Choose Your Leaders Wisely, Not Conspicuously

A speaker who was dropped yesterday from the #Scyldings Conference, an inaugural event for political reactionaries, took to YouTube this afternoon to "air grievances" about the occasion of his disinvitation. In a stream lasting 16 and a half minutes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta09rABJgEQ), the streamer swore 151 times, 91 instances of which were the "f" word or its derivatives, while publishing private Discord conversations with event coordinators to back his complaints.

We don't want to take sides (we're not associated with any of the parties, the Conference; nor are we concerned with the veracity of either grieved party's claims), but to comment on the gross unprofessionalism reflected on both the streamer and the Scyldings Conference generally. What the public can now see for themselves is never the right [or smart] way to handle this kind of thing. Regardless of which side is right in this internal disagreement, the fact that such petty, untrustworthy individuals were selected by Conference organizers indicates that they themselves lack the careful jurisprudence required for leadership. It would have been so easy to resolve a dispute competently, speaking privately between volunteers and speakers. However, without leadership possessing the qualities necessary for standing at the head of any group, people applying for entry won't be vetted properly, policy and procedures won't be formed, organization and arbitration won't be conducted well, and the quality of the entire group will suffer as a result. Any group's health is a direct reflection of its leadership; and if leadership isn't effective, their effort is doomed to fail.

The Scyldings Conference and its circles are largely formed around content creators on podcast and video hosting services online. What happened today betrays a general trend in dissident political movements which form online. Consumers mistake their consumption of political or social content as valid activism, equivocating favorite creators with legitimate political leaders. But these podcasters and Youtubers are about as fit for duty and their followers' concept of activism is realistic. Rather, the profilicity of the camera, the dramatic cycle of the limelight, constant bombardment by the yellow news cycle, and market pressure to always voice your "stream-of-conscience" opinion means that "going viral" usually filters the worst from any political faction into the role of internet celebrity. Popular acclaim accidentally pushes a job that's perfect for sociopaths to the helm of a sinking ship. The trend of the resulting organizations are always the same: an exciting boom of activity due to the leadership's ability to advertise, the establishment of goals, both without means to achieve them and on a timeline meant for the impatient; an impressive initial show, then a slow languishing of further progress beyond a certain point, and, finally, descent into disrepair as members argue how to salvage the situation. EPTA's team have already personally witnessed this process with The Counter Revolution, Learning Academy, The Canis Society, The American Monarchist Society, and a couple more. Like the peasant revolts of ages past, these online popular movements are marked by leaders and ideology which are unfit to replace whichever system they protest (while this sums up reactionary ideology particularly, they must know, on a deeper level, that even the method is hopeless). Even if good content creators are chosen (and we certainly appreciate a good number involved with those groups listed above), the online medium and its lure of entertainment doesn't attract the skilled professionals needed to gamble with lofty goals. They're doomed to fail.

There is one last side effect to this online creator fixation: egoism, cult followings, and narcissism. While internet movements failing to prop themselves up in the long term is one thing, their negative effect on more earnest efforts is another. Spending all that time in front of a screen doesn't occur in a vacuum. Needless online political drama saps much-needed attention, resources, and credibility from organizations attached to real-world communities and leaders. Conflated self-importance is almost certain to follow that which is detached from real consequences, good or bad. Talking heads esteem themselves more valuable than think tanks and politicians, bargaining with the size of their audience, to the detriment of everyone's common welfare. The uneducated or optical opinion takes the reigns from educated and nuanced positions, resulting in the infamous "echo chamber." From there, political extremism, witch-hunting, or any number of insane deviations will eventually cull the movement in a seeming act of suicide. 

Before such a cycle can even begin, we ask traditionalists (who are parallel but dissimilar to reactionaries) to choose your leadership carefully. Choose which organizations you spend your time and money on with the greatest prudence. The future of our community depends on it. Our very real human society - from our families and posterity, to the Church Militant that's materially dependent on us, to the deposit of Western civilization, now abandoned by the greater American populace; to our countrymen, who could stand to be converted by our efforts one day - all come to rest on our social and political tendencies. This is very much a duty of state, not a matter of entertainment; something which even calls our salvation into consideration. Does it sound appropriate to place all this in the hands of sociopathic cult heads located in your YouTube subscriptions? Do we want to be represented by people like this?