Counter-Currents

One of the problems with a largely online “movement” is that “leaders” are often determined by whoever can grab the mic and shout the loudest and the longest. This means that “leaders” become nearly synonymous with “content creators” or “e-celebs” or whatever the current lingo is.

As such, the ability to be successful in the real world becomes less and less a factor in whom people decide to listen to. It’s no longer required or expected that one elevated to a leadership position show any aptitude for strategy or diplomacy, or even that they are just relatively successful in their own personal lives, like being able to hold down a job or have a good reputation within their community. Even the most bare minimum requirements have been abandoned, to our overall detriment.

Instead, the natural human tendency is to gravitate to whomever or whatever stimulates their dopamine receptors. And similar to housewives hooked on daytime soaps, much of the dissident right is hooked on those who can produce a reliable and steady stream of drama or gossip. It's not activism; it's entertainment. Let's not kid ourselves on that.

There’s a certain “idiocracy” that seems to be taking hold. And I don’t mean that in the sense that any of the guilty parties are unintelligent, but that there is an increasing taste for low culture and plebeian vice within the DR, which is being encouraged by those “leaders” who reap some sort of profit from it- not necessarily financial, but also things as simple as basic ego aggrandisement. In any case, there is SOME kind of payoff for all involved.

There is probably no real solution to this, since human nature is what it is, and so it will always be something that is around. But individually, we can certainly all choose whose voices we allow into our mental space.

How you determine that is up to you. I personally tend to avoid two types of people
1) those who are frequently engaged in public disputes with others (especially if they are typically the one in the role of provocateur, which in many cases will be the person who spergs out on purity spiralling and needs to "call out" what they believe are "bad ideas") and
2) those who often find themselves at the centre of drama, claiming victim status (whether legitimate or manufactured- both are equally concerning for different reasons).

I don't look for nor expect perfect people (I'm certainly not one myself!) but I do look for people who, more often than not, are striving for unity rather than division, whose primary focus is on doing their own work well rather than criticising others' ideas and projects. Those are my two basic qualifications in assessing someone's leadership qualities. I like people who are positive stewards of their ideas and who embody qualities I wish I had in myself.

From a Traditional perspective, leadership is a regal thing and is associated with the immovable and immutable quality of the sun. He shines out his solar light regardless of what happens around him. The leader is not a rabble-rouser or a drama queen, nor does he pander to the mob- not for clicks, not for money, not for praise. His principles are what they are, take it or leave it.

None of this is intended to make anyone feel called out, but merely to provide points for reflection for everyone, whether true leader, self-appointed leader, leader-wannabe, or dutiful follower.

🤔20

817 views18:00