Reactionary media as immediate strategy
Reaction has not only registerial goals, goals relating to the structure of the state, but cultural ones. Dysgenic trends threaten not only technological advancement but also the very existence of stable, civilized society. The collapse of long-term monogamy increases the possibility of future violent instability. Whig colonialism dissolves and debases the cultural patchwork of the world, replacing it with the vile orgy, the constant carnival, that already reigns in certain parts of New England. Passivism is no longer a viable strategy; attempting merely to get the word out that Universalism is harmful and philosophically bankrupt may have been defensible thirty years ago, but the situation now is dire. The consensus is that something must be done; but what?
neoreactionaries! there is less time left on the clock than you all imagine! the West, this once great civilization, is dead and rotting. look! look upon the sons and daughters of this age! look at her sidebar! you think those are just screenshots of isolated instances? there are thousands more on tumblr alone! communities of kids on kali-yuga overdrive!
point is, the West: stick a fork in it, it’s done. there’s been a lot of talking, and many more people talking about it before, but we need to start thinking of our options for action. let’s say we’ve got 10 years before it’ll be too late to plan anything; this means the options worth talking about are: fighting, and exiting.
The strategy I outlined in my previous post can be summarized as: disregard Trotskyism, acquire formal power, of the sort that that can be used to acquire further formal power. Note that this is not necessarily progressive; in fact, current trends are pointing toward eventual violent implosion. Over a quarter of registered voters already believe that armed revolution may be necessary in the next few years, and the problem of surplus males is nowhere near as bad as it will be once polyamory becomes normalized, which, given current trends, is inevitable.
But this is a long-term strategy. If accumulating a snowball of formal power is step one, as Nick B. Steves rightly asks, what’s step zero?
What are the grounds on which the battle can be fought? I count three.
- Thought. Fight by systematically refuting the Cathedral’s points of doctrine. Establish the Antiversity.
- Status. Make dissent respectable. Many already disagree; let them voice it. Handle notes that “the pre-reactionary numbers are swelling beyond almost anyone’s awareness”.
- The streets. Actively disincentivize progressivism by forming anti-antifa street gangs. But this is a form of politics largely foreign to America, and it reeks of hooliganism and disrespectability and works against reactionary ends.
Status seems to be the most promising arena right now, for two reasons. First, reaction doesn’t yet have the resources, in either labor or capital, to establish the Antiversity; before it can be established, it must be made establishable. Second, it’s already happening. Matt Heimbach, not a philosophical heavy hitter by any means but a clearly talented political actor, has gotten sympathetic coverage from the Cathedral.
This analytic methodology reflects my training in the Anglo-American philosophical tradition; were I to put on a slightly more continental hat, I would suggest historical studies. I’ve heard comparisons to Weimar Germany and present-day Greece, but both cases were preceded not by the series of abstract catastrophes, distanced from the everyday lives of the people, that currently threaten to cook the country like a frog in a pot, but by a concrete disaster that threatened to make Johnny Dickweed bankrupt and starving unless immediate action was taken. If we are to learn from the successes of previously existing rightist movements (as we should—and leftist movements too, as Foseti has suggested, but I know much less about those, and socialism carries with it certain methods of organization that do not apply outside it), we must first figure out which situations are more analogous: political action is not carried out in a vacuum, but involves responses to concrete situations.
The best analogy that I can find is Italy. Mussolini rose to power in a country that was not faced with an immediate economic or existential crisis, but instead with a general and widespread sense that something was not right. His first major political success was legitimizing support for Italian intervention in the First World War, through a combination of theoretical development and organization of sympathetic monitors; a strategy which served him well in his later formations of broad coalitions of support leading to his eventual ascension to the office of Prime Minister.
This suggests a short-term strategy similar to the one I proposed in January, but with certain important differences. Instead of directly building toward replacing the Cathedral and restructuring the government, the goal now is to normalize dissent: to allow the pre-reactionaries to safely voice their discontents—cultural ones, not governmental ones. And unlike in January, there’s interest from the right places. A reactionary media outlet of the sort I’m talking about here can and will come to exist.
If the culture war is lost, all political goals are hopeless; and the cultural goals are worth working toward in and of themselves.
Comment if you’re interested.