Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default What’s in It for Me?

What’s in It for Me?

Alex Kurtagic

April 20, 2010



"The most baffling historical development in modern times has to be the voluntary abdication of land, wealth, rights, power, and genes by White people all over the world, as well as the continuing nature of this abdication, despite its disastrous, obvious, and worsening consequences. Equally baffling is the fact that the most vehement condemnations of political parties aiming to arrest this process of abdication come often from the very same segment of the population whose interests they seek to advance and defend: Whites themselves.


What is wrong with them?

Numerous explanations have been advanced in the attempt to explain
this phenomenon: Jewish control of the mass media of news and
entertainment; the success of various twentieth-century Jewish
intellectual movements; the existence of a secret Jewish conspiracy;
Zionism; the venality of politicians; the deracinated, globalist
character of contemporary capitalism; feminism; the outcome of World
War II; Christianity; the propensity of Whites to experience feelings
of guilt; and the moral universalism of Western culture are among the
most common. There may be varying degrees of truth or paranoia in
these explanations, but there is one that I have only very
sporadically seen surface in the Right’s otherwise obsessive and
comprehensive postmortems of European culture, and which I believe
deserves greater attention. And the explanation is this: we have
nothing good or useful to offer.

A White advocate might wish to argue that, on the contrary, White
advocacy has everything to offer: life, peace, freedom, wealth, and a
homeland. This is true. But what is on offer is mostly abstract,
conceptual, in an indeterminate future, and conditional on White
advocates’ emerging victorious from a political battle that those who
hold their views have by now been consistently losing for perhaps
nearly a century. What is more, the White advocate’s vague offer of
potential reward comes with concrete call for certain sacrifice,
justified by an analysis of the world that is steeped in negativity,
pessimism, cynicism, paranoia, emotional masochism, reactionary
nostalgia, conspiracy theories, tragic heroism, and, in some cases,
weird Hitler fetishism. Talk is always of systemic collapse and race
wars, of hard times ahead. The message is a complaining one — the
message of an angry old man waving a fist at the world, rejecting
everything but, at the same time, having only antiquated answers that
to most ordinary people sound like an embittered desire to retrieve a
past that is long gone, will never return, and was far from perfect in
the first place.

Images of the Racialist Right: A Skinhead and an Angry Old Man

By contrast, the Left looks to the future, exudes optimism, thinks
generously, uses positive language, and has a youthful attitude. The
Left is associated with idealism, youth, and dynamism, while the Right
is associated, both by default and through the agency of the Left’s
representation, with cynicism, senility, and death. It does not matter
that Leftism is unrealistic, its vision chimerical, its analysis
wishful thinking, and its future utopia impossible: people want to
believe; Leftism makes people feel good about themselves, it inspires
hope, and it is, therefore, easier to live than with the Right’s harsh
realism, particularly if one is comparatively well off and under no
immediate threat.

Is it any surprise, then, that our side is finding it difficult to
make political progress?

In my observation and that of others, most ordinary people are at
bottom apolitical. Forming a genuine political opinion requires an
investment of time and intellectual effort that only a minority is
willing or able to make. Yet, the democratic process asks ordinary
citizens to form political opinions. The resulting tendency is,
therefore, for people to choose political affiliations on a pre-
rational basis. Because feeling good about oneself and about the world
is more gratifying than the reverse, the consequence is that people
are more likely to side with winners rather than losers, with those
who appear in control of the situation and offer an attractive way
forward, rather than those who are in retreat and offer a difficult
way backward. Attractive in this context means concrete improvements
in people’s lives with the minimum of sacrifices.

In earlier articles I have written about the need to package our
message in a stylistically attractive fashion. But style alone is not
sufficient. As a heretical position, affiliating oneself with White
advocacy entails exposure to significant risks: ostracism, loss of
employment, loss of income, loss of freedom, even loss of life. Not
affiliating oneself with White advocacy might have the same effect, of
course, but that effect is deferred and might not even be experienced
until some time in the future, if at all (one might die first);
whereas the effect of an unorthodox political affiliation may well be
immediate. Since many believe that they will live only once, and are
purely concerned with the material plane of existence, it is no wonder
that they — even the grimly realistic among them — choose to enjoy the
good life now, while it lasts, and worry, or let others or future
generations worry, about the future. How many times have you heard
someone say, when confronted with our funebrious forecasts, “Well,
that might be so. But by the time that happens it won’t be my problem
anymore”?

If we are to make political progress now, therefore, before it is too
late, our strategy for selling our message must include offering
concrete benefits, here, today, that make it worthwhile for ordinary
White people to assume the risks. Otherwise, what’s in it for them?
One may want to berate their lack of idealism, their selfishness,
their obtuseness, their impatience, their obcecated materialism – you
may want to take a brick and clobber them on the head in an effort to
knock some sense in to these people; but these are skeptical, selfish,
fast, materialistic times, and, as Francis Parker Yockey would have
argued, our tactics must be tailored accordingly. It is no use
employing nineteenth-century methods on twenty-first-century minds.

Rewards and Benefits

What can we offer?

Evidently, life, peace, freedom, wealth, and a homeland are still
valid aims to strive for. On their own, however, they are too vague,
too impersonal, to have any real meaning to most people, except a
highly intelligent clique of philosophers and political idealists. To
be inspirational beyond this clique, these concepts need to be
integrated into a clear, distinct, and attractively formulated vision,
a vision that gives ordinary people a sense of what their lives could
be like — or rather, how their lives may improve — were they to sign
up to our program. What is more, the pursuit of this vision has to
involve everyday activities and associations, sounds, tastes, images,
smells, textures, that are obviously rewarding and gratifying,
personally, socially, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and
materially (more on this later). The most effective way of achieving
this is by appealing to innate human universals: the need to belong,
and the need for self-esteem.

When I visited Troy Southgate last year, I was impressed by his four
children: Troy has home-schooled all of them, and they appeared to me
uncommonly well behaved, hard-working, and responsible. Yet,
considering that they have been educated on the ways of the modern
world, they also appeared unexpectedly bright, happy, and interested
in life; in other words, they were not cynical, bitter, fearful, or
apathetic misanthropes and hermits. I asked Troy how he solved the
problem of educating his children without inflicting on them an early
onset of middle age. He explained to me that his children felt
superior to their mainstream coevals: the former knew something the
latter ignored, or were too stupid, too immature, or too befuddled to
realize. To me this was significant, because it mirrored an attitude
that pervades the alternative Right: the sense of superiority
(enhanced self-esteem) that stems from belonging to a select group, or
clique, or club, that is in on a secret, that possesses knowledge that
is hidden to most, that has a penetrating understanding of world
events that is inaccessible to the average man on the street. This is
an attitude we need to capitalize on, for it is one way that
affiliation with White advocacy can — and in fact does — enhance an
ordinary White person’s self-esteem.

This sense of superiority and of belonging is what drives conspiracy
theorists — a subset of the population well represented within the
alternative Right, and one that is equated with the alternative Right
by mainstream culture. Conspiracy theories can be entertaining,
fascinating, instructive, even addictive, but conspiracy theorists are
seldom fun to have around: they are morbid, obsessive, intense; they
go on and on — everything is about the Jews, the Masons, the
Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the aliens, the Federal Reserve, or
some or all of them combined. Conspiracy theories have their appeal,
but they also attract a certain type. Similarly, conspiring, the way
dissidents who are politically active on our side conspire in order to
bring about radical change, also attracts a small minority. We need an
approach that is universally attractive. And one thing that attracts
everyone is fun.

Yes, fun.

The simple pleasures in life are often the best. And there is no
reason why political dissidence cannot be fun. It is not as if the
Left does not provide us with targets: just about everything they do
is risible. Embarrassing Leftists, mocking their memes, lampooning
their language, deriding their programs, and subjecting their heroes
and supporters to ridicule — in literature, in art, in films, in
music, in posters, in postcards, in comic strips and graphic novels —
as well as searching for new and inventive ways to do so, is a
singularly gratifying experience. It is also a necessary experience,
because key to any serious strategy to sell anything — and selling our
message is no different from selling albums, books, or Coca-Cola — is
its feel-good factor. No one who is of sound mind desires to be
miserable. The Coca-Cola Company emphasizes the buzz and the high its
premier drink gives the consumer, not the crash and the lethargy that
follows an hour after its ingestion.

Similarly, no one who is of sound mind likes to be around miserable
grouches. People who laugh and are fun to have around are popular;
while people who scowl, are depressed, and constantly complain are
unpopular. People also admire those who retain their sense of humor in
the face of adversity. Crucially, laughter, besides being pleasurable
and healthy, besides signaling health and joie de vivre, also sends an
important political message: as revolutionary author Kai Murros wrote
to me recently “[t]he ruling elite is afraid of our laughter, because
it is the one thing they cannot control and laughter is a sure sign
that people are already in [the] process of signing off their loyalty
to the system.” As grim as modern times might appear, as hopeless as
the situation might seem, the Right, if it is seriously interested in
sweeping the Leftist fops, nupsons, and nincompoops out of power,
needs to re-learn how to laugh and be good and pleasant company.

Notice that victors in a general election have tended to be perceived
as much more pleasant and easy-going than the losers. Compare Clinton
against Bush; Dubya against Gore; Obama against McCain; Blair against
Major.

Back in February I wrote about the importance of status as a political
tool. One of the deterrents installed by our liberal establishment in
its effort to dissuade dissidents from being vocal or active has been
the obvious threat of loss of social status through obloquy or
economic sanctions. I argued that this threat is ultimately more
persuasive than logical arguments or a superabundance of solid
scientific data. If I am correct, then part of our strategy has to
include the creation and maintenance of alternative status systems.
When individuals of our persuasion are excluded from consideration for
awards, promotions, and memberships on the basis that we hold views
that the system considers unacceptable, then we have to create our own
awards, our own enterprise, and our own clubs.

Some of this has already been put into practice, only not
systematically. For this to work, it needs to be systematic. Whether
it is through business opportunities; fellowships; clubs; societies;
or a system of alternative literary, music, art, or journalistic
awards, our side has to be able to offer ordinary people — not just
political activists — the opportunity to feel special. With the
ability to formally recognize and reward talent in a manner that is
both prestigious and independent of the liberal system, we will not
lose the talented to their need for social recognition and material
ambition. A thoughtful novelist wishing to make his fame and fortune
writing fiction will be feel less compelled to keep quiet about his
beliefs and toe the line of political correctness if he knows that
there are prestigious agencies, publishers, and award bodies willing
to represent him, publish him, and recognize his literary genius. It
will not matter if the liberal establishment then refuses to recognize
his talent; he will no longer have a motive to recognize the liberal
establishment. The same applies to workers and professionals in all
areas of economic, artistic, and intellectual life.

Much more can and ought to be written about this topic, and I will
probably address it again, from various angles, in future articles.
Ultimately, however, the solution is dependent on an influx of younger
activists; after all, many of the qualities — like the ones discussed
here — that are necessary to capture the imagination of ordinary White
people are linked to youth. In the context of an ageing population, it
is a matter of urgency that this issue be addressed sooner rather than
later. Otherwise we will justify and perpetuate the Leftists’
characterization of White advocacy as being all about backward old
codgers, constipated fascists, sexual impotence, conspiratology, and
sour grapes. "



Alex Kurtagic (email him) was born in 1970. He is the author of Mister
(published by Iron Sky Publishing, 2009) and the founder and director
of Supernal Music.

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ic-Kosher.html
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default What’s in It for Me?

On Apr 21, 4:28*pm, Bret L wrote:

What’s in It for Me?


If you're talking about having yourself committed, perhaps the biggest
benefit for you would be that you'd stop wetting yourself and pooping
in your pants in public.

It's embarrassing for us to. It's hard to look at an adult with a load
in his wet diaper day after day without giggling at least a couple of
times.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"