Crossing the Bar*

The biggest problem the Dissident Right faces is, how do we ferry Normie over to this side of the river? It’s not sufficient to say “well, the Left is going to blow the world up, and the resulting hardship will take care of it.” Because that’s not how it works, comrades, and you know it. Formerly prosperous societies that face material hardship always go hard Left, and while you could argue that the Russians of 1917 didn’t know any better, the tendency is no less pronounced after 100 years of the most conclusive proof that Marxism doesn’t work. Unless you want our stupid, feckless, senile Left replaced by a Left that has its shit together, getting a critical mass on our side before the crash needs to be your number one concern.

Forget political philosophy; that stuff is way down the line. The first thing to do is to counter Leftism’s emotional appeal. For as much as we all recognize that the Left runs on nothing but spite and envy, it’s remarkable how few people really acknowledge this. Trying to reason a fanatic out of his fanaticism is like asking your cat to factor quadratics — not only can’t he do it, he’s not even able to comprehend that you’re asking him to do something. It doesn’t compute.

We’re dealing with emotion, kameraden. Think of your last big fight with your girlfriend, and let me know how well your unassailable facts, your airtight logic, worked out for you.

That’s the reason the old Right (back when that term meant something) lost every fight with the Left. Even when they saw it, they didn’t really grasp it. For instance, there’s a reason I’ve never read a single other word by Henry Hazlitt, though he was a big league public intellectual in his day — he saw, but he didn’t know:

The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects – his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity.

That’s the best definition of “Leftism” ever penned. It describes Social Justice Warriors perfectly, though it was written in 1946. And still Hazlitt, like all his brethren on the Right, still kept trying to reason Leftists out of their Leftism.

I have no illusions that I’m in Hazlitt’s league, intellectually, but since nobody else has stepped up to the plate I guess it’s up to me to revise his definition. And since I’m already presuming to lecture my betters, I’m going to go for the quadruple axel, so even the French judge has to give me a 10. Here it is, in just five words:

“Social justice” is sacralized envy.

Which fits a lot better on a Pepe the Frog meme, you must admit.

Note also the slight, but important, change in emphasis — from “hate” to “envy.” Recall that Hazlitt was writing in 1946, when material deprivation was still a thing, even for Americans. Back then it was assumed that the hate sprang from the envy, which meant that the hatred could eventually be dissipated. It implied an endpoint. Hazlitt, like seemingly everyone else on the Right, took Lefties at their word — that some level of “equality,” by which they meant material prosperity, would cause the Left to finally hang up their jocks and hit the showers.

Three quarters of a century later, we know that’s not true. There’s nothing you could give them that would ever satisfy them. Go ahead, do it Jesus-style — turn the other cheek, give them your coat and your cloak, walk with them two miles, all that jazz. You know as well as I do what will happen — they’ll still hate you. It doesn’t matter what the “reasons” are. Before, they hated you because they didn’t have a coat and cloak. Now they’ve got yours, but they still hate you, because you’re right-handed, or blonde, or have webbed toes. Or because you don’t have webbed toes.

Whatever, something, anything. I won’t bother repeating the O’Brien quote from 1984; you’ve heard it enough by now to know what I mean when I say that for the Left, the point of envy is envy. They don’t envy you for what you have. They don’t even envy you for what you are. They just envy. The mere fact that you exist, a separate entity from them, means that they’re not all there is in the world. In other words — French judges, take note — we’re down to three words:

Leftism is solipsism.

They envy your mere existence, since you are the walking, talking proof that not everything in this world is as shriveled and petty and miserable as they are.

So what’s the counter to envy? How does one break through solipsism?

I’ll probably end up in hell for this, but Jesus himself gave us the answer. Again, this is probably rank heresy, but since my parish priest has been hiding under his desk for over a year now instead of ministering to the souls in his care, I can’t ask him, so let’s roll with it:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you…Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

There’s a very militant reading of that, kameraden, and it can be summed up — French judge, we’re down to just two words — “tough love.” There are either 39 or 46 books in the Old Testament, depending on whether or not you’re a Catholic, and in every blessed one of them, your perfect Father in heaven is smiting the shit out of somebody. Nobody this side of Hitler was harder on Yahweh’s chosen people than Yahweh himself. It is perfectly possible, in other words, to love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hurt you, etc., by giving them as many good swift kicks in the ass as they need.

Metaphorically, FBI goons, metaphorically.

Lefties are very sick people. Whether they’re incomplete, or just badly broken, is in many ways academic at this juncture, as is the question of whether or not they can be fixed. The point is, they must be resisted, militantly — and again, FBI goons, that’s a metaphor. Since I’m already going to roast in hell for heresy, let me end with a quote from the Gospel of Vader: Use your aggressive feelings, boy! Let the hate flow through you!

That’s how you start bringing Normie over — by doing exactly what Karl Marx did. He sacralized envy; we need to sacralize sanctimoniousness. We’re just plain better than you, you pathetic, solipsistic little pricks. Do you even know what bathroom to use today? Q.E. fucking D.

 

 

 


*Tennyson’s famous poem of that title is, of course, about death. I think the Dissident Right would work best — perhaps, “will work only” — as a renunciant movement, with actual vows to become dead to the world like monks of all religions do… but that’s a bit heavy for a Spring day, so we’ll leave it for another time.

Loading Likes...

15 thoughts on “Crossing the Bar*

  1. AvatarFifteenth Reader

    I am currently slogging through Burnham’s Suicide of the West, published in 1964. It’s a tedious slog, but it tells me a couple of things.

    First, the leftist march through the institutions was complete by the early 60’s. Burnham points out the same tiresome lefty tics, from never giving minorities bad grades, to always finding fault with Western nations, never with third worlders. Double standard, and all that. Blah, blah, blah, same old same old. And what was done about it? Nothing, the left has always had the institutions and the power.

    I’m still trying to figure out what Burnham’s point is. He hasn’t linked all the lefty ideas to his title “suicide of the west,” but then I haven’t finished the book yet. I can see it in current events, of course. But there’s been a further 60 years of decline since the book was written. But reading the book itself, I am not seeing what his thesis exactly is.

  2. Avatartexinole

    ” Before, they hated you because they didn’t have a coat and cloak. Now they’ve got yours, but they still hate you,”

    Because, deep down, they know without you they’d have no cloak. Without your horrendously wasteful free market they’d be hungry, without your white supremacy they’d have no easy-life-making tech, without your principles of free speech and association they’d be dead or worse.

    We don’t know if parasites enjoy or resent their lot in life, but, as the saying goes, “even a tapeworm turns away from pain”.

    1. SeverianSeverian Post author

      Just so. If it weren’t too esoteric for a modern audience, I’d say that a killer meme would be “infantile narcissism is no way to organize society.”

      [I’ve thought about doing a post on the ghost of Freud, but it’s probably too specialized a topic — not enough interest from general readers, but not juicy enough to be one of those “inside the ivory gulag” posts y’all seem to like. Anyway, for younger readers especially, “infantile narcissism” is one of many pop-Freudian buzzwords that were current about 40 years ago. “Anal retentive” and “daddy issues” were two others,, so I guess it’s not too hard to deduce that one of the main reasons pop Freudianism fell out of favor is that those three terms almost perfectly describe the Postmodern Left….

      Anyway, “infantile narcissism” (sometimes “primary narcissism”) refers to the observation that babies seemingly can’t distinguish between themselves and the rest of the world. The baby first learns that the world is something separate from itself when Mommy goes away for extended periods (which leads to “separation anxiety,” and yeah, though Freud was wrong on so many things, he sure does sound like he’s got SJWs nailed, don’t it?). IIRC, some babies never really get over their “infantile narcissism” and it leads to all kinds of problems in later life.

      Apparently hardcore Leftists never get over it at all. As texinole notes, your very existence refutes their primary narcissism, which is why they hate you — the world is more than just them.

      1. AvatarCodex

        Because some mommies and daddies never came back or waited to long before they did. Dr. Spock has a lot to answer for, and daycare and easy divorce just accelerated the damage.

  3. AvatarMBlanc46

    I think I get the general drift, but how does this work at the retail level? We 42, or however many we are, just start publicly taking on Lefty, and one hopes, reducing him/her/it to babbling and crying? And Normie takes in this scene, is heartened by it, and, next time he encounters Lefty, he tries the same tactic with him/her/it. Is this what it comes down to in practice, or did you have something else in mind?

    1. SeverianSeverian Post author

      I’d say “Being supercilious on Twitter and Faceborg” would be a good start, but I’ve proposed that to several groups on several forums, and was always told that this would just be “giving in to big tech” or something. (Not that YOU do this, but it seems to be the pattern. It’s a larger part of the “Dissident Right” tango, which has three steps:

      1) piss and moan that no one ever suggests concrete actions out in the real world,
      2) shit all over any concrete suggestion anyone offers for action out in the real world (usually accompanied by “hello fellow teens!” or cries of “FED!!!”)
      3) GOTO 1.

      Because apparently in the life or death struggle for Western Civ, it’s asking too much to take ten minutes to make a fake Facebook profile and copy/paste a few memes.

      1. AvatarMBlanc46

        Okay, you do mean start taking them on publicly and giving them a digital boot up the backside (when not in a position to give a more physical boot). I’m good with that. I can be one supercilious SOB.

  4. AvatarNuke1776

    The “tough love” thing seems to be what is causing so many churches to become “churches” these days – let’s call then xhyrches. I am a Protestant of the evangelical stripe, so I can’t speak for the mainline heretical types, but the obvious bludgeon for the past couple of decades against any professing believer is the LGBTQETCADNAUSEUM question. From Scripture and a very basic understanding of biology (so very basic, a penis is designed to go into a vagina for reproduction, kids. Chopping it off is not a very measured response to your feels), we know that the alphabet soup stuff is nonsense of the first order, and is clearly sinful. So it takes a mighty soft and decadent people to actually take it seriously and wonder whether we should accept such things in the church. The obvious and short answer is “no”, but people understandably struggle with the question of how to love people so afflicted.

    Unfortunately, the xhyrches answer the question by throwing out Scripture and shutting the mind off, since “tough love” is, well… tough. The overly emotional hand wringing that comes to pastors from people struggling with this sin is almost always of the “I can’t help who I am, why can’t you just accept me the way I am” type, and it can be difficult to provide a measured response of, “Accepting you this way will keep you on the highway to hell, including the suffering you will put yourself through in this life, never mind the wickedness and corruption we would be inviting into the church. Thankfully Jesus died so that one such as you could be saved and healed and live a new life.” A strong, manly pastor who knows his Good Book and the expectations of shephering a flock can do it. But no, instead we have sniveling cowards that water down the Gospel (if it ever even reaches their pulpits), who think “acceptance” and “inclusion” is how to stay “relevant” in this age. Thankfully, those xhyrches seem to be hemorrhaging members. Why bother going to so useless a place when you can get all the GoodFeels from the comfort of your couch binging Netflix?

  5. AvatarMaus

    Sev, no slight on you; but out of force of habit I read Z first. Lately, as I grind through the comments on a swelling tide of provocation, my thoughts crystalize and I gnash my teeth debating whether to flick mine, like so many drops of blood, sweat and tears, into the fetid pool. Today, I was gripped by the intuition that our times call for nothing less than unleashing a very un-Christian inner Beserker. With visions of the flaming pyres of my enemies soothing my bloodlust, I abstained and clicked through to RC. And lo, I find that you have once again already written well the thoughts I hesitated to make real by committing them to runes.
    As a former friar steeped in the Thomistic tradition, I long ago quit preaching that love is not some gooey feeling that warms the cockles of our hearts, but simply the decision to will the good of the other. That is, of course why a loving parent sometimes uses corporal punishment to discipline a child. What the world needs is, indeed, tough love in the form of a swift kick in the keester. Regrettably, too many people, including many so-called Christians, want the warm, gooey feelings instead of the difficulty of acting from a rightly ordered will; so they indulge where they should scourge. Amen, I say to you, I see no heresy in what you have written.

    1. Avatargedeon

      One of the fascinating paradoxes I have observed are the DR/NR priests extolling the virtue of violence while simultaneously shaming the debt default as a high sin.

      The primary weapon of our society’s enslavement is debt as opposed to a physical instrument of violence. Now, quality instruments of violence are necessary when the lenders make their move to change the game in an effort to seize the assets. The lenders will employ gratuitous violence in an effort to terrorize normies and objectors into accepting a path of less resistance and that we cannot abide. On a percentage basis, not many people want to even entertain going full-Beslan to achieve a reasonable political outcome. But, 7.5 billion is a lot of angry people and even 1/1mm is 7,500 doers.

      The reality is that those 7,500 doers -or whatever percentage you want to use- would be working on their cars, garden or home addition if enough people joined in a strategic debt default and said, “here’s the deal: possession is 10/10ths of the law and you can stuff that digitally signed contract and everyone call it a day.”

      If money is the primary instrument of war, you cannot escape fighting the war on that social plane.

  6. SeverianSeverian Post author

    Just for giggles I logged on to several “Easter” services from various denominations, including “my” local church. In my case, the diocese had just shuffled personnel around right before the big Gook Flu hoax, so I never actually met the new priest. He’s some African, of course, but at least he’s male and not obviously flaming, so… you know… there’s that.

    As opposed to the Episcopalians, who for my money are the biggest joke denomination out there. I don’t live anywhere near a campus anymore, but holy jeebus, that Episcopal service was straight out of College Town. The whole Star Wars cantina was there. The pastorette was a 5’2″, 250 lb. lesbian with a high-and-tight whitewall haircut that would bring a tear to the eye of the saltiest Parris Island DI. The surplice’s sleeves hid what I’m certain were many and copious tattoos, but she did have an eyebrow ring. The whole place was festooned with rainbow flags and BLM propaganda. I can’t say I watched the whole thing, but I never heard that “Jesus” guy referred to even once… though St. Floyd of the Holy Fentanyl Suppository was mentioned several times.

    I was going to tune in to see what some Joel Osteen-style clown had going on, but I figured I was close to suicidal enough already….

    1. Avatargedeon

      Rockefeller’s greatest accomplishment, according to him, was the University of Chicago. I don’t think it gets enough credit for our predicament. Yarvin, a Brown grad, had a particular animus for Harvard for some reason. In any case, checkout the staff at what was once a special place for people to exchange vows. They have no real statement of faith anymore.

      https://universitychurchchicago.org/about/history/

      John D. Rockefeller wasn’t the problem; his spawn were hyper-wealthy heirs looking to make a difference in contrast to their contemporary Howard Hughes who wanted to make a buck, date beautiful women and build stuff.

      https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/collex/exhibits/building-long-future/john-d-rockefeller
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_at_the_Crossroads

  7. Avatarjames wilson

    Social justice is the product of your imagination that you never practice yourself but which you seek to be imposed, especially upon others, by the collective of similar imaginations.

  8. Avatarjames wilson

    Von Mises
    The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply imbedded in the human will from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, and sweeter still to the losers in life’s game, humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude..
    The liquidation of all dissenters is the condition that will bring us what the communist call freedom.

    Walter Lippman 1936
    The generation to which we belong is not learning from experience what happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organization of their affairs. Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organized direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity. That is the nemesis of the planned society and the authoritarian principle in human affairs.

  9. Avatargedeon

    “ Formerly prosperous societies that face material hardship always go hard Left”

    Broad Prosperity > Narrowing Prosperity + Burgeoning have-not population
    Peace > Trending to chaos

    The leftward trend is not just correlated to a concentration of assets, but the effect of debt saturation which is the other side of the balance sheet. First, a healthy society would not let some people charge interest on money that does not exist much less empower them with a legislated cartel to legitimize it. Don Patinkin did fantastic work on “inside” vs. “outside” money. Secondly, once a society becomes saturated with debt and loan performance degrades it is only a matter of time until lenders foreclose on collateral. It goes without saying that you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip and if there were odious loans made against nothing or worthless collateral, the lender must eat the losses. Our lenders haven’t had a proper cram-down event, but they will get it and many of them know it is coming.

    It is simple math and a cause-effect relationship that is as real as entropy. Between spouses, children, business partners, customers, suppliers, employees, accountants, lawyers, regulators, LEOs and politicians, the forces working against normie businessman are legion when it comes to keeping a buck at the end. The shadow aristocracy hiding found a way to scale their wealth beyond the cost of paying the vigorish and, in 2008, ascended into their utopia of charging losses and expenses to normies via constituting (legal definition) the costs onto the wage earning population via the government as the consumer and borrower of last resort.

    Variations of this story are found throughout history, but the one variable I keep returning to as unique, today, is population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire

    For all intents and practical purposes, the entire world has been converged into the USA-anchored empire. I say this because Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. are all doing business with members of the empire even though they do not enjoy full status with the empire. If they were not, those members would have to do business exclusively with full members of the empire and this would drive up costs in various markets further.

    Depending upon the strength of that assertion, this empire is not only larger than any prior empire, but significantly larger at up to approximately 7.5 billion users/participants/subjects. That is a lot of mouths to feed. The politicos can keep this charade running as long as people have food, clothing, potable water and sexual outlet.

    If not a pandemic or Russia or China or us evil white men, or all of the above, it will be something else that lets wealth diffusion unfold. The WWWWH are all narrative to be written by the least losers because everyone worth a damn will make his case. With 7.5 billion people it will be a real hoot!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion

Leave a Reply