- Joined
- May 19, 2026
- Messages
- 1,448
- Thread Author
- #1
You talk to normies, and the majority cannot define right wing. What is the right was the subject of the discussions done in "new right" masonries and nouvelle droite and so on. It was a topic popular during 2000s, it faded in popularity later.
People went to search what is the deepest way to be right winger. In normie public jargon we only got a glimpse of this discussion, for instance people talked about "returning to the past", and majority imagined the postcard lifestyle of america family of the 50s. This is entry level normie jargon, which is often a bastardized version of what is the broader topic.
I listened and read to a big portion of these people. I noticed they were far more coherent than a normie, and they avoided 90% of the problems of the common man, and they did not get trapped in this nonsense where they worship a period in history or some past reformist king. Problem is they didnt still define what is the right.
Jonathan Bowden is often quoted on the internet as "the man with answers", and indeed hes far superior compared to an average incel on a forum, but he ended up defining right wing as "order and hierarchy" and left as chaotic anti order. I thought its complete nonsense, but at some level I understood why he was forced to use mythology. Other right wingers also stopped talk about politics and reached the conclusion of doing mythology and researching archetypes and so on. Again, its not bad as an attitude, but its something that for sure will never define the opposition vs "the left".
Another thing done by this "intellectual right" was defining universalism vs their peculiar boundaries. If you imagine left as some sort of egalitarian universal logic, you can oppose it by using your own "muh meaning" that develops inside smaller circles. Problem is the tendency of leftists does not prohibit to have localized meaning and symbols, and it seems to me another false distinction.
One position hat seems more solid is to say right wing can believe in differentiation and inequality. Instead the left can believe in equality and think hierarchy is artifical. Even then, I think right wing often complains about "unnatural hierarchy", so they become leftist in their own definition arguin about a particular social situation is corrupt or a construct. While leftists create artificial hierarchy based on nothing but social construction.
Anarchy exists both right and left. Leftists disparage anarchy of the right. But right wingers disparage their anarchy. Point being both do it.
View man: rising beast vs fallen angel. This is another attempt to differentiate right vs left. If youre right, youre presumed to think man is rising from a primitive state and left would be you think man is falling. Point is that theres lots right wingers who presume evolution is fake (giulio ebola does it) and races degenerate and they were pure once. Leftists also have no problem whatsoever using the philosophy of "Becoming" for instance they use it often to justify trans people.
Free market seems a "strong logic", it can allow you to define the right winger as a freedom advocate. And yet again is a cope, because theres several examples of people who do it on communist terms, and complain bout nazism being too restrictive as a market .
Politicized vs depoliticized is another cope. Populists vs haughty is a cope. Both left and right can be populist or non populist depending when they profit from it.
Its also not true right wingers believe in inequality. Incel scene is an example, lots of people (approx 90%) strongly favor equality, and yet they are all right wingers. Simply put, their preferred form of equality is denied. Incels often are found arguing for state redistributing vegene, or church. Leftists in this case advocate for autonomy and consent of the governed.
Roles switch, moods stay the same. Which is why I go around saying politics isnt based on principles or difference where you seat in a pariament assembly. Instead is based on temperament, genetics, your mood and your vibe. In other words in my mind politics is a teamsport, where you do all to favor your team, and disfavor the other team. Which team you align with, depends on your mood, your temporary bias and what principles you value. Some of these principles are also "innate" if you allow me to use this word.
People went to search what is the deepest way to be right winger. In normie public jargon we only got a glimpse of this discussion, for instance people talked about "returning to the past", and majority imagined the postcard lifestyle of america family of the 50s. This is entry level normie jargon, which is often a bastardized version of what is the broader topic.
I listened and read to a big portion of these people. I noticed they were far more coherent than a normie, and they avoided 90% of the problems of the common man, and they did not get trapped in this nonsense where they worship a period in history or some past reformist king. Problem is they didnt still define what is the right.
Jonathan Bowden is often quoted on the internet as "the man with answers", and indeed hes far superior compared to an average incel on a forum, but he ended up defining right wing as "order and hierarchy" and left as chaotic anti order. I thought its complete nonsense, but at some level I understood why he was forced to use mythology. Other right wingers also stopped talk about politics and reached the conclusion of doing mythology and researching archetypes and so on. Again, its not bad as an attitude, but its something that for sure will never define the opposition vs "the left".
Another thing done by this "intellectual right" was defining universalism vs their peculiar boundaries. If you imagine left as some sort of egalitarian universal logic, you can oppose it by using your own "muh meaning" that develops inside smaller circles. Problem is the tendency of leftists does not prohibit to have localized meaning and symbols, and it seems to me another false distinction.
One position hat seems more solid is to say right wing can believe in differentiation and inequality. Instead the left can believe in equality and think hierarchy is artifical. Even then, I think right wing often complains about "unnatural hierarchy", so they become leftist in their own definition arguin about a particular social situation is corrupt or a construct. While leftists create artificial hierarchy based on nothing but social construction.
Anarchy exists both right and left. Leftists disparage anarchy of the right. But right wingers disparage their anarchy. Point being both do it.
View man: rising beast vs fallen angel. This is another attempt to differentiate right vs left. If youre right, youre presumed to think man is rising from a primitive state and left would be you think man is falling. Point is that theres lots right wingers who presume evolution is fake (giulio ebola does it) and races degenerate and they were pure once. Leftists also have no problem whatsoever using the philosophy of "Becoming" for instance they use it often to justify trans people.
Free market seems a "strong logic", it can allow you to define the right winger as a freedom advocate. And yet again is a cope, because theres several examples of people who do it on communist terms, and complain bout nazism being too restrictive as a market .
Politicized vs depoliticized is another cope. Populists vs haughty is a cope. Both left and right can be populist or non populist depending when they profit from it.
Its also not true right wingers believe in inequality. Incel scene is an example, lots of people (approx 90%) strongly favor equality, and yet they are all right wingers. Simply put, their preferred form of equality is denied. Incels often are found arguing for state redistributing vegene, or church. Leftists in this case advocate for autonomy and consent of the governed.
Roles switch, moods stay the same. Which is why I go around saying politics isnt based on principles or difference where you seat in a pariament assembly. Instead is based on temperament, genetics, your mood and your vibe. In other words in my mind politics is a teamsport, where you do all to favor your team, and disfavor the other team. Which team you align with, depends on your mood, your temporary bias and what principles you value. Some of these principles are also "innate" if you allow me to use this word.
