Quote Originally Posted by Verðandi View Post
Chris Roberts, American Renaissance, November 29, 2020

Perhaps you consider yourself an oracle,
Mouthpiece of the dead, or of some god or other.
Thirty years now I have labored
To dredge the silt from your throat.
I am none the wiser.

— Sylvia Plath, “The Colossus”

Dissidents who care about “America First” are divided over how to advance their goals now that the 2020 elections are over.





People debating this should know that the same debate has been had, on-and-off, since at least the end of Ronald Reagan’s second term. ....
Those tweets represent two positions on strategy that were on the table the last 50 years:
1) The political activist stance - driven by urgency
2) The Metapolitical Stance - focusing on what is actually important

Needless to say that stance 1 was the one tried over and over again and it failed over and over again. Meanwhile control over education, universities, media and cultural production and hence the ideas, attitudes and thinking of people was lost. The best this could achieve was slowing down "progress" making it more bearable to the masses (Boiling the frog, yeah know). Some unthoughtful actions even helped the enemy to portray the right as backward bigots that are prone to violence.

There was far less investment into stance 2 - perhaps 1% of all efforts, but their success was limited also due to other reasons. It's actually a bit cheaper in total, but the type of participant needs to be more sophisticated than what one needs for stance 1, which in the end is using posturing and the affects of the arena that appeal to masses.

There is of course also a 3rd issue and that is the one relating to resources and economics. In concentrated form they are mostly in the hands of people that aren't really favourable of a conservative/patriotic cause or even ethno-nationalism. That doesn't mean that there aren't many fairly wealthy people that would be supportive of conservative even nationalist causes. But whom would they support in the first place? What foundation of a think tank would they donate, too.

A lot of this is about image and unity. The media knew this of course and they portrayed right-wingers as hill-billies that walk on their knuckles. Ordinary folks would distance from this. So they gave it full attention, whenever this was useful. And lets face it, a lot of right-wingers took up roles in this theatre. Planted ones and some rather reactionary folks as well. Big on feelings and resentment, but small on (self-)education and organisation. Add to this the vicious circle of infighting and frustration and you have your recipe for steady decline with some straw-fires, whenever more people feel the heat of progress. Another issue is the socio-economic between rightist and leftists. The rightist tend to be in productive works that consume their time and energy, but that make some real economic contribution. The left tend to be on the consumer sight of things: academia, NGO's, bureaucracy, teaching, arts etc. This has however a stronger impact on the 'hearts and minds' of people. It's also more communicative than the productive vocations (engineering, crafts, farming, technical services) the right tends to be in.


I'd go for stance two, though. Takes more effort and especially ability, but it's different from the carpet bagging performed by activists and also the inner-immigration stance of reactionaries. You'll need the right people for this first and also some fair amount of invested resources that provide one with income to be able to go on with the think tank. That example needs to be duplicated over and over again and with saturation one needs to start training first leaders and then activist. Only after this one can go for stance 1 and take back what is yours.

"Nice theory", you say, "but we haven't got the time" - Well, you folks say that 20, 30, 50 years... ago already and still went for stance 1. Do you at least realise there is merits in prioritising importance over urgency now?!