When I recently asked Joker, “are you pointing to something we may call an anarchism of the right?” (http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2440868#p2440868), neither he nor anyone else responded. As he’s not the only ILP member who’s recently shown an interest in anarchism, however (http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2433446#p2433446), I will explain and explore my question.
The second link I just provided links to a specific post in Das Experiment’s recent thread on anarchism. In that post, I shared my analogy between various “archies” and “theisms”. And my question to Joker contained an allusion to something Leo Strauss said:
[size=95]"The conservatives stood for throne and altar, and the liberals stood for democracy, or something similar to democracy, and religion as a strictly private affair. But liberalism was already outflanked by the extreme revolutionaries, socialists, communists, anarchists, and atheists. There was a position we may call political atheism.
“Now Nietzsche opposed both the moderate and the extreme left, but he saw that conservatism had no future, that its fighting was a real garbage, and its conservatism was being eroded evermore. The consequence of this was that Nietzsche pointed to something which we may call the revolutionary right, an atheism of the right.” (Strauss, 1971 lecture on Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil.)[/size]
In 2007, I wrote about this:
[size=95]"Conservatism meant both aristocratic and Christian conservatism. There existed a self-contradiction at the heart of conservatism, indeed, at the heart of the aristocracy. For the Christian values were the moral values ‘good and evil’; whereas the aristocratic values were the ‘ethical’ values ‘good and bad’. ‘Good and bad’ are ‘noble’ values, sprung from what Nietzsche called ‘master morality’; whereas ‘good and evil’ are ‘base’ values, sprung from what he called ‘slave morality’. So why did the aristocracy champion both noble and base values? Because it had in the past divined a means to power in slave morality.
“On at least one occasion, Nietzsche says that the development of something from a means into an end signifies decadence. Perhaps it signifies an impoverishment of the nobility that it got its natural, noble values so tangled up with the base values of slave morality. In any case, this self-contradiction at the heart of conservatism weakened it. By pointing to an atheism of the right, Nietzsche sought to create the possibility of a restoration of noble values. For ‘atheism’ to him meant disbelief in the Christian god, that is, in the moral god. He did emphatically not deny the possibility of a god, or gods, beyond good and evil.” (http://sauwelios.blogspot.nl/2007/11/i-formerly-thought-of-overman-as-man.html)[/size]
Something which we might call an anarchism of the right would have to be a movement of those who, disbelieving in any gods but valuing the “ethical” good, sought to secure the triumph of the “ethical” world-order.—
[size=95]“Modern thinkers culminating in Nietzsche made men aware that human creativity or technology was not limited by anything. Nietzsche feared that contemporary egalitarians would employ this unlimited power to create a world of universal peace and equality. He yearned for a superman whose will to overpower nihilism and egalitarianism would use modernity’s immense power to create the eternal return of the past’s inequality and wars. Then there would be no wars to end all wars.” (Harry Neumann, Liberalism, pp. 165-66.)[/size]