As I am going to release several videos about strategy and tactics of right-wing activism, I would like to , let say, lay a foundation for them in this video.
Because in order to understand strategy and its meaning, you have to see, why does it have certain form or specific goals.
And to understand this, we have to talk a little about culture and how it works. As we can`t make any cultural changes without knowing what and why we are doing.
This is the problem that infests some moderate conservative circles in US, and what we would call a liberal or democratic nationalists in Europe.
Some of them, especially in America love to talk how they fight in a cultural war. However, their successes are quite negligible, and it is very far from any turning point.
And what many of those conservative influencers or think-tanks do – is they operate in a liberal paradigm. Which means that they are forever blocked from making truly revolutionary breakthrough, as the liberal paradigm was not created to give them this power.
This means, that they are limited to a merely creating a dissident faction in a liberal paradigm`s boundaries.
Which might be useful to slightly undermine the absolutism of liberal paradigm, but it is very far from the goal of saving western civilization, or from overturning the rules of the mentioned paradigm, and healing the wounds that were inflicted upon civilization and society.
So, what is paradigm. There are different definitions, but we will be using the one, that says, that a paradigm is pretty much a set of staples, a set of rules in the very foundation of certain system of beliefs. So, it is about the founding values, the corner stones.
The absolute values that have enough power to give a credibility to a host of lesser values, customs, cultural habits etc.
Also, by the absolute values I mean values that are independent from, you know, taste and preferences. They are larger than human life, they have power to create a long-lasting social system or relationships between individuals.
They also call for moral absolutism, instead of relativism.
So for example, in mankind history the God`s law establishes an absolute value.
The honor often becomes an absolute. And so on.
So, for example, a political custom of preserving country`s sovereignty and political independence, goes deeper than just a set of rules, that your ministry of foreign affairs uses, deeper than your judicial department procedures.
These are just consequences, they are on the surface, and they also can change a lot in their shape or form.
But the founding value that feeds all this sovereignty sentiment, would go much deeper.
It would go to the absolute value, – like honor, or religion (which were often the most hot topic when the ability to keep your preferred faith was at stake, and thus desire for independence would grow stronger) and sometimes it would go up to instincts. Like hierarchical instinct.
So why this is so important to understand. *
Let say, there is an ethnic group that wants to achieve independence for their region or their country.
If this desire is on the level of absolute value for this particular culture, you will see it`s influence across wide range of cultural expression of this people.
For example, it will have its expression in literature. Sometimes in overtly politicized way, sometimes in a subtle way. And if let say, you want to influence this particular “independence acquiring” topic in literature, you would have three possibilities
1) to influence personalities, which would be the most shallow type of influence.
2) To influence reasoning of some personalities – which means to go slightly deeper, to shape, change, strengthen or undermine some specific aspects of “acquiring independence” goals – like economic reasoning.
Or you could go even deeper, and work with values and sentiments who feed the whole chain of this different aspects. You could work with absolute values.
In fact, oftentimes, you will find out, that it is almost impossible to achieve any results without addressing absolute values.
For example, for deeply religious ppl, it was rather common to value their faith higher than their comfort. Which means, that reasoning which is based on “achieving comfort” arguments, or self-interest arguments, may totally fail, because the founding absolute value establishes rules, which are much stronger than self-interest argument.
And it is not only about strength of different values – it is also about paradigm, where they are nestled.
Some arguments will never work in a certain type of paradigm, if they are derived from a totally different paradigm.
Again, if you talk to religious ppl – you know, that they have their own worldview and paradigm, which makes many secular points and arguments mute and useless.
The absolute value of heavenly reward, of living in accordance to God`s will – makes many other values relative and minor.
This is the power of the absolute values, moral absolutism. And this power should be kept in mind, both when we discussing the ways to shape our own community, and the ways to undermine current ruling paradigm of certain ideology.
And the third point here is how culture works, basically.
And by the way, by culture here, I do mean something more than just a set of habits of doing something in a certain way. We are talking about foundation of culture, not just a surface.
It is important to note, that culture, which is normally derived from absolute values, or fundamental, let say, unavoidable instincts, is not something that you can freely fine-tune. It is more like a tumbler, or a switch, with two positions – like on, and off, important – unimportant , sacred or not, absolute or relative.
So, what is important here, is the fact, that in majority of cases, when we talk about roots of a culture, we can`t expect to be able to manipulate them in any way we wish.
You see, sometimes ppl fall for illusion, that culture can be fine-tuned and manipulated up to the point when it suits them. But essentially, what is happening – is just that cultural changes are slow and not always immediately obvious , which creates an illusion of you being able to stop certain cultural trends at any point. To be able to choose freely where to stop and what to conserve.
But in reality, culture, changes between two extremities – between mentioned tumbler positions.
And this is crucial for any good strategy in a cultural war, or in an reestablishing of your own culture, because you want to be free from illusions, you don`t want to spend your energy on something, which contradicts fundamental laws.
But this happens a lot, especially today.
Just recently I saw several memes and comments about how nineties, or eighties had a lot more common sense, or how they had something presumably better, and how we should stop there, in eighties, before reaching certain cultural destinations of today.
There are even more of these sentiments about fifties.
Anyway, what is missing here – is that understanding, that you can`t conserve something in between of two extremities for too long. You can`t conserve transitionary state or phase.
You might like it the way it is between two extreme positions, but this does not change the fact that culture shifts and changes because there certain unavoidable rules. Because there are let say, cultural magnetic poles, absolute values, who shape culture in the first place.
When you undermine an absolute value, and make it relative, weaken it – culture responds with shift towards the opposite extreme position.
even though propaganda or some repressive measures can sometimes distort reality a lot, beneath the surface, it is all the same trends.
So for example, when religious element, the absolute element in a marriage was undermined, when it started to disappear, and when the so called state marriage started to replace it, the tumbler has changed positions.
And even though family is a not something that disappears overnight, we can clearly see the consequences, and we can clearly see the direction where everything is heading. The direction of another extreme position, because without absolute value, it just a relative thing, that is dependent on many factors, on economic situation, on propaganda, on a person`s experience – but as marriage leaves the domain of absolute values, the domain of religious paradigm – it starts to crumble, because you could never conserve something so dependent on its own paradigm and values, when paradigm changed and values became relative.
This is not always obvious for modern ppl, they arrogantly believe that they can reject an absolute value, and still fine-tune certain cultural trends just because they wish to do it.
But then they fail.
Then questions arise, why can`t we conserve good things. Why do we always backpedal, why culture keeps declining, why can`t we just use common sense.
Well, because without a proper paradigm, based on moral absolutism, absolute values, we are at mercy of host of different factors. And if you keep in mind, that we have dedicated destructive Marxist ideology around, then it is easy to understand why everything is going to hell.
But the important point here, is that even without all those cultural Marxists, you would hardly conserve anything, if you don`t operate in a proper paradigm, which was meant to be used with your culture.
Fifties, or eighties could not be conserved, without switching that cultural tumbler back to absolute categories.
You see, you can`t say that you will allow a little divorce, but still want marriages to hold. You can`t say that you will allow a little of perversion, but only in limited amounts. Or limited by certain events.
It just does not work like this.
You can`t expect a certain city to be mindful of a fact, that some sort of immorality quota was already taken by another city.
You can`t expect a family to keep in mind, that another family got non-fault divorce already, and now we can`t do this again for a three months, because we still want to keep families.
It is just does not work like this. There is no fine-tuning of this sort in a culture.
Not only you can`t undermine absolute values, and still somehow keep getting their benefits, not only you can`t conserve a certain position between two extremities, you also will fail to conserve public opinions and positive society pressure on important issues. Because when your paradigm changes, or certain absolute values are shaken, the pressure also weakens.
And you can`t keep it on let say, 85% at your will.
You can`t say, that society should not condemn something too strictly, and then demand it to keep condemning it at the rate of 60%.
You might see this, at some point in time – just like we saw some combinations of liberalism and conservatism in certain periods, but it is impossible to conserve this state. Because it just transitionary state.
You may like it, but you will never be able to conserve or preserve it.
And you will never be able to pass transitionary state values to next generation, because they will not adopt them, they will move further to a certain extreme position.
Either they will degenerate further, or they might in rare cases, try to move closer to the absolute value.
Just like with traditional catholics, who have more liberals in older generation, and got more traditionalists in younger generation.
Understanding of these basics is crucial, because otherwise you might get stuck in eternal and pointless fight against natural laws forever.
And you can`t win, if you ignore the issue of choosing or shaping a proper paradigm for your own system, for your own battle.
Recently I had encountered some excerpts from Steven Harper`s book ( he is a former Canadian conservative prime-minister).
And what was quite obvious – well, he certainly preserved some common sense, and certainly had very serious problems with left-liberal agenda, and he saw what danger it poses, he had some great points.
But the main problem I see here, is that ppl like him, are still stuck in liberal paradigm.
They are what a catholic intellectual Plinio Correa de Oliveira called semi-counter-revolutionaries.
This is ppl who rejected some parts of revolution because of certain factors – like traditional upbringing, or mb they got scared because of fast advances of revolution – but essentially, they are not real counter-revolutionaries, even though, they may be converted . The problem is – they can also more easily accept certain revolutionary ideas and they don`t have proper foundation for a sustained fight against revolution etc.
What Plinio Correa de Oliveira defined with this terms, like counter-revolutionary, or semi-counter-revolutionary – was pretty much having a certain paradigm.
While real counter-revolutionary has a paradigm, which is completely independent from revolution, semi-counter-revolutionaries, only have some resentment against revolutionary paradigm, but they are oftentimes part of it, at least to the certain degree.
Btw, speaking about conservatism, professor Oliveira noted, that real counter-revolution, does not try to conserve everything we have at the certain moment of time, like many modern conservatives do. So in this case, counter-revolution wouldn`t be conservative at all. It would bring revolution of its own paradigm, to fight a liberal paradigm.
And the final example of how paradigms work .
Let say you talk to a man who adores liberal democracy, and you discuss modern problems – like corruption, demagoguery of politicians, their cheap tricks, voter bribing, dubious party policies etc.
So, while you would probably criticize the system itself, and you would see, how democratic procedures will lead to all these problems, a man who adopts liberal democracy paradigm, and therefore adopts its system of evaluation of good and bad, will have a totally different approach.
As he uses a system of coordinates, where more democracy, more liberalism – means more justice, and more good stuff, he will always put it so, that the problem we have, do stem from a lack of liberal democracy, like there is not enough of it. Just like a communist, who would acknowledged pitiful state of socialist economy, would argue, that all problems are because ppl are crap, or socialism wasn`t implemented properly, or it is because of sabotage etc.
And they will fail to see, how their systems produce those very problems that infest them.
Only if you break the mental connection between a man and certain paradigm, and give him new system of evaluation -only then he could use it to soundly evaluate democratic, liberal, or socialist system.
But without breaking free from the conditioning of his current system – he will never be able to combat its problems.
The best he could do, is to form a dissident faction inside particular system, that would still be unable to fix the system, even though they do see those problems.
So, to summarize
If we are to develop a strategy for our community building, or a strategy for a battle against neo-marxism, we have to remember this
1) culture deals with absolute values.
2) We can`t fine-tune culture, so we have to make a clear decision about absolute values, that will serve as a magnetic pole of our paradigm.
3) we have to have independent paradigm. Otherwise, we will end up as a merely dissident faction of left-liberalism.
4) we can`t wage cultural war against absolute values, while only having some relative values.
Socialism is a system of horrible, but still absolute values.
5) We have to understand, that if we adopt a system of evaluation, that is dependent on hostile paradigm – we are bound to lose. We can`t operate it better than its creators.
6) It is important to think about, what we can transfer to the next generations. We can`t transfer transitionary state of culture, we can`t transfer moderate positions – you have to give them absolute values, even if you dislike polarization in a society – you can`t win a cultural war against fanatics, if you present yourself as a sceptic.
7) Having your own paradigm – means, that ideally, you don`t understand what the hell are those lefties talking about.
They should sound to you, like some retarded tribe, which talks about how you are forbidden to dance on Mondays because a spirit of a wild carrot will become angry, and will produce a monster carrot that will destroy your city.
Now, today, we sort of have this, with more radical lefties – they do look like loonies and idiots, but the problem is, that it might be the radical revolutionary advance that created this resentment. It is not enough. If you understand or even worse- if you support moderate lefties, this is a sign, that you might be part of their paradigm. Radical advances do create resentment – there is nothing new in it, but without a paradigm that rejects the very roots of this advances – you are bound to become more and more tolerant towards these new agendas. If not you yourself, then your kids, who live in a new environment.
Ok, this is it. I will leave a link to this video, when we will be discussing actual strategies, so that people understand, why do I believe that some modern conservative strategies do not work, and some other strategies might be a better choice. Leave your opinion in a comment section, hit a like button, share this video -it will help a lot to spread the word about the channel, subscribe to channel, and if you wish so, follow me on gab or twitter.
Thanks for watching, and have a nice day guys!