Reasons.
While presentation and optics are important, the failures of our side have deeper origins. I will list and describe the most fundamental of these.
1. Whites are less ethnocentric than other groups. This is a prime fundamental problem that obviously has no quick fix.
2. Elites side with the Left. There are many reasons why they do so – economic, ethnic, etc. One major factor among those elites who know better is their apparent belief that a slow decline is preferable compared to some sort of catastrophic racial reckoning to actually solve the race/culture/diversity problem. They would rather “punt” the problem downstream to future generations than to suffer the consequences of “lancing the boil” and dealing it with now. Riding out a long slow decline is their preferred strategy; however, if the elites can be convinced that the decline may be faster than they thought, and a precipitous collapse is coming sooner than they predicted, some change in their attitude may occur. But I am not sanguine about that.
The Elite-Left alliance is what produces social pricing against the Right, particularly the Far Right, and what produces hate speech laws and other examples of repression against Whites defending their group interests. Rightists believe they have more to personally lose via activism than the Left, and that is true, but that is a secondary downstream effect of the more fundamental issues at play.
There is no way out but through the elites. There’s only two ways I see this happening – either, as alluded to above, some fraction of the elites can be convinced to take our side, even if for no other reason than self-interest, or the System collapses to such an extent that the elites lose much of their power and interests conducive to our side can fill part of the power vacuum. Well, there’s a third way as well, but unlikely given the retarded mindset of the Right – infiltration of the System so parts of the elite are slowly replaced by us. That’ll take time that we can ill afford (it should have been started decades ago), and will require a level of discipline, seriousness, and long-term strategic thinking severely lacking on the Right.
3. People on the Left (and Jews in general, compared to Whites) are more serious and psychologically intense than those on the Right.
The Right, in its juvenile stupidity and HBD-inspired obtuseness, mocks this psychological intensity as “neuroticism.” Well, if that’s the case, all I say is we need a lot more neurotics on our side. I suppose Yockey and Hitler are examples of “neurotics.” Well, that’s what we need, not a dispassionate analysis of “high Asian IQ” written by a placid milksop being sodomized by a strap-on-wearing Chinatrix.
If people on our side really believe in White Genocide and The Great Replacement, they certain don’t act like it. Even when one controls for psychological intensity and for Elite preferences, leftists always seem to outcompete rightists. There may be another behavioral traits at play that result in the Left always being more active, more dissatisfied with the status quo, more aggressive, more involved in every way, apart from the general trend of psychological intensity. It well may be that those with a more rightist mindset value stability and “conservative” (broadly defined) behavior as compared to the Left. There is also a basic asymmetry between the inherently forward-looking, futurist, progressive, revolutionary, optimistic, utopian mindset of the Left and the inherently backward-looking, reactionary, pessimistic, “Golden Age in the past,” mindset that unfortunately characterizes the Right. The former tends to promote action and self-sacrifice; the latter to suppress it.
Of course, from a “thermodynamic” perspective, the Left’s objectives of chaos and degeneration are far easier to achieve. Yet, paradoxically, the Left puts more effort into their more achievable goals than the Right does to its less achievable ones. Is it that the Left has confidence that their work will pay off and that the Right believes that “resistance is futile?”
To summarize – the grand secret of the Dissident Right is that no one actually wants to do anything. By “anything” I mean effective, meaningful, rational, legal political and metapolitical activism. The mantra – when in doubt, do nothing; when not in doubt, do nothing; in all possible circumstances, do nothing. It’s all a joke, just entertainment for hobbyists. Of course, the (Far) Right always loses. To them, it is just entertainment. The Left wages war; the Right has fun. The former always wins; the latter always loses. Why are we surprised?
4. Paradox – the Left supports affirmative action for the broad society but generally practices meritocracy among its own ranks, while the Right supports meritocracy for the broad society but practices affirmative action in its own ranks – especially in the Far Right. Your “leaders” are meritless, juvenile incompetents whose major objectives ultimately revolve around fundraising.
5. Bad dogma. The crazy and stupid dogma of the “movement” attracts low quality individuals and alienates those of higher quality (including STEM people and academics/intellectuals in general) and also contributes to the abovementioned affirmative action program. It is ludicrous nonsense promoted by meritless losers (see point four) to entertain the useless hobbyists who constitute the rank-and-file (see point three) to elicit donations (see point four again). Serious people are repulsed by “movement” nonsense. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear; putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it an attractive woman. Dressing up “movement” trash with “good optics” and “good aesthetics” doesn’t make it any less trash.
Other serious issues like social pricing and the low quality of the human material among rank-and-file “activists” derive from one of more of the abovementioned five basic problems; therefore the listed problems are those most fundamental (although everything is connected to each other; I am simplifying very complex issues for the sake of illustration).
All of the five problems listed above are difficult to solve, but some are relatively easier to solve than others. Among the difficult ones to solve is number one – the relative lack of White ethnocentrism. Number one is likely to be solved only by long term selection – if Whites survive – and the only thing to do now is to coalesce together more ethnocentric Whites who naturally will be more attracted to our cause. Numbers two, four, and five are theoretically solvable, at least partially, they are those that are easier to solve in a relative sense, but it is unlikely in the extreme that anything will be done in that regard, at least for the foreseeable future. Number three seems almost as intractable as number one. There seems to be innate behaviors characteristic of rightists, of Whites, and thus particularly of White rightists, and one may as well try to reason with a brick than to get most of these people to be serious, committed, consistent activists. The human material to get things done just does not exist on the Right. It does on the Left; hence their constant winning, as opposed to the fake and delusional “we’re winning” nonsense coming from right-wing retards and grifters.
I am not sanguine about solving any of this. But we should at least understand what the real problems are, so those few among us on the Right who are serious do not waste more time and energy trying to “fix” false problems.
One more thing. In my analysis of point five I wrote of trashy “movement” dogma:
Serious people are repulsed by “movement” nonsense. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear; putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it an attractive woman. Dressing up “movement” trash with “good optics” and “good aesthetics” doesn’t make it any less trash.
The opposite is a concern. I understand that optics and aesthetics are important. A public speaker – at least one from the Right – should look and act respectable and not be a babbling disheveled wreck. Written material should be coherent and logical, with proper spelling and grammar. Audio and/or visual material should be presented effectively. There needs to be collaboration between people skilled at message content and those skilled at message presentation (but this would require people to be active and actually do things, so we’re back to square one).
Very well. But why should optics and aesthetics of a message be considered as important, or even more important, than the actual content of the message? I have problem with the idea that important content, serious messages, powerful paradigms, objective facts will be ignored if they are not presented with all sorts of “bells and whistles” and made into a “catching” entertainment presentation. One can argue that I am confusing prescriptive and descriptive, that I am uselessly complaining about what should be, rather than pragmatically dealing with the reality of what is – the reality that people need entertaining aesthetics to pay attention to serious sociopolitical messages.
Maybe. But there’s a place for prescription here. Serious people, the type of people who will actually DO things, seem to me to be the type of people who would focus on message content rather than an entertaining message delivery. I can point out that entertaining aesthetics are no guarantee of success. The British National Party produced a very well-made and entertaining video that had ZERO success and ZERO real-world impact. You can pour all your time and effort into optics and aesthetics and problem number three will still exist – the do-nothings will be nicely entertained by your content and then proceed to continue to do absolutely nothing. The end result is the same regardless of optics and aesthetics – endless failure, endless inertia, and endless nothing. If we cannot attract serious people with serious messaging, then the serious people we require do not exist (as seems to be the case) and the entire effort is for nothing.
If we just put out entertainment, we will attract those who want to be entertained. That may be a good business model for Der Movement’s “brand” that has its objective as fundraising, but is a poor political activist model for serious people.
Maybe we are all really doomed.
But, if that is so, maybe we should focus our attention on the small number of serious people (of they exist) who are primarily attracted to message content? That prescription may run afoul of descriptive reality and end in failure. Almost certainly it will.. But concentrating on optics and aesthetics will also almost certainly end in failure as well.
eginotes 
You must be logged in to post a comment.