The Eye of Sauron

I had a post put together recently regarding the now well-known “Knock-Out” game.  It was mostly written, but something about it didn’t feel quite right.  The message was still unclear.  My point of view quickly turned out to be indefensible.  Frankly, it wasn’t the sort of thing I was willing to put my name to, and I ended up throwing it out.

Was this the right thing to do?  Would I perhaps have been better suited by rewriting the whole thing and putting it out anyway?  Was my choice the most prudent option, given the circumstances?  Honestly, I’m not particularly interested in the answers to those questions.  Most of the fun is in the act of musing on them, not in the final conclusion itself.

Some people stick to platitudes like “Never give up” when assessing these sorts of decisions.  I dislike that sort of process, preferring long and probably unnecessary musings.  It’s a good bit of intellectual fun if you’re into that sort of thing, although you do run the risk of letting those sorts of games interfere with the decision-making process if you take them too far.

But I ramble.  I’ll get to my point.  The eye of Sauron has turned its gaze toward us.  With the recent TechCrunch article, Neoreaction has now, all of a sudden, been shown to be on the radar of the mainstream media.  I’d have preferred this sort of thing had happened on our terms, but we never really had that option, I suppose.  All of you who have read “The Art of War” no doubt share my disappointment.

Now, mainstream outlets will never cast us in an honest light.  It’s just not what they do.  As someone who writes for his university’s school paper, I can assure you that the news is considered a necessary but not sufficient condition for editor approval.  With my gig in the Opinions section, in which we’re supposed to display our ideological predilections, I get a great vantage point to observe what happens to articles that stray too far from what the editors are hoping for.  I’ve noticed typos in the published articles that weren’t in the submitted writings on more than one occasion…

With the increased attention (which will only continue to increase as more and more hit pieces are put out on us), it behooves us more than ever now to continue to refine our arguments and our ideological positions.  We claim to hold the banner of truth, but truth is messyAny time we assume our own correctness, we allow ourselves to become complacent and our arguments to grow staid.  The need to constantly proves our correctness is what drives us to develop stronger and stronger arguments.  Winning over intellectuals is a good first step for us, and the constant refinement of our positions that is required for this process is a beneficial process.  This is why things like the Anti-Reaction FAQ are good for us.  Legitimate, intellectually honest debate leads to the development of better arguments (speaking of which, the list of responses to the Anti-Reactionary FAQ is growing steadily, but could still use more entries).

Still, it is inevitable that some neoreactionary arguments are going to be found lacking.  When these situations arise, we will be faced with the decision between refining the arguments further and retreating from some of the more extreme positions.  The resolution(s) that arise from these turning points are going to divide and define the different subtypes of Reaction.

To consider one example, let us weigh the question of white privilege.  Some reactionaries might be content with denying its existence.  I’m not so sure about this.  It strikes me that there are certainly situations where it is a definite advantage to be white, the same way that in different circumstances it might be more advantageous to ones interests to be a man or a woman, respectively.  I definitely don’t deny that such a thing as white privilege probably exists, although I’m in the same vein as Free Northerner here in thinking that if it does exist, there are legitimate justifications for why this is so.

Once again, I find myself merely stating what is fairly obvious, but if an argument turns out to be flawed, either stop relying upon it, or tweak the argument.  Sound arguments are our one of our best tools for opening up people’s eyes to the world around them.  Some of the traffic we get from increased mainstream exposure will be willing to listen to what we have to say.  A poor argument on our behalf will hurt us more among the intellectually curious and genuinely open-minded (those individuals who we’ll have to rely on bringing into the fold) than any shabby and poorly-framed article.

One final thought before I wrap this up: It might not hurt to get some of our more eloquent and diplomatic spokesmen out there in more mainstream outlets subtly sliding in neoreactionary ideas into what might seem at first glance to be innocuous mainstream drivel.  This sort of priming might have some utility when it comes to shifting people out of the narrow confines of the Overton Window.  It wouldn’t be by much (if at all), but it seem worth a shot.  Larger entities would be nigh impossible to subvert and/or infiltrate in this fashion, but it could easily be done with more local media, as well as publications geared to a more conservative audience.

Perhaps I’ll write more about that later if I can sufficiently develop my thoughts on the matter…



2 thoughts on “The Eye of Sauron

  1. infowarrior1 12/01/2013 / 3:34 AM

    What will be your next application of the “Art of war”? Considering the situation now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s