The Case For A New Rightist Morality

First step towards constructing a superior moral system

A new debate is brewing within the Right Wing. What has led to “Wokeness” and how can we best ensure its inverse becomes successful? How do we convince a good amount of people that Biorealism, Western nationalism, Social-Conservative family values and other stereotypically right wing things are the cure to the present disease?

There formed, primarily two schools of thought, each pondering their particular solution. A more hardball rightoids, advocate for a top-down Russian-style imposition of traditional lifestyles and beliefs, while the other headed by Nathan Cofnas advocates for a rational approach of convincing people of our views.

And as sympathetic I am to Nathan Cofnas’ position, in explaining the reasons why arguments fail to convince Liberals, Jared Taylor has put it best:

They love the thrill of moral superiority. One of the most interesting things I learned from a book called Pathological Altruism is that the feeling of moral superiority stimulates the basal ganglia, the same way narcotic drugs stimulate that part of the brain.

I wish this were widely known. It would make such good mockery. Someone needs to say these lefties, “You realize, you’re an addict, don’t you? You can’t live without the constant high of righteous indignation. Whenever you glory in telling yourself how superior you are, your basal ganglia are pumping out dopamine, just like a junkie with a needle in his arm.”

There is now an entire structural framework explaining these findings called Biofoundationalism. In essence, this framework suggests that our political orientation is an expression of our temperament and that differing moral foundations give rise to different political leanings. This means that even when presented with the same factual information, individuals may arrive at different conclusions because their underlying moral and emotional frameworks differ. Modern neurological and social psychology research confirms that political behaviors are largely formed from emotional attachments and irrationality.

At the same time, it is unclear to what extend this is genetic. There certainly are many reasons to believe that Haidt’s moral foundation theory is primarily a cultural phenomenon, most importantly of which is the poor longitudinal persistence and low heritability of the moral foundations themselves. The recent Gen Z political swings are further proving the conviction that political views, at least some of their modern expressions are primarily environmentally driven.

This is the case with elites, as much as it is the case with non-elites. As my response to EHC larp establishes that while our current elites in the West is woke, in Israel, Russia and Nazi Germany (and frankly in many other Western states in the past), The elites championed rightist views, and the public's opinions were molded to match them.

This is both a phenomenon of power and substance. Power cannot be retained by a weaker substance and weaker substance, rarely organizes power. This is why

Nathan Cofnas

’ argument resonates with my own understanding. He actually wants to bring Rightist thought to a higher level, while his opponents claim that whatever presently exists is already good enough.

However, as they admit themselves, Rightist thought is differentiated and disorganized, and it is disorganized precisely because it is not powerful enough to order a puritan homogenization as the left has done. As I write in my manifesto, power is associated with concentration, and concentration is inherently a homogenizing and centralizing process. Social force is a function of density; the more concentrated a phenomenon, the greater its power to exert itself on the social organism.

In other words, even if we magically pick one particular rightist variant of social development, it will never succeed in solidifying itself in society for it will be quickly undermined by the Left and the differentiated forces within the Right. This is precisely what everyone saw in the past 10 years with Trump, Groypers, Jewish power, Tech and Capital elements within the Right, Christian nationalism, Neoconservatism, Libertarianism and other elements of the Right which are constantly in-fighting and aligning with groups beyond the Right whenever they are fighting for dominance.

For a successful rightist social hegemony, a process of homogenization and centralization, within the Right must take place first. This, in turn, requires a foundational principle with enough persuasive force to compel a critical mass of the population to coalesce around it. Such a principle must be general and exist at the critical mass of present Rightist thought, such that it immediately becomes the driving force of the entire movement, much like how Socialism became the main force of the Left historically and Wokeness became the central driving force of the left, presently.

I have outlined a particular political and governmental vision in relation to a unified Rightist ideology, but my political vision currently exists outside of Rightist concentration, therefore, it is de-facto an idealistic, progressive vision of where the Right must be eventually moved towards. It is not a vision of where it presently sits. Furthermore, my vision, just like Capitalism, is not particularly ideological, for as I admitted myself, at the final stage of organizational development, pragmatic function will always defeat symbolism.

As confident I am in my version of direct market democracy, eventually overcoming all other modes of governing, I recognize that from an unfamiliar eye, my writings appear as idealistic and symbolic, similar to Marxism, BAPism or Anarcho-Capitalism. My writings will not interest chuds who enjoy larping as Monarchists, Libertarians, Nazis or any other variation of a non-generic rightoids, while temperamental Conservatives will just call me “Woke Right”.

However, what unites a monarchist, libertarian, nazi and a rightoid boomer magoid is that while there are many political and, to some extent even cultural disagreement, there is a moral consensus, at least in relation to current state of the West.

From a leftist perspective, these four individuals are, for all intents and purposes, morally equivalent. This is because social science research, particularly Moral Foundations Theory, shows that moral judgments largely stem from two competing frameworks: one focused on the individual (care, equality) and one focused on the group (loyalty, authority).

The great irony is that the left acts as a strong unified block, while applying individualizing moral foundations in moral judgment. The right is precisely the opposite, it judges a behavior based upon binding moral foundations, while it does not act as a strong unified block, because there are a lot of disagreements over issues.

Therefore, my thesis posits that the strategic imperative for the Right is to first codify its core worldview into a series of generalizable principles which presently sit at the center of Rightist synosis. Following this, it must coalesce around this ideological programme, creating a unified force capable of compelling broader societal alignment through sustained social pressure.

In order to win politically, we need to enact a form of cultural revolution based around deep moral principles useful to the Right (group survival, hierarchy, function), reinterpreted and scientifically validated. The reason why the Woke Left is now in retreat, is because its core tenants are too dumb to sustain a hegemony. It may be morally appealing to many of its carriers, but is it scientifically accurate? Furthermore, what’s the actual benefit of White male elites in espousing Wokeness if it directly challenges their power? Power sticks to substance and interest and unlike Liberalism and Capitalism which are worshipped by both the Right and the Left, even the Left is becoming creeped out of excessive Wokeness.

Until we provide a moral alternative that isn’t boring traditionalism based around incoherent identity symbols, much of our positions won’t be supported by presently dominated morality, which is why in my manifesto I have only focused on the structural (governmental) aspect of my right wing progressivism. If we want to defeat the liberal-leftist synthesis, we must recognize that its strongest concentration is found within the moral system itself, which is why it must be overthrown first. And overthrown it must be with practical understanding of the essence of proper behavior, not with symbolic attachment to Christ, the nation or the non-aggression principle.

Cofnas’ hereditarian revolution will not succeed for as long as its opponents strongly morally believe in the opposite conclusion. Christian or White Nationalism will not succeed for as long as few people share their core symbols.

At the same time, Biorealism is a consensus within the social sciences dealing with intelligence and group differences while the principles of Christian and White nationalism are being voluntarily followed by people in their daily habits, mating patterns, cultural preferences, and communal segregation. The goal is to turn this forbidden knowledge and subconscious instincts into enlightening, self-conscious and morally virtuous actions worth emulating on a grander scale.

Therefore, the necessary task is to construct a new, generalized rightist moral system. I propose a "Progressive-Darwinian" framework, integrating Tektology (Bogdanov's theory of systems) with evolutionary science. The goal is to resurrect a form of early 20th-century progressivism that rests not merely on intellectual or material grounds, but on a compelling moral vision.

It is the force of morality that creates social pressure and mobilizes passionate individuals. My own delay in completing my manifesto was a direct result of this pressure. To win, we must first build the moral framework that gives our people the permission and conviction to act.

My manifesto was a compilation of several years of work, but because it was released all at once like a book—and was behind a paywall—it generated less social attention than I had hoped. For my next project, I will return to a more traditional method of publication. I intend to publish it piece by piece, which will allow me to rework contradictions and errors as the project develops and I receive feedback, before compiling the final, edited version. This is how many great works were released in the past: they were published in prominent journals to build an engaged readership over time, before printing out the final version.

My plan is to release one new chapter each month, in addition to my regular schedule of two to three articles on other topics. The first chapter of this undertaking will address the emergence of morality: What is it? Why did it evolve? What is its utility, and why should we strive to be more moralistic (if I have enough time)?

Subsequent chapters will explore moral diversity, the virtues of tribalism and group evolutionary strategies, the classic debate between selfishness and altruism, and a new interpretation of the theory of passionarity. The work will culminate in the presentation of a new superior moral system and concrete strategies for its implementation.