Let me start by quoting from the other thread a comment from Physiocrat that I think sums up the Johnsonian/Alt Right attitude to metapolitics. I regard this type of metapolitics as peculiar to the United States, and whatever its merits, I do not regard it as really applicable to Britain:
My response:Physiocrat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:21 pmBut the means and ends of civic activism are themselves underpinned by ideas. Now most of the public are unlikely to have worked through positions on the appropriate goals and means to achieve them. They will accept them or reject them on their tacit ideas. This is where culture comes in. Stories change the morality and politics on an a-rational level and provides the axioms upon which much of their theorising will be built. This is why I am so concerned with culture. For example, most of the population seem to believe that equality, generally understood is a good thing, and take this to be axiomatic so if I headed a party which advocated disenfranchisement of women, I would go nowhere. This belief in equality is built up day by day by writers and directors which lead to this tacit idea becoming functionally hegemonic. The Nazi party platform must then have been to some extent consistent with the tacit ideas of the public.
There is no point trying to convert most people to libertarianism however showing them why it would work in particular circumstances can help to reprogamme their assumptions.
Ideas are irrelevant to politics.
But I need to caveat that bold generalisation in various ways.
Ideas are relevant to me and you. That's because, at least in the broad sense of the term, we are both 'intellectuals'. But ideas are not relevant to the ordinary person. The ordinary person is non-intellectual, which is not to say he is unintelligent or stupid - I do not make that claim. The ordinary person is mostly, if not entirely, concerned with his immediate needs. He doesn't care about my and your intellectual preoccupations and concerns, which seem parochial to him, if not esoteric. White girls being 'raped' in Rotherham? So what? As difficult as that is to accept, it's just the way people are.
The ordinary man will put up with practically anything as long as his immediate needs are met. Even the white men you see at anti-jihadist demonstrations mostly don't really care about the issues at hand, they are just there for the buzz. As such, those demonstrations are just a live-action roleplay version of TV- and YouTube/web-viewing behaviour: to the public who watch news and political content online, it's just entertainment. Crucially, it's not the basis for activationism. In fact, if anything, it's the basis for inaction and political laziness. It's a soma.
Granted, libertarianism is a more intellectual position than nationalism. Libertarians are smart people - maybe too smart for their own good, and maybe that's part of your problem. Whatever is the case, we can say that ideas are very important in the libertarian sphere, but all that tells me is that the intellectuals involved in libertarianism need to up their game politically. You can't popularise libertarianism except through political measures, which requires that you reconcile a paradox: to make people freer, you first need to seize power. That can be done either by taking power directly yourselves or by influencing others who want power. As far as I can see, the actual unofficial (and perhaps, unspoken) purpose of the Mises Centre UK is the latter. As a rule, and exceptions allowing, I wouldn't expect libertarianism to have much traction on a council estate, but when put across in a certain way, these ideas might receive a favourable reception at a Conservative Association or a Whitehall think tank.
You talk about art, films and other creative endeavours, which as you rightly say, can influence politics. But a cultural struggle only works to any significant extent if there is political momentum in society. Apart from anything else, movements that control things politically can secure funding for the arts. Witness for instance the Hepworth Gallery in Wakefield, a brutalist architectural monstrosity. That gallery exists because the Left control local government in West Yorkshire. Without political ability, and the motive force underlying it, any ideas you have will remain at the fringes. At best, you will be what is politely known as a 'cult writer' or 'cult artist' or whatever, which are euphemisms for the focal point of a creative fad that flimsy people grow out of. The point of politics is not to be a fad or a cult figure, but to have power.
To put it bluntly: Power is everything.
For the abundance of clarity: I am not, per se, arguing against social media, articles, blogging, etc. Nor am I rubbishing those who engage in such activities, which are helpful and useful. But I am of the view that they should be a tool for and subservient to real-world activism, not become an enchanted world in themselves, full of prissy madams who think they should be immune to criticism.
Nationalists have a similar problem to libertarianism, but the other way round. I observed just now that libertarians are smart people. Nationalists are the opposite: most of us aren't very bright - but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Being a dullard or simple person can be advantageous, and anyway does not equate to stupidity. Nationalism isn't really an intellectual position at its core. Nationalism is more of a 'common sense' type of position. It appeals in the main to people who look at things practically and, from experience, recognise intuitively certain realities of the human condition. There is only so much purely intellectual content a nationalist can publish before things start to seem a bit circular and déjà vu sets in. At the end of the day, this is about preserving and advancing the British nation, which is not a difficult concept for the average person to comprehend in its essential form, and almost-everybody at every level of society does, whether they agree with it or not. That being the case, issuing more pamphlets discussing the metaphysical linguistics of Evola's fascism, or nihilism in a post-Christian society, or whatever, isn't going to get us much further and will, if anything, just serve to complicate and confuse things. Nationalism is simple: and that's a good thing.
There is also the more substantive point that Nationalism, being about the interests of the national people - i.e. the indigenous (implicitly white) British - should be concerned with their interests and needs, not the interests and needs of Nationalists themselves. Apart from anything else, local, honest community engagement acts as a medium - a true meta - for the transmission of Nationalist ideas into the public consciousness. Unlike the Alt Right, it's metapolitics proper. A large part of my interests and needs revolve around intellectual-type pursuits, and as such I am probably typical of people involved in the Alt Right in some way, but that is not reflective of most people. Do we attend to our own needs or the needs of those whose support we demand and expect? Which makes more sense to you? I could write a very erudite essay advancing a thesis that the Exodus is part of a Jewish mythos of self-victimisation that continued with the Holocaust. I could participate in a podcast on the child-grooming phenomenon in Britain. But is any of that politics, or even metapolitics? I think it's just a hobby. If an old lady has her benefit cut or a young man finds himself homeless, will it be any comfort that such-and-such a blog has had a thousand hits in the last few days after the jailing of Tommy Robinson? If these people are to support us, we need to convince them that we care - and I mean genuinely care - about their troubles, issues and problems, both personal and at the community level and society-wide, and that we are competent people and can do something about them. If we can't convince them of this, then how can we hope to 'save the White Race'?