Mark Citadel – Struggling Tone Policeman/Self-Help Guru

everything I’ve always wanted

A critique or attack upon something I’ve said deserves a response best put into essay format rather than comment rebuttal, so the following will address this article from James at West Coast Reactionaries, in which I am referred to under the somewhat cryptic moniker “some people”, but the article concerns two of my own essays published here, which you can read for yourself via the following links (1, 2)

The first paragraph is just a helpful rehashing of events at Richard Spencer’s NPI conference this past week, which I’ve already gone over, at the end of which he described the AltRight as a “monstrous immature entity”. Immature I’d agree with (it’s a term I’ve used). Monstrous? A bit strong… That’s probably what people imagine the AltRight is from all the non-stop news coverage but I haven’t found it particularly monstrous myself.

There’s some further adjective invective; “sadistic” and “puerile” to describe the activities of the AltRight. Again, not terms I’d use to describe the behavior of many people whom I have respect for, even if we disagree in some areas (including Richard Spencer), and indeed some who I call friends. It has been stated on numerous occasions that I have virtually zero empathy for Liberals and so that does likely cloud my judgment somewhat, but there is a case to be made that while actually ovening someone is sadistic, photoshopping someone into an oven isn’t, and can be classed as black comedy. When we describe these things in such terms, it probably only lends ammunition to the arguments for safe-spaces.

This part is where my own statements on ”meme magic” are brought up, and my astonishment at their success is applied to antics at the recent NPI conference. I’d like to point out, nothing in my second article was really refuted here, but I’ll continue. It is of course easy to point to a particular failing and then categorize everything else as a failing, but for those who believe as I do that the AltRight played some role in the surprise election of Donald Trump, then my previous reasoning is bolstered because the tactics that were being used were effective instruments of information warfare. The bungling of Richard Spencer does not diminish this effectiveness to any substantial degree, even while I did regard the incident as serious enough to pen an article addressing the subject, which you can read here. While it almost seems as if I am expected to sweep the events that took place under the rug, I am actually in full agreement that there was a startling amount of immaturity and poor organization that could have been easily avoided. However, rather than simply demeaning Spencer as a “kid”, I tried to be firm yet fair in recommending he learn from his mistake and keep tighter control of his conferences, both for his own sake and those of the people who do him the honor of speaking there.

I respect Richard Spencer for what he is
even though we disagree on some big issues

What follows is the assertion that Spencer can’t actually be blamed for what happened, because it is inherent to the meme culture which he is subject to, which ironically reduces Spencer to having no control over his own conference, something I don’t believe is the case. I’m not such a fatalist as to think that the conference could not have been a success, had Spencer not gotten ahead of himself.

The parts beyond this are better quoted than summarized:

“Can we see for a moment if Spencer’s actions were in error beyond the scope of whether or not this affected the public relations of movements to the Right of the political spectrum. After all, one should learn to not care about the biases of the “Lügenpresse,” right?”

I myself have never asserted this. While there is some merit to the idea of ignoring the press, the fact is that optics matter, and Spencer does seem to have acknowledged this somewhat. If optics didn’t matter, I wouldn’t have bothered writing anything on the incident.

“It demonstrates that the Alt-Right’s main energy is not from the dignity of its principles, but from the mass-movement of its members. It functions by the same underclass mentality as its Leftist counterparts. It excites the lower strata of society in dissatisfaction and it leads through euphoria rather than awe.”

I don’t really disagree. The AltRight is, in some ways, populist. Though we must emphasize that as a phenomena distinct from ‘Trumpism’ itself, it is not as populist as its ‘God Emperor’, and does cleave to a common idea or principle, that which was argued by Argent Templar to be its definition on the very same website:

“A movement based on the belief that human interchangeability (not equality interchangeability) is both wrong and dangerous, which consists of various factions who are attempting to explain the reasons for this and what the consequences of it are.”

The point about the “lower strata” is also important, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

“Ultimately, this draws into question what kind of person is a person of the Right? Does he maintain any level of virtue or self control superior to that of his Leftist counterparts or is he just as nihilistic about reality and treats everything as a joke? Does he have any gravitas that raises him higher than the parody-mills of late night television hosts? Is policy and ideology the only measure of difference between a person of the Right and the Left? Is a person on the Right just as willing to throw the Molotov cocktail of internet memery? I posit that any true distinguishing marker between ideologies can be found in the character and actions of its members. If an ideology does not inform the character of an individual so that he behaves differently from his counterpart, can we really say that it is qualitatively different? I suspect that any movement that revels in the immaturity of its own members represents a movement for children rather than adults.”

This is the section where I felt there was the most concrete disconnect between my view and that of James. The other stuff is minor by comparison, and that includes later appeals to Evola. Would Evola approve of the AltRight? No. And let us be very clear, Evola did not approve of much, and a lot of the stuff he did approve of he later reversed himself on, ending his life with little hope for any kind of political solution to the crisis of Modernity, a rejection of the optimism he had displayed during the early days of Italian Fascism, when he and the Ur Group were excited by its potential. I am by no means dismissing the criticisms Evola had of various movements and groups, they were for the most part entirely valid, but using these to make the case that Evola would disapprove of the AltRight is just a truism that nobody would deny, and doesn’t really add anything.

So what is to be said about the passage above which encapsulates the most meaningful argument? Can we reduce it to a more simple thesis? How about…

“The AltRight is bad because it’s actors do not meet my standards of behavior and personal conduct, and thus it is clear that the ideology they are purportedly a part of (rightism) has not caused them to change their own lives in any significant way to fit in with the values they supposedly wish to enshrine.”

I don’t think this is an unfair summation. I chose the term “my standards” just to make clear that not every person will have the same standards they expect from people in order to be ‘truly right wing’, especially if this is based on conduct rather than dogma. I honestly don’t like anime’s appearance all over the right, but I’m not going to question AntiDem’s credentials because of it. Everyone is a sinner. Not everyone is a heretic. While there is virtue in keeping a tight definition of what constitutes rightism, you can make that eye of the needle so tight that only you pass through it, which is to be avoided as a perfect example of holiness spiraling.

To make very clear why I think the argument is wrong:

The AltRight is not the Legion of the Archangel Michael.

It has never been that, was never intended as that, and will never be that. The AltRight is a loose collection of dissidents, mostly online, who are united by a common belief in the non-interchangeability of peoples, and whose primary goal has been offensive rather than constructive. Trying to tone police such an organism is fruitless, hopeless, and not something I am interested in doing. From his now defunct second channel, Adam Wallace used to have a video where he discussed “morality policing” the AltRight, and how it was a stupid idea, how attempting to judge the moral character of people in these spheres over the internet and somehow influence their behavior was a non-starter (at the time as it pertained to the suspected sexual habits of certain people). I cannot help but apply this same reasoning to tone policing, that is, being concerned about the method of expression that people on the AltRight engage in, be that memes, swearing, parody songs, etc. I can rightly critique these on the grounds of optics, such as the case of the sieg heiling at Spencer’s conference, but if I shunned everyone who had ever posted Pepe or used the word “cuck” as mere children, I would only talk to James, but I guess I could take solace in the fact that I would be perfectly sane since I wouldn’t be talking to myself.

 it just wasn’t going to happen, was it?

Remember when I posted my own article at West Coast Reactionaries, comparing the American and European right, and drawing a distinction between them? As someone who is not American, I must be brutally honest in saying that the apparently “puerile” nature of the American right’s discourse does not concern me. There were three things I mentioned in that essay on which I felt Americans and Europeans could mutually benefit from collaborating on; personal development was not one of them. I could not have been more open when I finally came around to endorsing Donald Trump as to my motivations for doing so, and my reasons for why his election would be a positive thing. How the AltRight as his ‘private army’ went about achieving that was none of my business, I was interested in results. Aleksandr Dugin, being the bookish professor that he is, probably has no love for Trump’s method of discourse which is uniquely American bluster, but he wanted a certain outcome in a foreign state, and so did not care about the method that was used to achieve it. Why should he? He is Russian. I’m not coming from any different angle than that.

I supported the AltRight’s tactics so long as they were effective. Worrying about their tone or tenor was neither my job nor something I believed to be of importance given the context. Earlier in his article, James says that the AltRight should have focused on achieving real greatness through their own self-improvement. My own view is that if your one-stop-shop for self-improvement advice is political analysts and theorists on the net, there is probably no hope for you. There are places that can help you lose weight, help you speak more eloquently, help you get in touch with the spirit world. The internet is not one of them. One can be in the AltRight and also be in a self-improvement class, but one should not expect the former to be the latter.

When you dismiss all activities which do not adhere to a strict code of conduct and character, on top of whatever ideological pretensions you might have, and especially if this takes place on the internet, you will be disappointed every time and eventually leave the medium frustrated and having gained nothing. I have not held to any delusions about the AltRight. I am fully aware of its shortcomings,and as I made clear in this article, its ultimately limited lifespan. I am also aware of its successes, ones which I have found beneficial. And herein lies the problem of expectations. I have a deliberately low standard for the AltRight because I am aware of its nature, its members, and the milieu it emerged from. For a powerful, extra-political force of dedicated warriors who will overthrow the Liberal order and reinstate the World of Tradition… the AltRight is a catastrophic failure. But for a mishmash of disgruntled men wanting to cause havoc for a system they despise, in the name of a basic proposition that I agree with… they’re not bad (recent slip-ups notwithstanding).

Thus we arrive at that point about the “lower strata” once more. I am rather perplexed as to why someone who believed in caste would ever believe it possible for those of the lower strata to demonstrate Brahminical levels of self-discipline, especially as they have emerged from the womb of Modernity to a despairing landscape with no kings and effectively no priests.When these figures do arise, things may change, but until then this is what we have to work with in terms of the masses, who of course only have limited uses.

I want to conclude by saying that I don’t think my views are unrepresentative of most of the Reactosphere, the vast majority of whom have never gone further than offering constructive and polite criticism of the AltRight, usually of specific issues, and while keeping an arm’s length from certain people or proposals that they dislike, have quietly or loudly cheered the growth of the zeitgeist. After all, it has increased our readership and helped to propagate our ideas! NeoReaction, of which I am a close affiliate, has watched the broad AltRight with analytic amusement and cordiality, and the highly respected deacons of The Orthosphere have openly declared themselves one alternative on the alternative right. I’m comfortable standing by what I have written, and am content with where I stand on the AltRight (at least for now), given both my realist expectations and recognition of the limited role that I have decided to play, that of an analyst rather than a tone policeman or a self-help guru. Where the AltRight is wrong, there should be criticism (and on the issue of abortion I have not been shy about it), but in the future such criticisms of tone or rhetoric ought to be directed at individual actors at fault and what they have said or wrote that is so disquieting, rather than a continual return to my months-old article on the success of memes, as if it had any impact whatsoever on how people on the AltRight choose to converse.


9 thoughts on “Mark Citadel – Struggling Tone Policeman/Self-Help Guru

  1. I think people keep getting confused about the right, thinking that it is an organization. To the left, the right is simply not-left. I'm pretty sure Moldbug expended a torrent of words pointing this out. And now we've got alt-right, which was just meant to distinguish everybody else from the cuckservatives. What does the left do? The right is boogeyman; the alt-right is boogeyman with chain saw. And many on the alt-right like to give them what they want, because then we get leftists in the streets, acting hysterical, and probably pissing the general public off more than anyone at an NPI conference ever could.

    But people on the right keep trying to establish order in a way that we can't, because we aren't the left. They've got their thing; we've got something more feudal, meaning someone with power would have to extend to Spencer a deal in which he gets something he wants in return for constraining himself to the terms of the agreement. Otherwise, he is free to pursue his agenda by whatever means he has.


  2. “Earlier in his article, James says that the AltRight should have focused on achieving real greatness through their own self-improvement. My own view is that if your one-stop-shop for self-improvement advice is political analysts and theorists on the net, there is probably no hope for you. There are places that can help you lose weight, help you speak more eloquently, help you get in touch with the spirit world. The internet is not one of them. One can be in the AltRight and also be in a self-improvement class, but one should not expect the former to be the latter.”

    Well said Mark – the NRx crowd love to crow about this but fail to seem to lack the awareness they are not worthy simply because they read some obscure tracts online, talked in a Slack group of moderately high IQ people and squatted their bodyweight for reps…


  3. I agree with the premise of 'become worthy'. In fact, I agree with it completely, but what I'm saying is that the people in the 'sphere' are not people who are going to help you become a well-rounded individual. They can absolutely get you on the right track in terms of philosophy and politics, even some levels of religion, but the other stuff is done by close circles of people who actually know you. For as much as Roosh V tells you to get into shape, he is not going to be the person to actually get you into shape. A trainer of some kind is going to do that, and what I'm saying is that's totally fine. We shouldn't try to blend the two worlds.

    There are people in the AltRight I'd consider friends, enough so that their personal development is something I might be interested in, but for the vast majority of people out there… I couldn't care less. It's not my job. I don't care about Spencer's family life, his kids, his pet dog, his diet, etc. I don't know a thing about him personally. All I care about are his ideas.

    James' points about self-development are perfectly legitimate, but the internet is not the medium via which to do this. We know that people behave on the internet in ways vastly different from the way they behave in real life. Online personas are rarely reflections of reality, and for good reason. If my childhood friend starts to drink heavily, I might be concerned, but I cannot be concerned about the entire world. the conduct of Spencer and others (however crass or immature it is) is concern for the people who know them closest, not me. I'm going to be focused on the few things that the internet allows me to see clearly, worldviews and results, rather than people's inner constitution and spiritual health, which as I said should never be reviewed via the net as it becomes armchair psychology.


  4. It's definitely less organized, as subversive movements tend to be. There can be very organized efforts and groups, but I stress these happen on some kind of local level rather than in cyberspace, and when they do their success or failure is down to the quality of their leaders. While Spencer has some good leadership qualities, he lacks in others, and I think that is something even he would admit.


  5. The Left itself has always been made up of factions, and factions of factions, who hate each other's guts and in-fight amongst themselves like a bunch of cats and dogs in a sack- and ended up stronger for it. The internal diversification enabled them to infiltrate and mobilize all sorts of people and social sectors. Need to mobilize the workers? Send the union boss. Need to influence policy-makers? Send the technocratic policy wonk. Need to capture the University? Send the Marxist and deconstructionist theorists…and so on like that. This internal differentiation, just like the differentiation that's obtaining on the new Right right now, was spontaneous. It shouldn't be a problem, and indeed will prove to be a strength, as long as the different subsets of the Right, like their counterparts on the Left, can make bloc alliances on common matters of interest.


  6. Iancu here. I've just had an idea. I don't know how to spread this message but I think this will fix whatever can be fixed. Not being American I'm not really in contact with many people in the Anglosphere so perhaps if you could throw these ideas in the direction of Woes would be helpful.

    We should continue talking about degeneracy, race, reaction and the failures of modernity. Also add religious conservatism and its socilogical functions to that.

    But as some people disavow us we shouldn't disavow them. I think the best thing for the far right at this point would be to shower the alt-lite with love so o speak. I think the biggest mistake would be some sort of purity test or tone policing from the right direction which might really fracture the right. I think we should continue to engage the moderates and the disavowers and not turn on them. In a few years, they might have much radical ideas.

    But we shouldn't change our own tune whether it's reactionary thinking or racialism or whatever side of the “trichotomy” one is on. We should strive to maintain a situation where there aren't clear sides like alt-lite vs 1488, but rather we should have a multitude of points and not necessary on a continuum. This would be in order to maintain the emotional ease of going from alt-lite ideas to more radical ideas. This is very important – not to be cleaved intwo two “sides”.

    We can't recover the previous situation in regard with the brand but we can recover the way of progression of recently converted new right wingers towards more radical ideas.

    Also I see that Vox has not given up the label “alt-right”, rather, he has embraced it. I think that was a good move.


  7. Iancu, I think you're right. The renaissance in this line of thinking has been partly the result of a good process of bringing people up from controversial ideas to truly radical and Reactionary ones, and that should continue. What I worry about is an optical breakdown of this intake due to bad actors (and possibly infiltrators) who make us all look bad. That I am concerned about, which I why I thought the NPI conference was a serious enough event to comment on. I'd like to think most people were where you are, and indeed that has been where NPI has been for at least a year now, so I hope it doesn't change and we don't start holiness purging.

    By the way, Iancu, on this rather solemn day I'm going to be joining Teleolojik Folkways later on his youtube channel for an interview on the Legionary movement (this was arranged long ago). I'm not sure if it will be live, but could be of interest to you. Will have more info posted to my Twitter account which you can get access to via the link on the right hand side of this page.


  8. If optics didn't matter, why have NPI Conference at all? Advertised to the Antifa I mean. Richard Spencer recently said a very smart–I might say very NRx kind of thing–what he wants, what the Alt-Right wants is influece. Nobody ever elected Neocons, he noted. Yet the neocons were amazingly influential.

    So… he's absolutely right… and if you don't care about “getting elected”, then you're not going to care about your public profile. There are about one or two hundred people you care about impressing, and none of them are relying on CNN for the bulk of their information. You're not going to host public conferences where the antifa can show up and spray piss on you or whatever, and where a couple of Natsoc dolts can show up and create catastrophically bad optics.

    So… Richard Spencer has (or at least had) a great idea. But he's implementing it badly. This one was an unforced error.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s