A True Elite & the Alternative Right

Recently, here at West Coast Reactionaries, there has been talk from many perspectives about the relationship between a genuine spiritual elite and the cultural sensation so-called the “Alternative Right.” Largely spurred by James’ article and the comments section thereunder, people are considering questions of high and low, proper and improper. This I cannot fault overmuch; but I do believe the discussion is too tempered by a “black and white” approach regarding being “for” or “against” this brand of elitism.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of human beings are not spiritually elite; by this we mean they are not awake to God or Divine Truth in any meaningful way — even the inclination or potential is absent. The mass man cannot peer through the Eye of the Heart1 because it is closed to him, and this is why, in Traditional civilisation (that is to say, ordered civilisation), the caste system existed whereby society is led by those capable of interpreting the Divine as opposed to those who cannot. In Modern civilisation, however, the social order does not recognise caste2; for example, being a brahmin in fact lessens one’s status, socially-speaking, as one won’t care for bourgeois sensibility or money — however, caste still exists, even if its proper contextualisation on the social plane doesn’t. And it must be admitted that the vast majority of people involved with the Alt. Right are not brahmin or even kshatriya — in the worst cases, outcastes are amid the horde of YouTubers, bloggers and personalities. This isn’t shocking or confusing, but merely a reflection of (in particular, Occidental) man’s lack of coherent form at the present, manifest both inwardly in the sense of how little Modern men know of themselves, and outwardly in the sense of a chaotic and improper social order led by merchants and worse.

The Alt. Right is a product of Modern civilisation and largely exists within its paradigms and values; hence, for example, Nationalism is the predominant ideology amid Alt. Righters,3 an ideology which arose in direct contrast to the remaining visages of Tradition around the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (in England and France particularly). There is a confusion of sorts here, as most of the young men involved with the Alt. Right won’t have an indepth knowledge of political history, and, to them, Nationalism is merely the antithesis of Globalism; a sentiment re-inforced by the contemporary progressive’s paradoxical facilitation of global Capitalism, and, by levelling the playing-field, the progressive’s desire to remove all variables beyond money and material concerns (no races, no religions, no cultures, no countries, etc.). A closer examination regarding Nationalism tells us clearly that, although a concern for one’s own kin and type is totally just and natural, the political implications of Nationalism go beyond rejecting the twin-headed hydra of moral progressivism and international finance, and into accepting levelling and centralising the nation from a political and managerial point of view. We can quote, at length, Julius Evola‘s Notes on the Third Reich for an exploration of this phenomenon of inorganic levelling and centralising contextualised via Adolf Hitler’s Germany in the middle-twentieth century:

An initiative Hitler undertook already in the period when Hindenburg was still head of state, and which had an anti-traditional character, was extending the Gleichschaltung also to the Länder, the individual regional entities that in their partial autonomy and sovereignty corresponded to the various kingdoms, principalities and free cities of the federation of which the Second Reich was composed, with Prussia enjoying a pre-eminent position among them. These were abolished one after another, and the individual Länder were integrated in the central government by taking on the character of Gaue, areas headed by functionaries of the Reich’s central government, who were no longer representatives of the corresponding communities. Prussia was the first to undergo this fate under the leadership, unfortunately, of von Papen, a Rightist. Even Hindenburg said nothing to oppose this development, which amounted to a policy of centralising and levelling. Once again the excuse given was the need of a total organisation of all forces with the goal being the maximisation of efficiency. Emphasis was placed on the fact that by this policy Germany had become, for the first time in its history, unified as a “nation” (in the sense of modern nationalism). From our point of view, however, the negative aspect of the initiative is clear, since the previous system of a superior central authority combined with a group of smaller political units that enjoyed partial autonomy had an organic and qualitative character, which is traditional in a superior sense. In this regard Germany had presented, among all the modern European nations, an outstanding example.

[NOTE: In relation to this German “national” unification effected by Hitler, we can point out the opposition between the type of Italy’s unification, which had an analogous character, and the one effected by Bismarck with the creation of the Second Reich. This last unification had an organic character from above and was based on the agreement of the sovereigns of individual countries that maintained their traditional structure, and not through the “people.” On the contrary, Italy became one, in the so-called Risorgimento, under the standard of ideologies that went back to the French Revolution and according to the “nationalism” that derived from it.]4

Nevertheless, in spite of such ideological limitations, there are people who have found themselves in such a community, lost and disorientated as be many a young man, who do indeed step beyond the confines of the Modern playground. As I have said repeatedly, the Alt. Right is a network of various forces, groups and persons, and it is unfair and unproductive to paint with too broad a stroke. Criticising Nationalism doesn’t equal criticising the Alt. Right, but criticising the Alt. Right can equal criticising Nationalism if the particular person or people engaged with happen to subscribe to such an ideology. Hence, it is fair to lecture an individual about his behaviour if such a lecture is both instructive and constructive; the particularities of the situation must be considered in order to diagnose the specific problem and then form a specific treatment. James in his article lamenting the often childish and immature behaviour of many within the Alt. Right, whilst justified and not incorrect, is not constructive as he is not dealing with any particular persons, but, rather a squabble of faceless individual ideologues. Making statements and firmly pushing one’s feet into the ground before oneself is no error in and of itself — in fact the affirmation of one’s sensibilities is a must in the dreary stupour of Modernity, an anchor in the storm, so to speak — but to observe the need for proper order and leadership without actualising this deed in oneself and activities is a trap I worry many fall within. I can excuse James here as he indeed is involved in the teacher/student artform with certain persons, but I do believe it was a mistake on his part not to emphasise this point, the need for guidance, until the very last paragraph of his article. The Alt. Right, and persons who’re involved with that community, can only have a chance to grow and to improve if those above them extend their arms in friendship and respect. This can only happen on the individual, person-to-person level for the most part. Although voices amid the chaos may become louder than others in order to be paid attention to, the necessary changes which are required on the part of Modern individuals are so serious and so deep that listening from afar is simply not enough for many young men. They require hands-on and direct teaching from their betters who wish to see them grow and improve — and not out of frustration or a hatred for Modernity, but for love of the person and a desire to see them open their eyes in a full and proper manner.

I understand why many so-called perennialists and Tradition-friendly people turn their noses up at mass-cultural spectacles like the Alt. Right and co., and it is very true that the vast majority of people involved in such things are so ensnared by Modernity that they’ll smack-aside any hands outstretched to assist them properly, whatever the case. However, I think to forsake the very possibility of being a teacher, however humbly, is, if one does indeed have a vantage point, a grave error. Genuine human relationships are an enigma to the Modern world, and part of a reconstruction and a rediscovery of proper order takes place not only inwardly, in the understanding of nous or thumos depending upon one’s nature, but also in the formation of proper bonds with other people and the transmission of knowledge between teacher and student. This hierarchy cannot be forsaken simply because one is “too good” to get one’s hands unclean. Teachers of the world, do not be confused or upset if would-be students are lost and ignorant without your presence. The nature of such possibilities, of these possible encounters, will doubtless be personal and deeply confidential; the few diamonds amid the rough will demand close inspection and may be difficult to find. But the higher man will know this; he shouldn’t be concerned with the masses and those of such a bent within the Alt. Right — rather, those few worth paying attention to.

The world as it stands is Godless, fatherless and leaderless — the only way to correct this abominable condition is to actively resist it, is to give order to chaos. We must tend to our fellows and our world whether as teachers or students, and in doing so, in fulfilling our roles, we tend to ourselves.


1. Ephesians 1:18

2. “Caste” in the true, spiritual sense; not pointless Neo-Reactionary miswording, a la calling people who work for Google or Microsoft “brahmin.”

3. By this we mean a secular Nationalism, which is often confused with patriotism and a love for one’s thede. One can be loyal to one’s family without being a Nationalist in the political sense.

4. Julius Evola, Notes on the Third Reich, chapter two

Advertisements
Adam

As a man among men, I can learn.

15 thoughts on “A True Elite & the Alternative Right

  1. That’s all well and good , Adam , but if the teachers are infected by the same popular euphoria as their students (as with some cases that believe that Total War is the only form of warfare against modernity) , then it’s no good at all . The teachers , if they claim to be such , have to let go of their infatuation with the alt-right and approach it with eyes wide open to the same fundamental conceits that the alt-right possesses that their liberal counterparts expound . The teachers have to demonstrate their superiority through their own moral character and that includes what they encourage and permit among their students . You speak well when you call for teachers , but in order to be a teacher , one must prove themselves worthy of the task . Any teacher worthy of leading would not encourage or sugar coat the barbarism of his students .

    Lastly , It is not the responsibility of the teacher to be permissive of the student . It is the responsibility of the student to accept the moral superiority of the “good teacher” . To that end , no one who holds to better standards rejects teaching the alt-right , it is the alt-right who rejects any spiritual ascendance . And can we blame most of them ? No , but that was never the point of what i was discussing earlier . They don’t know any better . The ones who do know better–or claim to know better–are the ones in need of re-examination .

    1. You’ve repeated my words moreorless; it’s a strawman to suggest, though, that I consider teachers who aren’t aware of their position nor able to assume it to in fact be teachers, and that I believe a teacher should indeed not tell his student to improve. As it is with what the student accepts — my approach is assuming that those who’re differentiated are aware of it properly, not merely that they “think” they’re a teacher or a student, but to “be.”

  2. A passage from Hegel is perhaps instructive here:

    “Every kind of falsehood and truth is present in public opinion, but it is the business of the great man to discover the truth within it. He who expresses the will of his age, tells it what its will is, and accomplishes this will, is the great man of the age. What he does is the essence and inner content of the age, and he gives the latter actuality; and no one can achieve anything great, unless he is able to despise public opinion as he here and there encounters it.”

  3. I think the difference between capital ‘N’ Nationalism and small ‘n’ nationalism always needs to be pointed out. Small ‘n’ nationalism isn’t really much of an ideology. Great piece as always Adam.

  4. LOL. Wasn’t an “intellectual” a product of the Enlightenment?

    It would seem to me as intellectuals you’d be interested in controlling the arts and the mass media-entertainment software. What are your plans for, say, the Tate Modren? Will you set up Degenerate Art Exhibitions and Great Westren Art Exhibitions once you attain power? What will be the criteria? Is Picasso degenerate? Matisse? The Impressionists?

    And then there is architecture. How do you prevent the International Syle or should you?

    And how will you cleanse Hollywood, theatre or professional sports?

          1. I’ve lived and worked in India but you know far more than me.

            I can’t help but notice you guys and Citadel can’t even influence people who are nominally sympathetic to your cause. Constantly lashing out and calling everybody stupid doens’t seem like a good strategy.

            1. I haven’t called anyone stupid, I merely stated the obvious that you do not understand what I’m talking about. Brahmin is a caste, something explained in my article (I even hyperlinked another article about the topic), yet you took it to mean bourgeois intellectual. Me explaining this fact to you is totally neutral — you’re the one getting defensive unnecessarily.

              1. You have to be born into the caste to be a Brahmin. You weren’t. Ergo, you’re bourgeois just like James and Citadel. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, 3/4 of the planet would give their right arm to be in your shoes.

                  1. Surely, if you have the talent you could can go into just about any field these days in England no matter what background.. Not so in India.

                    Woody Allen likes to say, or imply, how sensitve he is in his OWN MOVIE. It’s a cheap shot: I’m sensitive and if you don’t like my movie you’re not. You guys ought to think about that. Just my advice. Sorry gotta go.

  5. I am an American who very much was upset by your virulent disgust with White identity or at advocating for ‘White’ people. I stand by my views, but I was drawn to your website in which to better understand your perspective and to create a better argument on the subject myself…but I find myself being taken aside by much of your writing. It’s quite engaging.

    However, I do not feel the same way about your audience/other reactionaries here as I do of you. The people who I think read your writing, and this particular piece, are not on the same tier intellectually, but desperately wish to be. Those reactionaries seek out your work and mimic you to feel justification of being above the mob. The mob now being the alt-Right which will collapse because nobody is content with feeling “stupid/inferior” at the hands of somewhat-intelligent reactionaries. These reactionaries who latch onto you are not of the same class to be acting as teachers – but think they are. I’m speaking of ‘fortresses’, ‘mugs’, etc., and other Youtube reactionaries. This issue is echoing throughout the reactosphere/alt-Right/XYZ. It only breeds resentment and conflict and will dissolve much of it. I am quite fond of the mob.

    It is very natural to want recognition and to stand out above others, but many who believe they are of a higher class I don’t think actually are. It is the same with arguments of IQ. The lowest, least intelligent of a group will always bring up their group’s IQ for feelings of superiority then return to their mindless ways.

    Nevertheless, this work is much better than your Youtube discussions with the herd. You should do more meaningful pieces on Youtube as well.

    And I am new here but I hope to stay a while and absorb the process. Thank you for your time.

    1. When you meet people in person, all becomes clear — hence networking and the like is important. The gaze and handshake of a man say more about him than his abilities at polemic or proficiency with a keyboard and a dictionary.

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