2,610 words
There is a lot of wisdom in the anonymous saying: “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”
But understanding this saying requires some nuances. One can’t understand politics without discussing all three categories: ideas, events, and people.
Thus great minds do not discuss only ideas. They also discuss events and people. But they understand them in the light of ideas.
Average minds don’t simply discuss events. They also discuss people. But ideas are above them, which is what makes them average.
Small minds simply discuss people, because ideas and events are somehow beyond them, which is what makes them small-minded.
It is easy to discuss people, so everybody does it. It is harder to discuss events, so only average and above-average people do it. It is even harder to discuss ideas, so only above-average people do it.
Small minds tend to think that everything is a matter of personality. Average and above-average minds understand that personality is important, but personality is not all there is to politics. Average minds recognize that events can’t be reduced to just personalities. Events can take on a life of their own. But only the broadest minds recognize that one also needs to talk about principles as well as events and personalities.
I also think speaking of “great” minds raises the bar too high, for it makes one think of Aristotle or Goethe. But one doesn’t need to be a genius to recognize the importance of ideas. Thus I prefer to speak of broad, average, and narrow or small minds.
Intelligence is clearly a factor here, but breadth and narrowness are more important, and it is possible for small-minded people to be quite intelligent, within their limited horizons.
In politics, events can be understood as the result of ideas and people interacting. Both ideas and personalities leave their mark on history. But what is more important for understanding political events: ideas or personalities?
If you focus on small-scale events and short time spans, personalities loom larger in the scheme of things. And one of the hallmarks of average and small minds is the narrowness of their focus, the shortness of their time horizons. So they will tend to focus on just such events and think that personalities are more important than ideas.
But if you step back and focus on larger political trends—trends that can outlast individuals, parties, and nations—then fundamental ideas are decisive. But abstract principles and long time-spans only disclose themselves to broadminded individuals. They are beyond the ken of the average and small-minded, who bump up against the ceiling of their understanding.
Typical politics is a bitter struggle between the personalities, interest groups, and parties of the Right and the Left. Sometimes the Right is dominant. Sometimes the Left is. Yet if one takes a broader view, one sees that politics drifts steadily to the Left, no matter how bitterly the Right resists. Robert Lewis Dabney brilliantly described this tendency in 1897, when he predicted the success of women’s suffrage based on the character of its opponents, the conservatives of his day:
This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader.
This is because the Right shares the same basic egalitarian and universalist principles as the Left. But Rightists are just slower to embrace the ultimate consequences of these principles, because the Right is also the party of the bourgeoisie, who regard a long and comfortable life as the highest good. The bourgeois conservatives have “got theirs” and are thus morally complacent and fearful of the radical changes required by the next phase of equality’s triumphant march through the world.
But the same bourgeois value system that leads to moral complacency also leads to cowardice and compromise. So, over time, the superior moral commitment of the Left, combined with the Right’s own latent Leftist premises, ensure continued Leftward drift. Because the Right shares the Left’s principles, the Left has a systematic long-term advantage over the Right. Every Rightist’s moral convictions are a Leftist fifth column, occupying the highest seats of his government, ending every siege with surrender.
This means that if National Populists want to make long-term political gains, we need to focus more on fundamental ideas and not get distracted by ephemeral events and personalities.
These are some of the ideological dogmas shared by both the mainstream Left and Right that we need to destroy to secure National Populist policies:
- Political Universalism: We reject the idea that every human being can be part of a single political community. Political universalism is the root of multiculturalism and multiracialism as well as cultural assimilationist, miscegenationist, and civic nationalist ideas. We reject multiculturalism and multiracialism because they lead to alienation and conflict. We reject cultural assimilationism, miscegenation, and civic nationalism because they acknowledge the problems with diversity in one system, but either try to destroy racial and cultural diversity to make the system work—or paper it over with manufactured creedal nationalist pieties. We want to preserve the full diversity of races and cultures by giving them their own homelands. We think immigration and “naturalization” should be restricted to small numbers of people who are genetically and culturally similar to their destination societies.
- The Taboo Against “Racism”: We reject the idea that racial and ethnic identity, solidarity, pride, and preferences are immoral for white people (and only white people). White identity politics is inevitable, necessary, and moral.
- Liberalism: We think that individual liberty, private enterprise, and social equality are genuine values. But whenever they conflict with the common good of society, the common good should have priority. Thus we reject liberalism, defined as the ideology that denies that there is a common good, or that the common good can be known, or that the common good can be pursued by state action. We stand for the classical philosophical principle that there is a common good of society that can be pursued by state action.
If principles are more important than people, then what should one do if one catches one’s enemies betraying their principles? For instance, what should one do if one discovers that a leading advocate of diversity lives in an overwhelmingly homogeneous community? (It is true of practically all of them.)
The small-minded, high time-preference type will call his enemy out for hypocrisy, for failing to practice what he preaches. This might impeach the credibility of an ephemeral political actor in the minds of ephemeral political observers—until everyone is distracted by new events. But it leaves the presumably evil principle of diversity intact and unscathed. Indeed, if anything this approach strengthens the betrayed principle by demanding that people live by it rather than just pay lip service to it. But for small minds, people loom large and principles are basically above them, although they are willing to use them as a weapon to “own” particular individuals.
The better approach is to point out the contradiction but then attack the principle that is being betrayed, not the person who betrays it. After all, diversity is not a good thing. It leads to alienation, conflict, social breakdown, and violence. Thus we want people to betray diversity. One should congratulate one’s opponent for having the good sense not to impose diversity upon himself and his loved ones. But then we should ask him to join us to help bring the blessings of homogeneous white communities to Americans from all walks of life, not just the privileged.
Not all hypocrites are alike. If you betray good principles, that makes you a bad person. But does it make you a bad person to betray evil principles? Quite the contrary. It is good not to follow bad principles. If liberalism is evil, then the worst liberals have integrity whereas the best liberals are hypocrites. If multiculturalism is evil, then the worst multiculturalists practice what they preach and the best are hypocrites. We should applaud the betrayal of evil principles, not demand that people follow them.
La Rochefoucauld famously said, “Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue,” meaning that hypocrisy is superior to unapologetic vice that does not pay lip service to virtue at all. But when the “virtue” in question is actually a vice, then hypocrisy is not merely a tribute to virtue, hypocrisy really is a virtue, and it should be applauded as such, not denounced.
But this approach only makes sense to broad-minded people who regard principles as more important than people. The narrow-minded are happy to uphold evil principles merely to “own” their political opponents for the life of a tweet.
Now let’s apply this analysis to the question of how White Nationalists should approach the Trump question. Consider, for instance, Trump’s tweets inviting an America-hating Muslim, Somali-born Representative Ilhan Omar, to go back to her home country.
The broad-minded approach is to use this controversy to talk about ideas. Many Trump supporters were delighted by his statement, because they don’t think America benefits at all from importing black Muslims who hate this country. America desperately needs a national conversation about this matter. The Left responded predictably, denouncing Trump as being “racist,” as if criticizing nonwhites about their views and behaviors is the sin of “racism,” an obvious attempt to exempt nonwhites from criticism, or even punishment for their crimes. This controversy is an excellent opportunity for White Nationalists to inject our ideas into a national debate and to bring people over to our side.
The small-minded approach is to use this controversy to talk about people. For instance, Richard Spencer appeared briefly on CNN. Instead of talking about the issues raised by this debate, he used the occasion to talk about people: namely Trump, unnamed White Nationalists, and himself. According to Spencer, Trump is a hypocrite because he says racist things but won’t follow through on them. Other White Nationalists are fooled, but not Spencer. Instead of challenging the idea that Trump’s comments were racist, or the idea that racism is bad, Spencer supported the Leftist message that Trump’s comments are racist. Thus he reinforced rather than challenged one of the Left’s key principles while condemning Trump and congratulating himself. The basic Spencer code is to denigrate his natural base while preening as big-brained and grandstanding to the Left. A comic genius described it as glitter bombing. Sadly, it doesn’t leave much time to talk about ideas.
A similar dynamic is at work in the charge that White Nationalists are “supporting Trump” or “fooled by Trump” if White Nationalists defend Trump, his statements, and his policies from unjust Leftist and cuckservative attacks. Again, these charges come from small-minded people bumping into the low ceiling of their people-centered understanding. It does not occur to them that nobody need support Trump the man—in part or in toto—to use him as an occasion to defend good ideas and attack bad ones.
And if Trump is only an occasion to enter the battle of ideas, then it does not matter if he means what he says, or whether he will follow through with his proposals. Obviously, we’d like Trump to be a sincere and effective advocate for pro-white policies. But none of that is in our control. Whining and sharing “Blompf” memes won’t change anything. We do, however, have the power to defend good ideas and attack bad ones in whatever public forums are open to us, and we should be grateful for the opportunities Trump continues to present us.
We should, of course, criticize Trump for his genuine errors and failings, for that too is an opportunity to talk about ideas.
But we must guard against railing at Trump like spoiled children. This rhetorical style is common in the remnants of the Alt Right. Phase one of their plan is to rally an ultra-radicalized and alienated political sect by pouring scorn on Trump and the various “boomers” and “normies” who support him. We’ll never know what phase two is, because none of these people have thought that far ahead.
It may be fun to skewer “Blompf” for his hypocrisies and follies. It is increasingly easy to do. It may earn you kudos in the ever-shrinking online Alt Right echo-chamber. But if that is our constituency, then our movement has no future.
Those who are playing a long game recognize that the nearly 60 million white Americans who voted for Donald Trump are the natural constituency for National Populism in America. The most important thing is to uphold the right principles and communicate them to the National Populist electorate that Trump has created and is increasingly disappointing and frustrating. When Trump is gone, it is our job to lead them. But we cannot lead them if we do not connect with them. And we cannot connect with them if we go out of our way to alienate them.
As far as White Nationalists were concerned, this was never just about Trump. It was always about advancing our ideas. Trump was always just an occasion for White Nationalists to enter the political debate. He smashed the Republican gentleman’s agreement never to talk about whether global trade and non-white immigration are good for America. It was truly magnificent.
Trump asked the right questions, but at best, his answers were half-measures, and half-implemented half-measures are not the solutions Americans need. They are not what his electorate is increasingly clamoring for. But that too is an opportunity for us.
I think some of the spoiled child reactions to Trump’s failures and betrayals come from people who somehow convinced themselves that Trump really was going to save America. But that was never realistic. He was one man, advocating confused civic nationalist half-measures against the whole media and political establishment. Trump was never going to save America. That was always our job. It still is.
Trump is not the last chance for National Populism in America. He is just the beginning. He was not the last chance for white America. He was the system’s last chance to preserve itself in the face of massive demographic change. When Trump is no longer President, our mantra must be “Trumpism has not failed. Trumpism has never been tried.” Only then we will start calling it National Populism, and if we play the long game, we will have created a whole new political movement to secure its triumph.
The bad news is that Trump turned out to be better at campaigning than governing. The good news is that he will soon go back on the campaign trail, and if “Send her back” is any indication, it’s going to be another magnificent opportunity to move the national mind in our direction. When that time comes, I hope our best propagandists will not sit it out, sulking in their tents like Achilles.
If we are going to effectively advance our ideas, we cannot get distracted by the politics of personality, including our own personal issues. We must never lose sight of our ultimate aim, which is a homeland for whites in North America.
13 Comments
Thank you for putting into words what I felt in my gut.
Impressive. Let your words be known Greg. The world needs you.
/ Will donate
I have been an anonymous cash donor for a few years and recently signed up for regular monthly gifts. This typically excellent piece alone is worth another gift, which I have just sent.
Trump was never going to save America. That was always our job. It still is.”
No, it’s not our job. We’ve already done our job by successfully revealing the facts about race and about what’s happening to Whites. We’ve been doing that for decades, we got even better at it in the 90s when Amren started, and we’ve aced it over the last 10-15 years as the internet has taken off. We did our duty in attempting to show our people the truth, and Whites rejected it. It’s not up to the Pro-White Movement to save America, its up to White people to figure it out, accept what we have showed them, and do it themselves.
“When Trump is no longer President, our mantra must be “Trumpism has not failed. Trumpism has never been tried.”
Right, just like how Leftists are always like, “socialism has not failed. It simply has never been tried.” That argument may work on the already-converted, but for people who have doubts about the ideology, it’s a tacit admission of weakness and defeat. Not to mention, its a lie. Socialism HAS been tried and HAS already failed miserably. Likewise with Trumpism. Those White Trump Voters in homogeneously White neighborhoods who celebrate diversity? I’ve got news for you: They are as committed in their hearts to diversity as any leftist. How do I know? Because they’ve told me as such when I’ve hit them with the exact argument Johnson advocates: “Don’t you want to spread the benefits of homogenous neighborhoods?” The responses I got were “Segregation is evil” and “What about my Nice Black Neighbor?” These people can’t and therefore shouldn’t be reached. They need to suffer the consequences of their sick convictions and figure race realism out for themselves.
”We must never lose sight of our ultimate aim, which is a homeland for whites in North America.”
I agree that this should be the ultimate aim, but again, most Whites, including Trump supporters, have made it clear they are ok with living in a racially diverse country as long as non-whites share their values and generally act like them. We all know that’s not how it works, but try telling Blue Pilled Whites that. There is a sincere conviction and earnestness in how they defend diversity that is unanimous across the board, and is as passionate as how they defend their most passionate issue (like, say, abortion and gun rights in the case of conservatives or health care and global warming in the case of liberals).
The Pro-White Movement should have one duty, and that is a commitment to being on the side of the Truth in all circumstances. If Whites ever decide to wake up to the lies they’ve been told, if they decide they want to try that red pill instead of popping more blue pills, then we need to make sure we continue to supply those red pills as opposed to telling “Pretty Lies” for the perceived sake of political convenience, like I’ve seen Nicholas Jeelvy advocate on this site recently. We shouldn’t amend ourselves to National Populism. We should tell the truth to National Populists and see if any of them decide to join our ship. If they don’t, thats on them, not us.
DP84: Righteous! Excellent post. If you don’t mind, I’ll cut/paste for my private use; re-read it every month because one can so easily slouch/slide back into ideas that are predicates of sick convictions, as you called it.
I just recently tested out a White male, served in the military, seemed as pro-White as possible. He ended up telling me some PC culture mantra about “I believe we should let into America those who are the best of their race and just like us (Whites).” I could tell he was just parroting the slogan. I promptly told him that we are actually doing anything but letting into America the best/brightest. Far from it. Further, the progeny of these best/brightest (natural or foreign born) will deviate back to the statistical mean, for mental traits, that are highly prevalent in non-Whites and contribute to them not creating and worse not maintaining a 1st world culture. In other words, the progeny of these best (Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ben Carson) will, as a stand alone grouping, have the same percentage of them being the same as the aforementioned Carsons/Thomases/Sowells/etc as the racial group as a whole. And therefore, their progeny will be, percentage wise, the Trayvon Maritins, Eric Gardners, Rodney Kings etc. This, allowing any racial aliens among us, is not a good way of maintaining a 1st world culture.
He fell silent, and I would presume reflective, when I said all this. I didn’t detect any whiff of PC outrage in him. I can only hope I can turn a few Whites back to sane core (racial) beliefs in my time. Sometimes I wonder if it is all hopeless, but I keep at it.
Perhaps for full disclosure, you should have mentioned that President-elect Trump disavowed Spencer immediately after Hailgate.
Think about that. Trump had to be nagged into disavowing David Duke while he was running for president but Spencer is so terrible at everything that he can’t pay tribute to someone without fucking it up and getting himself disavowed by the guy he was trying to pay tribute to. The point here is that Spencer has an ax to grind with Trump.
When you think about it, Spencer’s hostility to Donald Trump really isn’t that much different to his hostility towards Nick Fuentes, Faith Goldy, Milo, the Daily Stormer, or anyone else more popular than him who does not kiss his ass. It’s a mix of pettiness (“Well, I didn’t WANT you to like me ’cause you’re STUPID!!!”) and strategy as he sees these people as competing brands.
Look, just because small minds talk about people doesn’t mean great minds CAN’T talk about people…
Great essay, and great response to the obnoxious demoralizing talk about Trump letting us down. He was never the answer, and it was never about him.
“Small minds tend to think that everything is a matter of personality.”
I’m interested in the way personality predisposes someone toward having certain principles. Political affiliation now more than ever is the product of personality. Because women exert more influence now there’s a lot of disagreement between high and low neuroticism and high and low agreeableness, since men and women differ on those traits. I suspect that prior to women’s involvement politics was more about extraversion vs. Introversion, high vs low conscientiousness, and high versus low openness.
It’s nice to hold personality as constant as possible to flush out subtle, articulate, unifying principles. We can no longer do this with respect to gender because women here to stay, but we can do it by comparing good vs bad versions of a particular personality type. If you can tailor an archetype or variant of an ideology to every personality type except the unredeemable ones, which you could maybe convince to shift to a different personality disposition which is not too different from their own, then you could maybe conquer the entire psychological landscape. I call it psychological metapolitics. You’ve got to make a good, bad, and neutral variety of each redeemable type which will be around 90% of people. The rest will be society’s villains who will always be with us because of genetic dislocations and effects of randomly bad environmental conditions.
This idea has merit from a certain limited angle but the question of character and of type should never be neglected. “Hate the sin, not the sinner” is a terribly Christian idea. The Right cannot live in cognitive dissonance, and the lies of the Right will not stand the test of time any longer than the lies of the Left. Either Trump is a con-man, as someone made a good argument for on this very journal, or he isn’t. If he is, then WNs cannot be Trumpists in any sense of the word. What is the problem with stating, in the manner of Donovan, the reality of mainstream politics as they are? “Trump is the least bad option”.
As for an apologetic and forgiving approach in addressing the narratives and behaviors of the anti-white plutocracy, that is beyond the pale. These people should have no illusion as to their fate if WN does become the political reality (no matter how good is the art that they have created, no matter how much witty their brand of stand-up comedy), and praising them for making good “life choices” can only be a slap in the face for those who have for the last decades been, are, and will be subjects of abuse, ostracization, economic sanctions, murder, set-ups and who knows what for resisting the policies of that very same plutocracy and its cheerleaders. Being soft on those who ruthlessly pursue our comrades is not just. “Send them to Nicaragua” satisfies the needs of both justice, consistence and consideration.
Those who convert now when times are difficult can be forgiven, as well as those who are too young to understand the consequences of certain concepts that they have appropriated (i.e. students and people younger than 21).
Donald Trump’s performance is not normal and unsatisfactory to identitarians, which was expected; on some issues of key interest to identitarians it’s bizarrely bad. This is why people are having a hard time adjusting.
Politically, it would have been normal for Donald Trump to fight for Internet freedom for his own supporters, but not care about the suppression of anyone far to the right of himself. That would have been a bad result, but normal. In fact Donald Trump has “monitored the situation” with folded arms as the Internet giants and payment processors have deplatformed and demonetized not only the radical right but his own Internet army.
Demographically, the undefended border is part of a set of factors that are reducing whites to a powerless and democratically illegitimate minority in America. It would have been normal and unsatisfactory for Donald Trump, as a civic nationalist who got elected by promising to build a wall, to build that wall, control the border, and then ignore the rest of the problem. In fact the wall is not built, the border influx has reached unprecedented levels, and Donald Trump has reversed his rhetoric on immigration, saying he wants foreigners to come into America in the greatest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.
And so on.
The failure of civic nationalism was a given, because of its incoherence and unrealistic assumptions. Identitarians understood that.
What people have choked on, emotionally, is the non-delivery of political goods that were expected, the grave seriousness of the issues on which Donald Trump has failed, the heavy practical consequences of the deplatforming and demonetization drive which Donald Trump has not opposed, and the change in rhetoric, which has left identitarian would-be Trump supporters unable to say that they agree with what the President says even if results fall short.
I think Trump on purpose made racist sounding tweets to the Squad to have the left defend and become united with the far left. This creates the perfect diversion. Now they are too triggered to go after his new border defending policies. CNN, needing a rating boost, was wanting R Spencer to claim Trump but R Spencer threw under the bus any believers that Trump’s tweets are seriously and overtly racist. I’m not a R Spencer fan but this time I think he did good.
Sally
p.s. thought provoking article Greg
Trump has to be seen for what he is: a front in a much larger struggle.
If we lived in a reasonable republic, then it would be a matter of choosing the candidates whose campaign speeches represent your interests, putting their bumper stickers on your car, marching to the polls on election day, voting, then heading on home to watch 500 channels of cable until the next election.
Of course, we do not live in a reasonable republic. We live in … what? A globalized oligarchy run by hostile elites? An atomized consumer society, the byproduct of a lifestyle obsession? Clown world?
Strategy must be planned accordingly.
The critics of Trump have an often unrealistic appreciation of what a single politician can accomplish. The assumption seems to be that when you send a candidate to the capitol they will wave a magic wand and make happen whatever it is they promised when on the campaign trail. The fact is that for a politician do get anything done in the face of the opposition party, the courts, the lobbyists, a hostile media and the bureaucracy requires compromise and deal making.
If nothing else the 2016 election exposed the fraud of American politics. Consider the Never Trump movement, where leading Republicans rallied behind the Democratic candidate. Or Trump’s struggle with the Deep State. To many Americans, these events have been a real education.
Trump has accomplished a few positive things: moves toward defending free speech on campus and in opposing affirmative action. He did speak up (even if only briefly) about the ANC regime’s attacks on White South Africans. The current mantra of “Send Them Back!” does inspire Americans to talk back to the Left.
And yes, Trump has done little to protect the people who have supported him in the streets, like the Rise Above Movement. Does Trump sees the Dissident Right as a competitor for control of the National Populist movement? Is it the Deep State acting on its own to undermine the president? This bears further investigation before any judgment is made.
Does Trump look upon the Dissident Right as a liability? All the better. The Dissident Right message to Trump ought to be, “Look, you’re stuck with us. We’re not going away. Let’s deal.”
Then there’s the Left’s reaction to Trump. Any candidate who can inspire the meltdown manifested as the Trump Derangement Syndrome is worth purchasing at black market prices. Just think of how a Trump victory in November 2020 will cause even more insanity, regardless of Trump’s actual policies.
Trump is a symbol, a brand, an asset. As long as he is in the Oval Office the Left will trepidate at his every tweet. Conservatism Inc’s minions shall retreat to their country clubs to write white papers nobody reads. Every MAGA hat becomes a flag waved in defiance … and a signal that the bearer is open to National Populism.
The international angle: Trump probably did much to inspire the rise of nationalist and populist movements in Europe. The actions of an Orban or Salvini would have been less likely were Trump not president. And we might consider what skullduggery an openly globalist president might engage in against such leaders.
If there has been any flaw over the last three years, it’s been the failure of the Dissident Right to build a movement which would have the numbers and lobbying power to cut deals with the Trump administration. (Stipulated, the System crackdown on the Dissident Right has made organization difficult and, in any event, the metapolitical base needs to be expanded.)
One way to look at Trump is as the berserkir who shatters the enemy line so the shield wall can break through and exploit. It’s up to the Dissident Right to form that shield wall, draw their proverbial swords, and prepare for the next round of the struggle.
There’s just over fifteen months to the 2020 election. Plenty of time to work up memes, networks and activism, and cut some deals. Let’s see a long term strategy develop for National Populism.
Joe Hill: “Don’t waste any time mourning. Organize!”
I agree. Well said.