On Uniforms

A contrarian view.

Sometimes being contrarian is good, if it is done for a purpose, and through reasoned argument, as opposed to being contrarian merely for the sake of being contrarian, which is so often the case in the Dissident Right/Far Right.

I’m a contrarian in many ways in my opposition to Der Movement and one relatively minor point, but one that is important despite being minor, is on the issue of uniforms.

It has been de rigueur in the American “movement,” ever since the days of William Pierce and his National Alliance, to be against the idea of uniforms for members of Far Right American groups. We are told that wearing uniforms in a non-military (or non-work) setting is “not the American way” and is associated with “inter-war 20th century European parties and paramilitary groups” and that the whole idea of uniforms outside of the military/workplace, as part of a private (particularly, political) organization, is “foreign” and “alien” to the American mindset.

That of course ignores the long history of organizations like the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army wearing uniforms, the use of uniforms in certain private schools, and of course American political/paramilitary groups like the Silver Shirts wore uniforms as well. 

One wonders if the idea of uniforms is yet another thing ruined by the post-WWII American “movement” and its inept and retarded Quota Queen “leadership” who gave us idiots dressed up like Stormtroopers and SS men, with swastika armbands – an image that is in fact foreign to the American experience. But just because someone does something stupidly does not logically imply that the something itself is wrong. And as America and American identity collapses under the strain of multicultural diversity, other forms of identity will come to the fore, and while “the color of our skin is our uniform” has some validity in the sense that racial identity is paramount, there is still a case for building political identities in the service of our race, and uniforms, presented properly, can serve a role, at appropriate place and time. 

Let us be realistic.  Even if you believe that private uniforms – particularly of a political nature – are “foreign” to the American experience, then let us be honest that the old America where that may have been true is dead, or at least dying, and there are new rules in the post-American reality.  Groups that see themselves outside of the traditional American experience have no problem in wearing uniforms, at least of a sort – think of Black nationalist groups. Isn’t a paradigm of the Far Right that Whites are essentially a people without a country, that we – at least those of us who think as we do – are now outside of the American experience as it currently exists?  If the Old America is gone, or at least going, do we need to be beholden to its taboos? That is all beside my argument that private uniforms are not as alien to America as some think, and the Silver Shirts are a homegrown example of uniforms in an American political organization. Therefore, some of the arguments against uniforms don’t hold water.  

What about “scaring the normies?’’  First, much of the crazed, imbecilic, moronic stupidity of Der Movement scares “normies” more than uniforms ever could, and if you are going to argue that we shouldn’t add to the problem by wearing uniforms my riposte would be to first stop all of the other nonsense, and then get back to me when you demonstrate professionalism and discipline sans uniforms. Second, we need to be more prescriptive rather than descriptive, doing what is right and showing leadership to convince the public, rather than slavishly worrying what others think. Does that contradict what I just wrote about “movement” dogma and its effect on “normies?” No, because I oppose Der Movement’s dogma primarily because I believe that it is wrong, not because it alienates others (which is, however, an important secondary consideration that I do mention when appropriate). My point in what I wrote above is to note Der Movement’s hypocrisy in worrying about the public’s reaction to uniforms while ignoring the public’s reaction to Der Movement’s insane dogma. Third, if you want to attract dedicated people you cannot make the barrier to entry too low, make it too easy. No, I do not advocate wearing uniforms all the time – only when and where appropriate (e.g., meetings, public events, etc.), and, no, new recruits won’t be treated as if they are joining the Marine Corps. But if the idea of eventually, occasionally, wearing a uniform at a public event scares someone, then what kind of “political soldier” will they be?  In that case, they can then be a supporter, and not a member. Fourth, as the racial situation degenerates, the public will look for a strong hand, and a professional cadre with military-style esprit de corps is more likely to inspire confidence than a bunch of fatsoes wearing t-shirts or who dress up like Batman or Captain America.

To summarize: Uniforms help build a sense of esprit de corps, professionalism, discipline, and solidarity, which is why they have been, and are, used, by organizations. I am not saying that activists have to be strutting around in uniforms all the time; I am not saying that we should repeat the past mistakes of buffoons like Rockwell. But there is a time and place for esprit de corps, a sense of solidarity, and the need to present a professional look to the public (indeed, is wearing a “suit and tie” the “uniform” for men attending Amren meetings?).  

My point here is that we who want to build a New Movement should revisit the idea of a knee-jerk hostile reaction to uniforms. My opinion is that tasteful, professional uniforms, used appropriately, can be a useful adjunct as a tool for building group cohesion and projecting a particular positive image.

Practical Aesthetics

Aesthetic esprit de corps.

The subject of this post may, at first, seem completely unrelated to (dissident) political activism.  But if you plough through the whole essay, hopefully the point will be made clear.

I often am struck by how various objects, particularly in the public sphere, are painted with various colors when such would seem to be superfluous to the function of the object. In other words, why does aesthetics play a role in conjunction with form and function?

There are of course practical reasons for painting objects.  In particular, painting metal often serves the purpose of protecting it from rust or other forms of corrosion. However, if this is the only reason, why not have everything a uniform metallic gray?  Why color?  In some cases, one could invoke practical purposes such as visibility, tracking, warning, etc. But that only goes so far. Even Chinese nuclear weapons are to some extent colorful. For what practical purpose?  Why not a uniform color?  Why not just metallic gray? Do they need to track it by eye when dropping it from a plane on a target? You could possibly invoke “tracking” for the bright coloration of the Navajo missile, but that seems overkill for such an alleged purpose.  Isn’t radar sufficient? Perhaps “visibility” (low flying planes?) can be invoked for cranes and also to label them as dangerous construction equipment. But still, there must be more than just that. The fact that many bridges are painted green is often ascribed to aesthetic considerations, such as blending in with nature. Does this door need to be green or people couldn’t find it? What is the practical purely functional explanation for this color scheme?

And of course cars and clothing come in different colors and one can think of many, many examples in which there is an interest in the appearance of an object that goes beyond the fundamental practical concerns of functionality. Most people take all of this for granted and never consciously notice it. The reader can make an effort to observe all of the instances of aesthetic modifications of objects, beyond that required for function, in their daily lives.

I propose that in addition to whatever purely practical purposes one could invoke, there is a deeper psychological and social purpose for these aesthetics  – which we can term “practical aesthetics” as they do serve a purpose even if that purpose is not in the practical sense of the actual physical function of the object.

I therefore posit that appealing aesthetics promote, among its viewers, better social behavior, efficiency, alertness, discipline, a sense of professionalism, and a desire to maintain standards necessary for the proper functioning of society. This is “good optics” in its most elementary sense, promoting a sense of esprit de corps among whatever group of people are interacting with the object, whether these be particular groups (e.g., military, workers, teams, activists) or the general public. Consider the differences in attitude and morale if military equipment was all a dull gray and poorly maintained; if bridges, cranes, factories were all dingy and colorless, everything slipshod with minimal care invested in appearance – a lack of care that raises the question if there is an equal lack of care invested in actual function. Everyone involved is more likely to more effectively participate in maintaining an entity if that entity is presented in a pleasing manner that reflects care and focused interest. If society demonstrates care in maintaining an entity even down to the level of its external aesthetic appearance, that will (in theory, depending on the quality of the relevant human material) promote each member of that society also demonstrating such an interest.

The same principle is at play in the military, with the emphasis on clean, neat, and pressed uniforms, shaved and groomed soldiers, and properly folded bedsheets. None of that is absolutely necessary for warfare. In theory, a stubble-faced, disheveled soldier can fight as well as any other, and of course, in the midst of battle, these aesthetic considerations are put on hold.  But as to why these standards exist as the default in the first place, one needs to consider discipline, esprit de corps, and the importance of maintaining standards. Disorganized sloppiness for “minor” issues can lead to slack attitudes leading to disorganized sloppiness for more important tasks, and this is corrosive of discipline and for morale. Thus, certain aesthetic considerations influence the efficiency of the military unit. Color, form that is not related to function, and other aesthetic accessorizing of military equipment no doubt plays a similar role, independent of whatever purely practical considerations inform appearance.

Aesthetic features of uniforms (in general, not only for the military) can be in part ascribed to the purely practically functional need to distinguish friend from foe; however, that objective can be achieved by small differences that do not require the full aesthetic variation often observed. We are often told that uniforms for pro-White activism is “bad optics” (as if all of Der Movement’s shenanigans are good optics) or somehow “un-American” in the non-military sphere (Really? What about the Silver Shirts? And what “American culture” remains in today’s debased age?). But that criticism reflects certain preferences and opinions of those making those comments, as well as – I will admit, somewhat justified – fears that the morons of Der Movement would interpret uniforms to mean dressing up like SS men, complete with swastika armbands.  However, the fact that uniforms may be abused does not mean they are inherently bad. I suspect that contrarian individualism and a need to concentrate on “optics” debates rather than on core ideology informs much of “movement” obsessiveness here. I see nothing wrong with appropriate uniforms worn under appropriate circumstances. Uniforms can be more of the practical aesthetics of a dissent political movement, to produce a certain desired mental state in friend, foe, and third party observer.

This consideration also informs the dress code of American Renaissance meetings, which I approve of. Wearing a suit and tie is not a great burden for participating in what is supposed to be a serious conference (whether it is or not is another question). There has to be some standards of professionalism (although the standards for milady should be equally high, and I am not sure that it is). Even the gangster stereotype dresses in suit and tie (at least in the “old days”), so there’s no reason why a political activist cannot do so.

Some may accuse me of hypocrisy, since this blog has been criticized for its no frill, “unaesthetic” appearance. But that misses the point. Practical aesthetics are context dependent. Sometimes a streamlined, simple, spartan presentation is what is most appropriate.  The Sallis Groupuscle is not a “brand” or a “business” and I am not interested in readers who are going to be attracted by bright colors and provocative pictures. This is an intellectual political and metapolitical endeavor and I do not want to distract from the actual written content, which is what the readers should focus on.  When considering the examples given above of color aesthetics, you will note the simplicity – no slogans or weird patterns or pictures. Practical aesthetics need not be complex. Such aesthetics needs only to achieve their objective.

In summary, as part of the larger question of “optics,” practical aesthetics, used to produce a certain desired attitude in the viewer, are important. Certainly, any dissent movement, which wishes to present an attractive character to observers and to cultivate cohesion, an esprit de corps, and high morale among members, needs to pay careful attention to this issue, always remembering that context is important, and that an aesthetic presentation ultimately exists as a means to a desired end, not as an end to itself.