Over the next few weeks, I’ll be writing a series of posts as I have the time about the politics of the far right, my experience of it, and my level of agreement with it, trying to elicit discussion about it each step of the way. The reasons for such a series of posts I’ll enumerate here:
- To make more people aware of a groundswell among young men
- To subject my own participation in this groundswell to the criticism of others
- To possibly find more people who think similarly with whom I can continue to develop these ideas
I’ll write these posts as I have the time. I believe I’ll begin with trying to identify the movement itself (who is involved, where do they live, what are their ages and genders) and then try to identify the underpinnings of it. Each of these topics could take up many thousands of words, and I will try to write those words over the next few weeks. However, for now, I’ll try to sum up the two topics mentioned above.
Who are they
Mostly, they are disillusioned young men. Of course, with every movement that is big enough, there are people of every walk. But men aged 16-35 are the people that I come into contact with the most concerning this political affiliation. Their disillusionment can take many forms. Some lack fathers, some lack social skills, some lack money. But I have found that at least half of these young men come from good homes with nothing particularly wrong, and their disillusionment is purely intellectual. I do not mean intellectual as in arising from books (although that is not uncommon), I mean arising from the rational contemplation of what is around them.
What are the underpinnings
As best as I can tell, the movement toward the far-right is a reawakening of the study and adherence to natural law, writ large on the political scale. That is to say, it is an adherence to reason in the face of a fundamentally unreasoned antithesis. Do not mistake me here as trying to shill for my side by defining the other side out of the picture. An attempt does not equal success: adherence to reason is a stated goal of the right, and whether or not they succeed is another thing entirely. But it is a marked and helpful deviation from the left, which has thrown out reason as yesterday’s social construct. Now, where has this “adherence to reason” led them? That varies wildly depending on whose reasoning you follow. However, there are a few common threads:
- Man is meant to be ordered in hierarchies which are derived from the circumstance of his existence. Another way to say this is that man belongs in a family. A man is born into a family, which itself is part of a family (race), which itself is made up of families further back (nation). Social hierarchies are formed by links of dependent existence. (You only exist because of your father, who exists because of his father, who exists because of his father, who has people that exist because of him, who has people who exist because of him… and now we are talking about a race.)
- Man is fallen / Man is born to struggle
- Man is capable of redemption; or, existence is not bad, it’s just mangled.
- There is a “should.” It won’t happen without action/force.
This is an incredibly abstract view of a very, very large topic. But I look forward to hearing your thoughts so far. I’ll dive right into the nitty gritty in my next post as soon as I have the time.