Ten Counter-Revolutionary Detours That Sabotage Dissidency
Raphael Machado
In a general way, the political dissident sphere, meaning, anti-liberal and anti-modern, has extensively developed throughout the last 10 years in our country. However, it is still haunted by certain deficiencies and childish detours that sabotage its growth.
The dissident sphere is full of self-sabotaging and counter-revolutionary ideas. In many cases these ideas are spread with ingenuity. In some cases, the ideological sabotage is intentional and is used in order to fragment or paralyze the dissident sphere.
Even when these ideas could be put in between quotes from Evola or Nietzsche, or pictures of American families from the 50s or Arno Breker’s statues, all of them are counter-revolutionary ideas which must be extirpated from our sphere, by all means necessary.
10. Childish Bucolism
In a general way, the dissident sphere has long surpassed certain historical optimism related to Futurism and took cover in a radical critique of urbanization, of the mechanization of human relations, of faith in the techniques and of certain artificialization caused by a departure from nature and natural cycles.
In front of that, it became common to idealize the “rural life”, with its “blonde women on wheat fields” and its “cabins in the forest” (with Wi-Fi, of course). There is no problem with deciding to live in a small city or to decide to work the soil. The problem is when this is seen as a substitute for political action and militancy.
In fact, there is something to be celebrated in farming, in working the soil, in closer human relations, but everything regarding that must be mobilized as a symbol in order to motivate a concrete political struggle, to be set also in the cities. Outside of political struggle that fugere urbemis nothing but conservative cowardice dressed up as traditionalism.
9. Bourgeois Domesticity
Another mean widely used in the dissident sphere to legitimize one’s very own innercy and cowardice is the motto “today’s real revolution is to marry and have children”, it isn’t rare to see it related to the previous point. Maybe among incels the notion of building a family ends up being a great conquest, but outside of that environment this causes astonishment to be raised up as a banner.
It is evident that our post-modern era of late capitalism and liquefaction of identities involves certain doses of repetition that “the sky is blue” and “2 + 2 = 4”, given that in an era where people can have “Apache attack helicopter” as a gender it can really be seen as something from a different world to marry someone from the opposite gender and having kids in the old ways, but it isn’t something particularly revolutionary to marry and have kids, and that doesn’t substitute political action either.
To perpetuate one’s own family lineage was always considered important in all traditional societies, but that is something natural and, except for those with a monastic or similar vocation, it is the least that can be done.
In the eyes of any form of authentic Traditionalism, that discourse is nothing more than an appeal to bourgeois domesticity, where the home becomes the center of a man’s life and his concerns revolve around “paying bills” and “growing in life”.
When you renounce political action in order to play as “mommy and daddy” you are, simply, outsourcing the permanent political issues of our time to your children.
8. Dread for Party Politics
It is common in dissident rhetoric to have a certain anti-political moralism that analyzes all involvement in bourgeois party politics as “corruption”, “betrayal”, etc. That discourse is the typical conformist infantilism dressed up as dissident political radicalism.
Psychologically, this refusal to engage in bourgeois party politics expresses a certain general dread about the adult world. It is a kind of “Peter Pan Syndrome”, but applied to politics. You cannot get into a political party, but you can be a 30–40 year old man who has not yet matured in relation to his adolescence in the “scene”.
The world of bourgeois party politics is famous for its compromises, dealings, negotiations, pragmatic alliances, etc. All of that causes enraging and contempt in every dissident, which is perfectly justified. However, in the concrete conditions of practically every country in the Western hemisphere, to take part in party politics is one of the most important roads to the conquest of the only real objective that a dissident must have: power.
So if one would want to destroy the party system, turn the table and end the game as soon as possible, still any dissident who has no involvement or initiative in this area, albeit secondarily, must be seen as an amateur or equated with stupid teenager anarchists.
7. Lazy Spontaneism
If you would ask Lenin, or his Italian heir Mussolini (it is not me who said it, but Lenin himself…), on the way forward to revolution they emphasize invisible ant work: hours spent typing, time wasted deciding and organizing bland logistic issues, writing articles for small local newspapers or speaking to a dozen people.
Revolutionary political action is nothing romantic at all. Romanticism comes later, with the poets of the revolution.
Against this often tedious reality, many dissidents make the case for the “awakening of the people”. It is the notion that eventually (a messianic and milleniaristic “eventually” which could be tomorrow or could be in thousands of years…) the people will get tired of “everything that is there”, and then spontaneously they will rebel and overthrow the government.
Naturally, in this situation, the pimpled fat teenagers from 4chan will go out in order to lead, as natural chiefs and innate Kshatriyas, the insurgent masses. An illusion which would be swept by reading Rebellion of the Masses by Ortega y Gasset, or Psychology of the Masses by Le Bon. This lazy faith in the spontaneous awakening of the masses is usually related to the previous point, the dread of party politics.
In general, anyone who casts anathema about someone who joins parties, disputes elections, etc., argues that if we spread enough criticisms of Holocaustianism, as well as images of naked statues in vaporwave aesthetics, eventually “everything that is there” will change.
6. Idealist Defeatism
Sincerely, I never took seriously that old idea that, in sports, what matters is to compete or “do your best” and not win. It is obvious that the most important thing is to triumph! To conquer medals! To reach notoriety! To be recognized as one of the best!
In the same sense, in politics, I have always instinctively turned my eyes everytime I heard, in the dissident sphere, someone starting that mumble-jumble saying that “the most important thing is not to win, but instead…” Now, if you are not interested in winning, what are you doing in politics? Feeding your own ego?
Among many dissidents there exists this notion that the “right” ideology grants in advance a “moral victory” that makes any concrete, objective and historical victory dispensable. You can be a Nobody isolated in a kitnet with a Facebook page followed by 200 people, but since you read a couple of books by Julius Evola, you are now a true Kshatriya and you are destined to Valhalla. Or you could have a “movement” of a couple of dozens of people who don’t do absolutely anything aside from hanging out a couple of times in order to drink and take selfies.
If anyone asks to one of this dissidents what is that they pretend to do in order to take power or why exactly things don’t seem to go out of place, then inevitably they will tell you that “everything is the fault of [insert here, indistinctly, Jews, Freemasons, Muslims, Communists, or all of them at the same time]”. Of course, they are not responsible for the fact that they literally have no strategy, or even a simple plan that would make sense.
See: they could, at least, try. But not even that. The “moral victory” has already left them satisfied. It isn’t rare to see those very same people falling into all of the ideological vices previously described here.
5. Naive Accelerationism
An aggravated infection by contact with the alt-right dissident sphere with their myth of the “boogaloo”, in our sphere there is no lack of dissent in those who believe, firmly, that “The System” is on the verge of collapse, and that tomorrow even the world can become in a Mad Max style scenario.
Whether because of Peak Oil (which, let’s face it, fell out of favor), Revolution of the Machines, a Global Civil War, of an innate unsustainability of Capitalism, or by any other reason, dissidents with certain survivalist tendencies (generally only in the virtual world) prepare for “The End”.
They affirm, then, that they will come out of the roads in order to restore “Traditional Society”. Aside from the fact that they will face the Red Command, the First Command of Capital and the Justice League on the streets, which will probably be tragic, the main problem is that this scenario is a fantasy that serves to remove the need for methodical militancy, meticulous construction of the revolutionary process and political pragmatism. We do not need to do anything, just stockpile cans of tuna and have a .38 to “protect the family”.
The great dread that this category of dissident avoids to realize is that we are already “in the End”. In an End that, if left to inertia, will have no end. Change “The End is Near” to “This Will Never End”.
4. Dissident Trotskyism
A common problem in the dissident sphere, and not only in Brazil, is a certain tendency to sectarianism based upon an ideological puritanism which turns any minimal discordancy about secondary issues into the main contradictions.
In this sense, instead of having a big dissident organization (naturally, with its variants) we see how a myriad of national-socialist organizations proliferate with an extremely specific focus, with a number of members varying between 1 and 20, and which disappear as soon as they emerge.
Sometimes, it is not a matter of ideological puritanism, but just a matter of ego among dissidents who are incapable to fit under a hierarchy and to adhere to a revolutionary discipline, and that split by any personal disagreement.
3. Political Necromancy
Photographs in black and white, constant references to dead political idols, bibliographic list almost completely occupied by dusty old tomes from the 19th and early 20th centuries, on topics as current as an electric car.
All of us have already watched that and we continue to watch it happening in dissident propaganda channels of many groups, or even in their own personal profiles.
Many dissidents are prisoners of the past. Lack of affection? It is not possible to be said, but these dissidents seem to feel insecure or even threatened when we have to deal with contemporary topics and with original contemporary authors (and not mere commentators or repeaters of the dead).
Tradition, for these dissidents, is not a light bearing the possibility for spiritual liberation, but instead a ton of links which send you to slogans repeated ad nauseam. Such as there is a “politically correct unique thought” in the post-liberal world, there is a “politically incorrect unique thought” in the dissident world, based upon treating literally any work written by a dead man related to the Third Political Theory as if it was a Bible.
Trying to be an optimist, at least it is not like the liberal left, who transformed the Harry Potter books into their Bible…
2. Pseudo-Traditional Anti-Statism
Whether it be due to liberal infiltration or by simple opportunism of trying to attract ancaps and libertarians, there exists a minority among dissidents that, on purpose, does not sufficiently distinguish criticism of the Modern State from liberal criticism of the State.
It is clear that this “theonomists” will fantasize their philo-liberalism with all possible traditional tonalities, from Nietzsche’s citations that call for “criticism from above”, passing through childish elitism. But the conclusion is the same, the State must be destroyed in order to be “rebuilt” later, only this time traditional, authentic, organic.
The ancap support for these criticisms does not cause any noise, which arouses sincere suspicions.
In reality, from a Traditional perspective, any State, even the modern one, is better than the chaotic and anomalous plunge in post-modern undifferentiation. The State, insofar as pure form, is not something meaningless and does not match Anarchy. This is the basics of Evola’s political thought.
That is a peculiar “traditionalism” that is combined with Focaultian liberalism and with autonomist post-Marxist from Toni Negri and Michael Hardt, at the same time with ideas from Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Poppe. In cases like the ones of Marcos Ghio, these notions end up becoming associated with supporting ISIS and Al-Qaeda, in the sense that “defending Assad is to defend the modern and anti-traditional State”. These arguments will also appear among neonazis who pretend to justify their support for Ukranian terrorism against the people from Donbass as well as their anti-Putinism. “Putin is bourgeois!”
All of these are apostles of a generalized weakening of the State as a means of achieving a “more just order”.
Evidently, we know what is behind this and where these ideas ultimately lead.
1. Marginal Fetishism
Ask any dissident thinker from the last 50 years about the fundamental “What Is to Be Done?”, and all of them, in an unanimous way, will talk about the need of drinking from the Gramscian wellspring in order to be able to promote the institutional permeation of our ideas.
It is necessary to produce academic content, it is necessary to join and actively participate in unions, it is necessary to carry out grassroots activism and to organize communities, it is necessary to produce dissident art, it is necessary to build up contacts and networks of influence with political parties, it is necessary to use social media in order to try to make popular dissident ideas. To popularize, we will insist. Not to increase the number of “marginals”.
However, there are still many dissidents who will insist on the most innocently marginal behaviors, while posing as radicals. Fake accounts with anime avatars, completely insane conspiracy theories, MGTOW, and a lot of mannerisms and fetishes which cause aversion in ordinary people, even in those who have a tendency to dissent.
The reality is that there are a lot of people who feel more comfortable being part of a small political niche, usually ignored by the mass media and public institutions, and will do all that is possible and impossible to keep dissent in that way.
Source: http://novaresistencia.org/2021/02/26/10-desvios-contrarrevolucionarios-que-sabotam-a-dissidencia/
