Guest Post by The Zman
Back in the 1980’s, something often remarked upon by conservative writers was the diversity of opinion on the Right versus the Left. By that point the Cold War version of the American Left was on fumes. Their policy ideas had a threadbare feel to them. Most of their leading figures struck people as anachronism. They would talk about labor issues, as if men still worked in factories and women were secretaries. The Right, in contrast, seemed to have a great wealth of ideas and idea makers in tune with the age.
Since the end of the Cold War, the Buckley Right has declined into a dull recitation of lines from a catechism that is no longer relevant to the age. The only thing interesting about the legacy Right is watching the neocons figure out how they will rejoin and subvert the Left side of the political class. There’s also the death watch for their legacy publications like National Review. Those are interesting for amusement purposes. Otherwise, there has not been an interesting idea from that crew since the Contract with America.
For its part, the Left has evolved into a weird spirit cult chasing after bogeymen like racism and white supremacy. From an anthropological perspective, that is an interesting thing to observe, but it is entirely without intellectual footing. It’s also infuriating to see bellowing primitives point and sputter at a heretic so the rage heads of their cult can attack the person. The sad spectacle of the House voting to condemn Steve King as a blasphemer speaks the madness that has gripped our ruling class.
What’s remarkable about the emptiness of the intellectual class is that the West is faced with problems that are unique to this age. Automation, for example, promises to reduce the need for labor to a point where the majority of adults will be idle. The demographics of the West, where populations begin to decline and age is an entirely new problem. The only country working this problem is Japan. These are complex and novel challenges, but the intellectual class is mostly silent on these and other pressing issues.
If you are looking for intellectual diversity and depth, the action is all on this side of the great divide. As the James Watson story reveals, the only place you can find honest discussion of the human sciences is on this side. Whether it is evolution, human cognitive ability or population genetics, the dissident right is the only place where people are discussing the amazing breakthroughs in the human sciences. The most interesting writing and commentary is now on outlaw blogs and podcasts.
Of course, it is politics and current events where you find most people on either side of the great divide, but again, the interesting stuff is all on this side. That’s where you see the great diversity on the dissident right. Jared Taylor, for example, is working the same material as Steve Sailer, but arriving at entirely different places politically. In fact, the two of them have debated in the past. When was the last time anyone debated anything on the other side? The closest we got is Tucker Carlson slapping down Ben Shapiro.
There’s also an aesthetic diversity to this side. The tone and material of Counter Currents is completely different from what you get at The Right Stuff. Greg Johnson is more in tune with the trans-occidental intellectual movement, so his material and commentary is more meta-political. The TRS guys are casual, appealing to an earthier audience. Their primary focus is on domestic issues and identity politics. There is plenty of crossover, but they are clearly appealing to different temperaments and a different aesthetic.
That’s the other thing you see on this side that is missing from the other side. There is an irreverence and a joie de vivre on this side. Say what you want about the TRS guys, but they are having fun being bad. RamZPaul is having a blast interviewing curious people on his YouTube channel. The people on the other side always look like they caught whiff of a bad odor. What passes for humor is a host saying wooden gag lines about Bluermpf. “Orange man bad!” Applause sign lights. Audience cheers. Rinse. Repeat.
When people talk about the political divide in the West, they often focus on practical matters like nationalism versus globalism. In reality, the divide is between the search for factual truth versus the search for moral truth. Not only are the goals different, but the methods are different. Both sides look at the human condition and wonder why things are as they are, but one side seeks to explain the great diversity of man, while the other side seeks to exterminate these differences, in order to reach a moral end.
That’s why there is so much more diversity of thought and opinion on this side. There can be only one moral framework, one set of moral truths. If two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong, thus the ever narrowing of our intellectual class. As the free thinkers and the curious are cast out, they find their way to this side, having to first cross the river of the damned, accepting biological reality. Living outside the favor of the popular gods is not always a lot of fun, but it vastly more interesting than the other side.
“If two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong…”
What if two men say they’re Jesus, and they’re both wrong?
That doesn’t change the fact that , still, “one of them must be wrong”.
One cannot (and should not) judge those who came before us and their behavior by today’s standards. One can look back at “the way things were” with a critical eye, learning, and vowing not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
There were many justifications (actually excuses) for slavery, none of which would “fly” today (rightly so) but were considered valid in their day. Even certain Christian sects condoned slavery with the proviso that they “were bringing souls to Jesus Christ away from heathenism”. This was seen as “justification” enough.
However, there are downsides to many of today’s social and cultural norms.
The imposition of so-called “civil-rights” acts and legislation comes to mind. While well-intentioned, these laws actually did a disservice to the concept of true “civil-rights”. Demanding that whites change their social norms at the point of federal troops with bayonets (1957) did much to poison the concept of true “civil-rights”.
Forcing integration did much to harden attitudes that whites had toward not only blacks, but government in general.
American blacks were coming into their own, many proving by their own behavior that they could live in a white-dominated society. In that day and age, blacks who wanted to participate in white society were expected to conform to white societal norms. Anything less was grounds for shunning, banning, and other proscriptions for black misbehavior.
The passage of these “civil-rights” laws changed all that. Gone was the God-given right of “freedom of association”, but only for the white majority.
Minorities were (and still are) free to exclude those not of their own race or culture even in cases of “freedom of association” and “public accommodation”.
The concept of civil-rights “protections” have been expanded to cover homosexuals, cross-dressers, people with all types of aberrant behavior and conditions, (soon to be covered) pedophiles.
White heterosexual males are of the only “group” that is not entitled to “protections” under the so-called “civil-rights” laws. The excuse used nowadays is that since us whites hold political and social power, (yeah, right) we are the only ones who can be “racist”.
The idea of responsibility for one’s own actions was eviscerated as well, minorities given “excuses” for their criminal behavior, blaming it on “racism”.
The passage of “affirmative action” laws cemented the idea that blacks could not make it on their own merits, but needed “help” which was enforced by government fiat. No longer would merit be allowed to be used to determine competency for education or employment, especially when it came to blacks. (The Griggs v. Duke Power Supreme Court opinion effectively outlawed the use of aptitude tests to determine suitability for employment).
Social and cultural practices that were commonplace in the past would be seen as barbaric and unjustified today, with good reason, but we are still living under the cloud of one-sided “civil-rights” laws whose proscriptions apply only to whites.
For one, I am PROUD to be considered “racist”. When I am so accused, I respond enthusiastically, while attempting to shake my accuser’s hand. The confused, dazed looks and disbelief on their faces is priceless.
You are a valued member of TBP.
To my thinking, a “racist” is an enthusiast studying and participating in race. I glory in the fact that I’m a member of the white race with a high I.Q., average looks, above average athletic skill and a great sexual prowess, the last two attributes of which I share with our dark skinned evolutionary cousins. So I am also glad to be called a “Racist”
Robert (QSLV)
Amazing, that this only had 5 comments.
Brilliant :
“Both sides look at the human condition and wonder why things are as they are, but one side seeks to explain the great diversity of man, while the other side seeks to exterminate these differences, in order to reach a moral end.”
Too little online time these dreary rainy days. Little goats need fresh dry hay every day. There is a trend in the writing atmosphere. I sense it calling to the poets.
Or to the saints.
Black Africans mixed with a jungle hominoid that separated from our tree 700,000 years ago and have about 12% of it’s DNA. They have a 70 IQ, reach sexual maturity years earlier, are more fertile, etc. American Blacks average 20% White DNA and 85 IQs. SNAP, Head Start, Busing, Mixed Classes, Job Corps, Black Colleges, Diversity, Affirmative Discrimination, Welfare, Section 8 Housing, Obamacare, Medicaid, etc cannot change DNA and Heritable Behaviors.