Let us consider together.
Am I a hypocrite for decrying the vulgar juvenile writings and speech of others while sometimes indulging in mockery, ridicule, and invective myself? I think not, since my objective is the deconstruction of the failed “movement” as well as of the System/Left; therefore, a hefty dose of vituperation, often tongue-in-cheek, is just what the doctor ordered. The use of ironic humor, parody, and the well-placed insult, done intentionally and strategically, differs in form and intent from the all-too-serious crazed lunacy of both Right and Left. So, there is no hypocrisy because the two sets of behavior differ in their origins and objectives.
What about the argument that dispassionate and wholly objective commentary is more effective than subjective passion-fueled invective? For a peer-reviewed scientific study, yes. For metapolitical analysis sometimes yes, sometimes no – it depends upon context. But for more practical “politics” (broadly defined) – including Dissident Right politics – usually not. True, there does need to be a core of objective truth, rationality, and facts, that’s the foundation. But that is clearly insufficient in the cut and thrust of real world politics, where passionate polemics rule and where mockery, ridicule, and invective have their place as invaluable tools in dealing with the inherently irrational and chaotic maelstrom of human thoughts and emotions. We may (or may not) regret this, but it does seem to be the reality we must deal with.
I have had some well-meaning people give me advice that I should be solely dispassionate and purely objective. The problem is that I have tried that (to at least some extent) in the past and it simply doesn’t work. Yes, it may impress a small number of academically-minded, high IQ types who (like me) prefer that type of argumentation. But it doesn’t “move the needle” with respect to changing minds and influencing discourse on a wider level – or, better said, it can do so, but only when coupled with other types of commentary that are more polemical and aggressive; material that is more irrational and subjective.
That is a point I made here:
…a call to “preserve our distinctive genetic information” is unlikely to motivate most Western individuals to defend their genetic interests against the titanic forces arrayed against them. It almost certainly will not motivate the masses, who, as Michael O’Meara rightfully points out, are always induced to act by “myths” that encompass a cohesive worldview. Even rational activists can often become more motivated by these “myths” (which may of course constitute objective facts to a considerable degree) than to a pure empiricism. Thus, the “myth” of Yockeyan “High Culture” may be needed to motivate the defense of rational Salterian EGI.
The rational and irrational together can be synergistic, and the latter can assist in promoting the former (and vice versa?).
In addition, compare the dispassionate, objective work of Salter to the passionate, polemical work of Yockey and note that the latter is much better known on the Dissident Right. Further, to the extent that the former is known, much of that is due to my own somewhat passionate and polemical (albeit also objectively empirical) promotion, defense, and extension of that work. Again, an underlying foundation of rational objectivity is always helpful, but without a more subjective, sometimes aggressive promotion, the valuable objective work can become buried and thus politically irrelevant. There is a place for passionate polemics. Man is irrational, after all.
On a smaller, more personal, scale, I can’t help notice that my blog posts that are of the more passionate and polemical type typically obtain more page views, and other indications of interest, than the more dry, objective, and dispassionate posts (on, say, population genetics). One can argue that page views or “likes” and other manifestations of popular approval are not the best measure of the worth of a post or argument, and perhaps the more dispassionate arguments will stand the test of time better than the other type and have more long-term impact. Perhaps. And I will continue in producing such content, but the evidence so far is that such dispassionate, objective content simply isn’t enough. If you don’t add some “spice” to the “stew” the “stew” will be neglected, despite its nutritional content.
eginotes 
You must be logged in to post a comment.