As of this January I will be joining Richard Spencer as editor of Alternative Right. I am pleased to take part in this enterprise and look forward to working with the many talented writers and individuals involved in the website.
As Richard has already mentioned, and as those who are familiar with my articles already know, I favour not just commenting on the evils of the contemporary situation in the West, but also attempting to push beyond this situation, and encouraging the construction of something new, founded on elitist, traditional, yet also ‘futuristic’ values.
To this effect, in my new editorial role I will emphasise not only staying topical with the content, but also identifying, examining, feeding, and catalysing productive areas of White-centric counter-culture in the West and throughout the European diaspora. This will involve delving into a wide range of alternative ideas and methods of cultural praxis. By riding, building, and focusing these counter-currents, we can make it to ‘the other side’—the side beyond the modern cultural paradigm. I am therefore as interested in articles that look at counter-cultural production as I am on articles that dismantle, deride, and deconstruct the cultural anti-production of the Left.
Also, I will emphasise breaking out of the comfort zones of our particular milieu: there is a sizable element of dropping out and preaching to the choir within the so-called ‘radical’ Right, and if we are to be successful in our endeavours, we have to reach beyond the choir and make inroads into the general public; otherwise, how are we going to get anyone to rethink the world, let alone involve them in its transformation? There are many who are fed up with the bankrupt liberal system of egalitarian modernity, but who either do not know that there is an alternative, or have been frightened off by proponents of the status quo or by the failure of those nominally on our camp to engage them in an apt and constructive manner.
We need to develop a new language, a new way of defining and expressing ourselves that emphasises what we are for rather than what we are against. We are elitists, not anti-egalitarians; we are traditionalists, not anti-modern; we define ourselves on our terms, not against the terminology of our opponents. The frustrations of living under a hostile dispensation have, understandably, but inexcusably, fomented a mentality of pessimism and negativity. This mentality suits the system very well, as it leads to despairing paralysis. Alternative Right has been better than most in this respect, having maintained a brighter, more vibrant tone; an active rather than a reactive stance—this is something that I would like further to strengthen and develop.
Another positive with Alternative Right has been the conscious embrace of stylised aesthetics as a weapon of mass communication. Alternative Right was the first website of its kind self-consciously to sport a stylish and professional design—others have followed since. This is disproportionately important, because humans tend to make swift pre-rational judgments about their potential affiliations: it is often whether a website looks good, both to the potential reader and those present who may happen to glance at the reader’s computer screen, that decides whether that potential reader will return. If a certain website does not look modern and professional, he will assume the content is amateurish, inferior, and less than legitimate—often before he reads the first headline. If he does not feel comfortable with others knowing that he reads a certain website, he will avoid it or treat it as a guilty secret rather than a source worthy of his recommendation. Thus, Alternative Right’s graphic and technological aspects, being, so to speak, another form of text, another method of communicating ideas, will necessarily remain a key area of constant improvement and development. Alternative Right’s effectiveness depends as much on its looking at least as good its counterparts on the mainstream as it does on the quality of its content.
This all sounds very serious, and we are indeed engaged in a serious project. But, having said this, it is important that we do not lose our sense of humour. Humour is both a tonic and a weapon. On the one hand, humour helps to release tension and to engender feelings of well-being and goodwill; it breaks down barriers to communication, and makes our company more enjoyable—no one wants to be around a person who is always depressed, miserable, and complaining. It also makes the person deploying the humour seem stronger, because he appears relaxed, confident, and above the fray. On the other hand, humour, if intelligent and well directed, can destroy an opponent’s prestige and credibility more thoroughly, swiftly, and efficiently than the most rigorous data or logical argument. The data and the arguments are essential, of course, and must be present; but on their own they are a difficult sell, as humans believe what they want to believe, what makes them feel good about themselves and the world they live in. Solid data with a dash of clever humour is an irresistible combination. And it is worth noting that nothing angers and exasperates the Left more than its not being taken seriously.
2011 promises to be a busy and exciting year.