SurrealPolitiks S01E032 - Narrow Nationalism
SurrealPolitiks

SurrealPolitiks S01E032 – Narrow Nationalism

Written by SurrealPolitiks
Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱
SurrealPolitiks - Realpolitik in an Unreal World
SurrealPolitiks
SurrealPolitiks S01E032 - Narrow Nationalism
Loading
/

I recently had occasion to view a speech given by an Australian gentleman by the name of Joel Davis, which he gave at a meeting of the Patriotic Alternative in the UK.

You can find the speech in full on their website, and I encourage the listener to give it their consideration so that I cannot be accused of taking the man out of context, because I found the talk more than a little bit disagreeable, and mean here to use it as an example to describe a broader pathology plaguing what has been called the “Dissident Right”. In that vein, I’ll here note that I have not yet invited Mr. Davis to be on the show, but that I am by no means averse to discussing this subject with him at a later date. During today’s broadcast, I checked what was once Twitter (find me there @TalkRadioDeity) and came to know that Mr. Davis is @joeldavisx, and you may feel free to encourage this.

Mr. Davis is hardly alone in his view that race is the central question of our politics. To whatever extent this may be in error, you could easily forgive a man for making it, given the hysteria surrounding the subject in our discourse these days. Mr. Davis, however, is altogether less forgiving of those who disagree with his view, describing, for example, Germans who do not vote for AfD as “politically retarded”, along with the rest of the “masses”, without much effort to understand or articulate their motives.

Met with this realization that the political parties he supports do not win elections, Mr. Davis seeks different and altogether less precise measurements of success. His talk was titled “Activist Politics and White Advocacy” and “The Amazing Joel Davis” as he was described, was introduced as “an identitarian commentator and activist with a focus on white advocacy and political strategy”. As he begins to speak himself, he states that he is to share his thoughts on the subject of “political strategy” that have evolved for him over the last few years.

But if Mr. Davis has a focus on political strategy, it was not presented here. Mr. Davis would go on to make no subtle suggestion that electoral politics was a futile endeavor, though he was careful to state that it is “not bad”. Specifically stating that “unless we can raise billions of dollars” White advocates cannot compete in this realm. He describes “activism” as a different category of action, the purpose of which is to “change what’s popular”, whereas “electoralism”, as he calls it, makes use of, in his words, leverages, what already is popular.

The flaws in this are many. Some quite subtle, some quite glaring. None at all rare. To the extent the talk has value, it is in his articulating these flaws in a manner more befitting a response than much of the less articulate hurling of insults and subterfuge common to this phenomenon.

Anticipating that subterfuge, let us get a few things out of the way, because if we do not, and even quite likely though we do, our touching on this subject will incur the most predictable of responses from social media commentators who cannot show their faces in public, yet consider themselves quite the authority on how to change public opinion. Were we not to head them off, we could expect a word cloud of their comments to include the words “Jew, Fed, Fox News, Mitt Romney, John McCain, No Wall, Cuck, Sellout” and associated phraseology.

So, we might state up front that not all politically relevant activity directly pertains to the winning of the next election.

In this, we encourage the listener to take note of the careful wording. “Not all”, as in, some limited amount. “Politically relevant activity” – which is to say, activity that has some bearing on politics whether or not that is its intent. “Directly pertains” – which is to say, if it is politically relevant, it necessarily pertains, though perhaps not directly. “To the winning of the next election” this being of course quite loaded, in that, victory or defeat, this election or one subsequent, and, of course, the issue of elections itself, are all addressed therein.

We exclude here, for purposes both practical, theoretical, and just a little bit legal, discussion of obtaining the powers of elected office without winning elections. Mr. Davis does not present as an advocate of violence, and whatever anyone else tells you, “post politics” is advocacy of violence. While some may theorize about the legitimacy of other means, it is as predictable as any given sunrise, that the existing political system would violently resist such means, and that the seeker of the power would either be destroyed by this or be compelled to take up arms himself. Since this is so very obvious, one must assume that he who advocates non-electoral answers has at least some awareness of it.

For this reason, we must note that, given the peril of such advocacy, it is not inconceivable that some have this as their aim, and dare not say it aloud for strategic reasons and ultimately fear of the consequences. The sober political analyst, must assume this of much that is said about wild eyed political theories which downplay the importance of the next election. We offer this as a mere footnote, and not as an accusation against Mr. Davis.

Our focus thus far on the “next election” is not an effort to be short sighted. Far from it. If today you lose a city council seat and in 5 years you rule the world, well played. That’s fine, but the next election is ever present. Generally speaking, there are no fewer than one a year in any given jurisdiction of the United States. The longest one must ever wait is two years, given the schedule of US House Elections. For this reason, electioneering actually never ends. What we sometimes call “Election Season” is just that part of the perpetual process that becomes too loud to ignore for the average citizen.

All that occurs within a society, impacts that perpetual process. The election is just the means by which we delude ourselves into thinking we have solved our differences peacefully, and thereby avoid more chaotic violence than that provided by the State. Every discussion at the dinner table, every word uttered on the news, every song on the radio, every success in business, every criminal thrown in prison, every Facebook “Like”, or algorithmic suppression on X, impacts the general state of social affairs. Assuming for the sake of argument, though not as a matter of actual certainty, that our votes are counted honestly, that collective consciousness formed by all that has happened between one election and the next, and all the collective events and memories prior, are translated into votes which elect a government, and so this process continues in perpetuity.

For this reason, it ought to go without saying, and it is conspicuous to the point one might describe as suspect the frequency with which it is said these days, that actions not aimed at electing a specific candidate to a specific office on a specific date, have political relevance. Whether it is parents complaining at the PTA meeting, or torches illuminating the campus of the University of Virginia, to the extent that any activity can be described as non political, it is only to the extent that we do not perceive its political significance.

We might further note, that some of the most successful political activity, escapes this very perception, by design. Activity which is very political, entirely too often, parades as non-political activity, be it because this activity is subversive and hides its political nature, or because the participants have no idea what they are doing.

This requires stating, sadly, because within the Dissident Right, when one calls attention to the centrality of elections in social affairs, and their unavoidable significance, there emerges the most predictable and repetitive of social media uproars screaming oft refuted talking points about everything from Republican failures to the merits of insurrection.

But on this show, we say with nauseating frequency, that by the time election day rolls around, all the important decisions have long since been made. This is both in terms of general cultural attitudes, and as a consequence of partisan activity to determine who the candidates are. People who say silly things like “vote harder” demonstrate either their malice or their ignorance, because no sane person suggests that one can increase or decrease the significance of showing up on election day to check a box.

In many cases, it is true enough that a man’s vote means nearly nothing. Notably, a Republican voting in a Presidential Election in New York, owing to the nature of the electoral college system, has no hope of impacting the outcome of a presidential election with his vote on election day.

This is not to say that he can have no impact on the election, of course. He can donate to the candidate. He can volunteer in a competitive state. He can promote the candidate or his narratives on social media. There is hardly any limit to what he can do outside of that single useless vote to impact the outcome of this contest.

And, of course, it is too often lost on those in the Dissident Right, either through ignorance or through intent, that a Republican primary voter, be he in New York or in Texas, has a very significant impact on who the candidate shall be, by voting in the primary. He has all the more significance, if he is involved with the Republican Party, and engages in the sort of activity that directs party resources and energy toward one candidate or another.

And even in his activity outside the party, such as on social media, he has influence on the prevailing narratives within the party. This is of a certain sort just because he demonstrates that he is a supporter of the party’s ideas. It is of a more significant sort if he is a committeeman. It is all the more significant than this, if he is the chair of the party within a giving territory. His social status, as it relates to the Party, is dictated in some part by his level of participation. And so, if say, the Republican Party in New York is fonder of Chris Christie than of Donald Trump, and his primary vote is unlikely to sway any delegates to Trump on account of this, his status as a committeeman or chair still conveys the significance of his position when he advocates for the candidate on those primary voters outside of his region when he acts on social media.

We proceed from here hoping to have amply demonstrated that we are not “politically retarded”. We understand very well the thing we will be predictably accused of failing to grasp. And since we do comprehend this, we do not dismiss the significance of what Mr. Davis calls activism. The construction of narratives, the spreading of ideas, the various social mechanisms by which political opinions go from unacceptable, to debatable, to respectable, to obvious, and eventually cease to appear political because they are so widely accepted, occurs prior to the casting of ballots.

The Left has, indeed, mastered this art, as Mr. Davis notes during his talk. They have managed to dominate our country, and most of the world, not because they are winning elections, but rather they are winning elections because they dominate our country and so much of the world.

The problem we here aim to address is this idea that these are somehow separate categories of action. That one is either involved in influencing elections, or they are involved in something other than this that is of political significance. The challenge we find with this train of thought is that it allows no measurement of success. It encourages failure, and the failures we see so reliably in the Dissident Right and similar movements which have preceded it are the common and predictable result of this pathology.

Lacking patience, and intensely sensing the direness of circumstances, having consumed literature or otherwise been exposed to information doubting the merits of democracy, it becomes acceptable and even encouraged to act as if elections are somehow a separate or even irrelevant phenomenon from other sorts of political activity. In this mindset, the measurement of success is social approval from like minded ideologues. When others do not join in the fun, they are dismissed as, to borrow Mr. Davis’s wording “politically retarded”.

Let us be fair to Mr. Davis before we borrow this phrasing again, and quote the statement in full.

And by popularity, I mean it as a, you know, it’s not just opinion polls. You know, we’ve had a recent opinion poll, I think, from Germany that said something like 70 to 80% of Germans are against mass immigration. But if you look at the parties these people vote for, I mean, this is including people who vote for leftist parties, you vote for centrist parties. If you’re against mass immigration, why aren’t you at least voting for the alternative for Deutschland? You know, the only party that’s actually against it in Germany. So it’s like, yes, people will tick boxes on opinion polls that they’re against something, but they aren’t actually politically conscious of even a very basic step of voting for the correct party to align with your belief. Or perhaps they care about mass immigration, but they care more about, I don’t know, getting their taxes down or I don’t even know what goes through people’s heads. You know, the masses are frankly, whilst often sympathetic to our talking points politically retarded.

 

So Mr. Davis says “I don’t know what goes through people’s heads” and then he says that they, are politically retarded. He, a man purporting to speak on political strategy, has not the vaguest idea, why people are voting in a particular way.

Well, as a matter of fact, that is the first thing a political strategist would want to know, but Mr. Davis is not, a political strategist.

Consider what he says his talk is based on, he opens the talk by saying

Basically what I’m just going to discuss is a basic collection of few ideas around political strategy that have evolved for me in my time. You know, the past few years, engaging a lot with white nationalist leaders around the world, kind of analyzing problems in different countries, discussing ideas with leaders. And, you know, so hopefully you get something out of this. The basic idea is that I think there’s two core modes that you could really break mass politics down into. You could say there’s activism and electoralism.

 

Well, no wonder he has no idea what goes through people’s heads. Instead of trying to understand that, he has been talking to White Nationalist leaders. He has been studying White Nationalism. He has exhibited not the behavior of a political strategist, but of an ideologue. He has been studying the things that interest him, that get his heart rate up, that inspire him, and he is not interested in what goes through those other people’s heads, and so he finds himself entirely unfamiliar with this.

Now, we would not suggest that Mr. Davis is politically retarded. He likely understands the issues of our day better than the average AfD voter, we speculate. And I’ll note, that’s all I can do, is speculate, because this is the first time I have ever heard of Joel Davis and I have not made any effort other than watching this 25 minute video a couple of times to familiarize myself with his ideas.

But what he does not understand, first and foremost is something that you really don’t need a political education to discern. Perhaps if you have been married for a very long time or you are not very ambitious in your love life, or you are just so attractive that the best women are tripping over themselves to catch your eye, you might not know or have forgotten this, but for most of us, we can figure this out from just a little bit of dating experience.

If you want to win over a woman – sure, you must be confident of yourself. Sure, you must be able to speak about what you know, and what you believe, and what interests you. But if you want to woo her, if you want to gain the sort of emotional leverage that causes her to take an interest in that which her eyes alone did not fall in love with, then you are going to have to put some effort into getting to know what she wants. What she believes. What she thinks about when she is alone. What she desires for her future. Then you are going to have to organize your own thoughts in some alignment with hers, and your own words in alignment with those thoughts, and your own actions in alignment with those words. You must do this to convince her, first that you understand these things, then, to convince her, that you too want those same things, and then, that you will give her some approximation of what it is that she desires.

But if you have not the vaguest idea what she wants, if you are so enamoured of yourself that all you can think about is the products of your own imagination, and the men that you admire, well then you are going to be quite limited to women who are very interested in you, and that, in my rather tragic experience is not what causes a man to marry up, to say the least of it.

You know, when I first took an interest in politics was after 9/11. When I saw those towers fall, and I knew my country was going to war, I turned on the television and I had not the vaguest idea what any of these people were talking about. This frustrated me tremendously.

So, I began watching the news all the time. Mostly the Fox News channel, but I made a point from my earliest efforts to understand these things to see what the other channels were saying. I found the liberal news channels intolerable, even then, but I made a point to catch a little bit each day anyway.

Eventually, I stopped doing that nearly as often. It just got to the point that I didn’t think what they were saying was important. I watched the Fox News Channel and eventually conservative talk radio as my exclusive sources of information every day from then until March 9th 2009, when I found myself in a bit of legal trouble that shattered my understandings of government and politics.

Having had my foundations rocked, I became open to new ideas, and this is how I discovered libertarianism. I became totally immersed in this.

But you may recall from the timeline, that this was in the heyday of the Tea Party, and so there was a great deal of fusionist activism going on with conservatives and libertarians, and I could speak quite comfortably with my new conservative friends because I was very familiar with Fox News and conservative talk. I understood what they thought about because I was familiar with their media and their ideas. I was not so well read as the intellectuals among them, but to the average conservative activist, 7 years of my nightly viewing of Bill O’Reilly was quite sufficient to make myself appear a fountain of wisdom.

Yet I was then quite determined to make more libertarians, so I argued and I argued and it was somewhat amazing to my libertarian friends that our conservative friends put up with me in the way that they did, because these debates did not last quite so long with them.

You see, they had spent the preceding seven years getting their information from Alex Jones and the John Birch Society, so when they spoke, what conservatives heard were deemed “conspiracy theories” and conservatives understand that if they speak of “conspiracy theories” that they will be called crazy and so they do not want to talk about such things.

I, instead, spoke about the constitution. Conservatives really like the constitution. It is what gives them their political legitimacy. And so, to pick a powerful and not so random example, the libertarians, you may know, are not such big fans of the war on drugs, and back then, neither was I. And so, I would say to my conservative friends, if the federal government has the power to outlaw drugs, then why did they need a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol? Why did they need a whole other constitutional amendment, to overturn that ban? Clearly, this is not within the powers delegated to the Congress, and so it is unconstitutional.

It would have done me no good to speak to them about the medicinal benefits of hallucinogenic mushrooms or abstract theories about who owns the body, but when you speak to a conservative about the constitution they listen very closely and they do their best to apply their knowledge and reason and this argument was in fact unassailable. Now, some of them simply thought that the constitution should be amended to ban drugs, or that the state and local governments should set harsh drug policy, I did not convert them into libertarianism, but because I met them where they were they were at least sympathetic to the argument that the federal government’s war on drugs was an abuse of authority.

Today I have little interest in loosening drug laws. It would be too gentle that the FBI take every fentanyl pusher in my neighborhood to the park where their customers are overdosing and execute them on mere probable cause. But this is an example of meeting people where they are, and this is the absolute first thing that a political strategist would need to understand to call himself such a thing.

Instead of this, Mr. Davis considers it his job to racialize the Right, and, this here is worth quoting at length.

There was a recent book that was written by an Italian guy, Guido Tieti. I didn’t read the book because it hasn’t been translated into English. It’s on the Italian. There was a few reviews and a podcast that was done. There was a review in the Unz review, I think, and in counter-currents. And there was a podcast that was done by someone with him, with it was speaking English, that counter-currents put out. And it has some interesting ideas, a lot of ideas that I share.

It’s a guy from Casa Pound, if you guys have heard of that organization. And he identified this kind of two main fundamental relationships in contemporary political communication. And this kind of corresponds to my activist electoralist distinction. One is you’ve got the kind of activist sympathizer relationship, and then you’ve got the kind of political, professional voter relationship. Now, voters are a lower attention span, low information, low agency market, essentially. That’s easily manipulated by the kind of institutionalized forces of professional politics, obviously through the media. But there’s this kind of subterranean architecture, obviously, of NGOs, think tanks, foundations, and so on. That feed into the media, the condition they’re talking points, and align them with policy agendas and so on, that you can’t really mobilize voters against this very successfully, because it’s too complex, basically.

Too complex for whom? The White race? Of this, I have my doubts. Things like this, where tasks are dismissed for a lack of understand or a lack of capacity are not political strategy. They are defeatism. There’s a lot of that going on here. The system of the transmission of ideas is too complex. He does not know what goes through the mind of voters, etc… He continues.

Just as I mentioned before, about these German opinion polls. And even when you can mobilize voters against it, when you have a quote, unquote, populist movement, we’ve seen this with Trumpism in the United States. It’s so ideologically vapid, because it becomes this kind of personal, this personalized attachment. I just like Trump, because I’ve got these vague sentiments, basically, that he’s standing up for Americans. But then, you know, it can get filled, that kind of ideological vapidity can be just filled in by these conservative establishments, fake opposition groups to corrall the agenda into safe avenues and so on. And it doesn’t really materialize in any kind of meaningful change. And so, you know, working within this professional politician voter relationship is just very difficult, unless you have billions of dollars. You know, we just simply don’t have those resources.

Now, there are two things to pick apart here. One, the Trump movement is ideologically vapid, he says. Let us accept this as true. There are reasons to dispute this, of course. Trump did not gain the support he did by being vapid, but the reason Trump became president of the United States was because he won an election, and this necessarily requires appealing to a very large number of people, and if support for your cause is an IQ test, and the winning score is 120, then you are going to lose that contest 100% of the time.

Trump gained the support of serious intellectuals because what he said was not vapid at all. He discussed trade, economics, and foreign policy coherently, and he inspired very serious people to support his candidacy with this. If he did not obtain that support, he would not have had the sort of social proof required to obtain the approval of those vapid “politically retarded” masses that our political strategist finds so confusing.

This is fashionable to say on the dissident Right, that Trump was some kind of, to borrow a phrase, carnival barker. They have adopted the empty, indeed, vapid, attacks that were waged against him by his political opponents in 2016. It’s shameful, and intellectually dishonest in the case of those who have the cognitive capacity to understand what they are doing.

But, of course, then you have to hold the attentions of those masses, and this is not something you do by being a high minded intellectual. They do not think nearly so much as they feel, and so to win a large popularity contest it has to become a cult of personality. That is how he became the President of the United States, and that is what the Left feared about him.

Hitler understood this. This is why everything in National Socialist Germany was about the Fuhrer. It’s not that all the citizens read Mein Kampf and became convinced on the merits. It was that this guy came in with powerful voice and spoke passionately and people cheered and when their enemies tried to chase them off the streets they prevailed in battle.

It didn’t turn out so well in the end, I’m sure you’ve heard, but it took all the armies of Europe and the Soviet Union and the United States to stop this comparatively tiny nation who only a few years prior had been an economic catastrophe enslaved to reparations from the prior war. The people of the country were totally devoted to him, and if you think this was because there had been a great deal of reading involved I’m sorry to inform you that this is not how mass movements work.

Elite opinion and popular support are different things, and it takes both to govern. You cannot do it with one or the other. You can’t make the masses become economists and philosophers just because it suits your purposes.

So, the second thing here is the concept that because something requires billions of dollars it is somehow beyond our grasp. Well, that’s actually not the case. If the survival of our people costs billions of dollars, then we might do well to think more about the stock market and spend less time talking to White Nationalist leaders from around the world. We might even read some books written by Jewish people, if you wanna maybe think outside the box a little bit.

This is a recurring theme. I don’t know what these people are thinking. The media ecosystem is too complex. This costs too much money. For these reasons, I pursue goals that require none of these.

Well, fine. You can do that. Maybe it brings you some kind of edification, but you’re certainly not describing a more virtuous or certain path than those who work every day to overcome these obstacles. And while Mr. Davis is more respectful of this perception than many online who parrot these kinds of ideas, that is certainly what is being conveyed here. He is not giving up because he finds a task too difficult, he is just endowed with the wisdom to know that these tasks are impossible, unlike those lesser men who toil in vein.

He continues.

The activist sympathizer relationship, however, is something that we can get a lot more traction with. And the activist sympathizer relationship, it’s not about trying to win elections, it’s not about, you know, it’s about trying to change the terms under which the political discourse within which elections are even conducted. I said, so, you know, we can look at like models for this, like, for example, feminism. There’s no feminist party that’s running any of our countries, that, you know, won 51% of the vote and formed a government. But obviously, feminism has won. It’s pretty much dominating the institutions of every major Western country, all the major political parties. That’s an activist movement. It didn’t try to go out and win elections and form a feminist political movement that would contest for local council districts or something. It formed an organized activist pressure movement that was able to kind of plug itself into the political establishment and change the discourse around women’s rights or whatever. And, you know, we’ve seen the results.

But this is not really a description of what feminism did. Feminism did involve itself in politics. Most notably, in pushing for women’s suffrage in the first place. The idea that feminism was not political, I mean, the fact that we have a 19th amendment should tell you something about this. It necessarily had to deal with things other than their capacity to vote, before women could vote, but this was among the first goals, and since then, politicians have had to choice but to consider the opinions of that half of the population, and while feminist ideas, especially those of latter waves, are bizarre and not at all representative of how women think, what gained them the traction they did was in promising electoral results for politicians. This is so obvious, it is almost confusing that he would have chosen such a poor example.

But there’s more…

And the same model you can see with environmentalism, with, you know, gay rights, et cetera. And I think this is the kind of model that we should look to more when thinking about who we are and what we’re doing as, you know, white advocates. Now, I just might not see it. So I think as well, another idea that I think is quite useful for kind of understanding what we’re doing here and how to kind of stay the course is what I call having a one-dimensional framing or one-dimensional politics, which, in a nutshell, is reducing politics to a pro-white, anti-white polarity, trying to, you know, analyze every issue through the lens of race, a kind of race reductionism.

You know, Marxists talk about class reductionism. Everything is really about proletariat versus bourgeoisie or whatever. We should, basically not obviously not be like Marxists, but we should do the same thing, but with race, I believe, break every issue down. So, the gentleman, earlier, was speaking about climate change and about how climate change, you know, is basically just a way to transfer resources from, you know, white countries, non-white countries, frankly. That’s what the policies actually are, whatever your position is on climate change. We should talk about it like that, rather than simply talking about climate change as fake and you all these boomer conservatives railing against it, but no one kind of points out the elephant in the room, which is that it’s very clearly an anti-white agenda. And, You know, and this is clear.

I think also this polarity, we need to map it onto the left-right distinction. A lot of people, myself, included, would describe themselves at one point or another as a third positionist, and we’ve got to transcend the left-right distinction, and so on. I think this kind of thinking, what I call, like, ideological hipsterism, which I’ve been as guilty of as anyone in the past, is a waste of energy and a waste of time, and it just confuses people. We know voters are that stupid. The masses are that stupid that, you know, the majority of Germans against mass immigration, as I said, they can’t even select the right party to vote for. Going on about third positionism and, you know, bickering about, you know, what’s real fascism or something, you know, it might be intellectually edifying, but it’s not actually going to get anywhere. We need to have an approach that cuts through the bullshit in an intellectually defensible way, and, nevertheless, that can map on to the real polarization that people feel every day, which is a left-right polarization. Particularly, I think, in the United States and the Anglos fear, because we have these two-party systems, I’ve noticed this in Australia, especially since COVID, this kind of social mapping of leftists and right wingers that didn’t really exist 10 years ago, where, you know, social groups are getting split apart because, you know, people that are more conservative, whatever that means, can’t handle being around leftists anymore and vice versa. And this is a good thing, because it’s clear that left’s number one priority is the anti-white agenda. You know, there’s literally no concern that they have that they won’t immediately toss or compromise if it conflicts with their anti-white goals.

So, this I think is useful, but the thing to take into consideration here I’d say is that if you want to map yourself onto the Right, you can’t make them your enemy, and there is a lot of that going on here. He mocks earlier the idea that people will vote based on not wanting their taxes to go up, as if how much of their income is taken away by this government that’s destroying them is going to be irrelevant to people with families. Later on, he says he is more on the socialist side, and this is like, you can’t say this to conservatives if you want to “map yourself onto” their side of the divide. The socialists are the Left, as far as they are concerned, and your opinions about this are not important to them because you do not have any power.

And this is frustrating for me because if you listen to this show, you know that he and I see eye to eye on this part.

He continues…

We saw this with COVID in the United States. COVID’s this big problem. We’ve got to lock down. Everyone’s got to, you know, don’t go in public or whatever. Oh, but, you know, Black Lives Matter want to do marches now, because George Floyd had a drug overdose. So now, f*** that. Everyone in the streets. The real public health crisis is racist, you know. You know, and we see this on so many issues. You know, environmentalism is really bad. Global warming. We’ve got too many emissions. Let’s just import another million Pakistanis that are going to burn as much coal as possible when they get here, because their carbon footprint doesn’t matter because if you think it does, you’re racist. You know, feminism, there’s a rape culture. Let’s import a bunch of Pakistani rape gangs. And, you know, you guys get the message. So that polarity already exists. And another hot take that I want to give you is that the left are the real racists. But not in the way that the Dinesh D’Souza describes it in the sense that the left hate white people, obviously, right? They are actually racists. Our conservatives. They’re not racists. That’s the problem. I wish the right with the real racists. That’s our job.

It’s the way that happened. And that’s key because, you know, we’re not really going to be able to convert leftists. Leftists are already aware of race. They’re fully aware of race and they’ve chosen the other side. We’re conservatives asleep walking through reality. Like, they just don’t, like, literally they are colorblind. And they can’t perceive reality as a result of it because these mental blocks put in the heads of so many people through, you know, the way that people have been conditioned by our culture. Our job is to open their eyes to race. Once you see it, you know, you see it everywhere then all of a sudden the political landscape makes sense. And if someone is already identifying on the right, unless they, it’s because they have an Asian girlfriend or wife or something or whatever that’s really holding them back from embracing racial identity organism, if they’re just a normal white person who, you know, sees themselves as right wing and they’re sick of the tranny nonsense and all the immigrants and so on. You know, once they see it, they can’t unsee it. And then they’re on our side. And that’s really, that’s the activist sympathizer relationship.

And here too, he’s got a very strong point and it kind of baffles me that the strength of it is lost on him. I’ll play the next clip to show you what I mean, but remember that I agree with him in this moment, before he wrecks it.

Our job is developing a larger and larger cadre of sympathizers that’ll then permeate social institutions. And that’s how you get real change because, you know, the, that’s what the left did. And when opinion polls didn’t, you know, get one day to 51% of the population now thinks that transgenderism is real and not a mental illness. Now we can do the transgender. No, they knew that their ideas were unpopular but they built a cadre of sympathizers with a focused and direct ideology and look where that’s gotten them. So I think that needs to be the central focus of what we’re doing. And I think it already is for the people in this room, largely from what I can tell. But I think it’s an important thing to maintain in our minds to talk about clearly. It’s to defend, you know, what we’re doing here.

You don’t actually need to make race the most salient factor in a person’s politics. You don’t need to radicalize them, or racialize them. They just need to know a few basics about IQ and hormones and how these traits are transmitted genetically, and grouped along racial lines due to evolutionary pressures. They do not need to read all the books. They do not need to make it the central focus of their lives. If they understand that there is such a thing as evolutionary psychology, and that it is not, as it has been called “Nazi pseudoscience” then the very legitimacy of the phrase “evolutionary psychology” tells them that personality traits are transmitted genetically and that this explains all of our demographic disparities, and this totally destroys the narratives of White supremacy purveyed by the Left.

Once they see it, they cannot unsee it, as he says. So you don’t actually have to get these people into a totally racialized worldview, they just need to understand that it is a component of their politics.

But even when they do understand this, if you are monomaniacally focused on it, these people, appropriately see you as the weirdo ideologue. You are the one with the narrow mind who cannot understand the full depth of politics. They are very concerned about whether the government takes a tenth, a quarter, a  third, half, or more of their income, and wehn you treat this as some kind of silly unimportant detail, you look like a fool to them. They absolutely care about foreign policy, and if you think we should not care about who wins this or that war, they do not presume that you are above the fray, but rather that you are beneath the intellectual level of the discussion.

He continues…

Now, so the other component of this is, I think our message to the broadly self-identified right is that, you know, we are the only real true foundational opposition to the leftist paradigm and left, like, leftists in general, leftist power. And they make clear leftists do our job for us. They identify us as their main enemy. And, you know, they make it very clear what they stand for. And so someone’s already agreeing that, well, man, these leftists and their agenda, it’s horrible what they’re doing. It’s not that much of a leap to say, okay, well, we’re the only real opposition. So what do you want? Do you want total victory over them? Well, that’s only going to occur if we are elevated. Teaching the right wing to stop cancelling people for being to right wing basically is a large portion of our job. And you can already see this process starting to gradually occur, I think, across the Anglosphere in conservative media world, where there’s more and more acquiescence to a lot of racial talking points and shifting tides in the discourse because of the work that’s been done since, you know, like 2015, the emergence of the alt right.

You know, I think we need to humanize a lot of these people in the conservative movement. They, some people get this kind of mentality that everybody in the entire conservative movement is like, like some kind of agent that’s getting paid off by like these, like, networks of intelligence agencies or, and Masad has like a video of them, like, raping a three-year-old and they’ll never come around at any talking point. I never make any adjustments to their position. And whilst we should hate them, and we should call them out as fake opposition, I think this is a strategic misstep. Our pressure actually does tell. There’s a lot of people in the conservative movement who actually their minds can be changed and they could become more radical over time. We should have, I think, faith in our capacity to transform the culture, not support the conservative party. Obviously, we’re in the kind of realm of activism here. More about changing attitudes, changing the overt and window, so to speak, where it lands in the kind of right-wing cultural space. I think that’s an area where we’re going to win regardless. Even if we do a bad job, we have so much momentum there. It’s already happening, as Tony mentioned, like our idea, it’s time has come, and it’s somewhat inevitable. But I think so much of our work is about accelerating that kind of transformation of the right, the racializing of the right.

And so, this of course was not valueless. Aside from providing me an opportunity to better articulate my existing criticism of a phenomenon less often stated so articulately as here, Mr. Davis and I see eye to eye that the left/right divide has meaningful significance, and utility for Nationalists seeking their seat at the table. We agree that there are things not directly pertaining to elections that have utility as well.

But where we diverge, I hope I’ve articulated fairly if forcefully, and in closing I do not think we have the luxury of assuming our victory to be inevitable. Our enemies can fail. This actually, is certain. What they purport to want, is not possible, and they can only cause catastrophic destruction.

But our victory depends in some part on stopping that destruction, and we cannot do that if we make enemies of those today broadly comprising the center Right. We cannot do this if we ignore economics, and foreign policy. The very fact that we have something which can be described as “the racial issue” is a symptom of a sickness. There is not “A” racial issue. There are many issues, all of which are deformed by engineered demographic changes that are being forced on our populations by malicious actors. All of those issues, have real significance, and the people we need to win over, they understand this too well.

By insisting on a monomaniacal and myopic focus on race, we turn off reasonable people. Far better that we join with reasonable people to advance the interests of the country, and take the opportunity of the comradery that this builds to inform them of aspects of our politics which they seem to be unaware of

I will say again that, I am not averse to speaking to Mr. Davis, and during tonight’s broadcast, somebody @mentioned both of us on Twitter, so after I publish this, I’ll give him a shout, and perhaps we’ll have an opportunity to discuss this in the near future.

Until then, thanks for tuning into SurrealPolitiks.

 

SurrealPolitiks airs live as we do every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern on Rumble, and on Odysee, and on the GetMeRadio App for smartphone, Roku, and FireTV. Your calls are always welcome at 217-688-1433.

 

If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….

Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] and [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!

Leave a Reply

Skip to toolbar