The left constitutes, so says Jim Goad, “the new church ladies”—the target being, in particular, the woke left and its moralism. The idea is rhetorical—the goal is to turn liberalism against itself, to peel away the youth with the idea that the right is countercultural. The cultural revolution has been completed; ergo, the right is now countercultural—the right constitutes the “cool” forbidden current in society, so all the youth will flock to it.
Unfortunately, this view is incorrect—it is incorrect even as rhetoric. Dads and the army: two right-wing “institutions”. Are they cool? Dad is not cool—sorry, dad has never been cool; nobody’s dad, even celebrity dads, has ever been cool—and this is not just because he wears corduroy trousers (“Practical and hard-wearing material, son. Don’t see any problem with my cords.” “When will he throw them away? I’ve begged him to throw them away,” interjects mother.) No, dad is uncool in a fundamental way. The army. You do not see many men in uniform in Britain, although it does happen more in the States. Would you approach a man in uniform at the bus station and say, “You look cool.” Answer: no—and to do so would seem facetious, as if you were on the look out to start something. You would get a quizzical look: “What’s his game, eh?”.
So two key right-wing “institutions” are not cool. This is because the right is not cool by nature. “Coolness” is a slang term that dates from the 1930s; it comes from the black jazz scene—it is outside the Western sphere, its popularisation is a deliberate move to feminise and negrify Western societies; it does not even originate from surterranean black society—it comes from the 1930s equivalent to the rap scene, it comes from the degenerate underground. It was originated by the long-haired Lester Young, a fey black jazzman who also coined the word “crib”—the cool man is the feminised man; notably, even for a jazzman, Young was not successful—he only knew how to look “cool”, not how to do anything worthwhile.
Think about what it means to be “cool”—a cool cat, too cool for school; too cool to be in the army, too cool to be a dad—or a dad that’s there, so square. Why? Because those are serious occupations, whereas the kool kid is above all that. You dig, daddio? In fact, “cool” is a deliberate inversion. When Hemingway used “cool” it was a derogatory phrase—“He got cool with me.” “Don’t get cool with me.” “He was a pretty cool customer” (i.e. he was a criminal). The word vaguely suggested arrogance—and more than that an anti-social character. So the word has been inverted and popularised so that it is cool to be cool—to be anti-social, to be above it all. When you have that reefer in your hand and the band be-bop-be-bop-be-bing-bang-boo nothin’ in the wide world matters, especially what the man thinks. So stay cool, cats.
The right is existential—and not in the hip 1950s “white negro” all-nite milk bar sense popularised by Norman Mailer and Jean-Paul Sartre. It is the really existential, for the term “existentialism”—itself inherently tied up to Gauloises cigarettes, black polos, and being “cool”—derives from the German existentell; and, of course, that comes from Heidegger—so that existentialism (which is a humanism, Sartre was keen to point out—too keen) really derives from what is Deutsch-existential. What is existential? blood, soil, spirituality. Woah, man—not cool!
The right will never be popular by its very nature. What does the right say life is about? Life is about death—and your preparation to meet what will inevitably befall you. “Woah, man—this is hashing my vibe. I just wanna root-toot on my sax-o-phone all the live-long night, you dig.” “No. You are a degenerate drug addict and social parasite who wants to corrupt my children and destroy transcendent beauty. I think you need several men in an unmarked car to follow you home one night, slip a black hood over your head, and then dump your body in an irrigation canal.”
You see, it will never be fun—if you say that, it frightens people. Too real, you see—and, in fact, it is not said; it just happens, action is masculine. The right is the masculine principle: the masculine principle is reductive—it removes unprofitable businesses, alien threats in the territory, and so on. It is a mystery because it only takes away. What is it? I cannot show you what produces by reduction—it is a mystery. It is intangible, yet it creates. All men are intangible in this way, since they are the silent reduction.
It is true that the left is the malfunction of the feminine—the progressive liberal really practices decadent politeness, with “sexism” and “racism” as decorous drawing room games grown out of hand. However, the right will never be the popular opposite to politeness; and, in fact, there is nothing wrong with normal politeness—with normal church ladies, under suitable supervision.
What is existential is hateful to the mob, since it reminds them they are finite—the hedonism will not go on forever, a factual statement. Hence the right will never be “fun popular counterculture”; it is only in a democracy that the youth are venerated, and they think they will live forever—not existential. Besides, there is no need to win the feminine masses by being cool; and, indeed, as Jordan Peterson demonstrated in a tiny way, what Western youth want is to be told: “It’s pathetic to ‘be cool’—we need you to become hard and disciplined, we need you to destroy the enemies who face us. We need you to reach for the stars.” To be real is not to be cool—it is to be orientated towards death, that which is inevitable; it is to embrace the mystery, not to be a kool kitty-kat.