How can the Right reclaim/produce culture?

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Communism and Stalinism and Maoism are not rightists. They actively deny the value of the natural hierarchy. National socialism doesn't; it actively went out of its way to try and instill a love of the national heritage pre national socialism, and glorification of the natural hierarchies. I haven't read much on Falangism so I honestly cannot comment on that.

1. You defined Rightist thought as focused on "heritage, hierarchy, and structure". The Chinese and Russians were, indeed, not big fans of their cultural heritage, but they were extremely hierarchical and structured. There are other reasons why I would categorize them as rightists as opposed to leftists (Trotsky was a Leftist, for example, because he believed that states themselves were invalid, unlike Stalin) but quibbling over that is pointless; my point is that the ideologies most "reactionary" thinkers uphold as "traditional" are actually based entirely in Modernity. So moving on to the group you fully yield as being Rightist:
2. The Nazi Party was not "traditional" by any sense of the word: in fact, they trampled all over the traditional values of the Germanic peoples, beginning with the idea of the people of Germany being one united kind: the Aryan race. The concept of a pan-Germanic identity, instead of the residents of individual kingdoms identifying themselves as members of those regions, was born out of the Prussian desire to become a great power in Europe- a goal they sought to accomplish by uniting the German-speaking states of the Confederation (which at the time was a loose political and trade alliance) into a single entity. Seeking to create a stronger bond than the loose alliance of the Confederation or the HRE without the resentment of a client state, von Bismark emphasized the "common history" of the Germanic peoples on the stage of Europe, elevating pagan myths and using universal suffrage and the formenting of resentment against the Catholic church (the traditional faith of Germany at the time) to forge the German state out of a couple dozen small states. Nazi concepts of racial categories were not traditional in the slightest, neither in how they carved up ethnicities, nor in their idea that the most "inferior" races should be eliminated. Traditional Germanic ideas of ethnicity showed little concern for skin tone and a lot more concern for religious sects and wars, and there was no belief that other ethnicities should be destroyed: conquered and converted, yes- but not genocided.
Nazi policies such as Lebenborn also flew in the face of the "natural hierarchy" of the family you so laud: women being paid to have sex out of wedlock with "Aryan" men and having their children taken and raised by other families, the kidnapping of "racially-pure" children from other countries to be raised in group homes, and mandatory abortions for the disfigured all fly in the face of traditional views of the family, the State's role in the family, and the sanctity of life. Even the Nazi concept of low-brow and avant-garde "degenerate art" as an inherent moral hazard requiring total annihilation traces back to the Jewish critic Max Nordau's work Degeneration: a modernist philosophical tract.
The Nazis draped themselves in the colors of tradition and reaction, but had no real interest in the traditions of Germany, as they were in direct conflict with Nazi goals. Instead, their ideas were rooted firmly in Modernist thought, Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict, and Futurist social theory.
3. The Falangists sought to take the traditional Spanish monarchy and Catholic concepts and render them viable in the modern era through synthesis with their reaction (Enlightenment thought), to varying degrees of success. They were national syndicalists and civic nationalists who imposed Catholicism as the state religion but didn't care about racial purity or "The Jewish Question".

 

[Johan Schmidt]

1. You defined Rightist thought as focused on "heritage, hierarchy, and structure". The Chinese and Russians were, indeed, not big fans of their cultural heritage, but they were extremely hierarchical and structured. There are other reasons why I would categorize them as rightists as opposed to leftists (Trotsky was a Leftist, for example, because he believed that states themselves were invalid, unlike Stalin) but quibbling over that is pointless; my point is that the ideologies most "reactionary" thinkers uphold as "traditional" are actually based entirely in Modernity. So moving on to the group you fully yield as being Rightist:
2. The Nazi Party was not "traditional" by any sense of the word: in fact, they trampled all over the traditional values of the Germanic peoples, beginning with the idea of the people of Germany being one united kind: the Aryan race. The concept of a pan-Germanic identity, instead of the residents of individual kingdoms identifying themselves as members of those regions, was born out of the Prussian desire to become a great power in Europe- a goal they sought to accomplish by uniting the German-speaking states of the Confederation (which at the time was a loose political and trade alliance) into a single entity. Seeking to create a stronger bond than the loose alliance of the Confederation or the HRE without the resentment of a client state, von Bismark emphasized the "common history" of the Germanic peoples on the stage of Europe, elevating pagan myths and using universal suffrage and the formenting of resentment against the Catholic church (the traditional faith of Germany at the time) to forge the German state out of a couple dozen small states. Nazi concepts of racial categories were not traditional in the slightest, neither in how they carved up ethnicities, nor in their idea that the most "inferior" races should be eliminated. Traditional Germanic ideas of ethnicity showed little concern for skin tone and a lot more concern for religious sects and wars, and there was no belief that other ethnicities should be destroyed: conquered and converted, yes- but not genocided.
Nazi policies such as Lebenborn also flew in the face of the "natural hierarchy" of the family you so laud: women being paid to have sex out of wedlock with "Aryan" men and having their children taken and raised by other families, the kidnapping of "racially-pure" children from other countries to be raised in group homes, and mandatory abortions for the disfigured all fly in the face of traditional views of the family, the State's role in the family, and the sanctity of life. Even the Nazi concept of low-brow and avant-garde "degenerate art" as an inherent moral hazard requiring total annihilation traces back to the Jewish critic Max Nordau's work Degeneration: a modernist philosophical tract.
The Nazis draped themselves in the colors of tradition and reaction, but had no real interest in the traditions of Germany, as they were in direct conflict with Nazi goals. Instead, their ideas were rooted firmly in Modernist thought, Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict, and Futurist social theory.
3. The Falangists sought to take the traditional Spanish monarchy and Catholic concepts and render them viable in the modern era through synthesis with their reaction (Enlightenment thought), to varying degrees of success. They were national syndicalists and civic nationalists who imposed Catholicism as the state religion but didn't care about racial purity or "The Jewish Question".

Fair enough. I suppose I was projecting my views on right wing nationalism as an English nationalist through to the past rather than considering right wing nationalists from around the world which was biasing the way I view the classics. Any book recommendations on Falangism? Seems interesting.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Fair enough. I suppose I was projecting my views on right wing nationalism as an English nationalist through to the past rather than considering right wing nationalists from around the world which was biasing the way I view the classics. Any book recommendations on Falangism? Seems interesting.

Obviously, the first text is the Twenty-Seven Points, the Falange's official mission statement and foundational document, as well as The Conquest of the State, a 23-issue paper written by one of the founders of JONS, one of the two bodies that came to form the Falange. In terms of understanding the thought process that led to the Falange, the works of Pedro Laín Entralgo, Ernesto Giménez Caballero, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, and more distantly Nimio de Anquín and Gabriele D'Annunzio.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

1. You defined Rightist thought as focused on "heritage, hierarchy, and structure". The Chinese and Russians were, indeed, not big fans of their cultural heritage, but they were extremely hierarchical and structured. There are other reasons why I would categorize them as rightists as opposed to leftists (Trotsky was a Leftist, for example, because he believed that states themselves were invalid, unlike Stalin) but quibbling over that is pointless; my point is that the ideologies most "reactionary" thinkers uphold as "traditional" are actually based entirely in Modernity. So moving on to the group you fully yield as being Rightist:
2. The Nazi Party was not "traditional" by any sense of the word: in fact, they trampled all over the traditional values of the Germanic peoples, beginning with the idea of the people of Germany being one united kind: the Aryan race. The concept of a pan-Germanic identity, instead of the residents of individual kingdoms identifying themselves as members of those regions, was born out of the Prussian desire to become a great power in Europe- a goal they sought to accomplish by uniting the German-speaking states of the Confederation (which at the time was a loose political and trade alliance) into a single entity. Seeking to create a stronger bond than the loose alliance of the Confederation or the HRE without the resentment of a client state, von Bismark emphasized the "common history" of the Germanic peoples on the stage of Europe, elevating pagan myths and using universal suffrage and the formenting of resentment against the Catholic church (the traditional faith of Germany at the time) to forge the German state out of a couple dozen small states. Nazi concepts of racial categories were not traditional in the slightest, neither in how they carved up ethnicities, nor in their idea that the most "inferior" races should be eliminated. Traditional Germanic ideas of ethnicity showed little concern for skin tone and a lot more concern for religious sects and wars, and there was no belief that other ethnicities should be destroyed: conquered and converted, yes- but not genocided.
Nazi policies such as Lebenborn also flew in the face of the "natural hierarchy" of the family you so laud: women being paid to have sex out of wedlock with "Aryan" men and having their children taken and raised by other families, the kidnapping of "racially-pure" children from other countries to be raised in group homes, and mandatory abortions for the disfigured all fly in the face of traditional views of the family, the State's role in the family, and the sanctity of life. Even the Nazi concept of low-brow and avant-garde "degenerate art" as an inherent moral hazard requiring total annihilation traces back to the Jewish critic Max Nordau's work Degeneration: a modernist philosophical tract.
The Nazis draped themselves in the colors of tradition and reaction, but had no real interest in the traditions of Germany, as they were in direct conflict with Nazi goals. Instead, their ideas were rooted firmly in Modernist thought, Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict, and Futurist social theory.
3. The Falangists sought to take the traditional Spanish monarchy and Catholic concepts and render them viable in the modern era through synthesis with their reaction (Enlightenment thought), to varying degrees of success. They were national syndicalists and civic nationalists who imposed Catholicism as the state religion but didn't care about racial purity or "The Jewish Question".

We obviously have completely different views of what distinguishes right from left in politics. I see the primary distinction in being private individual as opposed to communal ownership of property and the means of production, with this difference putting monarchists, fascists, and classical liberals on the right and any kind of socialists or communists on the left, at least in terms of their rhetoric. The USSR generally rejected the concept of private property, so it was leftist, whereas present day Russia is based on a market with private property, though much of this is still controlled by the state in some way, so it is rightist.

Hitler and Franco didn't really seize power based on nebulous concepts of "tradition" as much as their respect for the private property of major industrialists and landowners. Both mustered support from property owners terrified of communist revolution and protected their property with state authority, though the state intervened heavily in the economies of both countries. In fact, I would go as far to say that the effect of "Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict" on early 20th century geopolitics was very limited indeed, since practically no one would have known what on Earth that was, and the terror of the angry mob coming to lynch the landlord was far more powerful.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

We obviously have completely different views of what distinguishes right from left in politics. I see the primary distinction in being private individual as opposed to communal ownership of property and the means of production, with this difference putting monarchists, fascists, and classical liberals on the right and any kind of socialists or communists on the left, at least in terms of their rhetoric. The USSR generally rejected the concept of private property, so it was leftist, whereas present day Russia is based on a market with private property, though much of this is still controlled by the state in some way, so it is rightist.

Hitler and Franco didn't really seize power based on nebulous concepts of "tradition" as much as their respect for the private property of major industrialists and landowners. Both mustered support from property owners terrified of communist revolution and protected their property with state authority, though the state intervened heavily in the economies of both countries. In fact, I would go as far to say that the effect of "Hegelian triadic dialectic conflict" on early 20th century geopolitics was very limited indeed, since practically no one would have known what on Earth that was, and the terror of the angry mob coming to lynch the landlord was far more powerful.

The Hegelian triadic dialectic was why that angry mob was coming to lynch the landlord. Marx's dialectic materialism is the basis of his economic and social theories, and are simply Hegelian dialectics applied to material conditions instead of abstract concepts.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

The Hegelian triadic dialectic was why that angry mob was coming to lynch the landlord. Marx's dialectic materialism is the basis of his economic and social theories, and are simply Hegelian dialectics applied to material conditions instead of abstract concepts.

No, the fact their countries' economies were in the dumps was the main reason. Those mobs didn't know anything about Marx.

 

[Idiotron]

How many Righties can you think of that have written an influential book or directed a hit movie in the last 50 years?

Clint Eastwood did both things several times.

Speaking of Eastwood, his characters were cool as fuck.
People wanted to be cool like them.
That's what the Right needs if they want to get a foothold in pop culture - cool characters.
The Left is making a bunch of unlikable assholes lately or they're turning the likable ones from the past into punchlines.
This is a good time for the Right to create cool characters that will personify conservative values.

Here's an idea:
Make a modern Western set in a small town during a time when there are riots, chaos and destruction.
Cops are defunded and/or on strike so crime is everywhere (already relatable to most Americans).
Mysterious guy shows up (cool car, cool look, cool Eastwood-esque demeanor) and cleans up the town.
Make sure it's a hard R with good cinematography and action choreography).
Not a billion Dollar idea but it will make money if the budget is reasonable (around $20 million).
Make 20-30 movies like that over the next 5 years and now, you have a huge chunk of movie goers paying attention.
That's how you do it.

 

[Liber Pater]

I do not believe that the culture war can be won without broader social reorganization. The right produces plenty of original and valuable cultural products already, but in the context of a society where we hold no meaningful control over education, the financial system, media, etc, it does not matter.
Maybe these obstacles could be overcome by a people with a positive collective identity and an appreciation for transcendant values/goals that go beyond an atomized conception of the individual. Such people would not easily be subverted or intimidated into submission. However, even on the right, this group is small.

 

[Someone Awful]

It's time to accept that the right has lost the culture war in the West and with it, its political relevance. The left controls academia, the media, and entertainment, three of the most important breeding grounds of culture in modern society. Once Trump leave office, be it 2021 or 2025, we will never see a Republican president again. We are under a Marxist revolution and the far left are winning. They will take control of the government and will do whatever they can to ensure a Trump never challenges them again. There won't be a rightist counterculture because the leftists will spot any sign of resistance and crush it.

Stop thinking of this as a "right vs. left" issue. We whine about how the right bridge to cultural relevance is fixing to fall any day, but that in itself does not take into account that most people are apolitical. They would rather not spend hours per day on depressing, miserable news where they are told they are horrible human beings for not supporting the Nigger Lives Don't Matter riots. They might not care about the left but they sure as hell aren't going to care about the right when all they heard is about how the right are literal woman-hating white supremacist Nazis who spam shitty Pepe The Frog memes. The zeitgeist has been solidified and there won't be internal resistance killing it anytime soon. A rightist counterculture is a lost cause and whining about it is an exercise in futility.

We need an apolitical counterculture. We need a counterculture that isn't defined by political divide, that taps into what most people want to see but are too afraid to honestly express. The concept of a zeitgeist - not just a leftist zeitgeist - has to be destroyed and never given an opportunity to restore itself. We have to decentralize, depoliticized, and localize culture. The political party system has never been useful and we have to dismantle it. Make it that people have to run to represent themselves - not a party - as the best candidate to obtain a political position. Governments must operate like towns, not like a world order.

We live in a world where most people are powerless to do anything other than vote and hope for lesser than two evils outcome. It's time to stop managing our decline. It's time to start supporting localism.

 

[Terrorist]

It could, hypothetically, but will it? Not likely. Unfortunately one of the drawbacks of reactionary ideology is just that: it's reactive, instead of proactive. Complain about the left all you want but they're winning the culture war because they have a vision for the future and a plan to implement it.

Meanwhile, the traditionalist right can't articulate what it wants: 1950s white picket fences? Neo-Confederacy? Petti Linkola? Pan-Aryan Imperium? Ancapistan? Catholic Integralism (in prot America, which, fucking lol at that)? Anybody can point to these things as better than liberal modernity with little effort involved, but it's way harder to plan an alternative to modernity, which is why none of them do it.

IMO the alt-right has 2 options it could try (not saying they'll work) if it wants to build a platform from which it can reclaim and produce culture:
1. Take advantage of Freedom of Association while it still exists to build an Amish/SSPX/Orania-style planned community, which would get the NP2 treatment at best and Randy Weaver'd at worst.
2. Take advantage of hard economic times and build community organizations that fill a material void for disenfranchised whites the govt and liberal capitalism aren't providing to the needed capacity: food banks, free medical care, drug rehab clinics, vocational training, etc. Virgin alt-right (only alienates white people further from what their all grandparents thought was common sense) vs Chad Scientology (gets millionaire celebs to believe Xenu cured their coke problem).

Of course, both of these solutions require work IRL beyond podcasting and hoping Daddy Trump will clean up your mess, so neither are pursued. A major reason for this, I think, is that most alt-right "leaders" were just shitposters who got really popular instead of serious organizers who were elevated due to achievements IRL. Your entire movement can't be a series of decreasingly competent Julius Streichers (the lowest IQ Nazi by a lot btw).

 

[Cryonic Haunted Bullets]

2. Take advantage of hard economic times and build community organizations that fill a material void for disenfranchised whites the govt and liberal capitalism aren't providing to the needed capacity: food banks, free medical care, drug rehab clinics, vocational training, etc. Virgin alt-right (only alienates white people further from what their all grandparents thought was common sense) vs Chad Scientology (gets millionaire celebs to believe Xenu cured their coke problem).

Niggers beat you to it:

 

[Terrorist]

Niggers beat you to it:

That's exactly where that shower-thought came from.

The NOI had (and still has) K-12 schools, real estate/business holdings, and a few universities to their name. They also helped the black men who joined them become productive citizens, to a point where even George Lincoln Rockwell had to be impressed. You don't have to like the NOI to realize they were much more serious than the current alt-right, or really any American WN movement.

 

[Trans Fat 41g]

The "left versus right" in culture isn't the same as it was over a decade ago nor is it the specific goal of today. Today, it's all about momentary fame without the quintessential substance to back it up. This includes discriminating against political alignment for the benefit of making Fairweather Friends.

It's called the placebo effect, and, somehow it's become stronger than even fentanyl. You can blame the internet when human nature at its raw is to blame. People have utterly fucked their creative freedoms and mental health sideways for social media credentials.

But who benefits from this? Corporations.

Clout sells faster than quality products, so throw in politics without nuance even if it does kill the product, it's an acceptable loss.

Edit since I'm back on Desktop:

We've seen it happen with popular IP's from major producers and when the end-stage is reached, what typically happens? A chain of heavy controversies are all that's left to show on the front end. It allows companies to sustain traffic and get massive returns from the fallout before it becomes background clout.