The Old New Right

The other major problem with the System’s Jew-led New Right.

Consider this Counter-Currents article on what the System is terming The New Right, a heavily Jewish (and NW European-descended conservative “junior partners”) bunch of ideologically aracial reactionaries. Counter-Currents identifies the major problem of this New Right in that it ignores the issue of race. Very well, I agree. But there’s another problem, which in my opinion is of equal importance .Let’s look at the quote, reproduced in the Counter-Currents article, from the original Vanity Fair piece that describes this New Right:

The podcasters, bro-ish anonymous Twitter posters, online philosophers, artists, and amorphous scenesters in this world are variously known as “dissidents,” “neo-reactionaries,” “post-leftists,” or the “heterodox” fringe — though they’re all often grouped for convenience under the heading of America’s New Right. They have a wildly diverse set of political backgrounds, with influences ranging from 17th-century Jacobite royalists to Marxist cultural critics to so-called reactionary feminists to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, whom they sometimes refer to with semi-ironic affection as Uncle Ted. Which is to say that this New Right is not a part of the conservative movement as most people in America would understand it. It’s better described as a tangled set of frameworks for critiquing the systems of power and propaganda that most people reading this probably think of as “the way the world is.” And one point shapes all of it: It is a project to overthrow the thrust of progress, at least such as liberals understand the word.

So, putting aside the ethnoracial provenance of some of these New Right adherents, and putting aside the race issue, what do we see? They are a grouping of “neo-reactionary” conservatives, some of whom admire Ted Kaczynski of all people (“whom they sometimes refer to with semi-ironic affection as Uncle Ted”) and who, to paraphrase Buckley, they are a gaggle of backward-looking “traditionalists” who want to stand athwart history yelling STOP! – to “overthrow the thrust of progress.” To summarize – they are reactionary conservative traditionalists – all of which the Sallis Groupuscule despises and opposes.

I have said it before and I’ will say it again – you are not going to attract quality people and inspire them to fight, inspire them to self-sacrifice, with a vision of “standing athwart history yelling STOP!”  The Left is successful for many reasons, but certainly one major reason is that it is progressive, forward-looking, it inspires its followers with an utopian vision of a better tomorrow, it doesn’t look backward to some mythical Golden Age, harkening to a return to a dead past, promoting a Bring Out Your Dead ethnostate with people living at a 14th century level of existence, a feudal hierarchy with the masses cowering “snug in their hobbit holes.” You are not going to defeat leftist progressive ideals with right-wing reactionary defeatism. An idea can only be effectively countered by a better idea, and returning to the dead past, turning back the clock of progress, is not a better idea; it is hardly a serious idea at all. It is juvenile, unrealistic, romantic nonsense; it is an “ideal” doomed to defeat and death at birth.

Successful popular support for Far Right movements historically manifested in European fascism of the first half of the 20th century. According to Marxist historical interpretation, and System dogma (really the same thing), fascism is “reactionary,” but that is not supported by an objective analysis. If a core characteristic of fascism is palingenesis, then that is hardly reactionary. Italian Fascism may have talked about the Roman Empire, but it was strongly influenced by the Futurist Movement and was likely the most ideologically and culturally futurist of all of the major European fascisms. German National Socialism may have been somewhat more reactionary than Italian Fascism in certain ways, but we cannot forget that at its core, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement, eschewing conservatism and monarchy, and building a racial state that combined political hierarchy with relative class egalitarianism.  Note that the successful mass movement in Germany was National Socialism, not the so-called “conservative revolutionaries (sic).” The Legionary Movement’s New Man looked forward, not backward. Neo-reaction is a cul-de-sac, dead-end defeatist nonsense. Is it an intentional diversion? The fundamentals of any New Movement must include a futurist mentality. We must oppose reactionary traditionalism.

The racial state is not enough. The racial-cultural state is better, but is still not enough.  We need the racial-cultural-ethical state, a moral state as I discussed at Western Destiny, a forward-looking entity based on a reimagining of Man, as exemplified by the Legionary movements focus on developing The New Man as the basis of a Romanian Legionary state.

The racial-cultural-ethical state, the moral state, based upon The New Man and new ethical-moral-philosophical standards, overturning the established order, is a revolutionary entity, and it is not going to come about from “neo-reaction” or “traditionalism” or from freaks reading Savitri Devi “snug in their hobbit holes.” Being focused on race is necessary but not sufficient. The System’s New Right fails in that regard, but the “movement” equally fails by being equally reactionary, an amoral, if not immoral, and unethical entity ill-suited to bring about radical change and ill-suited to defeat the Revolutionary Left by countering with a Revolutionary Right.  Thus, a complete criticism of The New Right also, by necessity, brings with it a criticism of the “movement.”  A pox on both their houses.