What is the Right?

By asking this question, You are asking yourself what is natural to mankind. This is the essential question that conservatives need to be asking after the two successful populist uprisings and the possible third coming up in France. Personally I hope Marine Le Pen wins. I’ll give you my idea of right and you can compare it to yours.

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of the right side of politics is in group preference, the right to difference, and the right to associate with the people that you want to be around. Thanks to the rise of Donald Trump and Brexit , People are finally comfortable with being anti-immigration without starting every statement with an apology. The citizens of those two great anglosphere nations no longer feel the need to apologize for their nation’s strength and it’s right to tell others no. The universalists (lefties) are the real group that is anti diversity. It was never the right that’s the big trick that they pulled on the world a long time ago. Mixing groups together and making their cultures indistinguishable from one another. That’s the real goal of theirs. It’s not the preservation of the wonderful diversity of the human race. They have no real respect for diversity. Believing that every group are the same or should be is what they’re dogma is about once you strip it of all the creative language. Here’s a quote from a wise man.

“it is quite legitimate for nations to treat their differences as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs” – Pope Pius XII

The next thing that comes naturally to mankind is the traditional gender roles. The human male developed to provide and lead whereas the human female developed to nurture. You can do a bit of both but you can’t deny what both gender was made for in the end. We’re a lot like our fellow primates. The one difference is that we have the capacity to defy nature. If we want to. Gender roles aren’t as oppressive as feminists believe them to be. That’s an old article that I am not entirely happy with but it makes a decent point.Women only traded one form of power for another. But are all women genuinely happy with this new power?

Humans much like other primates have in-group bias and a natural desire for a leader. Whether you choose your group or stick to your folk depends on your own choices. But Humans still have that innate desire to belong and be led. Resisting this is an attempt to change nature. You’ll fail in the end. Having a sense of collective caesarism is quite healthy and useful for a groups survival. Caesarism for anyone that is unfamiliar with the term is a system with a charismatic leader that has a cult of personality. Applying this to a group has it’s benefits because holding your group in high regard is good in times of war and recession.

The most natural form of government for mankind is monarchy. If you click that link , you will see a detailed case for it that is much better than what I will type here. In the early days of human history, We had a family ruling an entire group. Society is really an extension of the family. So humans developing this way makes perfect sense. First we have the family and then the community and then the nation. Which is lead by a king and queen. Humans have a tendency to treat certain elected leaders like they are more than that. Reagan , Bush , Obama, Trump , Roosevelt , and so on. They all get treated like kings by their followers. It’s almost as if a certain part of us is trying to show itself.

I’ve saved the best and possibly the most taboo part for the end of this article. Capitalism and conservative social values. What would you say if you were told that one of the reasons that the progressives won the culture war. Is because they made good use of your free market ? Other than the slow march through academia . Most of their success can be found in music and other entertainment. Promoting their free love culture and the end of traditional norms through the power of capitalism. I’m obviously not suggesting we try socialism. We’ve all seen Venezuela. But the amoral nature of capitalism is something the right should consider.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. This essay sort of relies on somewhat of a false dichotomy when defining the left/right divide. I believe you’re looking at it in terms of identity politics a little too much, where left implies some egalitarian standard on identity and the right strictly implies an acceptance of difference, or at least, certain identities/roles. It also seems to me to be a mistake to use the term Universalism when referring to leftist egalitarianism. You need universalism to group people into many types of _different groups_ as much as you do in order to group them into a single standard, may those groups be based on social roles, class, race, gender, national citizenship, species, etc. Egalitarianism focuses too much on a single standard without being able to reconcile it with subcategorizations or substandards. Univeralism can, however, have a hierarchical side which is capable of such a reconcilation, as was noted by the rightist thinker Othmar Spann largely based on a Platonic and Hegelian outlook. As mention in his book “The True State”, Spann believed that “Universalism is always characterized by the absolutization of one community to the highest, inclusive of all others as its parts… True universalism looks for an organic multiplicity, for inequality.“

    I think insofar as Universalism can be hierarchial, it is rightist. And I think the hierarchy/authority vs equality/freedom dichotomy better characterizes the divide than looking at it in terms of identity, especially if you look at what some of the royalists who sat on the right of the national assembly, which defined the spectrum, believed in. They were coming out of an age of Absolutism and Imperialism, where Universalism and Cosmocracy seemed to them the natural course of things both descriptively (a la the rationalists) and prescriptively (a la the mercantilists). I will concede however that hierarchy does imply differentiated identity, however, identity politics don’t necessarily imply hierarchical rank evaluations of identity more than simple recognition of them (which only implies a recognition of how those differences can be ranked). Hierarchy and identity are only implicit of eachother, and hierarchy seems more central to rightist politics.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s