The "right" has a real problem with framing. If you try to approach people by saying that you oppose "progress", that you're an "irrationalist", and so on, you have already lost them. Not progress, but what passes for progress according to the dominant ideology, is the problem. If you want to own the future you had better have a clear conception of what that future will look like.
Interesting article. I agree the right is stuck between conserving the past and finding a future to push for. I agree with the space travel part, that and conservationism/genuine environmentalism as well. I think the "Conservative Revolution" in 1920s Germany was a good example of right wingers striving for a new Germany that's still inspired by its past.
P.S. I think Christianity will have a part to play in the future, but it will share that with new philosophies on the right.
Don’t you think this will require a much more aggressive, almost fanatic shift than talking good policy and picking the good and bad from different ideologies? The examples of “elite brainwashing” you referenced were all religious/spiritual at its core, what you are sharing here is more a political platform than anything. I don’t think the current trajectory can be meaningfully altered without overthrowing “wokeness” and putting something different to worship in its place.
1. When I said that Progress is an objective development I didn’t mean that Progress naturally occurs and whatever tomorrow holds will be better than today. Far from that. What I meant to say is that, progress is a source of legitimacy that can be objectively measured and derived at in any sphere. A sphere which ceases to progress (our social culture for instance), loses its legitimacy (because objectively our social system has been on the decline in the past few generations) and it creates a need for course correction.
While it is true that each ideology will view its own implementation as a form of progress (actually not btw but let’s still go on), its extent of progress will be measured and be compared against other variants + the past.
2. The reason I called the ideology Right Wing Progressivism is because Progressivism is already taken, though hopefully just like Libertarianism it will migrate right.
I didn’t try to define progress in power relations because I wanted the understanding of progress to be objective and universally derived at. Regarding your other point of contradiction between technological progress and social regress - I answer in my latest manifesto and it has to do with a “Progressive Fragmentation”, in which multiple categories of progress are evolving in disorganized directions thereby accumulating systemic contradictions. Cases of disequilibrium produces crisis’ which are then followed by a reorganization.
3. Fundamentally I disagree with your point of social progress not being able to measured. Social progress has preceded economic, technologic and other forms of progresses. It emerged as a higher form of organization, which was cooperative enough for the initial emergence of early noospheric developments. A higher form of social organization is the one in which much like a better product on the market outcompetes and displaces all of its competitors because of a superior internal organization. I will write more on that extensively in my upcoming manifesto. But clearly if point B evolve from point A then it follows that point A can still continue to evolve. Just like a biosphere continues to expand despite the fact that the noosphere has already emerged. This is similar dynamics here.
My manifesto currently has over 75 pages in the Google doc and I’ll probably not publish it until it reaches at least 100… hopefully it will be completely finished by the end of February
The "right" has a real problem with framing. If you try to approach people by saying that you oppose "progress", that you're an "irrationalist", and so on, you have already lost them. Not progress, but what passes for progress according to the dominant ideology, is the problem. If you want to own the future you had better have a clear conception of what that future will look like.
Interesting article. I agree the right is stuck between conserving the past and finding a future to push for. I agree with the space travel part, that and conservationism/genuine environmentalism as well. I think the "Conservative Revolution" in 1920s Germany was a good example of right wingers striving for a new Germany that's still inspired by its past.
P.S. I think Christianity will have a part to play in the future, but it will share that with new philosophies on the right.
Don’t you think this will require a much more aggressive, almost fanatic shift than talking good policy and picking the good and bad from different ideologies? The examples of “elite brainwashing” you referenced were all religious/spiritual at its core, what you are sharing here is more a political platform than anything. I don’t think the current trajectory can be meaningfully altered without overthrowing “wokeness” and putting something different to worship in its place.
I agree. I want to overthrow Wokeness.
Here’s my response to some parts of your article:
1. When I said that Progress is an objective development I didn’t mean that Progress naturally occurs and whatever tomorrow holds will be better than today. Far from that. What I meant to say is that, progress is a source of legitimacy that can be objectively measured and derived at in any sphere. A sphere which ceases to progress (our social culture for instance), loses its legitimacy (because objectively our social system has been on the decline in the past few generations) and it creates a need for course correction.
While it is true that each ideology will view its own implementation as a form of progress (actually not btw but let’s still go on), its extent of progress will be measured and be compared against other variants + the past.
2. The reason I called the ideology Right Wing Progressivism is because Progressivism is already taken, though hopefully just like Libertarianism it will migrate right.
I didn’t try to define progress in power relations because I wanted the understanding of progress to be objective and universally derived at. Regarding your other point of contradiction between technological progress and social regress - I answer in my latest manifesto and it has to do with a “Progressive Fragmentation”, in which multiple categories of progress are evolving in disorganized directions thereby accumulating systemic contradictions. Cases of disequilibrium produces crisis’ which are then followed by a reorganization.
3. Fundamentally I disagree with your point of social progress not being able to measured. Social progress has preceded economic, technologic and other forms of progresses. It emerged as a higher form of organization, which was cooperative enough for the initial emergence of early noospheric developments. A higher form of social organization is the one in which much like a better product on the market outcompetes and displaces all of its competitors because of a superior internal organization. I will write more on that extensively in my upcoming manifesto. But clearly if point B evolve from point A then it follows that point A can still continue to evolve. Just like a biosphere continues to expand despite the fact that the noosphere has already emerged. This is similar dynamics here.
My manifesto currently has over 75 pages in the Google doc and I’ll probably not publish it until it reaches at least 100… hopefully it will be completely finished by the end of February
Thanks for this, I responded on X so you can see it there.
Also, why couldn't you share the Substack link? I know it doesn't show the images but surely just the link would work?
No. It will shadow ban the entire tweet. If you don’t own the domain of your substack (you don’t) X will suppress it
Oh damn, that is frustrating.
Thanks for letting me know.