Monday, February 27, 2017

Schneider's Speech at CPAC

I thought I would make a few comments on the speech given by Dan Schneider at the CPAC conference, particularly concerning the Alt-Right.  As I've mentioned before on this blog, it would appear that Spencer seems to have "captured" the association with the brand "Alt-Right" in the public's and has now become its default spokesman. As I've also mentioned previously, the media  seems to be quite unusually keen to reinforce the association which should give everyone a pause for concern. If the Cathedral is keen on something, it's safe to say that it is not going to be good for the Right.

Spencer may not be a wannabe American National Socialist but the ideas he represents. i.e. an atheistic ethnonationalism grounded on a syncretic formulation of materialistic determinism and romantic intuitism were also advocated by the man with a mustache. Hailgate and "nazi irony" make media attempts to portray Spencer and the movement he is associated with as Nazis v2.0 plausible.
The Left wants to reinforce this association and Spencer and his acolytes seem to want to oblige. He may or may not be controlled opposition but he is certainly behaving as if he is. I think it was a grave, grave mistake for the Dissident right not to clearly disassociate itself from Spencer early on.  As a result, rightly or wrongly, the stench of Fascism now permeates the non-mainstream Right in the minds of those who are "normies".

On the other hand, those who aren't normies are fully aware that Spencer represents one segment of the non mainstream "Right" and that there are there are a wide variety of different positions on many social questions in the Alt Dissident Right. I imagine that many at CPAC would have been fully aware of it this. Keep this point in mind.

Now the idea of the Alt-Right= Nazi is a welcome state of affairs to the Neocons and "Cuckservatives" who see the the existential danger to themselves by the existence of a Right that they do not control. They want to destroy any opposition and reinstate themselves, and associating their opponents with Fascism is a very effective mechanism to deny them any political legitimacy. I think Schneider's speech at CPAC was an example of this.

The first thing that struck me about Schneider's speech that is that he was very vague about who the Alt-Right was. Was it the media's version? Or the "in house" one.  There was no distinction and I certainly got the impression that he being deliberately non precise and slurring the entire non-Mainstream Right.

Secondly, like all great disinformation operations, Schneider's speech was combination of Truth mixed in with calculated lie. It's true that Fascism is a sect of the Left, it's true that Spencer has co-opted the Label of Alt-Right, but is it true that conservatism can be reduced to an individual's rights? In my opinion Schneider was pushing for a re definition of Conservatism as some form of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is the political ideology of social autism. The problem with it, is that the political system that it needs to bring its political ideology into real world practice would resemble the open borders, multinational corporation, zhe-sexual, nationless individualism that we have now. So any attempt to redefine conservatism along libertarian lines is really a Trojan horse operation to re-install the the worst elements of the NeoCon ideology.

Unlike Libertarianism, the traditional Right has always emphasised that men do not exist as social atoms but as members of a community, and just as men have rights so to does the community. Furthermore, communities had norms which individuals were meant to follow, and one of the problems in right wing thought was where to draw the line between individual liberty and community rights. Right wing thinkers recognised that part of what made a community's identity were the norms that it chose to uphold and any dilution of those norms represented a dilution of that sense of community. Right thinking is therefore libertarian to only unto a point, and afterwards is coercive. Libertarianism pushes that thought towards one pole: the individual, and argues against any community norms except the bare minimum. 

What I found really interesting with Schneider's speech was the very lukewarm reception it got. It really does seem that the rank and file are beginning to see through the smoke and mirrors but that's not to say that the ideology of Spencer would have found much traction there as well. What I would have loved to see is Victor Orban give a speech at CPAC.  It think his version of nationalism is the one we should emulate. National Conservatism is far better than National Socialism.


Anonymous said...

"argues against any community norms except the bare minimum"
I don't see that in the theonomist libertarian Gary North, Hans-Hermann Hoppe also talks about strong communities with strong community rules. There's a strong portion of libertarians who want a laissez-faire approach to morality and social conventions, in fact I think the idea of it being just that is what's rocketed its appeal in the younger crowd, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that libertarian ideology must eschew, destroy, and maintain the destruction of the social order.

I don't see the value in tradition, it has a decaying generational impact, at the end of the day you can only answer "Why?" with "Because." so many times before tradition fades away or mutates. Traditionalism is a cargo-cult morality "people did this before and were successful, we should too", whose traditions and why? Why did it work? Is all that matters is that it worked? What if something else works too? It dodges moral relativism by trying to freeze itself in time, granting itself a quasi-eternal moral system not based on any eternal or transcendent values, traditions don't often spring from God but other men.

There is value in an eternal moral system, a supreme authority to base your moral judgements on, but anything apart from God is decaying and worthless. Not only that but as it decays the new rebellious traditions become old and trusted, you see this in the culture of catholics with people doing whatever they please because they got in, they got baptized as a baby just like everyone else in their family, they have no further obligation to the church or God except on holidays that's just how it's done.

Don't get me wrong, in various cultures who've held onto productive traditional values they would have to continued to prosper had they continued to hold on to those values but you can only hold onto the peoples hearts if they're not outright rebellious and/or dispirited by lack of faith in the system, any tradition has to be able to answer why it matters in the long-term beyond an individuals life for that individual, if people want to party and abandon their responsibilities why should they abstain for the success of future generations they'll never see? Why fall on the sword for society?

The Social Pathologist said...


Hoppe and North appear to be outliers with regard to the libertarian tradition. Their "communities" are really associations of like minded individualists. What if a hundered of these like minded individualists decided to limit the access to a certain piece of land, that is recognised as the common good from the rest of the community? I mean there is nothing to stop cartel formation with his theory.

I don't see the value in tradition.

I do, but I recognise its limitations. I respect tradition, unlike the Traditionalists who worship it. I admit that I think if new insights or contingencies form then Tradition needs to change. Where I think this upsets the trads the most is when it comes to religion. The past, in their minds is inerrant, and modern peoples are incapable of knowing the Truth.

you see this in the culture of catholics with people doing whatever they please because they got in

I partially agree with your statement. I think that there is a very real spiritual danger in "habitual virtue". I think that you can become a religious automaton, going through the motions without any active living Faith. I think that this is a very real problem amongst the professionally virtuous who do good by habit instead of by choice.

Nulle Terre Sans Seigneur said...

I haven't been around in these circles as long as you have, but the impression I have is that American white nationalism has always been the core of the alt-right even in its earlier days. The difference is that there was less willingness for the WN core to consolidate the peripheries, being such an embryonic movement at the time.

But, when Brexit and the Trump populist revolt came along, it became quite obvious that the "broad tent" of the alt-right would have to be left behind. Adam Wallace (being on the fringes) spoke about this. Greg Johnson quite explicitly declared that the alt-right either means WN or it means nothing. Besides, the whole ideology of WN is about taking homogenization well past the golden mean. Diversity is chaos, and this includes ideas. Go look at MPC - the people there are absolutely hostile to NRx, much less any traditionalist and more classical reactionary thought which is virtually dead anyway. I mean, it's not like we have a lot of Metternichian counterrevolutionaries left these days - and the tragedy of NRx is that it never seemed to develop in that direction (though I hope to start blogging in that vein soon enough using the literature I've picked up over time).

Now, the alt-right is unique (Lawrence Murray called it "WN 2.0") in both its explicit troll culture and form of expression, almost mirroring revolutionary smut like Jacques Hebert's La Pere Duchesne in its sheer vulgarity, and most importantly, being based on a worldview that is probably the purest expression of Darwinian/sociobiological metaphysics we have seen in intellectual history.

I must also dissent on your characterization of libertarianism. Our society is a popular society rather than a propertarian society, and this is a key fault that both High Tories and right-libertarians have diagnosed. Mackenzie's crusades to install "responsible government" in Upper Canada and similar movements in the 19th century have taken their toll. Lordship, customary law, feudal fragmentation - the like were all conducive to creating a community that balanced out imperium and sacerdotium. It was sectarian conflict that gave us absolutism and the Minotaur - beginning with the Danish Reformation and the failed Count's Feud in 1536. Church estates expropriated, bishops incarcerated and sometimes killed. Hence the reason why old-school counterrevolutionaries like Karl Ludwig von Haller expressed royalist-propertarian ideas that almost sound libertarian at times, and why Hegel despised Haller so much.

"Nationless individualism". The nation has usually been the nobility, and in-group preference has been internoble solidarity. "Natio Hungarica" for example referred to members of the Hungarian Diet, until nationalist scribblers distorted it to mean commoners. The idea of commoners rising up to "self-determine" because of biological kinship that gives them ethnic genetic interests to defend, is facetious. No nationalist revolution can succeed without a Garibaldi (warrior), Mazzini (intellectual), Count Cavour (cunning diplomat) and Louis-Napoleon (greater outside force), all coordinated properly and taking place in the right geopolitical context. Moreover, it is foolish to expect that nationalism as a political formula being a form of fictive kinship can be as robust as the clear material relationship between lord and vassal, priest and layman, family members and local/regional identity with its particular civil society and customs. Nationalists look down upon this - Franco suppressing the use of the Catalan language, among other things.

(I should also point out that the corporation is probably the place where modern man is subjected to the sternest authority nowadays. Not necessarily to defend globalization here, but any advanced society is necessarily a corporate society. Welfarism has unfortunately annihilated civil institutions like the friendly societies and fraternal lodges of old, and left only business conglomerates.)

MK said...

I think libertarianism is merely the best we can get in a multicultural society. Like the Amish, we can then live under whatever laws we wish in our own life and give the State as little power as possible. I really don't see any other option besides open war.

But give up the idea of winning over the culture. There is not a political solution besides an uneasy peace. The alt-right is perfect to counter the left, and I'm all for it. Christians are divided, weak, and generally more pagan than Christian. One might be "correct" and "pure" but it won't stop bullets. The alt-right balances things and buys time.

The long, hard path is clear: Benedict Option style communities, generations in the wilderness, persecution and pain. Eventually, real Christians will come out of these communities. They will have low expectations, high fertility, be communal, and will embrace libertarianism at the State level like the Amish do merely so they can be left alone.

The Social Pathologist said...


but the impression I have is that American white nationalism has always been the core of the alt-right even in its earlier days

There is a degree of Truth to this, but the strong emphasis on biological determinism is a relatively new phenomenon bought in by the Stormfront sympathisers. It's one thing to argue that the races or nations should be seperate, its quite another to argue the superiority or inferiority of peoples because of race. The concept of White Nationalism has morphed.

I mean, it's not like we have a lot of Metternichian counterrevolutionaries left these days - ...........

Sadly you're correct though I still have a lot of hope for NRx, it still seems to be thinking about things where alt-Right Populism is just that, a populist spasm. With the same populist responses. Still any form of statecraft has to accommodate populism to a degree.

I wouldn't be too dismissive about populism, it is the primary pushback against the PC culture--it's not like Right intellectuals have managed to push back the Left. The current revolt is more instinctual rather than thought out, hence its vulgarity, and will collapse against the Left unless it is harnessed by intelligent poeople to destroy it. (The Left)

Greg Johnson quite explicitly declared that the alt-right either means WN or it means nothing

There is a lot to unpack in that comment. Positioning the Alt Right as an exclusively WN movement has conceptual problems. Are all "whites" the same. I mean to do Frenchmen want to be Hungarians? How do you deal with the Blacks in the U.S? Oven them? I mean its all nice and dandy to talk white nationalism but when you think beyond the superficial slogans what are the actual policy prescriptions? The Final Solution wasn't a predetermined outcome of Nazi ideology, but it "sort of just happened". Smarter people, who analysed Nazi ideology saw where it was going to go even if the Nazi's didn't, and a White Nationalist ideology based upon genetic Calvinism can go quite horrible quite quickly. I've got no problem with an identitarian movement based upon a real understanding of human nature and the Christian conception of the person but the solution to Kumbayah social policy is not the Darwinian struggle.

Traditionalism is a cargo-cult morality ........

Yep. So So true. I'm more of the opinion that the Traditionalists are perhaps the "hidden villains" we've all missed. By failing to to develop customs and habits which reconciled transcendent values with contingencies they kept the safety valve locked down which eventually destroyed the society they cherished.

I think Propretarianism rests on faulty assumptions with regard to human rationality and current social conditions. It worked in Feudal society but I don't think it will work today. People are stupid, and with appropriate encouragement will bind themselves voluntarily in chains.

I think the Welfare state is guilty of all the vices you mention but it also materially surpassed the limitations of those organisations you mentioned.


The long, hard path is clear: Benedict Option style communities, generations in the wilderness, persecution and pain

Nope. There is nowhere to hide. The enemy is coming after us. Look at how it worked out for the Syrian Christians. No more sitting back and taking it.

I want Western Civilisation to live.

Nulle Terre Sans Seigneur said...

@SP: The biological determinism is by far the most novel part, yes. I think it's a predictable outgrowth. For one thing, research in race differences has advanced quite a lot over the past 20+ years thanks to researchers like Rushton, Lynn, Gottfredson and many others - as well as techniques like molecular genetics, GWAS, interdisciplinary syntheses of sociology and population genetics, etc. The modern left's refusal to entertain hereditarian arguments at all (a dramatic reversal of the old-school progressives who, being social engineers at heart, saw eugenics as the great opportunity to breed the virtuous citizen of republican mythology) has thus effectively monopolized racialist discourse to WNs. As a result, there are very few counterarguments besides yelling "racist".

The ethnic political machines of the 19th century having slowly vanished with the end of the spoils system have now instead given way to a biopolitics of encouraging ethnic chauvinism among minority groups. This being a proximate cause, the average millennial WN seizes on this and remains ignorant of the wide variety of more distant causes that have contributed to this situation. The old counterrevolutionary arguments have been successively bastardized until the only thing left is the volkisch politics of wannabe Jacobin ethnocrats.

WN is thus a combination of a very simple political formula that anyone grasp, combined with sociobiological papers and books that the progressive narrative systemically denies. The result is that the WN feels that simply quoting sociobiology is an argument that intrinsically supports his cause, since the MSM finds it repulsive and there is a widespread, partially justified perception that traditionalist conservatism is "cucked". Combined with ahistoricism.

Propertarian society can certainly work, I think. Man is born in chains and dependent. The issue with "wage slavery" isn't the slavery, but that it's the only patron-like relationship that modern societies legally permit. The regime of contract has its downsides that can be remedied with a partial rehabilitation of the older regime of status. Burgage tenure and town liberties once peaceably coexisted with feudal land tenure, so I don't think this is at all an insurmountable task. People of higher temperament and learning can pursue the same bourgeois lifestyle as today, which I believe is good. The anti-bourgeois mentality of Third Positionist and alt-right types is often inane.

To many of the people on the alt-right, the man who finds meaning in his work, family and local community without regard to any fantastical higher ideas of fulfilling his "duty" to the Volksgemeinschaft, is regarded as contemptible. That isn't enough: you have to be a tribal warrior. It's a sign of the Nietzschean warrior fantasies that seem to be a core part of their metaphysics, which leads to a lot of nonsense being spewed.

The Social Pathologist said...


WN is thus a combination of a very simple political formula that anyone grasp

Yes. being cognitively lite, it's prole in its appeal but the problem is that it ultimately rests on Modernist metaphysics and it is a reversal of the "Old School Left" particularly the interpretation of Marxism by Woltmann which was so influential in German history.

I must admit that I have a bit of love for the bourgeois and I think they were pretty harmless compared to the reformers.

That isn't enough: you have to be a tribal warrior. It's a sign of the Nietzschean warrior fantasies that seem to be a core part of their metaphysics, which leads to a lot of nonsense being spewed.

Once again there's a lot to unpack there. I'm in the middle of reading Eugen Weber's Fin de Sicle and late 19th C ennui drove a lot into the arms of Nietzsche. Any stable society needs to take into account the natural warrior ethos and find some form of non destructive expression for it. I think that sport (especially at a local level) may be a palliative for the Nietzschean will to power nonsense.

MK said...

SP, Nope. There is nowhere to hide. The enemy is coming after us. Look at how it worked out for the Syrian Christians. No more sitting back and taking it. I want Western Civilisation to live.

Chuckle. Who is this "us"? Since you've excluded alt-rights AND Trads, methinks you've lost the political will AND the fertility/youth. Your numbers look mighty thin. Good luck with your counterattack.

Re: Syrian Christians, guys on my team aren't this level of minority yet in the US. Whites will bind for self-defense and reject liberalism out of fear soon enough; our social liberal ideals won't last long against low-IQ minorities (things like gay marriage and anti-Christianity? Minorities laugh at that stuff). This will buy enough time for Christians to recover fertility, like the Jews are doing in Israel. Look what the Mormons & Amish have done in 200 years. Or the Catholics in England before that. Like Orcs, the evil is as likely to fight itself as anyone else. Yes, it's the wilderness, but it's not camps or worse. Trump and the alt-right actually show the white political path against libs: "your base is are belong to us".