Thursday, 12 May 2016


T]he German nationalist scene, or certain sections of it (the NPD, the Free Nationalist/Free Comradeship/Autonomous Nationalist groups) are not Far Right in the conventional sense, and aim at taking politics beyond Left and Right.

Tim Johnstone, Foreword to Welf Herfurth’s A Life in the Political Wilderness




Free falling divisions.

Wire, A Bell is a Cup until it is Struck


With the emergence of a new political Right, there also appears a problem of terminology. For the Alt. Right, or Dissident Right, conservatives who have distanced themselves from the so-called Conservatives – called ‘Cuckservatives’ by the New Right - in power or opposition across the Western world, it is no longer clear as to what the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ actually refer.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote that ‘every man is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelean’. He was referring to Plato and Aristotle, whose philosophical systems can broadly be described as ideal and material respectively. These terms, in the lexicon of philosophy, are obviously translations, and do not exactly mean what they mean to us. Roughly speaking, though, Plato believed that the ultimate reality was to be found in the realm of the ideal, unknown to man with his limited senses, and Aristotle held that reality was earth-bound, material, and accessible to those same senses. Their difference of opinion is beautifully illustrated in the detail from Raphael’s famous The School of Athens, pictured above. In discussing the political problem of the difference between Left and Right, we will return to Plato and his pupil Aristotle, whom Plato called nous, or ‘mind’.

For the time being, the point is this. Most people no longer understand the difference between Plato and Aristotle, and Coleridge’s natal division is redundant, archaic, out of time. It may be that ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ may be about to join them in the gloom of the hall of antiquities.

It should be noted that the problem of defining Left and Right exists only for those on the Right. For those on the Left, no such problem exists. To be politically Left wing, for the Left, is to be correct, to be good, to be on the ‘right side of history’, to be compassionate, to fight for ‘social justice’ (an equally nebulous concept) and to defend the rights and welfare of oppressed minorities. Above all to be Left is to be a good person, as Leftists will not fail to remind you.

Defining themselves dialectically against everyone who is not of their tribe, the Left’s view of the Right is easy to make out. The Right are wrong, evil, heartless, oppressive and selfish. To be Far Right is the ultimate curse bestowed by creatures of the Left. To be Far Right is to be a fascist, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and, as one young lady opined on Twitter, ‘literally Hitler’.

Is it possible to move beyond Left and Right, as Nietzsche believed it was possible to reason ‘beyond (Jenseits) good and evil’? It is my belief that divisions will fall soon whether the Left or Right will it or want it. There is a time coming when ordinary people will put aside their divisions and realise that the desperate and required struggle is against the political class. But not yet.

In the meantime, it is up the Right to educate the Left, for no such educational transaction can take place in the opposite direction. And a large part of that education is ontological, or concerned with the structure of reality. For, given that we still understand what we mean when we use the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, the differences between the two warring camps – and the war is vital – can be reduced to the differences in approach to the nature of reality. Some examples.

The Left are egalitarian. They believe that all races are equal in every way, that genders are equal, that sexual orientation is not granted biologically at birth but is able to shift and change according to whim or lifestyle choice. Most importantly, the Left hold that all members of a given society, no matter how much that society is altered by immigration and miscegenation, are absolutely of equal worth. The only hierarchies are those imposed by the oppressor class, currently Western white men.

The Right are hierarchical. We believe that nature has an ineradicable system of differences which can be arranged and taxonomised in an order of use and merit. A South Bronx crack dealer is, in reality, worth considerably less to humanity than a Malaysian paediatric surgeon.

The Left are against national borders and the nation state as it has evolved historically. They would like to see free movement of peoples, and view this movement as playing a role in the correction of society to fit their model of social justice, where everyone is equal in the sight of Karl Marx.

The Right wish to maintain both nation states and the ethnicities that exist within them, although the further one goes into White nationalism, the more the second part of that belief system becomes apparent. This is why those often called white supremacists are actually white separatists. They do not dislike black people, for example, they just don’t want to live around them.

The Left believe that speech and writing should be controlled. Free speech has limits – and is thus, of course, not free – and discourse that does not agree with the Leftist agenda should not be tolerated. Hence the modern concept of ‘hate speech.’

The Right believe all debates are available, all points of view must be heard, and any disagreement should be debated openly and freely. That is what free speech is in and of itself, that is its nature, as the great Marcus Aurelius would have said.

The Left believe that the white man is responsible for the ills of history. Slavery, oppression, racism, repression of women and all the other rancorous items on their inventory of righteousness are the fault of the Caucasian male.

The Right believe that the white man built history, and should be primarily responsible for running it.

These are pointers, and this whole piece is simply a sketch. There is much work to do to fill it out. To return, however, to our portrait of Plato, with his finger pointing upwards to the heavens, and Aristotle, with his palm flattened towards the earth, Raphael has given us a beautiful vignette of the difference between the political Left and Right; idealism and realism. The Left believe in an ideal world, the world as they feel it ought to be, the Right believe in the real world, the world they feel that is the case because nature and not man decrees its nature.

Whatever the terminology, we shall soon see which viewpoint fits reality. And reality, as science fiction author Kurt Vonnegut reminds us, is that which does not go away just because you stop believing in it.

No comments:

Post a Comment