French Revolution: The start of Cthulhu’s unending leftward swim

The 1920s bluepill is not as bad as the 2020s bluepill, but it is still blue.

The immeasurable number of problems caused by the West’s exponential leftward shift, especially since the Second World War, has completely and utterly destroyed the Right’s attention span, ensuring that we all have a new daily reason to be outraged, so we can forget about the consequences of yesterday’s outrage.

It’s obvious that the Right wants to return. But return to what? Or when? That depends on how Right-wing you are. And most contemporary dissidents are not nearly as right wing as they might think.

On my previous article I stated that hostility towards Jews shifts one towards the rightmost end of the colloquial dichotomy (but not necessarily the real one), and that makes enough of an answer for most of the dissident Right: let’s simply return to before the Left was completely controlled by the Jews. And so, they become Nazis.

The trouble with Nazis is that they are leftists stuck in the 1930s, while the rest of the left has moved even further left. And the left was mighty bluepilled back in the 1930s. (…)

The problem with blaming everything on Jews is that it leads to the conclusion that 1930s leftism, leftism before we let the Jews into the left-wing club, was just fine. (…)

Rolling things back to the 1930s is not going to help. We need to roll things back to the 1730s.

– Jim [1]

To me, the abolition of the Ancien Régime in 1789 is the most clearly defined starting point for Cthulhu’s unending leftward swim, and the West’s respective downwards spiral. That isn’t to say it was the first ever Leftist assault against our traditional institutions, but it remains one of the most remarkable.

When presented with the argument that the support for Fascism, National Socialism or any other form of populism over Monarchy is simply in the name of pragmatism, one must ask: how many fascist nations (or even relevant parties/movements) exist in the West today? Not many, I assure. Now ask the same about monarchism.

Pragmatism is Trump over Biden, Bolsonaro over Haddad. It is nothing more than a time-gaining device. Belief in political solutions will not return us anywhere because politics are a progressive mechanism.

It is always possible to argue that we should support side X because side Y is too far leftist, overlooking the fact that everyone today is leftist by the standards of yesterday, and everyone yesterday is leftist by the standards of the day before yesterday

– Jim [2]

We mustn’t, however, let disbelief in political resolutions to lead us to inaction. And neither should we find ourselves so stuck up on ideological convictions that we forget in whose name we fight for. Both the Libertarian and populist branches of the dissident Right have fallen into this, the former being too concerned with the semantic integrity of their own labels and the latter fascinated by the Third World’s lack of transsexual pride parades.

So why exactly is the French Revolution the remarkable end-starting point I claim it to be? Specifically, because of what it represents: the abolition of private law in favor of public government. Monarchism being a form of private government is one of its most important yet overlooked aspects. It inherently contrasts with the philosophies of democracy, fascism and communism.

There is only one right-wing idea, and that is private government. The rest is detail.

– Outsideness [3]

In conclusion, if one wishes to restore his homeland to the height of its glory, one must first truly become a Right-winger (as opposed to solely reactionary). The current won’t stop pulling you until you’re out of the water.




6 Responses

  1. What’s the real difference between “private” and “public” government? Is there even a difference when societies like pre-Revolutionary France or even Vedic India had law telling to punish homosexuals (example)?

    • If by “real difference” you mean the benefits of one over the other in practice, those are primarily related to the legitimacy of hereditary rule and private property, which doesn’t exist in republics. Hereditary regimes have significantly lower time preference than any other system. Hoppe explains this is more depth than I could in his book “Democracy: The God that Failed”.

      I’m afraid I don’t understand the second question. What does this have to do with homosexuality?

  2. What do you mean by private government? When you say private government do you just mean traditional monarchies in general or something else?

  3. You have zero knowledge of French history and you don’t know your Moldbug. The 1789 revolution was the culmination of things that had been developing since the early 1600s (for a starting point on that I recommend Pierre Gaxotte’s history of Louis XIV – it’s an absolute howler that you talk about abolishing private law and date the matter two centuries too late), and they in turn were consequences of measures the monarchy adopted to win the Hundred Years War. (Hey! That means we can blame the English for everything!) As well, the American revolution was (as Moldbug demonstrated, and as is concisely shown in Hutchison’s “Strictures on the Declaration”) as fully leftist, bolshevik, and dishonest as anything Lenin or Mao tried.

    The idea of naming a specific event as a “starting point” is nonsense. The social system is either sustaining itself or it is corrupting itself. Some systems are inherently self-corrupting and operate based on previously stored social capital, or extraction of untapped resources – the North American continent being a prime example. The USA was successful because of getting huge amounts of territory and consequent resources with practically zero competition – much like Hitler’s successful measures to recover Germany from the Depression were derived from confiscation of property from state enemies, or China’s current market advantages derive from borderline slave labor. Getting lots of essentially free stuff does give you an advantage in the short term. The USA’s success came in spite of its government, and not because of it.

    • I think you misunderstand the title and or premise of my article by accusing me of claiming to be the revolution as the definite starting point of all corruption (something I very clearly state in the 5th paragraph). Heed the words “unending leftward swim” in the title and you will not they were not true to any comparable extent two centuries earlier. Simply stating that everything is gradual, organic or spontaneous and has no starting or turning points is completely unhelpful, to say the least. I also make no mention of Moldbug or the American Revolution and his work in this entire article, so I have no idea what you claim I misinterpreted.

      That being said, I do agree with your second paragraph (besides the starting sentence, which I have already addressed), but do not be mislead into thinking that deliberate actions from certain groups outside of government cannot affect or catalyze the corruption of the social system. Most changes in power are not as organic as they seem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment