I’ve seen No Enemies to the Right (NEttR) come under scrutiny over the last while, most recently and prominently by Land. I’m going to clarify the issue a bit.
As I’ve written before, we on the right should point our guns at our true enemies, the left, and, occassionally, the traitorous moderates. We should avoid turning on each other. We should avoid attacking allies, even if they are overzealous, degenerate, wrong on certain base principles, or if they have tactics we disagree with.
When first formulated, NEttR had a slightly different formulation though than simply not attacking fellow rightests. When originally used a few years back (can’t find the links), it meant no attacking people from the left. You could not criticize people for being more right then you, ie. you never criticize from the left, always from the right. For example, you don’t criticize a anarcho-capitalist for insufficent economic justice, that would be criticizing from the left. It instead you criticize him for the problems created by a lack of legitimate authority, ie. from the right. Criticizing a 14/88er for being racist is from the left and is verboten; criticizing a 14/88er for being a nationalist rather than a thedist is fine as it is from the right.
I agree with both the old formulation and the new formulation. In that there’s a difference between attack and criticize. You don’t attack someone else on the right, but you can criticize, as long as your criticism is that they are insufficiently rightward. You never attack or criticize someone for being insufficiently left. (Remember, right is order, left is chaos. Any criticism should be that the person is not sufficiently promoting order).
We should always be signalling right. But we should not become stupid about it to the point where we devour our own or promote stupidity. Ideological purity is nice, but don’t be concerned to the point where it becomes counter-productive. Attacking everyone for some minor ideological deviation will only alienate people. Instead, try to encourage and convince them towards your point of view with reason and argumentation. As well, continually trying to one-up others in a “righter than thou” holiness competition is to be avoided. This is not a status game.
NEttR does not mean that we can’t criticize, it means we can’t criticize people for being more right than us. In Land’s case, we should not critize the assassin for excessive rightward zeal or for being an extremist. We can criticize him for promoting chaos (ie: promoting leftism), for promoting evil, or for his actions being strategically or tactically unsound. The attitude to others within the right should be “I admire his passion for the cause, but he went too far by committing this counter-productive evil.”
Criticism of other rightests should always be internal. We should never criticize other rightests to leftists. Never virtue signal to the left. Our public attitude towards our extremists to the the centre and left should be the Mutt and Jeff routine. When talking about rightests we don’t agree with to the left, our general stance should be “While I don’t agree with him and he went too far, you have to agree that he has some valid points. Maybe we could appease people like him by adopting [something moderately right].” One of the major reasons leftists win is because rightests denounce their extremists (ex: abortion-clinic bombers), while leftists play Mutt and Jeff with theirs (ex: communist and Islamic terrorists).
Similarly, some allies are ideologically impure, degenerate, or otherwise distasteful in ways other extremism. Milo, Roosh, and Spencer (Edit: Looks like I was confused. My apologies to Mr. Spencer) are some of the bigger examples. In these cases, the old Bedouin proverb comes in handy: “I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger”. We are not biological family, but we are ideological family. Just as in a real family, we may not like or agree with some people, we may find their choices distasteful or wrong, but they are still ours. We have concentric ideological circles, and at each circle, we should always rally facing outwards. When someone in one those circles outside us gets attacked from the left, we should support them for what right thing they have. Allies are useful and we have few of them. Extremists and distasteful allies should be used not rejected. Once the restoration has succeeded, then we can sort out our internal differences.
Finally, loyalty is a two-way street. There is no need to help traitors. Those on the right who are constantly attacking other rightests, especially if they’re doing so from the left, or who betray their allies deserve nothing. Disloyalty is chaotic and disordered, it is leftist and these rules don’t apply to them; feel free to attack (but always from the right). If they repent, let off and allow them to prove themselves.
So here’s the basic rules of No Enemies to the Right we should all follow:
1) Never attack or denounce a fellow rightest. Entryists, traitorous “moderates” and R(ightests)INO are fair game.
2) Never attack or alienate an ally. If you dislike them, ignore them.
3) Rational critique is not an attack.
4) Rational critique is not personal. Keep personal drama private.
5) Criticism of rightests should always have the audience of other rightests. Never criticize rightests to leftists.
6) All criticism should be from the right. Never criticize from the left.
7) Always signal right.
8) This is not a holiness competition. Don’t don’t be stupidly excessive when signalling right.
9) Don’t denounce extremists. Remember, Mutt and Jeff.
10) Zeal is good and should be commended, stupidity is not and should be criticized.
11) Always rally facing outwards at our concentric ideological circles.
12) Support those attacked from the left, even if the person is more left than you.
13) None of this applies to the disloyal or traitorous.
A very thoughtful essay. It gives a lot to think about.
Well said.
I am VFM, and I approve this message.
What about when criticizing leftists? Argue from the right and refuse to grant their frame, or hold them to their own rules?
The simple truth is that the alt right has a lot of crazies that need to be purged. If you don’t the better people just leave.
Weird how well not purging the crazies goes for the left, isn’t it Peter? But surely we are better than them, are bigger people, and we need to value our respectability.
This article was excellent at explaining this very key concept. If you disagree or are unable to understand it, you probably need to move on.
OK, outta here!
I don’t trust this blogger much since it became clear that by restoration, he means risking the crown falling into the hands of a failed, papist house.
A.J.P.
Okay, here’s an example.
There’s an alt-right guy who is very, very pro-war, pro-state, pro-military.
He’s not a veteran. He’s never been involved in real-life violence.
Is this guy a right-winger because soldiers are right-wing?
Or is this guy just another leftist because he wants an authoritarian state?
Second question:
Suppose I say, “oh, yes, Alt-righter John Smith is just a filthy degenerate, but he hates feminists (when he’s not having sex with them) so we will consider him an ally until we have consolidated power and we’re ready to kick him to the curb.”
That’s not a real alliance. At best that is a cynical, machiavellian maneuver to PRETEND that John Smith is an ally. That just means I’m not wasting time telling the world that I hate degenerates like John Smith, and I want to avoid a public conflict with him until I have more resources available for low-priority conflicts.
That’s not “alliance.” That’s just saying, “John Smith is the lowest priority on my enemies list.”
I think the idea here makes a lot of sense. In any group there are going to be differences of opinion about a lot of issues, but the thing is to remain focused on the basic joint values of Western Civilization.
Too funny that you lump Spencer in with Milo and Roosh. Was this after hearing about the Phalanx pyramid scheme, or even before? I’m a defender – the guy’s trying to create something after all.
I think the linkage you were looking for is Jim’s:
http://blog.jim.com/politics/eight-commandments-for-the-neoreaction/
which links Nyan’s:
http://www.moreright.net/why-nrx-is-winning/ (which is now dead and possibly not recoverable)
How about a simple three question evaluation as our “IFF” system?
1. Which way is this person facing? I.e. are they like 90% of people, facing toward the “Sunny Uplands of History” and arguing only about how best to get there and how fast?
2. Who are they shooting at?
3. How effective are they?
Anyone that isn’t destined for the Sunny Uplands isn’t an outright enemy. But if they are shooting at me, they ain’t a friend and if they are shooting other friends we gotta fix that before working too closely with them. And people landing resounding blows on the enemy are valuable, they are more valuable than a politically pure but ineffective ally and far more so than an embarrassing AND ineffective one. While it would be wrong to attack the ineffective allies, when deciding who to rally to it is better to put the effort into supporting the proven warriors, even those with heresies.
Ideally we want as many as possible to be able to freely engage the enemy without worrying about taking fire from their rear areas. That means not just “no enemies toward the right but more of a dividing line; us vs them. That should be extended to any moderate who is willing to keep their guns aimed at the enemy, they should be left unmolested and even rallied to when they come under fire. They should see they have no enemies to their right… so long as they keep their fire outbound. Even if they never more toward us, they are aiding our cause. Why bother attacking moderates or the near left even when there are plentiful targets deep in the Blue zone?
nikleemburg@tutanota.com
Yes, that can can be a Right Wing person. Authoritarian systems can be right wing , warlike and statist. The Prussian Junkers were once such group.
“We should avoid turning on each other. We should avoid attacking allies, even if they are overzealous, degenerate, wrong on certain base principles, or if they have tactics we disagree with.”
It’s NOT a matter of “turning on” one another, it is a matter of openly discussing how and why one’s position lacks merit. That is how a movement expands. Milo and Roosh, for example, are charlatans. They are useful idiots, but in the end, we abandon our principles when they ride our coattails, especially Milo the fag. Do you REALLY want to be linked to homosexuality?
Anti-Gnostic: I think the point is we can criticize what is not “right” with Milo and Roosh but that is substantively different than rejecting them for the things they do that make the Left crazy. We can say, in essence, “I agree with Milo’s points on X,Y,Z, but his own conduct and attempt to introduce disordered sexual conduct into the Right is antithetical to civilization.