If the mantra ‘worse is better’ represents the benign end of the negativity spectrum within the far reaches of the Right, the naysayer represents its malignant counterpart. In this article I will discuss naysaying as a pathology, its characteristics, possible causes, and analogical relationship to White liberal ethnomasochism. I will also make suggestions for treatment and eradication within the community.
The naysayer does not have a mantra, like his apparently (but really not) more cheerful peer, who claims to hope things will get worse because somehow that will make them better in the end; but he is identifiable by his attitude of utter despair: for him, when it comes to the future of the White race and any ideas or efforts to secure one, everything is hopeless, nothing will work, we are doomed no matter what we try, the enemy will always be stronger. As if by a compulsion, he shoots down every idea, and prefers frowns to smiles, depression to joy, the apocalyptic scenario to the way forward. He is essentially a morbid character, who enjoys his morbidity.
Occasionally, he masquerades as a realist. Thus, anything that does not involve the imagining of a bleak future, or the lamenting of a worsening present, or, at most, the bemoaning of an idealised past, is symptomatic of a head in the clouds.
During the financial crash that began in 2008 they were the ones on a high when the stock markets plummeted, when the dollar index fell, when bankruptcies and foreclosures soared. They salivated at the prospect of hyperinflation, food riots, and racial wars. They were also the ones disappointed when none occurred.
The naysayer’s presence in the White racialist subculture is not surprising, as he is essentially a misanthrope. Racialism involves a certain elitism and elitism involves a degree of misanthropy. It is perhaps no coincidence that human groups at the far end of the ethnocentric spectrum are also most often described as misanthropic. To this species of man, the idea of holding hands under the rainbow with a human race united in friendship and singing Kumbayah is viscerally repugnant.
His presence in the subculture is also not surprising because a substratum of the subculture itself is permeated with an unwholesome atmosphere of anger, frustration, despair, pessimism, isolation, paranoia, and depression. And being essentially a ghetto, a self-contained linguistic universe, with its own norms and codes and patters, many of those who enter it, if of a malleable type, if having a tendency to be shaped by their surroundings rather than being shapers of it, in time converge with, conform to, and internalise the negativity that surrounds them. This ‘inner universe’ phenomenon only reinforces negative attitudes developed through exposure to the hostile ‘outer universe’ of mainstream society, where they have faced an ideology they find instinctively repellent and / or where they suffered its consequences.
Yet the naysayer is also afflicted by ethnomasochism, only in his case it is a variant, characterised by an emotional inversion. While the White liberal derives a perverse personal satisfaction from what he regards as his own superior virtue, the naysayer derives a perverse personal satisfaction from what he regards as his own superior knowledge. In both cases, this satisfaction comes in spite of the negative consequences that accrue from maintaining this attitude of superiority.
The consequences of White liberal ‘virtue’ are evident to readers of this website, but the consequences of naysayer ‘knowledge’ (or ‘realism’) are less so: they are the perpetuation of a state of paralysis. After all, if we are doomed, why bother?
The naysayer is at the negative end of the depressive spectrum, then, because at least the ones who say ‘worse is better’ are still pretending there is hope. The naysayer has none, and wants none, because he thinks he knows best. In both cases the attitude is a justification for inaction.
It is next to impossible to persuade the naysayer that things can be done to turn the tide.
And perhaps that is because he does not want the tide to be turned. Those who are naysayers because they are idiopathic pessimists like being proven right: it makes them feel superior to their peers, whom they dismiss as befuddled and naïve. Those who become naysayers through exposure to a pathological medium are just as likely to do a complete volte face and join in the euphoria of a prosperity bubble.
In all cases naysaying for the naysayer is like an addiction.
Evidently, naysayers constitute a virus—what in primitive societies is often interpreted as a curse. They act as pathogens that, in sufficient density, infest the air and infect the minds of those around them, lowering morale, inspiring despair, justifying inaction, and inducing collective paralysis. They are the anti-leaders, the anti-Prometheans. They always work against, and never for.
They drain energy, and they never energise.
The Left, of course, loves it when naysayers are Right-wingers, and they no doubt enjoy provoking their enemies with ever-greater feats of egalitarian chutzpah.
There is no question that there are reasons for White folk to be depressed in 2011, and anger against the establishment order is justifiable. It is no small matter that said order has created conditions that have systematically disadvantaged Whites on the basis of their race, invidious theorising in universities, slandering in textbooks, depredation via the tax system, and muzzling, intimidating, and displacing Whites via the legislature. It is no small matter either that the ultimate consequence is spiritual destruction, cultural erasure, and biological extinction within a few generations. And, understandably, this makes them susceptible to the virus.
Yet just because an emotional state is reasonable and justifiable, it is neither reasonable nor justifiable to remain in that state indefinitely, nor for it to become for all practical purposes an end in itself. Aristotle’s golden mean applies here: anger is the correct emotion if it is for the right reasons, of the right intensity, towards the right party, and maintained for the right length of time.
Beyond the initial anger and depression, there needs to be action—effective action. And no effective action can take place without positive energy, without belief in possibility.
In some ways it was easier for the Left to cause the virus than it is for their victims to fight it because what we ended up with in the West was their project, their initiative.
They were not reacting against change, as conservatives find themselves doing, but were acting for change. Moreover, they had all the time in the world to accomplish their goals, whereas for a race in demographic decline time is finite. All the same, it is obvious that the Left understood the value of a positive approach because, even though their ideology is very negative, in as much as it is a force of destruction and uglification, on the whole they presented themselves, their message, and their project in positive terms, couching their language in enlightened terminology and attracting potential victims with the possibility of wellbeing (utopia) rather than scaring them away with the prospect of a plague (dystopia).
The same principle is reflected in private enterprise. Successful entrepreneurs may at times have several failures behind them, but not for that reason do they ever cease to believe in themselves. By nature they are can-do personalities, who enjoy proving naysayers wrong. They are realists, but they are more concerned with the reasons why something can be done, rather than the reasons why it cannot.
The best way to avoid paralysis, then, is to prevent it: to know when it is time to accept the situation and move forward.
Necessary to remember is that nature is cyclical, and that after winter there is spring, after death a rebirth.
Restoring health begins from inside, with a ‘revolt’ against the pathogens that paralyse, induce lethargy, and exacerbate depression, that favour retrenchment and inaction, and prevent forward motion. And that includes naysaying and naysayers.
Like beating an addiction, defeating a ruling order is admittedly one of the most difficult enterprises that can be attempted, not only because resources are controlled by the pathogen, but also because the pathogenic system reformats everything for its own benefit, including cognition.
Cognition falls thus prey to an induced false consciousness, predicated on the values and ideals that most take for granted, and whose self-serving nature is invisible to the majority. This false consciousness defies reason and is protected by a web of circular reasoning, catch-22s, and mystified dogma. That is why, today, no amount of scientific data cures top scientists of egalitarian misconceptions, for the system rewards their orthodoxy while duping them into believing that they are objective scientists rather court theologians.
Expressed another way: the addicts do not know they are addicted, and have no motivation to beat the addiction even when it is identified to them because it is so personally rewarding in the short term.
There is no single, reliable treatment for this condition, because the nature and character of the false consciousness is a function of the nature and character of the ruling order, and thus each time a ruling order arises it is different ideologically from the previous one. The pathogen is not only mutagenic, it is also mutant.
Therefore, changing the public consciousness, making it receptive to ideas that are put beyond the pale by the ruling ideology necessarily involves an experimental approach, and, inevitably, repeated failure.
This does not mean that the task is futile. For, in fact, within living memory the Left proved that a change in consciousness is perfectly possible and achievable, even in a modern information society.
Whether it is because the White race has lost control of it or because the race itself has become diseased, or because of both, we can easily accept Yockey’s characterisation of Western culture after World War II as diseased.
For a movement that seeks to cure the disease and secure the continued prosperity of the White race, naysaying is counter-indicated. Naysaying is, in fact, aside from a viral infection, also symptomatic of the wider disease.
Eradicating the cause of the disease calls for aggressive treatment.
Firstly, naysaying needs to be isolated and purged (or encouraged to migrate) so that it may not cause further damage. My suggested method is manifest boredom and non-responsiveness. After all, naysayers are parasitical organisms, and attention constitutes their food supply. Naysayers need to be cut off from their food supply.
Secondly, naysaying breeders (i.e., the culture-distorting or -destroying pathogen that triggers negativity) need to be neutralised and destroyed. Since the presence of naysayers has proven that negativity is an effective neutralising and destructive agent, like-for-like treatment is indicated.
By like-for-like treatment I do not mean going to Leftist websites and plaguing them with naysaying. Some Leftists no doubt monitor websites like this one in order to post as naysayers, knowing they will trigger further negativity and seeing this as a form of activism, but this is a low-level internet guerrilla tactic.
By like-for-like treatment I am referring to pursuing a critique strategy: critiquing individual initiatives in the egalitarian project when they occur, fighting them on individual winnable issues, using egalitarian terminology, and in the capacity of ostensible egalitarians, yet doing so not to advance egalitarianism, but to paralyse it with hair-splitting, self-doubt, and fragmentation.
In the Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald highlighted how successful twentieth-century Jewish intellectual movements in the West adopted the pre-existing Enlightenment ideas of the West and deployed them against the West in pursuit of an ethnic agenda. They ostensibly used a language and concepts that were already familiar and accepted by Westerners, and appropriated the underlying Enlightenment logic in order to push in a pre-determined direction; within their own community, however, many of the proponents of these movements did not practice what they preached.
For example, studies were made about the so-called ‘authoritarian personality’—claimed to be a psychopathology in the West. Yet many of the abovementioned movements were fundamentally authoritarian, zealous to enforce an orthodoxy, and centred round charismatic leaders.
While some of these movements also involved a creative process, whereby alternative narratives were developed to replace the established narrative, they were to a large extent movements predicated on naysaying.
A culture of critique is a culture of naysayers.
In our present case, and very visibly in the multiculturalist ideology, the naysaying is directed against anything of European origin.
Evidently, I would not be able to pursue this strategy myself, as I am a known and public opponent of egalitarianism. Neither would anyone else who publishes under their real names on this and similar websites and publications.
Instead, this strategy would be ideal for academics and professionals who recognise the evil of egalitarianism (its negation of excellence), but who have chosen, for practical reasons, to keep their thoughts to themselves.
As assumed egalitarians, familiar with the system’s norms and codes, as well as with its weaknesses and contradictions, they are in a position to critique egalitarianism from the inside. In other words, they can operate as ostensibly ‘well-meaning’ naysayers.
Their mission would be to respond to every new idea or initiative originating from the enemy camp with detailed critiques that explode assumptions, identify contradictions, disprove arguments, destabilise categories, provide counter-examples, expose ‘essentialisms’, and supply inconvenient data from the enemy’s own approved sources. Leftists are empathetic with this process because they have engaged in it scientifically since Marx, and have encouraged and developed, despite anything we may say about them, sharp analytical minds. The aim would be to stop them in their tracks by bogging them down with endless discussion, controversy, cavilling, and nitpicking, encouraging division, disagreement, faction, and acrimonious schisms.
In other words, I propose neutralising or destroying the pathogen through a tactical deployment of naysaying in order to trigger in the hostile organism a form of autoimmune disease—an intellectual autoimmune disease, whereby the system attacks its own ideas the way that a body with such a disease would attack its own cells.
In addressing naysayerism one must advise against giving in to paranoia. As already stated, not every naysayer is necessarily a pathogenic infiltrator; some may well be, and it is indeed tempting to suspect naysayers of being activists or individuals temporarily under the control of the pathogen, but many suffer from this condition idiopathically or are victims of a contagion found in the environment. Patients susceptible to treatment must be segregated from terminal cases.
Successfully eradicating the problem will require an etiological approach—one that addressed the causes rather than the symptoms.
The etiology of naysayerism is well known. Optimal methods for eliminating the originating pathogen remain, however, open to investigation. The latter will remain a growth area in the years to come.