Please help with donations as much as possible Volk
The prices to keep us running have sky rocketed in the last few months.

Criticizing the Far Right: A Traditionalist Critique of the Old and Contemporary Right

By Deebs...



The Right is dead. Even now, during this time of political dissidence we see coming from the so-called “Dissident Right”, which has made a considerable effort to rebel against liberal modernity, the real Right is nowhere to be found. Instead, on the Dissident Right, we have individuals who fail to face the simple truth that they engage in syncretic politics that are generally beyond the Left and Right dichotomy. This work's author actually considers this to be a very good thing. The Dissident Left seems to follow a similar path, with the recent trend of “MAGA Communism” and the embrace of the classic Rightist theoretician Julius Evola among certain Marxist-Leninist circles. It just so happens to be the case that it feels necessary to clarify what Right and Left actually mean, among other things. It is also appropriate, from this author’s perspective, to criticize both the Right of today and the Traditionalist Right of old, among other things.

This essay will do the following:

  1. Explain the original meanings of Left and Right and their relevance today.

  2. Criticize the state of the modern mainstream American “Right.”

  3. Criticize the Dissident Right for certain misunderstandings and misbehaviors.

  4. Criticize the very concept of a so-called “Far Right.”

  5. Criticize the Traditionalist Right from the point of view of Traditionalism.

The second on this list will be a familiar critique among those in the dissident scene whom this author already knows of; the problems within American “Rightism” with respect to the Republican Party and basic “conservatives” have been clear to us for years now. Elaborating on it, however, will prove useful to new readers who are not familiar with the ins and outs of dissident politics and its general culture and beliefs. The rest should contain a fresh perspective unfamiliar to the Dissident Right.

[A note from the author: the lowercased “national socialism(s)” and “fascism” will be terms used to describe various movements that abide by all things socialist and nationalistic in synthesis, whereas “National Socialism” and “Fascism” with capitalized first letters will specifically refer to Hitlerian Fascism and Italian Fascism respectively. Traditionalism, being a political and philosophical perspective, will always be capitalized, whereas the use of the lowercase “traditional” will simply be synonymous with the terms “original” or “orthodox”, except for within a quotation that is cited by another author who felt otherwise was appropriate. The author’s preferential use of the terms “State”, “Right wing” and “Left wing” follow the same rule.]

Clarifying Rightism


The Left and Right political paradigm made its historical debut in French Parliament, near the end of King Louis XVI’s reign, during the Age of Enlightenment. [1] The right side of the room included aristocrats, monarchists, anti-capitalists, anti-republicans, and those against limited government. [2] This Right wing sought to protect the status quo and its long-held privileges, ranging from “political power and the caste prestige of the ruling elites.” [3] Their view of the economy was, arguably, in favor of a kind of reverse Robin Hood economics, where the peasants would set down the seeds of their labor and then grow its fruit, only to then have the fruit snatched away and eaten by an authority figure in the French government, who would leave nothing but crumbs for the common man who did the actual work. The author L.K. Samuels described it like this:

They felt entitled to live off the people’s labor through high debt and almost confiscatory taxation.

[4] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 27). Freeland Press.

The aristocratic moneybags at the top of this hierarchy felt that they were, essentially, granted the mandate of heaven, or ordination from God himself, thus deeming their actions suitable. [5] This perspective falls in line with the view of Traditionalism, a political and non-secular doctrine that would later be expounded upon and given traction by philosophers such as Rene Guenon and Julius Evola (and this is not to say that these people would have necessarily agreed with the shortcomings of this first Right wing).The Left wing, at first, was full of capitalists, the bourgeoisie, and radical Lockeans. [6] This changed when socialists and communists began to sit on the left side of parliament, identifying with the Left wing of the political spectrum, despite their fervent anti-capitalism, which they shared with the Right. [7] The ranks of the socialists would include those who were not necessarily communists, but those of a more nationalistic mindset. If anything, what we can identify here is a form of proto-Third Positionism (a catch-all phrase for ideologies between or separate from orthodox communism and capitalism), which was, at first, of the Left. The reason these socialists sat with the Left was that they were not in favor of the status quo, and they could not, in any way, shape, or form, allow themselves to be associated with the side of the room occupied by the Right, which contained only those against change. [8]

And so the initial purpose of the French Revolution moved away from freedom and liberty towards nationalistic socialism and “autarkic protectionism, mostly because of the collectivistic influence of the proto-socialist Montagnards’ faction within the Jacobin Club, the most influential political club during the revolution.” [9] The Montagnards’, led by Maximilien Robespierre, enacted the much infamous Reign of Terror, resulting in sixteen-thousand death sentences at the hands of highly organized collectivists concerned with gaining political power. [10]

The Montagnards embodied a radical collectivist and nationalist demeanor that was a harbinger of the revolutionary socialism and collectivistic nationalism that came to inspire Nazism and communism.

[11] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 32). Freeland Press.

The Montagnards engaged in select acts of racial violence (probably against Jewish tradesmen, if the author of this essay had to guess), expropriated private wealth, jailed and terminated prisoners, exterminated revolutionaries who were liberals, and more. [12] As for the Montagnards’ faction on the Left, there is an undeniable crossover between them and the statists on the Right, since they had “reverted into the same authoritarian abyss of the old, absolute-power monarchists and moralistic dogma of the Church.” [13] But, it was socialism and capitalism on the Left that, although at odds with one another, were unique to the Left and absent on the Right. This completely redefined what the Left wing meant by the time the French Revolution was over: it was no longer a force of liberalism against the Reactionary Right, it was a force of progressivism against the Right wing conservatives. The capitalist liberals and the socialists both wanted to progress society away from how things were at the time, although they understood the methodology behind progress completely differently. The Right wanted no progress, but a complete lack of change.

In fact, Hitler recognized the French Revolution as influencing national socialist thought, saying: “This revolution of ours is the exact counterpart of the French Revolution.” As for Marxists and their colleagues, they approvingly saw Robespierre and the sans-culottes as quasi-Marxist heroes and defenders of the revolution by foreign and domestic enemies as expressed by the Marxist historian Albert Soboul, while others argued that the revolutionaries had to exterminate domestic enemies to defend their utopian goals…

In the case of Mussolini, Italian Fascism and revolutionary syndicalism also developed strong ideological links to the Western radical tradition of the latter-stage French Revolution. According to the Italian historical Renzo de Felice, Fascism was not tethered to an archetypical reactionism, but to the extremist Rousseauian themes of the Reign of Terror and “totalitarian democracy.” In other words, many scholars argue that Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s thoughts led French extremists to engage in the Reign of Terror, which many consider a precursor to fascism. Such a perspective is reasonable. Italian Fascism’s tendencies towards social revolution, anti-democracy, and violence could be expected since “most fascist intellectuals started out as Marxists.”

Nonetheless, it is no wonder that many historians cite Robespierre’s Reign of Terror as the endpoint of the Age of Enlightenment, considering that that reign had inspired subsequent national socialist and Marxist movements.

[14] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 34-35). Freeland Press.

Should anyone doubt the authenticity of the source used for these aforementioned claims, or the scholarship of the author, note that the book has over one-thousand five-hundred footnotes citing both historians and political scientists. The book makes a worthy effort to claim that Mussolini and Hitler were Left wing statists, which, although seems like it, is not the case; they embraced both Left and Right traits, which is a point we will revisit in a later section.

The Obvious Criticism of the Mainstream American Right


After reading the previous section, need this writer even proceed with criticizing the so-called American “Right” as it is presented in social and political settings? When we think of Right wingers in America, by and large, today, we think of capitalist “conservatives”, Jewish tradesmen like the “Rightist” Ben Shapiro, Zionist capitalists such as Dinesh D’Souza, Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, and the general sphere that encompasses Turning Point USA, The Daily Wire, Breitbart, and various other American conservative organizations and social media outlets. Even Fox News, the television station, is deemed as “Right wing” to modern standards, which is insane, because they generally espouse free-market principles and laissez-faire dogma, with the exception of certain comments made by the now absent Fox host Tucker Carlson, who will be “doing his own thing” elsewhere, as the kids say these days. [15] The reaction to Carlson’s Rightist critique of capitalism has been a surprise for dogmatic Democrats and Republicans alike, which goes to show that they do not understand what a Right wing is, nor does Fox News. Conservative capitalists are America’s “Right” at this point in time because the entire political dichotomy that sits in the mainstream is skewed to the liberal portion of the Left. We can say with certainty that the Democrats and Republicans are, without a shadow of a doubt, liberals with either blue or red ties, respectively. The Democrats are a bastion of human rights and individual liberties with respect to matters of homosexuality and its spinoffs, indicated by the LGBTQ “community”, while the Republicans carry the same exact values and apply them to valuing free-market principles, with a mere tolerance of homosexuals and transgenders; the much famous internet conservative Blaire White is proof of this, acceptance of the now ex-homosexual, still “conservative” Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as the general acceptance from conservatives upon “Catelyn Jenner”, formerly known as Bruce Jenner, into the Republican party. In short, the Democrats are liberal progressives who put the pedal to the metal, whereas the Republicans are liberals who go the speed limit. Although the mainstream Right will espouse rhetoric against the political correctness [PC] of the liberal Left, they will counterbalance it with a PC of their own, which carries its roots in liberal values like individual rights and freedoms. Every single mainstream conservative to remain on Fox News, as well as the entirety of the popular American conservative movement, would have sat on the Left side of French parliament during the era of the French Revolution, and would have been killed off or subjugated by the anti-liberal Leftists, if not by the Right wing anti-capitalists.

Criticism of the Dissident Right


What Rightism Constitutes and the Falsehood of Right Wing Fascism


Regarding the other Right, the non-mainstream Right wing that has its base in circles on the internet (for example, Keith Woods and the Joel Davis’ fan base), there is an embrace of the Third Position or nationalistic fascism, which, despite its socialistic character, is characterized as Right wing phenomena. [16] The consequence is that those who are interested in genuine Rightist perspectives flock to the Dissident Right only to get syncretic politics between Right and Left. From the perspective of this author, that is still preferable.

Even so, a movement that wants to call itself a Rightist form of dissent should, at the very least, know why they are not Right wingers. It must be emphasized that this portion of the essay is not an attack on the aforementioned individual or anyone else who is a part of the Dissident Right. If it isn’t known by the readers, the writer is, in fact, an ethnocentric nationalist with sympathies to pan-nationalism or post-nationalist political theory, under the precondition they are shaped in a multipolar world (as opposed to a unipolar world, where the planet is dominated under just one empire; in this case, the modern American empire). If anything, this writer agrees with almost all if not most of “Dissident Rightist” points or perspectives as expressed by Keith Woods, with perhaps some irrelevant disagreements. It just feels necessary to point out that the political perspective that he indubitably represents alongside other like-minded individuals, who all embrace the socialist and nationalist synthesis, is just not Right wing, and I point this out for the sake of maintaining a historically accurate lexicon. Unless the Dissident Right refers to a faction that was previously within the Right that is now dissenting not just against the status quo, but the Right itself… it seems appropriate to undertake the subject of modern “Rightist” misunderstandings when it comes to their own beliefs.

A previous section already did the job of outlying why all forms of socialism are simply not Right wing; they are in opposition to the reactionary nature of the Right. Socialism is a change to contrast the Rightist version of Traditionalism, and the Right is a lack of change and is absolute conservation of that which existed just prior to the French Revolution.

You don’t have to just take it from me or my previous source, but you can take it from the pen of Julius Evola, the classical Rightist theoretician, himself.

Sometimes, people also speak of the Right in relation to the political systems of the “fascist” sort. In this case, however, certain reservations are in order. In a series of essays on the European Right, the authors quite rightly observe that these systems cannot be described as Right-wing in the old, traditional sense of the term, since they are rather marked by the mingling of Right and Left: on the one hand they upheld the principle of authority, but on the other relied on mass parties that embraced “social” and revolutionary principles of the Left, against which men of the real Right would certainly have taken a stand.

[17] Evola, J. (2017) The Right and Tradition. In A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth. (pp. 42). Arktos Media Ltd.

The totalitarian form of non-traditional democracy inherent in fascism can be contrasted with this genuine Rightist perspective:

On the other hand, there is no need to stress the incompatibility of the Right with democracy.

[18] Evola, J. (2017) The Right and Tradition. In A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth. (pp. 42). Arktos Media Ltd.

Not to digress, but, interestingly enough, Evola pointed out the Right’s eventual adoption of capitalism as an economic model, which proved to be disastrous.

Between the true Right and the economic Right, there is not only no common identity, but on the contrary, there is a clear antithesis.

[19] Evola, J. (2013) I. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 19). Arktos Media Ltd.

Later, in his book Fascism Viewed from the Right, he wrote that the Fascist view of the State could only be seen as positive from a Right wing perspective. [20] However, the Fascist-statist tendencies to favor shaping society along “social” lines, nearing the idea of establishing a “people’s [democracy]”, is the Fascist crossover with Marxist and Communist theory that the true Right cannot support. [21] At least, Fascism brought in a “certain ideal high tension” that went beyond hedonistic [materialist] values and instead emphasized eudemonistic values [values of spiritual well-being]. [22] Evola praised this dimension of political Fascism, separate from its social dimension, as well as Fascism’s anti-bourgeois nature. [23]

Another criticism of Fascism, which he also shared with his view of Germanic National Socialism, was fascism’s insistence to maintain a so-called one-party State. [24] The very concept of the political party only exists in a world of parliamentary democracy, thus traditionally undemocratic parties cannot exist. [25] “Party” implies multiplicity; it only exists when there are other parties. [26] Hence, when faced with a “one-party State” such as Fascist Italy or National Socialist Germany, the question that comes to the forefront is: part of what? The insistence on there being a party only acts as an obstacle in the pursuit of nearing a Right wing State, which would not have a Party, but an Order to replace the lack of parties. [27] Even more compromising was Fascist Italy’s insistence on a mass party, which entailed the illegality of not being in the party, thus making it easier for anti-Fascists to exist in the party and act in accordance with disruptive actions akin to enemy political perspectives. [28] At the very least, National Socialism did not include this same mistake, instead opting for an elitist and selective approach. [29]

The other incompatibility between fascism and Rightism is the former’s tendency to shape cults of personality, which is a Leftist tendency. The non-liberal Left insists on establishing the authority of a leader whereas the Right is focused on an authority “based on an amorphous power”, meaning a power that is not downstream from the will of a human being, but instead, from the Abrahamic perspective, God, or from the paganistic perspective, “gods.” [30] In the realms of Traditionalism and Rightism, people obey a leader because he is of a different nature. [31]. In the realm of Left-aligned totalitarianism, people obey a leader because he is “one of us”, “one of the people”, one who personifies the “will of the people” (hence, the democratic aspect of fascism); this phenomenon is laced throughout Hitler’s National Socialism and Stalin’s Soviet Communism. [32] The real Right does not allow this.

The Leftist version of totalitarianism, which exists within fascism, is also completely different from that of Rightist governance, which is Traditional, and not really totalitarian.

The traditional state is organic, but not totalitarian. It is differentiated and articulated, and admits zones of partial autonomy. It coordinates forces and causes them to participate in a superior unity, while recognizing their liberty. Exactly because it is strong, it does not need to resort to mechanical centralizing, which is required only when it is necessary to rein in a shapeless and atomistic mass of individuals and wills, from which, however, disorder can never be truly eliminated, but only temporarily contained.

[33] Evola, J. (2013) VI. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 42). Arktos Media Ltd.

Fascist socialism does not, unlike Rightism, shape a true State along immaterial lines “according to what was found in all preceding regimes.” [34] These are just some of the Rightist incompatibilities with fascism that Evola personally identified. Another incompatibility comes to mind. It complements Evola’s concern about fascist totalitarianism:

… on 22 July 1942, Hitler vehemently defends the Soviet economic system and even the so-called “Stachanow System”, which it was “exceedingly stupid” to ridicule: “One has to have unqualified respect for Stalin. In his way, the guy is quite a genius! His ideals such as Genghis Khan and so forth he knows very well, and his economic planning is so all-encompassing that it is only exceeded by our own Four-Year Plan. I have no doubts whatsoever there have been no unemployed in the USSR, as opposed to capitalist countries such as the USA.

[35] Zitelmann, R. (2022) Hitler’s Central Objective. In Hitler’s National Socialism. (pp. 302). Management Books 2000 Ltd.

Hitler’s anti-capitalism can only be viewed from the Right as something positive, only to be made irrelevant with the embrace of totalitarian socialism. His totalitarianism also comes to negate any possibility of him being a Rightist when we examine this quote:

The German has made himself hated throughout the whole world, because wherever he appears he immediately begins to play the teacher. The other nations did not gain the slightest advantage from this, because the values they were offered were not values for them. The sense of duty the way we define it does not exist in Russia. Why should we want to educate the Russian to this? The “Reichs farmer” will live in outstandingly beautiful settlements. The German offices and authorities will have wonderful apartments, the governors palaces. Around the offices all that is necessary for the maintenance of life will be built up. And around the city, there is a ring of thirty to forty kilometers of lovely villages, interconnected by the best roads. What comes next is the other world in which we will let the Russians live as they like, only we control them. In case of a revolution we then only need to drop a few bombs on their cities and the matter is settled.

[36] Zitelmann, R. (2022) Hitler: And Opponent of Modern Industrial Society[?]. In Hitler’s National Socialism. (pp. 370). Management Books 2000 Ltd.

Hitler’s methodology of explaining racial science contrasts with that of the Right as well, considering it includes a process of modernization that author Rainer Zitelmann states were both secular and rational. [37] This essayist disagrees with the claim of secularism because Hitler did invoke God’s name positively and with full belief in his speeches and published writing. Even if the racial views of Hitler were not rooted in amorphous power or mysticism, it was already implied that he was self-aware of the fact that his rational view of race only existed because he lived in a world where God could allow one to rationalize.

The Right does not rationalize; it certainly did not when it came to the French Right asking themselves whether or not they were the right leaders for the French race, because after all, they had the mandate of heaven. Hitler, however, asked himself if he was right for aiding the conservation of the German race along rationalistic lines. People assume that National Socialism was a protest against the rationalism of the nineteenth century which we saw come from the Left as part of the Enlightenment. [38] It was true to some serious extent with respect to the ideologies of Heinrich Himmler and Alfred Rosenberg, but it was arguably not true with Hitler. [39]

To be sure, Hitler was very aware of human irrationality and was prepared to exploit it unscrupulously in the service of his ideas. This was the purpose of the mass parades, the consecrations of flags, drums, symbols, etc., which Hitler knew how to stage and use. But we also know that Hitler used these means very consciously, very deliberately, and therefore “rationally.” When in Mein Kampf, for example, he explained in terms of mass psychology the reasons why he held his rallies in the evening and not during the day, this may be taken as an example of a very carefully considered and therefore rational use of human irrationality.

Hitler was basically convinced that his Weltanschauung was a rational, scientifically based theory…

National Socialism on the other hand was a: “cool set of teachings of reality of the most sharply scientific insights and their mental formation. By our having unlocked and continuing to unlock the heart of our nation for these teachings, we do not wish to till it with a mysticism which lies outside the reasons and objectives of our teachings. In its organization, National Socialism is probably first and foremost a popular movement, but under no circumstances is it a cult… Because National Socialism is not a cultic movement but a national-political doctrine which has developed solely out of racial discoveries. In its intention there is no mystic cult, but instead the care and leadership of the nation as defined by blood. Therefore we have no cult rooms, but only meeting halls for the people, no cult areas, but only assembly and parade areas. We have no sacred groves, but sports arenas and playgrounds… Therefore the movement must not tolerate mystically inclined occult investigators of the hereafter sneaking in. They are not National Socialists, but something else entirely, and in any case something that has nothing to do with us. At the head of our program does not stand some mysterious presentiment, but clear understanding and therefore open confession… Our cult is solely care for the natural and that which is divinely willed.

[40] Zitelmann, R. (2022) Hitler: And Opponent of Modern Industrial Society[?]. In Hitler’s National Socialism. (pp. 406-407). Management Books 2000 Ltd.

“That which is divinely willed” debunks Zitelmann’s own claim from two pages prior that the Hitler view of race was secular, because Hitler inferred the relevance of God when discussing this very subject. Even so, an appeal was made to rationality, which is a Leftist appeal and not a Rightist one. If the Enlightenment was solely about rationality, then Hitler was not anti-Enlightenment; if the Enlightenment was solely about liberalism, then Hitler was anti-Enlightenment and merely used the rational tactic that was once meant to aid liberal egalitarianism up until Hitler’s reappropriation of it to defend his anti-egalitarian worldview. Hence, fascism is not Right wing. The Dissident Right can adopt the beliefs and labels of fascism all they want, but it will remain Rightist in name only and never in practice. Therein lies this particular critique of the so-called Dissident Right.

Right Wing Fascism: An Infantile Disorder


Of course, there will still be people who insist on “Right wing fascism”, even though the very idea is an oxymoron. It is usually a handful of the people within the viewership of pro-fascist channels who not only insist that it is of the Right but also carry an undeniable aura of being pathetic and disgusting. It tends to be the self-identified “Right wing fascists” who remain anonymous in chatrooms, comment sections, and so forth, and bastardize the meaning of fascist racism, which did not devalue other races but instead sought to conserve them.

Upon this writer sharing images of Esther Anumu Fordham, the Black German who lived in and was respected in the Third Reich, Right wing fascists immediately got to having a breakdown, calling her disgusting and antagonistic racial slurs. Whenever this writer speaks of Louis Brody, the Negro German who ran an Afro-German organization in Hitler’s Germany, which was never shut down, the Right wing fascist responds in the same way as he does in the previous example. These are the same people who glorify the stereotype of the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Nordic German, which did not hold up particularly well in Nazi Germany:

Hitler disapproved of such comparisons. He especially opposed references to physical contrasts of stature, coloring, or physiognomy among German ethnic groups. In 1930 he told an aid, “Discussions about the race problem will only divide the German people further, incite them against one another and atomize them, and in this way make them inconsequential with respect to foreign affairs.” He admonished senior officials of the party to avoid the subject of ethnic diversity in speeches and articles: “Everything that unifies and welds the classes together must be brought to the fore, nourished and promoted, and everything that divides them, re-animates the old prejudices, must be avoided, fought and eliminated… They are the surest way to destroy a community.” He remarked that people should be selected for leadership roles “not according to outward appearance, but by demonstrating inward ability.” Goebbels, himself a diminutive man with a slight limp, recorded in his diary in October 1937, “Discussed race policy with Dr. Gross. I reproached him for our flawed standards for making selections. According to them, practically every officer today would be dismissed.”

Like the earlier race hygienist [Hans F.K.] Günther, Hitler believed that the more capable and fit among the Germans should not set themselves above other groups to preserve or advance their particular bloodline. It was their duty to help elevate the German nation as an entity. As summarized by his chronicler Dr. Henry Picker, Hitler was “firmly resolved to transfer racially excellent military units, such as formations of the Waffen SS, to every region where the indigenous people are substandard. They will provide for the population by replenishing its bloodlines.”(The Waffen SS was an elite branch of the German military requiring high physical standards for enrollment.)

Though believing in the inequality of mankind, Hitler opposed clique-forming or elitist attitudes among his countrymen’s more gifted persons or ethnic groups. He measured people not by what nature gave them, but by how they contributed their talents, be they lofty or modest, to advance the national community. This was a standard every German could aspire to, regardless of his or her station in society. Personal attitude and endeavor, not the circumstances of birth, determine the superior being.

[41] Tedor, R. (2013) Ideology. In Hitler’s Revolution: Expanded Edition. (pp. 34-35).

The very last point is lost on these live-action role players who adhere to the media’s usual portrayal of Hollywood Nazis or “Rightists.” Their behavior is indicative of infant-like or childish behavior; a complete lack of maturity used to compensate for their lack of ability. It occasionally stems from a self-awareness that recognizes a lack of merit in their physiognomy; they are outwardly ugly, not unlike the usual anti-fascists or “Antifa”, and so they overcompensate over this; this is typically true among the White nationalist sphere that likes to refer to itself as a part of “Right wing fascism.” Instead of rational or intellectual conversation, these unremarkable people can only line up a slew of enunciations that are nothing more than deranged ramblings with no clear end goal for ongoing discourse. Their remarkably unhinged behavior is grounds for lethal punishment when “things get real”, as they say, if our measurement of value is on par with the personal standards behind any actual revolution. They are a disruptive force within dissident politics. They perpetuate a fringe and unhealthy culture that is essentially entirely online and not in the physical plane.

It is also the Right wing fascists who refuse to acknowledge the positive views Hitler and Mussolini, at one point or another, had with respect to Stalinism. Upon mentioning that the Nazi party had certain communist sympathies, I was met with the response that there should have been another “Knight of the Long Knives” to purge these people. The irony was completely lost on this person that Hitler would die in this second purge, if the criteria for being killed was simply having certain communist sympathies. And it is usually the same Right wing fascists who, because of their hatred for the Soviet Union, would rather side with modern American imperialism and defend the Ukrainian nation in NATO’s war against Russia, despite the fact that its leader is a pro-Isreali Jew accepting of liberals and homosexuals. It is completely lost on these people that the Azov Battalion, the Nazi group fighting on behalf of Ukraine, is, for all intents and purposes, the Nazi ISIS. Azov is about as genuinely National Socialist as much as ISIS is genuinely Islamic: not even remotely close. And we can judge this to be the case by their actions: they fight for the liberal world, they attack anything on the map that isn’t Israel, and they effectively fight in favor of the absurd Nuremberg ideology that Evola criticizes: the belief that a soldier must be held accountable for his actions and that he has a moral obligation to disobey an otherwise “unlawful” order. [42] In this case, it is the Russian soldiers defending their land who are to be held to this asinine standard.

Criticizing the Dissident Right’s Lack of Action


When was the last time this so-called movement made an example out in the public sphere? Is there any time within recent memory that shoots to the forefront? As far as this writer can tell, most of these “dissidents” stay online. Even the influencers, video essayists, and so forth, who “run” or represent this vague idea of a movement, are yet to be seen making an effort to influence the political sphere in any particular capacity.

What the Dissident Right does instead, for the most part, is lament matters of history and argue who should have won the Second World War on the internet, among other useless discussions that have no bearing in the present. Right wing fascists within this “Dissident Right” “movement” insist that they will succeed in enacting a revolution when they are yet to prove they are capable of any conscious independent decision that requires them to get out of an armchair away from their computer and go outside. Somehow, we are supposed to believe that these people will even be present went things “get real”, as they say. They will not, because this movement does not move.

Dissidence is a racket. It is a business where money can be made. The system has a habit of taking revolutionary concepts that come from the people, and then repackaging them and selling them to us. Whenever you come across a social media influencer who says he is of this movement, would like donations, and infers the need for societal change, yet never seeks to create that change, remember the previous statement: dissidence is a racket. This only ceases to be the case when action is taken in some capacity — in real life.

Criticizing the Very Concept of a “Far Right”


Consider the following. As was stated at the beginning of this essay, the Right wing is dead. We know this to be true because we hear of something called the “far Right.” The fact of the matter is one is either a Rightist or is not. So, what is this “far” nonsense? What makes a Rightist different from a far Rightist? Are we supposed to understand that there are moderate Rightists who counteract the far Right? Would that not negate the point of being a man or woman of the Right in the first place?

The first-ever Right was opposed to change. They wanted no change or deviation from monarchy and Tradition as they understood it. The very existence of a so-called far Right infers the existence of a moderate Right, which infers at least a minimal tolerance of change, thus making the very idea of moderate Rightism an oxymoron.

The Right was at its strongest when there was no far Right. The Right was rigid and lacked fluidity. It rejected all notions of progress. What of the Right today? Once again, think over every mainstream “Rightist” in America right now, and ascertain if they follow much if any of the necessary criteria to be completely dissociated from the Left:

  • rejection of democracy in all forms.

  • rejection of socialism.

  • rejection of capitalism.

  • embrace of monarchy and feudalism.

  • embrace of hierarchy, with merchants near the bottom of the social ladder, and an aristocratic social class on top, a King, Queen, or leader above them, with God above everybody.

  • neutrality towards, if not indifference to or embracement of, enslaving the lesser or most incapable people.

Only within the last several years has there been a new “Right” that has made a considerable effort to remove the liberal infiltrations into Rightism. We see anti-democratic sentiment and anti-capitalist sentiment from the “Right” more than ever in recent times. Yet, even this somewhat vague thing we call the Dissident Right recognizes legitimacy within the socialism of non-Marxist thinkers, whether they be Oswald Spengler, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, George Fitzhugh, or some other gentleman. And this is the so-called “far-Right.”

The fact that there is now a “far Right” is proof that the Right is dying if not already dead. Had it ever maintained its health, there would be no such term. The term “far Right” itself presently infers facts that sustain this theory. It is especially hilarious that the far Right, as we have seen, still manages to carry Left wing economic progressivism via socialism, among other things. Almost with breathtaking irony, we realize that the far Right shares the same issue as the moderate Right; by not going the absolute furthest, the far Right has unsuccessfully maintained a Right wing framework. Hence, we repeat: the Right is dead.

Notice how there is no mention of a “furthest Right.” We hear about Rightists, far Rightists, and “ultra-far Rightists”, but never “furthest Rightists.” The reason for this is that the use of the phrase “far Right” and anything further than that is nothing but an inflammatory remark from modern Leftists who mean to erode the possibility of anyone establishing Right wing values in any capacity. This would pose a problem for the Right were it even to properly exist. But for the case of neo-fascism or its parent Third Position, this is a problem.

Even if Third Positionists are not Rightists, they have certain Right wing values to balance out their Leftist traits. Therefore, to some degree, the attack on the “far Right” is an attack on at least half of neo-fascist politics and whatever form or title it wishes to take. Here sits the issue with this anti-Right witch hunt we presently experience in America.

A Final Criticism of Rightism from the Point of View of Traditionalism


We can address criticism of real Rightism, even if the true Right appears to be nonexistent at this time. Julius Evola, arguably the Right’s finest defender and writer, criticized fascism for its socialism, among other things. The fact of the matter is that Traditionalism, or Evola’s version of it, is in many respects inspired by the work and writings of René Guenon, who was the first to develop the Traditionalist school of thought. Guenon’s philosophy was based on the writings of both Abrahamic and pre-Christian religions. Note that Guenon was a Sufi Muslim.

Both the Bible and the Quran teach us to share with others without sacrificing the integrity of those who deserve help. Therein lies an aspect of Traditionalism right before the French Revolution that was actually missing. The group that would become the Right, with its lack of socialism, maintained that they were ordained by God to preserve their power when they did not actually adhere to God’s guidelines as explained in His work [with His work being the direct influence of Traditionalism].

With that in mind, Julius Evola was an incomplete Traditionalist without ever realizing it, because he believed that the Right and Traditionalism were synonymous. When we examine the simple truth that the monarchists should have adopted socialism instead of remaining selfish, we can see that the Right, in its true form, is not much more than pseudo-Traditionalism. Socialism is what would have granted the French aristocracy the mandate of heaven (God’s permission to rule). Lack thereof resulted in great consequences, no doubt as punishment for using God’s word in vain.

It is no wonder that much of Marxist socialism would, in time, carry an atheistic veneer; the Frenchmen that inspired the first Marxists carelessly understood the Right’s all-too-human problems to have come downstream from all things Divine.

When Julius Evola defended that which directly preceded the French Revolution, he mistakenly defended that which he was against: Human Logos. [“Logos” or λόγος is an Ancient Greek term meaning wisdom]. Evola’s critique of the Enlightenment era was that there was a fall from Divine Logos to Human Logos. In reality, the Divine Logos was lost when the French aristocracy did not adhere to Divine Law, which required that they socialize the wealth of their nation. Instead, they kept the wealth for themselves, thus enacting the downfall from Divine Logos well before the French Revolution even began.

Traditionalism was directly inspired and shaped by God’s teachings (or from a pagan view, teachings from gods). It has no room for any humanistic problems. Therefore, there is no doubt that Traditionalism, in its complete form, is only truly possible where Left meets Right. Therein lies this writer’s Traditionalist critique of the Right.



[1] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 27). Freeland Press.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 27-28). Freeland Press.
[6] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 28). Freeland Press.
[7] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 31). Freeland Press.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 31-32). Freeland Press.
[10] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 32). Freeland Press.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 33). Freeland Press.
[14] Samuels, L.K. (2019). The Political Spectrum. In Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the “Free Left” and the “Statist Left”. (pp. 34-35). Freeland Press.
[15] Concha, J. (2019, November 1). Tucker Carlson: Millennials drawn to socialism because 'current system isn't working' for them. The Hill. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from
[16] Woods, K. (2022). Factions of the Dissident RightYouTube. Retrieved May 5, 2023.

[17] Evola, J. (2017) The Right and Tradition. In A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth. (pp. 42). Arktos Media Ltd.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Evola, J. (2013) I. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 19). Arktos Media Ltd.
[20] Evola, J. (2013) IV. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 35). Arktos Media Ltd.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Evola, J. (2013) IV. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 35-36). Arktos Media Ltd.
[23] Evola, J. (2013) IV. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 36). Arktos Media Ltd.
[24] Evola, J. (2013) VI. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 57). Arktos Media Ltd.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Evola, J. (2013) VI. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 59). Arktos Media Ltd.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Evola, J. (2013) VII. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 63). Arktos Media Ltd.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Evola, J. (2013) VI. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 42). Arktos Media Ltd.
[34] Evola, J. (2013) VI. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 43). Arktos Media Ltd.
[35] Zitelmann, R. (2022) Hitler’s Central Objective. In Hitler’s National Socialism. (pp. 302). Management Books 2000 Ltd.
[36] Zitelmann, R. (2022) Hitler: And Opponent of Modern Industrial Society[?]. In Hitler’s National Socialism. (pp. 370). Management Books 2000 Ltd.
[37] Zitelmann, R. (2022) Hitler: And Opponent of Modern Industrial Society[?]. In Hitler’s National Socialism. (pp. 405). Management Books 2000 Ltd.
[38] Zitelmann, R. (2022) Hitler: And Opponent of Modern Industrial Society[?]. In Hitler’s National Socialism. (pp. 406). Management Books 2000 Ltd.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Zitelmann, R. (2022) Hitler: And Opponent of Modern Industrial Society[?]. In Hitler’s National Socialism. (pp. 406-407). Management Books 2000 Ltd.
[41] Tedor, R. (2013) Ideology. In Hitler’s Revolution: Expanded Edition. (pp. 34-35).
[42] Evola, J. (2013) VII. In Fascism Viewed from the Right. (pp. 68). Arktos Media Ltd.

1 Comment

wnc817 19 days ago

A "real" right wing, in my view, must enshrine the following, in terms of economy: no income tax, no socialism / welfare, protectionism as the standard. Sovereign industry, sovereign currency, only domestic labor by citizens, no visas.
And only Whites should be able to become citizens or own property. Women should not vote.

This is the way is was for centuries, and the norm for America in the beginning and the colonies.

   1 0
Show more