Price Anchoring & the Alt RightMichael Andreopoulos
As Noam Chomsky points out in Manufacturing Consent, our propaganda system operates less by overt censorship and more by controlling the range of acceptable discourse. Of course, Chomsky was writing when The New York Times’ mindshare was significantly larger and more influential than it is now. During this period of nearly absolute control, high-level, structural censorship was the most efficient strategy for ideological enforcement.
However, as ideological competitors have managed to squeeze into the market, temporarily aided by new technologies, the good old days of monopolistic complacency and its concomitant best practices have started to wane.
The emergence and growth of dissident media has forced a change in the power structure’s tactics. Where a micromanaging approach to censorship was once simply inefficient and unnecessary, it is now increasingly de rigueur.
Despite the shift to more traditional modes of direct censorship that we are currently witnessing, Chomsky’s model still offers significant explanatory value.
The primary function of the propaganda system is controlling what assumptions people must have, and therefore what kind of arguments can be made—especially in public. There are numerous mechanisms for achieving this, some ideological, and some technical.
As an example of the latter, we notice that the time constraints of a medium such as a television interview force commentators to argue within the pre-existing parameters of ideological discourse. A thirty-second riposte to Rachel Maddow is not sufficient to challenge fundamental assumptions—hence the relative priority of controlling the technical means (centralized ownership of media) once assumption-makers (academia) are locked in ideologically, rather than worrying about policing every single utterance.
Even a medium which allows for massive and immediate algorithmic manipulation of content, such as Twitter, largely relies on this high-level approach. Like everything else under our system of inverted totalitarianism, control over discourse is decentralized, or rather, diffuse. Since much of human behavior is context-dependent, controlling thoughts and actions requires controlling that context.
While these framing assumptions are, for the most part, deeply embedded and unnoticed, they can also be consciously manipulated to achieve a short-term end. This is why, when the power structure wants a war, we get pictures of dead babies every single time. The complexities of elite interests are too unwieldy for effective messaging; and they don’t want the public thinking about them, anyway. Even if they did, it would be hugely inefficient, if not impossible, to convince people to sacrifice themselves in their pursuit.
Once dead babies are proffered as the frame, those opposed to a given war must argue in terms of dead babies: “Going to war will produce even more dead babies, therefore we shouldn’t go to war.” Attempting to challenge the framing assumption that foreign policy should be based on a photograph or an anecdote will be a PR disaster. You end up looking like someone who hates babies, and your opponent can breeze by you yet again on the virtue spiral.
This is how people get trapped in “Democrats are the real racists.”
The only escape is to shift the frame.
People have a tendency to be centrists, but this has more to do with general patterns of social interaction than with deeper philosophical considerations. Centrism is an empty variable, entirely context-dependent. Marketers have known about this aspect of human cognition for years and regularly employ techniques based on this knowledge to successfully alter behavior.
The standard example is in pricing. Offer a subscription at fifty dollars a year and a few people will take you up on the offer; add a two hundred dollar option, and suddenly subscription rates go up. Further, add a one hundred dollar option and you’ve got a bestseller.
Despite the affront to unconstrained freedom of the will, price anchoring is a consistently effective technique with a wide range of applicability, including the political realm. Many on the Left lament the fact that President Trump has “brought people out of the woodwork” with his existential vileness. This fear of a shift in the frame in public discourse is entirely warranted. Changing the parameters of discourse makes reflexive labeling less effective. It is a major rhetorical advantage to be able to defeat your opponent by simply calling him a name; such a framing advantage will not be surrendered easily.
Take as an example the wondrous progress of our gender pseudo-scientists, making one discovery after another. The intensity of their charlatanism, however, is not a bug; it’s a feature. Overwhelming the public with rapidly proliferating genders is a way of anchoring, and even they don’t know how many there are; is it 31, 70, infinity? It changes constantly, and besides, who cares?
The point is to get to three. Or maybe zero.
Here is a video of Jordan Peterson being offered the—now eminently reasonable—option of only three genders. The original objective of three has suddenly become much more achievable, whereas if that had been the explicit goal the whole time, we would still be stuck in our pre-scientific, fuddy-duddy binary.
The extreme absurdity of a position, such as infinity genders, attracts attention (the sine qua non of persuasion), then accordingly directs energy towards a newly-shifted center.
So let’s apply this to our current political situation. The Left offers a full buffet to its constituents: antifa (the most “hardcore”), then academia (Marxists, etc.), and finally liberals. On the Right, we have Nazis (whatever that means), reactionaries, and conservatives, like so:
antifa, academia, liberals | conservatives, reactionaries, Nazis
A nicely balanced system of ideological competition.
Although these parallels hold in theory, the practice is quite different. All three Leftist options are socially acceptable and in fact encouraged by the power structure (you will not get fired for being a member of any of them). On the Right, though, Nazis, when they aren’t entirely imaginary, are actively persecuted; reactionaries have no institutional power yet, and must operate largely anonymously. That leaves us with the conservatives (in polite circles, even this is increasingly a risky position, for reasons adduced below).
If we look at this distribution, modified to account for reality as it is, we get something like this:
antifa, academia | liberals, conservatives
Such a distribution schema will funnel support towards the middle option(s) (whatever those happen to be). If we were selling subscriptions, liberals and academia would increase their market-share relative to the others, and even absolutely—a good reason to keep those Republicans around.
This allows very intelligent people like Chomsky to unironically refer to an “ultra-reactionary Republican Party” with an air of seriousness, while Bernie Sanders is “mildly progressive.” Republicans and everything to their right are squeezed into a tiny space and labeled “conservatives” for the sake of the Left’s convenience. What actually happens is that everything to the right of “liberals” is collapsed, for purposes of public discourse, into a single category, resulting in something like this:
Republicans, reactionaries, Nazis
In this way, conservatives can be made responsible for policing themselves internally and destroying “fringe” elements. Everyone on the Right has to live in the same house under the same rules, forcing conservatives to operate under the same moderating dynamics, only within their own group rather than as part of the larger ideological system. This effectively neuters their Overton-shifters (“Nazis”) and prevents them from working properly in the context of the larger system. It is no longer Nazis versus antifa, but Nazis versus Republicans. Thus, the Right is taxed twice, as it were—they moderate their extremists once internally, then again externally in conflict with the Left.
The failure to allow “extremists” to operate freely reduces the ability of the Right to counterbalance the Left.
Liberals do not take upon themselves the same burden of moderating their fringe elements and are therefore not held politically responsible for their Overton-shifters. But because conservatives are perceived as responsible for their extremists, they expose themselves to synechdohic abuse. “Republicans are Nazis” becomes a commonplace; try calling a Democrat “antifa”—it don’t stick, even on the Right.
This is a great pricing model for liberals, and to a lesser extent, academia. It is no wonder that they try so hard to prevent the emergence of independent options on the Right. International corporations, local governments, and establishment media all coordinate to make any movement beyond the Republican Party costly.
This is why I believe it is self-defeating to counter-signal events like Unite the Right and publications like The Daily Stormer, whatever their flaws might be.
Extremists are marketing tools. A group that fails to use the most effective techniques will end up out-competed by its rivals. The Left has an effective moderate faction in liberals as well as an effective extremist faction in antifa, and an intellectual generator in the middle. The Right presents the public with only one option—a self-policing milquetoast operation—while the Left has a robust, leftward-pushing faction which makes socialism seem “mildly progressive” to professors emeriti. This is how you make Cthulhu stew.
Every successful group can use these dynamics. Given underlying political support from the power structure, moderate Muslims enjoy special privileges in Western societies because the extremist members of their group terrorize the rest of the population in various ways. The result is either that moderates can be given resources to “reign in the radicals,” thus benefiting the group as a whole, or the radicals can help to clear social Lebensraum through the use of intimidation—especially when the population knows that retribution is impossible because of the power structure’s agenda.
Extremists also provide a counterintuitive sense of psychological relief for people. Who would accept moderate Muslims so warmly without the ground-clearing work of all those perfectly-normal-in-modern-cities explosions, acid attacks, rape rings, and so on? Afterwards, the population can rush into the arms of the moderates and actually be grateful for them.
Successful groups always have an expensive option—a “hardcore” wing. Jews have the ADL and SPLC; Muslims have their increasingly bold little brother, CAIR—not to mention the antifa and ISIS. These groups actively work in coordination with each other and the deep state to destroy white culture. The Right has operated under the delusion that one can have a group composed entirely of sensible moderates, but that simply doesn’t work. Attaining power requires a full-spectrum organism: conservatives, reactionaries, and Stormers.
Shutdowns of publications like The Daily Stormer, attacks on Red Ice, and censorship waves from Google and other tech companies in cooperation with partner organizations like the ADL, are coordinated at the deep state level. While many reactionaries find such sites lowbrow or unhelpful, they are 1) creating and absorbing attention; 2) making conservatism and reaction more appealing in the long-term; and 3) making the antifa seem more extreme. At least they would if those on the Right would stop implicating themselves by racing to disavow them, and implicitly affirming a highly distorted media narrative. We are stuck arguing about dead babies instead of the power structure.
If The Daily Stormer is permanently suppressed, reactionaries will be the next target—even more so. The Left will not stop with the “Nazis,” since that term is just a floating signifier, anyway. They aren’t interested in ontological precision. They are interested in winning. A coordinated propaganda effort could similarly quickly brand reactionaries as unpersons, and the same resources could be brought to bear in a new wave of suppression. Whoever happens to be the rightmost at any given moment will have to absorb the damage. This is why the Right must be multi-faceted and multi-factional. A Right without a “hardcore” wing is exactly what conservatives are now; a neutered, easily-controlled opposition whose function is scooping up the stragglers on the leftward march.
The fact is, if Andrew Anglin, Richard Spencer, and the other deplorables weren’t out there absorbing fire, the guns would be directed at the next guy over. Rational disinterestedness and high-brow critique is a luxury paid for by the Overton-shifters—unless the goal is to become so esoteric and irrelevant that no one even bothers shutting it down. Yes, we can nit-pick and complain about optics at Unite the Right or The Daily Stormer, but the details really don’t matter to the power structure. Optics are context-dependent. It’s simple marketing—in the long run, we need them. If you want people to pay one hundred dollars for a service, then offer them a two hundred dollar option as well. The Daily Stormer is the Right’s two hundred dollar option. You don’t have to buy it, but it has to be there.
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 5, Part 1: Democracy Against the People
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 4, Part 2: The Post-War Consensus
Right vs. Left: What Does It All Mean?
Visions of a New Right: Jonathan Bowden’s Right
An Open Letter to Tucker Carlson
Nice Racism, Part 3
Nice Racism, Part 2
Excellent piece. I am curious what your take is on AltRight.com and how that site fits into the equation. Friberg’s and Andrew Joyce recently attacked Counter Currents again and have attempted to portray Counter Currents as some sort of haven for degenerates. At least with the Daily Stormer there is a sense of humor; Friberg just seems nasty and Joyce, who has written many excellent pieces, has unfortunately become almost religiously hysterical and unhinged and frankly quite a bit of a drama queen. Perhaps they serve a purpose like Antifa in shifting the Overton window. However it is good that Counter Currents remains a place for civil discourse and the generation of ideas. I am grateful for the sanity.
It’s a real shame about Joyce. He’s written a lot of good articles at the Occidental Observer, but ever since he apparently jumped on the Friberg-Spencer wagon, he’s become a bit of a nuisance. Oh well, at least there’s still Kevin McDonald for JQ-related matters.
Very insightful, and a difficult idea for many. Since the UTR event I have seen that heavy fire aimed at Spencer. Even by those in Alt-Right circles. Your discussion on counter-signalling is astute, and this should be avoided. There are plenty of targets available, and trying to lop of the “extreme elements” will not do any good. I see why the right wants to do this with the “LARPers”, but I am not sure it matters, and more, not sure it doesn’t hurt the overton window. Their are people controlling that window, and as you say, they have lumped it all together already. So, having a higher grade of discussion and even aesthetic, shows people who are willing to investigate that there are intelligent people that have come to “illegal” conclusions as well.
Michael Andreopoulos: That was a very informative article, describing the vibe, the under current of what is going on in society LEFT vs. Right. To me, it reminds me of the good cop, bad cop routine the police use on suspects; both cops (hard LEFT, moderate LEFT) are going in the same direction (confession, political opposition surrenders the debate) and use a psychological ploy to attain this.
Jordan Peterson has the patience of Job. The man is brilliant, if misguided on a few points. His lectures on archetypes, in his Maps of Meaning series, are profound. The guy really gets the story of Pinocchio.
I discovered Dr. Peterson’s lectures on U-tube just around a month ago. I could not agree more with you. This is a man who has fought some very big battles, within his own psyche for many years and I think it shows in his whole personality. Like one of the ancient teachers of wisdom, (sophists), he has a down and dirty way of getting right to the essence of things. I wonder how many universities students today and other troubled people, LOL, this man could help today by just showing them that they are causing many of their own problems.
P.S. Peterson’s stance against the enemies of European culture and values are also great. His fight against social justice warrior insanity in Canada and his defense of free speech there against the Canadian governments leftist lunacy, is also amazing considering what they put him through.
There’s much to like in this article, but we need to address an additional question: what type of far right is going to help the rest of the right?
I can answer in the negative: Nazi symbolism will do no good at all, it will only alienate people who could be moving in our direction. We need a right that looks forward to 2033 not backwards to 1933.
There’s much to like in this article, but we need to address an additional question: what type of far right is going to help the rest of the right?
It’s like you didn’t even read the article.
That is not an “additional question.” That is precisely the question that the article addresses. In it, the author effectively points out the negative side of doing the kind of self-policing on the right that you advocate. He points out why it is good that our own extremists exist and how that benefits less-extreme options.
I suggest you read it again and consider his argument.
A greatly intelligent, thoughtful and enlightening article full of incisive and trenchant arguments centered on a highly important and timely idea, that is, the White must not self-censor and must have its own diversity and distribution of work in our great intellectual and political struggle against our ruthless and unrelenting enemy. The last section of the essay is the cream and alone makes a highly remarkable and appealing read.
I especially were touched and inspired by this short sentence which I believe encapsulated the essence of this article: “Attaining power requires a full-spectrum organism: conservatives, reactionaries, and Stormers.” The Right must unite in spirit and ideal and diversify in outlook and tactic. Solidarity and camaraderie out of shared core belief is the source of our inner strength, and diversification of roles and functions is also the fountain of our dynamism and resilience.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment