In a recent article Propaganda of the Need: Join or Die, Andy Nowicki discusses the third installment of The Hunger Games trilogy, and its relevance to the Alternative-Right and other dissident movements that seek to subvert or overthrow the prevailing orthodoxy or ruling order. Having read the series, I enjoyed watching darling of 4Chan, Strong Independent Woman™ Katniss Everdeen grace the screen with her figure-hugging spandex outfits, albeit for different reasons than ‘you go grrrl’ empowerment. Despite a near-parody of this feminist meme, Mockingjay presents us with the conflict that arises when grassroots social movements move past the affirmative consent phase and start to get physical.
In his usual piety, Nowicki questions the motivations of those amongst our ranks who he imagines not to share his moral integrity in opposing the liberal regime:
“..it must be inquired whether we truly fight oppression, or if we simply wish to replace the current odiously oppressive ideology with another one more conducive to our own interests? As one who loathes the enforced and entrenched anti-morality of the left-liberal Zeitgeist with a hot passion and a cold fury, I sometimes wonder if all of my fellow dissidents oppose it for the same reasons as me.”
The question could be reframed to ask whether we are in principled opposition to the liberal hegemony because of its soft-totalitarianism, spread of moral decay and global-corporatism, or because we simply wish for the interests of our own people to be rightfully restored. Do we believe in the universal principles of freedom and justice, or are we tribalists who want our men to be in charge?
I see this as little more than moral posturing, as perfected by our benevolent handlers, who would have you believe that little Abdul should not be denied your home and tax dollars, since there are greater principles at work that transcend your selfish greed. Principles arise and fade out of the imagination, dependent on social, economic and political factors. The continued survival of a people is a tribal question with a tribal answer.
Is it possible for freedom of expression to exist whilst maintaining control over a nation’s people? I would argue that given the relative sophistication of modern Western audiences, an imagined Rightist government would need to create the impression of freedom of speech and expression, while socially shaming and silencing those who would in fact be a threat to our authority. This is just what the left does today, and it would be foolish to again give them quarter and allow a repeat of 1968. They have proven that they will brazenly adopt seemingly rational and good causes such as anti-globalist capitalism and 9-5, anti-television and consumerism, ‘back-to-natureism’ and focus on human relationships and community over careerism and personal achievement at-all-costs. They have delivered its opposite, yet it did not prevent them from using themes that would win over a generation.
Power has no moral character. How great would it be if we could live in a word where freedom always prevailed, and others wouldn’t try to silence and control us for their own ends. If it is not us in control, promoting our interests and our values, it is them and their demented vision of a multi-kulti utopia. We can and should use principled opposition to capture the imaginations of the broader populations, and indeed to create a system of social values that prioritises robust and vigorous debate and enquiry, for that is an environment that I would rather live in. Weaponising these themes, painting ourselves as the oppressed voice of truth and reason, having been cast into the outer darkness by malevolent, villainous bureaucrats, politicians and thought controllers creates a compelling narrative and may draw many more malcontents into the fold. But we ought not to fall into the trap of seeking the moral high-ground, where the seeds of subversion and discontent will be sown by the next generation of dissidents.
It is only by understanding the nature of power and social control that we may have a better chance of wielding it in good conscience. In this context, the fence sitter, refusing to partake in the counter-revolution is engaging in a kind of deluded-selfishness, a libertarian comfort of ‘not telling anyone what to do’ because ‘violence is bad’. Violence, or the threat of it, is the only way that we will throw off the yoke of Washington and Brussels, of Hollywood and New York, of the City of London and Zurich. Violence is Golden.
It does not follow that we all ought to become blind followers of new masters, who may care little about the future we imagine in their quest for power. We still need skeptics and thinkers to challenge and correct, to question and hold to account those who claim to be acting on our behalf. However to progress pass the current phase of impotent rage and frustration, we must eventually appoint leaders, and confront power.
We live in a period of accelerated change. What is needed in this kind of debate is an understanding that any and all forms of social organisation and government will have a half-life. The greatest and most just and true system that we can imagine will inevitably collapse from within, due to the nature of human greed, or without from a more powerful foe that would annex it or control it for its own ends.
Why should we engage and fight against our foe, knowing that whatever we achieve will be eventually reversed? Anything we create will be destroyed. That is enough nihilism for me – to acknowledge our lives are short and fleeting, yet seek to become part of an eternal struggle to make it to the history books, as having contributed to the building of a greater period of civilization and humanity, of order and prosperity, family and health, truth and beauty.