 |
| Logic never sleeps |
What is happening to the West in recent years is increasingly taking on the characteristics of total insanity. Few people have the necessary detachment to stand outside the blatherings of Bedlam and see what is really happening in any way that makes sense. Most of us get too snagged up in the trivia and distracting details. This mass inability to understand our cultural social trajectory may ultimately be a potent revolutionary force, but it is an entirely blind one—at present.
So, what is generating all the insanity? The answer is the interaction of two elements, namely:
For most political entities in history ideology has been an afterthought. A good example is the British Empire. In fact it turned out to be neither very British nor very imperial. It frequently changed parts of its value system in a reckless ad hoc way that fatally undermined it, until finally it painted itself into too many corners and fizzled out.
A truly British and Imperial state that had a self-aware ideology would have emphasized Britishness and Imperialism in its ideology, and would have thus been guided to behave in a totally different way. For example, it would probably have relocated London to North America and grown into its much larger continental shell, like an extremely ambitious hermit crab upgrading to a much larger cockle shell. Instead the "British Empire" wrote off the vast American continent because the price of quelling a few colonial militias wasn't worth the additional tobacco revenues it might generate, especially when the all-important West Indian sugar revenues had to be protected. This petty focus on immediate gains and losses ultimately damned it.
The much more polyglot West that grew up in the geopolitical vacuum left by the shrinking British Empire (i.e. American-led "globalism") eventually, and via a couple of World Wars, worked out a form of ideology to differentiate it from Eurasian rivals. This gave it a loose unity as well as a morality that could be weaponised on occasion. But, make no mistake about it, this was an extremely weak, bastardised, and cobbled together ideology, and we are paying the costs for it today.
There was post-Protestant-Christian stuff in there about "muh individualism" and "equality," and even "universal human rights" that could easily be extended to whales and chimps. But its main feature was that it was all mixed up in a bucket with a stick and left in a dark cupboard under the stairs.
This ideology didn't work, but it didn't not work either. This was mainly because of the "cupboard under the stairs" bit. As I said above, parts of it could occasionally be weaponised for fleeting purposes.
The stuff about "liberty" was handy for standing up to those necessarily more centralised and authoritarian land-locked Eurasian societies, while the guff about "equality" was ideal lubricant for building up wide-ranging coalitions that allowed "outsourcing" of the grimmer parts of any geopolitical struggle.
The key point, however, was that when it wasn't needed, this ill-defined and logically incoherent ideological monstrosity could be kept behind the bushes or veiled in the mists, as society proceeded merrily on its inherently unequal, anti-Christian, and unindividualistic way.
It was the Internet that changed all this.
It sadly ended the cosy arrangement of having ideological foundations that you didn't have to live by. The absurd premises of "total equality" and even total equivalence, long buried in the dark foundations of our society were exhumed and revealed to the relentless light of logic and insanity (often two sides of the same coin) that was generated by our now essentially gateless internet culture.
It was better that such questions, which flowed directly from the insane premises of our societal ideology, were not asked, and under the old gatekeeper media they were kept on a relatively tight rein. But like an uncomprehending child asking "How do all the little people fit in the TV?" they were—again and again—provoking history and HBD lessons from the less naive that were nevertheless powerless to answer them in a society that still insisted on its sacred taboos.
But just as the incoherence of the official ideology stubbornly stood there, reinforced by a thousand cultural props, the history and HBD lessons could not be eradicated either. In fact they only grew in strength. This was because following the "logic train" from the poisoned premises of equality gave us the palpable insanity of antifa, "Black Lives Matter," rampant globalism, mass migration, ISIS, transgender bathrooms, and worse.
These history and HBD lessons are, in essence, what the Dissident Right represents, and why, despite its suppression, it remains an immense threat to the ideological status quo.
The only real way out of this major conundrum is to completely rewrite the entire ideological DNA of our civilisation so that it takes cognisance of significant realities in a coherent way. In fact, if we don't, the West will surely sputter out and die. But rewriting the entire ideological DNA of our civilisation is not easy either, and cuts directly against the parochial interests of our blind power elites. (Check out James Lawrence on how our ruling class has lost its "brahmin" side.)
This leaves only one other solution—the papering-over-the-cracks, sticking-things-together-with-duct-tape, shoving-the-toothpaste-back-into-the-tube one.
Rather than rewrite the entire ideological DNA of the West, is it possible to return to a previous state of ideological "soft focus," innocence, or amnesia, in which awkward questions and over-rigorous logic trains are kept off the rails? Can the obviously shambolic ideology of our near-blind civilisation be kept from the vortex of thought processes created by a gate-keeper-free internet?
The growing efforts of Big Tech to ban, stifle, and deplatform dissident voices suggests they are at least trying.
But banning just the Dissident Right and nothing else was never going to do it.
As long as the toxic and radical Left is allowed to run around with the exhumed corpses of the egalitarian premises of our clearly inegalitarian society and world and—with the full assistance of the mainstream media—rub them in the faces of the masses, the insanity can only increase. And this insanity will ensure a reaction towards order, one that can only come from the Dissident Right. Like the heads of the hydra it will be ever-renewing, no matter how much cutting is done!
All that most people will see of this will be years and years of insanity and cognitive chaos, something that will ultimately turbo-charge the urge to order in ways that none of us can yet calculate.
Colin Liddell was the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the famous and the dead. Support his work by buying it here.
So, what is generating all the insanity? The answer is the interaction of two elements, namely:
- ideological inconsistencies that existed pre-internet
- the internet (and its relentless logic)
For most political entities in history ideology has been an afterthought. A good example is the British Empire. In fact it turned out to be neither very British nor very imperial. It frequently changed parts of its value system in a reckless ad hoc way that fatally undermined it, until finally it painted itself into too many corners and fizzled out.
A truly British and Imperial state that had a self-aware ideology would have emphasized Britishness and Imperialism in its ideology, and would have thus been guided to behave in a totally different way. For example, it would probably have relocated London to North America and grown into its much larger continental shell, like an extremely ambitious hermit crab upgrading to a much larger cockle shell. Instead the "British Empire" wrote off the vast American continent because the price of quelling a few colonial militias wasn't worth the additional tobacco revenues it might generate, especially when the all-important West Indian sugar revenues had to be protected. This petty focus on immediate gains and losses ultimately damned it.
The much more polyglot West that grew up in the geopolitical vacuum left by the shrinking British Empire (i.e. American-led "globalism") eventually, and via a couple of World Wars, worked out a form of ideology to differentiate it from Eurasian rivals. This gave it a loose unity as well as a morality that could be weaponised on occasion. But, make no mistake about it, this was an extremely weak, bastardised, and cobbled together ideology, and we are paying the costs for it today.
There was post-Protestant-Christian stuff in there about "muh individualism" and "equality," and even "universal human rights" that could easily be extended to whales and chimps. But its main feature was that it was all mixed up in a bucket with a stick and left in a dark cupboard under the stairs.
This ideology didn't work, but it didn't not work either. This was mainly because of the "cupboard under the stairs" bit. As I said above, parts of it could occasionally be weaponised for fleeting purposes.
The stuff about "liberty" was handy for standing up to those necessarily more centralised and authoritarian land-locked Eurasian societies, while the guff about "equality" was ideal lubricant for building up wide-ranging coalitions that allowed "outsourcing" of the grimmer parts of any geopolitical struggle.
The key point, however, was that when it wasn't needed, this ill-defined and logically incoherent ideological monstrosity could be kept behind the bushes or veiled in the mists, as society proceeded merrily on its inherently unequal, anti-Christian, and unindividualistic way.
 |
| Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch (aka our foundational ideology)! |
It was the Internet that changed all this.
It sadly ended the cosy arrangement of having ideological foundations that you didn't have to live by. The absurd premises of "total equality" and even total equivalence, long buried in the dark foundations of our society were exhumed and revealed to the relentless light of logic and insanity (often two sides of the same coin) that was generated by our now essentially gateless internet culture.
"If we're all equal, why are Whites still much richer than Blacks, and why is there so much Black crime?" the innocents asked with the shining eyes of the truly ignorant.
"If women and men are equivalent, why are men bigger and have dicks?" they then attempted.
It was better that such questions, which flowed directly from the insane premises of our societal ideology, were not asked, and under the old gatekeeper media they were kept on a relatively tight rein. But like an uncomprehending child asking "How do all the little people fit in the TV?" they were—again and again—provoking history and HBD lessons from the less naive that were nevertheless powerless to answer them in a society that still insisted on its sacred taboos.
 |
| Think about the logic of this statement and what it means for America's immigration policy. |
These history and HBD lessons are, in essence, what the Dissident Right represents, and why, despite its suppression, it remains an immense threat to the ideological status quo.
The only real way out of this major conundrum is to completely rewrite the entire ideological DNA of our civilisation so that it takes cognisance of significant realities in a coherent way. In fact, if we don't, the West will surely sputter out and die. But rewriting the entire ideological DNA of our civilisation is not easy either, and cuts directly against the parochial interests of our blind power elites. (Check out James Lawrence on how our ruling class has lost its "brahmin" side.)
This leaves only one other solution—the papering-over-the-cracks, sticking-things-together-with-duct-tape, shoving-the-toothpaste-back-into-the-tube one.
Rather than rewrite the entire ideological DNA of the West, is it possible to return to a previous state of ideological "soft focus," innocence, or amnesia, in which awkward questions and over-rigorous logic trains are kept off the rails? Can the obviously shambolic ideology of our near-blind civilisation be kept from the vortex of thought processes created by a gate-keeper-free internet?
But banning just the Dissident Right and nothing else was never going to do it.
As long as the toxic and radical Left is allowed to run around with the exhumed corpses of the egalitarian premises of our clearly inegalitarian society and world and—with the full assistance of the mainstream media—rub them in the faces of the masses, the insanity can only increase. And this insanity will ensure a reaction towards order, one that can only come from the Dissident Right. Like the heads of the hydra it will be ever-renewing, no matter how much cutting is done!
All that most people will see of this will be years and years of insanity and cognitive chaos, something that will ultimately turbo-charge the urge to order in ways that none of us can yet calculate.
Colin Liddell was the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the famous and the dead. Support his work by buying it here.
