Three quotes; The first I give to the gentle reader as an example of how not to right. The review of the book I am quoting from notes the writer is wrong and cannot write.
It is not merely the lack of craft: there is a lack of thinking here. Putting facts together without a theme is not an argument. The ideas of the alt right are built on neo-reaction, and thus the argument leads to the wrong conclusion.
Those who claim that the new right-wing sensibility online today is just more of the same old right, undeserving of attention or differentiation, are wrong. Although it is constantly changing, in this important early stage of its appeal, its ability to assume the aesthetics of counterculture, transgression, and nonconformity tells us many things about the nature of its appeal and about the liberal establishment it defines itself against. It has more in common with the 1968 left’s slogan “It is forbidden to forbid!” than it does with anything most recognize as part of any traditionalist right. Instead of interpreting it as part of other right-wing movements, conservative or libertarian, I would argue that the style being channelled by the Pepe meme–posting trolls and online transgressives belongs to a tradition that can be traced from the eighteenth-century writings of the Marquis de Sade, surviving through to the nineteenth-century Parisian avant-garde, the Surrealists, the rebel rejection of feminized conformity of post-war America, and then to what film critics called 1990s “male rampage films” like American Psycho and Fight Club. In these, as in the rightist chan culture, interpretation and judgment are evaded through tricks and layers of metatextual self-awareness and irony.
The cult of the moral transgressor as a heroic individual is rooted in Romanticism. The psychopath, like the artist, privileges id over superego, and desire over moral constraints. Dostoyevsky’s anti-hero in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov, asserts his own right to transcend the morality of the lesser masses when he kills a “worthless” old woman. Echoed in the style of contemporary transgressive anti-moral cultures like 4chan that later fused with the alt-right, is French writer Maurice Blanchot’s dictum that “the greatest suffering of others always counts for less than my pleasure.”
Wrong. The tactics of the new right are based on the times. Nic Land expressed in a moment what he sees as the gaol, and the risk. We cannot afford to be polite and nice. That has not worked: the conservative and neoconservative lost the gay war, the transgender war, and the race war. They ruined functional societies. The West can no longer afford these tactics
Number one, make marriage, marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years, legal again, so that men and women can once again fulfill their deepest and most heartfelt needs.
Hold off the coming dark age. Restore the scientific and industrial revolutions, because they made us great, because the understanding of the universe that science gave us is good in itself, and because the power that technology gives us is good in itself. Turn the electric lights back on to drive back the demon haunted darkness.
Also, I want my descendants to conquer the world, the solar system, and the galaxy, but need to fix marriage first or no one will have descendants for very many generations. We will disappear from history and our empty lands will be conquered by some more patriarchal people, probably Somalis. The substantial majority of American Somalis are under eighteen. At the current rate America will be Somalia in a few generations. Conservative Muslim Somalis have a TFR of about six or seven, which will give us one billion American Somalis and about two million white Americans in two hundred years.
As you speak truth and not narrative, you can write plain. Note the change in language, for the truth requires simplicity, while the cathedral of lies requires a theoretical correctness that has killed prose from the Freudians to Gramsci. They hate harsh speech. They deny shame. They do not want shunning.
But the mechanisms that preserve marriage include shame, confrontation, shunning: social cohesion, and thus honour.
It is on these matters that we must preserve and defend our shame—both within ourselves, a sense of shame at the grave transgression, and in others, in the way we treat those who have behaved shamefully. The success of any sort of Western diaspora in the coming civilizational shift utterly depends on the cohesion of a moral order within the diaspora; women shaming women, and women experiencing shame, is an incredibly important part of this, and the loss of shame is precisely what makes it possible for women to commit, and men to assent to, the destruction of the family—not just the nuclear family of the American Mittelstand, but the family as a subset of tribe—that accompanies acts of adultery and divorce. The preservation and encouragement of a culture of shame and embarrassment in our own ranks goes hand-in-glove with the passivist doctrine of becoming worthy of rule.
Likewise, the encouragement of a customary culture of shame escapes the descent into legalism that the new misogyny represents—the wife, as a social role, needs to be regulated, of course, but according to her station and purpose: women are social and customary by nature—applying male standards to them, as the Alt-Right has done both consciously and unwittingly (White Sharia is merely an extreme example), joins in with the Platonic cycle, because it accepts the liberty-equality dichotomy. Matrons need to take an active role in the customary regulation of maidens, as well as younger wives and mothers through the use of shame—and “as above, so below,” for the surface of a culture of this nature is shame, but the inner change of soul is the growth of virtue and honor. A woman who feels shame will raise sons who value honor.
Let our women value honour, and support men who are driven by this. Let their love grow. Let them have joy. For Love requires truth, and when the narrative of lies is progressive, truth is reactionary.
