by Andy Nowicki
Lately a chorus of
admonitions has arisen amongst some in the alt-right commentariat, to the
effect that that a loyal adherent to right-wing ideals ought never "punch right."
By this, they seem to
mean:
Indeed, when placed within the context of a martial metaphor (“We are at war!”), it becomes easy to construe any contrary behavior as synonymous with treason. But metaphors in truth have only a limited utility. That is to say, reality is never totally reducible to mere rhetoric; therefore, all judgments made from metaphorical reasoning should be regarded as merely approximate, not exactly analogous.
If someone else who shares your essential viewpoint makes a tactical mistake or even does something that you consider to be gravely wrong, keep your negative opinion to yourself. By all means, share your concerns in private with other loyal soldiers of the cause, but defend the wrongdoer publicly because he is your comrade in arms, and because you don't want to give aid and comfort to the opposition by exposing dissension in your ranks.Like most essentially erroneous notions, this one contains a generous cluster of truths, to wit: Fidelity is a virtue. Friends don't stab friends in the back. Good and proper soldiers train their firepower on the enemy, not on those with whom they share a foxhole. And so forth.
Indeed, when placed within the context of a martial metaphor (“We are at war!”), it becomes easy to construe any contrary behavior as synonymous with treason. But metaphors in truth have only a limited utility. That is to say, reality is never totally reducible to mere rhetoric; therefore, all judgments made from metaphorical reasoning should be regarded as merely approximate, not exactly analogous.
It is true that those of
us who battle the depraved and debased contemporary Zeitgeist are indeed at war, in a manner of speaking. But it does
not follow, from this figurative truth, that airing disagreement over tactics
publicly amounts to “cucking” or selling out the cause. As RamZPaul usefully pointed out recently, such a stance winds up crippling a political movement by
making its adherents hostage to its most fanatical and unreasonable members.
"How tall was Hitler? THIS tall." |
Tactically speaking,
then, refraining from “punching right” is detrimental when it comes to the
overall success of the Alt-Right movement, because it allows the Alt-Right’s
enemies to represent the entirety of the movement by the examples set by its
least thoughtful, most crankish adherents. If someone somewhere behaves like a
boorish Nazi caricature, and none of the more credible members of the Alt-Right
can bring themselves to criticize this person out of obedience to this
injunction against “punching right,” then the left-liberal Lugenpresse has an excuse to represent the bulk of the movement by
its most unsavory, least credible elements.
Some who read this are
no doubt shouting, “The Lugenpresse is going to say we’re all Nazis anyway, no matter what we say, so what are you
even talking about, Nowicki???”
This rejoinder is substantially correct—the Lugenpresse is gonna luge after all; it’s just what they
consistently, even habitually do—but it also substantially misses the point.
It’s not about
convincing the press to be honest—that is a lost cause; the press will lie and
misrepresent us, no matter what. Rather, it is about reaching those who are
already in the process of being “red-pilled,” and who have begun to see through
the “matrix,” (to use an admittedly much overused cinematically-derived
metaphor), but haven’t yet made up their minds where the truth truly lies.
Because believe it or not, smart and discerning
members of the public already know that
the truth isn’t necessarily what they read in the papers or hear quoted by vapid,
smirking newsreaders at CNN, or by vapid, smirking pseudocomedians on “The
Daily Show” or “Real Time With Bill Maher.” Smart and discerning people will
disregard the official propaganda, and will go
to the source to find out the facts. It is for these people—the ones who
are not thoroughly brainwashed—that we should feel compelled to correct the
record. It is for the sake of winning them
over that we should—from a tactical perspective—care about looking credible
and sane.
*************
But there is a better
reason for not being afraid to “punch right,” or to punch in any other
direction, for that matter, and that is because, if one cares about veracity,
there are plenty of manifestations of bad faith and stupidity-- on the right, left, and center alike—that are, shall we say, eminently punchable.
Before one strives to be
a “movement” man, after all, one ought first and foremost strive to be a proper man, full stop.
Politics and ideology are to a
large extent about finessing and managing a message,
but politics and ideology should themselves be subordinate—again, properly
speaking—to truth. And if truth is
one’s animating passion, then one’s willingness to speak truth ought not be
contingent upon any tactical considerations. Truth is truth, whether it be
operationally good or bad for any particular cause.
To be sure, a cause can
and should be rooted in truth. The Alt-Right speaks truth in many ways—about race, about sex/gender, about sexuality, etc.—that all
representatives of the contemporary Zeitgeist expressly deny truth. In this sense, adopting and advocating an Alt-Right
perspective already involves “speaking truth to power.” That said, becoming
overly doctrinaire in one’s stance—even if that stance is substantially rooted
in truth—can all too easily lead one to become horse-blinded to the “facts on
the ground.”
The truth is that bad people are doing hideously evil things, stupid people are doing patently idiotic things,
from every conceivable direction on the ideological map. A proper man isn’t
afraid to speak the truth, and a fearless truth-teller doesn’t feel constrained
from making truthful observations just because it might have tactical
repercussions for the ideology he has adopted.
*************
In fact, the first time
I heard the admonition to pull punches, it was from a lefty chiding fellow
left-wingers. In this case, however, the admonisher was Doonesbury comic strip writer Gary Trudeau, and the object of his
wagging finger was the staff of the French satirical journal Charlie Hebdo.
In the wake of the
assault upon the magazine by Islamic terrorists in January 2015, resulting in
12 deaths, Trudeau saw fit to decry the journal for “punching down.” It was, he
quite haughtily averred, an “abuse of satire” to attack those who were lower in
social stature—i.e., the dirt-poor, ghetto-dwelling Middle East migrant
population of Paris—instead of assuming its proper role of “comforting the
afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.”
In the Charlie Hebdo case, Trudeau assailed the
act of “punching down” as being in bad taste, not because it wasn’t truthful,
but because it was ostensibly “mean” to bait the socially marginalized in such
a manner. In the wake of the Alt-Right’s “hailgate,” some are complaining about
Alt-Right writers who are “punching right,” not because the Nazi salutes which
some threw up at the conclusion of Richard Spencer’s speech (in response to
Spencer’s intentionally trollish, ironically Hitlerian toast: “Hail Trump! Hail
our people! Hail, victory!”) were prudent and proper behavior to showcase to
the world, but because Alt-Righters shouldn’t “punch right.”
In both cases, those
demanding that punches be pulled are in fact demanding that truth be
subordinated to some other consideration. Both have it backwards: truth must
come first, as a matter of principle and honesty. One should therefore be
willing to punch in all directions, both for the sake of the cause and for the
greater sake of truth itself.
Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Affirmative Right, is the author of six books, including Lost Violent Souls, Heart Killer and The Columbine Pilgrim. Visit his Soundcloud page.
Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Affirmative Right, is the author of six books, including Lost Violent Souls, Heart Killer and The Columbine Pilgrim. Visit his Soundcloud page.