Against Hobbyism

Who enables it?

Some people in the “movement” decry “hobbyism” and “hobbyists” – the idea that there are “activists” who are not serious and who view the “movement” as a hobby and as a source of entertainment; these hobbyists are people who do not (really) believe change is possible or perhaps do not (really) want radical change.  Again, it is just a hobby, a form of recreation, for them.

This type of behavior is common in politics and not only on the Far Right, or only on the Right in general. It seems to be predominantly a White behavior. See this.

Many college-educated people think they are deeply engaged in politics. They follow the news—reading articles like this one—and debate the latest developments on social media. They might sign an online petition or throw a $5 online donation at a presidential candidate. Mostly, they consume political information as a way of satisfying their own emotional and intellectual needs. These people are political hobbyists. What they are doing is no closer to engaging in politics than watching SportsCenter is to playing football…

…Matias is engaging in politics—the methodical pursuit of power to influence how the government operates. If she and the community she represents are quiet and not organized, they get ignored. Other interests, sometimes competing interests, prevail. Organizing gives them the ability to get what they want. Much as the civil-rights movement did, Matias is operating with clear goals and discipline, combining electoral strategies with policy advocacy.

Unlike organizers such as Matias, the political hobbyists are disproportionately college-educated white men. They learn about and talk about big important things. Their style of politics is a parlor game…

…white people reported spending more time reading, talking, and thinking about politics than black people and Latinos did, but black people and Latinos were twice as likely as white respondents to say that at least some of the time they dedicate to politics is spent volunteering in organizations.

Of course, social pricing targets Whites who would organize in favor of their own people as do specimens such as Matias, but, still, one can do a “chicken-egg” argument here and say one reason that (pro-White) Whites are so vulnerable to social pricing is that Whites engage in politics as hobbyism – unserious, disorganized, atomized, etc. Social pricing would lose much of its power with real White organization; it is true enough that social pricing makes the initial establishment of that organization that much more difficult – chicken and egg again. But, all that said, we can ask whether the “movement” by its behavior is actually promoting hobbyism and making real organization even more difficult than it already is.  Let us consider together.

For example, some “movement” websites/blogs have content hidden behind a paywall, and this content only becomes available to non-donors after a lengthy period of time (e.g., 30 days), at which point most readers have likely forgotten about that content in favor of more current material (that is not behind the paywall).

The paradox is this. If the paywall content is of real political value and is not mere entertainment, and if it is of high enough value to be worth immediate access through the paywall, then it is important enough to the cause that it should be immediately available to the entire public, without the pay-to-view model. Authentic activists should not selfishly hold the well-being of the cause hostage to their financial interests. On the other hand, if the paywall material is not so important to the cause, then why pay for immediate access, unless it is merely of entertainment value, hence promoting the hobbyist mindset? This is then like any other pay-to-pay hobby or pay-to-view entertainment; is it no wonder that some activists refer to their own work and those of other activists as “brands." Further, some websites give special commenting privileges through the paywall as well, tying access to full participation to a pay-to-play model.

By linking viewing and/or participation to payment, such as what one would expect from, say, HBO or ESPN, or from some sort of pay-to-play online gaming site, these "movement" entities promote the idea that what is occurring is a form of entertainment service. You pay, you can indulge your hobby of Far Right activity, and you may even fool yourself in believing that your (usually online) playtime is accomplishing something. But from the standpoint of serious political activism, it is a delusion. 

How would the Quota Queens respond? Perhaps the best riposte against my argument is to cite books. Non-fiction books can be very important sources of information, insight, and/or analysis, and yet no one objects that they are for sale, that people must pay to have access, and that the authors are compensated for their work. I myself have no objections to books for sale (including those by activist and activist organizations), as long as they are fairly priced. However, I see a qualitative difference between (1) a book, which is a discrete block of content (discrete in that it is a finished product and not continuously updated, except for the possibility of occasional new editions) that the author provides to the buyer; and (2) an activist blog, which is an ongoing dialogue between author(s) and readers as part (usually) of a continuing effort to produce (societal) change. 

An analogy will help to illustrate the distinction. Assume John Doe is running for political office. If Doe writes a book about politics, most people would not object for that book to be sold and for Doe to be financially compensated as the author. On the other hand, most people would object if Doe were to charge people money to ask him questions at town hall meetings or if he wanted to charge people money to vote for him. It is one thing to sell a book, it’s another to charge money to allow others to engage in political participation - political participation that you desire them to do and that would benefit you and your cause. It would be expected that Doe’s campaign would be financed via donations, not by charging supporters a fee to participate in specific electoral activities and events. Likewise, while activists can certainly sell books without any objection from fair-minded people, it strikes some of us as odd that they adopt a HBO-like pay-to-view attitude toward online political content. These activists typically already frequently engage in fundraising in order to support themselves on their follower’s donations. Do they need to sell political content and political participation as well? Should they? Where does it end? Do we need to pay money to them for an annual subscription license to call ourselves “White nationalists?”

I would put paid subscriptions for journals in the same category as books.  I have no problem with The Occidental Quarterly (or American Renaissance when it was in print) charging a subscription fee so as to stay in business and compensate authors for producing (in theory) high quality material of a discrete (issue by issue) nature. My problem with those journals is was/is with their content, not their business model.  Another analogy would be helpful. Assume that John Doe is a military officer, say, a Colonel. Very well – Colonel Doe may have paid subscriptions to military journals. No problem there. He is paying for access to discrete packets of specialized information that takes time and effort to produce and are, hopefully, of high quality. These discrete packets of information are purchased to be read by Colonel Doe, not in real time and not as a plan of action, but to broaden his base of knowledge in a deep (and time-consuming) manner.  On the other hand, imagine if Colonel Doe gets a message from his commander, General Grifter. The good General says – “if you want to know my strategic plan for the war, pay me a donation.”  Or – “if you want to know the tactics we will employ in the upcoming battle, well then, pay to get behind the pay wall.”  Or – “if you want me to consider, in real time, your opinion of the battle plan you need to be a paid insider.” That would be considered absurd. That would be a military officer having to pay to have real time access to the ideas of his commanding officer, and having to pay to have his own opinions heard without “moderation.” Again, there is a difference between paying for substantial, discrete packets of high quality information for broadening one’s knowledge base vs. having to pay for access to continuously updated real time information and cooperative interaction.  One can be expected to pay for discrete blocks of knowledge that have taken much time and effort to produce and that can have long-term effects to benefit the purchaser; one should not be expected to pay to participate in the basic activities required for the individual or entity to achieve desired objectives.

And don’t cite membership dues as a riposte against my argument either.  We can of course debate whether a particular organization is of any use, and such an organization may have hobbyists as members, but at least we are talking about an ostensible organization with ostensible goals, not just a website or something similarly ephemeral. True, some organizations are little more than fundraising vehicles and as such are also examples of “movement” grifting. However, in many cases, “movement” organizations enable hobbyism “by accident,” through sheer incompetence, rather than by intent - the actual intent may have been, at least at first, genuine political activity. A website/blog with a paywall is hard to similarly defend.

In any case, if the Quota Queens were really against hobbyism then they would eschew the pay-to-play and pay-to-view models for activist participation and to view political material. After all, those models essentially say to the activist that what the cause is about is (more or less) passive entertainment – pay money and read material you might find interesting and pay money to sit behind a computer and see your comments pop up in real time. You’re not actually doing anything of course, any more than you would if you pay HBO to watch TV shows and movies, or pay to do some sort of online gaming. “Movement” activity in this regard is even worse than the aforementioned entertainment possibilities, since Der Movement gives activists the illusion that their hobbyist “fun” is accomplishing something while it of course is not. Making people pay for what are essentially entertainment services of course enables hobbyist attitudes – how could it not?  If these “leaders” were serious then they wouldn’t be running their entities like for-profit news and entertainment companies. They also wouldn’t be putting up financial roadblocks to people to read material related to pro-White activism or to participate in online forums.  

But there’s more.  Besides enabling hobbyism by transforming activist participation into a “pay for entertainment” model instead of facilitating open dissemination of ideas and cooperative interactions, Der Movement also enables hobbyism via its unenviable record of constant failure, its emphasis on digital as opposed to real-world activity, and its absence of any real strategic plan other than to say “we will win, just send us some D'Nations.” The “movement” can’t even define with certainty and finality who is or is not in their ingroup; they’ve been playing the “Who is White”” game for decades, with no end in sight. What kind of serious political entity cannot even set the terms of its own membership?  The defining characteristic of a group is in vs. out; without that, it is nothing.

Whether they admit it to themselves or not, activists don’t take any of this seriously. They don’t believe that White nationalism can win, they don’t believe that their own activity can make a difference, and they don’t believe that their “leaders” are really capable of affecting the broader society. Given that realization, even if it is below the surface of conscious thought, the activist slips into the entertainment mode of passively consuming content (in some cases, pay-to-view) and getting the vicarious thrill (sometimes also requiring pay) of seeing their comments immediately online and their own pseudonym given the label of “insider.”  Fight the System!  What a joke.

Fighting hobbyism would mean that the “movement” and its “leaders” would need to eschew and oppose all those behaviors that enable hobbyism and instead promote meaningful activity that requires participation and contribution beyond paying money to read an article and/or comment on it.

I’m not sanguine that hobbyism will be effectively fought in such a manner. 

But, hey, just call me "insane" and a "paranoid piece of crap," and that makes all my arguments go away, amirite?