In the comments to my recent article on passivism, I’ve been accused of not defining activism, even though I did.
Activism is democratic politics. It is action by the people for the people to influence the people’s laws. Activism is necessarily leftist because it assumes the people should be involved in politics and in the power of the people to change politics, which are both inherently leftist concepts. In an ordered, right-wing society, the people do not engage in politics (at least, until society becomes disordered and the people throw a revolution), so there is no activism. Activism should be avoided for this reason alone.
Yuray has defined activism as well:
Per Google the definition of activism is “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.”
Activism is participation in the official political process, which the Brahmins at Google have found fit to define as “campaigning to bring about political or social change.” Passivism is not “doing nothing,” it is non-participation in the official political process.
Activism is people power. It is a part of democracy in which the people take political action, generally against the authorities or those perceived to be in power.
Democracy is inherently leftist. People power is inherently leftist. Activism is inherently leftist. There is no such thing as right-wing activism.
If you are trying to influence the people or democratic power structures you are not acting right-wing. You are acting like a liberal and are engaging in liberal democracy on liberal terms on the liberal battlefield. You are completely pwned and accepting your enemies’ frame.
The term for this is folk activism, which Moldbug borrowed from Friedman, while altering the meaning. Folk activists commit ostensibly right-wing activism. I say ostensibly, because even though folk activists may be pursuing nominally right-wing ends, they are legitimizing liberal and democratic values and the system that represents these values.
Some commented that writing and speech are activism, but they are not. Political writing and speech are only activism when it stirs (or is at least meant to stir) the people to action. Political philosophy is not activism. By calling political writing and speech activist you are accusing Plato, Confucius, or Hobbes of being activists, which is patently absurd.
Neither is building the mannerbund, institutions, groups, or families. These activities are generally non-political. Where they are political, they are only activist insofar as they participate in liberal democratic activities.
Activism is not synonymous with action. Activism is democratic action against (perceived) authority. Some action is activist, but much action is not. The right needs to avoid activism, as it further legitimizes liberal democracy, which is antithetical to right order, tradition, and right authority.
If you want to take action, then take right-wing action. Write anti-democratic political tracts that delegitimatize liberalism. Build order in your communities. Build institutions and/or gain power in them. Gain legitimacy and authority through action.
You’ll notice these right-wing actions are exactly what passivism encourages.
To respond to your (related) Tweet here:
How do I plan to defeat the FBI, CIA, NSA, National Guard, and US Army? I don’t know.
How did Lech Walesa plan to defeat the MSW, KGB, GRU, Ludowe Wojsko Polskie, and Soviet army? I don’t know. He probably didn’t really know, either.
And yet I do know that one of Walesa’s countrymen came back from Rome under the sign of the cross and told his people: “Do not be afraid”, and they weren’t, and they won.
I don’t know that I can win the same way that Walesa did. Then again, I don’t know that I can’t. My plan is to keep my ear to the ground; to notice the writing on the wall, and to write on a few walls myself. I don’t know what the exact plan will be because I don’t know what the exact situation will be when things come to a head. But I’ll watch, and wait, and when the time comes, I’ll act by any means necessary.
I hope that answers your question.
“We live in an age where you cannot use the tools of violence without serving the enemy. Every sword is a boomerang, turning back upon yourself.”
http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/04/let-god-sort/
The main immediate value of passivism is to deprive activism of the open enemy without which activism, an act of pure exhibitionism, is meaningless.
Activism or action…these are *both* legitimate, effective, and good. Keep your options open. Don’t let the eggheads limit your choices.
People are really having a hard time grasping this it seems. Nick Steves did mention that being able to understand passivism is an IQ filter, and he certainly seems to be correct.
Until the police and army decide to go against the state and join your side, any and all activism is doomed to fail spectacularly. This really ought to be self-evident.
I would love a post on the tea party from this perspective.
Their legacy is nothing but a straw man for the establishment to tilt at.
Most persuasive.
> “People are really having a hard time grasping this it seems. Nick Steves did mention that being able to understand passivism is an IQ filter, and he certainly seems to be correct.”
“If you don’t agree with me, it just shows how stupid you are”. Well, there’s an argument I’ve never heard before on the internet.
Some commented that writing and speech are activism, but they are not. Political writing and speech are only activism when it stirs (or is at least meant to stir) the people to action. Political philosophy is not activism. By calling political writing and speech activist you are accusing Plato, Confucius, or Hobbes of being activists, which is patently absurd.
Isn’t writing that is effective supposed to evoke some sort of reaction from the reader? .
The idea is to first understand the world before you seek to change it. I like the idea of subversive activism by laying the intellectual and philosophical groundwork that will hopefully later influence policy , much in the same way Strauss, Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Kirk, Rothbard etc., through their writings, influenced conservative politics and economics.
You are warping a word to fit your beliefs. This is comparable to leftists arguing “only whites can be racist.” You are basically claiming “only leftists can be activists,” and “activism can only result in leftist outcomes.” You can not conceive of even one single historical situation or present circumstance where activism (which has 1000s of permutations) would be of any benefit to this civilization, much less the will of God?
Also, it is completely dishonest to claim that writing political propaganda is “not activism.” It is the primary function of most activists. The “alt right” (let’s just call it the “Right”) is the direct result of activist writers who proactively and persistently define their points and criticize the establishment, awhile trolling and spamming millions of people. That is activism.
If you want to create a new word to redefine right-wing activism, then I recommend you choose a better word than “passivism,” because it sounds (and is) cowardly and ineffective. I think this is a really bad point to just blindly follow Yarvin on. Yarvin has little in common with the broader Right. He has also been attempting a public climbdown from nrx, which appears to be the “passivist” plan: to climb down from any level that requires responsibility for your convictions.
Today, the idea of standing up for virtue, of doing something out of principle, is practically incomprehensible to the entire population. All I see here is a pseudo-intellectual justification for impotence. The church, and civilization, was built by activists and abandoned by passivists.
I’m not redefining anything. Google the word, it’s all dictionary definitions or left-wing websites. Read the wiki, it’s basically left-wing propaganda, Look at the methods, they’re all liberal/democratic in nature. Look at the types of activists, all left-wing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_activists
Google right-wing activists, look at the front page. The SM article is the only right-wing page on the front page. The third result is left-wing politics. Almost everybody who uses the term right-wing activist is a leftist smearing the right.
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=LRIbV8egEY3M8Afx-6PABg#q=right-wing+activists
Everybody knows inherently that activism is left-wing. It is democratic, liberal activity. It’s the only way the word has ever been used. There is no right activism. Right activism is nonsense.
The church was built by Peter and Paul, they did nothing remotely activist; they eschewed political action. It was legalized in Rome by Constantine and instituted as the state church by by Theodosius. Neither did activism, both simply declared it to be. It was preserved by Saint Benedict, who didn’t commit activism, he built monastaries.
Side note: As I’ve said, only whites can be racist, because racist is a nominalist, specifically anti-white slur. Calling another race racist would be akin to calling a white a nigger. It’s silly. The sooner people realize that it means nothing beyond BADWHITE, the sooner it loses its power.
Right, except clearly the majority of those disagreeing are not doing so on substantive grounds, offering sound refutations based on the fact they’ve grasped the cogent points.
A very good post. Activism and action have little in common. Activism is most ofen the attempt of powerless and angry people to rationalize their evil intentions.
From: http://freedompowerandwealth.com
Activism is the public display of the virtues of the rabble
Reed:
Free Northerner is a better writer than I will ever be and does not need me to defend him. Notwithstanding, I can tell you what I think. I think that Free Northerner has a point, and I think that his point is a subtle one.
People who comment in places like this are, of course, an atypical, self-selected group, so you can make of our opinions what you will. We don’t even agree on every point among ourselves.
You are quite correct when you say that Mencius Moldbug has little in common with the broader Right. Unfortunate, but true. However, Mencius Moldbug has something in common with us. He has in common with us a fundamental, elusive insight which, possibly, you have not yet quite grasped.
So keep reading. As the months go by, you may begin to get it. Or you may not. If you do, you’ll join what is still a pretty exclusive fraternity — for all that’s worth (which is not much, for *active* membership in this fraternity mostly just earns one grief, which was sort of the point Free Northerner was trying to get at when he spoke of Passivism in the first place).
Part of the genius of Moldbug was that he spoke half tongue-in-cheek. You have to reach through the veil of his half-jesting ripostes to grasp his real point. (What was his real point? Ah, that’s the secret. It cannot be briefly explained. You’ve got to read rather a lot of Moldbug to begin to get it; but he entertains you along the way, so some of us have got hooked.)
Free Northerner has to use some language, some terminology, to express his ideas. You can’t just take away his words. He’s not trying to trick you, but to inform you, so just for purpose of discussion, consider provisionally accepting his definition. “Passivism” is an excellent word in my opinion but, even if it weren’t, the concept the word indicates may be important. Changing the subject to an argument over the Right’s choice of words is a Leftist’s mug’s game.
Thought provoking. It is hard to disagree. Great arguments to show your point.
In an ordered, right-wing society, the people do not engage in politics (at least, until society becomes disordered and the people throw a revolution), so there is no activism.
Well, F.N., you seem to be implying here that U.S.G. and Can. Gov. society of today is not disordered because you say if -> then, and you also say “not then”, which produces “not if”.
I suppose I should be very specific here because my point appears to be going past you. Please consider your own blog, FreeNortherner: Many people have likely read it and were on the fence about certain things, and now it has likely swayed many towards living a more reactionary or Christian life. By virtue of you diligently maintaining it, those people are more likely to promulgate Rightist ideas. Had you not been doing that, those people may have never come around. So you made a positive impact by being proactive.
A very simple example of economic activism is people’s support for Hobby Lobby after they stood up to the abortionist and feminist legal system. Their sales increased after their trial. Also, I’m for boycotts of hostile businesses, not because I can bankrupt their company (which would be nice), but strictly out of principle.
Urging people not to apply their convictions in everyday life is a dangerous thing. By actively promoting passivism you are likely discouraging people from doing things as minor as starting their own blog or proactively explaining the truth to people they know. The thing about activism is that it’s not like a videogame with a clear score, it is a patient, principled endeavor.
Others have called this debate the Benedict Option vs. the Augustine Option, your argument being more Benedictine. They both have merit, but again, the Benedict Option is still activism in my eyes because it requires “voting with your feet” and implementing a withdrawal policy.
” Build order in your communities. Build institutions and/or gain power in them. Gain legitimacy and authority through action.”
O.K., but say you live in a small town and want to join the local civic association — they have elections for board members. Do you run for the office? If yes, how is that not activism as defined above? You are running in a democratic election? What about the local town council where the democratic nature of the institution is even more explicit? If you say no, you should not run, then how is one supposed to build order and/or gain power at the local level?
Regarding Curt Yarvin… He is an atheist who is pro gay “marriage.” Concepts like “neocameralism” and “formalism” appear to be fancy words for “Silicon Valley shareholders should own society.” All Silicon Valley believes in is money.
To claim that my disagreement with Yarvin is only cause I “don’t get it” is arrogant and ignorant. He’s not a tough read, although his longer diatribes are boring. I just don’t agree with him and we don’t have the same values.
Interesting that Curt likes calling himself a Jacobite. Well, the Jacobites were fanatical activists and soldiers. So, my impression is that many people who promote his ideas are the ones who “don’t get it” and fail to critically analyze.
But in conclusion, I suppose I can’t even have an exchange with you on this topic if you believe politics only exists in a liberal democrazy. Politics will always exist as long as there are people with even slightly differing interests. It just takes on different forms in different arrangements. This absolutism, a state of complete social unity or sovereignty many in nrx seem to promote, has never existed. Most of the greatest political tracts were written by and for people who did not live in a liberal democrazy, such as The Prince, The Art of War, and The Confessions.
Or take your NRA example from an early post:
““Because of the political direction the NRA was taking, they weren’t being invited to parties and their wives were not happy,” says Jeff Knox, Neal’s son and director of the Firearms Coalition, which fights for the Second Amendment and against laws restricting guns or ammunition. “Dad was on the phone constantly with various people around the country. He had his copy of the NRA bylaws and Robert’s Rules, highlighted and marked. My father and a lot of local club leaders and state association guys organized their troops.”
Theirs was a grass-roots movement within the NRA. The solution was to use the membership to make changes. The bylaws of the NRA gave members power on the convention floor to vote for changes in the NRA governing structure.”
To me that reads like activism — in service of taking over an organization (one I would characterize as right-wing) that ironically is dedicated to lobbying our political system to protect our individual right to bear arms.
How did the Firearms Coalition take control? By convincing enough members to…wait for it…vote for their candidates!!!
Voting in an election for board members — how can you support such democratic methods?!
Reed:
I gather that your last comment may have been directed at me.
If you say that you get it, I’ll believe you. I don’t know you, after all. This conversation is not a contest I need to win or need you to lose. Besides, admittedly, most likely, about 2.5 people are following the conversation, including you and me, so the stakes aren’t too high.
There are lots and lots of things I don’t get. I am not insulted when someone points this out.
Under the circumstance, one wishes that you would let people use their preferred pen names, but that’s up to you.
The commentor “Reed” may be somewhat correct, and right now the “rabble” has been roused and is in force in the comments section under an article that F.N. may have provoked at Notional Remission, T.R.S. and other pro-white publications are hosting a raid.
“No, Being against Trump Does Not Mean You Hate the White Working Class”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434455/donald-trump-white-working-class-what-trumps-defenders-get-wrong
*Note how they’ve denied hate. Translated from Political Correctness, they’re saying “We’re not heretics, don’t call us heretics.”
You can see which religion (The Cathedral) N.R. is beholden to.
A.J.P.
YouSoWould, you’re just talking high-minded shit out of your own anus.
Antidem has made his arguments against that coat hangar abortion of a P word. Rather substantial arguments, I might add. Go check them out. So has Reed Perry.
If anything, you and everyone supporting this pseudo-Marxist redefinition of terms seems to be not getting it.