Against Political HipsterismNicholas R. Jeelvy
Here’s a radical notion: the conservative movement needs to be destroyed before White Nationalism or any of its allies and fellow travelers can make any political headway. The current iteration of Western conservatism which safeguards the Nuremberg moral paradigm and gatekeeps against white identitarian politics is evil, hypocritical, immoral and treasonous to white people. The people who propagate this ideology are the human equivalent of Judas goats — goats that serve to calm animals as they’re led to the slaughter. Any plan for the salvation of the white race which does not entail the dissolution of conservative parties and the shuttering of Con Inc. think thanks and media outlets is doomed to failure.
If conservatism is, as we portray it, a mechanism for diverting reactionary energies into the void, then its operations can be described as such:
- The system does something evil.
- People see this evil, recognize it as such and react to it.
- Their reaction, untutored though it may be, imperils the system somewhat.
- Conservatism steps in to lead this reaction into counterproductive or at least system-safe directions.
- Reactionary energy either dissipates or is recycled into the system.
- Emboldened by its victory, the system does something evil again.
There is, however, an important difference between the conservative movement and people with healthy conservative instincts engaging in reactionary behavior. But certain corners of our movement have lost sight of this, making them incapable of understanding and educating those reactionaries.
Because reactionary energy is dissipated or coopted by the conservative establishment (steps 4 and 5 above), some in our movement have mistakenly concluded that “reaction” as such is to be spurned. Therefore, instead of attacking the conservative establishment while it maneuvers to dissipate or co-opt energy in step 4, they attack people reacting to the system’s evil in step 2.
This makes it impossible for us to tutor and channel these energies in a productive way, meaning a way that actually threatens the system.
Ideally, this movement would act at two points in the process.
Firstly, we should welcome the untutored, sometimes inchoate reaction in step 2, but take steps to tutor it. Naturally, this tutoring should not take the form of lecturing, hectoring, or posturing, but rather it should explain in words to the people reacting what they already know in their hearts. This will make their position more robust by making it concrete. One of this movement’s greatest recent victories came during the anti-CRT campaign. Having already completed the difficult legwork of normalizing the term anti-white before the issue was ever taken up by parents of children subjected to critical race theory, we ensured that the reaction to the system’s imposition of CRT in school would not be untutored, or at least not as untutored as usual.
The second way in which our movement can help break the conservative cycle is to deconstruct both the specific conservative narratives deployed in step 4 as well as impeach the conservative movement itself, showing people that conservatives do not look out for their interests and are rather their enemies, something I’m proud to have contributed to in the anti-CRT instance and elsewhere.
However, we must not:
- position ourselves as enemies of the people who have been newly roused to action by the system’s evil
- posture as oh-so-clever intellectuals who are much smarter than they are, having figured things out before them.
Deriding people for being reactionary is counterproductive. Everyone’s redpilling journey begins with a reaction to something: a heinous crime, a flagrant double-standard, a vicious lie. The reason we can be proactive is because we ourselves have been :
- roused into (re)action by some past system evil
- subsequently tutored by people who were patient with our ignorance
- then plugged into an ideological framework that allows us to not only react to the system’s actions, but also take action of our own, such as the aforementioned legwork of normalizing the term anti-white.
The urge to either antagonize or browbeat people who react to the system’s evil, even if their reaction may indeed be inchoate and untutored, is frankly sophomoric, but a better term may be political hipsterism. The term was coined by my good friend Hwitgeard to describe the position of people who dismissed the possibility of elite conspiracies driving our woes as White Nationalists.
Personally, I’ve never had a problem with being called a hipster. I simply do not like the mainstream, either in music, in fashion or indeed, in politics. I likewise have very little patience for mainstream fashion, music or other cultural artefacts. I find them irritating, painful to observe and be subjected to and completely unacceptable for myself. I have structured my life in such a way as to minimize my exposure to mainstream culture precisely because I find it so grating and impossible to tolerate. Naturally, I gravitated towards the hipster scene in my town, and even though I found their fashion and aesthetic sense somewhat less annoying, I found in this circle a stifling conformity which I did not enjoy at all.
But more than this stifling conformity, what annoyed me was the constant sneering at the unwashed mainstream. Even to someone who despises mainstream culture, this sneering was ugly and stank of insecurity, as if the hipsters were trying to convince themselves of their own superiority and sophistication by hating the mainstream. Little wonder that these people did not like being called hipsters – they were too cool for labels. I found this scene uninspired and uninspiring and quickly grew apart from it, finding better friends, wackier and more relaxed with whom I was more at ease.
It is precisely this desire to be better than the normie-con with the urge to impose these positions with stifling conformity that makes the political hipster. Whenever a fellow White Nationalist tries to harness the reactionary energies, court disaffected people and guide them to nationalism or even just explore the issue raised by the system’s evil acts, these people come out of the woodwork and start throwing labels like “schizo” around, while mocking and gaslighting nationalists who do not conform to their idea of what is appropriate.
Of course, they accomplish nothing politically speaking. But they do convince themselves that they’re special and smarter than all the normie-cons, which is a worthy goal for some people.
We’re sometimes too absorbed in deep analysis of momentous events to recognize that sometimes, the driver of people’s actions is something as petty as salving insecurity.
However, by indulging these insecurities, they separate themselves and by association the broader movement from the people reacting to systemic evil.
Imagine yourself when you were just beginning to understand things and just beginning to take your first steps on the nationalist path. How would you have reacted to someone calling you names because you’re “just reacting to the system”? How could you have done anything else but react? After all, you’d never had a chance to integrate a framework that’d allow you to be proactive. You were not taught. Nobody approached you as a mentor. Rather, they approached you with a sneer, mocking your ignorance — as if they themselves had been born with knowledge. It’s a wonder we get any new people in this thing at all.
Of course men want to feel special, and sometimes they really are. I’ve said many times in the past that I suspect our movement consists of the best of people, genuinely superior in our ability to resist indoctrination, propaganda, brainwashing and mind control, as well as our ability to take all of these pressures and turn them back on the system.
Unlike the conservative which harnesses reactions to dissipate or recycle them, we take reaction against the system and amplify it, but not only that, we proactively create problems for the system by systematically deconstructing its lies and engaging it on multiple fronts. However, our superior status should not blind us to the ultimate goal of this movement – securing the existence of our people and a future for white children. If, for the completion of this task, I have to be somewhat patient with a neophyte who’s only now attaining a measure of awareness, so be it. Being a mentor is hard, it requires patience, which people in our movement, being disagreeable enough to refuse indoctrination by the mainstream, tend to lack. It’s also difficult to have patience with a normie, seeing as how they look so much like us that it’s difficult to understand that they’re not the same as you and me.
However, we are White Nationalists and identitarians, and this means, among other things, that we do not shy away from tasks because they’re hard. We must learn to balance our savage deconstruction of conservatism with compassion for the people who’ve clung to it as their only recourse. We do not come with the intention of destroying conservatives, but rather with the intention of liberating them from the deceptive shackles of Con Inc. We come not to prove our superiority by being clever, but to secure the existence of our people by harnessing their great energy. We come not to stomp on them with our boots, but rather to lead them into a bright future. We have nothing but contempt for the mainstream, but we do not stop there. Rather, we intend to impose a new mainstream of our own design which will ensure the survival of our race.
* * *
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.
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
On White Normie “Brainwashing”: A Reply to Kevin MacDonald, Paul Craig Roberts, & Other Dissidents, Part 2
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
Info-Parody: A Strategy for Reaching Normies, Part 2
Patrick Bateman: “Literally Me” or a Warning?
Great post. The anti-CRT in schools battle is only just beginning. Despite the laws, the curriculum is still sold and still taught. In America, the NAIS and the nascient School Board Partners are a third long march through the educational institutions. The school system cannot be reformed. We should not mock those who are battling to reform them – Moms For Liberty; Undercover Mothers … We should encourage them and help them where we can. As they fight their battle, they will come to the conclusion that it is losing because the foe are malevolent actors with a blood libel and a sociopathic desire to harm children.
At the same time, there is a huge task to solve the problem effectively by erecting an alternative education system. This provides us the ability to help our people who understand that reform is a lost cause.
In other words, we need situational awareness and intelligence. I once had a mentor tell me in a moment of my youthful scorn and self righteousness, “Don’t be right. Be effective.” Your point about hipsterism is a great one. That was the gateway drug for many leftists into the wokester cult. It is a gateway into similar dysfunction and pathologies for those on the right as well.
To situational awareness, intelligence and being effective! Great post!
I agree with this article and I think the correct message is being expressed well.
If someone repeats counterproductive “Conservative, Inc.” talking points, try to turn them into someone who repeats pro-White talking points; don’t try to raise your status by lowering someone else’s status.
We should think a little about the success of Bob Whitaker’s Mantra in spreading the word antiwhite, because we want to have more such successes.
The key message of Mantra instruction such as Beefcake’s Boot Camp was never “I am smart and you are stupid,” it was always “use these Mantra words and don’t use these counterproductive words.” Instruction was kept as simple as possible (but not more so). Occasionally someone would get the muddy boot thrown at them for making basic mistakes like relapsing into “Democrats are the real racists” talk, but tearing people down personally was forbidden. The boredom of saying the same things over and over to new people was accepted as the price of success.
This humble, fundamental, didactic approach got results for us in the past and it can get results in future.
For a good example on how this is accomplished, read almost anything by CS Lewis. Mere Christianity being the very best. He never once talks down to the reader. He clearly explains his own journey and reasoning. In other books he tells stories easy enough for a kid to understand, but clever enough to impact the hardest heart. Nick’s outline here speaks to that, IMO.
This is sarcasm right? Because destroying the normiecon establishment has been more than a mere notion, but a stated objective of the Dissident Right from way back in the meme war (which for the TRS section of the Alt Right started in late 2014). Heck, even the term Alt-Right alludes to an alternative to Conservatism inc, and fittingly enough I had to pause a Joel Davies stream where he goes against normiecon to read your article of the same subject, which I ended up only skimming because it says the exact same things I heard 10.000 times before from our side.
Were you a regular Jeelvy reader you’d know that I often use dramatic under- or over-statement to provoke humorous reactions in my audience. So, a perfectly sensible proposal is called “radical” whereas completely off-the-wall, hare-brained notions are described as “perfectly sensible positions of the well-meaning rational adult.”
Hating Buckleyite, milquetoast “conservatism” has been a feature of the dissident right for quite some time. Not sure I’d call it “radical.” That being said, I couldn’t support you more in this endeavor. After who all, who do you have more contempt for: the guys robbing the bank or the guards who pretend to be protecting the place but just stand there watching it get robbed and saying “Hey, no need to use foul language guys, just take the money and go”?
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