Every white identitarian nationalist thinker, writer, vlogger, and other type of content creator is familiar with the phenomenon of the Internet Man of Action,™ a comment-section alpha male who looks down on those who do “nothing but complain” on the Internet instead of “taking action” in the streets, in the political arena, or associated areas of Real Life.
Indeed, while these Internet Men of Action™ do not boast any achievements of their own, whether in the much-vaunted arena of Real Life or not, they’re the first to criticize and appeal to Rightists to “do something.” More often than not, something is better than nothing for these people. I must say, dripping with arrogance and condescension as what I have just written about them is, this is a valid criticism. We will not write or podcast our way to victory (or at least not all of the time), so I feel compelled to defend my position as a writer and showrunner in the ecosystem of white identitarian thought.
My objection to the Internet Men of Action™ isn’t that they want to take action; I’d like to take action myself. My objection is to the actions they propose. If there were actions open to us, I would have gladly taken them years ago. Indeed, all effective action that can be taken has already been taken. But more often than not, the Internet Men of Action™ are not satisfied with what action has been taken and are looking for something more spectacular, though woefully ineffective. Thus, the three categories of action that Internet Men of Action™ will most often call for are protesting, political action, and crime.
Let’s deal with crime first, because it’s the easiest charge to defeat. Calling on white identitarians to commit crimes in furtherance of the cause is all sorts of wrong. On the most basic level, it exposes our very limited pool of manpower to arrest or death. Taken one step further, any crime by a white identitarian or White Nationalist, even if unrelated to his ideology, exposes the entire ideological network to state and corporate repression, persecution, censorship, deplatforming, and ultimately, the arrest of our leaders and shuttering of our existing institutions.
At the crucial moral level, white identitarian crime alienates white people, the very people whose racial awareness we’re trying to arouse. White people are not blacks and will not always side with whites regardless of their behavior. We organize our societies on the basis of moral belonging and exclude the immoral and criminal. White criminals are punished by white communities, and this will be so even if we establish a white ethnostate. A white identitarian who commits a crime thus damages the movement by, first, removing himself from the movement’s available pool of resources; second, by bringing the state and its cronies down on the movement; and third, undermining the movement’s moral legitimacy in the eyes of other white people, or sometimes even white identitarian nationalists themselves.
The only exception to this rule would come from violating laws which are egregiously immoral, such as for example hate speech laws, and only then insofar as the violation does not consist of a crude use of slurs but rather the pointing out of the realities of human racial differences and incompatibility. Forcing the state to enforce an immoral law upon an individual who isn’t easy to demonize or morally impeach makes white people uncomfortable, even white liberals. White people fundamentally believe in honesty and freedom of expression, and forcing states to act contrary to this value is a sort of judo move which serves to shake these regimes’ legitimacy.
The second option which Internet Men of Action™ propose is protesting. Protest marching is always popular for a very simple reason: It feels good. Protest marching is in a sense ersatz military service, and young men in particular feel great when they’re marching as part of a large crowd. At the primitive level of analysis, it tells the man that he is part of a large tribe which shares a unity of purpose and confidence in the cause — i.e., that he is part of an army that is about to claim victory. Also, because the act itself floods the participants’ bloodstreams with feel-good hormones, it’s very easy to claim it as successful even if it achieves nothing whatsoever, least of all in the desired direction.
Above all, because the protest organizer has granted the participants this tiny slice of ersatz military glory, he has in a sense earned their loyalty in the same way that a victorious general earns the loyalty of his troops. But protests rest on the assumption that the powers-that-be can be influenced or intimidated by men marching on the streets. This is a false assumption in the former case, and a dangerous act in the latter. Elites intimidated by protest marching react like they did after January 6, 2021: by arresting people and throwing them in deep, dark dungeons.
Aside from the danger of direct regime repression of protests, our age also provides the danger of the regime’s hired thugs: antifa and other allied organizations attacking the marchers. Whether antifa prevails and manages to kill or injure the marchers or gets their asses handed to them, it opens the marchers to prosecution by the crooked courts. Thus, such an engagement can only realistically go one way: a defeat for the Right-wing protesters, the squandering of valuable resources, and the arrest, injury, or death of the young men involved. Large-scale disasters like Charlottesville can send massive shockwaves throughout the political space and make our task even harder. Even so-called successes, which is to say marches which have not ended in disaster, can be counterproductive by galvanizing the enemy.
Because protest marching solidifies loyalty to the organizer, it’s not likely to go away, as much as I caution against them. Organizations, whether White Nationalist or otherwise, will seek to organize marches to increase their own power within the movement, even if it weakens the broader movement and the cause it fights for. Any opposition to marching will be met by calls for unity, which are in fact calls for submission to the event organizer, accusations of infighting, and disloyalty to the cause.
This leaves political action as the means by which the White Nationalist cause can purportedly be advanced. Now, here I am going to agree that it would be nice if we had a pro-white political party in any Western country, but more often than not, these parties cannot even get past the registration stage. Patriotic Alternative in the United Kingdom has been kept in registration limbo for the better part of two years. Its American equivalent, the National Justice Party, isn’t registered as a political party but only as an LLC (limited liability corporation), and as such cannot field candidates in elections.
Attempts at taking over established parties have similarly floundered. Takeovers of center-Right parties are nigh impossible, seeing as the primary function of the center-Right is to gatekeep against white identity politics. Indeed, the closest we’ll get to a White Nationalist takeover of an established party is the Mises Caucus’ takeover of the Libertarian Party in the United States. This will in all likelihood accomplish little except to scatter the Libertarian Party’s “low tax liberal” donor and party officer base to the four winds.
Thus, I agree we should have a pro-white political party. We should field candidates, contest elections, and have a coherent political organization through which our ambitious young men could pursue position and power, but alas, it’s not in the cards — at least for now. Direct political action is not a course we can take, especially not under conditions of scarce resources, as we are in right now.
What, then, is to be done? The Internet Men of Action™ are silent on this point, because they don’t know how to proceed. They do not know how to proceed, because by suggesting the three activities above, they’ve exhausted their arsenal of action that can be taken because it is based on a wrong interpretative, organizational, and operational framework — specifically, one that is part and parcel of liberal democracy.
When I use the word framework, I’m referring to a complete system of ideology which can then be adopted by anyone. This system of ideology will orient an individual towards the good and away from the bad, good and bad here corresponding to the ideology’s ultimate realization and non-realization.
The ideological framework should first and foremost have interpretative power: It should explain to everyone, of any character, anywhere on the IQ distribution platform what is more or less happening in the world, where the world’s center (Axis Mundi) is, where the darkness is, and where there be dragons. It should thus help its adherent to make the distinction between sacred and profane — especially sacred and profane space and time — and provide meaning for his existence and a place in the world, particularly his position in the hierarchy of the ideology’s believers. It must provide a sociodicy for ill and a theory of good and evil which doesn’t contradict the ideology’s ultimate ends, nor can it contradict the human animal’s instinctive reactions.
The ideological framework should also have organizational power, which is to say that it needs to describe the proper way in which a movement for its advancement should be organized, and by proper we mean in such a way which is both effective and not in opposition to its ultimate goal. This organizational form should flow naturally from the ideology’s interpretational axioms. This form should allow the practitioner to instantly distinguish between friend and enemy without much deliberation or pondering, as well as to recognize his own proper place within the organizational structure and the necessity of his own membership therein, which will inevitably include the subsumption of his personal will to the organizational will. In describing the Axis Mundi, as well as the outer darkness and the abode of dragons, the interpretational framework will give birth to the organizational framework in describing both the good (us) and the bad (them), thus serving the important role of defining the friend/enemy distinction.
The final power that an ideological framework ought to provide is the power to institute an operational framework. Having codified the good and the bad, the inner and the outer, the friend and the enemy in the interpretative framework, and having transformed these truths into concrete organizational form in the organizational framework, we will then allow the organization to commence operations which are informed by its structure and personnel, who are themselves informed at the interpretational/ontological level. From what the world is, we have derived what we are, and from there, we have arrived at what we do. This is why it’s impossible to have a political movement built entirely on enmity: without knowing what we are, we don’t know what form to take, and being formless, we cannot take any action.
Here we come to the much-vaunted field of action, where the Internet Men of Action™ would love to operate. The problem is that we’ve yet to construct the interpretative framework, but they’d like to charge into action nevertheless. We do not know yet what is going on in the world (fully, or even adequately), let alone what form we should take or what we should do. Part of this is due to the West’s very recent awakening to the fact that the promises of the heretofore dominant ideological framework of liberal democracy are false. Another reason is that such enemy actively causes infiltrators and agents to be sent to disrupt an alternative ideological framework’s construction.
A third reason is the incumbency of liberal democratic ideology and the only partial awakening of a number of people claiming to be on our side, who nevertheless still have all the old biases and assumptions, including those Internet Men of Action™ who seem to believe, even after January 6 and the subversion of the Trump presidency, that a mass popular movement is the way forward for white identitarians.
The task of constructing the new ideological framework falls to the talkers, the writers, and the vloggers. Through learned discourse, research, and dreamweaving, we shall forge this idea-machine. Once armed with it, the Man of Action will be able to set forth and realize the goals of white identity politics. The forging of this framework will be difficult, and its codification into something prosaic that the common man can accept, recite, and integrate into his being will be even more difficult. Its completion, however, will be a thing of beauty and the surest sign that true and lasting victory is on the way.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Strength Through Joy: An Interview with Béla Incze of Légió Hungária
Why Crime & Punishment is Garbage
David Duke & Louisiana’s 1991 Gubernatorial Election
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 521 Daily Zoomer & Spencer J. Quinn Discuss The No College Club
Are Qur’an-Burnings Helpful?
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 520 Inside Serbia with Marko of Zentropa
Against Political Hipsterism
Against White Unionism