Consciousness, power or truth … three points for a new compass

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 08 October 2006 21:46.

A subject that crops up pretty regularly at MR is the profound unsuitability of the standard left-right political spectrum, as expressed in the seating arrangements in revolutionary French parliamentary life and employed in the standard political compass. The correlation of anarchism <> fascism and collectivism <> libertarianism simply cannot process, and so mischaracterises, radical-right or even fundamentally Conservative thinking. Nowhere is that more true than with the very normal human characteristic of racial consciousness, and if you want to know why just visit the front page of politicalcompass.org where you can read:-

The idea was developed by a political journalist with a university counselling background, assisted by a professor of social history. They’re indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field.

There is a body of psychological research that affirms the conventional axes, as John Ray has often attested here. I contend that this is prejudiced by the researchers’ own immersion in the liberal analysis. They do not ask the questions that would test true radical-right motivation and represent it accurately. The result is nothing more than a test of liberalism.

So, I wondered whether political orientation could be addressed by using a system that, from the outset, describes the radical right and allows the liberal sleepers to fall where they will. It does not matter where (it would likely be bottom right, off the chart!).

Accordingly, I propose three principles - consciousness, power and truth - which appear to cater reasonably well for the radical right. They are pure and distinct lodestars and, here, extremities in a tri-polar universe constructed on a single plane. (Click: compass.gif.doc)

Straight away it should be evident that I’m not interested in the character of the respondee, political or otherwise. I leave the “reactionary” and “authoritarian” labels to Herr Wiesengrund. Why they should have any relevance to a compass I don’t know. I’m interested, as any compass designer should be, in the dynamic of political interests: from whence they arise and to whence they point.

The three poles are a way to get at this. They are, I think, the three clearly distinguishable primary colours in our politics, the three ways of seeing which we – all of us – employ to one or another degree and in one or another combination. The compass I have in mind would endeavour to determine that as precisely as possible.

Thus, the closer one is, say, to the consciousness pole, the more singularly one “politicks”, to use a splendid, old English word, from a cognition of who one is and where one belongs.

Thus, in his political adumbrations a racial preservationist such as JW, Phil or myself is plainly biased to this pole. He is absolutely convinced that the preservation and advancement of ethnic interests is a thoroughly Darwinian root in the tree of life, and that his particular ethnic interests are a fundamental, indeed absolute value for him.

Let it be said that ethnic awareness, or the necessarily broader and more nebulous racial consciousness of American WN, is by no means a default setting for the whole radical right. Cognisance of the role of power in Man’s affairs is equally factual, important … and something quite apart.

Power is beloved by those who have it, and sought by all those who do not. Political power leads all the way up to the grand conspiracy … the dizzy, global hegemony of the ruling clique. For some, to understand Zionism is to understand an indefatigable, alien, real-world will to power. Many who swim in these waters are anti-Zionists, others anti-NWO, others anti-American Imperium, yet others anti-WASP Establishment. There are those who eschew white racial preservationism, seeing it as some kind of clever diversion, a cruel and self-serving trick by the “hand that writes”. Or, at least, socially engineers. Others value preservationism but doubt it can be effected unless the dispensation of political power is first attended to, and they may be right.

Power and elitism, power and supremacism, power and tribalism, the Manichean struggle, the desire to live … power understood in the absolute falls away by degrees towards the position of consciousness. But it also beats a path in a second direction, towards that of a third great mainspring of radical-right thought.

Truth deals in the uncovering of a new representation of the world, of the deepening of understanding – essentially of awakening itself. It is the gateway built of dim dissatisfaction with the status quo, through which a light shines – weakly at first. We all pass through it, since we come from the world in which the concrete facts of meta-power and white ethnic interests go unseen. In my highly propositional compass, our awakening would be measured by the distance we have put between ourself and it. An old hand, secure in his knowledge, will score way out on the axis between power and consciousness.

And that’s it. Just a small conceit.

Tags: Psychology

Comments:

Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:31 | #

Excellent analysis, Guessedworker, but you did not mention the fact that most classical political labels fall by the wayside when the context is a colonized people, and it is that fact that unconsciously colors all political thinking in the USA.

The USA has been effectively colonized by aliens who mean us harm and submission, and have been busily at work since at least the 1950s, and perhaps as far back as the 1910s.

Colonialism does not require the imposition of a new majority to rule, it can spring from dominant minorities, which doesn’t necessarily have to be market dominant minorities.

But see: http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g21.htm

Amongst colonized peoples, conservatives are revolutionaries seeking to overthrow the colonizers, and liberals are those who acquiesce in the status quo and seek the crumbs fallen from the colonizers’ table to batten on and then preach globalism to their fellow prisoners.

But the state of living unfree renders most traditional political classifications suspect. Perhaps we need to study African Algerians and Asian Indians to understand how to act and think. Maybe a thorough study of the European Greek independence campaign against Ottoman hegemony would shed some light on this matter. The French, English, and Turks were always minorities in Algeria, India, and Greece.

These are beautiful words: “Truth deals in the uncovering of a new representation of the world, of the deepening of understanding – essentially of awakening itself. It is the gateway built of dim dissatisfaction with the status quo, through which a light shines – weakly at first.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 07:21 | #

I think it should be clear that the only way for the benevolently-disposed to welcome the current immigration situation is to deny races exist. If there were only a million non-whites in the world and a billion Anglo-Saxons the latter might absorb the former without changing too much (I say, might) but with the proportions reversed, if they try it they’ll change into non-whites. So, they can’t both absorb them and keep their own race, which means sooner or later they’ll have to limit immigration based on racial criteria at least in part. That nettle, the racial nettle, must sooner or later be openly, officially grasped in white countries by government bureaucracy and the intelligentsia. The Jewish intelligentsia will never grasp it (because Jews, apart from the exceptions we all know, don’t want Europeans to survive as a race) but the European intelligentsia must grasp it at some point.

Since what’s obvious is presumed plainly visible to everyone, we can assume there’s no one who doesn’t see that. Still they don’t object to the forced race-replacement that’s going on throughout whitedom.

To see the inevitability of a race’s going out of existence yet deny the importance of that seismic transformation can only mean denial of the existence of different races, otherwise one would have to concede the importance of a race’s disappearance as well as the legitimacy of its members’ preferring its continuation.

There will have to come a point at which the people in charge accept that non-whites can’t move here in large numbers because we’re entitled to preserve the racial dimension of our existence, as is everyone. Whether we think we’re superior or not, whether we have “anything against” other races or not (the way they look, their personal comnportment, their crime rates, or what-have-you), is no one’s business and furthermore totally irrelevant: if we like other races, hate them, or are indifferent toward them, if we look up to them or down on them, we as a race have the same right of preserving ourselves all others have.

The reason this right is not spelled out in the United Nations founding statements of the late forties/early fifties is the founding of that organization was largely a Marxist affair and to pay attention to race at that particular point in history was politically anti-marxist, thus STRENG VERBOTEN! So they rounded up charlatans like Jewish race-denier Ashley Montague to write their position papers on race for them (which in Montagu’s case amounted to denying there were any such things — he’d written a book published in 1943 called “Race: Our Most Dangerous Myth” or something to that effect). The U.N. founding was not something elevated but purely (even crassly) political.

Fortunately we’ve no need whatsoever of that organization’s documents to tell us our rights as a race.

Posted by john ray on Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:52 | #

Hmmm…

Perhaps I am getting old and rigid but I could not follow that at all. I think you need to give more examples.

Note that there is a DEGREE of multidimensionality in political attitudes in that religious/moral conservatives are only weakly aligned with free marketeers

And THAT is what over 50 years of attitude research tells us. It is easy to imagine other ways of classifying attitudes but that is just not how people in general think. The Left/Right dimension is how people in general DO polarize, much as you wish they did not.

The important challenge is to figure out why

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:19 | #

I am not interested in how people think, John. I am interested in changing how people think - specifically, in re-introducing them to the ultimate value of preservation of kind. This is not a value that features at politicalcompass.org largely because the natural interests of every European have, for the last six decades, been progressively delegitimised and demonised to the point where, today, they are no longer admissable in public discourse.

As a result, were I to set out to ascertain the political posture of yer average fish-eyed shoal-junkie, not only can I do so solely in such a manner that the answer will be on the standard left-right spectrum, but the junkie himself will be perfectly and sincerely convinced that it is the only possible position he could hold. It is a sealed system of truth.

In terms of examples for race consciousness and its effect, there are thousands of MR readers alone who cannot be located with any similitude of accuracy on the standard axes. I can’t. I know it, and I know why - as I have tried to explain.

The fundamental difference is always this: when one wakes up from the long sleep of acquiescent thinking it is to a changed world. Its dreams and desires, its principles and values are as far removed from “authoritarianism” or “libertarianism” as Nature is from an air conditioning unit. When Karlmagnus recently averred that we come at politics from a completely different direction to the mainstream, this was what he meant.

It is so, John, and it is an issue unexplored by psychology not because efforts haven’t been made to study the “far right” but because liberalism identifies it as “far” anything. The psychologists compromise their own approach. I don’t decry that, particularly. Psychologists are, as one would expect, unaware of the value-shift that informs racial preservationism. They are only liberals.

Posted by Furius on Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:47 | #

The political compass is designed by people who think all the great questions are settled - especially for the “enlightened” kind. The only thing left to argue about is taxes.

I wonder where John Ray would place the Athenians on that compass. Or for that matter the Spartans (or, more recently, slave owning Confederates)?

If those people cannot be put on a compass, then one comes to the conclusion that the compass is essentially meant for a certain kind of liberal bourgeoisie to flatter themselves that they have an understanding of politics.

Posted by Gary Williams on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:18 | #

Social scientists have long settled on a consensus that follows tyhe anthropological movement of societies from the most “primitive” technologically who were also largely egalitarian in structure, with “rank” structure where food was plentiful enough to make trade practical, then onto the class/caste structure that appeared during the late neolithic through to today.
What differentiates them is the attitude toward equality. More left is grater focus on equality in both wealth and status, the more unequal access is to all members at birth, the farther right it is. One person group with ALL the wealth and power is extreme right. Totally egaliuty is extreme left. Simple and very accurate when applied to any society, culture or state.

However I notice J Ray up there and no doubt he will vociferously poo-poo it. But of course that only means it must then be the consensus since he stands alone on pretty much everything else it appears.