What’s in It for Me?

What’s in It for Me?

Alex Kurtagic

April 20, 2010

The most baffling historical development in modern times has to be the voluntary abdication of land, wealth, rights, power, and genes by White people all over the world, as well as the continuing nature of this abdication, despite its disastrous, obvious, and worsening consequences. Equally baffling is the fact that the most vehement condemnations of political parties aiming to arrest this process of abdication come often from the very same segment of the population whose interests they seek to advance and defend: Whites themselves.

What is wrong with them?

Numerous explanations have been advanced in the attempt to explain this phenomenon: Jewish control of the mass media of news and entertainment; the success of various twentieth-century Jewish intellectual movements; the existence of a secret Jewish conspiracy; Zionism; the venality of politicians; the deracinated, globalist character of contemporary capitalism; feminism; the outcome of World War II; Christianity; the propensity of Whites to experience feelings of guilt; and the moral universalism of Western culture are among the most common. There may be varying degrees of truth or paranoia in these explanations, but there is one that I have only very sporadically seen surface in the Right’s otherwise obsessive and comprehensive postmortems of European culture, and which I believe deserves greater attention. And the explanation is this: we have nothing good or useful to offer.

A White advocate might wish to argue that, on the contrary, White advocacy has everything to offer: life, peace, freedom, wealth, and a homeland. This is true. But what is on offer is mostly abstract, conceptual, in an indeterminate future, and conditional on White advocates’ emerging victorious from a political battle that those who hold their views have by now been consistently losing for perhaps nearly a century. What is more, the White advocate’s vague offer of potential reward comes with concrete call for certain sacrifice, justified by an analysis of the world that is steeped in negativity, pessimism, cynicism, paranoia, emotional masochism, reactionary nostalgia, conspiracy theories, tragic heroism, and, in some cases, weird Hitler fetishism. Talk is always of systemic collapse and race wars, of hard times ahead. The message is a complaining one — the message of an angry old man waving a fist at the world, rejecting everything but, at the same time, having only antiquated answers that to most ordinary people sound like an embittered desire to retrieve a past that is long gone, will never return, and was far from perfect in the first place.

By contrast, the Left looks to the future, exudes optimism, thinks generously, uses positive language, and has a youthful attitude. The Left is associated with idealism, youth, and dynamism, while the Right is associated, both by default and through the agency of the Left’s representation, with cynicism, senility, and death. It does not matter that Leftism is unrealistic, its vision chimerical, its analysis wishful thinking, and its future utopia impossible: people want to believe; Leftism makes people feel good about themselves, it inspires hope, and it is, therefore, easier to live than with the Right’s harsh realism, particularly if one is comparatively well off and under no immediate threat.

Is it any surprise, then, that our side is finding it difficult to make political progress?

In my observation and that of others, most ordinary people are at bottom apolitical. Forming a genuine political opinion requires an investment of time and intellectual effort that only a minority is willing or able to make. Yet, the democratic process asks ordinary citizens to form political opinions. The resulting tendency is, therefore, for people to choose political affiliations on a pre-rational basis. Because feeling good about oneself and about the world is more gratifying than the reverse, the consequence is that people are more likely to side with winners rather than losers, with those who appear in control of the situation and offer an attractive way forward, rather than those who are in retreat and offer a difficult way backward. Attractive in this context means concrete improvements in people’s lives with the minimum of sacrifices.

In earlier articles I have written about the need to package our message in a stylistically attractive fashion. But style alone is not sufficient. As a heretical position, affiliating oneself with White advocacy entails exposure to significant risks: ostracism, loss of employment, loss of income, loss of freedom, even loss of life. Not affiliating oneself with White advocacy might have the same effect, of course, but that effect is deferred and might not even be experienced until some time in the future, if at all (one might die first); whereas the effect of an unorthodox political affiliation may well be immediate. Since many believe that they will live only once, and are purely concerned with the material plane of existence, it is no wonder that they — even the grimly realistic among them — choose to enjoy the good life now, while it lasts, and worry, or let others or future generations worry, about the future. How many times have you heard someone say, when confronted with our funebrious forecasts, “Well, that might be so. But by the time that happens it won’t be my problem anymore”?

If we are to make political progress now, therefore, before it is too late, our strategy for selling our message must include offering concrete benefits, here, today, that make it worthwhile for ordinary White people to assume the risks. Otherwise, what’s in it for them? One may want to berate their lack of idealism, their selfishness, their obtuseness, their impatience, their obcecated materialism – you may want to take a brick and clobber them on the head in an effort to knock some sense in to these people; but these are skeptical, selfish, fast, materialistic times, and, as Francis Parker Yockey would have argued, our tactics must be tailored accordingly. It is no use employing nineteenth-century methods on twenty-first-century minds. 

Rewards and Benefits

What can we offer?

Evidently, life, peace, freedom, wealth, and a homeland are still valid aims to strive for. On their own, however, they are too vague, too impersonal, to have any real meaning to most people, except a highly intelligent clique of philosophers and political idealists. To be inspirational beyond this clique, these concepts need to be integrated into a clear, distinct, and attractively formulated vision, a vision that gives ordinary people a sense of what their lives could be like — or rather, how their lives may improve — were they to sign up to our program. What is more, the pursuit of this vision has to involve everyday activities and associations, sounds, tastes, images, smells, textures, that are obviously rewarding and gratifying, personally, socially, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and materially (more on this later). The most effective way of achieving this is by appealing to innate human universals: the need to belong, and the need for self-esteem.

When I visited Troy Southgate last year, I was impressed by his four children: Troy has home-schooled all of them, and they appeared to me uncommonly well behaved, hard-working, and responsible. Yet, considering that they have been educated on the ways of the modern world, they also appeared unexpectedly bright, happy, and interested in life; in other words, they were not cynical, bitter, fearful, or apathetic misanthropes and hermits. I asked Troy how he solved the problem of educating his children without inflicting on them an early onset of middle age. He explained to me that his children felt superior to their mainstream coevals: the former knew something the latter ignored, or were too stupid, too immature, or too befuddled to realize. To me this was significant, because it mirrored an attitude that pervades the alternative Right: thesense of superiority (enhanced self-esteem) that stems from belonging to a select group, or clique, or club, that is in on a secret, that possesses knowledge that is hidden to most, that has a penetrating understanding of world events that is inaccessible to the average man on the street. This is an attitude we need to capitalize on, for it is one way that affiliation with White advocacy can — and in fact does — enhance an ordinary White person’s self-esteem.

This sense of superiority and of belonging is what drives conspiracy theorists — a subset of the population well represented within the alternative Right, and one that is equated with the alternative Right by mainstream culture. Conspiracy theories can be entertaining, fascinating, instructive, even addictive, but conspiracy theorists are seldom fun to have around: they are morbid, obsessive, intense; they go on and on — everything is about the Jews, the Masons, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the aliens, the Federal Reserve, or some or all of them combined. Conspiracy theories have their appeal, but they also attract a certain type. Similarly, conspiring, the way dissidents who are politically active on our side conspire in order to bring about radical change, also attracts a small minority. We need an approach that is universally attractive. And one thing that attracts everyone is fun.

Yes, fun.

The simple pleasures in life are often the best. And there is no reason why political dissidence cannot be fun. It is not as if the Left does not provide us with targets: just about everything they do is risible. Embarrassing Leftists, mocking their memes, lampooning their language, deriding their programs, and subjecting their heroes and supporters to ridicule — in literature, in art, in films, in music, in posters, in postcards, in comic strips and graphic novels — as well as searching for new and inventive ways to do so, is a singularly gratifying experience. It is also a necessary experience, because key to any serious strategy to sell anything — and selling our message is no different from selling albums, books, or Coca-Cola — is its feel-good factor. No one who is of sound mind desires to be miserable. The Coca-Cola Company emphasizes the buzz and the high its premier drink gives the consumer, not the crash and the lethargy that follows an hour after its ingestion.

Similarly, no one who is of sound mind likes to be around miserable grouches. People who laugh and are fun to have around are popular; while people who scowl, are depressed, and constantly complain are unpopular. People also admire those who retain their sense of humor in the face of adversity. Crucially, laughter, besides being pleasurable and healthy, besides signaling health and joie de vivre, also sends an important political message: as revolutionary author Kai Murros wrote to me recently “[t]he ruling elite is afraid of our laughter, because it is the one thing they cannot control and laughter is a sure sign that people are already in [the] process of signing off their loyalty to the system.” As grim as modern times might appear, as hopeless as the situation might seem, the Right, if it is seriously interested in sweeping the Leftist fops, nupsons, and nincompoops out of power, needs to re-learn how to laugh and be good and pleasant company.

Notice that victors in a general election have tended to be perceived as much more pleasant and easy-going than the losers. Compare Clinton against Bush; Dubya against Gore; Obama against McCain; Blair against Major.

Back in February I wrote about the importance of status as a political tool. One of the deterrents installed by our liberal establishment in its effort to dissuade dissidents from being vocal or active has been the obvious threat of loss of social status through obloquy or economic sanctions. I argued that this threat is ultimately more persuasive than logical arguments or a superabundance of solid scientific data. If I am correct, then part of our strategy has to include the creation and maintenance of alternative status systems. When individuals of our persuasion are excluded from consideration for awards, promotions, and memberships on the basis that we hold views that the system considers unacceptable, then we have to create our own awards, our own enterprise, and our own clubs.

Some of this has already been put into practice, only not systematically. For this to work, it needs to be systematic. Whether it is through business opportunities; fellowships; clubs; societies; or a system of alternative literary, music, art, or journalistic awards, our side has to be able to offer ordinary people — not just political activists — the opportunity to feel special. With the ability to formally recognize and reward talent in a manner that is both prestigious and independent of the liberal system, we will not lose the talented to their need for social recognition and material ambition. A thoughtful novelist wishing to make his fame and fortune writing fiction will be feel less compelled to keep quiet about his beliefs and toe the line of political correctness if he knows that there are prestigious agencies, publishers, and award bodies willing to represent him, publish him, and recognize his literary genius. It will not matter if the liberal establishment then refuses to recognize his talent; he will no longer have a motive to recognize the liberal establishment. The same applies to workers and professionals in all areas of economic, artistic, and intellectual life.

Much more can and ought to be written about this topic, and I will probably address it again, from various angles, in future articles. Ultimately, however, the solution is dependent on an influx of younger activists; after all, many of the qualities — like the ones discussed here — that are necessary to capture the imagination of ordinary White people are linked to youth. In the context of an ageing population, it is a matter of urgency that this issue be addressed sooner rather than later. Otherwise we will justify and perpetuate the Leftists’ characterization of White advocacy as being all about backward old codgers, constipated fascists, sexual impotence, conspiratology, and sour grapes.