Navigating The Spectrum: Future Universalistic vs. Present Particularistic

In my previous article, On the Prospects of Popular Right-wing Unification in America: The Starting Point of Unification, I wrote,

“To speak of unification with those who are counterpoised to order (and thus, opposed to civilization) is to beat one’s head against a wall. With that being said, unity is absolutely desirable among the right in as far as it is possible given the prolific predominance of Leftism (the ethos of the US is, let us not forget, one that is fundamentally communistic), specifically for the purposes of civilizational maintenance and restoration, as civilization is birthed and bound by unity. America can be greatly transformed by chaos as it has numerous times before (emancipation, civil rights, sexual revolution) but that transformation itself will then only be able to be sustained by its opposite; that is to say, a largely unified political body that stands for order.”

However, before we can even begin to talk about political unification we must clearly define who and what we are unifying – that is, the political right. So let us set ourselves to clearly defining our terms. I’d first like to hastily dispense with economic differentials, that is to say, the well-tread: capitalist vs. socialist. Far too facile. Yes, yes, Ben Shapiro might well define Italian Fascists as “Leftists” but he is in a unquestionably small minority. I wholly reject this Shapiroesque differentiation, it is far too particularist, for it means that no matter how nationalistic, no matter how concerned with thede and loyalty, a particular political party might happen to become, if it doesn’t have some variation of “free” market capitalism then it is “Leftist.”

No, the fundamental distinction between the political left and the political right is to be found, not principally in adherence to economic particulars, but rather, in loyalty. Leftists devout themselves to abstract ideals and tailor their loyalties accordingly. Rightists, in stark contrast, devout themselves to people, their people, and adjust their ideals accordingly.

Take the communists or international socialists, for instance, they do not give their fealty to any social body, to any man. Their principal failing is in pledging themselves to man as they wish he were rather than to man as he is. They give their unflinching loyalty to a kind of Rousseauian industrialism, rather than those of their flesh and blood – kith and kin matter little when placed side-by-side with the “Brotherhood of Man!” Secular Humanists follow a similar trajectory, their immediate loyalty is to the expansion of empathy to all humanity – in so thinly spreading their physiological resources they end up neglecting their own countrymen, their very own neighbors and families for the sake of people whom they will never meet, nor even see other than in photograph. Leftists only give their loyalty (with few exceptions) to other members of their in-group due to their ideological adherence (as can be easily seen by how swiftly they are currently devouring themselves – “You’re racist!” “No, you’re the racist!” “No, you two are both racists!” ect.), failing this, the dissident is silenced and cast off, exiled. This is not, of course, to say that the ring-wing does not sometimes exercise their own forms of ideological in-fighting, purity spiraling and shunning, but the scale and frequency of such action is simply incomparable.

There will always be a certain degree of ideological dissimilarity that prevents two groups from acting in harmonious concord. If group X wants peaceful cooperation and group Z wants the subjection of all groups not Z then there can, obviously, be no parsimony between X & Z. Such is axiomatic. What I am attempting to drive at is that forces typically connected to leftism, such as socialism, communist, globalism, deconstructionism, sexual freedom, ect, are all fundamentally predicated upon the notion that one’s primary, nor secondary nor even tertiary duty is not to their own people (whomever that may happen to be) but rather to one’s self OR to some version of the personal self that has yet to become a extant reality.

Primacy of the individual is a phrase often used by both the political right and left but the left’s highest values are bound up not merely in the primacy of the individual, it is, rather the primacy of all individuals, everywhere in the world, at all points in time even those periods of time that have yet to come to pass. 

This is obviously and axiomatically impossible, since not all individuals will be able to have the power to act as perfectly self-governed actors nor does it accurately account for moral hazard, for personal failing and the intense need for corrective oversight (children for instance, are now given absurd leeway due to the ethos of the “primacy of the individual,” to such a degree that one is now seeing a rise in child-transgenderism – if Tommy says he’s a girl, who are you to say otherwise? You’re not a bigot are you???).

Due to the obvious corrosive effects of future-extrapersonal loyalty, the ethos of empathy widening rather than correct distribution and control of empathy and general governmental universalism (as opposed to particularism), the political right should ever affirm loyalty to one’s own people as a a foremost principal, subordinate only to order itself, or, a different formulation: loyalty to order as the highest principal – for there is no lasting of those other splendid things, most cherish in human life, without stability.

In contrast to The Left (as a political establishment or burgeoning political body), who looks upon his dissident brother and says, You must be corrected or expunged! The true Right (not merely those playing the pose) looks upon his brother and takes his full measure first and foremost before committing to judgement.

In short,

The Left is future universalistic, whilst The Right is present particularistic.

Value Ordination: Political Paradigm as Argumentation

Innumerable are the number of political compass tests which one can take online, from Playbuzz to PoliticalCompass.org to the 8 Values Github Test, all of which are sifted through and poured over, studied and analyzed by the takers thereof as if in the action of so doing they will confer some hidden and eldritch wisdom unto the reader. The popularity of political compass tests however, does not lie in their viewing by the takers thereof but in their viewing by everyone else. People that are likely to take political compass tests are also likely to be highly engaged in politics and thus are already well aware of their own political views and where they are likely to lie on any given political compass test (unless the given test happens to be poorly constructed, and thus, woefully inaccurate). They are not really seeking out what their ideological positions are but are rather looking for a shared visual platform where their ideological uniqueness can be shown to others. A narcissist’s past-time.

The fixation here is more upon the position of the individual along the political compass than upon the ideas which place them there. This is reflective of American political discourse more generally, where discussions are generally started with the prompt, “Well The Left,” or, “You see this is just what The Right has been trying to do for years now-”

Right and Left are, of a certainly, highly useful linguistic tools but there is here a problem which manifests itself whenever a particular political moniker becomes more important that being correct, that is to say, logically parsimonious (utilizing economy of explanation to arrive at a conclusion).

That may sound like a obvious truism; certainly it is true but it is far less discernible that it is readily obvious. Such is evidenced by popular internetisms like, “There is nothing to the Right of me but the wall.” Meaning, of course, that there is no one more Right-wing than the person whom is spouting the aforementioned phrase. This is only a positive however if the Right-wing views which the speaker holds are actually correct. That is to say, Right and Left are not arguments in and of themselves, nor is a statement of any ideological inclination. To say, “That is a Communist position!” is only a sufficient position in as far as it is actually wrong/illogical; it is not wrong merely by dint of being associated with Communism (which, by and large should be suspect for its historical record of death and intense political instability). Thus, for the previous example, it should, make the argument more suspect but it should not incline one to dismiss it out of hand.

Such is also true with rebuttals like, “But that is Authoritarian!” Well… why is that a bad thing? One should really be asked to explain.

In short, in the American context, the political Left and Right are all too often interjected in place of argumentation. Whenever the words Left-wing and Right-wing are utilized as a argument unto themselves, rather than as placeholders for extremely wide-ranging idea-sets, one knows that one’s opponent has woefully lost the plot.

Anthropomorphization: Ward & Executioner, Prt 3 [Coda]

In the previous installment of this millipedesque series I attempted to examine the ways that innate pattern seeking can lead to philosophies which are either distanced from human-valuing (whether proportionally or in sum-total) such as certain Christian-influenced strains of right-leaning esoteric naturalism (Man is insignificant to Mother Earth) or outright opposed to them such as Greenpeace Envirocrats (Man is detrimental/antithetical to Mother Earth).

Though I roundly criticized the reactionary notion of GNON (though it is highly useful) and the progressive notion of “Enviromental Human Impact-Reduction” (which is similarly useful but more dangerous) I would like to make clear that I am not possessed of that most singular desire to burn things for the sake thereof. One might recall one of those pin-striped, botoxed GOP’ers who, grinning like a hyena and adjusting the Israeli lapel, will proudly declare, “I’ll buy a jeep if I want. I’ll drive it as much as I want. I’ll use as much fuel as I want. Why? Because that’s freedom.”

This ideology, silly as it is (and yes, I gave a purposefully hyperbolic example), actually exists and is, of a absolute certainty, more oft to be found in those members of the GOP and their sympathizers who hold as gospel the collective works of Ayn Rand and believe Bernie Sanders to be literally insane (he isn’t, his ideas are just bad). This kind of thinking is basically, “Because I can, I shalt.” It’s low, low time-horizons but hell, it’s damned patriotic.

Nor am I unconcerned about the environment. Indeed, it axiomatically follows that without a stable and life-conducive environment human life would not be possible and as such there are few things in the long-term that are more important (provided one cares about Man’s continued existence). Where I differ from the shamanistic Envirocrats is that I am primarily concerned with the propensity of a environment to contribute to human survival and flourishing. In short I want environments that are good for Man whereas Greenpeacers generally prefer environments that are good unto themselves. Naturally, this makes little sense and to illustrate this let us consider a world that is filled with nothing but trees and grass; is there such a thing as the good in such a world? It seems highly unlikely given that trees are not possessed of any discernible cognizance and even if it were discovered that they were in fact cognizant a further question would need be plied – to what degree? To a degree equal to our own sophistication, to that of a dogs, a dolphin’s? I think not.

We could go further and take life out of it altogether for the sake of simplicity just to drive home the point. Let us consider a world all of rocks and water, proto-earth – is there a good or a way in which The Environment could be improved or degraded? No. There would be no conscious agent to impart meaning and meaning is lost in the death of the witness. A world without a witness is a world without meaning (which one might remark in passing, is the great tragedy of God – a article on that another time).

Therefore, we should place our primary concern upon human flourishing as the highest priority and not seek to live in some kind of hippy-dippy “harmony” with nature such that our concerns and “Her” concerns are equally taken into consideration. “She” hasn’t any. “She” just is.