Beliefs Without Being (and The Emergent Right): Newsletter #1
First newsletter of more in-depth cultural and spiritual analyses with a predictive lens (perhaps even more academic) that offer more to chew on than my regular posts
Some background
In June of ‘21, while out of town for work in a Holiday Inn one evening, I started my blog on a website that I have since disbanded. Most of my articles are gone up until I started this substack. The monicker “ourospost” translates to “Watch(er)post”. I wanted to be “The Watchtower” but then quickly realized that was already taken by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I found an antiquated Greek translation for “watcher” or “guard” (ouros). Rolled off the tongue well - “ourospost.” The rest is history.
Recently, I have moved away from making content because I felt I had nothing left to say for now, toppled even more so with my life getting ever busier. So, to discipline myself more, and offer something a bit more academic and useful people are willing to throw money at, I think it’s pertinent to offer more than just passing thoughts, or thinly veiled critiques of the right that I’ve become somewhat known for in a very niche corner of the internet. What I’d like to offer is exactly what my monicker implies — providing unapologetic reports of how our culture is being affected by unseen elements of decay. Perhaps with less certainty but more informed speculation than the right is willing to offer. Which falls into what I’m good at: scrutinizing.
And obviously doing what’s always fun: predicting.
Apophatic Politics
Apophatic: Involving the practice of describing something by stating which characteristics it does not have. (Merriam-Webster)
Liberal: Many definitions. However, in every context, it is characterized by the abandonment of enforced customs or laws and that the priority of any power apparatus is to empower individualism at the expense of said customs or laws. Whether it be a group of people or the individual, all aspects of life should be as liberated as possible from any epistemology or metaphysics for the empowerment of the individual. Negation of being in community for the unbeing of the self.
A liberal society is defined by what it is not. It does not have enforcement. It does not have taboo. It is formless. It is chaotic. It does not recognize any spiritual milieu. It has no history. In fact, it has no milieu at all. It does not have culture, as cultures are most clearly defined by taboos, customs, routines, and rituals. It is a society that is not a society. It is a society that has to reject form and existence if it wants to maintain itself, and its own lack of being is what inhibits so many from actually revolting against its unbeing by actualizing (done through creation/love which is the literal definition of being, which is what God is).
The apophatic nature of our liberal society extends to every corner of its being. It is a glass unfilled meant for the self to find something it can pour a satiating drink into. If you want to break away from liberalism and the meaning it refuses to imbue, which results in disorder, then you have to actively build, create, love, and order. If you cannot do any of this, and yet have a sour grapes attitude about your and others’ lots in this dead world, then you must regain the ability to know truth and to give love. If you cannot, then you are just another individual in a liberal society without the intention to create or to love. You are just as tainted and morally degraded as anyone you hold righteous contempt against.
So let us try to define the political landscape. First, the left.
The left is anti-religion, anti-epistemic, anti-ontological, anti-historical. Its narratives come from abolishing all that is constructive for faith in the dialectically materialist anti-philosophy which is defined by its lack of spirituality and emphasis on simulated thanksgiving. They are anti-gnostics. They ultimately want everything to be dumbed down, simplified, and tended to. They are a disordered mother. They want all suffering to be done away with, and they see politics and technology as the route to that utopia. What they lack is the priors to achieve any goodness. They can’t really define anything, so they are stuck in a constant vying for meaning. They will end in destruction in a potential myriad of ways. Just as the likes of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Yuri Bezmenov have warned us.
However, this is being understood quite thoroughly. People are all well aware that they hate the left. The people who don’t are all white city slicker shitlibs who have 0-0.1 children. They will be dead in a generation or two. The “left hand” of liberalism has gone through its narratives. The likes of technique have ran through it and turned society into something of a final stage of efficiency where everything is smoothed out, simplified, and all that is left are technicians and everyone relies on the machine. Well, obviously we aren’t living in a total dystopia, as the promises of Christ will shine through in the end — which is why Hope is something we pray for and hold up as essential. Because without the redemption of God, everything is futile and frenzied.
But Hope is not something the “right wing” seems to have. If anything, it only defines itself as not being the thing that isn’t. While the left is societal suicide through negation of being, the right is just a negation of the left. Where the left is against all order and categories, and will serve all mammons for upholding its nothingness, the right is against all individualism or unique experiences. Since the modern right has no genuine authentic definition of what it is for, it can only immediately define emergent factors, and apply inauthentic opinions about those factors or events. The left is still better than it, in the paradigm we are in, as it can clearly define itself as a false collective of all society acting against the suffering of order, of truth, of rigidity, and those who are for that suffering in anyway are squeaky wheels meant to be done away with, or treated like an underclass. Though, without a society oriented towards God, then this collective will move to serving Mammon as all societies that fall from philosophical grace do.
Whenever a highly publicized event takes place that further normalizes the LGBTQIA+ community, what is the opinion of the left? Broadly speaking, it is always clamoring for normalizing what lacks ritual or routine and empowers individuals’ appetites. Anything that curbs an individual’s ability to satiate their end-goal of self-indulgence is a liberal sin.
For the right, the immediate reaction is exactly that — a reaction. The left already knows it wants what isn’t. The end-goal of sodomy indulges the self. It doesn’t create, it doesn’t bond two souls. It is an indulgence for and of the self, and results in disease, death, and disorder. The right knows that this is bad, but it can’t offer anything other than a firm rejection of nothing. In a funny way, that is why, at least since the rise of the NRx (or more appropriately, Pat Buchanan), the right has devolved into what it logically would become in a liberal society: something indignant about the unbeing of the left, but it has no priors to empower its side. And because the left won out from being the logical winner in a liberal metaparadigm, of course the right would fail. It’s aware of how the left works, but not how itself works. The right doesn’t understand itself. It understands more about what nothing is than what something is.
Be my guest. Ask any mainstream or bleeding edge pundit what the right is, from low IQ cringe like those two micks Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity, or a bit smarter like Tucker Carlson. Or perhaps you want someone edgier we all know, Auron Macintyre or Neema Parvini. Maybe you want someone a bit more wignaty like Keith Woods. Maybe a pagan like Varg Vikernes. Maybe a WASP like Charles Haywood. Every right-wing niche has its pundit, but none seem to be able to define what exactly the right is defined by.
Let’s steelman them, and breakdown why they have nothing that makes them an operational apparatus (at least currently). Perhaps they would say the right is Christian? Fundamentally, especially in America, this would define the right in most cases. They have epistemic priors, to some extent, and have similar moralities they wish to enforce in government. However, they soon disband their interest in having these goals as the goals of liberalism are more important. As in, the freedom to not have obligation to anyone or anything reigns over them. Well what about the cutting edge of different degrees? The Vargs? The America First guys? The BAPists? The dissidents? Well perhaps they’ve moved on from the faults of liberalism, but currently are at a frustrating stage of spinning their wheels in the mud making alliances that waste their time. But even though they can push through to something new, they don’t quite have a definition for what that is. All they are able to do is point out different emergent forces throughout our culture.
This is why Dave Greene’s (the Distributist) keen remark to me that the so-called Dissident Right is just a group defined by its desire to remove certain people from power is the most honest description of this unlikely alliance. It’s almost like one of those “walks into a bar” jokes. Only on the “Dissident Right” (DR) could you find gays, Jews, trannies, Orthodox Christians, TradCaths, WASPs, women with boob jobs, sex addicts, etc — any clown who is “anti-left” is now affiliated of this incredibly loosely-defined group of people who notice that stuff is bad, but one thing they’d never do is try to define what they are for. You have ancap race realists and distributist Catholics defined by the same term, and acting as if they have any business interacting with one another.
And that is what has been lost on me for a while. If I find what I have to be better than what the leftist non-society has to offer, then shouldn’t I have something to offer? It is like sedevacantists trying to convince someone to be Catholic.
All I see from RW media is a decline into non-identity. Where perhaps a hundred years ago an American could be defined, to some degree, ethnically, religiously, and culturally, it is now lost on me what even a right-winger is. The only operatives of good are the people I see who do have a firm connection to an ethnic and religious background (for me, that’s mostly Catholics). Institutional change happens in less than a generation when collectives of people are motivated by a strong connection to an ethnic and religious milieu (more so, an ethnoreligious one).
Whenever I see Auron Macintyre or Tucker Carlson, or more embarrassing mainstream pundits, bring up their “religious beliefs,” it always falls on deaf ears. Why? Because what do any of them mean by “Christian?” What do any of them mean by moral? What do any of them desire in “freedom?” Who am I supposed to trust in this nation for my interests? Why should I just “trust the plan” of people who define their political movement as the destruction of the government, removal of people in power, etc. Why should I trust them? The people I’ve noticed who do are people without a framework in their own lives for impacting anything good. The desire to destroy, to crush, to displace is a desire of despair. It’s an appetite of non-being. This is why it’s more pertinent for me to clamor for just nominally Christian, socially moderate or softly left-wing from the Democratic Party. At least they aren’t morons who are milking the last vestiges of the ill-defined cluster of “white Americans” who lose touch with reality as time goes on. At least the Democratic Party will pay me. Legitimately, if the “left” abandoned social liberalism to some extent, they would win for decades to come. It’s because the right is simply dead. It has no desire for anything to function.
But more importantly, when the word “Christian” is brought up, even by more dissident guys like Auron, the label is never defined. All I see that is defined is a negation of what is a negation of being, which just doesn’t make any logical sense. You can’t be against what isn’t. You fill it with something. You give it purpose and meaning.
The Darker Side of the Right
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to ourospost to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.