Now, by DR, I mean the Right that has abandoned the post war conservative institutional consensus, in other words, what counts for "mainstream Conservatism" which is currently in its death throes iacross the Western World. The recent National Review edition against Trump is an example of the conservative consensus flailing about to keep the traditional constituency in tow. There seems to be global revolt of the rank and file against the institutional conservative establishment which increasingly fails to meaningfully distinguish itself from the Left. Furthermore, I think we've reached a sociological tipping point, in that extent of foreign migration (and its media coverage) has finally started to fuel a nativist backlash and, more importantly, the economic forces of globalisation have finally started to seriously impact upon the middle class. Globalisation, whilst it was putting out blue collar workers was not a really issue for the Right but now that its pernicious effects are being felt in Middle Class--(politically the class that matters most)--a serious revolt has begun to brew.
It is these rebels from institutional conservatism which I call the Dissident Right. Now, the DR needs to be understood as comprising of two main streams;
1) The "feeling" Right and,
2) The "thinking" Right.
The "feeling Right" is pretty much owned by the Alt-Right, by which I mean the Radix like crowd. This group "intuits" its political position and its rejection of the IR is more a case of the "feels" rather than the "thinks". It's essentially a romantic movement. In Richard Spencer's Political Theology, myth is more important than fact. The reason this is because any factual analysis of the "White" situation leads to uncomfortable truths. Truths which stymie the "racial awareness" renewal. In brief, the White goyim are bringing the misery down, on themselves by themselves. It needs to be pointed out that the SJW's who are currently pushing for more "diversity" are nearly all white white. Attribution of decline to external groups such as the Jews, whilst having some plausibility, are unfounded so in the end, any sustaining principle must be rooted in an intuitive myth rather than a cold hard fact.
This however is a political winner, at least in a democracy. As Sam Francis in his brilliant, From Household to Nation, observed, the average middle class person was nothing more than an affluent proletarian and therefore far more likely to be motivated by the "feels" rather than the facts. His essay is basically a statement on the importance, in a Democracy, of personal circumstances over ideology and he attributes the failure of the IR to the neglect of this fact. What has driven the shift to the DR, in particular the Alt-Right is, that over the past decade, the circmstances of the middle class have started to decline with a subsequent rise in middle class anxiety. The Alt-Right caters for this anxiety in a way that the sheeple can grasp. It doesn't argue rationally it persuades emotively.
Years ago, the mainstream media control of information would pretty much shut down any legitimate access to the Alt-right, but given the internet, that control has been lost and groups such as Radix have been able to package themselves--somewhat--as identitarians and not as Nazi's who are able to slickly articulate the problems of the middle class. Furthermore, by providing "low brow" intuitive solutions to problems, their appeal is slowly growing and it is this segment, because of its socio-intellectual nature, has provided for the most explosive growth in the Dissident Right.
The other area where it owns the field is in the ideology of identity. Make no mistake, there is a crisis of national identity going on throughout the Western World, bough about by multiculturalism, which is being suppressed by political correctness yet which yearns to find expression and is yet another reason for the growth of the DR. Other conservative movements simply do not come even come close to providing for coherent solutions to the problem, however its mistake is in placing the foundation of identity in biological race--with all of its Darwinian baggage and repulsive evolutionary "solutions"--instead of grounding identity in the natural biases of human nature.
But make no mistake, the Alt-Right is still a "mass-man" movement and therefore is a spiritual heir of the French Revolution. It is anti-NRx. It's a democracy/socialism/authoritarian system where the franchise is based on color. And therefore, it brings with it all the problems to culture and society that
I'll deal with the "thinking" Right in my next post.
6 comments:
"What has driven the shift to the DR, in particular the Alt-Right is, that over the past decade, the circmstances of the middle class have started to decline with a subsequent rise in middle class anxiety. The Alt-Right caters for this anxiety in a way that the sheeple can grasp. It doesn't argue rationally it persuades emotively."
I think that's true doctor, which is why I, and I suspect quite a few other Americans, are feeling nervous (and I'll be honest here, even a bit scared) going into the Iowa Caucas on Monday. Obviously you disagree, but to present an alternate viewpoint, I'd say that for all his endless pandering that he'll stop the Chinese from screwing us, that he'll make America number one again, and all that, Trump is making promises that this truly demogaugic populist can never remotely hope to keep. Besides immigration (and reforming entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, which he has no interest in tackling) there really isn't much Trump - or any would-be leader - can do to deal with the problems America faces, which are largely technological and cultural and not political. Even if a President Trump were to build an Israeli-like wall to keep out illegals and with the Congress pass legislation that severely fines businesses who employ the undocumented (big ifs, those), at best this would improve the crime and economic situations a bit. It would not come close to solving them, or fullfilling the expectations that Trump has instilled over the last few months in proles and disenfranchised middle-class Americans.
And this is rather dangerous, in my opinion, and why you've probably read thoughtful scribes (like Spengler, see his excellent piece here https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/01/25/the-resistible-rise-of-donald-trump/ which I largely agree with, although he should take immigration more seriously) make the comparisons of this moment to Weimar Germany. Things are not as bad as during the 1920s and 1930s, thank God, but there sure is that analagous, if not really similar, feeling of forboding in America that existed decades ago throughout Europe, of not knowing what's going to occur next, or if institutions will be able to hold up in the long term. And matters are not helped, again at least in my opinion, when Trump makes statements like because he is a dealmaker he'll be able to solve America's financial problems, which are really not all that different from Imperial Germany generals telling the people in the spring of 1918 that they - the best and the brightest of that epoch - know the score and victory is finally within grasp. Raise the bar too high and then fail to reach it, and people as a result become corrosively cynical and look to stupider and more radical solutions.
The recent National Review edition against Trump is an example of the conservative consensus flailing about to keep the traditional constituency in tow.
Yep. Agreed.
There seems to be global revolt of the rank and file against the institutional conservative establishment which increasingly fails to meaningfully distinguish itself from the Left.
This is a lot like what happened on the Left in the US with socialism becoming completely discredited due to the fall of Communism. And now, with Sanders, socialism may be ready to make a comeback. It's been a long time for both the Right and Left stuck in the ugly middle. Let the battle for the new era begin!
Jason, Trump is making promises that this truly demogaugic populist can never remotely hope to keep.
Pah. Exactly why are you calling Trump out for special attention for making promises he can't keep? He's running for president. Promising the moon is part of the job description. If he built the wall only, the liberal outcry, would make me cry and it would be a perfect Presidency. Hell, the guy said, out loud, Iraq was a mistake. I love him already.
@Jason,
Thanks for your comments.
Firstly, I think America (and the West's) problems are beyond Trump's power to fix. I don't think he has the intellectual depth given the magnitude of the problems and his past track record. A great business man is not necessarily a great statesman and I think a Trump presidency would be marked by some successes but an overall sense of failure. Where it goes after that, I don't know, but I feel that there are going to be some very unpleasant "radical solutions" before things settle down. The situations, as I see it, is simply too far gone for any easy way out. In many ways I see the situation worse than in the 20's and 30's. I should like to add that there is no other leader on the ballot that would be any better. Trump is probably the best of a bad bunch. The other problem, Jason, is that the democratic system, when it reaches the stage it has, is--except for a miracle--on a terminal course for collapse. The public will simply not vote in the man who needs to to the things that need to be done. There is no way in hell that the public will vote for responsible government--especially when it involves them making significant financial or personal sacrifices.
However, from a different angle, the Trump campaign will be a huge success simply by the fact that it has energised a conservative revolt against the official "conservative" establishment. For a variety of reasons this is a necessary prerequisite to any meaningful revival of Conservatism and therefore solution to the systemic problems. If 2015 means anything it will mean the rebirth of a new assertive New Right which I feel will be able to tackle the Left successfully.
But what has shocked me is how the GOP seems keener on taking him down rather than tackling Sandars and Clinton. What's also shocked me is the shared aim of the both the liberal media and the GOP in taking him down. I'm surprised more commentators do not mention this. It think its proof of just how far to the Left the "mainstream' GOP really is.
Even if he failed in his presidency, his candidacy will be of strategic value simple because he has singlehandedly shifted the Overton window to the extent that topics that were previously unmentionable are now given airtime. Voices outside the consensus are being heard. The other dimension of his candidacy is that he has shown conservatives how to be unapologetic about their conservatism and how to handle the media. He may fail in his candidacy but conservatism will win by having an example which future,wiser leaders may wish to emulate.
@MK
Socialism is making a comeback in the U.S. because the "Capitalism" of the U.S. is quite savage. This is the problem that the Austrians fail to understand. Capitalism exists in the co-operative moral framework upheld by individual members of society. When people realise that the systems is biased against them and designed to see them fail, they refuse to play the game anymore.
As for Trump, you've got to pick what's available, not necessarily what you want.
I like your breakdown of DR into feels and thinks. I have always thought that the r/K dichotomy was 'metaphysic' BS. I regard r-sheeple as leftist and K-sheeple as IR + DR,feels rightist (i.e. Hegelian rear mob rather than true rightists or conservers of anything). The romantic movement is a great species exemplar for the white feels movement. I am not sure I would equate NRx with DR,thinks. No, I would not. The 'descriptions' of NRx are like Kant, total BS with enough truth to make it just almost if only several more hours of exegesis, but that is what makes scripture functionally a scripture. The believer completes the ideology to his custom-made satisfaction. I don't think there is a DR,thinks. I don't think one out of a hundred in the West are competent rationalists. I concede the Original Post is in that genre, but so little is. Truth is not complicated, just scary. Bridges over cognitive dissonance are complicated because convincing illusions must be exposed to scrutiny without revealing as a lie the lie that makes the leap of faith work. I will be looking for your thoughts on DR,thinks with the hope that you have something to teach me, that I am not the only one in the world who sees things like I do if nothing more to make me think more like you. I'm not sure Spinoza had the answers projected by Tractatus Politicus either. I expect evolution must be front and center in any correct analysis. Best wishes for the New Year to all the thinkers that can sublimate their emotions and instincts.
thanks for your post
amazin post, and quality article
Post a Comment