One of the main advantages of the dissident Right is its intellectual heritage.
One of the main advantages of the dissident Right is its intellectual heritage. Drawing from all sources irrespective of the political persuasions of their originator puts us at an advantage, not just in terms of our own ideological development (though this comes with the downside of us not being able to come to an agreement on what our end goal is to be), but it also gives us the ability to batter debate opponents over the head with their own philosophy. Why do you think they are so terrified of debating us? It is not just because we do propose visions way better than what the Left and mainstream Right propose, but also that we actually have a comprehensive understanding of their intellectual heritage.
Marxists (or at least Marxist in name) do not debate us out of some fear of platforming ‘Nazis’, they are terrified of people who have a better understanding of Marx’s work than they do. More so, they do not want it to be known that Marx himself opposed censorship:
At age 23, young Karl Marx moved into journalism, one of the “few fields open to nonconformist thought”, as the editor of Rheinische Zeitung. By 25 he had transformed the newspaper into an outlet for radical ideas, drawing the ire of the Prussian Government who responded in 1842 by enforcing extreme censorship laws to silence dissenting opinions. Admirably (and I mean that sincerely), Marx responded by publishing his first major political essay, Remarks on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction. We will here quote a few passages for this text:
“Truth is universal. It does not belong to me, it belongs to all; it possesses me, I do not possess it. My Style is my property; it is the spiritual individuality. Le style cést l’homme. [The style is the man]. Indeed! The law permits me to write, only I am supposed to write in a style different from mine!”1
As for our pseudo-conservative brethren, they are not just terrified of the fact that we are the true Right (we both know which side of the chamber these ethnomasochists would have been on during the French Revolution), these fraudsters do not want the public to be exposed to the possibility of a world where the economy is removed from its place of primacy. They only debate the Left because they are incapable of arguing for anything not related to economics. Their arguments regarding immigration are relative solely to the economy, whereas we argue from the position of people who have been left behind by the Marxists and sold into slavery by the neoconservatives.
This is all to say that we actually understand the flaws of these economic-based ideologies. We understand that the so-called Marxists seek to take away your culture, your identity and flood your nation with people who couldn’t work out that they could move closer to the water well but somehow managed to find someone who would give them a free ticket to any European nation they desire; and the neoconservatives want to remove the spirit of Europe and sell us back its empty shell (the commodification of culture). The neoconservatives and Marxists are further disadvantaged by their lack of understanding of the dissident Right. The Marxists more so than the neoconservatives (many neoconservatives wholeheartedly understand where we are coming from but place their love of money above integrity).
The Marxists are hell-bent on framing us within the stereotype they have created. The complexities and nuances of our ideas are enframed as ‘coded language’, our desire to expel people from European lands is somehow reversed into ‘they want to enslave you all’ (complete contradictory to the proposed remigration of people to their homelands).
The lifetime of this stereotype is not long in duration, people are moving in our direction the further Left the lunatics go. Their rebirth and acceleration of the Weimar era ideas of Magnus Hirschfeld and Sigmund Freud only serve to push European populations over to our side of the field.
We are, however, held back by people among us that want to deprive us of our advantage over our opponents. There are people out there who do not see that there is a void left open by the abandonment of the working-classes by the upper-middle-class socialists, one very similar to the gap filled by the Germans in an earlier era. It is a growing void filled with people of the working (and increasingly the middle) classes who are being displaced by what Guillaume Faye aptly referred to as colonizers.
These individuals are gripped by the same false view that both the Marxists and neoconservatives follow: If you reference or agree with Adam Smith/Karl Marx on any position at all then you must be a capitalist/Marxist. Thus, if you are of the dissident Right yet you are influenced by someone associated with ideology X, Y, or Z then you must be a Marxist, capitalist, anarchist, etc. You must be a ‘crypto-Marxist’ just because you agree with the Marxist analysis of capitalism, it doesn’t matter that you agree or not with the solution put by Marx at all. This is pure absurdity and only hinders our ability to succeed.
This child-like analysis also ignores the entire intellectual tradition of the Right. They never turn their gaze on Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, or any other influential intellectual who cited Leftists approvingly. Where are the disavowals of Tomislav Sunic or Jonathan Bowden? Much of the intellectual heritage for the dissident Right takes its influence from any source regardless of whether or not it is a Marxist, a Fascist, an anarchist, or any other ideology. The political positions of the intellectual have nothing at all to do with the legitimacy of some of their arguments. One could hardly refer to any of the aforementioned Right-wing intellectuals as a communist, so what is the motivation for the ideological purity spiraling?
The motivation behind the online drama can only be seen as originating from personal grievances, jealousy, etc. Or maybe they simply do not understand the arguments being made (as is the case with Leftists who view us as a caricature then fall to pieces when attempting to actually debate us). Either way, these individuals stand in the way of our advancement, they obstruct us whenever the Right begins to coalesce around a set of shared ideas. When an intellectual vanguard begins to form, they begin to attack people associating with it out of jealousy instead of trying to take part.
We should not forget that baseless accusations from among the ranks of the Right have been leveled at people like Francis Parker Yockey who worked tirelessly to try and create positive change for the European people.2 The Right needs to take a collective examination of itself and start to embody the very principles it claims itself to uphold, particularly Order!
Allow me to repeat again so the message is burned into your mind: We do not have to be Marxists, and we certainly should not advocate communism. We should, however, learn from the old school Leftists of the early 1900s who were opposed to mass migration, as Gottfried states in Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt:
this militant socialism of the post-war era has nothing in common with current notions of political (or what the English call emotional) correctness. The older socialist orientation did not predispose its adherents toward or seek to promote open borders, free trade, sexual self-expressiveness, and the submergence of the dominant Western culture into the flux of incoming ethnic minorities. Multitudinous facts and sources indicate that working-class socialists generally opposed immigration (American unions were vocally active in supporting the Immigration Act of 1921), favored protectionism, and had no special affinity for multicultural politics.3
When the modern-Left began to abandon the working-class they created a void which has not been filled. The disenfranchised working class has had to cling to neoconservatives who have consistently used their animosity to multiculturalism and ‘social justice’ to retain power while giving absolutely nothing that the working class wants. In Western nations like America, Australia, and Britain we have been given crumbs, despite ‘conservatives’ being in power the things we detest most have still been thrust upon us.
The dissident Right is not without blame either. We channel our energy towards constantly flogging the same dead horses instead of proposing an alternative vision. In the last few years we have also given most of our attention and donations to entertainers instead of innovators – entertainers who will turn on a dime and throw their fanbase under the bus when necessary; entertainers who sow division as opposed to creating unity (their critiques of others are more akin to slander and false accusations of their opponent being a ‘fed’ as opposed to a positive critique ala Dominique Venner).
So, instead of descending into ideological purity spiraling why do we not take a third-positionist stance and accept the validity of someone’s ideas in an objective manner? Why do we not seek to unite instead of lobbying baseless accusations like “he is a crypto Marxist”?
More importantly, we should begin excising people from the movement who are clearly being disingenuous, who do not have any desire at all to unite the Right.
- D.F. Williams: “Karl Marx: Free Speech Warrior“. ↩
- See Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey by Kerry Bolton. ↩
- Paul Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt (USA: University of Missouri, 2004), 29-30. ↩