The Problem With Metapolitics

A very brief analysis.

Let us consider metapolitics, a buzzword among the more “intellectual” denizens of the Far Right.

The practice of metapolitics is, of course, important; I agree that metapolitics is prior to, and more fundamental than, straight, overt political activism. I wholeheartedly support metapolitics and I have no innate problem with certain activists concentrating on metapolitics to the exclusion of anything else.

Nevertheless, I am often troubled when I hear certain “movement” precincts ramble on (endlessly) about the importance and preeminence of metapolitical work and cultural activism.  Perhaps it is a matter of context and tone, but when I hear the endless prattle (often delivered with a smug and self-satisfied attitude) about metapolitics, what I actually hear is: “We have given up on accomplishing anything in the real world, we are abandoning politics to the Left and the Mainstream Right (really, two heads of the same anti-White monstrosity), we despair of actualizing our ideology into reality, so we are just going to play-act as activists, sniff with elite disdain at political work, and pretend that our faux-intellectual pursuits actually accomplish something useful.” That’s the implicit message I believe, and that is the essential problem with metapolitics. Nothing is wrong with metapolitics itself, nothing is wrong with metapolitics as a mean to an end, but everything is wrong with metapolitics as an end in itself, as a cop-out, as an abandonment, as a retreat from the hard work of making a difference in the real world, from the rough-and-tumble of politics, infrastructure, and community.  The champions of metapolitics seem to have no long-term strategy to transition from metapolitics to politics, from theory to action, from ideas to the actualization of those ideas.  The time for action, for political action, is always deferred to some vague future time, and the hard decisions and hard work required for such action is put off, and inaction is justified by the premise that the actualization of ideas is “premature” and “we need more time to lay the groundwork via metapolitical work.”

The problem here is that Def Movement has been peddling this theme for decades now, and we are not advancing.  Trump’s election and the growing opening for right-wing populism presented opportunities for political work, but this has been mostly squandered, given “leadership” incompetence, a lack of strategic vision, an unwillingness of some to get out of their metapolitical comfort zone, and also, truth be told, the failure of the metapolitical memes themselves, often fossilized “movement” dogma that repulses thinking people and impedes real-world accomplishment.

Things are “premature” because Der Movement wasted time and money on uselessness and stupidity, never laying the groundwork, the infrastructure, for effective political work. Think - all the millions of dollars wasted on the happy penguins and their blue state suburban lifestyle could have gone to opinion poling, surveys, market analysis, behavioral studies, strategic problem solving – all directed to understanding the reasons for a lack of progress and an appeal to White “normies” - and devising approaches to overcome the impediments to progress.  

Metapolitics without an eventual political purpose, and without some strategy for moving toward the purpose, is useless.  It’s a distraction and a cul-de-sac.  However, metapolitics in the service of politics is, as noted above, essential, powerful, and a foundational prerequisite for meaningful political work.

Odds and Ends, 10/9/19

In all cases, emphasis added.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day: 

In reality, people in marketing are mostly shiftless sociopaths…

Yes indeed:

After the war, he developed a successful career in journalism and advertising.

You see, I don't always disagree with Zman.

Never forget, the subhuman slime Donald "sincere man of genuine greatness" Trump refuses to act against Antifa (although he's monitoring the situation...very closely), while, at the same time, his DOJ persecutes his own supporters who are victims of Antifa. The incident linked to above took place in Canada, but of course worse has been occurring, with regularity, in America.

While I am sometimes critical of Andrew Joyce, in general I agree with him more often than not. In fact, he is one of the best and most articulate anti-Johnsonian voices in Der Movement.  In the following, he needles the petty nationalist ethnonationalists, and exposes as a lie the ethnonationalist fraud that asserts that the UK is beset by immigration only because it is part of "the pan-European EU" - 

I must make myself clear. I am ambiguous about the actual meaning of Brexit. I firmly believe that the day after Brexit there will be violence in the streets, chaos in hospitals, resources and infrastructure will be stretched to breaking point, and government will be totally ineffective. Britain will be a disaster. But this will also be the case the day before Brexit, just as it has been the case in Britain ever since the multicultural project was embarked upon. Britain’s most pressing crisis has little or nothing to do with a series of transnational treaties binding it to other European member states. Britain has already imbibed the most potent of toxins, globalism and multiculturalism, and these toxins will remain in the system with or without supervision or government from Brussels. My point is that Brexit will not cure Britain of any of its ills. It will not stop or slow immigration, it will not halt cultural decline or the march of Cultural Marxism, it will not stop Britain being ruled by elites far removed from the life and environment of the everyday Briton. More than a departure from European bureaucracy, Britain needs a new departure from itself.

The ethno-nationalist looks at the Brexit debate and what does he see? He sees a choice between the migrant-welcoming EU globalist behemoth and … what? For a start, he sees “the most ethnically diverse” British government in history, led by a Prime Minister whose first act in office was to rule out setting any limits on the numbers of immigrants flooding Britain. This places Brexit voters in something of a quandary because the primary motivation for the Brexit vote was concern about immigration (see the excellent research of University of Kent’s Matthew Goodwin). What they are now faced with is a Brexit that won’t do anything to change immigration other than reduce the numbers of Poles and increase the numbers of Indians, Pakistanis and others from the Third World.