2,216 words

Part 3 of 3 (Part 1 here, Part 2 here)

The simple answer to the question of how quixotism can be avoided is that we shouldn’t allow romantic idealism to dissuade us from practicality. This is easier said than done, however, as it’s often difficult to recognize quixotism in oneself.

To answer this question more thoroughly, I’m going to again refer to the novel which brought this word into our lexicon. The character of Don Quixote is driven to the point of insanity by his obsession with the concept of knightly chivalry, expending all his resources to acquire book after book on the subject. He then goes out into the world with the goal of living out his fantasies. He tries to imitate the noble deeds of the knights whose adventures he had read about and embody the ideals of knightly chivalry, but he just ends up making a fool of himself.

In fact, there is another phrase inspired by Don Quixote, specifically referring to the scene where he charges at windmills after mistaking them for a long-armed monster. The phrase “tilting at windmills” means to invent a problem in order to have something to oppose. Obviously, the windmills didn’t constitute a menace; Don Quixote simply wanted an enemy to fight so that he could prove himself in accordance with his lofty and fanciful ideals.

The essence of the comedic farce that is Don Quixote is that he lives entirely in abstractions, while being totally oblivious to the actuality of the world around him. The virtue of a knight is that he is a force for order who brings stability to the domain he serves, but Don Quixote doesn’t attempt to embody this virtue within the world he inhabits. He simply read stories about knights fighting fearsome monsters and believes that to be a chivalrous knight, he needs to find a monster to fight, because that’s what knights do.

People engage in quixotic thinking when they place greater value on abstraction than on concrete reality. When Mao Zedong embarked on his so-called Great Leap Forward, he didn’t set out with the goal of bettering the Chinese economy. His goal was to prove that his preconceived political doctrine was correct. Much like Don Quixote’s obsession with tales of knightly chivalry, Mao cared only for his political ideology. For Mao, the actual flesh and blood of the Chinese people were simply fodder to be fed into the machine in pursuit of his dream of creating the Marxist utopia.

The various factions of the Right have done their fair share of the same over the past decade or so. Their preoccupation with the abstract rather than the concrete is what has led them into quixotism. For the conservative, these abstractions are individualism, constitutionalism, and “Western values” (whatever that means). For the libertarian, it’s “liberty,” which for them simply means the free market and the absence of state power. For the Third Positionist, it’s their fantasies about recreating the Third Reich. Each of these camps have pursued these abstractions without regard for the practicalities of the real world.

To avoid the folly of quixotism, one’s first principle should be what is good for that which is tangible rather than for an abstract political ideology. If you start from the principle that you want what is best for your people, culture, land, and civilization, you can embrace any course of action and change course whenever needed based on what works best in the present context. You don’t lock yourself into one course of action beyond all practicality in order to adhere to a political doctrine.

For example, I’d argue that Western countries would benefit from a reduction in the enormous managerial state bureaucracies they’ve built up over the past few decades. However, I also believe that they would benefit immensely from strict enforcement of borders, a crackdown on illegal immigration, and a massive reduction in legal immigration. One of these proposals would involve a reduction in state power and the other would involve an increase. This isn’t contradictory if you are approaching the issue from the perspective that the use of state force, or lack thereof, is simply a means toward the end of improving your country.

You only run into problems when you’ve adopted an ideological belief that state power is either good or bad in and of itself. The COVID restrictions were an unjust and unnecessary use of state force, while the George Floyd riots warranted a far greater use of state force than was actually employed. If either of those assertions gives you the urge to label me a “libertarian” or a “statist,” then you are part of the problem. There’s nothing logically inconsistent with supporting the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms while denying that same right to illegal immigrants if your first principle is the good of your own people rather than some universalist abstraction.

This should be the approach taken to any issue. Let’s take the Jewish Question for another example. Jewish influence in education, the media, and government is a problem because, on the whole, they push an anti-white agenda. The Zionist lobby is a problem because it gets Western countries involved in wars overseas that they do not benefit from. Therefore, Jews cannot be allowed to have such a massive overrepresentation in positions of power in white countries, and support for Israel by Western countries should cease.

But does this mean that the African National Congress (ANC) that currently rules South Africa is my friend because they support Palestine and oppose Israel’s policies? No, it doesn’t. The South African government is just as, if not more so, anti-white as any Zionist, and white South Africans will tell you that the ANC’s stance on Israel doesn’t make their regime any more palatable. Arguing over which one to side with is like arguing over whether it’s preferable to be eaten by an alligator or a crocodile. It’s a waste of time that bogs you down in an ideological quagmire and distracts from the core issue of what is actually in our interests.

Something endemic to the phenomenon of quixotism is an obsession with ideology. Now, it would be easy for me to say that you shouldn’t have an ideology. Nobody likes to think of themselves as particularly ideological. People on the Right like to think their ideology is simply common sense, while those on the left like to think their ideology is just about being a nice person. Everyone has an ideology, and I won’t claim that I am an exception, but how can we prevent ourselves from becoming ideologues and becoming carried away with quixotism?

Here’s the solution. Ideological labels should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Quixotic thinking is usually a product of adopting the formula, “Since I am X, I believe A, B, and C.” The formula should be “I believe in A, B, and C; therefore, I can be described as X.” One should adopt the policies which best serve the good of those concrete entities which one holds to be valuable, namely one’s people, land, culture, etc. Based on which policies one sees as the most beneficial for them, others can apply a political label to him in order to describe his ideology. But the label others choose to describe one shouldn’t be of great importance to said individual.

Based on the views I’ve espoused in this essay, how would you describe me? Am I a paleoconservative? Am I a White Nationalist? Am I a reactionary? I don’t object to being described by any of these labels. My views certainly overlap with each of them to some degree. Being associated with these ideological classifications by others does not influence my thinking when deciding upon my views on any given subject, however. They are just descriptive labels, not prescriptive mandates of my thought process.

Quixotism is the result of adopting one’s positions based on the framework of a preconceived political ideology rather than what is practical in reality. Ideologues across the political spectrum are susceptible to this. “Because I am a conservative, I believe in individualism. Therefore, I can’t take average group differences into account at all.” “Because I am a libertarian, I am opposed to state power. Therefore, I think borders shouldn’t exist.” “Because I am a Third Positionist, I believe state power is based. Therefore, I support a nationalist version of a Chinese-style social credit system.”

I know these arguments sound ridiculous, but in my time involved in this sphere of politics, I’ve encountered them time and time again. To quote Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men, “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?” If your abstract political ideology results in you opposing the good of that which is actually concrete and tangible, then your ideology is useless.

Lastly, quixotism is often a result of a failure to consider real-world circumstances in favour of one-size-fits-all prescriptions based on ideological suppositions. The context in which a course of action is taken is often more important than the course of action itself. Furthermore, not only the applicability of the course of action in the present context, but the feasibility of carrying it out is more important than the actions themselves in the abstract.

Classical liberalism works well in a homogeneous, socially cohesive, ethnically European country, but since those conditions no longer exist in the West, it’s doomed to failure. A 500-page book on anacho-capitalist political philosophy is nothing more than a fanciful thought experiment for the sole purpose of entertainment. No state is ever going to abolish itself, and even if it did, it’s jurisdiction would simply be taken over by another state. You might think Third Positionist economics were totally “based and red-pilled” when the Germans did it in the 1930s, but actually implementing it again would require gaining control of the state, something which Third Positionists are nowhere close to today.

Without power, ideology is meaningless. The focus needs to be on obtaining power first. Only then can you implement your ideas. Therefore, the best course of action for the Right is not that which accords to a pre-established political doctrine, but rather that which is conducive to attaining power. Let’s take the issue of free speech. On the one hand, you can argue that the ability to criticize authority and discuss the burning issues of the day is a vital aspect of a free and stable society. On the other, you can argue that you can’t simply allow open subversion to take root by granting unlimited free speech to people who have no intention of granting you the same.

Both arguments are compelling. I want free speech. I want the ability to openly discuss ideas and issues without fear of reprisal from the state or private entities. However, I recognize that you can never have absolutely free speech. There will always be some degree of censorship, and if you are serious about attaining power, you cannot afford to grant your enemies the ability to undermine and supplant you. There is a huge amount of censorship in the West today in various forms, including hate speech laws, the threat of loss of employment, and politically-partisan speech codes enforced by Big Tech platforms. Meanwhile, billions of dollars a year are put into propagating anti-white hatred, perverse depravity, and nihilism.

What is the correct position to take? Given the circumstances today, I think the best position is to support as much free speech as possible. When you are locked outside the halls of power and those inside are doing whatever they can to shut you down, you need free speech more than ever. I recognize that you can never have completely free speech. While I would never want to be as censorious as the powers-that-be are today, if I were in power, promoting outright poison would not be allowed. However, I’m not in power today, so I fully support more free speech, because it is conducive to our side gaining power.

Now, if I were in power, where would I draw the line? How would I balance the right to free speech with the necessity of rooting out hostile subversion? I would start with the principle that the good our people, culture, land, and civilization comes first. People will disagree on what really is for the best for those things, and they would have the freedom to express their differing opinions and criticise the opinions of others. However, open hostility, such as advocating the mass importation of migrants or the sterilization of children, would not be allowed, as this is in total contradiction to the interests of our people.

The folly of quixotism is allowing the abstract to supersede the real. When lofty idealism carries one away from all practicality, one end up like Don Quixote, charging at the windmills — valiantly through the lens of ideology, but foolishly in the eyes of those in the real world. The best way to avoid this is to keep that which is tangible as the first priority. The flesh and blood are what matter most, not political doctrine. The latter is only good insofar as it serves the former. The former is not a commodity to be expended in pursuit of the latter.