You know when you’ve been out of college a while and you realize you need to upgrade friends? I mean, they got you to this point, and maybe there is a keeper in there, but you really need to upgrade to people who more share your career, family, or lifestyle?
Businesses go through a similar cycle, of selling to whomever they can get, to those who others don’t serve well, to those that are mainstream, to depending on their best customers, and if possible they shoot for ferrari-gucci territory of specializing in the pure signal market.
Movements go through very similar evolutions. You start with the fringe because they’re the extreme novelty seekers. The fringe spreads your message to those seeking to augment their own novelties. Those spread to those seeking ideas. To those that are searching for solutions. To those that want a solution to rally around.
What we fail to mention is that we must rid ourselves of people who might be a drag on the next market. And this is sometimes painful. Some people cannot follow. Some have followed enough. Some can follow, some drive, and some lead it. And if you are lucky you develop a group that leads it in different directions (I think that’s us) rather than tries to maintain control of it (as did NRx).
Furthermore, there are people you must very clearly disassociate yourself, your business, or your movement from, because their desires for attention, influence, and control ( or to divide, or undermine ) your ability to gain the next more advantageous market.
Most of you know how I work – very ‘thoroughly’ – by immersing myself in a subject, tearing it apart, and rebuilding what I can from the few grains of truth I found. I then use established groups as test subjects and attack those ideas – because the very passionate defend them intensely. If you are of a certain mind this can be fascinating to watch. If you are of other minds, this can be upsetting. But it is science at its best: exhaustive reduction to operational language.
Over the past few days I’ve been working at making some very clear distinctions, and creating some distances. I have very clear reasons for doing this.
I’ve never considered myself ‘alt right’ because it is synonymous with the use of critique (disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, trolling, propagandizing) and utterly devoid of innovative solutions to the problems we face. Hence why I used ‘New Right’ until others coopted it.
We have seen the main body of the previous alt right crash and burn since Charlottesville. We have seen the intellectual resistance ‘right’ (or rather then right classical liberals) take over the discourse. But they are just creating a thin veil of resistance against the onslaught of the Cathedral Complex.
The question I want to answer, is where from here?
For myself, I want to increase the number and quality people increasingly ‘the ordinary right’. Why?
There is nothing unpalatable about my work – it’s an innovation on classical liberalism. I don’t hate on anyone. Every group can transcend. If we only end cosmopolitanism and take responsibility for doing it.
May 19, 2018 5:55pm