Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
In a recent post at Alt of Center, Starkian blogger Matt P. concedes a “basic ambivalence […] about all of this blogging, political edge-o-sphere stuff”:
Are we highly intelligent critics of society whose ideas can ultimately ameliorate it, and promote civilizational flourishing? Or are we just a bunch of men and boys who cannot find the status we crave in real life and so take to the internet to seek it out? addicts going again and again to a well of insubstantial narcissistic supply, entering virtual spaces in which we, and our ideas, are afforded more power, and dreaming up real worlds in which we could be afforded same. The conclusion I have reached […] is that we are not intrinsically one thing or the other – that for now we could be described in either way, and that what we ultimately will be has not yet been revealed.
History is written by the victors […] If we win, we will have always been intrepid ideological and cultural travelers to a new promised land. If we lose, then it’s all just been a maladaptive daydream – a power fantasy – and we really were just sad boys jerking off to hentai in our basements the whole time. It’s a harsh uncertainty that I bet even Richard Spencer grapples with from time to time. […]
Perhaps it goes without saying that those who feel compelled to dream up alternative futures are by default not the most “well-adjusted” members of society, but is this in any way a negation of the value of their thought? I think not. Because after all we have to consider: what is it that is prevents certain people from adjusting to the status quo in the first place? And when these people form a mass, are they not the very motor of history?
The artists cathects his frustrated desires into his work and creates a beauty which rides the back of destruction, and transcends the pain and muck of his battered ego, becoming like the most beautiful products of nature itself: concretely existing entities, flowers of the tumultuous process of evolution, aesthetic guide-stones in this chaotic reality.
To the “harsh uncertainty” of the internet nationalist I would counterpose the optimistic vanguardism of Jonathan Bowden. “This is a very difficult topic to speak about because it appears to be a depressing and pessimistic era where most of the storm and stress and most of the Zeitgeist, or spirit of the age, seems to be against us,” Bowden admitted at the outset of a speech he delivered in 2011.
There’s also a preponderance for people on the Right politically to have metaphysically conservative views, which means they’re often pessimistic; they’re often loyal to Spengler’s idea in the 1920s and 1930s that “optimism is a form of cowardice” and in relation to that sort of idea the notion that one should be optimistic about the future is difficult to sustain. […]
There are more of us than ever before, but it’s always a question of quality as against quantity in this life, because what I am going to propose is that instead of looking at demographic and quantity-based analyses, quantitative ways of looking at things, let’s look at qualitative ways of looking at things. Let’s look at quality. Let’s look at elitism. Let’s look at the fact that all groups need a vanguard.
All elites and vanguard minorities are is the radical consciousness of their own group. Just as people like Louis Farrakhan […] are in some respects totally unrepresentative of a lot of African-American opinion, they nevertheless represent an ultimate redoubt, an ultimate salient, or a bridgehead from which their population can go forth and from which it can gain energy and succor and that’s the way you have to look at these things.
People need ultimate resources. They need absolutists, and they need semi-fundamentalists who will stand up for them at least in a conceptual way. Even if they can’t stand up for themselves, don’t want to, or wouldn’t even know how to. The point of radicals, particularly radicals who deal with the politics of identity in any shape or form, is to provide that elite, is to provide that vanguard. […]
Just because most of the politics of this era seems to running well and truly against us does not mean that the situation is hopeless, because situations are never hopeless. Groups that have been done down or perceive that they’ve been done down by history have undergone worse traumas than we are undergoing at the present time.
The danger of the ideology of the victim, which I don’t really subscribe to except as a tactic on occasion, is that you begin to think like a victim, and you begin to act like a victim. Many of our people now are almost asking for a whipping, asking for a collective beating, asking to be forgiven for the past, asking to be forgiven for sins and crimes of the past which they never committed, which they’re hardly aware of, which can be reconstrued as episodes of heroic cruelty or glorious vanguardism that don’t even need to be apologized for in the past or in the present.
There’s a degree to which I personally think that the doctrine of vanguardism is the way out of the dilemma that we face. All Communist movements believe that the proletariat needed to be saved from itself. They believe that the masses were degraded by feudalism and by capitalism. They believe that only an elite or a vanguard party could raise the masses up to socialism as the inverse of the capitalism they wish to replace. All Communist movements that flourished in Western and other societies throughout most of the late 19th and 20th centuries based themselves upon the vanguard principle. These movements were tiny.
Bowden goes on to draw particular inspiration from the Bolsheviks, whose split with the Mensheviks occurred at the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in London:
The majority of Londoners even from the ethnic groups that a significant proportion of those Communists were drawn from would regard all that as idiocy and lunacy just as the bulk of White people today regard a significant amount of what we say as lunacy.
All people who have a vanguard, an elitist mentality, are regarded as partly mad by their own groups, because the majority of people do not want to know. The majority of people wish to live their own life in their own way, and they only look at these broader questions when life impinges upon them and comes upon them, and the hand of life grasps them by the collar and they really cannot do any other thing but notice what is in front of them. […]
They’re beginning to realize what it is like to be a minority or what it is like to be culturally disprivileged or what it is like to be dispossessed in a way.
That spirit will grow, but it will only feed into consciousness in a number of select minds, because the bulk of people are not drawn to be in a vanguard formulation. People will only listen to a vanguard when they are desperate. They will only listen to a vanguard when they think there is no other hope.
The task of the vanguard, then, is to work in the hope of hopelessness – so that the radical proposition appears not only more attractive, but absolutely necessary.
Rainer is the author of Protocols of the Elders of Zanuck: Psychological Warfare and Filth at the Movies – the DEFINITIVE Alt-Right statement on Hollywood!