The New Right

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.

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

Waaaaa, waaaaa!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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…

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.

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

Only the world of the weak.

Strong people aren’t as easy to corrupt by such psychological carcasses as you describe.

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.

“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.’

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.

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

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.

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 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!”

audiomack.com/fixed-cross/song/aleaiacta

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.

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?

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.

We’ll need a context of course.

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.

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?

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.

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.