The crisis that destroyed the Alt-Right may be said to illustrate two dangers in our present situation. First, a premature and unpractical centralisation and second, the seduction of an inappropriate use of the hostile media.
The Alt-Right used to be a collection of independent small groups and media outlets unified by a loose anti-leftist and anti-cuckservative sentiment. There was both room for intellectual debate and ‘trolling’. This broad spectrum had the advantage that many ‘normie’ organisations and public figures could dip their toe in the Alt-Right waters without immediately being branded as a ‘Nazi’. Continuously elements and memes migrated from the Alt-Right to the mainstream.
However, one of the founders of these groups, Richard Spencer, had the ambition to unite and centralize the Alt-Right under his leadership. But there were no mechanisms in place to acquire this position. And most groups were not exactly eager for a leader anyway. That is why Spencer used the enemy media to put himself in the spotlight. He created an image for himself that was exactly what the enemy media were looking for: a callous, arrogant man that flirted with Nazism. The media were happy that they finally had found a bogeyman that could be used to attack the nebulous Alt-Right. Spencer was inundated with mainstream publicity and became ‘Mr. Alt-Right’. He was showcased by the enemy media as a major danger, which greatly raised his stature and credibility within the Alt-Right.
Spencer
tried to use this artificial leadership position to recruit everyone in
the Alt-Right as his followers and to impose his vision, which proved to
be a disaster. The moderate forces seceded into the ‘Alt-Light’
movement. This meant that the remaining Alt-Right groups became isolated
from the mainstream. To make things worse, these groups engaged in
vicious infighting about prominence and ideology. Especially homosexuals
and women got into the crossfire. The atmosphere became very unpleasant
and the term ‘Alt-Right’ no longer evokes feelings of joy and triumph,
like it did in 2016.
The first lesson we can learn from this
disaster is that in our present situation centralization is often a bad
strategy. The second is that we have to be very careful how to handle
the enemy media.
The enemy media are the most important weapons in the hands of the hostile elite. The media are hugely influential in creating public opinion, and determine for the most part the results of elections and therefore the power structure. The media puts the interests of the hostile elite above the truth and objective reporting. Most journalists are Antifa in suits. They will always try to find the most damaging information and put all emphasis on those aspects. Therefore in our contacts with the media we must never forget that they are pursuing their own agenda. We must always ask ourselves what the interest is that they serve when they contact us. The media give attention to what is convenient for the hostile elite and ignore the rest.
The Power Structure of the Establishment vs Dissidents
George L.
Rockwell offers us a typical example of a failing media strategy. In his
situation back in the sixties he was totally dependent upon the hostile
media for his publicity. In order to make his party better known he
decided to act the stereotype of the creepy Neo-Nazi. He did get a lot
of media attention, because they could use him to further the Nazi
bogeyman trope (a dangerous lunatic who wants to gas all the Jews)
suited their purposes perfectly. Rockwell did get his publicity, but at
what price? In the end he was but the leader of an extremely small group
that did nothing but infighting.
In our present situation however, stunts like those of George Rockwell are no longer necessary to get publicity. The hostile media have lost their monopoly on the spreading of news and information and the shaping of opinions. This means that we can afford to be very critical in our contacts with them. There may be a few journalists who will draw a less unfair image of nationalists, and after careful evaluation of their backgrounds and history, we could do well to collaborate with them. However we would do well to study the success of other populist parties who have created an enviable presence and publicity through social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Publicity through our own media is always preferable to dependency on the hostile media.
The case of
Spencer teaches us an extremely important lesson: we must never allow
the hostile media to determine who is to be a key figure in the
movement. They will always try to promote the most obnoxious, vain,
unstable and creepy people. If the media insist on writing about you,
that may often not be a good sign… The worst case is when people like
Spencer more or less engage in a pact with the devil for self-promotion.
Related
to this is the question whether ‘trolling’ is a good strategy. It seems
that this is only effective in the anonymity of the Internet. In real
life the provocations are no longer perceived as irony, but stick to a
person to create the ‘Nazi bogeyman’, which is then used by the enemy
media for their own purposes. This is how people like Spencer became a
liability to the movement.
In real life we can use a few related guerrilla tactics, though. It is crucially important however, that we do not alienate the ‘normies’ from us by posing as a threat to the social order. We must never become isolated and therefore an easy target for our enemies. Then we can provoke the leftists so that they attack normal people, which will then move these people in our direction. The constant attacks on moderate Trump supporters in the US is a good example. Real life guerrilla political actions might be flash demonstrations or the anonymous use of stickers and pamphlets. A great example of this were the stickers with the message “It is OK to be white”.
We might
also learn a thing or two from president Trump, though it seems his
‘trolling’ is of a higher order. He has created an image of being blunt
but honest. Imitating his brilliant way of persuasion will require a lot
of further study.
For the time being the best strategy seems to be to choose our political statements as down to earth as possible, and no more radical than strictly necessary. To spread our message we should preferable use our own media, but we might collaborate with some more mainstream journalists that have proven to be a bit more neutral.
For more information about president Trumps masterful techniques of persuasion, see the highly interesting blog of Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com
___
The goal of IDNL (Identity Netherlands) is to disseminate identitarian ideas in the Netherlands. We have founded a political party and organize meetings and lectures for politically engaged people. For more information, please contact us here.
How to Handle the Hostile Media
The crisis that destroyed the Alt-Right may be said to illustrate two dangers in our present situation. First, a premature and unpractical centralisation and second, the seduction of an inappropriate use of the hostile media.
The Alt-Right used to be a collection of independent small groups and media outlets unified by a loose anti-leftist and anti-cuckservative sentiment. There was both room for intellectual debate and ‘trolling’. This broad spectrum had the advantage that many ‘normie’ organisations and public figures could dip their toe in the Alt-Right waters without immediately being branded as a ‘Nazi’. Continuously elements and memes migrated from the Alt-Right to the mainstream.
However, one of the founders of these groups, Richard Spencer, had the ambition to unite and centralize the Alt-Right under his leadership. But there were no mechanisms in place to acquire this position. And most groups were not exactly eager for a leader anyway. That is why Spencer used the enemy media to put himself in the spotlight. He created an image for himself that was exactly what the enemy media were looking for: a callous, arrogant man that flirted with Nazism. The media were happy that they finally had found a bogeyman that could be used to attack the nebulous Alt-Right. Spencer was inundated with mainstream publicity and became ‘Mr. Alt-Right’. He was showcased by the enemy media as a major danger, which greatly raised his stature and credibility within the Alt-Right.
Spencer tried to use this artificial leadership position to recruit everyone in the Alt-Right as his followers and to impose his vision, which proved to be a disaster. The moderate forces seceded into the ‘Alt-Light’ movement. This meant that the remaining Alt-Right groups became isolated from the mainstream. To make things worse, these groups engaged in vicious infighting about prominence and ideology. Especially homosexuals and women got into the crossfire. The atmosphere became very unpleasant and the term ‘Alt-Right’ no longer evokes feelings of joy and triumph, like it did in 2016.
The first lesson we can learn from this disaster is that in our present situation centralization is often a bad strategy. The second is that we have to be very careful how to handle the enemy media.
The enemy media are the most important weapons in the hands of the hostile elite. The media are hugely influential in creating public opinion, and determine for the most part the results of elections and therefore the power structure. The media puts the interests of the hostile elite above the truth and objective reporting. Most journalists are Antifa in suits. They will always try to find the most damaging information and put all emphasis on those aspects. Therefore in our contacts with the media we must never forget that they are pursuing their own agenda. We must always ask ourselves what the interest is that they serve when they contact us. The media give attention to what is convenient for the hostile elite and ignore the rest.
George L. Rockwell offers us a typical example of a failing media strategy. In his situation back in the sixties he was totally dependent upon the hostile media for his publicity. In order to make his party better known he decided to act the stereotype of the creepy Neo-Nazi. He did get a lot of media attention, because they could use him to further the Nazi bogeyman trope (a dangerous lunatic who wants to gas all the Jews) suited their purposes perfectly. Rockwell did get his publicity, but at what price? In the end he was but the leader of an extremely small group that did nothing but infighting.
In our present situation however, stunts like those of George Rockwell are no longer necessary to get publicity. The hostile media have lost their monopoly on the spreading of news and information and the shaping of opinions. This means that we can afford to be very critical in our contacts with them. There may be a few journalists who will draw a less unfair image of nationalists, and after careful evaluation of their backgrounds and history, we could do well to collaborate with them. However we would do well to study the success of other populist parties who have created an enviable presence and publicity through social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Publicity through our own media is always preferable to dependency on the hostile media.
The case of Spencer teaches us an extremely important lesson: we must never allow the hostile media to determine who is to be a key figure in the movement. They will always try to promote the most obnoxious, vain, unstable and creepy people. If the media insist on writing about you, that may often not be a good sign… The worst case is when people like Spencer more or less engage in a pact with the devil for self-promotion.
Related to this is the question whether ‘trolling’ is a good strategy. It seems that this is only effective in the anonymity of the Internet. In real life the provocations are no longer perceived as irony, but stick to a person to create the ‘Nazi bogeyman’, which is then used by the enemy media for their own purposes. This is how people like Spencer became a liability to the movement.
In real life we can use a few related guerrilla tactics, though. It is crucially important however, that we do not alienate the ‘normies’ from us by posing as a threat to the social order. We must never become isolated and therefore an easy target for our enemies. Then we can provoke the leftists so that they attack normal people, which will then move these people in our direction. The constant attacks on moderate Trump supporters in the US is a good example. Real life guerrilla political actions might be flash demonstrations or the anonymous use of stickers and pamphlets. A great example of this were the stickers with the message “It is OK to be white”.
We might also learn a thing or two from president Trump, though it seems his ‘trolling’ is of a higher order. He has created an image of being blunt but honest. Imitating his brilliant way of persuasion will require a lot of further study.
For the time being the best strategy seems to be to choose our political statements as down to earth as possible, and no more radical than strictly necessary. To spread our message we should preferable use our own media, but we might collaborate with some more mainstream journalists that have proven to be a bit more neutral.
For more information about president Trumps masterful techniques of persuasion, see the highly interesting blog of Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com
___
The goal of IDNL (Identity Netherlands) is to disseminate identitarian ideas in the Netherlands. We have founded a political party and organize meetings and lectures for politically engaged people. For more information, please contact us here.
Post dit bericht op: