Apologies to all as my work/life balance has been heavily skewed toward work over the past few months so posting has been light, however a post in today's infeed serves to highlight a point that I've been trying to make for a while now i.e The Alt-Right is not really Right.
Here's the post, go have a read.
All this, of course, hinges upon the meaning of what it means to be "Right". This is a very important point which isn't given enough time in NRx and clarity in this issue will help separate, as we say here in Australia, "the shit from the clay". Furthermore, clarity in this issue will help identify entryists and crypto rightists who are nothing more than Leftists in drag.
As mentioned previously in this blog, most people are cognitive misers and their primary mode of "thought' is through associations. For the cognitive miser, "Right wing" means having opinions that are not Left wing and therefore someone who espouse anti-Left opinions is automatically categorised as Right. This, of course, plays into the Left "frame control" by putting all their enemies into one "cognitive camp" hence the common claim that there are no enemies to the "right". The Right, in this instance, being defined by the Left.
What many of the "stupid Right" fail to realise is that the Left's has its own sectarian battles and by making the frame of reference the dominant Left party, all the non-dominant internecine parties on the Left have a high chance of being classified as right, simply by their opposition to the dominant sect of the Left. Furthermore, that risk of misclassification is greater if the Left sect espouses values which are sometimes associated with the Right. A notional socialist does not become right wing by embracing nationalism he simply remains a left wing nationalist.
It is here where we come to an understanding of the failure of the Right in the 20th C. It has defined itself as anti-Left instead of pro-something. Therefore there has been no standard by which to judge a movements "Rightness" except for its anti-Left credentials. Therefore it has formed alliances with groups who ultimately subvert it and as I currently see it, the role of the alt-Right is to subvert the Right. Here is a comment from the Radix blog which fairly well summaries the blog's position on several key philosophical points:
This blog does not position itself on the Left-Right axis, it positions itself along the Right-Wrong one. Truth with a big T is the primary concern of NRx, and I'm quite happy to accept propositions from the Left that are true and reject propositions from the Right which are wrong. As the cards stack however, the majority of true propositions can be found in the Right, and that's why this blog assumes a Right flavor.
The role of the Alt-Right is not concerned about truth, it is concerned about power. Racial consciousness is the only standard by which all other epistemology is judged. If God is not "racially conscious" then God can be ditched and his followers persecuted. For Christians, a "Right" which rejects God is no better than the Left, it's wrong. However it is a pernicious heresy and one that is very difficult to spot, especially for the cognitive miser of the Right.
The appeal of the alt-Right is that it does advocate some truths which instinctively appeal. The love of kin, the delight of manhood, the sense of brotherhood that they preach all appeals to the "blood" of the normal man. It's not these things that I criticise it for, it's its hatred of God and his people that damns the movement to burn in Hell.
There is no Western Civilisation without the baby Jesus.
(A little wiki primer for those who are still confused.)