The Paglian Right

You have the right to remain fabulous

“What they really object to is the counter-intellectualism of the political-correctness movement which has been latched onto by psychological inadequates amongst the journesse doree in American college life. These are the young women who have never had a thrusting member between their thighs, but who spend their lives complaining about the possibility of non-existent date rape.

In short, Camille Paglia - a woman whose ideas we will return to in greater depth - is opposed to feminism, and the politically-correct notions of the hour, from a position which is anti-Leftist, non-Right wing (to a certain extent), quasi-libertarian, opiniated and elitist. She is a breath of fresh air, a female Mencken, who frightens the life out of the wee young things of Somerville College, Oxford who think that sexual desegratation of the college forecourts is allowing unwelcome members of the college through the gates.”

These approving words are taken from an extreme right-wing journal published in the early 1990s in Britain. The same journal - which features extensive articles by Jonathan Bowden - writes with disgust about Madonna and Michael Jackson, sexual freaks who are absolute icons in the Paglian universe.

To be clear, this is a pro fascist publication writing with approval about this little dykey fruitcake. Please watch the video before continuing. You will not be disappointed.

As woke’s brutal (and deserved) reckoning brews in the underground, Paglia represents a crucial cultural node. While religious conservatives and neo-Heidegerrian vitalists prepare their vicious assault on the decadence and perversity of Globohomo, the author of Sexual Personae remains deliciously palatable.

She is gay, camp, draggy, libertine and psychedelic. She is also unashamedly pro Western civilisation, pro hierarchy, pro talent, pro beauty and pro male. She has the balls to say explicitly that society can and should revere talented men with big egos and domineering personalities - only the talentless should ever be counted as “toxic”.

What Paglia represents, like her Swedish little brother Alexander Bard, is that there is another breed of queer, of a very different flavor to the self-indulgent, Butlerian narcissists that take up so much air time. This is the self-confident, self-asserting, Amazonian class of faggot, Nietzschean to the bone and deeply grateful for the culture and the institutions of the West.

This opens an important political front, and makes it possible to forge a strange and potentially powerful new coalition. The radical, populist Right is concerned that Western culture, art, philosophy, religion and morality are being swept away by a violent, black-hole liberalism. Paglians are able to stand up and say we share your concerns, but sex is not the problem.

The problem, rather, is a narcissistic relationship with sex, in which sex is made the core of self-expression and, more importantly, political expression. Paglians say, we must absolutely defend and conserve hierarchy, beauty, talent, patriarchy and power - and we can fuck and trip our way through it too.

It is a profoundly classical and Renaissance vision, which views sexual excess not as a decadent force, but as a nuclear fuel for producing art and philosophy - if only it can be properly harnessed. As Paglia outlines in this fantastic interview, her view is that Western culture has always been a fusion between Judeo-Christian and Pagan values. Unlike the former, paganism sees the natural forces of sex as deeply spiritual and intimately intertwined with divinity.

However, this spiritual point is crucial. Sex is never about the individual, “feeling good about oneself” and “safe”. It is always transpersonal, tapping into the deepest and darkest places of humanity. It is always a matter of pleasure and aesthetics, beauty and ugly, fit and fat, and no amount of contorted “emancipatory” logic can escape this.

The inherent violence of sexuality means that yes, law and order is needed to contain it and protect the weak. But a propensity for excess and experimentation should not give anybody special political rights or social cred. What matters is what you do with it. Sex is a theatre. You wanna be different? Good, impress me. Otherwise, to quote another fag, “Sorry darling, you’re not a celebrity, you’re just gay"."

In this respect, Drag Queens and Kings are much closer to the authentic spirit of art and culture than are the confused, gender-neutral, amorphous pronoun brigade. As Alexander Bard drives home, to blend the categories is a fiery, alchemical, priestly and shamanic task. If one is called to the wilderness, one should accept this fate as a sacred duty, not a cruel outcome of cisheteronormativephallogocentricpatriarchy.

But why a Paglian Right? Why not, as some friends have suggested, attempt to use Paglia to re-energise the Leftist, emancipatory project, the “proper” home of queer? (Shoutout to The Cultural Futurist, who has been vanguarding and inspiring this work for years.)

Because, as good Renaissance operatives, we must be sensitive to where power and opportunity lies. The Left is ugly and boring. The Right, especially the populist Right, is vibrant and alive. In Europe it is winning elections. In Britain, the context I know best, it is producing new ecosystems of thought and art, and ramping up for a serious assault on the crumbling PMC Tory party. The Left is retreating into theory, while the Right is out in the field. (In fact, the Left has some great original ideas like “shouldn’t we learn from the Houthis new strategies for resisting capitalism”).

In my view, the chairos is with the Right. Friends have criticised this stance, arguing that the Right is too particularist, where only the Left can hold the space for genuine, universally emancipatory politics. In other words, the Right can only argue for simple difference “let Europe be Europe, and if you want to do things differently in Russia or Iran, so be it”, whereas the Left can say “all women should have equal rights to men”.

I think it is better to be inside of the Right populist movements, and to seed universalist ideas there, than to remain outside. The risk with the latter is simply becoming politically and historically irrelevant. I actually see more of an authentic universalist impulse in the Western Right populist movement than I do on the Left. It is Right populist movements that are springing up and mimicking each other in discourse and in tactics across the world.

A useful analogy here is the rise of Nationalist movements in the 19th and 20th centuries, pushing back against feudal and colonial power. Nationalism is today usually seen as a conservative stance, but originally it was radical, promising a different political settlement than arbitrary service to a Lord or occupying power.

The Right populist movements today are akin to the old Nationalist movements. They are resisting the dominion of an internationalist, managerialist cartel, rather akin to an Empire, which acts according to moral and financial values made up on the spot. Don’t agree? Don’t worry, you’re fired, we don’t like racists. We’ll import someone cheaper to do your job and raise your children.

This issue comes to a head in a recent political debate, which I believe is highly important for a number of reasons. The debate, ostensibly about immigration, reflects an important shift in power.

Firstly, it is organised almost entirely by Substackers and YouTubers, with high production value and a high cultural venue. It shows the Netocratic media class stepping up with the Old Media and swinging.

Secondly, the debate is overtly a 2v2, with Matt Goodwin (Substacker) and Konstantin Kisin (Triggernometry) arguing the case that immigration is bad for Britain, while Polly Toynbee (Guardian) and Aaron Bastani (Novara Media) argue that it is good. What quickly becomes apparent is that Toynbee is outclassed and unwanted, and her Guardian-esque platitudes are lame, old news, nobody cares. Bastani doesn’t need her. He fights solo.

Thirdly, between the lines, Bastani largely agrees with the “Right wing” side. They all want more investment in domestic production and populations. They all want dramatically reduced, but not halted, immigration (the consensus figure is around net 150,000, not the projected 1,000,000 + it stands at currently). They all agree that leaving the ECHR, which makes it impossible to boot out asylum claimants, is a good idea. Only Guardiana Toynbee grumbles about this being sad and mean.

In fact, the major difference is that of aesthetics. Bastani is more keen to preserve his image as being “not-racist”, whereas Kisin and Goodwin have more of the “call me whatever you want”.

I actually came out of this debate liking Bastani. The crucial point is that the “populist Right” and the Left-qua-Bastani AGREE on STRONG BORDERS, REDUCED IMMIGRATION, and DOMESTIC PRODUCTION AND POPULATION. The only difference is the skin job. Woke or broke?

What becomes clear is that besides the culture wars crying, the big fight is against the neoliberal PMC class, “woke capitalism”, and everyone except the Guardian knows it. (I would add the fight against the reactive religious fundamentalism, both of the Orthodox Christian and Islamic variety, but that’s a sauce for another breakfast).

Which brings me full circle. I am beginning to suspect there is a Populist Coalition to be built which unites Left and Right. The Left needs to clear out the wokery, while the Right needs to boot out its own religious fundamentalism.

The coalition? Pro Enlightenment, Pro State, Pro International Collaboration, Pro Borders, Pro Reproduction, Pro Workers, Pro Entrepreneurs, Pro Meritocracy, Pro Sex, Pro Talent, Pro Men, Pro Women, Pro Perverted Creative Weirdos who are not desperate to have their asses kissed. Economics then becomes a tactical debate. And if you think you’re above the law of the land and would SUBMIT to a religious or “emancipatory” cartel - go get fucked.

The Paglian Right can stand up and say “Yes to the West, yes to art, yes to beauty, yes to standards, yes to law, yes to differentiation, yes to talent, and yes give us our BDSM clubs for sex and drugs and rock and roll.”

On the Left, I’m looking to Cadell Last and Dave McKerracher, who I have termed, at least temporarily, the Street Left. It’s out with the Vegan Sausages and in with BLP Kosher.