Labels are not as important as that which is labeled.
A while back, I read this in pamphlet form.
Now, I don’t agree with how the author defines “Right” and “Left” (more about that shortly) and I don’t agree with some of the ideology espoused there. This latter point is – or should be – more important; ideology is more important than the labels used to describe it. On the one hand, the author is correct in opposing activists who are so obsessed with being considered “right-wing” that they make common cause with viewpoints that are anathema to their own racialist ideology. On the other hand, he is wrong with trying to obsessively create a similarly false “left-wing” identity for national socialism; he is equally guilty of being overly concerned with labels, with style over substance.
There is a weakness among Whites – most likely due to long being denied the right to embrace their racial and cultural identities – in being so overly emotionally invested in superficial (sometimes “implicitly White”) identities so that this emotionality blinds them to the maladaptive aspects of their behavior. Whites obsess over sports teams full of arrogant Negro athletes (usually with White wives/girlfriends) and, more to the point, Whites engage in politics as if It was sports, with identification with “our team” and “their team” often independent of real and meaningful ideological content. Being so concerned with labels that one supports racially destructive memes is an example of maladaptive behavior. Even being obsessed with labels of constructive memes can be maladaptive if one spends more energy defending the labels than defending the memes.
The mendacious know how to exploit this weakness. Thus, cuckservatives love to accuse opponents of “not being true conservatives” or “not being Ronald Reagan conservatives” or they accuse the Alt Right of being – gasp! – “leftists” – with the presumable objective of wounding the right-wing self-conception of these opponents, so those people, desperate to recapture their “rightist identity,” will recant their “blasphemy” and plead to be readmitted to the “conservative fold.” Those accusations are likely even more targeted to third party observers, with the implicit threat of “if you support those populists-racialists-nationalists then you too will be considered as ‘leftists’ and ‘not true conservatives” – a fate worse than death for those whose existential meaning is wrapped up with identification with being “conservative” and “right-wing.” Similarly, on a blog I was involved with 10-12 years ago, a conservative “social scientist” would try to win arguments (typically against me) by labeling opponents’ opinions as “leftist.” My response, if I recall, was to simply state: “OK, I’m a leftist, now address the issues.”
True, I typically label my views as “Far-Right” and I do so for two reasons. First, it is for the sake of clarity and convenience when summarizing these views – national socialist, fascist, racial nationalist – in a “political shorthand” that is commonly accepted by most people on the both the “Right” and the “Left.” This is analogous to using “White” as shorthand for “peoples of European descent.” Second, and in contrast to the author of the work linked above, I do not define “Right/Left” in terms of reactionary vs. revolutionary, nor do I accept purely economic or political definitions. A more metapolitical definition that I support – and that is more economical with facts and aligned with how the terms are actualized in reality – is to associate the Right with hierarchy and difference and inequality and the Left with egalitarianism and obsessive equality at any cost and a leveling universalism. Hence, my ideology is at the far extreme of the “Right” despite the fact that some of my views – on economics for example – are more “leftist.” But, and this is the key point, I have no emotional investment in my labeling of my views. It is merely a tool, merely shorthand, merely a consequence of the definitions I use, and if others want to label my views as “leftist” then, fine, I’m a “leftist.” There is a difference between labeling as a tool and labeling as an identity. The former is a normal part of everyday life; the latter is foolish and childish. In the end, I care about the actual ideology and its consequences with respect to my biocentric view of racial life, not about the labels used to identify the ideology.
I also realize that in the end my definition of “Right/Left” is as subjective as all the others. I believe my definition is more reflective of reality, but there is no hardcore objectivity in political labels. More important, it shouldn’t really matter. There are those who – perhaps because of their Asiaphilia – are likely more familiar with Confucius than with Shakespeare and who are not in tune with the attitude behind “a rose by any other name….” To observe individuals spill gallons of “digital ink” analyzing the use of “Right” vs. “Left” labels, to see ideologically similar individuals engage in acrimonious debate over such labels, to read rambling theses about “White Leftism” – this reflects ideological immaturity. If one is brought down to the level of endlessly debating the labels to be given to views, it is high time to put the labels aside and concentrate on actual differences in views, ideologies, and proposals – and not in highly abstract theoretical terms but in how these views would be, or should be, actualized into reality.
These people like labels? Let’s use labels – by wasting time with labels and with academic abstractions, those on the “Right” (a label as defined by me) are constantly outcompeted by those on the “Left” (another label as defined by me), the latter group being more concerned with winning and achieving their objectives than with a juvenile concern with how others label them. You can label a rose as a sewer and label a sewer as a rose, but that is not going to change how each smells. There is of course a need for clarity of definition and a need to avoid dangerous mislabeling – if one wants a rose then they don’t want a sewer – but defining terms should be a direct and efficient process for reasonable people. If there is a need to spend months – or years! – debating definitions and labels then something is wrong. The people involved are being stupid, stubborn, mendacious, maladaptive, or are engaging in avoidance behavior – engaging in fruitless and sterile argument over abstractions because of an inability or unwillingness to come to grips with harsh reality. When leading troops into battle, one needs to make sure there is agreement over the meaning of labels and definitions, and then one does what they need to do. Soldiers who endlessly debate the meaning of a “flanking movement” will quickly find themselves outflanked by an enemy who ended their debate long before. In the end, actualized reality trumps abstract defining and labeling every time, without fail.