Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Dissociation, repression, distancing

Here's a thought that relates to political strategy.

If you think calmly and clearly about current trends in Western societies, you can't help but recognise a terrible fact, namely that the Western peoples are facing going out of existence over the next few generations.

Now, you might think that a good response to this would be to yell as loudly as you could, to as many people as you could, that this terrible thing was occurring and needed to be responded to.

But this doesn't get the desired response. It often just makes people shut down entirely. Why?

I think the answer, in part, relates to the way that people cope with bad things psychologically. If there's something terrible looming that we feel we have no control over, one way of coping is to distance ourselves from the thought of it. It's a form of what might be called dissociation or repression.

If people are already doing this, and you heighten the sense of threat, then they'll only do it more.

This happens with my wife. Early in our marriage, if she said something thoughtlessly in support of open borders, I'd remind her of the long term trends and what that would ultimately mean. But I quickly learnt not to do that as it genuinely distressed her. She told me outright that she couldn't cope with the thought of it, that it upset her and that she wanted not to think about it.

So what does all this mean for political strategy? I don't think it means that you shouldn't point to what is happening and the long-term consequences. But I don't think you should assume that this will be enough to prompt people into action. And, in some cases, it might even push people away by making them feel psychologically distressed.

So what else can we do? First, we can gather together the more psychologically robust: those who are strong enough to see what is happening and work patiently against it. We need to make sure that we achieve political clarity within this group and keep enough momentum to gradually build.

Second, we can appeal to the stronger masculine qualities in men, particularly the instinct to stand firm and to hold ground. That sets us against one wing of the men's rights movement, the wing which wants to "liberate" men from their masculinity.

Third, as we gain ground we can expect to win a wider audience as the situation will seem less daunting as individuals become less isolated from each other. There will be less discomfort from distress and therefore less need to dissociate or repress.

Fourth, and related to this, there is a benefit in the medium term in establishing local areas where numbers are consolidated. If you were to have a small area where trads were to predominate, it might not change the political scene overall, but it would provide a place where some people would feel less need to dissociate or repress.

Fifth, we need to make sure that our realism about the gravity of the situation is balanced with positive news about the gains that are being made either in our part of the world or overseas. Again, you don't just want to prompt people to shut down.

Sixth, I think it helps to make the argument that working for the good is important in itself, regardless of whether we ultimately achieve success or failure. It is part of the role of an adult male to uphold a larger tradition; it is a full expression of our masculinity; and in attempting to do so we feel right in our conscience.

23 comments:

  1. You claim that "the Western peoples are facing going out of existence over the next few generations".

    By this I'm assuming you basically mean the white/European-derived populations of the world?

    ...

    And yes, the demographic reality is quite clear. This has been pointed out by various authors such as Arthur Kemp, and historically, Lothrop Stoddard, to name a few prominent ones.

    It's sub-replacement fertility combined with non-white immigration combined with race-mixing that is causing white populations to demographically decline.

    ...

    But then again caring about this, or voicing concern over it, makes people think you're some kind of neo-Nazi weirdo. That's the problem.

    There's also another very common response: "Yes, the white populations of the world are in terminal demographic decline, but I won't be around to see white people become a minority because I'll be dead by then"

    It's kind of a lazy way of saying "I don't care about the future of my people".

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is worth bearing in mind though, that a considerable proportion of working class white people (especially men) are not too fond of multiculturalism.

    The more middle class types tend to be more accepting of ethnic diversity, and may even prefer to be friends with middle class people of ethnic backgrounds than white people of lower class.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This happens with my wife. Early in our marriage, if she said something thoughtlessly in support of open borders, I'd remind her of the long term trends and what that would ultimately mean. But I quickly learnt not to do that as it genuinely distressed her. She told me outright that she couldn't cope with the thought of it, that it upset her and that she wanted not to think about it.

    So, um, we cannot tell the truth to women because they cannot handle it, and therefore we should stop telling the truth? I thought you were a traditional male! That means, among other things, you do not let women dictate your political strategy or tactics.

    Western men NEED to be psychologically distressed.

    WAKE UP OR DIE -- it is just that simple.

    If you were to have a small area where trads were to predominate, it might not change the political scene overall, but it would provide a place where some people would feel less need to dissociate or repress.

    Except, I guess, if there were women there who didn't want to think about upsetting things, in which case upsetting things could never be talked about.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought you were a traditional male!

    Right, so it's my job to protect my wife not to keep her in a state of distress. My wife isn't political and never made any false pretences to be political. I didn't marry her expecting her to be a political activist.

    WAKE UP OR DIE -- it is just that simple.

    The whole point of my post was to try to explain why shouting at people to wake up is not an adequate political strategy. It's likely to lead those pursuing this strategy to become demoralised when people don't just wake up.

    We have to start with a more psychologically robust minority and create the conditions in which wider circles of people will feel more comfortable getting involved.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I experienced this too Mark. With an ex girlfriend. She was a lovely traditional woman but discussing this sort of thing distressed her a lot.
    Actually the slightest hint of non-mainstream politics from me brought her to tears.
    Women are a powerful political tool when manipulated.
    No good man wants to cause distress to his girlfriend or wife like this.
    I believe though women have to muster some courage in these situations. They have to trust their male partner's judgement and not hide from the reality of pursuing politics that are detrimental to themselves and their children.
    I hear most women say they would do anything for their children.
    Then what is more beneficial to their children then taking a united stand with their men and communities.

    A lot rests on the courage of women.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon, agreed.

    I should have said as well that my wife doesn't oppose or stand in the way of me being politically active.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have a bunch of thoughts...

    1) It's not a woman's job to think about these things. I'm a woman and I am BITTER OUT OF MY MIND that I have to be the one to slap men on top of the head to wake up.

    2) I think it starts with families. Do you have a brother married to an Asian woman? I know plenty people who do and that brother is still sitting around the family table for some unknown reason at holidays.

    Whites need to shun other whites who don't fall into line.

    That's far more important than getting messages across to the majority.

    If 10% of whites say to their relatives "You're no longer allowed at my dinner table you traitorous wretch" Things would change pretty fast.

    Speaking of courage, Do you talk about those darn Finnish people? :) You get the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Do you talk about those darn Finnish people? :) You get the idea.
    How did you know my ex was Finnish haha...

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a hard topic to to discuss.

    The most important thing is not to give up and live as though you didn't know.

    ReplyDelete
  10. it's my job to protect my wife not to keep her in a state of distress. My wife isn't political and never made any false pretences to be political. I didn't marry her expecting her to be a political activist.

    But you were making "don't upset my wife" into a general political principle, which it should not be.

    The whole point of my post was to try to explain why shouting at people to wake up is not an adequate political strategy. It's likely to lead those pursuing this strategy to become demoralised when people don't just wake up.

    Yelling is the only strategy. Like I said, the alternative is to lie down and die.

    "Don't speak the truth or you'll upset the women" is a primary reason for the remorseless advance of Leftism. If there is nothing that gets trads mad enough to yell - let alone to fight - they will lose and they deserve to lose.

    Also, not yelling contributes to mutual demoralization, because everyone thinks nobody else cares.

    We have to start with a more psychologically robust minority and create the conditions in which wider circles of people will feel more comfortable getting involved.

    This isn't going to happen until civilization collapses.

    Also, psychological robustness, in my view, starts with being willing to distress the women. Who damn well ought to be distressed!

    Do you have a brother married to an Asian woman? I know plenty people who do and that brother is still sitting around the family table for some unknown reason at holidays.

    I have two of them. I take the view it is better for them to marry and have kids with an Asian woman than not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. gyNah, I wish you would blog. You make excellent critiques that pinpoint the reasons reaction won't gain traction as a real movement.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nah just sounds like a troll to me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yelling is the only strategy.

    See, that's why I wrote this post. My instinct was correct that this kind of belief exists.

    the alternative is to lie down and die

    The alternative is not to wait or to call out from the sidelines but to build a movement.

    This isn't going to happen until civilization collapses.

    No, I have already proven that it's possible to organise locally. You don't have to wait.

    Nah, I've known people who have followed a strategy of yelling. They become embittered. They don't understand why people don't wake up. And they sometimes turn on the very people who are actually doing things.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorry about the 'gy', it was a weird blogspot issue with filling in the anti-robot measures.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The alternative is not to wait or to call out from the sidelines but to build a movement.

    If you want a movement that consists of people who think Western civilization is in serious danger, then you're going to have to distress people by telling them that Western civilization is in serious danger and they need to do something about it.

    If you want to create a more "popular" movement, then you may have to organize it around a more anodyne, less distressing purpose. Yet this movement will fail to attract people who think Western civilization is in serious danger. If your real purpose is, in fact, to preserve Western civilization, you will instantly lose all the people you do attract - who do not think Western civilization is in serious danger - when you start alarming them with talk about serious danger.

    In short, this approach sounds self-defeating to me. You can't start the Greater Melbourne Birdwatching Club and suddenly transform it into the Greater Melbourne Crusade for Western Civilization.

    I have already proven that it's possible to organise locally.

    To do what, exactly? If you're doing nothing effective anyway, what's the downside of telling people the truth, even at risk of distressing them?

    I've known people who have followed a strategy of yelling. They become embittered. They don't understand why people don't wake up. And they sometimes turn on the very people who are actually doing things.

    There are also examples of people who didn't get embittered or demoralized, and didn't give up.

    What would be really demoralizing would be to realize on your deathbed that you didn't do everything you could to fight for what you truly believe in.

    Better to fail in a noble task than to succeed in a trivial one. A man's reach should exceed his grasp, right?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why start with politics? That's not where the leftists and liberals started. It's not where anyone starts who is serious about gaining political power.

    Even the Hasidic Jews voting themselves school funds without paying property taxes (cannot find the link right now, but it was a recent news story) started with non-political clannishness.

    This is perhaps my confusion about traditionalists and other reactors to the madness of liberalism and leftism. They seem bent on ignoring the techniques that work to gain political power in favor of kaffeeklatsches. It is strange.

    Hmm, my anti-robot message is 'peripheral'. Interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nah,

    I find it difficult to believe that anyone could read this website and not understand my concern that Western civ is being dissolved by liberalism. That is the thrust of most of the posts.

    There are also examples of people who didn't get embittered or demoralized, and didn't give up.

    I'm not sure that's true in Australia. Which "yelling" individual managed to establish a widely read website and local political associations?

    From what I can tell such people get very passive just waiting for a change of political circumstances. They are waiting for others to do the political groundwork that they have found a way to reject.

    I don't want the next generation of trads to be put in the position I was put in, where there was nothing. I want there to be some sort of institutional basis for traditionalism that they can join and take to the next stage.

    Yelling doesn't provide that institutional base.

    ReplyDelete
  18. They seem bent on ignoring the techniques that work to gain political power in favor of kaffeeklatsches.

    Anon, you have to think this through step by step. How could I have pursued the strategy you recommend when there was only one of me? I can't form a cultural movement by myself.

    It was a question of rolling up my sleeves and beginning a process of bringing trads together.

    When there is a whole network of traditionalists then we can start to think about the kinds of things you're referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Agreed that yelling gets you known for your yelling rather than the salient points of your outlook. Quiet gravitas can be much more effective in attention getting than shouting.

    "Also, psychological robustness, in my view, starts with being willing to distress the women. Who damn well ought to be distressed!"

    Well, yes. If your wife (of all people) cannot come around to your illiberal thinking after a few years then something is deeply awry. That means you are not leading your family philosophically and politically but only whining instead. Your own wife (of all people) should be the first one by your side in general social viewpoints. Give it time and let her see your passion and concern for these issues. It will be more distressful for her to remain neutral (or liberal) than to see your ideas as valid.

    Hannon

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hannon, I've been married for ten years.

    I knew when I married my wife that she wouldn't be a political activist. I didn't marry her for that purpose.

    She doesn't have the right kind of mentality to hold consistently to a political philosophy. She is swayed back and forth depending on her moods, who she has been talking to, what she has seen on the TV and so on.

    I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to make her something that she probably won't ever be, particularly when there are more important things to do, such as building an opportunity for traditionalist men to create local associations.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mark,

    My case is similar in that I have not converted, nor tried to convert, my wife to political activism or reading blogs like this one. But there has been a significant shift in thinking about major issues, a shift from a poorly informed liberalism to one of realistically viewing modern liberalism as largely destructive. She can now see why socialism, e.g., goes against human nature. I was not ever on a mission to "make" this happen but a change did occur over some years.

    Every marriage will be different but without at least sympathetic understanding from your spouse it can make a difficult effort that much more trying.

    Hannon

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hannon, thanks.

    I think the big shift in my own wife's understanding is that she realises how important this is to me and she is supportive for that reason (i.e. she is happy for me to do political work).

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.