Within the Atlanticist Schattenreich, the vast bulk of any given civilizationally invested cultural artifact, irrespective of genre, is predominately negative. Critique rules. It rules the airwaves, it rules the internet. It rules the inane brick-an-mortar back-and-forth’s over a cup of diabetes flavored coffee: “That movie sucked, Hollywood sucks, everyone is so loud in here – they suck,” when the same individual shambles from their cool, shaded sanctuary of cathartic release and remembers he or she is actually drinking something said individual might well remark, “This coffee sucks.” Perhaps if that individual is feeling exceptionally energetic they may even tell you why. One feels the malaise palpably, almost as if it were something in the very air, no mere figment of imagination’s fevered play but something imminent, physical, solid and tenebrous from which the healthy brain wishes desperately to recoil but cannot.
For the sake of clarity: a hemming to politics, recent politics. Consider all the “never” groups all the, “anti,” this-that and the-other-thing, all the chants of “Something, something, not [x].” #nevertrump, #neveragain, #goodnightaltright and the only sometimes ironic, #nolivesmatter. You turn on the news, its FOX, there’s Sean Hannity mush-mouthing about the latest “terrorism” from the, “Fascist alt-radical-Left” (I’m sure it’ll catch on), flip the channel, different face, similar suit, same sentiment. Opposition nomenclature & verbal shadow-boxing.
I should hasten to note that there is nothing inherently bad about critique, obviously. In fact, one could scarcely fathom navigating the world without such a handy scalpel, what is of concern here is not that things are being decried but rather that nothing is being critiqued with any potential replacements in mind. To go further, critique itself, though sufficient to effect societal change (i.e. deconstructionism) is not inherently sustainable by itself, that is, if one succeeds in demolishing the prevailing ideas of any given society the society will not simply keep chugging peaceably along as per usual but will fall into chaos because ideas moor the individual (and thus the collective) to certain thorough mapped spaces within their own consciousness via which they navigate the world. Such confusion always spills out into the world and has a rather irksome tendency to color it red when it does (such is the case with the French Revolution).
So we are not to bemoan, nor to bleed, what then?
Build. Right, of course – naturally!
But that is not nearly so easy.
One might recall the business adage, “If you build it, they shall come,” which was adapted from the 1989 fantasy drama, Field of Dreams, and think it the answer. If you did/do you’d be wrong. In whatever direction one wishes to push a given society one must have something which people can flock to (literally or figuratively), of a certainty, but that alone is not sufficient. It is not enough to have a publication if no one reads it, nor to build a town in which no one lives. That is, the idea must be both alluring and captivating – categories that bare some distinction, as they are most certainly not similar things. Alluring in that they draw a individual in. Captivating in that they keep them immersed. By this I do not refer to any facile “flight of fancy” – I’m no Paul Joseph Watson after all (“Conservatism is the new punk!”). No, what I mean by allure and captivate is that the dissident social “move,” should, whatever form it takes, account for all that Man’s Nature incessantly craves. A discerning reader might find all of this rather obvious – it is.
Mishima, in Runaway Horses, writes,
“Again and again, the cicada’s untiring cry pierced the sultry summer air like a needle at work on thick, cotton cloth,”
Despite how obvious these issues our, we, the et ferro, like Mishima’s cicada, should untiringly cry out that which is known to be true, no matter how “in-front of one’s face” such truths happen to be – as much for ourselves as for others – and do so as ceaselessly as possible. Repetition alone builds the structure for the propagation of not-quite truths that are believed to be full truths all the same.
However, even if one does this sufficiently well, building alone is also insufficient for marked transformation. Unless a dissident thinker is a hapless dark-romantic, lost to fatalistic fancy, garbing themselves in the mind-theatre of some gore-grinning last stand, then marked change should be the end goal – unless, on the other hand, one is merely “in the game” for fun. But it is not enough to simply structure the mind’s greedy tentacles in a alluring+captivating mold – the mold must also be more alluring and captivating than its competition. The French Revolutionaries, for instance, provided a vision of France to the populace that was far more alluring than the previous vision; choosing between “Fealty to the crown, regardless of the consequences,” vs. “Freedom and justice to all!” The more alluring option is obvious.
Additionally, one must pick one’s targets – one should not make the mistake of “playing to the crowd,” of populism. Populism is classically defined as any movement which aims to cater to the will of ordinary people. But neither the revolutionary nor subterfugial instinct is highly born in the ordinary man. Mind the politician who pounds the podium, lacing the air with chatter of, “Common sense reform!” Where has all that common sense gotten our modern political reformers? Take the US specifically – what became of the common sense stratagem of the Ron Paul revolution? Very little. Not nothing, certainly, there was a considerable amount of tribal re-alignment due the campaign, yet, no marked, nation-wide change. The meta-narrative was not changed specifically because Paul was working within the “common” meta-narrative – common sense, common man.
This is not meant as some slight against the ordinary – I myself am an ordinary man – but a virulent pushback against the ordinary man’s refusal or inability to acknowledge his true status, self evident by his occupation thereof. The inability to admit of error is a sure hallmark of a truly mediocre thinker, for without understanding of, and re-correction for, error, the currently installed mindware, let us call it, will inevitably continue running a wholly faulty operation. This is something I cover more extensively in my article, The Hierarchical Heresy, the gist of which was distilled in the linguistic formulation,
One should not be afraid to say, “He is better than thee,” so long as one is humble enough to say, “He is better than me.”
The Paulists and, to a lesser degree, the Trumpian Populists make the crucial mistake of failing to properly admit the latter portion of the previous quotation. They differentiate themselves from their political opponents only by declaring that the president is better at his job (and perhaps, business) than them and nothing else. In all other ways he is just another good ole ‘merican – he isn’t truly exceptional himself but rather is a expression of the collective will of the exceptional American People. As such the Populists (Stranahan, Mitchell) willfully grant Trump some mild autocratic leeway (which he can’t rightly enact due to the totalizing hegemony of the prevailing system). Neither Passivistic nor Accelerationist, the strategy of change the majority of the ordinary American political consumer might best be described as Mafiastic-ceremonialism. Traditional enough for a tenuous, partial fealty, amoral enough for dabs here and there of foreign slaughter and, lastly and most crucially, wholly lacking in vision.