The New Right

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: The New Right

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:29 pm

Gloominary wrote:For me, left and right are less important than what subgroup of left and right we're talking about.
I really don't like Reaganites, and neocons are the worst, but there's many aspects of libertarians, paleocons and especially populists like Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini I find appealing.
Also, as an agnostic, the religious right has little appeal to me, although they should be free to believe whatever they like.

On the left, I find Tulsi Gabbard appealing.
Bernie would've been better than Biden.

The Overton Window has shifted so far to the Left that people who were previously Center are now on the "Far-Right". This means, defending the US Constitution, Free Speech, Gun Ownership, defending our borders, is all Far-Right. The Left react to their own problems with more problems. "Cancel", Censor, Deplatform, Dox, harass, threaten all those who are not Far-Left and helping with the destruction of America. In essence, America's "culture" is rotted to the core, and dying exponentially fast. This results in the massive fractioning and divisions, which will only grow faster and deeper over the next decade. Faction fighting, infighting, and civil war are all inevitable. These new American Tribes/Tribalism cannot tolerate one-another, nor should we.

There will be greater and greater calls for Separation and Separatist movements, along with the rise of the Populist-Right (formerly the Center).
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The New Right

Postby Gloominary » Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:44 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:For me, left and right are less important than what subgroup of left and right we're talking about.
I really don't like Reaganites, and neocons are the worst, but there's many aspects of libertarians, paleocons and especially populists like Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini I find appealing.
Also, as an agnostic, the religious right has little appeal to me, although they should be free to believe whatever they like.

On the left, I find Tulsi Gabbard appealing.
Bernie would've been better than Biden.

The Overton Window has shifted so far to the Left that people who were previously Center are now on the "Far-Right". This means, defending the US Constitution, Free Speech, Gun Ownership, defending our borders, is all Far-Right. The Left react to their own problems with more problems. "Cancel", Censor, Deplatform, Dox, harass, threaten all those who are not Far-Left and helping with the destruction of America. In essence, America's "culture" is rotted to the core, and dying exponentially fast. This results in the massive fractioning and divisions, which will only grow faster and deeper over the next decade. Faction fighting, infighting, and civil war are all inevitable. These new American Tribes/Tribalism cannot tolerate one-another, nor should we.

There will be greater and greater calls for Separation and Separatist movements, along with the rise of the Populist-Right (formerly the Center).

The way I see it, culturally and medically we're increasingly far left, fiscally and militarily we're increasingly far right and it's alienating libertarians, moderates and populists.
Increasingly mainstream media and politics doesn't reflect ordinary people, it reflects the values and vision of the hyper-cosmopolitan and Zionist elite.
We need to get rid of these people.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The New Right

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:49 pm

I see the TFH (Tin Foil Hat) brigade been hard at work in this thread.....

try as you might redefine it, the right is still racist, bigoted,
intolerant, misogynistic, sexist, dogmatic and narrow minded
asswipes who hate people...note that not a single conservative/republican
said a word after the mass killings in either Atlanta or Boulder outside of
claiming that more guns were needed......they don't even pretend with their
fake "prayers and thoughts" anymore.... just silence....at the deaths of 18 people...

and with every mass murder, you can blame the right wing because they
are wedded to the gun culture and will protect guns over people at all cost.....

Pro-life my ass... they are far more pro-gun then they are pro-life...

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9703
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: The New Right

Postby Gloominary » Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:59 pm

The heads of the banks, institutions and multinationals who run the west, and the world, are predominantly white, and Jewish.
I believe these whites and Jews are far more racist than your average neo-Nazi, so they have to keep their racism hidden, and what better way to hide it than behind 'anti-racism'?
They themselves rarely copulate with other races, but they'll do business with them.

The reason why the white elite are for open borders and 'anti-racism' (reverse racism) is because they view working class whites as subhuman too and it's part of a diversify, divide and conquer strategy under the guise of egalitarianism.
Keep working class whites fighting with browns and blacks over scraps and trivia, but through crony capitalism, also ensure they're rarely able to rise above their poverty individually or socially.
They keep the sexes fighting as well.
And the middleclass continues to shrink in number while the working and underclass grow in number and the upperclass get richer.
They co-opt some aspects of the left, and right, whatever suits them, but their nonfeudal ideology they keep largely hidden.

These people have no roots or ties, no loyalty to country or nation.
They fly all around the world doing business and politicking.
They want totalitarian, world government, to concentrate power into their hands.
As for the Jewish elite, they still have loyalty to Judea, they never lose their loyalty to their country and nation wherever they roam, they never lose their hatred for other nations' nationalism either, that's how they are, while our elite, far removed from us culturally, financially and geographically, lost theirs long ago, and so this explains our hyper-cosmopolitan left on the one hand, and our hyper-Zionist right on the other, meanwhile our own sense of ethnic and/or civic nationalism is verboten, and they wish to impose this dualistic ideology on the rest of the world.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The New Right

Postby promethean75 » Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:27 am

Maybe start at 4:20
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The New Right

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:48 pm

promethean75 wrote:Maybe start at 4:20

The New Right is not the Far-Right.

I do not believe the White Race is being replaced, but, there is certainly coordinated efforts by international Judi/Zionists to suppress, attack, and control white people.

This is also coordinated by foreign countries/races/interests which do not align with Western Civilization.


No conspiracy is required for my belief to be true/accurate/factual.

Lauren Southern is Far-Right.


Furthermore, the New Right is the Previously-Center.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The New Right

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:00 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:I see the TFH (Tin Foil Hat) brigade been hard at work in this thread.....

Kropotkin

Oh the lil baby didn't change his dypees before logging in todayyyy?

Waaaaa, waaaaa!
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The New Right

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:09 pm

Gloominary wrote:The heads of the banks, institutions and multinationals who run the west, and the world, are predominantly white, and Jewish.
I believe these whites and Jews are far more racist than your average neo-Nazi, so they have to keep their racism hidden, and what better way to hide it than behind 'anti-racism'?
They themselves rarely copulate with other races, but they'll do business with them.

The reason why the white elite are for open borders and 'anti-racism' (reverse racism) is because they view working class whites as subhuman too and it's part of a diversify, divide and conquer strategy under the guise of egalitarianism.
Keep working class whites fighting with browns and blacks over scraps and trivia, but through crony capitalism, also ensure they're rarely able to rise above their poverty individually or socially.
They keep the sexes fighting as well.
And the middleclass continues to shrink in number while the working and underclass grow in number and the upperclass get richer.
They co-opt some aspects of the left, and right, whatever suits them, but their nonfeudal ideology they keep largely hidden.

These people have no roots or ties, no loyalty to country or nation.
They fly all around the world doing business and politicking.
They want totalitarian, world government, to concentrate power into their hands.
As for the Jewish elite, they still have loyalty to Judea, they never lose their loyalty to their country and nation wherever they roam, they never lose their hatred for other nations' nationalism either, that's how they are, while our elite, far removed from us culturally, financially and geographically, lost theirs long ago, and so this explains our hyper-cosmopolitan left on the one hand, and our hyper-Zionist right on the other, meanwhile our own sense of ethnic and/or civic nationalism is verboten, and they wish to impose this dualistic ideology on the rest of the world.

What amazes is the level of sophistication, energy, and coordination that is pushed into keeping Western Civilization internally-divided. This requires enormous enterprise, manpower, funding, and patience. However, the International Kabal has been doing this for centuries and millenniums. Thus their methods are perfected and rarely known. The "conspiracy theorists" are not entirely wrong, but also not right. Few can stand against the international globalizere, which essentially caused World War II and was called-out by Hitler. This has driven most of the propaganda since then.

It then filters-down into the particular ways of dividing the Western middle-class, as you mentioned:

1. By Gender, women versus men
2. By Race, black versus white
3. By Wealth, poor versus rich
4. By Class, uneducated versus educated
5. By Culture, immorality versus morality

There are countless further fractioning which leases to factional & tribal infighting, which is what we observe today and especially in 2020. This fractioning will grow; there will be escalations for the foreseeable future as there are no "great uniters" in the political sphere. Unity will not be called for until Western Civilization breaks-down much further. Thus more political violence (civil conflict) is inevitable.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The New Right

Postby Gloominary » Sat Mar 27, 2021 4:38 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:The heads of the banks, institutions and multinationals who run the west, and the world, are predominantly white, and Jewish.
I believe these whites and Jews are far more racist than your average neo-Nazi, so they have to keep their racism hidden, and what better way to hide it than behind 'anti-racism'?
They themselves rarely copulate with other races, but they'll do business with them.

The reason why the white elite are for open borders and 'anti-racism' (reverse racism) is because they view working class whites as subhuman too and it's part of a diversify, divide and conquer strategy under the guise of egalitarianism.
Keep working class whites fighting with browns and blacks over scraps and trivia, but through crony capitalism, also ensure they're rarely able to rise above their poverty individually or socially.
They keep the sexes fighting as well.
And the middleclass continues to shrink in number while the working and underclass grow in number and the upperclass get richer.
They co-opt some aspects of the left, and right, whatever suits them, but their nonfeudal ideology they keep largely hidden.

These people have no roots or ties, no loyalty to country or nation.
They fly all around the world doing business and politicking.
They want totalitarian, world government, to concentrate power into their hands.
As for the Jewish elite, they still have loyalty to Judea, they never lose their loyalty to their country and nation wherever they roam, they never lose their hatred for other nations' nationalism either, that's how they are, while our elite, far removed from us culturally, financially and geographically, lost theirs long ago, and so this explains our hyper-cosmopolitan left on the one hand, and our hyper-Zionist right on the other, meanwhile our own sense of ethnic and/or civic nationalism is verboten, and they wish to impose this dualistic ideology on the rest of the world.

What amazes is the level of sophistication, energy, and coordination that is pushed into keeping Western Civilization internally-divided. This requires enormous enterprise, manpower, funding, and patience. However, the International Kabal has been doing this for centuries and millenniums. Thus their methods are perfected and rarely known. The "conspiracy theorists" are not entirely wrong, but also not right. Few can stand against the international globalizere, which essentially caused World War II and was called-out by Hitler. This has driven most of the propaganda since then.

It then filters-down into the particular ways of dividing the Western middle-class, as you mentioned:

1. By Gender, women versus men
2. By Race, black versus white
3. By Wealth, poor versus rich
4. By Class, uneducated versus educated
5. By Culture, immorality versus morality

There are countless further fractioning which leases to factional & tribal infighting, which is what we observe today and especially in 2020. This fractioning will grow; there will be escalations for the foreseeable future as there are no "great uniters" in the political sphere. Unity will not be called for until Western Civilization breaks-down much further. Thus more political violence (civil conflict) is inevitable.

Good points.
And by politics, left versus right.
Mainstream politicians like Biden and the Bushs want us to think like they're moderates, positionally in between the far left and the far right.
They're not.

They don't want some immigration, they want MASS legal and illegal immigration.
They don't fair trade, they want free trade.
In HW's words they want a NWO, in Trudeau's (our 'center-left') words they want a great reset.
They're not halfway in between doves and hawks, they're hawks.
Their wars on drugs, guns, 'hate speech' or wrongthink and terror totally undermine our constitution (not saying all drugs should be legalized or terrorism isn't a thing, but the constitution and due process come first).
Their corporate fascism totally undermines our economy.
And don't get me started on the new war on viruses, which's just an acceleration of the old war on the constitution and small businesses.
And there will be more exaggerated and fake crises to come until big government and big business control every facet of our lives, like they do in China.

These people, the libcon, republicrat establishment aren't moderates, they've extremists, they downplay their own extremism while exaggerating the extremism of 3rd parties, independents and dissidents (she's an evil commie, he's a neo-Nazis, etcetera).
Of course sometimes outsiders are extreme, but often their positions are more popular than the establishment's, and that's what they fear the most, populism, democracy, the people coming together and getting what they want and what's good for them.
It's time to rid ourselves of the establishment, take a chance on those whom the corporatocracy forsakes or are openly hostile to.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The New Right

Postby Gloominary » Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:15 pm

They also try to pigeonhole people, which further divides us and stifles critical, independent thought, something libertarians, moderates and populists are all too familiar with.
They say 'you can't be for lowering taxes and be against the wars on drugs and terror' or 'you can't be for raising taxes on the upperclass and against gun control, political correctness and open borders'.
Yes, we can, it's a free country no matter what, people can believe whatever the hell they want.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The New Right

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:03 am

Gloominary wrote:Anglo-American conservatism and the republican party may be divided into 4 subgroups: Reaganites/neocons, moderates, paleocons and populists in order of most dominant since Reagan to least.

Reaganites/neocons are fiscally global capitalists (at least in theory, in practice they spend a ton of money they don't have on the unaccountable ruling class), hawks and socioculturally malleable.

Moderates are fiscally moderate or even global social democrats and socioculturally malleable.
They're just a bit more conservative than your average liberal, if at all.

Paleocons are fiscally national capitalists (capitalism + protectionism, restricting immigration and restoring national sovereignty).
They're not hawks, but they're not doves either, they're for a strong military, but against nation building and preemptive strikes.
They're staunch upholders and defenders of the constitution and conservative values (for the death penalty, against abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage...).
Paleocons are the most conservative across the board.

Populists are fiscally moderate or even national social democrats (like paleocons they're for protectionism, restricting immigration and restoring national sovereignty, but unlike them, they're for raising wages, social education, healthcare and housing).
Like paleocons they're for a strong military but won't use it unnecessarily and they're staunch protectors of free speech, guns, due process and conservative values.

So who are the new right?
The new right, if there is going to be a new right, are populists and/or paleocons, Reaganites/neocons and/or moderates, they're the old right.

There's also libertarians, they tend to get lumped in with conservatives, but really they're their own thing.
Liberals may also be broken down into 4 subgroups, more on that some other time.

The neolib is the liberal equivalent of the neocon.
They'll spend a bit more on the poor and working class but they'll raise taxes on both the upperclass, and the middle.
Of course the upperclass, especially or should I say particularly the overclass has little trouble circumventing taxes given how corrupt the system is.
And the vast majority of the tax money gets spent on big business, big brother and pocketed by the politicians themselves.
Neolibs are often as hawkish and even more globalist than neocons.
While neocons often lean woke socially and culturally neolibs are woke to the max.
Neoliberalism is currently the most dominant strain of liberalism in the anglosphere and the democratic party.

Then there's leftwing moderates, they're just left of center across the board.

The progressive is the opposite of the paleocon.
Staunchly liberal on all fronts, they're social dems or even democratic socialists, doves, globalists and ultra woke.

Lastly there's leftwing populists.
As liberal as progressives on the economy but moderate or even a bit conservative or libertarian elsewhere, they're the least dominant strain of liberalism.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The New Right

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:54 am

Neo-Liberals are like the Neo-Conservatives in their willingness to engage and promote foreign wars, and globalism at the expense of the American people.

This becomes more obvious daily as the Neo-Liberals sell-out the American people to China and whatever foreign interest has the money to buy it.


Selling the future generations into slavery, war, and avarice.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The New Right

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:10 pm

The difference between the Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals:

1. The Neo-Conservatives primarily feared and demonized Russia, while the Neo-Liberals primarily appeal and prostrate themselves before China.
2. The Neo-Conservatives courted the Evangelical-Right and Christians, while the Neo-Liberals courted BLM and Antifa to do their dirty work.


Feel free to add more!
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The New Right

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:01 pm

Most of the difference is in rhetoric and the demographics they try to appeal to.
Reagan, HW and W and Clinton, Obama and Biden are nearly identical.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The New Right

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:12 pm

For both of them the ends justify the means.
The end is both world government, and greater Israel, the means are (character) assassination, boiling frog, controlled opposition, diversify, divide and dominate, manufacturing consent, problem, reaction, solution, whatever it takes, blackmail, coups, election fraud...
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The New Right

Postby Gloominary » Tue May 04, 2021 4:55 am

Neocons/neolibs appear to be evolving into something far more sinister tho, especially since 2020.
The ruling class are taking bits from various movements; both corporatism, and Marxism, environmentalism, Malthusianism, germaphobia, transhumanism and attempting to fuse them into a new cult.
This cult hasn't fully formed yet, but we're catching glimpses of it in BLM, compulsive handwashing, mask wearing, extinction rebellion, 'me too' ('believe all women') and so on.
In time it could takeover the entire west and thereafter much of the remaining world.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The New Right

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue May 04, 2021 5:24 pm

Where things seem obvious to large groups of people, be sure that they're being misled.

In time it could takeover the entire west and thereafter much of the remaining world.

Only the world of the weak.

Strong people aren't as easy to corrupt by such psychological carcasses as you describe.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The New Right

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 04, 2021 5:40 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Where things seem obvious to large groups of people, be sure that they're being misled.


Of course a possible problem with noting this is that the more and more people someone -- anyone -- gets to subscribe to their own moral or political philosophy, the more and more likely it is that they are being misled.

I don't have that problem myself though because, right from the start, I flat out admit that my own moral and political value judgments are merely subjective and subjunctive opinions rooted existentially in the life that I have led rooted in this particular historical context rooted in this particular culture.

Ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas. And in a world swirling about in contingency, chance and change. And not just in regard to the New Right.

On the other hand, I am almost never successful in convincing others to think this way about themselves. To be, among other things, fractured and fragmented in regard to their own moral and political value judgments.

So, sure, beyond all doubt, I might be wrong.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41706
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: The New Right

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue May 04, 2021 6:22 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Where things seem obvious to large groups of people, be sure that they're being misled.


Of course a possible problem with noting this is that the more and more people someone -- anyone -- gets to subscribe to their own moral or political philosophy, the more and more likely it is that they are being misled.

"Gets to subscribe" as in "is left to believe whatever he wants without being intruded upon by reality" -- yes.
Which is my issue with Christianity. I believe this to be its origin - not Jesus, but the Roman state: 'let you slaves believe that you are the true lords, as longs you hand over everything you have, money and soul, to the state.'

I don't have that problem myself though because, right from the start, I flat out admit that my own moral and political value judgments are merely subjective and subjunctive opinions rooted existentially in the life that I have led rooted in this particular historical context rooted in this particular culture.

From whence does the particularity derive, though, if not from some action that turns out to be 'objective' in its effect?

Beliefs are always subjective, actions are objective in their effects.

Some belief systems such as Christianity and postmodernism are passive, purely subjective, whereas others are more active, imposing facts rather than deriving truths.

Ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas. And in a world swirling about in contingency, chance and change. And not just in regard to the New Right.

With some more and some less powerful consistencies within the flux.

On the other hand, I am almost never successful in convincing others to think this way about themselves. To be, among other things, fractured and fragmented in regard to their own moral and political value judgments.

So, sure, beyond all doubt, I might be wrong.

To attempt to convince others of ones own subjective interpretation is of course a futile exercise. I never speak my most intimate personal mind, not merely because that is impossible to put in words, but also because it is far too precious - I rather speak to language - when I am strong enough anyway. - I am aware that language is a liar, but a beautiful one. And beauty carries aspects of truth on its own terms -- that is to say, not on the terms of language.

The only philosophers I value therefore aren't the ones who state their truths such as Kant, Spinoza, Aristotle, Plato - but those who express their deepest subjective will in poetic meditations, whose words force the reader to go out on their own in the wilderness of their minds. There is no greater meaning to me than that wilderness. I see language in its fullness as a reflection of this wilderness, too full of meaning to signify anything other than fullness. Which seems to me the only true significance in life.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The New Right

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue May 04, 2021 7:23 pm

Which should go some ways to explain why I consider value to be the central term of language, regardless of the kind of language. In as far as we can say anything that doesn't contradict itself when pressed, it must be bound explicitly to subjectivity in a positivistic frame. Pushing for contrast over contradiction, rather than for correspondence over contradiction.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The New Right

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue May 04, 2021 8:31 pm

The most efficient self honesty therefore is speaking a thing so as for it to become the truth.

What is easier and works very well for a lot of people is to speak one thing so for as an opposite to become true. Language used simply as the veil that it is.

Often, we practice the latter without being aware of it.




How does all of this relate to "The New Right" -?

There is no New Right yet, I believe. It may be around the corner, Im not sure.

What there is for the Right is to disavow Christianity and embrace living, capable Gods, Gods that the Left a actually fears and doesn't want to fuck with. Gods it instinctively submits to.
Once this is done, one will find that the Left loses much of its power to intimidate.

But will it be done?

As long as the Right makes its claims on behalf of Christianity, it will lose everything. Christianity commands that all possessions are sacrificed so that there is nothing left to lose, and one can relax in that knowledge. This relaxation in having all taken away from oneself is what is called "the kingdom of heaven".

"Render to Caesar all that belongs to Caesar"
"But... I am Caesar!"

https://audiomack.com/fixed-cross/song/aleaiacta
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The New Right

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue May 04, 2021 9:59 pm

It seems to me that both left and right have been played out, and that what lies beyond is a paganism thats not nominally religious but instinctively so - opposite to the religion of the right. A people too young and too connected to each others true desires - a naked people - to grasp the importance of abstract ideals. People in whom abstraction has been exhausted, who only see what is in front of them. Whatever can beckon them is mighty. And here we arrive at "true human nature" - when all artifices have been exhausted on the marble of humanity. A form has appeared, a body of an animal.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The New Right

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 05, 2021 6:35 pm

Fixed Cross wrote: Where things seem obvious to large groups of people, be sure that they're being misled.


iambiguous wrote: Of course a possible problem with noting this is that the more and more people someone -- anyone -- gets to subscribe to their own moral or political philosophy, the more and more likely it is that they are being misled.


Fixed Cross wrote: "Gets to subscribe" as in "is left to believe whatever he wants without being intruded upon by reality" -- yes.

Which is my issue with Christianity. I believe this to be its origin - not Jesus, but the Roman state: 'let you slaves believe that you are the true lords, as longs you hand over everything you have, money and soul, to the state.'


Well, maybe, but my issue with your point above is still this:

"Of course a possible problem with noting this is that the more and more people someone -- anyone -- gets to subscribe to their own moral or political philosophy, the more and more likely it is that they are being misled."

Now, in a manner in which I have never fully understood the components of your own moral and political philosophy -- value ontology, astrology, your own rendition of Nietzsche, the old gods etc. -- it would seem that the more and more people who accepted your assessment as obvious the more certain we could be that they were being misled.

Same with Gloominary's assessment of the New Right?

Or, as with most objectivists, is the exception ever and always when more and more people think their own "things" are obvious?

I don't have that problem myself though because, right from the start, I flat out admit that my own moral and political value judgments are merely subjective and subjunctive opinions rooted existentially in the life that I have led rooted in this particular historical context rooted in this particular culture.


Fixed Cross wrote: From whence does the particularity derive, though, if not from some action that turns out to be 'objective' in its effect?

Beliefs are always subjective, actions are objective in their effects.


True enough, but my point is that for the moral and political objectivists, the actions that they embrace revolve around the "particularity" that is derived from their own objectivist philosophical, political, moral and/or spiritual assumptions about the human condition. Your point above however seems to suggest that a tipping point is reached such that as more and more people come to believe in the obviousness of your own "particularity", eventually the point is reached where they are being misled. Which suggest in turn [to me] the importance of making that crucial distinction between "one of us", the few who are able to "get it", and "one of them", the fools, retards, kooks, chimps, dumbasses, who can't. Think, say, Satyr for example. Or any number of the fulminating fanatics here.

Fixed Cross wrote: Some belief systems such as Christianity and postmodernism are passive, purely subjective, whereas others are more active, imposing facts rather than deriving truths.


We'll need a context of course.

Ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas. And in a world swirling about in contingency, chance and change. And not just in regard to the New Right.


Fixed Cross wrote: With some more and some less powerful consistencies within the flux.


Okay, let's focus in on a set of circumstances in which there are conflicting assessments of, say, gloominary's take on the New Right [or the New Left] and compare and contrast the components of our own thinking here.

Or a particular context in which to explore this more substantively.

Fixed Cross wrote: I never speak my most intimate personal mind, not merely because that is impossible to put in words, but also because it is far too precious - I rather speak to language - when I am strong enough anyway. - I am aware that language is a liar, but a beautiful one. And beauty carries aspects of truth on its own terms -- that is to say, not on the terms of language.


How do you "speak to language" when others speak to it in conflicting ways? With respect to actual situations in which "actions" result in further conflict that results in actual consequences?

And if your "most intimate personal mind" cannot be conveyed of what use is it "for all practical purposes" in your interactions with other in which behaviors you choose are challenged?

And here of course my own interest in the use of language revolves basically around connecting the dots existentially between "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then". How ought one to live?

Or is this just some "secret self"/"sacred self" that you have thought up "in your head" and that then becomes as far as it need go to make it true? Even in a philosophy forum?

Fixed Cross wrote: The only philosophers I value therefore aren't the ones who state their truths such as Kant, Spinoza, Aristotle, Plato - but those who express their deepest subjective will in poetic meditations, whose words force the reader to go out on their own in the wilderness of their minds. There is no greater meaning to me than that wilderness. I see language in its fullness as a reflection of this wilderness, too full of meaning to signify anything other than fullness. Which seems to me the only true significance in life.


Okay, another general description intellectual -- spiritual -- contraption that comes off [to me] as almost mystical in its "essence".

On the other hand, for me the wilderness revolves more around this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The profoundly problematic language that revolves around feeling "fractured and fragmented".

If only in the is/ought world.

And in regard to the questions out at the deepest end of the philosophical pool. Where the particular context is always this: anything I think I understand given the gap between me here and now and an understanding of existence itself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41706
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: The New Right

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed May 05, 2021 9:42 pm

Actually I feel I really need to take back the statement that the right is played out - there is immense bravery in the camp of Trump supporters.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users