On Neutralism, by Michael Gladius

Conservatism, Inc. has a very contemptible record of actually conserving anything. They seem to be concerned with only preserving the current status quo, regardless of what today’s status quo actually is. When the left changes the status quo, they immediately defend the new status quo and resist all attempts to roll it back. There are many explanations offered as to why they behave in such an odd and counterintuitive way, but the underlying one that never gets discussed is a simple explanation: they are neutralists, not right-wingers.

So what is a neutralist? A neutralist is someone who sees being completely and utterly neutral and indifferent as the highest good. The neutralist believes himself to be above petty things, and able to judge fairly and rationally. They believe that passionate men cannot think clearly and make good decisions, and that the masses are myopic and short-sighted. In the neutralist’s eyes, the majority of men would gladly die dumb like lemmings for pointless or frivolous reasons, and therefore must have their tempers restrained if mankind is to avoid senselessly slaughtering itself into extinction. This mentality also has positivist attitudes, believing that if we all stopped meddling in one anothers’ lives, all of our problems would sort themselves out naturally and justly.

This attitude, shared by both Conservatism, Inc. and the Libertarian movement, sees true right-wingers who want to roll back the modernist revolution and restore what has been taken away from us as foolish and out of control. Because they view indifference as a virtue, they consider us and the modernists both to be the hyperemotional bad guys- we both apparently want unnecessary violence and to impose unfair and unjust rules onto the unwilling for no good reason. Herein lies the fundamental flaw of neutralism: it refuses to consider the ends.

While it is true that the ends do not automatically justify the means, the ends still do matter, and means without ends result in endless problems and mediocrity. The neutralists focus solely on the means, and therefore lose sight of the ends. They justify this by suggesting that if we on the side of Light attempt to roll back the tide of evil, then we will be fundamentally no different from them. If we hit back, we are “descending to their level” or “playing right into their hands,” and therefore losing all moral credibility. They also accuse us of having “black and white thinking,” without realizing the irony of proposing that seeing the world in two colors is more simplistic than seeing it in only one color (shades of grey). The fact that the modernist revolutionaries want an anarchist civilization build on a foundation of genocide, while we don’t, is irrelevant to them. All they care about is that we do not “descend to their level,” and forget about what happens next.

So why does neutralism have such strength in America? After all, if a guy bombs an abortion clinic the right turns him in to the police straightaway. Neutralism has always been a part of American culture, since it is directly tied to the circumstances of our founding. America was founded during the Enlightenment, and the nation was founded by men with a merchant-class (called bourgeois in French) culture. Like the Boers of South Africa (called “burghers,” i.e. merchants), America never has had a peasant culture like Latin America has. As Christopher Dawson wrote in an excellent 1935 essay, the merchant bourgeois culture used to be a separate social body, but with the coming of the Protestants it became imbued into the fabric of all society. Marx incorrectly believed that class distinctions would grow sharper over time, but America is proof of the opposite occurring. America is fundamentally a Middle-class and Working-class nation and culture, regardless of actual wealth or employment, and has been so from day one.

The connection between the merchant-class/Protestant culture and neutralism is as follows: the merchant-class mindset is quantitative, and its ideal is a respectable average. Rather than being carried away by ecstasies and passions, the goal is to keep a stiff upper lip and be too good for such pettiness. After all, a moneymaker who lets his passions get in the way of his mathematical judgement will not be very profitable. Protestantism, and in particular Puritanism, adopted this same mentality because John Calvin’s philosophy was legalistic, and saw God as more of a harsh banker or judge than as a father figure. Since Calvin and his followers believed that God would render a strict accounting of every act at judgement, with no room for error, idleness was to be strictly avoided. From lack of idleness or leisure came a civilization which existed solely for work and the production of wealth, and with it a purely economic mindset. From an economic mindset in a merchant-class culture that had no peasant culture heritage came a high regard for neutrality, indifference, and honesty. Thus, neutralism felt only natural as the most refined of all mentalities. If a civilization comes to see everything the same way they see a monetary transaction, then judging something morally neutral looks foolish and regressive, while focusing solely on developing the best means to any end looks clever and successful. This also combined with the sheer newness of the American experience, and thus any broader political, religious, or cultural perspective that was older than the country was not part of the national psyche.

Thus, American neutralism is not a conspiracy but a character flaw. Lest the reader think that this is a faulty reading of history, one can readily look to the issue of slavery before the Civil War. The Whigs were the neutralist party, while the Democratic Party was split between the northern and southern branches. The Whigs, as neutralists, had no intention of snuffing out slavery, since it was “not their choice to make.” They were willing to compromise on the issue of spreading slavery to new territories, and when Southern Democrats stuffed the ballots in Kansas to fraudulently make the state into a slave state, they had no response. After the Civil War, when the Republican Party had replaced the Whig Party by refusing to compromise on slavery, it was once again beset by a neutralist attitude towards Reconstruction. The Radical Republicans, who said that every social and economic aspect of slavery had to be ripped out by the roots in order for the peace to last, were outnumbered by the neutralists and moderates, who were tired of the killing and just wanted to ignore the problems outside their states. Had the Radical Republicans had their way, there would have been no Civil Rights Era in the 1960s, because all of their victories would have been accomplished by 1900. Neutralism allowed the evils of slavery to persist through Jim Crow until forced by moral arguments to come out against this Sharia-like problem. And to top it all off, during the 1920 Christero War in Mexico, many Americans were either only concerned about the oil rights, or actively supported the Marxist government because it was killing Catholic peasants. For most of America’s history, neutralism could argue that it was still right-wing, but this is no longer possible due to the shift in the Overton Window.

Today, it is abortion that has become the new defining issue. The defenders of abortion use the same arguments as the old defenders of slavery did (and are equally as willing to use violence), and the neutralists continue to insist that we can’t legislate morality or be control freaks over a woman’s body (which they also argued about slavery in 1840 and Jim Crow in 1870). As before, the only way to overcome neutralism is through moral arguments and refusing to accept a shades-of-grey worldview. America’s survival depends on whether we can shake off the notion that problems are systemic and amoral, rather than moral and personal, and the true right-wing must agree on a moral code that everyone must adhere to. This will be an even harder problem, as our neutralist/liberal attitude towards religion allows every man to do what is right in his own eyes (33,000+ denominations and counting). While it will be a bitter pill to swallow, there is only one Christian faith that possesses this unity, and it was members of this faith who observed the neutralist character flaws in America decades before the Civil War broke out. So long as our civilization is purely an economic one, we will lose to the Communists and their thralls. It is in religion, mysticism, and warrior monks that America, and indeed all civilizations, will be saved. The true right-winger must be a man of piety, or at least one who accepts the centrality of religion in western civilization’s strength.

So what do we do? Let’s start by referring to the “conservative” dead ducks as “neutralists” and “sheep,” and be the morally unapologetic sheepdogs in our personal lives, our families, our churches, and our homelands. Set aside time for prayer and contemplation, both individually and as a family. Let parents reclaim their authority over their own children, and let no tongue be silent when it comes to defending the truth. If the clergy roll over and grab their ankles for evil, aggressively push back. And, if necessary, let us be ready to kill. Daily remind yourself that one day you will die, keeping your eyes on Heaven, and you will not fear death when it comes.

 

Michael Gladius is the pseudonym for a budding commentator in the fields of military history and theory. His goal is to blend the lessons of history, principles of human behavior, and practical wisdom in order to draw upon a wide array of factors for optimized solutions and problem-solving. He is currently studying in Europe. Some examples of his work include Small Wars Journal and RealClear Defense.

Spread the love
                

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: NC Scout

NC Scout is the nom de guerre of a former Infantry Scout and Sergeant in one of the Army’s best Reconnaissance Units. He has combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He teaches a series of courses focusing on small unit skills rarely if ever taught anywhere else in the prepping and survival field, including his RTO Course which focuses on small unit communications. In his free time he is an avid hunter, bushcrafter, writer, long range shooter, prepper, amateur radio operator and Libertarian activist. He can be contacted at [email protected] or via his blog at brushbeater.wordpress.com .

8 Comments

  1. Green Mountain Shooter July 20, 2020 at 08:42

    It feels that we are now in the period of means with no end. The fight will soon be upon us.

  2. Bob July 20, 2020 at 09:56

    Interesting treatise. I would ask that my recommendation to investigate the writings of the Greek Orthodox scholar John Romanides be passed on to the author.
    Here is a sample of his work on the schism of 1054.

  3. Bob July 20, 2020 at 10:03

    Interesting treatise. I would ask that my recommendation of the writings of Romthe JohnGreek Orthodox writer John Romanides be passed on to the author. Here is a sample of his work on the Schism of 1054.

    http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm

  4. Karl Dahl July 20, 2020 at 18:22

    Very interesting choice of labels, and appropriate, when one looks at those who labeled themselves as “Neutralists,” specifically in Laos during the Second Indochina War.

    The Neutralists were a faction who advocated that the nation of Laos not align with any foreign forces and handle their domestic issues independently – they did not want to encourage the corruption that came with US aid dollars, nor the Communist Vietnamese invasion. What did they do? Military members of their faction, specifically the paratroopers, led by Captain Kong Le, a veteran fighter who had worked with the French until their departure in 1954, attempted a takeover of radio stations and government facilities, i.e. they fought with the rightist government and sought to change the minds of the civilian populace.

    The rightist government scared the hell out of them in two quick engagements, and they fled to the Plain of Jars, which was essentially Vietnamese territory, as it was the gateway between North Vietnam and the Lao old royal and administrative capitols, Luang Prabang and Vientiane.

    Of course, the problem staring the Neutralists in the face that they completely disregarded was that the great need for US aid money was due to the Vietnamese. If they had shut up and spent a few years developing cachet and influence, which would have been easy, given that they were veteran guerrilla fighters and the US was on the verge of beginning the real money pump & development of Special Guerrilla Units, etc. they could have had the ear of the CIA paramilitaries and taken over the civilian government, or at least operated as a shadow government, and had a much better chance of either winning or striking a reasonable compromise.

    Instead, they sperged out, ran away (because they never really wanted to fight the rightist government forces), and ended up being sheltered by the Vietnamese, giving the Communists a huge win in the battle of optics. They learned that the supposed Pathet Lao were a poorly trained and equipped puppet force who existed for propaganda purposes – to give the Vietnamese cover for the takeover of the country. The leaders were generally half-Vietnamese trained and educated in Vietnam. If one visits the caves in the eastern Plain of Jars where the Pathet Lao and PAVN cadres had their HQ, and look to the libraries of the leaders, you’ll see only Vietnamese-language books.

    Why am I typing all of this? The Lao Neutralists had the same success as the moderate liberals and reasonable “respect the legitimate government” Republicans during the Spanish Civil War – used as cannon fodder in battle, starved, left unequipped, leaders liquidated, then troops liquidated if they didn’t bend the knee AND remain successful w/o a blemish on their record (impossible because the Nationalists rocked them in most engagements). i.e. a bullet in the back of the head was to be expected. Some of the core leaders fled early on, to live in exile and dangle hope for an ideologically pure government to return, until they finally died of old age in the 2010s.

    How well would your kids do in refugee camps, in a world without a sympathetic great power?

  5. Paul Bonneau July 21, 2020 at 10:15

    You seem to be arguing here, that the ends really do justify the means. In other words, this seems to be an argument for imposition and tyranny.

    The libertarian view is NOT that ends don’t matter, but that certain means are counterproductive if not outright evil. If you want the most ideal ends (and yes we can make such distinctions), it is best for people to come to them on their own, rather than through imposition, which will inevitably generate resistance.

    I think all people should end up experiencing the political philosophy they advocate for (which implies some form of separation, like secession or panarchy, to allow that to happen). Only after having experienced it, can they know in their bones whether it was a good choice or not. Just like what happened with the Pilgrims, communism seemed like a good idea until everyone ended up starving.

    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”
    — Will Rogers

    Sadly, most of us have to pee on the electric fence.

    I also agree with B.H. Liddel Hart (this is from my quotes file):
    —————————
    “When, in the course of studying a long series of military campaigns, I first came to perceive the superiority of the indirect over the direct approach, I was looking merely for light upon strategy. With deepened reflection, however I began to realize that the indirect approach had a much wider application – that it was a law of life in all spheres: a truth of philosophy. Its fulfillment was seen to be the key to practical achievement in dealing with any problem where the human factor predominates, and a conflict of wills tends to spring from an underlying concern for interests. In all such cases, the direct assault of new ideas provokes a stubborn resistance, this intensifying the difficulty of producing a change in outlook. Conversion is achieved more easily and rapidly by unsuspected infiltration of a different idea or by an argument that turns the flank of instinctive opposition. The indirect approach is as fundamental to the realm of politics as to the realm of sex. In commerce, the suggestion that there is a bargain to be secured is far more potent than any direct appeal to buy. And in any sphere it is proverbial that the surest way of gaining a superior’s acceptance of a new idea is to persuade him that it is his idea! As in war, the aim is to weaken resistance before attempting to overcome it; and the effect is best attained by drawing the other party out of his defenses.

    This idea of the indirect approach is closely related to all problems of the influence of mind upon mind – the most influential factor in human history. Yet it is hard to reconcile with another lesson: that true conclusions can only be reached, or approached, by pursuing the truth without regard to where it may lead or what its effect may be – on different interests.

    History bears witness to the vital part that the ‘prophets’ have played in human progress – which is evidence of the ultimate practical value of expressing unreservedly the truth as one sees it. Yet it also becomes clear that the acceptance and spreading of their vision has always depended on another class of men – ‘leaders’ who had to be philosophical strategists, striking a compromise between truth and men’s receptivity to it. Their effect has often depended as much on their own limitations in perceiving the truth as on their practical wisdom in proclaiming it.

    The prophets must be stoned; that is their lot, and the test of their self-fulfillment. But a leader who is stoned may merely prove that he has failed in his function through a deficiency of wisdom, or through confusing his function with that of a prophet. Time alone can tell whether the effect of such a sacrifice redeems the apparent failure as a leader that does honor to him as a man. At the least, he avoids the more common fault of leaders – that of sacrificing the truth to expediency without ultimate advantage to the cause. For whoever habitually supresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought.

    Is there a practical way of combining progress towards the attainment of truth with progress towards its acceptance? A possible solution of the problem is suggested by reflection on strategic principles – which point to the importance of maintaining an object consistently and, also, of pursuing it in a way adapted to circumstances. Opposition to the truth is inevitable, especially if it takes the form of a new idea, but the degree of resistance can be diminished – by giving thought not only to the aim but to the method of the approach. Avoid a frontal assault on a long-established position; instead, seek to turn it by flank movement, so that a more penetrable side is exposed to the thrust of truth. But, in any such indirect approach, take care not to diverge from the truth – for nothing is more fatal to its real advancement than to lapse into untruth.

    The meaning of these reflections may be made clearer by illustration from one’s own experience. Looking back on the stages by which various fresh ideas gained acceptance, it can be seen that the process was eased when they could be presented, not as something radically new, but as the revival in modern terms of a time-honored principle or practice that had been forgotten. This required not deception, but care to trace the connection – since ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. A notable example was the way that the opposition to mechanization was diminished by showing that the mobile armored vehicle – the fast moving tank – was fundamentally the heir of the armoured horseman, and thus the natural means of reviving the decisive role which cavalry had played in past ages.”
    — B.H. Liddel Hart, “Strategy”

  6. Machine Trooper July 21, 2020 at 13:23

    Observations are spot-on.

    Some “conservatives” are indeed neutralist. Some are just plain cowards. Some are actually working for the enemy, and simply believe that the (R) after their name and the occasional Buckley-esque buzzword is a suitable disguise. Unfortunately, the lame disguise has been effective for half a century, and still is for some people. Exhibit A is the GOP nominee in every national election from 1988-2012.

    The whole framework and lexicon is muddled so that we can’t even be precise when we talk politics. All of us have been programmed in school and by the Idiot Box to believe that the Fascists and National Socialists were “right wing;” and that deception is regurgitated and reinforced everywhere we turn. It’s just another way of using Newspeak to give the left the appearance of the high moral ground–in this instance by using guilt-by-association against their enemy.

    The Radical Right Boogeyman is alluded to constantly, but always portrayed or identified as some collectivist consumed by identity politics.

    http://www.virtualpulp.net/2019/12/07/civil-war-ii-what-side-will-you-be-on/

  7. C. Wilson July 21, 2020 at 18:39

    I think nearly as much evil has been done by men with God’s name on their lips as has been done by those worshiping Marx. Beware the zealot, of any flavor.

  8. Paul Velte July 27, 2020 at 09:02

    Why did you have to cut off the top of that picture? I *need* a copy with that text fully visible !!

Comments are closed.

GUNS N GEAR

Categories

Archives

Spread the love