Amerika

The right wing should be experiencing a moment of triumph, but it is not. Now that the last 80 years of industry-fueled consumerism and liberalism are waning, it is our time to seize the light and create a new way.

The right has never captured the moral superiority vibe that leftists do so well. Leftists make you feel educated, intelligent, suave and cultured for just accepting a few ideas and demanding them repeatedly. It’s like a one-stop update of your social status.

Right-wing politics are hard to define. Left-wing politics are that the individual is a victim of society and needs as few rules or common standards as possible; that’s equality, a human moral concept imposed on a less-than-compliant nature. For the right to succeed, it needs to be competitive with the easy, self-empowering and esteem-building left.

What the mainstream right has offered instead is a seeming desire to oppose the passage of time and history, an underground radical front that idealizes violence and hatred, and a public face that plays off our sense of what’s good with outrage at what these leftists are doing. Our mainstream politicians expect us to organize around outrage at leftist descecration of the good in life.

Our underground wing — those who violate the spirit of the age of liberal democracy by mentioning inequality of class, gender, race, ethnicity and individuals — offers a binary outrage: either you understand its extreme dogma, or you’re the enemy. By embracing the most outrageous aspects of the historical vision of what it is to be right-wing, and confronting people with them as if they were self-evident and only losers would avoid them, they have alienated just about everyone except the burn-outs, basement dwellers, parolees and a few lonely geniuses who read too much Mencken and Spengler.

Outrage is dead as a political tactic. We’re not outraged, because we are not surprised. When you build a society on the invisible hand of the market, held in check by government propaganda and incentive programs, you have built a nice comfy environment for corruption and lies to thrive.

When our only rule that what’s best is whatever the individual wants right now that can be sold to them, we should not be shocked. We’ve made this mess as a society by following the leftist mandate toward individualism, with commerce only to happy to oblige. After all, consumers with culture, ideals or actual moral standards are not the reckless buyers that deracinated, miserable, self-loathing, dysfunctional idiots are.

Both groups are waiting for this great awakening when people discover the outrage, and proclaim that the right was correct all along, and even more, that many of modern society’s enemies and detractors were also right. They think that the only reason outrage has not triumphed is that people are apathetic.

There’s a simpler explanation: the right isn’t ready to rule, isn’t organized and is dyfunctional. Before we can aspire to rule, we need to clean our house:

• A straightfoward concept. “Tradition” only partially summarizes our values. It makes more sense to restructure ourselves as the party of science, since we are concerned more about practical cause-effect relationships than moral/social relationship. We don’t need to bow to the religious extremists or their opposites, the fanatical atheists. We need to say we are looking for verifiable, replicated results in order to understand our world, and that some things — like creation, like God, like morality — we can’t test and thus cannot disprove. In that view, we are the only truly scientific viewpoint.
• A clear philosophy. It would be just great if our philosophy was so intuitive and easy as liberalism. It ain’t. So we need a thought-leader, and one 200-page-ish book that explains it all in simple terms, so that people can see why we believe what we do, what real-world factors influence our decision, and even make them sympathetic to the vision of society that we desire. We need a synopsis, especially one that can boil down to a sentence or two.
• A mainstream voice. The idea of “underground” politics only works for the left, because the left inherently tunes in to dissatisfaction and excuse-making. Therefore, it’s easy for them to later legitimize violent thugs as peaceful revolutionaries. However, our vision of the world isn’t based in victimhood. For that reason, we need to stay away from the revolutionary rhetoric entirely, and instead focus on clear points that make life better for our constituents.
• Competent, morally unimpeachable rulers. We need people we can trust who have no association with violence, crime, corruption or dubious personal decisions. Newt Gingrich will not be president of the USA because of his conduct in marriage; John McCain failed to be president because he was unclear on his positions and had similar marital trauma. No leader with connections to Nazi, skinhead, white supremacist or other violent groups that make personal attacks on people for their race, gender or religion will make it to president. An upright citizen who claims that diversity cannot work, however, could.
• A real plan. What happens when right-wing leaders get in power? Is it as it is with Republicans, where you get a slightly more warlike and fiscally responsible group that fixes all the problems the Democrats introduced, then gets blamed for the fallout of those problems before surrendering power in the next election cycle? God (or Ungod, if you’re an atheist) only knows what a neo-Nazi-related leader would do, besides hang people. What’s the platform, and how will it change us? Hint: less is more.
• A sense of stability. When a customer buys a Mercedes-Benz, he is trusting in the brand reputation and the support network behind it. More than buying a car, he’s buying into a process whereby the car will in theory work better and last longer, and if it doesn’t, there’s a whole group of people who can help. Reliability oozes through it. People need to have trust in the right-wing brand and not see it as more politicians who will use their power to conveniently enhance themselves at the expense of the country.

Without the above, the right-wing stands no chance of winning power. Like the left-wing is a spectrum anarchy to Communism with liberal democracy in the middle, the right-wing is a spectrum from aristocracy to National Socialism with paleoconservatism in the middle. Political wings tend toward their middles and, if successful in that, gradually move toward extremes.

Unless they screw it up, the right is a clear winner because they tackle the one big problem — the elephant in the room — that few are willing to recognize, much less discuss: our civilization is in decay and, other than our technology, we are producing nothing of worth and are boring ourselves with our increasingly shallow amusements. This is how empires end.

When my older daughter, Lily, then eight, sang with 1,500 other school children at a charity fund-raiser at the Royal Albert Hall last Christmas, one of the numbers she was asked to sing — along with Silent Night — was Bad Romance by Lady Gaga.

Presumably no one had thought to question why primary pupils were being asked to perform a sexually-charged number about an abusive relationship.

But then, it’s all become so normal. Suggestive songs are the soundtracks to our children’s school discos. The words ‘bring your own make-up’ are the instructions on the party invitations from their classmates.

It’s a measure of how much sex is a part of their world that for the elder sisters of primary age girls, the word ‘slut’ is now a term of praise.

During the research for my book, Where Has My Little Girl Gone?, I came across one 16-year-old girl at a top public school so proud of the term she spelled it out in giant letters as her phone screensaver. She’s far from being the only one. On Bebo, there are more than 30,000 girls happily describing themselves the same way.

So how did sleaze become so acceptable that it’s now part of our girls’ childhoods?

And, painful though it may be to admit, is it time that we parents accept our fair share of the blame? What I discovered while writing my book is that we can’t put it all at the feet of the marketing men and the media. Nor can we leave it up to the Government to fix.

As the first gatekeepers who most influence our children’s values, attitudes and aspirations, we also have to look to ourselves to work out how it reached this state of affairs. – Daily Mail

Civilization decay cannot be fought with laws, subsidies or incentives. We need a cultural initiative to rebuild society, starting with defining and fleshing out that culture.

Unlike government, culture allows us to have a positive vision for the future. Government makes legislation based on events that have already happened, and these rules don’t aim to prevent problems so much as provide disincentive through punishment. Only culture can put us all on the same page moving toward an ideal, not a law.

And only conservatives support culture. Leftists support “culture” of non-culture, or a group of people with nothing in common roped together by a dogmatic government; it’s an enforced political culture, consisting of social rules in the negative, and not values of any meaningful kind.

Instead of outrage, we need a rage for order. We need a reaching out, for a new experience in government, or even an adventure. We need to throw aside the dusty and stale reactions and rearguard actions of the past, and start viewing conservative politics as an arena in which we can create a truly liberating government, meaning one free from illusions and their negative consequences.

Our enemies are all those who believe life should not have meaning. These favor a surface view of life, such as popularity, financial value or political dogma. But didn’t those things wreck enough in the 20th century? Surely we have grown past them. At least, we should grow past them, if we don’t want to die of futilistic boredom!

We can finally say what’s on many people’s minds, which is that leftist politics, television commercials, hipsters and polite lies have more in common than not. We need to hit people over the head with the idea that our individualistic “freedom” and “democracy” are not manipulated by commerce, but are its children. A society based on individual desires becomes a giant open-air bazaar with no standards, and eventually, it collapses.

The reason the right-wing is hard to define, politically, is that right-wingness is not politics. It’s a whole vision, a vision of a society of a type opposite the liberal democratic, yet predating it. It cannot be broken down into lifestyle, politics, economics, and religion, yet it contains all of these. Unlike liberalism, which is an idea of fragmenting the existing, conservatism is a whole idea.

For that reason, conservatism is incompatible with modern politics, which are based in liberalism and its triumph, liberal democracy. Mainstream conservatives are assimilated by this larger trend, and while the underground conservatives avoid that, they embrace a worse fate, which is a kind of binary all-or-nothing viewpoint:

The problem isn’t the government per se, it’s that the people who would be more responsible financially and ethically with the government – a sizable percentage of the AltRight – are always staying out of involvement with government waiting for the crash. That mentality is more the reason why there is disengagement from government by the very people which good government requires. As long as that perspective remains, then distancing oneself will remain among the AltRight.

The spoils will then go to those who do engage emotionally with the people. This means for now and the foreseeable future various sorts of leftist social programs for peoples who most certainly did not build the United States or Canada. – Euro-Canadian News

In fact, it’s baffling that the far right (the underground conservatives) still exist. They espouse a revolutionary logic that incessantly divides the world into those who support the dogma, and those who are indifferent or opposed. In order to maintain ideological purity, they endorse even greater extremes and act out dramas from the past and its failed wars, hate crimes and violence that achieved no goals.

The public has issued a mandate (link is from UK, but applies everywhere) stating that, while a sizable plurality support the message of paleoconservatism or traditionalism, they’re not going to vote for parties associated with violence, chaos and criminality:

Almost half the country would back a far-Right party if they gave up violence, an astonishing new poll revealed today.

A total of 48 per cent said that they would support a group that vowed to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists.

They would also restrict the building of mosques and order the flag of St George or the Union Jack be flown on all public buildings. – Daily Mail

Yet, painfully, no far-right group has picked up on this — nor has any mainstream conservative group realized that, if they approach the issue without confrontational judgment or hatred of other human beings, certain topics are back on the table and there’s a sizable voting bloc to support them. Republicans and white nationalists, while seemingly on opposite ends of the spectrum, may find themselves converging.

First, they have to get their act together, and leave behind the tinge of criminal behavior:

The British National party is facing political meltdown in next month’s local elections after a string of defections and growing concern over its finances.

Dozens of prominent BNP figures have either been suspended or have resigned and in the past few weeks several former members have announced they are to stand for rival far-right and nationalist organisations.

The BNP is standing around 250 candidates in next month’s elections, compared with approximately 700 in the equivalent polls in 2007.

The turmoil comes as the Electoral Commission announced this week that the party had “failed to comply with the legal requirement to keep adequate financial records” for the second year running, further increasing the pressure on the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, who fought off a leadership challenge last year.

“The position of the party is extremely dire,” said Professor Matthew Goodwin, from Nottingham University, an expert on far-right politics. “The defections and rebellions are going strong and we have seen a whole host of key figures leave to join other far-right groups … Nick Griffin is becoming increasingly isolated.” – The Guardian

White nationalism is not marketable; its ideas, if interpreted by sober-minded people, are marketable. Consider that most of the great artists and thinkers of our culture would agree with ethnic segregation, and a need for conservative values to keep society from imploding. Why are these ideas not the ideology of our ruling elites?

The white nationalists will tell you it’s a conspiracy by Jews, African-Americans or others. The reality is far simpler: the far-right is too unstable, too violent and too criminal to be a contender. While your average American may feel the diversity experiment is a failure, they will not vote for someone who espouses racial violence against African-Americans as a solution, or someone who sees a tiny ethnic group (Jews) as having somehow taken over the world. They will not support anyone tainted by criminality, violence or corruption. And they definitely will not support a Hollywood Nazi whose election will make them look a laughingstock across the West.

We need to remind both white nationalists and anti-racists of some salient facts:

• Nationalism is not racism. Racism means wanting to call another inferior, and use him as labor. Nationalism means knowing that the best principle for a society is for it to have a center, and the best center is cultural, not commercial, social popularity or dogmatic. Nationalist societies are the only organic societies in that people come together and rule themselves through cultural values, making government and industry secondary and administered in the spirit of that values consensus. Nationalists are not racists, and they should not support racists.
• Wanting family values is not homophobia or misogny. To say that we want a civilization devoid of the sexual revolution, and in which homosexuality is kept a low-key secret, is to again speak from the idea of a center to society. We have values that determine what we do, and while they represent adaptations to our environment, they are semi-arbitrary in that not everyone wants the same level of effect. This view has nothing in common with religious paranoia of homosexuality or a desire to “own” women.
• Religious tolerance means tolerance of religious communities. In the simplistic media world, tolerance means that if someone with a different belief moves in next door, you just “tolerate” (politely ignore) them. In the real world, all actions have consequences, so you are talking about the values of the community at large at stake. Do you want a morality derived from a religion, or from none at all? If so, which? The melting pot doesn’t work: it either averages all the values into a lowest common denominator, or picks one above the others.

This is why it is time for “white nationalism” to die, and a fusion of American Republican, European New Right, paleoconservatism and traditionalism to take its place. We don’t need the violent rhetoric of the far-right; we don’t need to insult anyone to point out that diversity doesn’t work, even white-white (Belgium) or black-black (Rwanda). We need to put these simple facts into mainstream politics, and move on from the “basement dweller” reactionary mentality.

As people are slowly realizing, time is on our side. Samuel Huntington wrote his brilliant Clash of Civilizations to point out that liberal democracy is, in the longer view of history, a brief trend; it glided on the power of our fossil fuels, and expanded into an altruistic madness in the 1960s, then festered and died as the programs it demanded were found to be not only ineffective, but increasingly dividing our civilization.

Those years of illusion are now passing. The left is fighting hard because this is their last gasp; their ideas are losing currency worldwide as people see what a house of cards they produced, not just in economics but in population, political power and social decay. It is our time to stop being outraged, and start working toward the different future we so evidently desire.