The True Heirs of Divine Order
The True Heirs of Divine Order
The First Principles of Right-Wing Thought and where Dr. Jordan Peterson goes wrong
If you’ve watched even a bit of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s Conservative Manifesto series while being right-wing, it is clear that Dr. Peterson doesn’t at all understand right-wing thinking. He’s trying though. I’ll give him that. To describe what he gets wrong without going into too much detail, I would say that he focuses too much on the Left as if the Left has ever created anything. He treats right-wing or specifically “conservative” thought as if it is a reaction to Leftism instead of the other way around. This is partly due to the fact that he is somehow, in the minds of many, considered to be “conservative” himself.
The way that he arrived at “conservative” principles was through reacting against progressivism’s eruption within the liberal framework. To put it more specifically, he is not actually right-wing; thus, he arrives at right-wing principles from the wrong direction. He treats liberalism as if it is preeminent in comparison to right-wing beliefs because, in his personal journey, that’s how he arrived at being “conservative.” Anyone who is truly right-wing, sees his “conservatism” as masquerading as right-wing while being inherently left-wing.
Hopefully, that wasn’t too complicated an explanation as to why he’s not quite right-wing and why his explanations in those videos are a jumbled mess. In summary, it’s a jumbled mess because he’s “reading the script” backward. On the other side, liberals/progressives/socialists, “Agents of Death and Disorder” as I like to call them, treat right-wing thought as some aberrant social pathology that needs to be medicated out of the population. Either it’s treated that way or treated as the original source of evil without explanation. They see themselves as authentic in their self-worship, while those who submit to something else are heretics that must be purged and re-educated. Again, the liberals/progressives/socialists have the same idea as Dr. Peterson. They see right-wing thought as being a reaction against left-wing thought.
This is false framing. Though many on the right have this thinking embedded inside them due to growing up in an egalitarian society. Many arrived at right-wing reactionary thought by reacting to left-wing thought. Because of this, the vanguard right is often still frustrated and trapped by the Left’s perception of it that arose in the 20th century. Many intelligent and articulate thinkers on the e-right have made this point, and I am simply latching on to that clear and honest observation. Now the next step is to answer the question: “how does the right step out of that framing?”
Outside the Framing
The pathway out is to understand the fundamental basis of your own thoughts and beliefs, but more importantly, gaining the ability to explain them in a relatively simple way. For example, the left uses DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). This is more so a slogan, but it works. Whenever you hear those 3 words separate or apart, you know that you are engaging with enemy indoctrination. Truthfully, I don’t think the right could manage to sum up its preferences in that way; however, there needs to be a tool to help iron out what actually is “right-wing” thinking that’s relatively short. Jordan Peterson was attempting a manifesto, a bit longer than a slogan, but even so, it was too long and too complicated, perhaps revealing that conservatism is a shredded mess in his own mind. One day, I may try to write a manifesto for the right, but currently, this is my attempt to solidify a more simple way for the right to understand itself.
If one were to use “racism and sexism” to define the right, that person diminishes their own beliefs by reducing right-wing thought to being a left-wing taboo. After all “sexism” and “racism” are sins from the left-wing perspective. They shouldn’t be seen as defining factors from the right-wing perspective because the right doesn’t view its own views as sinful. What is called “sexism” to the left is, on the right, the inherent complementary relationship between male and female. What is called “racism” to the left is, on the right, the inherent differences, both genetic and cultural, between people groups. When the right where’s the mask of seeing itself as the left describes (racist and sexist), it becomes unoriginal and always loses. When the right embraces its identity as the original way of thinking, it doesn’t define itself as the opposite of its enemy’s system. Its identity is authentically sourced from within itself, imbibing a generative way to view the world.
The First Principles
This is my attempt to simplify the basis of right-wing thought into two fundamental principles. I’m not particularly well-read, so feel free to recommend books below that could assist me in what I’m trying to do. Feel free to comment below if you have thoughts on how it can be improved. I’m not the best at formal logic, but these are my attempts to lay out a basis for the right-wing worldview. I will explain it below as I develop it.
First Principles of Right-Wing Thought (informal)
Principle 1. There is an order.
Principle 2. All things ought to be in that order.
Nothing too complicated in this informal form. I chose not to focus on western civilization specifically and chose to make a more general statement on what I think the right is about in a broad sense. There is much diversity among right-wing thinkers, so my hope was to capture that in a broad swath.
The right recognizes the metaphysical reality of an order that is imposed upon the world, the reality in which we live, and we recognize that inherent order as being correct, beautiful, and worthy of aligning with. We want to match the order that manifests out of reality. We celebrate the inherent strength of the masculine form and desire that all men live up to that standard (though we know all will not). We celebrate the inherent tenderness of the female form and desire that all women live up to that standard (though we know all will not). We desire for churches and spiritual leaders to uphold the truth of their ancient faith, and we do not see churches as churches if they fail to do so. I could go on, but I’m sure you get what I mean. Everything is ordered in the right-wing perspective, and all things must submit to their inherent order.
The left currently believes that all natural order is either optional or is oppressive. It believes that social phenomenon are sourced in oppression rather than originating in an inherent aspect of reality. They deny that existence of a preeminent order with regards to both social and economic issues, and they promote fantasies based upon their own whims in both of those realms. They fundamentally disagree with Principle 1, and they are at all out war against Principle 2.
Of course, the question becomes almost immediately: “what is the inherent order?” This is a funny question because everyone reading this knows the inherent order while asking this question, so the true question is: “why are you asking that?” Being right-wing is to not even ask that question because the inherent order is self-evident. You’ve been drinking too much egalitarian slop if you ask that question. But, due to this question, I will be able to lead you to the formal version of the first principles above.
Order comes from above. We live in an ordered universe that has rules, a set of laws by which it functions. We know some of those rules, but some we fail to grasp. For example, modern physics has discovered much about how the universe works, but it still fails to fully understand where black holes fit into the modern model. There are still things we don’t understand. Humans can only view the state in which they live from the biased viewpoint of the time in which they live. Everything, no matter the effort to create a “value-free” or “unbiased” analysis, is quite biased toward the embodied human experience. We are slaves to our own perspective.
We must recognize that reality sits upon us as humans. We are not observing reality from without but from within; thus, we are forever barred from viewing ourselves from an outside context (though we frequently attempt to do this). Order originates from outside of us. We can institute an order, but all legitimate order has a pattern to it that aligns with the fundamental order that underlies all reality. Beauty crafted by human hands is beautiful because it approaches the standard of beauty created by an outside and above order. Because I’m a Christian, this outside and above order is God. I will hereby denote the “order that comes from beyond and above us and settles upon us” as “divine.” It is divine because it comes from above and beyond us, and we are subject to it regardless of our beliefs. Thus…
First Principles of Right-Wing Thought (formal)
Principle 1. There is a divine order.
Principle 2. All things ought to be in that order.
You’ll notice that I’ve left out the word “inherent” in these principles though I am using it a lot in developing my thoughts. This is because, from my Christian perspective, “inherent” is comprised within the word “divine.” I’m using “divine” here to meditate on the fact that we don’t get to choose the order to which we are subject. It exists. We submit. The reason that I avoid using the word “inherent” while inside the principles is because it reduces nature to the physical and the material when being right-wing means that you embrace the transcendant, the spiritual, and the divine. There is no room for the materialist perspective among those that believe themselves to be right-wing.
Now, we’ve developed the first principle, but let’s take a look at the second. Why should all things be in the divine order? Well, that’s the fundamental belief of all those who are truly right-wing. That is the dividing line between left and right. Being right-wing means that you believe that the world should approximate the inherent and divine order. In fact, the best way to grasp what the left is from a right-wing perspective is to create principles for it.
Explaining the Left-Wing using the formal first principles (from a right-wing perspective)
Principle 1. There is a divine order. →
Principle 1.b. There is a divine order.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Principle 2. All things ought to be in that order. →
Principle 2.b. All things ought not be in that order.
What’s great about this is that it comprises within it the cynical nature of the left tearing down barriers in society. It is saying that they are well-aware of the divine order but are in rebellion against it. As I stated above, in discussions, they would outright deny Principle 1, and there would be no Principle 2. From the right-wing perspective, they are in denial of reality by denying Principle 1; thus, we would say that there is a divine order, but they don’t believe that all things should agree with that order. We would say that they are changing Principle 2 only because, from our perspective, Principle 1 cannot be denied at all. Still, all right-wing thinking comes out of both of these principles: to summarize, there is an order and that order should be abided by.
Explaining the Left-Wing using the formal first principles (from a left-wing perspective)
Principle 1. There is a divine order. →
Principle 1.c. There is no divine order.
(Principle 2 disappears)
“All things ought not be in that order” is the mantra of the left in our framing. They hate the divine order and want to eliminate it, but they don’t have the power to eliminate the self-evident nature of Principle 1. All they can do is try to obscure the truth by shaking up society through denying Principle 2. This is how you get cultural relativism and doctrines on DEI. In their actions, they reveal a deep desire to pervert the fundamental truths of society, creating abominations like “Drag Queen Story Hour” and “Family Drag Shows.” They are after the innocence of childhood, a barrier they deeply desire to destroy among many that have already been destroyed.
I originally came to this idea because of something Curtis Yarvin said in one of his appearances on Michael Malice’s podcast. Although Yarvin has received a lot of criticism as of late, his insight that the right is the side that desires order was key in allowing me to put this simple thing together. Obviously, one may say that Yarvin’s worldview does not quite fit under what I describe above, but I still think that this could be used to delineate a hardline between what actually makes someone right-wing without specifying a long list of itemized beliefs. I considered that list of principles to be the failing of Dr. Peterson’s Conservative Manifesto. It’s too long, and it defines itself in response to the left. It also comprises a bunch of values that are arguably found on the left as well. My construction gets to the heart of the difference in a simple way.
My First Principles are deeply exclusionary to anyone who is “right-wing” and atheist or unwilling to admit that there is some kind of divine order by which we must align. That’s its purpose. It is designed to gatekeep people who lack a telos and that are simply anti-sjw or anti-woke that fall out of favor with the left. It’s also meant as a hard wall to decide who is friend or foe for those on the right. It doesn’t say anything specific about race or sex because that is embedded in there being a “divine” or “designed” order. God created the inherent differences (there could be a debate on what’s inherent and what’s not), and we have to live with them.
The True Heirs of Divine Order
Knowing one’s own identity is the keystone to a successful future. As the right comes to the end of its losing streak for the last 50 years, the only way to truly turn it around is for us to get who we actually are. The right are not lovers of freedom. They don’t hate freedom, especially if it’s a foundational part of their mythos (like it is here in America), but it’s not the core of what it means to be right-wing.
Being right-wing is also not being a bigot though the left may label you as such for your views on certain issues. Eschew the label. These reductive labels are incredibly successful on the consciousness of the right-wing individual. In a contrarian sense, people begin to identify as the regime’s enemy instead of as what they actually are. However, these labels reduce the majesty and the power of your actual identity. They lower you to a lesser form, and when you accept them onto yourself, you reduce yourself to vermin. You reduce yourself to a buzzing fly that the left is swatting at. The left wants you to believe that you are 2-dimensional. That you are without depth or deep.
You have depth. You have depth and even more dimensions than that. You are walking on a higher pathway, especially if you are a Christian. You should not reduce your principles to your enemy’s accusations. You are much more glorious and honorable in nature than that. When you receive Christ, you become an heir to the most glorious promise, the most majestic Kingdom, and the most honorable hope of eternal life.
To quote myself:
In the new testament, followers of Christ are called “heirs according to the hope of eternal life,” “fellow heirs,” “heirs according to promise,” “heirs of the promise,” “heirs of the kingdom,” and “fellow heirs of the same promise” (Titus 3:7, Galatians 3:29, Hebrews 6:17, James 2:5, Hebrews 11:9 NASB1995). An heir is an inheritor. Inheritors have an inheritance. We are inheriting the Hope of eternal life, the Promise, and the Kingdom.
from Embedded…
Know who you are. You may be in exile in the postmodern wastes of our society, but you are not some dirty creature scurrying through the sewers. You are agents and ambassadors of order that originates in God. You are true heirs of divine order. It sounds noble because it is noble. It’s noble to carry a love for truth while under the “Empire of Lies” regime. It is not pretty, but it is glorious.
There is much more that could be said on these topics, but I’ll leave it here for now. Stop defining yourself through your enemy’s frame. Define your enemies through your own frame.