Professor Jordan Peterson said the following, in an eye-opening video (here and shown below):
By the end of the 1960’s, you couldn’t be conscious and thinking and pro-Marxist.
He followed that nice summation with:
There was so much evidence pouring in from the former Soviet Union, and from the Soviet Union at that time and from Maoist China about the absolutely devastating consequences of the doctrine, that it was impossible to be apologetic for it.
Peterson goes on to describe perfectly what happened to international Marxism — the Left — after the many exposures of the abattoirs that were their brainchilds: The Soviet Union and Maoist China. The Left recast themselves, Peterson says, as “Post-Modernists,” and retooled Marxism into identity politics. With that done, they resumed their briefly interrupted march through American Academia.
And in that way, Marxism lives and, in fact, thrives in the very country that so effectively demonstrated its horrors.
It’s an important video, and it reveals another hugely important idea: the notion that the Right has very clearly defined limits beyond which you may not stray, and remain a member-in-good-standing of the Right.
The Left, Peterson says, has no such limit or limits. Therefore, the Left accepts anyone and everyone — no matter how violent (Antifa, Black Lives Matter), racist (BLM), wacky (gays and trans), fraudulent (environmentalists), ridiculous (modern feminists) who will ally with them against the Right. He then goes on to say that the Left must establish such limits, else lose any credibility.
I disagree with him just a bit in this regard. I think that suggesting that the Left must define limits beyond which one may not stray, else face banishment, is a bit like saying that a midget must grow tall in order to play in the NBA. It’s not something he can do.
Just as the midget can’t grow any taller, the Left simply has no ability to define limits beyond which one may not pass, because the Left has no set of principles beyond the acquisition of power.
The Right is nothing but principles. We on the Right takes stands on everything. They’re stands that all position themselves against a set of exceedingly important core principles. Here are Russell Kirk’s list of the core principles of Conservatism:
- First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
- Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
- Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
- Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
- Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
- Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
- Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
- Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
- Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
- Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
That list works for us here at the Praetorian Writers’ Group.