VICTORY THROUGH POLARIZATION, PART ONE

by William Solniger

In a previous essay entitled “Resisting Egalitarian Humbug,” I introduced the concept of ‘kakistocracy’ (rule of the worst) to describe the type of elite which rules under the political formula of universal egalitarianism, and is commanded by both the logic of that formula and its own self-interest to incessantly attack its host society. I identified the modern “secular church” of progressivism with this type of elite, and noted that it shares a significant degree of common purpose with the more formal power- and wealth-holding elites of government and business.

Such a description of the present ruling elite must inevitably lead to the question: how might this elite be directly subverted, with a view to its eventual destruction and replacement? Before attempting an answer, it is necessary to clarify two points:

(1) That this is not an exercise in lecturing more experienced people in untried courses of action, but an open-ended invitation to comment and criticism, which will hopefully produce more refined ideas than those suggested here;

(2) That the common distinction, made all too often on the radical-traditionalist Right, between “what works in reality” (seen as cynical but effective) and “what is true” (seen as noble but doomed to failure) should not be applied here. I consider effective tactics to be those which are grounded in an accurate conception of reality, although this concept of reality can of course be stated in several different ways according to time and place.

With these disclaimers in place, let us move to an examination of the question at hand.

The New Position of the Right

It is necessary for us to psychologically accept that ‘kakistocracy’ (or progressivism, or egalitarianism, or anti-traditional subversion) has won, to an extent never before seen in history. The old structures, rituals and hierarchies defended by the traditional Right have been either severely compromised or leveled entirely, and those of a “conservative” disposition find themselves with very little to conserve. While the differentiations proper to authentic humanity still persist in the face of the egalitarian wrecking machine, attempting to “preserve” any one of these entirely (i.e. in its specific former manifestation) has led many on the Right to despair.

However, the crisis of our marginalisation can also be seen as an opportunity. Alain de Benoist identifies several cardinal pathologies of the traditional Right : it has perpetually reacted to the moves of its infinitely more fluid enemy, propping up social structures or institutions when the principles underpinning them have long ago decayed, and dwelling unduly on its own heroic defeats. But with the forces of anti-tradition in power, and only just managing to disguise their role as preservers of the status quo behind a flatulent and empty rhetoric of “rebellion”, there is no reason for this pattern to continue any longer. The ‘True Right’ can and should reinvent itself as an attacking force of justified subversion, animated by its own ideals of tradition and harmony, and motivated by a vision of its own telos (something which the work of traditionalist authors such as Guenon and Evola, while not without flaws, has done much to provide). It is perhaps inevitable that such a subversive Right will often use language that we have hitherto been accustomed to hear from the Left, but this does not mean that it can or should invoke the false principles of our enemies.

The Prospects for Wider Mobilisation

Next we must assess the prospects of the ‘True Right’ for mobilising aggrieved and dissatisfied people in significant numbers against the existing order.

At an individual level, we have a large potential audience in the form of the frustrated young men who are condemned to live in what Jack Donovan likens to a “bonobo masturbation society” representing neither their nature nor their interests. Radical-traditionalist ideals cannot remain confined to politics and intellectualism: they must become an integrated way of life that restores to at least some of these young men the meaning and value that busywork, consumerism, and shallow postmodernist “causes of the week” can never give them.

At the collective level: it seems obvious that if a traditionalist cultural and political revolution is ever to take place, it will do so on the back of a movement against the dispossession of native Europeans in their own homelands. This is the crime from which the present ruling elite cannot hope to escape responsibility; and if the “morality” justifying it were effectively discredited, a considerable reservoir of fury could be generated against the perpetrators. European nationalist sentiment will provide fuel and fire to the ideals advocated by the True Right; while on the other hand, the guidance of radical-traditionalist ideals will prevent the nationalist movement from degenerating into mere racial tribalism (or much worse, the reduction of Europeans to just one more identitarian millet in the multi-racialist empire).

Note the emphasis: young men will come to such a movement as individuals, Europeans as a group. It follows from this that the ideas of the counter-feminist “men’s movement” (which aspires to appeal to men as a group and oppose them to women) are likely to be ineffective as a basis for mobilisation, and would be better advocated as part of a general rectification of society. The same goes for other aspects of the ‘True Right’ which oppose decadence in a general sense. It is for this reason that the nationalist aspect will be given primary attention here.

Learning from the Enemy: Alinsky’s Rules

In “Resisting Egalitarian Humbug”, I outlined the progressivist model of subversion: find a disadvantaged or marginalised group, mobilise its grievances into a battering ram against the existing structures of society, then abandon the interests of that group (once it achieves too much wealth or respect) and repeat the process with an even more wretched group.

It is obviously neither possible nor desirable that the True Right adopt this model, but many of our enemies’ tactics and methods can be used within our own strategy. For the clearest possible exposition of these methods, one needs look no further than the Jewish-American leftist organiser Saul Alinsky, who details them explicitly in his book Rules for Radicals.

Here is some of the advice contained in Alinsky’s book:

Do what you can with what you have; communicate with people in terms of their own situation and values; disorganise the existing structure before organising a new one; make the enemy live up to his own book of rules; engage in constant tactical action or risk falling prey to factionalism; employ tactics that your own people enjoy; keep the pressure on with different tactics; employ tactics that magnify your apparent numerical strength; use the threat of an action to gain concessions; use ridicule as a powerful and infuriating weapon; use morality to justify every action; introduce new ideas in the garb of existing ones; bait the opposition into overreacting, then use its reaction to your advantage; polarise every issue into absolute good and evil; pick the target, “freeze” it (i.e. pin it down), and personalise it.

From the perspective of a movement still largely confined to the internet, the most immediate cause for concern is Alinsky’s warning that organisations must engage in constant action or risk falling prey to factional division (“organisations need action as an individual needs oxygen”). This is in turn related to another issue raised by Alinsky, namely that of “starting from where the world is” and communicating with people in terms of their own values and situation. Among those whose sympathies are with the True Right, particularly those who are animated primarily by nationalism, perhaps the single biggest obstacle to following these precepts is the self-defeating division between “vanguardism” and “mainstreaming” – by which one is offered the choice to either alienate oneself from the wider world completely, or pursue compromised actions at the expense of deeper principles in a degrading search for “respectability”.

This compels me to say a few words about organisation. The ideal group to carry out counter-subversion in the name of traditionalism would perhaps have a structure similar to a religious congregation, organised primarily around an ideal rather than a specific political outcome, and representing for its members a way of life rather than a superficial mass movement. Being bound together in shared allegiance “on the inside”, the members of the group would be free to pursue subversive action “on the outside” at several different levels of radicalism and in pursuit of multiple objectives, without fear that they would thereby be co-opted into the ‘false Right’ (i.e. mainstream “conservatism”). While political errors could be vigorously criticised within the structure, a stance of solidarity would be shown without, with no quarter asked from a ruling establishment seen as an illegitimate and evil “Other”. Such a model would seem to provide a much-needed exit from the present climate of division.

The Primary Objective: Polarisation

The present objective of subversive efforts should be to prepare the ground for more direct political methods in the future. This can be achieved by creating polarisation within society, and extending this polarisation to as many issues, people, and areas of life as possible.

I do not refer primarily to the polarisation of Europeans against foreigners, but to the polarisation of European society itself. The majority of Europeans must come to perceive the political, economic, and moral (progressivist) elites uniformly as a hostile, unrepresentative and illegitimate ruling class, who have for decades been waging an undeclared civil war upon them with the help of non-European immigrants. The most accessible line of argument here would be to emphasise the symbiotic relationship between egalitarianism and capitalism (e.g. the ability of “anti-racism” to justify the importing of cheap labour): this can discredit the moral authority of the egalitarians, as well as pry some conservatives loose from their capitalist, free-market, and Randian fetishes.

A glance at any Western society will show the magnitude of the task before us. Most Europeans are still in thrall to the myths of “representative democracy”, perceiving only through tinted lenses the presence of a self-interested ruling class in their societies. A further implicit myth of racial unity (i.e. that ruling-class white people represent lower-class white people) prevents any reaction against ethnic replacement policies, by allowing the self-interest of progressivists and businessmen to be distorted into “self-sacrifice” and all opposition to be framed as the bullying of weak minorities. The lack of polarisation gives rise to hopeless, impotent and mythical thinking in those who might otherwise fight back: “the country is going mad”, “we are committing suicide”, “good intentions are having bad results”, “it is the inevitable will of progress/the economy/justified historical redress”, etc.

The task of subversion is to break up this unified vision of society and replace it with the aforementioned polarised one, in which the majority of Europeans are divorced from the hostile elite, and become victims whose rebellion is justified. Alinsky tells us that this polarisation must not only suffuse several issues, but also be as sharply defined as possible: “one acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other”.

Although this seems like a tall order, we shall soon see that the wall we are assaulting is not as solid as it may appear. The cracks are already there.

(Continued in VICTORY THROUGH POLARIZATION)