I recently wrote about the mantra ‘worse is better’, so frequently encountered on certain fringes of the Right. I expressed my view that this mantra is a form of denial, part of a therapeutic fantasy where the collapse of the present ruling order will magically restore White supremacy in traditional White homelands.
I added that the mantra is used to rationalise inaction and sustain hope among those who see themselves as powerless, feel they are losers in the liberal system, and lack the creative energy to do anything about it.
The reason is that ‘worse is better’ only makes sense if the one uttering the mantra is part of a credible movement capable of gaining ascendancy from a system collapse, and is actively involved in precipitating that collapse in order to open the way.
I argued that if we are to benefit from a system collapse, awakened Whites need to be building now for the post-collapse world, otherwise the strongman that emerges from the chaos will likely be leading a hostile faction.
I also argued that political power would be the last stage, and would presuppose the existence of a congenial cultural context that legitimated that power, thus making our struggle today about culture—even if ultimately the aim is racial preservation.
Sadly, the notion of cultural change is for some difficult to accept. They imagine it to be a god-like task so vast as to make it preposterous for anyone to talk about it at all.
Yet this is not so. In fact, one does not have to be too old to have witnessed how Western culture was changed by a determined minority in a matter of decades.
Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique provides instructive clues for the sceptic as to how and why this was done and how a very few led the effort. Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks provides the Marxists’ reasons and outlines the method.
But the project, enormous as it is, has, in fact, prosaic beginnings.
It begins at home, with the writer picking up his pen, the painter picking up his brush, and the musician picking up his instrument.
In time there is a growing body of work, which generates synergies by virtue of like-minded writers, artists, and musicians attracting, influencing, and inspiring each other. Networks, schools, and traditions follow.
The next stage is the forming of associations, clubs, and fora, formal and informal; the organising of institutes, centres, think tanks, and publishing companies; the launching of journals, magazines, newspapers, and websites; and the creation of status systems, such as award bodies, prizes, and professional hierarchies.
Again, this may seem easier said than done, because ordinary people tend to imagine that any one of these things requires millions of dollars. They imagine this because typically they are only familiar with the big names that they encounter in their daily lives—the people who enjoy the wealth, power, and legitimacy of establishment institutions, funded by large numbers of people or else by people with large amounts of money, either because they are mainstream or because they comprise part of the ruling order.
Yet, we must not be deceived.
A great many of the above begun, and begin, with a couple (or a group) of friends and colleagues getting together. Funding requirements vary, of course, but many do not require much material outlay to get started, and much can be achieved by trading time or skills in the initial stages. Also, once started, if the work is perceived to have value, the organisation in question will likely attract others, who will bring their talent and resources with them.
Powerful Marxist and Jewish intellectual movements had small beginnings. The Freudian psychoanalysis movement began in Freud’s study, with a monograph by him on aphasic children. Boasian anthropology began while Boas was working with museum collections. The New York intellectuals were but a group of like-minded writers and literary critics, essentially a network of friends and fellow travellers. And so on. The millions, the power, and the influence came later, by dint of actively networking and producing a distinctive body of work, guided by personal preoccupations or a vision. Charismatic leadership played a role, but not always: the New York intellectuals had no Führer.
For those who may deem Jewish intellectual movements inappropriate examples because Jews have key traits peculiar to them and those traits have played a role in the success of Jewish movements, we can find ‘Aryan’ examples in the private sector: personal computing has revolutionised the way we work, relax, and communicate, yet Apple Computers was started by a young guy in a garage and Microsoft by a geek on a college campus.
Myth and Critique
Changing a culture does not merely involve production and construction of a counter-culture—this is what I outline above and what we can conceive as a mystifying or myth strategy. It also involves destruction and deconstruction—what we can conceive as a strategy of critique.
The aim of critique strategies is to cause the establishment to self-destruct by forcing it to question itself at a fundamental level—that is, not just the legitimacy of its leaders, or of its power, but of its core values and ideals.
This is generally achieved through attacks designed to demystify establishment principles, destabilise its categories, expose its contradictions, increase its costs, and provoke a stressful process of soul-searching, over-reaction, and self-justification.
In other words, it involves a form of guerrilla warfare: hitting the incumbent at its weakest point, and quickly moving to the next target.
Thus the establishment is undermined one issue at the time, on multiple fronts, all the time; it is subjected to a death by a thousand cuts—only many end up being self-inflicted, for self-doubt leads to self-mutilation.
The Institute of Social Research (the Frankfurt School) and feminism followed critique strategies, while Freudian psychoanalysis and the radical Left combined critique with individual myth strategies.
Anti-racist campaigners today follow critique strategies.
Critique strategies are not easy. Figuring out how to discredit an idea that enjoys institutional support and social acceptability is tricky and requires sustained and persistent effort, as well as shrewdness and adaptability. On the other hand, critique strategies deal with a known quantity, whereas myth strategies deal with unknown ones.
Enjoying the Struggle
The usual rhetoric from campaigners on the Right involves calls for sacrifice. The culture war is often presented in lurid terms: a thankless and heroic struggle with vague and uncertain rewards, but with concrete and certain hardships, such as loss of career, livelihood, family, social status, and even life.
Is it any wonder then that so few sign up?
The fact is that it does not have to be this way.
In many cases misery, martyrdom, or unusual levels of heroism are not required. Neither is it required that everything that one does creatively have a political purpose. Authors like Ezra Pound, Louis Ferdinand Céline, and Miguel Serrano held clear and uncompromising anti-establishment views, but they did not approach their literary craft as exercises in propaganda: they wrote because they enjoyed it, and they wrote what they wrote because that is what is where their inspiration, their interests, and their inclinations took them. Pound and Céline certainly had troubled lives after the war, but Serrano enjoyed a successful career as a diplomat and a writer.
And while there is no question that heresy does often entail disqualifying oneself from enjoying certain perks, a successful counter-cultural movement eventually emancipates itself from the ruling order by creating its own, parallel status system.
Kevin MacDonald loses no sleep over being left out of the annual Pulitzer Prize nominations: he already received the Jack London Prize, and in any case the folk doling out Pulitzer Prizes nowadays are so contemptible that he would not be seen dead at one of their parties.
Wheel of Fortune
One has to admit that, viewed from this side of the conflict, it often looks as if the ruling order has unlimited power. It has vast resources at its disposal, its minions control access to the power pyramid, and they shape and regulate the flow of information, so they can defame with impunity and keep the vast majority of people ignorant, complacent, and hostile to change. With so much in their favour, it can seem that they will never be defeated except by time, and that the best one can do is wait out, thinking ‘worse is better’.
However, experience has shown that incumbents are much weaker than they appear, because they have too much to defend, too much to lose, and not enough flexibility. Experience has also shown that things can change very quickly once critical mass has been achieved: for decades Soviet communism looked as if it would last forever, but then eventually collapsed in a matter of days and months.
The wheel of fortune periodically turns, and one day it will turn against the egalitarians. Today they are in power, and their opponents in prison; but tomorrow they may well be in prison, and their opponents in power.
Thus it all comes down to whether those who seek the survival of the White race can achieve critical mass as a counter-cultural movement before that time.
As a race Whites around the world are still majorities in their traditional homelands, and they still control immense resources, including exceptional talent and wealth. At this stage, therefore, whether the movement to preserve the race succeeds or fails does not depend entirely on external, uncontrollable, unpredictable factors. Needless to say, however, that a) this may not always be the case, particularly if Whites continue to decline, and b) that those who think they have no power to change anything at all are entirely correct.
It may be that the system we live under will not fall until it has run its course, and that, left to their own devices, those at the top now will find a way to hold on beyond the point of no return for Whites through a policy of managed decline, but this does not mean they cannot be pushed.