Right vs. Left: What Does It All Mean?

Posted By Spencer J. Quinn On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled
[1]

Courtesy of Stonetoss [2]

1,498 words

So here are two questions:

  1. Is there any truth behind “Right” and “Left” when describing competing political factions?
  2. Is there any sense in using these terms in political discourse?

The second question answers itself — yes — since people use these terms all the time and don’t seem to have difficulty being understood. Few, it seems, are asking for basic definitions when writers and thinkers expound upon Right and Left. But useful does not necessarily mean true. Can it be empirically shown not only that Right is Right and Left is Left, but also that Right and Left are in a constant struggle for power? If not, then employing such inexact terminology could impede our ability to predict the future given a set of parameters. This, of course, is the benchmark of any good political theory.

I will argue that there is indeed truth behind our notions of Right and Left, and that the heart of the matter today is race, not political ideology or economic theory. These latter two notions may seem to aspire to scientific objectivity, but in reality are merely tools to substantiate or facilitate racial claims to power. Race wasn’t always at the bottom of everything, of course. During the time of the French Revolution, when these terms were first coined, the vast majority of the people vying for political power were white, so you can substitute class or ethnicity for race in this circumstance. But the struggle itself remains quite similar today: Biology precedes ideology and economics, which in turn fuels the general factions we know as Right and Left within the grand and pitiless struggle for power.

Here are two brief examples, one from the Left and one from the Right. Emancipated Jews championed various forms of Communist doctrine in late nineteenth-century Russia because such doctrines, if implemented, would remove the most impediments to Jews gaining power in Russia. Communism, with its militant insistence upon collectivization and egalitarianism, ensured a struggle between the aristocracy and bourgeoisie on the one hand versus the proletariat and peasants on the other. This would serve not only to weaken the ruling class but to enable Jews, with their natural talents for networking and propaganda, to assume a leadership role among the revolutionaries.

Whether there had been some justice behind Communism at its inception is immaterial. In any system, abuses will occur and people will be victimized. We should look neither at the specific solutions Communism prescribed nor the particular evils it addressed; instead, we should focus on who would be solving all the problems once Communism had its way, and the answer is that it wasn’t going to be the Tsar, no matter what he did. A little-known fact about early twentieth-century history is that Tsar Nicholas was well on his way to liberalizing the Russian Empire, however reluctantly, in response to Leftist pressure. After the failed 1905 revolution he issued the October Manifesto [3], which promised basic civil rights to citizens of the Empire, and established a Parliament, called the Duma, which would be responsible for approving laws.

Essentially, Russia was in the process of shifting leftward from an autocracy to a constitutional monarchy. Say what you want about Tsar Nicholas himself, but the October Manifesto represented levels of change akin to Magna Carta in Russia by purportedly placing the economic interests of the proletariat and peasants on a higher level than before. Proponents of Communism — who supposedly placed prime importance on the proletariat and peasants as well — should have been happy with these changes, but they weren’t. The desire to overthrow the existing order never slackened during the years before the First World War, as evidenced by the numerous times Communist revolutionaries attempted to assassinate Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, finally succeeding in 1911.

So if it wasn’t going to be the Tsar, who, then? Answer: as many Jews as possible. Looking back at the ethnicity of the Soviet leadership between the world wars, one can see how hugely disproportionate [4] Jewish control was. Thus, Communism was never really about collectivization and egalitarianism. These were merely pretexts used to replace one ethnic elite with another. It was most of all about the Jewish will to power. Without that — at least according to Vladimir Lenin himself [5] — Communism would never have succeeded.

My second example is mainstream conservatism as formulated by William F. Buckley in the mid-twentieth century. Here we have a combination of free-market economics, classical liberalism, and devout Christianity all wrapped up and sold to the American public as the recipe for prosperity and the best defense against the Soviets. One can interpret Buckley’s conservatism as the last gasp of America’s founding stock to hold on to power. With the absence of many high-IQ Asians in America back then, whites could rely on the laissez-faire posture of conservatism to ensure their supremacy when competing with blacks and Hispanics, the two largest minorities of the day. Also, with conservatism’s renunciation of race, whites hoped to denude their racial competitors’ tribal affiliations.

Essentially, Buckley’s brand of conservatism promised to make things comfortable for American whites, especially the wealthy and upwardly mobile ones — the aristocracy, if you will. The price they had to pay, however, was abjuring the Jewish Question and accepting neoconservative Jews as whites themselves. While this coalition ultimately proved to be the undoing of conservatism, it did add intellectual heft (and, I am sure, money) to conservatism at the time. And it worked well enough, especially during the Reagan years, when the Soviet Union was a bigger concern for most people than immigration and the economy was booming.

[6]

You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s young adult novel The No College Club here [7].

Just as with Communism, the justice behind conservatism is immaterial to the racial or ethnic impulses which propelled it. People often argue that the libertarian model of economics espoused by conservatism was actually better for poor whites and non-whites than any alternative system. This may be true. But if conservatism didn’t allow mid-century whites to hold on to or expand their wealth by acting as a bulwark against big-government intervention, they never would have supported it.

The point here is to demonstrate how political ideology and economic theory are often designed to further the racial or ethnic interests of the people who devise them. Such means aim to organize or reorganize society in order to make one’s in-group most comfortable, often — but not always — at the expense of out-groups. Exactly how they accomplish this is less important than the end result. Historically, the Right consisted of those promoting the interests of the European upper classes and the Left consisted of those promoting the interests of the lower classes. Today, although remnants of this old structure can still be found, the Right mainly promotes the interests of whites, while the Left mainly promotes the interests of non-whites. This is quite simply the result of mass immigration of non-whites into traditional white homelands, where the IQ and temperamental differences between the two groups become readily apparent. Differing gene sets cause these populations to require different things from their societies.

This has led to large-scale allegiance switching in the past few years, as the classic Stonetoss comic reproduced at the head of this essay demonstrates.

So it seems that class-conscious Communists are not so averse to working with fat-cat capitalists now, are they? And those freedom-loving Americans are getting more and more fascistic as time goes on.

Interesting times. Interesting times.

This means that anything — any idea, initiative, movement, etc. — which either promotes white racial interests or steadfastly refuses to impede white racial interests must be considered to exist somewhere, somehow on the Right. But this is not always so clear-cut.

Do the Russians or the Ukrainians best represent white interests in their current war? That’s something that white advocates themselves can’t seem to agree upon. Were the Nazis Right-wing or Left-wing? Greg Johnson and Vox Day had an interesting debate [8] on that very topic in 2017. Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager talk a good game as conservatives, but they clearly place Jewish interests above all else and have at times shown hostility towards white interests, so their place on the Right is highly suspect. Michelle Malkin and Laura Loomer, on the other hand, have gone on the record in defending the interests of American whites. Say what you like about either of these ladies, but it’s safe to say that their place on the Right is less suspect than that of Shapiro and Prager. Anti-anti-whites such as the Ace of Spades and Mark Dice certainly belong, despite how rarely they ever touch the third rail of race. Self-serving Internet personalities like Nick Fuentes and Milo Yiannopoulos may be race realists, but it’s anyone’s guess as to where they stand along the Left-Right spectrum.

Most importantly, when people explicitly identify as white in a positive way, they will have a home on the Right, despite whatever differences they have over incidental concerns such as economics, religion, tradition, nationalism, and the rest. Right and Left are as real as the racial and ethnic distinctions which produce them.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

[10]If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.