Furthest Right; Right to the End of the Number Line, and Beyond By Peter West

     Here is an interesting piece from American Dissent Right intellectual Brett Stevens, who is doing some fundamental rethinking about the future of, well, everything. In particular, he sees mainstream conservatism as dead, and the need for white folk to forge a new philosophy of life, or return to an old one, distilling conservativism down to its essence:
  http://www.amerika.org/politics/furthest-right/

“To address those many details, one needs a unifying system of thought based on a simple idea. The Left has equality, which is basically “me first” anarchy with grocery stores. The Right has the notion of preserving that which works best from any age. If you had to state those as simply as possible, the Left is the pro-human position and the Right is the pro-nature position. We believe that the order of nature is superior to that of humankind; we recognize that humankind fits within nature and not vice versa; we do not trust individualism, but prefer orders on levels above the individual like logic, fact, history, nature, culture, and the divine. The difficulty with being conservative comes from the two meanings of conservative. We know what conservatism has been in abstraction, which designates the continuity of meaning it has had throughout history, but then there is conservatism as instance, or the public mainstream conservatives that we see in the Republican Party and the type of half-Trotskyist, half-Libertarian nonsense they peddle. To be Furthest Right requires that one accept conservatism as a core idea, which is that we reject the human in favor of time, logic, and fact. That means less reliance on the symbolic, social, and emotional bubble in which most people live, and more focus on what works. Conservatism consists of two planks: realism and transcendence. This takes us away from utilitarianism, or choosing our future actions by what most humans say they think is best, and all symbolic ideologies.

Most people do not recognize that realism is the opposite of the way humans like to do things. Humans pay attention to what we think and what other people think, deferring to precedent as to what has been socially and economically successful in the past, and never think of the long term. Realism on the other hand says that we pay attention to life as a whole in which we are one part, and look at it in terms of real-world results and not what people think about those results. This sounds like hair-splitting, but everything radiates outward from this fundamental decision. We either choose the human or the order that surrounds humanity. We either go with what is socially acceptable or what is necessary to adapt to our environment. Human groups, given time and wealth, will always opt to make reality taboo and instead to focus on what other humans think and do because in social species like humankind, having the group like you is essential to survival. Conservatism works around all of this drama by taking the focus from people and placing it instead on future goals and past successes. Conservatism sets up an ideal for behavior and rewards those who fulfill it, ignores those who fail to achieve it, and excludes those who sabotage it.

If we take that philosophy to its logical conclusion, we end up with the opposite idea of the egalitarians, which is that we need hierarchy to separate out degrees of good and bad. Equality says that bad is a form of good, since everything is equal. Pushing conservatism toward its limits yields an escape from modernity, which is based on the Enlightenment™ notion of individualism, itself derived from the Asiatic idea of the centralized society with a universal rule for each person to behave the same way in unison in order to maintain stable power. In the West, we see that as tyranny because it creates a single point of failure and uses civilization as a means to its power structure, instead of having the power structure serve to protect and further civilization.

Apply a complete denial of human pretense, the furthest Right arrives at a general formula:

•    Strong leaders. No bureaucracy; we want our best people in power, making decisions that can go against precedent, generally favoring natural selection type actions and gradual improvements to the existing instead of radical “new” (read: failed elsewhere) notions.
•    Caste. Hierarchy also applies to bands of humans in the social sphere. Instead of driving socialization by the lowest common denominator, caste takes our best (moral, intelligent, healthy) people and makes them an elite that everyone else emulates.
•    Behavioral eugenics. This one will shock most people, but it is important to recognize that there are good people, people in the middle, and bad people. The bad ones need to be removed, by exile or other means, so that the good are not subsidizing the bad. Most societies screw this up and self-destruct, mainly because it is emotionally difficult to choose who stays and who goes. Modern law is a paltry substitute that achieves nowhere near the numbers it would have to in order to filter out the bad; perhaps 20% of every generation are born bad, although that number would decrease were they removed before they could breed for a few generations in a row.
•    Culture-rule. This implies two things, strong nationalism and benevolent xenophobia, plus a lack of reliance on Big Government, with citizens enforcing standards on each other instead of wimping out and expecting social institutions to do this. It also ties in to freedom of association: if someone beats his wife, you should not be obligated to hire him, sell to him, rent to him, or socialize with him, but this clashes with modern “civil rights” and “human rights.” Culture-rule includes the idea of faith, but recognizes that religion grows out of customs and not the other way around, so each tribe needs its own religion.
•    Transcendental goals. In modern society, you can work toward your own ends (individualism) or for the group (collectivized individualism) but you cannot work toward intangibles like culture, quality, excellence, divinity, sanity, health, wisdom, balance, and clarity. Everything must be material because when the largest unit in society is the individual, all intangibles that link people are considered secondary and eventually abolished as church, family, race, heritage, social class, and moral standards have been.
•    Continuity. For any sanity to exist, things must be as they are. This means that your society does not change radically, but evolves gradually as in nature, with continuity to its origins that reaches into its future. This is part of the “ecosystem model” proposed by some crunchy conservatives, melding deep ecology and paleoconservatism.
All of these gear us toward a certain type of civilization, one in which by paying attention to the order at a level larger than themselves, people are able to escape themselves and focus on what is important, which is a type of existential hedonism, or enjoying life for its intangible and fleeting beauties while feeling confident in their position of vocation, family, rank, and of course, being part of a thriving civilization. It is more valuable to be a peasant in a thriving civilization than to be a king in a dying one.”

     I would summarise this by saying that for our kind to survive we need to go forward to the past, but since Stevens accepts that this civilisation, in many ways totally artificial, is crumbling anyway, we reach that position by default. It is going to happen anyway.

     Consider, for example but one of the products of over-civilisation and consumerism, white liberal self-flagellation: ethno-masochism unlimited, where rich white liberal women get to be told how racist they are over a dinner party. Really, if the woman had to hunt for her food, she would not have time for such bs. And, that is what is needed, the return of natural selection, and natural realities.
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/race-to-dinner-party-racism-women