What Are We Doing?
We can wrap this up in one sentence: I am starting a new post before I go grocery shopping, and you are reading this. Easy enough.
That was snarky and not very funny, I know. When I ask, “what are we doing?”, I do not mean it literally. But then again, I do. What am I doing when I write this? What are you doing when you read this? More generally, what is the right doing when we write and read articles? What about when we listen to podcasts? Or hang around on Telegram? What I am questioning is why does the right do what it does? By “the right”, I mean anyone to the right of the Republican party. Steve Bannon is “on the right”, Darren Beattie is “on the right”, nationalists, neo-reactionaries, and T/t/raditionalists are “on the right.” For the most part, this loose coalition spends the majority of its time online, even if there is in-person action as in the case of Bannon or nationalist activists. Side note: I refuse to say IRL…writing pamphlets is “IRL”, or else we slander Thomas Carlye, and the internet is the 21st century equivalent of the pamphlet. Okay, why? Why do people like me have a Substack, or send in articles for The American Sun? Furthermore, why do you, and people like you, read my ramblings, or the writings of people much better than me.
There are two, broadly speaking, answers to these questions. One is hobbyism, one is influence. Explaining the right’s internet activities via hobbyism posits the following: everyone has a hobby, everyone has a niche interest, and there is a peculiar segment of the population that finds joy in reading, and writing, about the ideas of even more peculiar people, people like Thomas Carlyle, Julius Evola, John C. Calhoun, and Hillaire Belloc. It is fun to discuss authors not typically taught in school or university, and it is even more fun to offer critiques and improvements on these authors. Another explanation is that we are trying to influence the world…or at least local politics. If we are speaking mere hobbyism, then read no further. If we are speaking influence, then we need to figure out what we mean by this. After all, it is not immediately apparent who we are trying to influence. Who am I trying to influence? Who is Ryan Landry trying to influence? What about Academic Agent? Mike Enoch? I cannot answer for anyone other than myself, and in doing so I hope to offer a justification for what might be described as self-indulgent scribbling.
When we speak of “the right”, we are referring to, no matter how it is described, a faction of the population that seeks to move the political discourse to the right of liberalism. There are alternatives to hyper-inclusive mass democracy, human-rights based ethics, and a belief in equality. Although the right differs on which alternative should replace liberalism, it is undisputed that liberalism ought to be replaced with something better. So, there is at least one concrete political goal that this loose coalition seeks to achieve. If the right is serious, and if we are correct that there is at least one concrete political goal that the right shares, then it really cannot be hobbyism…for restructuring the political landscape of America is not, by any definition, a hobby. If we are correct that 21st century pamphleteering is either hobbyism or an attempt to influence, then we must conclude that the right is aiming at influencing…influencing…whom? Someone who can actually bring about a political realignment, obviously! Okay, but who is that?
As said here and here, someone who can achieve, or help achieve, the political goal of the right will be connected to a PAC, a 501c3, or a 501c4. So, when we talk about influence, people like me are trying to catch the eye of one of these types. When I write about the need for a Providence centered right, or spigot pointing, I am writing for, at the end of the day, someone who will give me money or, and this is the significantly better option, for someone who has the capacity to translate these ideas into a successful electoral campaign. I do appreciate, and I truly mean this, all of you that read Scattered Roses who are not in charge of a PAC or a 501c, but, if I am completely honest, I am writing for the handful of subscribers that I know, or have a hunch, has real politcal sway. Please do not misunderstand me, it feels really good that a number of people like my work, and each new subscriber I get makes me work that much harder to make something enjoyable for you. However, unless I am reaching people of influence, what I am doing is mere hobbyism. There! We just saw the magic word: influence. Who am I, and the rest of the right, trying to influence? Those who have political influence.
While there are some who believe that their writings and podcasts will lead to a mass movement, this is not a live possibility. Let us think in terms of markets. What is the market for political theory? Philosophy? Any media that takes longer than fifteen minutes to consume? Already a small one. Okay, what portion of those markets fit within the smaller market that is geared towards a specific political leaning, no matter the leaning? Even smaller. What portion of that even smaller market will want to read about Traditionalism? Nationalism? Reactionary thought? You are probably getting the picture now. A very crude market analysis reveals that only a minority of a minority is interested in right-wing pamphleteering, and only a minority of that will be interested in your pamphleteering. Do not despair, this does not mean you are irrelevant (I am only partially consoling myself here), and it does not mean that there is no future of the right. On the contrary, those who are the most influential only end up influencing a handful of people…albeit this handful is a very important handful.
Let us take a break and recount a conversation I had the other day. I was talking to someone who was very involved with the early Alt-Right who knew the invitee list at the 2016 National Policy Institute (NPI) conference. Prior to 2016, NPI had held yearly conferences that brought together the likes of Peter Brimlow, Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye and Jared Talyor. What started as a small social gathering turned into an intellectual vanguard that gave credibility to a much larger cultural phenomenon. Culminating in 2016, with the election of Donald Trump, representatives from very high-profile PACs, 50c3s and 501c4s were invited to NPI 2016 and the afterparty, both as a courtesy. Courtesy? Yes, because it was already established that these well-funded, high-profile, organizations were going to fund the Alt-Right and cement it as a political force. After the infamous “Hail Gate”, in which Richard Spencer echoed a Nazi rally and threw up a Roman salute…the donors’ seats were empty; they left, dropped the Alt-Right, and never came back. This story is well known at this point, and I have been told this story from people that were at NPI 2016 a number of times, but it never ceases to amaze me that the right was that close to institutional power.
I do not recount this to dunk on ole Dicky, but to illustrate what 21st century pamphleteering can lead to. Up until 2016, the folks at NPI, and those in its orbit, were simply folks like me (albeit with much more clout), but in the lead up to the election of Donald Trump, they became the reading, listening, and watching material for the big fish. Brimlow et. all did not write articles or give speeches as a hobby, no, they did it because they knew, eventually, they could influence those who have political influence. This is the goal of all 21st century pamphleteers. This is what we are doing.