With the implosion of Conservatism Inc. we are finding out what happens when the concrete collides with the abstract; and what a mess it is.
The Buckleyite movement came into being uniting disparate elements under the banner of “values” — Libertarians, conservatives, and Cold Warriors all came together in this cause. Previously the conservative elements stood for their concrete communities, but if they wanted to remain on the header of National Review and not thrown off the bus alighting athwart history they went along with the greater abstraction of their views. The right sort of dinner parties matter more than integrity, apparently.
The “how” and “why” of this disintegration from Southern agrarians and Michigan localists to the (((neocons))) has been made less mysterious with the publication of the long overdue second volume of Radix. You no longer have to wade through the tedium and repetition of George H. Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, Since 1945 — Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried have done all the legwork for us.
Corroborating my own reading of events (yes, I wasted countless hours looking into this before Radix II came out) Richard Spencer writes that when
Communism faded, conservatism could be used to justify Zionism, as well as the War on Terror or even the forced democratization of the entire globe. In the 1950s, Buckley and National Review had sought an alliance with southerners, going as far as editorializing for segregation (at least by indirection). By the 1980s, National Review could endorse Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights struggle as a stridently conservative cause. By the 2000s, conservative values could be cited as a basis for gay marriage. Und so weiter. . .
Stepping back from the US context, it doesn’t take a giant leap to see this being the case in Australia. The only difference being it’s still the 1980s here.
Every so often a right leaning commentator will get close to a transgressive thought but shy away from completing it. Nick Cater and Andrew Bolt spring to mind here. The ink is yet to dry on the most recent example of this commentary coming to us in today’s edition of The Australian. In her column “White, male and increasingly discriminated against” Jennifer Oriel puts together in the one place a lot of the key strands that inform our Alt Right narrative.
Jennifer Oriel on the Bolt Report
The stage is set with the requisite backdrop of neo-Marxism, the villains such as Tim Soutphommasane and his gang of “state-designated minority groups” are poised to harm our heroes the “heterosexual, able-bodied men classified as “white””, which Oriel defines as “people of Celtic, English, or European descent”, but somehow the drama is all wrong and the action doesn’t proceed as it should. Although it appears a concrete flesh and blood Australian is being invoked here, he is but a shadow of abstraction flickering on the print. After being informed of the new concrete reality of the left, we aren’t to pay them back in kind, instead the teaching we need to hold to is that
[in] the 21st century West, affirmative action regimes bestow state-approved minorities with rights and advantages denied their fellow citizens. They are more equal than others. We used to call that inequality. We once fought against it.
Witnessing the professional ethnics and sexual deviants pursuing their concrete interests at the expense of the Australian common good is yet to shatter the acid washed vision of these pundits. To be fair to Oriel, she is one of the better ones, having recently written objectively on Trump, and she doesn’t mock or relish in White disenfranchisement, but reports on it matter-of-factly like any reporter of sound mind should. Where we part ways with her, is in her — and people like her — refusal to come to terms with what needs to be done.
This denial of reality is far less violent than their equivalents’ in the US. The disaster of their values conservatism is amplified with the pursuit of the pundits’ and politicians’ material interests. We may never know how many billions have been wasted on this ineffectual mob, but we can get glimpses at what’s at stake for these types with the hundreds of millions in gibs certain government positions can dole out to them. Gottfried brings to light to us younger blokes a most damning example of this in the character assassination of Mel Bradford, a Southern traditionalist, so that the (((neocons))) could get their man William Bennett — who was a liberal Democrat at the time — in at the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1981.
Melvin E. "Mel" Bradford
This material interest of the movement luminaries is under threat by Trump and what he signals. A return to supporting the interests of the White majority flies in the face of their kowtowing to the hegemonic left (there’s those dinner parties again), just as much as it calls into question their judgement and analytical faculties. As their abstract narrative underpinning their material interests rings more hollow as the days go by and the Trump victories stack up they are losing the plot and rabidly savaging Whites saying their communities deserve to die.
This is all years ahead of the Australian situation and without a corrupt movement to feed off the hopes and dreams of White Australians, and without an Aussie Trump to shake things up, it is doubtful that such lows will be witnessed here. But that doesn’t mean we won’t be affected by overseas events. The part-suicide-part-homicide of Europe and the Trumpenkrieg will weigh heavy on the minds of fair dinkum right leaning media pundits over the coming years slowly allowing them to see what they currently refuse to. Luckily for them we will have been toiling away creating an Alt Right movement for those who place the concrete interests of White Australians above all other considerations.
Postscript: The header image is from a Brisbane pub in 1982, one wonders if they're discussing tolerance and equality like a right leaning pundit.