The Black Beast of Respectable Opinion

The “Far Right” is the black beast of Respectable Opinion. I suppose Respectable Opinion might say bête noir, but that is only because they are Francophilic poseurs and the phrase “black beast” has awkward historical associations. In any lingo, a “black beast” is that for which one feels a special abhorrence, and Respectable Opinion feels a special abhorrence for the “Far Right.”

Respectable Opinion feels a special abhorrence for the “Far Right” because the “Far Right” abhors the whole putrid mass of Respectable Opinion. This is quite unlike what might be called the Near Right, which finds in that putrid mass a great many things that it applauds and admires. In fact the Near Right finds so many things to applaud and admire that it might be called Inside or Housebroken Right.

The term “Far Right” is actually misleading unless it is taken to mean an Outside Right that has been banished, excommunicated, exiled, or been subject to what was once known as the bum’s rush. For the “Far Right” says things that are not permitted in the saloon of Respectable Opinion, and so has been tossed through the swinging doors and into the street, leaving the Inside Right to laugh at the jokes of Respectable Opinion and say, “Gee, R. O., I wish I’d said that.”

The “Far Right” is not some sort of farthest fringe of the Inside Right, advocating its principles with greater zeal, rigor and inflexibility. This is why the “Far Right” laid claim to the name “Alternative Right” when it opposed the Second Iraq War, and why the Inside Right routinely scores the “Far Right” as soft on statism. If the “Far Right” was the ne plus ultra of the Inside Right, it would be a club of militaristic libertarians who are on fire for compromise and expedience.

All of this leads to the point that the “Far Right” is actually the Right, whereas the Inside Right is a fake and phony Pretender. This is evident in the fact that the heroes of the “Far Right” were in their day known as men of the Right, whereas the heroes of the Inside Right were in their day known as Liberals. This is why our “principled conservatives” say that John Stuart Mill was a great philosopher, Abraham Lincoln was a great statesman, and Martin Luther King was a great moralist.

It is why they tell us they are the friends of every progressive project, excepting only its latest outrageous developments.   This thought came to me as I read Peter Hitchens latest column, in which he declares his admiration for every stage of women’s liberation, excepting only some recent freaks in that misbegotten project. A fake Conservative can fuss like an irritated hen over transgender toilet policy, and yet two minutes later give a tearful testimonial as to his lifelong love for Civil Rights. He is proud to sputter over the artifacts of postmodern academics and the arts, and yet yields to no one in his paeans to “freedom of conscience” and “individual liberty.”

This is also why the genuine Right mocks these pretenders as “cucks.” They are exactly like a man who has, after a brief and ineffectual protest, acquiesced to every insult and outrage of an insolent virago of a wife. A man for whom the ultimate insult and outrage of cuckoldry is just another occasion for ineffectual protest and speedy acquiescence. And what makes this man a cuck to the core is that, while irritably disliking each new insult, he honors his wife’s right to be an insolent virago. He just prefers the insolent virago she was yesterday to the insolent virago she is today.

Just as a cuckold failed to detect the fundamentally harridan tendencies in his wife, so the “cucks” fail to detect the fundamentally degenerate tendencies in political projects and doctrines. He deeply dislikes the very latest novelties of the diversity doctrine, but at the same time believes desegregation of lunch counters was a giant step for mankind. He deeply dislikes the latest novelties of the sexual revolution, but is himself an avid child of some prior stage in that revolution.

The real Right has always opposed everything that tends to revolution in the social order. Its opposition has been singularly ineffectual, but it was at least marked by a certain depth of analysis and integrity of position. And this depth and integrity is why it is the black beast of Respectable Opinion.

24 thoughts on “The Black Beast of Respectable Opinion

  1. Pingback: The Black Beast of Respectable Opinion | Reaction Times

  2. The real Right has always opposed everything that tends to revolution in the social order. Its opposition has been singularly ineffectual, but it was at least marked by a certain depth of analysis and integrity of position.

    I was going to say that the real Right is advocating a revolution of the present social order now, but that’s not exactly true. When the Vandals and/or Ostrogoth’s invaded Rome, they didn’t become not-Vandals, or not-Ostrogoths. Vandals they remained, and the act of violence they used to establish themselves in Rome didn’t make them legitimate heirs to the legacy of that city*.

    Respectable Opinion had a revolution in the 60’s and are currently sacking the shining city on a hill that is Western Civilization. Because they have been there for so long doesn’t make them the legitimate heirs to Western Civilization. “Womens Lib” is euphemistic for “womens revolt”. Picking pieces of it to praise and different pieces to be revolted by is what some may call “mental gymnastics”. In any case: for the “Far Right” to reclaim their city, it would not be a revolution–that would imply that it aims to overthrow the legitimate heirs of western civilization. Rather, it’s a true liberation movement. It’s a counter-invasion.

    *with apologies to Yugoslavian Macedonia

      • Virtually no Christians believe they’re fit to rule, and there won’t be a restoration until that changes. I doubt it will change in my lifetime.

        You need something approaching chauvinism to beat the bio-leninist coalition. None of you seem to have that kind of conviction.

      • I’m a little short on the superman spirit myself, but I agree with what you say about chauvinism. A social group is doomed if it lacks a healthy level of chauvinism, which I take to be a firm conviction that the group has a right to exist, and that it greatly improves the world by doing so. What we see throughout the West is the morbid anti-chauvinism of self-loathing. It’s not just Christians, but many Christians seem to doubt whether they have a right to exist, and to wonder if the world might be better off if they didn’t.

      • … chauvinism, which I take to be a firm conviction that the group has a right to exist …

        No. This is why the left wins.

        Them: “We’re better than you, and we should rule you.”
        You: “We have a right to exist.”

        The evolution of the American right:
        – White (and Christian/patriarchal) supremacy
        – White (and Christian/patriarchal) nationalism
        – Civic nationalism
        – We have a right to exist
        – Please, just not in the face

        If you don’t think your tribe and co-religionists have a duty to rule the other guys in your own country, then you will lose, and you will deserve to lose.

      • “Existence” has many gradations, so I suppose you are right to object. I didn’t mean to suggest bare existence or living on sufferance, since that wins only short-term survival. By “right to exist” I meant right to exist on terms set by ourselves (what you call supremacy)–provided no one stops us. Obviously this sort of “right to existence” is not something any other group is bound to respect, but it is a defense against the internal decay of self-loathing. It is the antidote to crippling and suicidal guilt.

      • The dream of a restoration fades a bit more every time you translate straightforward terms like “chauvinism” and “supremacy” into an anodyne form of “the right to exist.”

      • You may be right, but there is also rather ludicrous when social pariahs talk about chauvinism and supremacy. At present, the Right is not in contention for power and may count itself lucky to be free on the streets.

      • Christianity should be the ruling ideology of our nation and civilization and should be publicly authoritative.

        But I’m not sure exactly if that agrees with what you are trying to say.

      • If Christianity should be the “ruling ideology of our nation,” my post points out that it is not anything remotely like such an ideology, and that there is almost no chance that it will become such an ideology in the future. It’s been thrown out the swinging doors of the Saloon of Respectable Opinion, and is now sitting in the street wondering what bridge it will sleep under tonight.

      • Hi JMSmith,

        Sorry, I should have indicated that my comment was directed at chedolf. I was trying to understand what he means by Christians believing we are “fit to rule”.

        I agree with your comment.

      • How can you rule over the other in your country where the other is also Christian? Or, as some or happy to do today, is Christian the one thing in which we can and should reduce human identity to, i.e. either Christian or not (pagan)? And therefore other forms of identity are lost in the common belief in Christ and His commands and so there other instances of “otherness” are, as we’ve bern told meaningless and divisive. In which case, the only form of supremacy here would be a Christian or secular/pagan supremacy.

        This is where many Catholics and liberals sound identical at times imo, because both are involved in obliterating the complexity and plurality of human identity in favor of one single explanatory aspect (reductionist view), whether it be a common religious belief (Catholics) or say sexual identity (feminism gays) or race (legitimate racialists).

        I guess what I’m really trying to get at or understand is how people on the “far right”, who also consider themselves to be Christian, can maintain that while also reconciling the many other differences that diversify humanity. Or, does the Christian belief eliminate our ethnic and cultural identities, our sexual identities as men and women, our national identities, etc.?

      • Christianity emphasizes our differences. Only by reckoning them properly, and so then dealing with them properly, might we hope to attain harmony.

        The notion that Christianity reduces Christians to nothing but Christians – that it drives out their differences, and thus their persons – is a confection of modern, improperly reductionist modes of thought.

      • Thank you for your response, Kristor.

        I know I probably didn’t express my thoughts on that very clearly but it appears you understood enough to give a good response.

        So, with that in mind, it is safe to assume the Church, of which I’m apart, has in some ways adopted a reductionist approach? I hardly ever hear anyone willing to properly deal with legitimate human difference within the Church but instead favor societies where all differences are virtually meaningless, except for whether you are Catholic or heathen.

  3. The best defense of the use of “cuck” I’ve seen. You show how apt that term is.
    William Briggs used it in a column a couple of week ago with protest from some of his milder mannered readers following.

  4. I thought the exact same thing as you when I read Peter Hitchens’ latest column. He’s very good in some ways but he always falls at the final fence.

  5. Though the great majority of those who mock the pretend Right as cucks are not the genuine Right, but are themselves meta-cucks who deserve as much mockery as the Near Right.

      • I have no idea. But it seems rather arbitrary to imply that a holiness spiral would begin with mocking the meta-cucks, but (presumably) not with mocking the cucks.

        Most of those who use the word cuck to mock the mainstream right are secularists who either openly mock Christianity, are indifferent to it, or at best regard it as of instrumental value, so it’s not obvious to me how they are any better than the mainstream right.

  6. Yeah. OK.

    But the fact remains that Far Right lost to Respectable Opinion in a rout. Even the OP admits its opposition has been “singularly ineffectual”.

    The Near Right sensibly realizes the only option is to give up. You’ve got knives, and they’ve got nuclear weapons.

  7. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 09/22/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.