Liberté, égalité, fraternité – Motto of the French Republic
Liberty, equality, and fraternity are the values of classical liberalism, which are balanced by their classical conservative values of order, hierarchy and family. The liberal-conservative dichotomy is part of the English tradition, whereas the French tradition does away with the conservative counterpart, which ultimately proved to be the undoing of the Revolutionary movement, leading to the Reign of Terror and the rise of the First French Empire. Too much leftism, then as now, led to a form of authoritarianism barely distinguishable from the old monarchy. Horseshoe theory is real.
As we all know by now, anyone who doesn’t eagerly swallow the canine excrement of the far left is “right wing,” even if they are self-professed socialists such as June Lapine. As I’ve already mentioned in previous articles on the subject of socialism, certain forms of socialism have been branded as “right wing” and sometimes even “far-right” by the international Marxists (but I repeat myself) of the Soviet Union, whose distoriography thoroughly polluted western academia and reigns over it even to this day. Nationalism is thus branded by these distorians and their students as a “rightist” value, even though it isn’t. The real dichotomy is not between nationalism and globalism, but between individualism and collectivism. Remember, the left-right dichotomy is one between communism and capitalism, respectively. Capitalism is a free-market economy based on the voluntary exchange of labour and private property, whereas communism is the abolition of private property. By these definitions, individualism is synonymous with “private,” and collectivism is synonymous with “public.” “Fraternity” literally means “brotherhood,” but it more accurately translates to “kinship,” which was a nationalist rallying cry in the late 18th century. Nationalism is a form of collectivism, and is therefore leftist.
I’m sure by now someone is going to brand me as some kind of “right-wing reactionary,” buzzwords, bullshit, bullshit, but no, the rightist ideologues have their own set of problems. Humans are social animals, and therefore hyper-individualism has its own set of problems. The actual far-right, the anti-social, hyper-individualist anarcho-egoists, would be the types of people who, if they had their way, would inadvertently re-create classical feudalism within a few generations. The reason that I specify classical feudalism is to distinguish such a system from the neo-feudalist system that the current generation of globalist elites is trying to peddle while alternately passing it off as both capitalism and socialism at the same time in order to make it more palatable (when they say “stakeholder capitalism,” I hear “state capitalism,” which is the very definition of socialism, as laid out in The Communist Manifesto). For now, recall my “real political compass,” as I first shared when I discussed the Children’s Table of Politics:
Yes, every group has its own set of problems, including my own. In my defense, I need not tie myself in knots trying to justify any violence I might commit, considering how many utopians have sent me death threats for merely expressing my desire to have nothing the fuck to do with their ideal society. In other words, if I fire the first shot, it’s because I was provoked, deal with it. Nonetheless, if you’re either too put off by the veil of sarcasm to see what I’m getting at or you’d like a more serious version of the diagram to share round, here you go:
The path to totalitarianism always goes either to the left or to the right. Actual conservatives are centrists, not believing in any particular system, and simply wish to maintain the status quo and live within its constraints. Therefore, any political change must take place via the left or the right, but the ratchet effect ensures that the system will almost always become steadily more authoritarian. That being said, I must concede that rightist ideals are better than leftist ideals; the rightist ideal of egalitarianism, or “equality of opportunity” is vastly superior to the leftist ideal of equity, or “equality of outcome.” Either one can lead to totalitarianism, usually by something as banal as nepotism (the origin of dynastic politics), but sometimes by “compromising” with the opposition for the purposes of consolidating power, which is precisely how the opportunists piss off the ideologues on both sides in the process. Here’s what that looks like:
I have mentioned that leftism is barely distinguishable from a religion, and only by feebly pedantic legal definitions do I feel the need to delineate between “classical religions” and “secular ideologies.” Gnosticism is behind both of them, and I will explain why when I finally get into what Gnosticism actually is. That article has just been started, but it’s a deep rabbit-hole. Projection is an aspect of apologia on both sides; both classical religious apologists and secular ideologues project the flaws of their ideology onto their detractors. For example, leftists love to claim that my “camp,” the libertarian right (as an ancap, I am economically rightist), “worships Ayn Rand.” This is a lie, I’ll explain. Libertarians do not “worship” anyone. There is no leader or speaker (and I’d remind you that the Latin word for speaker is “dictator”), because libertarians are individualist, and only collectives require such figures. Furthermore, only authoritarians believe in prophets and other authority figures being above reproach. Ayn Rand had some brilliant observations and excellent quotes, but that’s about it. She is not an infallible “prophet” to any libertarian that I know, because libertarians do not think the same way that leftists or religious dominionists (yes, that’s a real word) do. We are not the same, but as I’ve mentioned before, the false equivalence is something that apologists and other ideologues love to use to present their ideas as either 1) equally valid as accepted reality, or 2) their opponents’ ideas as equally apocryphal as their own bollocks.
The case of “right-wing” collectivism comes from either misunderstanding or bastardising rightist ideals, not because collectivism is inherently authoritarian, but because of staunchly religious or “traditionalist” collectives. If a person’s actions are guided by what is best for the collective, then it matters not if that collective is proletarian, bourgeois, Christian, Islamic, patriarchal, feminist, queer, white, or black. Remember that racism is a form of collectivism, and race mixing is bad for the racial puritans, hence the desire by both white supremists and black nationalists alike to bring back segregation, yet only one of these groups is labelled “leftist” in the modern vernacular. A racially supremist society restricts the personal freedoms not only of the “lower races,” but also of the preferred race, because such individuals are not free to do anything that undermines “the purity of the master race,” e.g. Aryans who married Jews being subjected a Walk of Shame while wearing a sign that said “I am a race polluter.” Yes, that actually happened in Nazi Germany. Black nationalists have similar slurs for blacks who marry whites or Asians.
As a gentle reminder, Richard Spencer voted for Joe Biden in 2020, but by all means, tell me again how Donald Trump is the racist. Oh, who am I kidding, people with TDS overwhelmingly believe that Marxism is Jewish and that Nazis were capitalists, so they aren’t exactly on speaking terms with reality. If you didn’t already know, Marxism is inescapably anti-Semitic and “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist.” I’ve written about both of these terrible ideologies already, but don’t take my word for it, read the doctrines for yourself: On the Jewish Question (1843), The Communist Manifesto (1848), Mein Kampf (1926), and The Doctrine of Fascism (1932). I’d say that I’m impressed by the mental gymnastics required to deny this, but mental gymnastics deserve derision, not praise.
I’ll give you another example of collectivist claptrap before I wrap this up: feminists shaming women who choose to be housewives instead of running the corporate rat race. The justification is that “just because a woman can make patriarchy work for her, she should instead consider how her choices affect all women.” In this regard, third-wave feminism is a repudiation of second-wave feminism, which the third-wavers denounce as “choice feminism,” because third-wave feminism is explicitly Marxist. But by all means (I’m using that phrase a lot today), tell me how Cultural Marxism is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. No, the paranoid fever dreams of William S Lind do not count.
Finally, there is the noun form of “right,” which leftists mistakenly believe is a synonym for “need.” No, needs and rights are not the same thing. Luckily, I don’t need to write an entire diatribe defining “rights,” because my good friend Jacob Tothe has already done that. For now, I shall reiterate the comparison as Carl Benjamin once phrased it: in the liberal framework, a right is the ability to act, whereas in the socialist framework, a right is the ability to receive. Part of the reason that I lean right is because I believe in the liberal or rightist definition of the word “right.” Healthcare is not a right, it is a need, not that the government should be telling people what they need or don’t need, because the government is comprised almost entirely of sociopathic idiots… but by all means, tell me how the government needs more money and power so that it can weed out corruption and provide for its citizens subjects.
I’m sorry if this article seemed disjointed or downright incoherent. I told you, ideologues love to obfuscate, so in order to pick apart their ideas, it is necessary to expose yourself to some truly dizzying rhetorical aikido. I’ll happily clarify any individual points if you can’t wrap your head around them, but future articles are only going to get worse as I dive into the surreal. You have been warned.
Sasha V's Sesquipedalian Soliloquies 
One thought on “What is “Right”?”