I have already written about why right-wing activism always fails and provided a plan to do something more productive. Still, some people still insist on taking the omnipresent left head on, so below I’m going to offer twelve rules to follow to minimize the resulting head trauma. There are right things to do and wrong things to do, but there are also wrong ways to do wrong things and right ways to do wrong things. Let’s get into the latter.
First, however, some underlying theory.
The political spectrum has two poles: left and right. I refer not to the narrow spectrum used by electioneers and demagogues, but to the spectrum between Order and Chaos. Left is chaos is entropy is uniformity is democracy is violence is war is death. Right is order is rule is absolutism is civilization is differentiation is flourishing is peace is life. The left works always to destroy what the right has built, to gorge itself on the remains and then attack again.
Unlike a predator, though, the left will never limit its advances, which makes the left more akin to a virus, bacteria, or force of nature than a highly-differentiated and specialized creature like a wolf or bear. For rightists dealing with the ever-present left, rather than an attitude of combat, an attitude of sanitation or hygiene must be adopted. The German word Reinigung comes to mind, with its dual connotations of both purification and cleanliness.
The left is a manifestation of entropy on a human scale, on a socio-historical scale, on a civilizational scale. Entropy is an inherent property of this world, and leftism is as well. One must never imagine that he has defeated or conquered the left. The war against the left is perpetual and inescapable. The Red Front can find comrades in the deepest recesses of the rightist’s mind. The omnipresent left agitates for $15/hour minimum wage on the street, and it agitates for more drink and whores in the lower parts of the brain. If the rightist wishes to preserve some semblance of peace and order, in whatever sphere, he must understand and adopt the mentality of a doctor — ideally, of an oncologist.
The rightist must not adopt the attitude of a protester, an aggrieved victim or a crazed fanatic. These are leftist attitudes. The rightist must adopt the frame of mind of an institution-builder. The institution is a ship made of men rather than wood. It will need competent engineers. Later it will need careful maintenance and a discerning captain. A functioning rightist institution is guaranteed to eventually suffer from entryism, ideological drift, and other forms of leftism, not excluding direct leftist attack, physical or social. Mechanisms to combat these are necessary.
The track record of flat resistance to creeping leftism over the last few centuries seems poor, but if you want to take another shot at it, you’re going to need some guidelines. For this reason, I present the following twelve Rules for Reactionaries, tailored specifically to counter the infamous Rules for Radicals, the pinnacle of left-wing activist strategy, written by the grandmaster Saul Alinsky himself and utilized dearly by his protégé.
Excerpts from Rules for Radicals are in blockquote.
The Rules:
“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
Rule I: Power is always what you have that the leftist doesn’t. Contrary to the leftist dogma, power of the “Haves” is also built from flesh and blood. That power will also regularly be more powerful than the power of the “Have-Nots” so long as the “Haves” follow these rules. By definition, the “Haves” will be more powerful than the “Have-Nots,” provided the “Haves” don’t give in to the internal mental community organizers of pathological altruism and wishful thinking. The leftist always targets those perceived to be more powerful — since, to the leftist, power is “not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have” (projection alert!), and since the leftist thinks his targets are more powerful than he is, a leftist’s target is always able to crush the leftist — if the choice is made. So make it.
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
Rule II: The enemy is already insecure, so keep them that way. To say that a leftist is insecure is nearly a tautology, but it bears repeating. Keep the enemy insecure. Recognize their chosen method of warfare and deny it to them, by whatever means necessary. If adequate defenses cannot be developed, look for alternate ways of feeding the insecurity of the enemy: trolling is just one delectable method.
“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
Rule III: Recognize all of the enemy’s possible methods of warfare, and develop appropriate defenses. The leftist is like a bacterium: low individual capital and unlikely to cause harm. Multiplies feverishly, however, and in groups acquires a dangerous rate of mutation that could discover and exploit a weakness in the rightist’s organization before the rightist is even aware. This is arguably the story of Western civilization for at least 238 years. Meticulous preparation is the only solution, and second only to complete avoidance (exit, as some would say) in terms of effectiveness. While any rightist organization should be as resilient as possible to leftism by design, much like one would desire an inherently healthy immune system, there must be conscious and constant examination and preparation for breaches of the city-walls. Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
Rule IV: Do not apply your rules to the enemy. The enemy does not apply its rules to you. This should be a no-brainer, but seems to cause principled rightists far too many problems. Oftentimes the fault lies in flawed principles, but something like that shouldn’t kill the organization before a chance for correction can be had. The highest principle must be exclusion. There is always an in-group and an out-group. Maintain high walls and observant sentries. Refuse entry with exceptions, not the reverse. When the enemy announces itself, do not offer it the charity of your principles. Beware the Greeks bearing gifts. Shoot first, talk later. No good deed goes unpunished, and principled rightists will be punished with a fatal doses of realism.
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Rule V: Be aloof. Learn to take a joke. The enemy can and will provoke attacks. This is a problem for rightists who misinterpret provocations as challenges, the way men might’ve earnestly once challenged each other to duels or fistfights. Do not mistake a leftist’s provocation for a rightist’s honorable challenge. The leftist is trying to trap you. Ignore him.
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
Rule VI: Give the enemy something more enjoyable than attack. The leftist attacks where he senses the most power. Deceive the leftist. Give the leftists an intimidating effigy to gasp and gawk at, then erect a trebuchet beyond their lines of sight. An alternate strategy is to give the leftists something more enjoyable than attack — something self-destructive, preferably. I will stay mum on examples, but I am certain a creative reactionary will always find more than one faultline in the leftist rabble. The Left will always eventually eat itself. Hurry the process.
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
Rule VII: Force the enemy to fight on one front. Forced to fight on a single front, the leftist will quickly run out of steam. Grit is not a leftist virtue.
“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
Rule VIII: Man the defenses. Never let up. So long as there is a rightist, there will be a leftist. The defenses will never stop being necessary. There is no rest, only advancement or degeneration.
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
Rule IX: Discard your ego. Limit your imagination. Leftism is a medical issue for the rightist. Vaccinate, quarantine, amputate if necessary — do not focus on the bloodiness or gruesomeness of the process. Keep calm and carry on. If you panic, you forsake reason. If you forsake reason, you’re a leftist and your bedfellows will find you. On the other end, do not allow hubris to mistake the shadow for the thing. The leftist is not a worthy enemy but a virus. Do not think you deserve a worthy enemy, and do not give the Leftist that dignity.
“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
Rule X: Do not sympathize with the underdog. Sympathize with the rightist dog. This rule is simple: check your altruism, and if it’s leaking past the city walls, fix the leak. Altruism is for the in-group, not the out-group.
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
Rule XI: Tear to shreds the enemy’s proposed alternatives before, during and after the battle. Contrary to the quoted text, a leftist never really has a solution to any problem. The leftist will give that impression, but woe to him who cannot see past it. What this rule refers to essentially is memetic warfare — attacks on the symbols and justifications for an organization. When the leftist attacks, counter-attack. The best defense is a good offense. Give no quarter. Yield no inch. Intellectual firepower becomes a necessity here, and it will have to be used prodigiously. The leftist is well-versed in memetic warfare, and it will take a similarly skilled memetic war machine to fend off the aggression. An organization without memetic defenses is a sitting duck.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions
Rule XII: Never — never — leave a man behind. No enemies to the right; no friends to the left. I require the reading-through of this link. If the leftist smells even a whiff of personal enmity or disloyalty between rightists, he will pounce. The rightist who gives in to his pettiness and cowardice will see his former comrades torn to pieces by the mob, and will really only be getting a preview of his own fate, delayed as it may be. This is a painfully learned lesson and ignoring it frequently means that new talent won’t join you, since talent doesn’t like being betrayed and left for dead. Never leave a man behind.
Notes:
Those are the rules for your reactionary right-wing organization. Here are notes on two mechanisms for good institution-building:
High Barriers to Entry
Expensive entry is an obvious countermeasure against entryism, but it is not nearly as airtight as you might imagine. Leftism can infect existing insiders. Leftism can spend years and years fastidiously signalling rightism only to drop the facade once the moment is opportune. George Soros has money, John Q. Hipster has time — nice reactionary organization you got there; would be a real shame if something happened to it.
The correct way to prevent entryism is enforcing a flesh-and-blood-and-soul Männerbund as the mind, soul and backbone of the organization. Man-to-man vetting based on tangible organic loyalty, trust, honor, love and obedience is the only entryist-proof method of building an organization. If the problem with an organization is that you can signal your way in, you need a method of admittance that lets one see past the signals.
There is only one way to do that and it is for one man to stare into another’s soul, face-to-face, eye-to-eye. Male-to-male personal relationships are the most leftism-proof building blocks of any club.
The correct (signalling-proof) ways to vet new members include: drinking, talking, debating, fighting, shooting, sporting, hiking, chatting, travelling, hazing, walking, feasting, discussing, lifting, horsing around, causing trouble, getting in trouble, avoiding trouble, drinking. The incorrect (signalling-prone) ways to vet new members include: ideological testing (prime entryism), no barrier to entry (prime entryism squared), active compromise and appeals to “mainstream” to get new members (prime entryism cubed, leftist singularity unavoidable, euthanasia recommended).
Ideological testing is not sufficient, and I would go so far as to say it is not even strictly necessary. Once you’ve vetted someone for demonstrated personal loyalty and competence, their stated ideological profile is largely meaningless unless they’re spouting off like a Stalinist. Testing is the cherry on top, not the cake itself.
Official Status Mechanisms
I say boo. Unofficial status mechanisms are official status mechanisms. The distinction between official and unofficial is leftist twaddle. What is unofficial is often more real and powerful than what is official. What is organic and unspoken is antifragile, while what is official is more often than not fragile and artificial.
Suppose you institute large family size as a numerical and empirical measure of status. Say, every leader in the movement needs to have at least three kids. If you think a progressive is beyond having a large family to infiltrate a rightist organization… well, I chuckle deeply: the leftist possesses boundless capacity for deceit and destruction, and may even do so unconsciously.
A traditionalist Männerbund would be foolish to pick “family size” as a metric for status. The very thought is modernist in construction, as if one’s soul can be accurately judged by a number. A wise Männerbund will keep a complex and informal system of status based on personal relationships between its members. Family size can certainly factor into this account, by proxies, but it is not the be-all-end-all. That would be inner capital, manifested through loyalty, trust, honor, love, obedience, strength, courage and the other traditional virtues.
A metric simply cannot replace wise judgment. What you need is not a metric, but an organic and highly-functioning judgment network with many actors with skin in the game consistently executing wise judgments — a hierarchy.
Conclusion
So there you have it. Is this guaranteed to lead to victory? In my estimation, not even close. There are deeper reasons why that is the case, but that’s a story for another time. The rules will keep you alive though, and keep you from being politically castrated and humiliated. Stick to the rules if you want to survive in the political arena.
Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.
Action > Inaction
Get out there. Take to the streets. Attend rallies. Engage in subversive art. Get back into the gym. Lift weights. Learn to fight. Network, network, network. Create.
Don’t be lulled into sleep by the siren song of apathy, false-consciousness, and self-delusion.
Nobody should be inactive. There’s always something to do.
Exactly. Great piece, btw.
I dont see politics as the most important thing, but it is means to gain more breathing and action room, means to check or de facto abolish many of the advances of the left. Even if the left wins, there will still be many resilient and uneradicable traditional conservative communities left. Those we will build.
The left is outwardly imposing giant, but it has thin and whimsical clay feet. The left has already had to make many painful concessions.
A few desultory addenda. If they only state the obvious, or are otherwise retarded, please ignore.
-If your organization plans on being highly selective, then you need to be able to make the prospect think it’s worth his while to clear the bar of entry; the organization, too, must “become worthy”. Ideally, this would mean that membership confers access to some scarce resource or other not easily available elsewhere. Figure out what you have, or can have, to offer and then offer it.
-On how to deal with entryists, et cetera. Ask: Mutatis mutandis, what would a Leftist do? Here’s what. The first time the new guy blinks out of turn, they would immediately not shout, but *scream* him down- and the second time, they’d 86 him. N.B. in the second case his life doesn’t just go back to normal, which takes us to:
-Compulsory membership and jurisdiction. One of the reasons the Left is so successful is because, as far as the Left is concerned, if you’re a woman, homo, coloured, etc. then you’re an a priori member. You can choose to either be a member in good standing or an apostate- and the organization will do whatever it can to give you grief if you choose apostasy.
N.B. considered sociologically, it is precisely this compulsory character that separates the true Mannerbund from a hobby club, and which lends the latter its characteristic high social solidarity as opposed to the mere club which anybody can join, and anybody can also leave at anytime.
At the very least, the person invited to prospect should be absolutely shunned by the others if he refuses.
This is basically an exercise in absurdism as Mark has been ranting about why activism is awful for the last 4 months, and then mints this gem, which attempts to mimic an activist handbook. Not very passivist, dude.
You clearly have absolutely no experience in organizing at all, and no comprehension of why Rules was significant when Alinsky wrote it. I’d refer you to Rule #2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” Why? cause it results in confusion and embarrassment, in exactly the way this article is confusing and embarrassing. In your “Rule 2” you state that “the enemy is already insecure,” which is an utterly ridiculous statement contradicting nearly every previous assertion you’ve made on this topic.
It’s impossible to avoid the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, Rules for Radicals isn’t the kind of thing that can be re-written from a reactionary perspective because Rules applies to any political agenda, just like The Prince. It just happens to be written by a communist jew, who was one of the most successful agitators in modern history. If you had ever read the book you are mimicking, you’d know that all the rules are currently being employed by the Alt Right movement on a daily basis.
You vaguely mention things you likely read off the Wikipedia page for Rules, such as your comment on “don’t sympathize with the underdog.” When Alinsky wrote about the underdog (Rule 11), he was NOT telling readers to sympathize with an underdog, he was teaching them about framing issues, – how to manipulate public perception. This and his many other points are clearly lost on you.
Perhaps you should read Rule 4 and consider how it applies to this article.
re-read the first paragraph
Oh thanks just re-read it. Excellent reminder of the level of juvenile and hypocritical absurdity going on here. At this point SM is organizing book clubs, raising money, spawning ideological sites, broadcasting ideological podcasts, and publishing advice for activists based on Saul Alinsky manuals, awhile claiming they are opposed to activism. It’s hard to even believe this isn’t some kind of postmodern art.
On the right-is-order left-is-chaos thing:
All orders need a little bit of chaos, because otherwise they become brittle and weak against change. Not even a God-Emperor really knows what’s going on in the universe; and what’s more, what was best today might not be best tomorrow.
This is what worries me about the current year’s reaction. I get that reaction is naturally against the progress myth and its infinitesimalising nature, but ironically you need a little of that liberal progressive evil to prevent ossification followed by collapse. More is not always more. Things have a sweet spot. I think the ruination that progressivism has caused has made people a little blind to that fact.
Radicalism is exciting, but to paraphrase Roger Scruton (and Lao Tse), “The truth is boring”. The truth is the middle path, the big practical road that everybody ignores because they’d rather run through brambles and fall off a cliff. I think it’s important to have a culture where living is passionate and decision-making is boring. This is what I long for: a real return to realism, after the grand ideologies of the modern age (capitalism included).
PS: there’s an argument to be made for reaching for extremes as a motivator/framing device, and then taking what you get; but once you make that golem there’s no easy way to turn it off. Queue rightist holiness spiral, ending with the proverbial baby being thrown out with bathwater
Utterly correct. The understanding of the Left/Right divide as Chaos vs Order, while in some limited respects correct, really lacks nuance. If you throw out “becoming” in favor of “the already become” you are going to have problems. The Right should be a literal Reaction to and rejection of most of Leftist thinking, however it also has to have a positive project to work towards that isn’t just “keeping away Leftism”.