One of the major issues today is the lack of cohesion in the assessment and proposed solution to our global dilemma. Firstly, we have to distinguish whether we are properly able to assess what goes on in a way that allows fruition. What I mean by this is simple. If those who oppose a type of intrusion and corruption in the leadership of the federal government of America are incapable of coherently coming together then we stay endlessly bickering in an eternal echo chamber. For this, we need political philosophy. We need a solid basis and ground doctrine that tackles universal truth, truth that can be adhered to whether one is Japanese, Incan or Appalachian. Before we can speak of what to do, first we must establish a solid basis.
Without the appeal to universal law, to immutable truth such as the natural law, we cannot properly call to action.
One of the main concerns of our time is something which even affects many Catholics. The issue of Historicism and Positivism. These two false dominions which claim the power of a Deity must be debased and destroyed prior to any formal political goal. The reason for this is quite simple, what we fight from, what all right wingers essentially can be reduced to, are simple proponents of an archaic and incompatible perspective to the world at large. In other words, whether one is a Libertarian/Jeffersonian or a staunch Monarchist touting the divine right of kings, we are equally found to be incompatible, to be found false as an existential fact of life around us. There is no questioning why. There is no dialectic upon which we can grasp for air. We are unequivocally found to be outdated, overruled and ultimately, historical LARPers in which our mental sanity is questioned. This my friends, is the heart of the matter. We have been thrust into a battle with the final demon of history, that of the universalization of Positivistic claims. Because what we fight is claiming universal truth, there is not proper rebuttal without an equally universal claim. This is where the politically speaking right-side dismantles. If some on the right hold positivistic views on morality, these views that disallow the universalization and admittance of knowledge in the metaphysical, then they are in fact on the same side as the last men.1
Until a few generations ago, it was generally taken for granted that man can know what is right and wrong, what is the just or the good or the best order of society-in a word that political philosophy is possible and necessary. In our time this faith has lost its power. According to the predominant view, political philosophy is impossible: it was a dream, perhaps a noble dream, but at any rate a dream. While there is broad agreement on this point, opinions differ as to why political philosophy was based on fundamental error. According to a very widespread view, all knowledge on which deserves the name is scientific knowledge: but scientific knowledge cannot validate value judgements; it is limited to factual judgments yet political philosophy presupposes that value judgements can be rationally validated.2
This rejection of metaphysics in the right is what ultimately disallows unity and agreement of very basic and fundamental functions of life such as the origin and end of civil government. Something which is basically a self evident truth has become a total disaster for the right. The inability to make a proper conclusion based on universal truths leads to split and fragmented relativistic positions, which by their very nature alienates what is excluded in self proclaimed value. For example, say you have a right winger that acknowledges that ZOG is an issue. Very well. But from what basis will he claim this? Most commonly today, he might take a pseudo-National Socialist principle in which race relative to geography itself becomes the determinant of right and wrong. In other words, it wouldn’t necessarily be a universal moral maxim which is offended by the ZOG, but rather, a concocted self proclaimed value of race. In this way they are similar to the National Socialists, treading a thin line of nihilism in which only brute force and barbarism holds in place.
In the first place, there must be a rekindling of the ancients. There has to be a truthful appreciation and adoption of universal thought, which transcends the hegemony of positivism, not by sheer will but by intellectual probity. If we cannot give credence and careful attention to those learned sages of old, then we doom ourselves to be dominated by the scientific method of which the more vile sorts of leftists have holding them up. It is the religion of science against those that unfortunately hold arbitrarily some ancient tradition for the sake of personal or subjective benefit. Until the political right is able to coherently reject the very religion which claims their tradition anathema, they are doomed to an infinite regression of self undoing.3
- I believe we should carefully reimagine the issues, the dichotomy between left and right is totally in confusion. In truth, we are in the very dilemma the German Idealists acknowledged. The fight of the ancients and the moderns. The fight of Jerusalem and Athens, the last man is in truth the name of the beast. Some Anglos such as Jonathan Swift acknowledged this. ↩︎
- Strauss, L. The Three Waves of Modernity (1975) ↩︎
- In Relativism, there cannot be a so called “value judgement” which is an absolute truth. If this is the case, then there are places or times in which this particular “value judgement” is simply false. How can a right winger condemn cannibalism in society if he believes the problem is necessarily fixed to particular time periods or subjective notions? They might try to argue from science or from some Rousseau-esque argument about a social contract, but all of that of course comes tumbling down when the particulars are dealt with. ↩︎
