The chapter on Francis Parker Yockey is probably the weakest in A World after Liberalism. Rose spends more time on Yockey’s life and activities than his ideas. Yockey was a genuine international man of mystery and his life makes for a good tale, even if Rose focuses on the its more tawdry aspects. As the chapter title makes clear, Rose highlights Yockey’s anti-Semitism, which the author believes is one of his vital contributions to the Right. Yockey saw Jews as culture-distorters who turned Westerners’ own rationality against them and their civilization. Rose considers Yockey’s anti-Semitism to be “virulent.” He sees the American fascist as important primarily because he became a martyr for the idea: He killed himself in police custody rather than expose his contacts to the authorities.
Rose points out that Yockey held some views that were different from those of the radical Right. He wasn’t strictly a racialist and believed that the racial view of history should be discarded. He later came to advocate for a kind of Third-Worldist strategy against American imperialism. It was primarily his commitment to his cause, according to Rose, that makes him important today.
Alain de Benoist, for his part, comes across as a “hipster” Right-winger in the book. We’re introduced to him as he was admiring the Left-wing riots in Paris during 1968, and Rose makes sure to list all of his ideas that align him with the modern Left. Benoist’s defense of multiculturalism and contempt for Christianity are well-covered. The French writer’s paganism is more of an outlook or an intellectual frame than an actual religion, according to Rose. He doesn’t advocate for arcane rituals in the woods or anything like that; he just wants Europeans to resacralize their connection to their heritage and homeland.
Like the three previous writers, Benoist also has an ambivalent attitude toward racialism. Early in his career, his work relied on a biological understanding of race and its importance. He continues to insist on a “right of difference” in which every people should embrace its unique ethnic identity as a cause for all “indigenous” peoples to aspire towards. Despite this change in emphasis, Rose admits that Benoist has remained a resolute critic of liberalism throughout his public career. Benoist’s primary contribution to the modern radical Right, according to the book, is his pagan outlook on the world.
The Sam Francis chapter devotes most of its attention to the paleoconservative’s theories on power and the managerial elite. Rose depicts Francis as a cold-blooded realist who eschewed and mocked the conservative movement’s pieties – something he is not fond of himself. Francis called for a populist revolt of working-class whites against the managerial elite in ways that anticipated Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Francis, unlike the other four, was a committed race realist throughout his life — a fact that absolutely disgusts Rose. He finds Francis’ ideas on economics and society interesting, but he can’t help but heap scorn on him for being relegated to the White Nationalist ghetto after he was purged from Conservative Inc. Francis’ contribution to the radical Right, according to Rose, was is providing a concrete political platform for obtain power.
Rose’s final chapter reveals his opinions on all these writers. While he can’t help but find them fascinating, the conservative writer feels they must all be rejected. Why? Primarily because they weren’t, or aren’t, Christians. He begins this chapter with an e-mail from an Alt Right reader who says he has left the Church because it is now an enemy of Western civilization and has become an unhealthy religion. Rose laments that many on the Right feel this way and wishes that they would return to the faith. He claims that only true Christianity can resolve today’s crises. Rose argues that it offers true meaning and community of a sort which the radical Right or paganism cannot. He essentially calls the entire radical Right a form of LARPing, while traditional Christianity is genuine. He believes the radical Right is fundamentally anti-Christian and must be confronted by Christians. Only God can save us.
It is interesting that Rose sees the Dissident Right as un-Christian. A look at the popular Right-wing figures of today would reveal plenty of faith-based arguments for nationalism and why it must be a Christian movement. Open criticism of Christianity is not tolerated anymore. This aspect of the book therefore does date it somewhat to 2016-17, when the Alt Right was at its peak.
Nevertheless, his perception of the Dissident Right may be more accurate than that of many of its current proponents. There is an uneasy tension between the radical Right’s ideas and the faith of the West. All of the figures in the book understood, or understand, that tension, with at least two of them wishing to replace Christianity entirely. That tension will always exist as we advocate for ideas that institutional Christianity condemns and declares to be incompatible with the Bible. This does not of course mean that we need to follow the path suggested by Evola. We need Christians on our side to achieve victory. It simply means we should not fool ourselves into thinking we are the new and improved religious Right.
A World after Liberalism is arguably the best critical book written on the Dissident Right so far. It takes our ideas seriously and portrays them mostly accurately. Even readers who have a large library of Right-wing classics will come away with a fresh understanding and appreciation of what we stand for. Moreover, identitarians will see how empty the criticisms of our ideas are. This is not LARPing; it’s the answer to our people’s decline.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
10 comments
The tension is there because Christianity is fundamentally of Western civilization and vice versa, but the radical right is willing to jettison Western civilization if it means we have to do it for the survival of the white race. This is incidentally why we’re illiberal as well – liberalism is also fundamentally of the West, but we’re prepared to jettison it if it proves necessary for the survival of our people.
I wonder about this ‘illiberalism’ thing. It seems to me another case of mistaking White Identity Nationalism for ‘the Right’.
Racial politics are about races and ethnicities. Other political ideological formations are just not relevant except the extent that they reflect racial preferences.
White racial politics is about (or at least ought to be about) what makes White people happy.
For some Whites, that’s going to be some kind of ‘liberalism’ on a spectrum from ‘everything not me is better than me’ to ‘live and let live’ to a serious legal structure around the difference between ‘eccentric’ and ‘deviant’ and the punishments for such deviance.
I consider myself a liberal White Identity Nationalist. I think liberalism is fine as an adjunct to other more racialy grounded thinking about politics and life. Whites aren’t ants. We’re not going to thrive in hierarchical White hive-mind run by the Philosopher King Pretends of the Right, whether they’re White or not.
Because of the evolution of White societies, for the foreseeable future, Whites need to concentrate on the acquisition and deployment of power.
But power alone is not the point of White Identity Nationalism.
Creating the conditions for White Happiness is what White Identity Nationalism is about.
We don’t need the Right or the Left except as resources for ideas that we can test and keep or discard. We certainly do not need to be beholden to any past or living thinkers particular inclinations for or against liberalism or Christianity.
White community standards of actual White communities seems like what we should be shooting for.
It really doesn’t matter what Yockey or Evola think of the result.
However, if Sam Francis were alive, I’d want to know what he thought.
I think, however, he’d mostly be with me.
I don’t accept this formulation. Western Civ (WC) is, at bottom, a phenotype of the Europoid genotype. There is no WC apart from the white race, and there is no reason to expect it will endure if we go extinct (I’m paraphrasing Sam Francis here). OTOH, eliminating WC in order to save the white race is both unnecessary and nihilistic. WC did not ineluctably lead to our current extinction path, but rather, an anti-Western deformation called liberalism got us here. If the essence of WC is Christianity (which is highly debatable; though what isn’t debatable is that Christianity is a central aspect of WC, even if hardly the whole of it), then liberalism is essentially anti-Western, as arguably the central intellectual and political battle in modern European history was between liberalism and Christianity (or between the rising capitalist classes and the Altar and the Throne). Of course, another very interesting and complex question is whether 18th century Enlightenment liberalism, which to me had much to recommend it, led invariably to the universalist 20th century variety (I think not). And that of course leads us to think about the really great question of our time, which is whether Christian moral universalism necessarily had to be transmuted into race-denialist anthropological universalism (again, I think not).
The true task is to see what can be salvaged from both Christianity and (classical) liberalism; or perhaps, to reform either or both of them so as to become compatible with white preservation, instead of antagonistic to it. I believe such reforming is possible (and for both systems of thought).
“Open criticism of Christianity is not tolerated anymore.”
I must have been sleeping when they passed that law. I’ll ignore it anyway.
“Christianity is fundamentally of Western civilization and vice versa,”
Pretty sure it came from the Middle East.
Amen.
When I think of Western civilization, I think of everything created (and hopefully will be created) by White people. I’m not thinking of Jesus.
One can’t help but notice that 4 of the 5 “alt right” mandarins are explicitly anti-racialist. In what sense is racialism “alt right” or vice versa? As some like to point out, to “own the libs,” Progressives were enthusiastic eugenicists before WWII, while the Old Right were anti-Darwin. (The Tenn. law litigated in the Scopes trial was intended not to promote Creationism but to fight eugenics, by decreasing awareness of Darwin’s theories)
As I pointed out in an essay here at Counter-Currents, the Spengler/Evola/Yockey view, that spirit transcends biology (and which one would think is the view of the Right, as well as Christianity) is being vindicated by, ironically, advances in genetics. It will soon be possible to modify any supposedly “racial” characteristic, such as IQ, high time preference, etc. As one of the articles quoted says, we can produce “brown-skinned people with high IQs”. This means that genes will no longer be the final determinate of “racial” characteristics, but rather … the Will, which is to say, the Spirit.
This will also make “globalism” possible. America would simply genetically alter Afghanis (perhaps by a vaccine mandate) to make them capable of sustaining democracy and other Universal Values.
Is this compatible with Christianity? Depends on whether your “Christianity” is “Spirit trumps Matter” or “Knowledge is of the Devil”.
Certain people on the Right who think of themselves as “hard nosed” like Revilo Oliver or Steve Sailer and his Sailerites sneer at Spengler/Evola/Yockey’s anti-racialism as “magical thinking.” Let me remind them of Arthur C. Clarke’s quip that a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And yes, this also vindicates Neville’s view that “an assumption though false, if persisted in, will become reality.”
“Look out honey, ’cause I’m using technology! Eumaios, Evola, & Neville on Race”
https://counter-currents.com/2021/03/eumaios-evola-neville-on-race/
”
Thanks for this comment (and to the author of this article). CC seems to run a lot of articles on these intellectual figures, which I appreciate.
I would love it if someone wrote another review, this time linking to some of the best articles from CC (and elsewhere) from OUR side on these various thinkers. It’s interesting to get an outsider’s views on us, but I am much more interested in what our OWN side thinks. A “best of” collection of articles on these thinkers, for those who are not up to date on all of them, would be helpful.
Maybe someone has already done that and could provide a link?
For such links, look no further:
Greg Johnson, “Remembering Oswald Spengler”: https://counter-currents.com/2021/05/remembering-oswald-spengler-may-29-1880-may-8-1936/
Greg Johnson, “Remembering Julius Evola”: https://counter-currents.com/2021/05/remembering-julius-evola-9/
Greg Johnson, “Remembering Francis Parker Yockey”: https://counter-currents.com/2021/09/remembering-francis-parker-yockey-10/
By Alain de Benoist: https://counter-currents.com/author/adebenoist/
Tagged Alain de Benoist: https://counter-currents.com/tag/alain-de-benoist/
Greg Johnson, “Remembering Sam Francis”: https://counter-currents.com/2021/04/remembering-sam-francis-1/
Thanks for bringing this book to my attention; I will definitely read it; but I question how much spacey figures like Evola and Yockey play into the average altrighter’s thought development. Sam Francis certainly, but my mental development rests more on the foundations laid by people such as Wilmot Robertson, David duke and revilo Oliver than to the figures discussed by Rose, although they are good peripheral thinkers, somewhat blind alleys. I’m thinking of the pre 1990 milieu here, so I’m omitting present company.
Dissident thought starts from a local complaint. One day I look out my window and think,”why are savages running riot over this city?” Then a curious person reads and reads until he learns facts and opinions which have explanatory power and most comport with his observations of the world around him. It was not because he heard about the ideas of Francis Parker yockey.
DarkPlato describes how I “got here” to the letter. I first noticed racial reality and then simply tried to find someone who could explain it. And hopefully, how to combat it.
At first, I thought Rush Limbaugh and National Review were the best we could do (this was early 1990s before the Internet) . In other words, I thought I was all but alone in noticing the truth.
The first truly helpful figure I found was Sam Francis through his newspaper column. Then Jared Taylor through Paved With Good Intentions. Then Chronicles. Then American Renaissance. Then Instauration.
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
Edit your comment