Right Wing Progressive Political Manifesto

RWP Political Manifesto by UBERSOY

Foreword:

Among the reasons aimed at explaining the failure of the right to gain momentum, the most significant is arguably the absence of a comprehensive, theoretical framework outlining an ideal operational model; one that would be instrumental in rallying passionaries and intellectuals to our cause. The left has such a framework; the right has nostalgia and resentment.

The outgrowth of this nostalgia is rightists embracing conservative and reactionary modes of political organization; whilst their resentment primes them to adopt unproductive ideologies: populist, conspiratorial, and authoritarian in nature, centered around the fantasy of divine justice wherein Leftist hegemony is supplanted by God himself; without civilizational collapse or a techno-capitalist toppling, a day of such a drastic transfer of power will never come.

Nostalgia and resentment share a common denominator — their force is negative, a push away from the status quo without a pull towards an alternative; the right lacks a clear, positive, or utopian vision for society. Consequently, a large portion of our resources is spent undermining the vision of social progress of the left. The rightist willingly assumes the role of the conservative villain in the leftist paradigm; he attempts only to stop or slow down their vision of social progress, never to advance his own.

The few positive intellectual projects of the right suffer from a different problem: Biorealism, Hoppeanism, and White-nationalism are all specific in scope; they fail to insert themselves into matters of economy, morality, technology, global governance, and other social spheres; all these are integrated into the liberal-leftist synthesis. Furthermore, none of these intellectual projects are founded upon principles of progress or a unified general systems theory; instead opting for a will to power (something none of them have) or appealing to universal liberal principles (appeals that will never be granted because of their lack of power in the first place).

But now, assume such a state of affairs were to take place — say White nationalism becomes the dominant ideology in the West. What guarantee is there the West would not end up like Japan or South Korea, facing an existential threat from low fertility? It has been reported that of the 120,369 extinct species, only 11 extinctions were a consequence of hybridization; the vast majority of racial death occurs from overall population decline. De facto White ethnostates like Norway do not have the problems of low cohesion and a welfare state working against the interests of the native population; yet many of our problems are present there: feminism and queerness are institutionalized, birth rates are low, many freedoms are restricted, and their political system is antiquated. This last problem is especially salient in our case and, as you will see throughout this manuscript, calls for a forward-thinking approach, adapted to the ever-evolving state of optimization.

Progress is the process by which an entity enhances its self-organizational structure through innovation. If we examine the dynamics of markets, the biosphere, and technological advancement, we observe that entities with superior organizational structures consistently outcompete their rivals. This success forces other entities within the same domain to adapt their own internal structures to either match or surpass the innovators or face eventual elimination through selection.

Self-organization of an entity is the mover of progress, while the environment in which the selection takes place is shaped by the organizations which occupy it. Environments or spheres are constructed by organizations, and the more complex an organization becomes, the more reliant it is on the elements that give it complexity. For an organization to ascend to a higher level of complexity it must assimilate within itself its lower components. More agile organizations are thus ones able to differentiate themselves into multiple spheres while remaining integrated organisms such as humans, electronic medium, and other noospheric organizations.

Consider the general factor of intelligence (g), derived from the intercorrelations of the various facets of special abilities. Individuals who excel in one particular facet but lack high g are unlikely to achieve sustained success across diverse fields. Conversely, those with high general intelligence can not only adapt and excel across multiple domains but also specialize effectively within specific areas. This is because they can draw on a greater share of mental capacity that would otherwise be distributed across various spheres. Research shows that g is a stronger predictor of long-term life outcomes than any single specialized ability, underscoring its broad adaptability and value over time.

Tetlock’s monumental research on expert judgment shows that those with a differentiated set of knowledge always outperform those who are primarily specialized in one sphere of knowledge (hedgehogs) by an insane margin.

Similarly, Jonathan Haidt’s research that underpinned his seminal work The Righteous Mind is built on the assumption that people are able to show understanding and empathy if they are high in a particular moral foundation associated with a particular moral catalyst and although he was not able to come up with a general factor of morality that I will elaborate upon in later editions of this manifesto-— it becomes clear that stronger organizations follow the law of integration through differentiation in which organizations respond to environmental pressures they can read with which they can interact. It follows that the strongest are those able to withstand and organize selective pressures in multiple different spheres, whether we’re talking about carbon-based life, ETFs in the stock market, or something else.

Applied to politics, we come to understand that the synthesis of liberal-leftism (in which leftism becomes increasingly in control of the former) is the strongest political ideology because of its economic, moral, political, social, epistemic, and authoritative reinforcements that support its basis of operation. Whether one acts in a social setting, makes a moral decision, or partakes in the market, ones base of assumption stems from liberal theories.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries were entirely defined by evolutionary theory, which was integrated into sociology, governance, morality, and science; for hundreds of years prior, everything revolved around Christianity. Why and how did this change?

Before evolutionary theory, Christianity was successful because it could seamlessly and without contradiction integrate itself into various spheres: icons and paintings, poems and stories, dress codes and social norms, epistemology and science, governance and legality– all operated in accordance with Christian principles. Eventually, the progress of science introduced contradictions into the ideology, and it consequently declined; its exit from the domain of science was followed by its exit from the cultural domain and, recently, the moral one.

Some people may still refer to themselves as Christian, however in practice none of them live the lifestyle advocated by Christian theologians and saints of the prior era. The trajectory of evolutionary theory was similar; although it persisted in the domain of science, it still has not challenged leftist orthodoxy, for leftists somehow managed to excise it from sociology, morality, the economy, governance, and frankly all social sciences along with all other spheres under leftist mental colonization.

The left has provided a moral and economic vision, of which the latter has already been discredited; but it has not provided any utopic political order structure; they focus on identity politics, wherein groups of their choice are assigned power. They forget there are two driving elements to a nation: its people, and the political system by which they organize themselves.

The right has likewise failed to propose a vertical political step forward in which the new is built on top of the old. The result of this negative dialectic is that any political proposition made is either of a small horizontal character, with unclear function and relation to progress, or a complete nihilistic negation of the base in favor of a completely different and inorganic structure. The left cannot imagine a better political system because a better political system requires a qualitative and not quantitative change, thus hierarchy, while the present right is unfortunately not sentimentally predisposed to vertical progress due to a false consciousness it adopted in which progress became associated with the left. The right is weighed down by what has been, failing to recognize its true mission lies in advancing to a new stage of political evolution: to live up to its essence of verticality.

The present landscape for political innovation is barren, but such a void cannot remain unfilled for long, especially given the huge demand for change. With all of the dysfunctional trends of the modern world it is certain that the survival of the Western Idea hinges on it being able to reorganize itself in response to the challenges posed by the present environment. Such a reorganization can only be done vertically.

Organizations that innovate drag the environment in their direction until it reorganizes itself to counter this innovation with another one. Before this happens, the right must tie its moral, economic, national, and other visions to the upcoming innovation in politics, just as leftism has been tied to the conceptions of liberalism and the expanding moral circle.

We must trigger a form of social consciousness by which progress, morality, epistemology and other noospheric dynamics become inextricably linked with this new vision of social organization presently in the midst of construction.

The new ideology of the right should aim to replace the role of leftism as the primary basis of fusion for all components of social organization; it must show the inherent contradictions and anti scientific, anti-progressive, anti-national, anti-moral characteristics of the liberal-leftist synthesis that has been ruling the West since the middle of the 20th century while also providing an alternative mode of development that embraces progress in every direction.

Such is the task of this tremendous undertaking: to provide a theoretical basis for the right not be limited to a specific matter of race, sex, intelligence, economy, ethics, or aesthetics but a general theory which integrates knowledge from all relevant societal domains in accordance with the universal principles common to these domains. I refer to this common denominator around which I base my theory as ‘Tektology’: a synthesis of the theory of progress, a generalized systems theory, and knowledge from other domains I have acquired throughout my life.

In the following chapters, I will primarily examine the social role of political systems, their progressive evolution, and their present state and function before offering a higher vision of a new political order in line with the Tektology, and the principles of right-wing progressivism.

This was a foreword, the rest of the manifesto is available exclusively to paid subscribers.