America’s right-wing has never had an intellectual foundation, despite many attempts to find one, Conservatives in the 18th and 19th centuries were tied together by sentiment and prejudice, those of the first half of the 20th century by an opposition both to entering World War Two and The New Deal, while the latter half of the 20th century saw a common defense of a market economy, with some favoring some market intervention (paleo-conservatives) while others advocating a free market (adherents of The Chicago School). In the opening decades of the 21st century, the American right took a brief detour into European style identitarianism, with a splash of Carl Schmitt and Fredrich Nietzsche, but this detour was ended by the reemergence of the 2007 blogger Curtis Yarvin with his new substack Gray Mirror,(Mencius Moldbug). As of September of 2021, there is no competitor to Yarvin’s Neo-Reaction. How long Yarvin’s reign will last corresponds to how long before conservatives take a glance at Carrol Quigley and realize Yarvin’s idea of decentralized power is a lie, and a cusory look at his donors and past affiliations will reveal him to be simply another neo-conservative/Trotskyite.1
Despite lacking an intellectual foundation, the American right nevertheless persists and does so by being held together by common concerns, chief among them being:
An apprehension of democracy
A desire to bring net immigration below the native replacement level
The understanding that social cohesion is best achieved through hierarchy
The recognition that the sexes are different, the races are different, and that these differences matter
Finding a way to either retake, or replace, the main institutions of America
While good enough for general amicability and some electoral success, a set of common concerns is incapable of the following:
Providing a justification for why the right ought to govern
Attracting political and financial power
Nowhere in the common concerns listed is a moral principle upon which a future right wing government may stand, and those who have political and financial power are, by the nature of their class status, either unaffected or indifferent to any of the five concerns. Constructing a coalition of concerns is inadequate for an enduring political movement. If the American right is to have a lasting effect on the country, an intellectual foundation must be found. This foundation, if the right is to stay true to its common concerns, must be capable of providing the following:
A critique of democracy
A justification for maintaining heritage American’s demographic dominance
An explanation for why hierarchy is socially necessary
An account for racial and sexed differentiation and why this matters politically
A strategy for gaining institutional power
Implicit in an explanation for the necessity of hierarchy will be an account of human differentiation, including racial and sexed, and from this explanation will come a critique of democracy. Providing a justification for maintaining the demographic dominance of heritage America, and a strategy for gaining institutional power will have to be accounted for separately.
Historically, the American right has pointed to nature as evidence for the necessity of hierarchy, Jordan Peterson’s (I know he is not on the right) lobster example being the most recent and comical, and for in-group preference (chimpanzee tribes are very…well…tribal), hoping to articulate the five points above. Leaving out the numerous examples of naturally occurring behaviors that would irk a man of the right if implemented in human society (matriarchy, homosexuality, fluid sexes, etc.), there is no logical connection between X occurring in nature and X being morally good, or even pragmatically good, for human society. Joseph de Maistre is helpful here, as he distinguishes between two senses of the word “nature.” First, there is the sense used up until this point: nature is a broad category that encompasses everything non-human. According to this sense, the tree that I can see from my study window is natural, but the pencil to the right of this computer is un-natural. Second, there is the teleological sense: nature refers to what a thing is and ought to be. When Aristotle says “Man is by nature a political2 animal”, he does not mean, in the first sense, that Man is found to be political even in the state of nature (if such a thing ever existed), but, in the second sense, that inherent in the category “Man” is the tendency towards politics and that the non-political man, the atomized individual who lives apart from society, is “either a beast or a god.”
It may be admitted by the left that hierarchy, racial and sex differentiation, non-democratic governance, and in-group preference is natural in the fist sense, but it will always be denied in the second. “Although these things are so”, the argument would go, “they ought not be the case, and we can rise above mere animality and create a better world.” Such a possible response, and it is not an uncommon one, necessitates an intellectual foundation that relies on the second sense. A foundation that rests on the second, the teleological, sense of nature will center around a Providence which gave the nature of all things to all things. Why? Because for hierarchy to be the natural social arrangement, for the sexes and the races to be naturally different, for it to be natural to desire that heritage America maintain its demographic dominance, then there has to be a reason why these things are natural, there has to be a reason why things ought to be and why deviating from these positions is a deviation from the order of the world. Even if the world is eternal and thus the nature of things have been so from eternity, there is still a question why nature (in the second, teleological sense) is the way it is and not some other way. There is no logical necessity for the world to be as it is, and it is possible to imagine an alternative reality in which things had different natures as they have now, meaning that the reason for the world’s nature must be found outside the world. Further, this Providence has to have intentions because to give something a telos requires intentionality; this can be clearly shown by stating that the force which made the first pencil must have had intentions because a pencil has a telos, it has a nature. For this Providence to inscribe all things with a nature, and for human desires (such as the desire to preserve native demographics) to either be amiable to, or deviate from nature, it must not only have intentionality, and thus Personhood, albeit of a different sort than ours, but must be considerably powerful if He was able to define what all things are (thus deserving the name Creator) and to decide how all things ought to be (thus deserving the name Law Giver). We can become privy to the nature of things if it is possible to become privy to the Creator, specifically through revelation, because if the Creator has revealed Himself to us, then it becomes possible to understand with what purpose things were created.
At this point I want to pause and point out the alternative. There may be some hesitancy to embrace what might seem like an embrace of Jerry Falwell and company’s failed attempt at a Christian right, a hesitancy that I understand and will address later, but for now it will be profitable to explore the alternative to a Providence centered foundation.
If the right is not to find its intellectual foundation in Providence, which we have seen is necessitated by a belief in the teleological sense of nature, then it will have to find its foundation in the Will to Power. Not having a foundation in nature, which is beyond the temporal and the human, the alternative will have to be found in the temporal and the human. Most often this human basis is found in efficiency (our beliefs our more conducive to good governance, thus we should rule), or in identity (it is healthy and normal as Americans/whites/Europeans/etc., to desire the preservation of our people, and to do achieve this we must take power). Neither of these approaches are necessarily bad, they address real concerns and have been shown to produce strategic victories, but they cannot serve as the right’s intellectual basis.
Staking legitimacy, be in the legitimacy of beliefs or of rule, on efficiency implies a goal, as something is only efficient insofar as it relates to a goal. I can be a more efficient at taking care of my house, for example, and how my efficiency is measured is in direct relation to my goals (cleanliness, organization, functionality of my utilities). When someone says “I can efficiently govern”, or “my beliefs and morals are more conducive to good governance”, this person has some goal in mind. This goal, whatever it may be, will necessarily imply the following moral claim: “it is a good thing for this goal to be reached.” Moral claims in the absence of nature, in the absence of teleology, are dubious and untenable because there can be no moral claim without the corresponding “things ought to be this way”, but if this “ought” is not rooted in something beyond human desire, then the moral claim is reduced to the mere Will to Power. Maybe this does not bother you, but it should. Why? Because if your moral claim rests upon your desire to impose it, then there is no basis for which you can protest someone with the mirror opposite moral claim who is stronger than you and wishes to impose his will on you. Sure, you can say “well, their moral claim will be bad for me and those I care for”, but they could say the same about your claim. Morality is thrown away, life becomes a contest of strength, and the right, especially when it is the dissident position, will have no foundation upon which it can justify its ideals or its rule.
Moving on to identity: while the foundation of identity has seen a resurgence in the 21st century, and having its most rigorous defenders in Jared Taylor, Andrew Joyce, and Alain de Benoist, it too reduces to the Will to Power. If my morals derive from my identity as an American, white, Frenchman, Englishman, Belgian, etc. then there is no substantial difference between my morals and the morals derived from Chinese, Jewish, or Indian identity. Sure, I might prefer my morals to some other identity, but what can I justify the desire to see my morals prevail politically? Either I could say, “because it is my identity and my morals, and there is nothing wrong with me wanting those dominant in society”, or I could say, “well, look at my civilization and then look at theirs, my morals clearly produce better results.” In the case of the later, we have already seen how that is mere Will to Power. In the case of the former, there is no error theory, there is no way for me to determine if my identity is in the moral right or the moral wrong. It is logically possible that there could exist a society that produces a set of moral values that are beneficial to its own community, but these morals turn out to be vicious rather than virtuous. Seeing that this is a possibility, and there being no error theory, any foundation upon identity will leave the right in a morally dubious position. No option is left for the identitarian other than the mere Will to Power and the assertion of his identity over all others, irrespective of morality. As said above, if your moral claim rests upon your desire to impose it, then there is no basis for which you can protest someone with the mirror opposite moral claim who is stronger than you and wishes to impose his will on you.
To reemphasize, these critiques do not mean that appeals to efficiency or identity are bad, but only that they cannot serve as the intellectual basis for the right. Providence, not power, must be the right’s foundation.
Returning now to Providence, let us look at how this foundation answers the five common concerns.
1) A Critique of Democracy
Democracy rests upon the assertion that the people are sovereign. Laws are made by the people, the contents of which are an endless possibility so long as the law does not violate the national constitution, which was at one time ratified by the people. If Providence exists, then He is sovereign and no legislature can pass a law going against His law. Sure, a legislature can write a piece of paper that codifies the denial of a thing’s nature (amounting to A/=A), but this piece of paper is not actual law in the sense that it is in conformity to Providence’s law. “Laws” that go against Providence are fundamentally a denial of reality and are the scribbling of madmen. Sovereignty derives from Providence, for only laws that reflect Providence’s will can correspond to reality—seeing that the nature of a thing is the reality of a thing and the nature of a thing is found in Providence’s will—and properly be law, all else being a sham and cheap imitation of law.
Governmental structure must recognize Providence’s sovereignty, and it is a chief task of the right to 1) implement this recognition by ensuring that all “laws” that conflict with nature are swiftly repealed, and 2) designate any advocacy for the violation of nature a war against reality, indicative of psychological impairment, and a dangerous threat to be pacified.
2) A justification for maintaining heritage American’s demographic dominance
Accepting immigrants into your country is an act of hospitality, it is to welcome the other into your home. Hospitality, if such a thing exists (has a nature) and is not merely a social construct, requires that the welcoming party maintains a dominance over the place the welcomed is invited into. The other day I had a friend from back home come up for the weekend. I gave him a place to sleep, food to eat, water to drink, took him out to eat and to Vespers and Liturgy. This was an act of hospitality. None of this would have been possible, however, if the house I invited [redacted] into was not mine, for I cannot give what is not mine. Further, this act of hospitality would not have been possible if [redacted] came in and claimed ownership over my house, this would be a type of home theft. Even more so, if my friend invited ten people into my house without consulting me, then this would amount to an invasion of my living room. Hospitality, by its very nature, requires that the one being hospitable maintains a dominance over the place of hospitality, for if he did not he would have nothing to rightfully give. When the question of immigration arises, this must be kept in mind and acknowledged that if heritage Americans do not own their land, which requires demographic dominance, then they cannot rightfully offer up that land to the other in an act of hospitality. Inviting replacement level immigration into America is no more hospitable then me inviting twenty people of the street into my home and for them to then to assume ownership over my house.
None of this means anything if there is no such thing as hospitality, if it is merely a term that describes a fleeting social construct that could be completely different in another country and in another era. Only if there is a nature of hospitality, a way that it really is and ought to be, regardless of how different societies may interpret it, can this be a legitimate basis for maintaining the demographic dominance of heritage America, and we have seen above that this requires the existence of Providence. If there is no Providence, and thus no nature to things, then hospitality is a social construct that differs in meaning according to time and place and it is conceivable that in some societies hospitality requires the person being hospitable to relinquish ownership of the place of hospitality, and if such a conception of hospitality exists, and it surely does, then to privilege the conception of hospitality I laid out above is to privilege one culture above another…which we have seen reduces to the Will to Power.
3) An explanation for why hierarchy is socially necessary
Our Creator is above us in all regards, for He made the heaven and the earth. We ought to submit to the laws of Providence, for He is supremely wise and good. Hierarchy is already present.
Since there is a law above us, summarized as A=A, and that we ought to learn from and follow this law, then there are to be those who teach the law (types of Moses) and those who ensure society operates according to the law (Aaron). Behind the symbol of the Byzantine Eagle is this meaning, for the eagle is comprised of two halves, one holding a Cross or orb (symbolizing the word of God), one holding a sword, but both making up one whole—symphony between the religious and the political, not a theocracy. Without teachers (who have more authority, and are thus higher, than their students), no one could know the law. Without political rulers (who necessarily have power over the ruled), there would be no way to hold society to Providence’s law.
4) An account for racial and sexed differentiation and why this matters politically
Since natures exist, then for however long the races and sexes have existed there has existed a nature of each race and each sex. If something exists, then it exists by the will of Providence, and Providence willed it to be a certain way. Races and sexes exist, therefore there is a way that Providence willed them to be…and this is their nature. There is, of course, the question of whether or not the nature of a thing can be marred (by sin, perhaps), and if this is possible then we, as with all things, ought to measure that thing by its true nature and not its marred nature. This being said, it would be foolish to not take account of fallen reality and only pay mind to how things were intended to be.
If it is true that the races and sexes are different, then society needs to be arranged in such a way that makes room for these differences. To do otherwise would be akin to making a law that birds can only get around by hopping like rabbits and rabbits can only go to-and-fro by flying. How this looks is a question beyond the scope of this post, but that the races are different, the sexes are different, that that this is not a bad thing (it is, rather, a gift from the Creator), and that society ought to make room for these differences has been shown.
5) A strategy for gaining institutional power
Of all the points this is the most difficult. What has been said up until now has dealt with things beyond the contingencies of politics, but now these contingencies need to be addressed. If I am completely honest, I cannot give and adequate answer yet. What I can do is explain why American religious right of Falwell and Bush Jr. failed, and point towards a more successful model for a religiously informed right.
Falwell and company could have been successful, but they mistook an intellectual foundation for a political platform. Rather than having Protestantism as an intellectual foundation for their politics, Falwell and company made Protestantism their political platform. Politics was the means by which the United States would become Christianized. Although I personally have a problem with trying to use the ballot box to evangelize, you may not. If you think this is a worthwhile pursuit, then I would at least ask you to consider the following questions:
1) Is it more important for public schools to teach creationism? Or for them to stop teaching anti-white hate?
2) Is it more important for the courts to overturn Obergefell v Hodges? Or for them to overturn the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act?
If you answered creationism or Obergefell, then you are missing something important: if heritage Americans do not maintain their demographic dominance, which is being decimated by anti-white hatred and Hart-Cellar, then you will never achieve your desired social goals. Why? Tell me the last time you saw an Hispanic lobbying group fighting Darwinism or same-sex marriage? Can you name one? Okay, if you found that unicorn then tell me how large it is and how successful they were. Now compare that size and success to white Americans. Were they successful in the long term? No. Did they put up a decent fight? More so than whatever Hispanic group you did(n’t) find. This is *not* to say that Hispanics are not as Christian as whites, but simply that they have different priorities. A true right would seek first the reversal of demographic and social trends that make possible the shift away from Christian teachings about Scripture or marriage.
Not only was the Falwell/Bush right unsuccessful at its aims, if we believe these aims were worthwhile, but it spent most of its energy shilling for Israel and extra-American affairs. The only lasting effects the religious right delivered was more aid, financial and military, to Israel. Maybe a strong alliance with Israel is a good thing, but this cannot take priority over domestic affairs. A strong ally is a good thing, but not if it means forsaking your own people.
A better example of a right is the regimes of Franco and Salazar. Both had Providence as their intellectual foundation, but instead of trying to make the Bible their political platform, their political platform stood on the Bible. Hierarchy was maintained, democracy was rejected, and those who opposed nature (communists mainly) were crushed. Unlike most of the national movements of the Inter-War Years, Franco and Salazar’s regimes lasted beyond the Second World War and walked the middle path between extremism (mass slaughter) and weak will (see Antonio Primo de Rivera’s hesitancy to resist communists by force). It is true that neither regime was perfect, and both Spain and Portugal are in similar conditions as the rest of Europe, but they can teach us some lessons about maintaining power:
1) Suspend elections and embrace the monarchical principal. Even if a republican system of government is kept, it must submit not only to the executive but to the will of Providence. As soon as a right-wing takes power, international leftism will seethe and find any means to oust the new regime, and for this only a strong hand can keep the rats away. Perhaps a state of exception can be called and justified on the basis that the country has been overrun by people who war against nature and seek to impose, by force, the lie that A/=A.3
2) Systematically disenfranchise leftist thought leaders, expel them from the universities and from the media. Political disagreement is to be tolerated, as no one party or faction is infallible, but the denial that nature exists (leftism) has as much place in the political as flat earth has a place in the scientific.
3) If necessary, mobilize the military to protect the integrity of the nation. Extremism, of the right or the left, needs to be put down swiftly and humanely. Nothing is more dangerous to a new regime than extremists trying to influence, or tear down, the new order.
I do apologize for not giving you a map to power, I am not that person. Hopefully, in spite of that, these lessons from Franco and Salazar can help with the retention of power.
An intellectual foundation for the right must either be Providence or Power. The former is internally coherent and has over two thousand years of Church Fathers, philosophers such as Soren Kierkegaard, Maurice Blondel, Gabriel Marcel, Vladimir Solovyov, Joseph Pieper, and Boethius, and political thinkers like E.F Schumacher, Joseph de Maistre, Thomas Carlyle and Ivan Iyin. The later is internally incoherent and can only lay claim to the mentally disturbed class of Fredrich Nietzsche and Emily Bronte.4 Curtis Yarvin, unless you like neo-conservatism, is no intellectual foundation for the right.
If you want a good look into Yarvin’s backers and his intimate ties to the neo-conservative establishment, then I would recommend taking a look at the opening half of this blog post
The point will be missed if we take Aristotle to be speaking of politics as it occurs in the modern world. For Aristotle, politics, which derives from the word “polis”, meaning the community, meant communal interaction. To be a political animal, then, meant that Man, unlike the other animals, form community, towns, farmers markets, and other complex forms of social interaction.
This is reference to Carl Schmitt’s Political Theology, particularly Chapter one, “The Definition of Sovereignty”.
Both of whom, despite their confusion, you should read. Start with Beyond Good and Evil for Nietzsche, and Wuthering Heights for Bronte.
Fantastic article bro
The will to power IS made to be internally coherent by a meditation on how it fits in with eternal recurrence. God is Dead, is a phenomenological/scientific fact that cannot be reversed until mass man is de-educated and stripped of his unearned, uneeded rationality. You correctly identify how to maintain power (as does Machiavelli), and Nietzsche gives the road map to power in his , Zarathustra. Bill Hopkins', The Leap, provides similar info.
Providence cannot be a source for renewal, only the maintenance of power after a few generations have made belief in a metaphysical creator possible again. The answer lies in your own article on Schmitt - the intellectual grounding for the right must be AESTHETIC and based on the friend-enemy distinction. Nietzsche makes this very clear, so does Yokey, plato, bacon, and most esoteric poets or geniuses of the West. Less esoterically, one becomes God first, the new foundation for good, divinity, etc, then a new Providence is created once the founding "God" passes away (or his son is given the same name and the public truly thinks their leader is immortal, e.g. Egypt).
Referring to Bush Jr as an attempt to renew the Christian right is delusional at best. His father, the former president, being the head of the CIA immediately identifies his actions as contrived to support the anti-christian globalist elite.
I'm digging your articles and am quite grateful for your work and efforts.