I’ve noticed a pretty significant divide within the nationalist community. This divide doesn’t simply concern “optics”; instead, it permeates the entire discussion on how we can create a better world for people of European heritage.
The divide to which I refer is one between subculture and strategy. These represent two different mindsets.
The subcultural mindset drives one to appeal to others of like mind. Thus the message, presentation, etc. are tailored to people who are already on the same page. This is a poor strategy because people who are already on the same page are…well, already on the same page. If you’re trying to convert people to your cause, don’t preach to the choir.
The strategic mindset drives one to always consider the audience. Thus the message, presentation, etc. are tailored to people who are not already on the same page. This is a good strategy because people who are not already on the same page are the ones you need to convert. If you’re trying to convert people to your cause, preach to the sympathetic non-believers.
Relevant to this discussion is the concept of political identity paradox.
Author of Hegemon How-to Jonathan Matthew Smucker writes:
The political identity paradox suggests that while political groups require a strong internal identity to foster the commitment needed for effective political struggle, this same cohesion tends to isolate the group. Isolated groups are hard-pressed to achieve political goals.
This is true of all groups, but tends to have particular consequences for a group involved in political struggle, which has not only to foster a strong internal identity: it also has to win allies.”
So while having a group identity is necessary for any collective political or metapolitical endeavor, it can easily become counterproductive. To put it simply: Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
As such, we need to avoid becoming too subcultural lest we alienate the very people we’re trying to win over. Furthermore, we shouldn’t adopt an “us against the world” mentality.
In a 2013 speech, French Identitarian leader Philippe Vardon expounded upon the question of transgression:
For decades, we’ve seen activists indulge in the idea of being hated, of scaring everyone, of being seen as bad guys, and welcoming it! Under these conditions, every provocation was worthwhile, every excess was legitimate. This mindset is close to the philosophy of the last square that I mentioned before. It’s a “one against all” mentality, which leads the activist to think that the more he is detested, the more he is right! It’s stupid, and tragic when one wants to be involved in politics. We consider that since we fight for a strong ideal, we have no right to be weak. However, even if our enemies must know that we will never let them trample us – here I’m thinking in particular of leftists and gangs of immigrants who would like to assault us – our people have to see that this force is at their service, for their defense. Frightening those we pretend to represent, those we pretend to defend, is the worst politics one can imagine…
The last line is particularly important. Any strategy we adopt is to appeal to disaffected White people, not the media – or even our enemies – as some seem to believe.
Ultimately, the question to ask is whether or not we want to have a movement that will create a better world for people of European heritage, or a small, insular club that allows alienated people an opportunity to feel edgy, antinomian, and worthful.
To each his own, but given the gravity of our predicament I’ll opt for the former.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting my work on FreeStartr. Thanks!