Occidental Dissent has a problem. Are we an emerging media center for original content and reporting targeted at and reporting on white advocates? Are we an activist and networking organization? Are we an online journal of ideas, fearlessly exploring the taboos of our age and paving the way for a new intellectual vanguard? Or are we simply a WN blog collective that comments on the passing scene?
Some would say “all four,” and that is probably closest to the truth, at least for now. This is part of what makes this a great site, but also part of the problem. The role of the intellectual and the role of the activist are very different. While it is possible for one person to combine them, it requires a split personality.
It is hard to be an activist and an intellectual, for both people and blogs.
The job of an intellectual qua intellectual is to follow the truth as he or she sees it, wherever it leads. It means blasting apart taboos, aggressively pointing out contradictions, and fearlessly exploring new ideas. Occasionally, it means picking fights. The truth does not depend on the opinions of others or the realities of power, nor is the true intellectual bound by the bourgeois conventions of his time, status, or culture. For this reason, reading the work of a great thinker can be an exhilarating experience.
The job of an activist is different. An activist must accept the world as it is and approach a constituency in terms that they understand, with symbols and metaphors that they can relate to. An activist functions in the realm of politics, which is to say, the realm of social relations and balances of power between individuals, groups, or institutions. You necessarily are dealing with considerations other than truth.
If you don’t believe me, try talking to your boss the same way you would talk to your college roommate. Right around the time you are picking up your pink slip for telling him that he is full of shit, you’ll realize that you practice politics and deal with differences of power in your everyday life. The realities of activism are consensus, compromise, and conflicts chosen only when it is for political advantage.
One of the most important aspects of activism is the problem of communication. Except when telling war stories, it is difficult for an activist to write as compellingly as an intellectual because his language must be carefully couched. This is especially true on the Internet where a culture of “condemnation by quotation” has arisen, particularly in regard to white nationalists. This is practically the $PLC’s entire modus operandi at this point.
Now a lot of this is simply just the nature of the beast and there is nothing you can do about it. At the same time, this is especially harmful to white advocates because, as we all know, even mentioning subjects like race, IQ, or the Jewish question is enough to be cast into the outer darkness. Even showing awareness that such debates exist, even if you specifically denounce them, is enough for you to be shunned like the evil Nazi that you are.
For white advocates then, even more than other political actors, how we choose to present ourselves is critical as to whether we get a hearing at all. For that reason, this site has been consciously adopting traditional American symbols (such as the Gadsden flag and the battle at the Alamo) to better communicate our message.
A possible symbol to rally Americans to fight in defense of their culture and heritage
At the same time, because of the control of the mass media and academia by a hostile elite, our position in public debate is marginal. Therefore, of necessity and simply because of considerations of truth, we explore revisionist ideas that shed light on how we got to this point and what we can do about it. These ideas are important but would not communicate well to normal white Americans. Even mentioning them would scare many away. It’s probably true of most white advocates that they are simply bored with the normal rhetoric of American conservatism or simply more “extreme” versions of the kind of thing you would see on Foxnews or libertarian websites.
Which brings me to National Bolshevism.
Probably not the best symbol to rally white Americans
Obviously, I consider National Bolshevism interesting and do believe it offers some insights and is worth studying. I think that Nazbol in Russia has some important lessons for white advocates here in America and also provides context for the seemingly never ending debate on Francis Parker Yockey and anti-Americanism.
At the same time, National Bolshevism only has a real world following of any size in one country, Russia. It has this following only because it appeals to symbols and traditions that resonate in the imagination of the Russian people. From a political standpoint, trying to start a “National Bolshevik Front — North America” would be ludicrous.
Of course, many topics are interesting and have valuable insights to offer us, including Ayn Rand, Communism, or more obscure topics like Esoteric National Socialism. We could write a great deal about all of these things, even though mentioning them shouldn’t imply total agreement or even sympathy.
The problem is, especially on a website that is trying to do some stuff in the real world, even mentioning certain things sets off red flags (heh) in our readers. Dropping the term “National Bolshevism” made some people immediately roll their eyes and declare this website is going to the dogs by writing about esoterica, even though the intent was to show why it does make a certain amount of sense in a Russian context.
Richard Hoste took a shot at me today over this issue, calling the National Bolshevism article “insane.” I really appreciate Matt leaping to my defense even before I had a chance to say something and obviously, I don’t think Hoste really read it. Nonetheless, I don’t take it personally and will continue to read and profit from Richard Hoste’s writings, even when I disagree with them. Besides, the Internet has a way of making arguments seem bigger than they actually are.
It's the Internet. When all is said and done, it doesn't really matter.
Nonetheless, this kind of attack is typical on the Intertubes. Hoste himself has suffered from the same kind of attacks from Lawrence Auster. Specifically, Auster charged Hoste with hating America because he gave some faint praise to Fred Phelps for standing against the ridiculous circus that is modern American culture. Such a charge is a silly cheap shot of course, as Hoste was making a larger point, not declaring “God Hates Fags — A Message Brought to You by HBD Books.”
This isn’t fair, but it is simply reality. It is almost a truism that politicians or even major media figures have to be boring or at least avoid certain topics in order to have any credibility whatsoever. Radical ideas usually have to be cast in traditional terms in order get some leverage. The great lesson of David Duke was his sudden electoral appeal after he took off the Klan robes and put on a suit.
Similarly, when it comes to activism, I think most WN’s in America should utilize traditional American symbols and couch our demands in traditional American terms. This doesn’t mean compromising our aims or even our tactics. However, the objective is a message that normal Americans can understand at a glance rather than something that needs to be explained to them.
Notice I say “most” and not “all” — there will be a place for both a political and intellectual vanguard, which in the long run, may be even more effective. We will need both. Winning this battle will take many tribes and many approaches, even ones that seemingly contradict each other.
As for Occidental Dissent, we will continue to serve many disparate functions — activist and networking organization, WN media wing, intellectual discussion group, and entertaining blog. In the end, it probably hinders our activism potential and makes it easier to criticize us, like we saw today. At the same time, I think it is more interesting this way and more enjoyable for both our readers and ourselves.
Let’s keep our eye on the ball, help this community grow, and think seriously about how we take this stuff into the real world.
Off topic but you mentioned it first: the Westboro Baptist Church is the most interesting thing to come out of Christianity in a long, long time. There are a perfect litmus test to figure out who supports free speech and who does not, and are now going to the Supreme Court to find out if we still have freedom of speech and religion in the USA. Their parody videos are a potent antidote to MTV and they have successfully manipulated the media by going local.
Unfortunately, their media success is going to cost them biologically, perhaps the majority of those beautiful young White women are going to remain unmarried and childless because they are just too radical.
I have met them numerous times and have several hours of them on videotape which one day I hope to edit into my documentary debut.
Does anyone remember the outright prostitution the mainstream Protestant churches – especially conservative Baptists – performed for the GOP and the Iraq war? WBC ripped the mask right off of the “God is on our side” phonies in the religious right. I’m sure it was very painful for a lot of people, but it was absolutely necessary. God bless WBC, I mean this with 100% sincerity that they are perhaps the last true Christians left in America.
And you know what else – they were right all along, the FDNY chaplain that died on 911 was a fag, and the US adopted the bizarre homosexual torture practice of the Israelis, and half of the leadership of the conservative Republican party turned out to be closet homos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Am7oQGlH8
Hey Steve Drain, if you are reading this – I can tell exactly when you started watching my videos
Ha, ha ha. So you have the old fool writing about you! I think it is great. Good for you.
The “all four” and more option is the best for one reason: critical mass.
A 60% white society (and declining) needs all hands on deck.
If the rainbow coalition withstands the Tea Party surge in 2010, when won’t they win?
It is imperative to win in order to keep hope alive.
A “big tent” is needed to get the word out to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
Thanks for all you do, and remember the fate of South Africa!
Excellent tactical essay; “cover all bases” for the time being. In the less than one year that I’ve been roaming the net, I’ve looked at hundreds of political and economic sites, and OD is in the top 4 (with Occidental Observer, zerohedge, and dollarcollapse) and just keeps getting better. Solid essays, and knock-out threads. It is intensely thought-provoking, and I learn plenty about the way things are, and why, every time I visit.
I think it’s a better idea to create new symbols than try to resuscitate old ones like the swastika, the confederate flag, the Gadsden flag, the Boston Tea Party, etc. Those symbols were powerful because they spoke to the problems that people faced in their respective times but they are inadequate today.
Basically, we are talking about creating a successful brand. Here is a good link on “cultural branding” and how iconic brands address the concerns and contradictions of the times:
http://www.aef.com/pdf/Chapter_2_holt.pdf
I like the way Jared Taylor writes. AR makes sure anything going out is written in a tone that won’t frighten away an average white person who want to start reading about race but wants nothing to do with Hitler cultists who collect guns in a bunker. Jared writes in a very dispassionate way, presenting merely the facts and understating things so the reader can come to their own emotional judgment instead of feeling they are being manipulated. A well meaning, but amateur writer will cover a horrendous black on white crime story in an over the top way calling the perps “animals” etc. Although this may be true you need to let the reader come to the conclusion themselves. If they immediately sense the writer is not objective and is race baiting the audience in the column they start to play devil’s advocate in their mind looking for excuses for the perps. A good example of two contrasting styles was the Cesspool broadcast a few weeks back. A lot of new listeners were probably tuning in from WND due to their covering the latest in the birth certificate scandal. Keith Alexander and James did a good job in the first hour keeping the tone down and reasonable. But in the second hour it all fell apart, Winston Smith broke out into an angry rant against “the jews” and then he interviewed two clowns from Florida who had little to say except “were white and proud.” Seriously, that’s all these two repeated over and over again for a half hour. Not only does this sound foolish, but white people are modest by nature and don’t consider it in good form to flaunt their victories over others. That’s the kind of things blacks do. Needless to say that’s not how to retain new listeners.
The Gadsden flag has caught on in modern day politics, so I’d say it’s a good one to use. A totally new symbol would encounter the ‘wtf is that’ problem.
The Confederate flag has far more appeal in the American South than White Nationalism.
Mississippi State Flag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mississippi
Georgia State Flag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Georgia_(U.S._state)
Alabama State Flag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Alabama
Florida State Flag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_florida
The real Georgia flag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_State_of_Georgia_(1956-2001).svg
The real North Carolina flag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_Carolina_1861.svg
The Confederate flag has far more appeal in the American South than White Nationalism.
Right. Which obviously implies that the confederate flag is not an appropriate symbol for white nationalism. Ditto the Gadsden flag.
A totally new symbol would encounter the ‘wtf is that’ problem.
Do you go to books.com or amazon.com? Search.com or google.com? Successful brands contribute something to the culture, rather than just trying to feed off of the success of already popular symbols.
It’s interesting that you use the example of “National Bolshevism.”
From Wikipedia: “The Bolsheviks, originally also Bolshevists ( ??????????, ????????? (singular) , derived from bol’shinstvo, “majority”, which comes from bol’she, “more”, the comparative form of bol’shoi, “big”)…”
The term Bolshevik means, essentially, “majority.” Yet, in the intraparty struggle between the Bolsheviks, and their more moderate adversaries…the Bolsheviks gained the upper hand, in part because they called themselves “the majority.” Which left the more moderate “Mensheviks” out in the cold …Menshevik means, essentially, “the minority.”
Words, symbols, names and titles mean a great deal.
If you can harness something that speaks to the fact that many people now feel 2010 Washington D.C. IS London 1775… you may have a winner.
Well I do live in the Pacific Northwet and well, we have our flag, for better or worse, thansk to HAC. I’ve become fond of it. Blue sky above, green land below, white people living in between. Here it is:
http://northwestfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tricolor-flag.jpg
At least half of USA residents don’t trust the USA government:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2010/48_see_government_today_as_a_threat_to_individual_rights
Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Adults see the government today as a threat to rights. Thirty-seven percent (37%) hold the opposite view. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.
Most Republicans (74%) and unaffiliateds (51%) consider the government to be a threat to individual rights. Most Democrats (64%) regard the government as a protector of rights.
Additionally, most Americans (52%) say it is more important for the government to protect individual rights than to promote economic growth. Just 31% say promoting economic growth is more important. But again a sizable number (17%) of Adults aren’t sure which is more important.
This nationwide survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 18-19, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Men strongly believe it is more important for the government to protect individual rights, while women are almost evenly divided on the question.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of whites feel the emphasis should be on protecting individual rights. African-Americans are closely divided over which is more important.
There is little partisan disagreement when it comes to individual rights versus economic growth.
Data released earlier this week shows that 62% believe politicians want the government to have more power and money. At the same time, 58% think most voters want less power and money for the government.
This gap helps explain why just 21% believe that government today has the consent of the governed.
‘Unfortunately, their media success is going to cost them biologically, perhaps the majority of those beautiful young White women are going to remain unmarried and childless because they are just too radical.’
Possibly some virginal (and fanatically Christian) men from small town America could be imported, in much the same way women were imported to Australia.
For that matter, Utah produces Mormons; perhaps they could forge a doctrinal compromise allowing them to marry Baptists.
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Adults see the government today as a threat to rights.”
What would the Government have to do to get it up above 50%, I wonder?
The Executive Branch is part of the Government, I should say, and under Bush it had a creepy habit of trying to establish the right of the Government to hold American Citizens indefinitely without trial.
And then there’s TIA…
I agree with the general premise of this post buuuuuuuuuuuuut
it is called Occidental Dissent, not ‘Pandering To the Least Common Denominator’ or ‘Catering To Hypersensitive Know-It-Alls’ or ‘Ultra-Conservative Old People’…it’s right there in the name: Occidental is a very broad brush, as is Dissent. There are many aspects of Occidental, and myriad forms of dissent.
If you began to censor yourselves to appeal to the sheep and fuddy-duddies I would probably stop reading. Stay controversial, stay edgy…if you feel the need to water it down, isn’t there a way to start an offshoot for the more sensitive stomachs? Or we can all just watch foxnews and read ‘conservative chronicles’.
STAY GOLD, PONY BOY!
First I agree with Vlad above, I hope this site doesn’t turn into a careful, timid, “let’s not say anything to scare a Tea Party type” site.
Second, the main premise of the article is important – writing is a completely different skill than community organizing, and what is important for writing may be irrelevant or even a liability to politicking. It’s a very, very rare person that can do both effectively. I hope the OD core seriously practices division of labor.
Agreed, and so far A3P is hitting this note perfectly – it’s very mainstream looking and sounding. CofCC seems quite capable of working the traditionalist angle.
I assume one day Hunter will be running for local office and someone will look up some of my various posts on OD praising the WBC and declaring that Mossad did 911 and use them to try to defame him. But it hardly matters, even if they found absolutely nothing controversial in prozium’s past, they would just make it up.
I tend to straddle the intellectual and activist role in stride. I don’t understand how someone can just be an intellectual and those kinds of people tend to really frustrate me.
Andrew,
I think what your group is doing is worthy, but in the long-run is not a sustainable model.
Most white people I know have NOTHING to do with non-whites, the closest they come to encounter them is the watching of a sporting event or listening to a song or two by a negro musician.
Remember, the enemies of our people have been in control of the United States for 75 + years (maybe even longer) and for the most part, we have withstood an endless parade of propaganda (in films, movies, school, etc).
Whites still marry whites 93 percent of the time. Yes, we have diseases in our midst, but the day will come when something transpires that triggers a revulsion in the present political order.
In France, the multiracial soccer teams failure in the World Cup is HUGE news and people are questioning whether sports – once the model for how diversity could benefit society – is indicative of how diversity will play out in the long run.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/world/europe/24france.html?scp=1&sq=racial%20undertones%20emerge&st=cse
Our task is simple: Build an institution that is explicit in its defense of White people and offers a flag to rally around when this time comes.
Europe has far-right parties in place that might be scoffed at currently (though they gain electoral steam), but when an event arises that shatters the EU or the existing global order AT LEAST are racial cousins have a flag to rally to there!
Francis Parker Yockey is not that flag. Savitri Devi is not that flag. Hitler is not that flag.
Anarchism is not that flag.
To Hunter – The Confederate Flag is not that symbol. Clinging to symbols of land where the majority of Black people currently reside (57 percent of the US Black population is in the Deep South) is not a way to win.
The goal of OD should be to work for that ideal of a White Ethnostate.
We have statistics on our side. We have science on our side. We only have a dwindling number of whites on our side, when we work tirelessly for the benefit of a white majority that refuses to acknowledge we increasingly face.
THEY WILL acknowledge our efforts, we just have to continue pushing through for the day when they become needed.
Here is a fantastic list of maxims the Founder of Godaddy.com uses, which I believe are highly valuable: I recommend OD writers and readers value this list, as it offers practical advice that should act as motivation for us all.
http://www.bobparsons.me/bp_16_rules.php
“I think what your group is doing is worthy, but in the long-run is not a sustainable model.”
Think what you will but I will prove you wrong not just on the short term, but the long term as well.
Considering that all your group does is hold protests and social get-togethers, I don’t think there is anything to worry about.
“Europe has far-right parties in place that might be scoffed at currently (though they gain electoral steam), but when an event arises that shatters the EU or the existing global order AT LEAST are racial cousins have a flag to rally to there!”
This is the absolutely crucial point imo – having *something* to rally to if the SHTF.
“From a political standpoint, trying to start a “National Bolshevik Front — North America” would be ludicrous.”
America sucks. The President is a negro.
Anything that is anti-American is to be welcomed, especially something like National Bolshevism.
Anti-American sociopathy is the only hope whilst trapped in this broken system! NO ENEMIES TO THE RIGHT!
Interesting and humorous entries as of late, Mr. Hood.
Regarding NatBol: the now incarcerated Bill White actually wrote some good material on these trends during his Pravda days.
This essay is a good example. In it, he employs the following quote by Evola on the nature of American civilisation:
I suspect Matt Parrott would disagree.
Pingback: Activism, Intellectuals, and Intertubes « Locust blog