Now, this is much more serious.
I would much rather discuss things like this than endless Alt-Right soap operas. I’ve wasted a week of my time responding to the Daily Drama Queen.
“What, exactly, do you want?” Liberal critics put the question to the post-fusionist American right in various ways. At times they ask it earnestly, at times with a sneer, and not infrequently with undisguised contempt. It seems that no political argument can be properly digested unless it comes with policy proposals stippled by bullet points. But the new American right seeks to challenge the philosophical parameters within which wonks allow that we may formulate policy. …”
Right on.
I agree with all of this.
Liberalism is the root of the problem and so our focus has to be on metapolitics. The symptoms of liberalism that we are reacting to whether it is free love or transgenderism or anti-racism or deracination or open borders and so on are all downstream from the liberal paradigm.
“For the past two generations, American conservatives have been focused on liberty, first in the fight against communist totalitarianism, then in a more undifferentiated way in our resistance to “regulation.” But today our challenges are different. Our society is fragmented, atomized, and morally disoriented. The new American right seeks to address these crises—and to do so we need a politics of limits, not of individual autonomy and deregulation. …”
APPLAUSE.
This is absolutely correct.
The Evil Empire won the Cold War. It was the empire of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism which has done just as much damage to our culture as communism.
“Progressive liberals are quite open about their aim: to raze all structures that stand in the way of an empire of autonomy-maximizing norms, an empire populated by the “free individual who no longer acknowledges any limits,” as Pierre Manent has written. Conservative liberals and libertarians share in this view of the highest good: The unfettered life is the best life. Most recognize the need for some limits, at least against freedoms that harm others. But the regulative ideal remains always operative: an ideal of ever-greater autonomy won through the removal of limits. …”
Right on.
The goal of progressive liberalism is to demolish the social order and to unravel our culture in order to “liberate” its subject the individual. Specifically, this is to be done to people of European ancestry, but to no one else. On the contrary, their collective identities are to be celebrated because political correctness and multiculturalism have become dominant in the mainstream since the 1970s.
“But the new right begins from a different premise: that a great deal of our peaceful freedom is already lost. The free world doesn’t feel free, because often it isn’t. But this new unfreedom doesn’t arise from a dearth of individual liberties. The modern West is unfree because it is irresponsible, unbounded, unattached. …”
Yes, it is these attachments that make life rich and meaningful – whether it is your religion, your family, your ethnicity, etc. – and when people don’t have those attachments and relationships their lives become disordered. They become sick and go crazy. It is the advance of liberalism – the expansion of “freedom” at the expense of every other good in life – that has brought about this situation.
“Overthrowing these limits prevents us from making lifelong commitments and plunges us into sterile decadence. Our consequent dysfunction frequently necessitates restrictions more onerous than any imposed by nature or tradition. The vast administrative state arises in order to regulate societies that have been deregulated by an individualistic liberalism. …”
Yes, I agree with this too.
Look no further than the family that was destroyed. We are surrounded by people who are living with and suffering the consequences of “creative destruction.” They have been deracinated. They are immersed in cultural poison in the mainstream. The economic life blood of their communities has been destroyed by neoliberal economics. Their cultural environment has become so toxic over the past two generations that they don’t even want to reproduce.
“A kind of paralysis, accompanied by intense but often meaningless virtual activity, is the typical psychological experience of our time. Great sacrifices—that is, great acts of freedom—require the psychological comfort that comes of knowing one stands on solid ground, with a clear path stretching behind (from the past) and extending ahead (into the future). That path is the ordered continuity of tradition. …”
This is also my perspective.
I’m a Southern conservative. Not a mainstream conservative. I don’t like the term “conservatism” though because it is so tainted. It is Northern conservatism.
“Conservative liberalism is helpless in the face of these dynamics. No less than progressive liberalism, the conservative variant is wedded to the quest for greater individual autonomy for its own sake. To be sure, the conservative movement often clings to certain pre-liberal habits, institutions, and beliefs, but over the last two decades it has come to deny them any substantive primacy in the public square. The mainstream right and left have merged. The left emphasizes moral autonomy, while the right emphasizes market freedoms. For both, the highest end of politics is the pursuit of autonomy and care for the procedures that maximize autonomy. …”
LOL … 100% alignment on this too.
I’m reading the essay and like in virtually the next paragraph Ahmari has anticipated what I would say.
“At best, the feckless conservative liberal shouts, “This far, but no farther!” as one cherished ideal after another falls to the idol of freedom without limits. At worst, the conservative liberal declares with George Will that, actually, the task of conservatism today is to help people accommodate themselves to ceaseless disruption. …”
He’s talking about the cuckservatives here who we all find ridiculous. These are people like French who have mainstream media gigs because they are losers. The way this works is that the Left selects its opposition and declares it “respectable” and then the “respectable” conservatives police the “mainstream” on behalf of the Left. This is David French’s primary focus.
“The right claims to guard freedoms, whereas the left insists that we must take affirmative action, as it were, to ensure true freedom. Many, if not most, of our disputes can be mapped onto these two configurations, both of which treat freedom without limits as the highest good.”
Exactly right.
“In the present moment, the new right’s most urgent priority is to resist efforts by liberals, both progressive and conservative, to oppose by underhanded procedural means the desire voters are expressing for a politics of the common good. …”
Great article, Sohrab.
Even as a Lutheran, I agreed with every word of it.
Why is he, lol, holding up the Vatican flag? What is that all about? What does the Vatican flag have to do with the New American Right? LOL….
He is a Catholic by conversion.
Some alt-righters are pushing for a pre-Vatican II Catholicism.
Yes. That’s gonna help.
Useless. If you’re not a papist, you’re not a Catholic. Everyone who doesn’t bow and kiss the ring is a heretic, that’s their eternal policy. Pre-Vatican 2 popery is a LARP
Actually no. Pope Frank is a heretic and illlegit, many Catholics believe this, and blame the Khazarian Pederast/Trotskyist infiltration of the Church and want to clean it. But Sectarians like yourself are the problem, it’s easy enough for my to call all American Protestants Zionist POS’s. But I realize that every Church has its infiltration to deal with and chose to ally with PEOPLE WHO GET IT regardless of sect. Rick Wiles, Texe Marrs, and Pastor Anderson are protestant but I would get along with them better than any modernist Catholic.
America was built by Protestants, take your popery back to rome cuck.
New America is going to be a third world Latin American shit hole, so the new american right must adopt a third world shit hole religion, i.e. Catholicism.
Sohrab Amahri – a good, solid, Yankee name. NOT.
NO ONE but a White Christian can ever speak for the Heritage American population of this land. And even some of them are nothing but fifth columnists (David French). We might as well be consistent. If we are excluding Jews, Bolsheviks, Pagans, and the Darkie from our discourse, (as well as psychotic little men in the pay of Jews) why include those who aren’t even close to us, in racial alignment? How can one even CONSIDER this as a possible option?
And Joe is correct. What the divvil is this ‘xenos’ doing with a Papal flag folder, as if he has somehow been appointed papal legate to the Post-Alt Right, now that he is a columnist for First Things, while still being a columnist for the JEW York Post!? I trust neither Xenoi, nor the Bergoglian post-Catholic papacy and her apparatchniks. And as a Lutheran, HW, you should be even more suspect.
You sound like you did at the first appearance of Andrew Yang (and I was just as guilty). Just sayin’…..
This guy is echoing my worldview.
I haven’t changed my views at all. I’ve always had a larger philosophical outlook.
Hunter – the system that’s destroyed everything is JEWISH. Go on that site and see what happens when you point out the role of Jews, in the destruction of the West.
Sohrab Amahri? When liberalism ends, that swarthy fellow will be deported back to Iran.
Even the lolbertarian party has been cucked by the left, saying that “racists” aren’t welcome. To show how culturally dominated they are by the insane left, popular libertarians like Tom Woods and Dave Smith (Smith is Jewish, btw) that didn’t sign their recent anti-racist pledge are being treated as anathema by the LP’s leadership. Way to further marginalize yourselves, dopes.
Those are the crossed keys of the papacy, of Rome. The same empire that sent their masons to destroy America by building the federal government aka “Rome on the Potomac” The papists have always been the enemies of the South, which is Protestant.
First the yang gang shite, and now the support of a papist? Just stand up for what you are Brad. WASP America was best America, and is the core of the South.
race mixed popery. definitely not a solution. The foundation of a nation is ethnicity+religion. if either one of those don’t match you have nothing. race is not specific enough, and religious unity is an absolute must. politics is less important and will be informed by both the people, religion, and circumstance.
WASPs FTW
Liberals scorn God, country, organic community, and family–the primary loyalties that give meaning and purpose to human existence.Thus at the core of their hubris is despair, a sickness unto death. As misery enjoys company, they want to force their death wish onto the rest of us. In the fashion of Jim Jones, they insist that we drink their kool-aid.. .
I don’t like to identify with the Right because no matter how far or extreme it can get the Right is still part of ZOG’s ideological system. National Socialists transcended the old Left-Right model and attempted to incorporate the best elements of both.
Why should anyone care what some Arab Catholic thinks about the “American right.” If Jews are #1 in the list of “opinions that don’t matter,” Catholics and Arabs are 2 and 3.
Damn, Brad is censoring comments that don’t break the rules now? What’s up twitter?
No, I went to sleep man.
my comment disappeared though
Might be in the spam filter.
Remember this tweet?
Sohrab Ahmari
?Verified account @SohrabAhmari
Part of our work is recovering the Hispano-Catholic Founding of America, which, as a priest friend reminded me tonight, enjoyed a much wider geographic sphere and cultural span than did the second, Anglo Founding.
6:37 PM – 21 Jun 2019
If you try to retreat into idea politics, you are going to be in for a rude awakening, because identity politics is still operating behind the scenes, behind the ideological mask.
To forestall the threat of White identity politics the regime will put forward surrogate ideologies which incorporate elements of the truth but which fundamentally serve to rationalize, rather than challenge the status quo: that status quo being white dispossession.
While the National Conservatives or Trad Caths might never be allowed to take power directly, they can serve as a new loyal, anti-racist, philo-Semitic opposition, shaping and defining the right. Just as Trump ultimately ended up solidifying conservatism as pro-gay, these people can shape the American right to accept intrusive government and limitations on speech and gun rights (which are coming anyway).
See the Trad-Cath critique of traditional American “Tyrannophobia”.
Pay attention to one thing; is it good for [s]Whites[/s] Southerners?
“Sound morals for the brown people who replace us” is the new version of “Sound money for the brown people who replace us”
Couple of things. I might take some flak for this, but am willing to take the heat. First, I am against The Confederacy for all the “wrong” reasons. It was terrible for White People. Slavery was a raw deal for poor whites in The South. As Jim Goad has said, “It was the descendants of non-slave holders that had to atone for the sins of Slave Holders”. Second, there are a lot of Trad Catholics who are absolutely enthralled by The Confederacy and have made the argument that The Confederacy was “Catholic” in spirit. Third, The Confederacy was in some ways more influenced by Freemasonry and Jews than Yankee Land.
Left liberal and right liberal agree with Rousseau that people must be forced to be free. The right liberal wishes to do this indirectly as a consequence of individual and widespread economic exchange. Before, the left liberal wanted to do this directly through government coercion. Today left liberals are moving away from exclusive reliance on the state and joining the right liberal in using the corporation to force feed “freedom” upon the people. Where they disagree is whether this should be done directly through “Woke” corporations or indirectly through simple market forces operating on people who have been reduced to being consumers as their defining identity.To the right liberal, once people have been stripped through market forces of the irrational restraints of their traditional identities, only then will they be free to be truly considered individuals; to the left liberal more direct action by corporations is needed for there to be truly free individuals. Creating such individuals is the common goal of both brands of liberalism.
@William
E. Michael Jones is right about a couple of things (but borderline retarded on race). One thing he is spot on about, is how the left abandoned criticizing economics and made a deal with the devil. He mentions that CEOs, Jews, and Homosexuals have formed an alliance to subvert the population.