The Politics of the Persona in the Matrix. A Warning against Insincerity.

Recently I came across a series of Tweets from a very intriguing and intelligent fellow that runs the Twitter account “Mr. Scientism”. commenting upon recent events around the nature of freedom on the internet and how various social media and internet-based corporations, such as Google, are transforming the way average people of the right-wing persuasion get out the message. Unfortunately, the fear of mass-banning, account throttling and outright censorship of any contrarian opinion will be “business as usual” in our (not so) brave new world[1]. The Tech world is certainly operated and developed by high-IQ analytical people, but these are the staff who write code and do the grunt work of development. Those with the real power who make decisions on what users get to do on various social media platforms tend to be of the effete, urbanite and radically progressive variety. Therefore, Mr. Scientism envisions an even more polarized world that has an odd stability to it. Contrarians on the Right will operate covertly, never archiving any meaningful political power or cultural capital, being forced to live and existence “in real life” totally different from their anonymous pseudonyms and online personas. As Mr. Scientism points out, technology has allowed us to create whole anonymous personality infrastructures, but due to the crippling fear of real life consequences of harbouring “dangerous” wrong-think beliefs, politics will soon become a mass multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG).

Of course, one cannot blame anyone, even some of the tamest mainstream conservatives and classical liberals, from adopting online personas. The new reality of political discourse in the 21st century is a totalizing conformity to the official consensus reality of the media, academia and government/non-government institutions in society, a consensus that is dictated often by the left. The progressive Gen-Xers and now Millennials that operate Silicon Valley certainly feel even disagreeing with their worldview is intolerable. If one wishes to exist in polite (and controlled) society, where people will disassociate with you at the slightest hint of controversy, and in the worse cases commit violence and harm you financially, we burrow further and further into the land of anonymous political banter. This is not even a stable bet anymore, seeing as how the social media corporations are all too willing to work with government bodies (such as the EU and the Chinese Politburo) to censor huge swaths of all content that is deemed unacceptable. Even without government interference, these corporations all on there own will wage an endless campaign of rooting out ideological enemies. The most extreme cases of abuse and hateful opinions espoused by those with the “right kind” of politics go unpunished, while one slip-up often will get an opposing voice banned permanently from whichever social media platform.

What is the result of an online environment where huge swaths of the population are forced into the digital shadows? As I have observed, a growing detachment from any political sincerity. The ground-breaking depth psychologist and philosopher Carl Jung defined the persona as “a complicated system of relations between individual consciousness and society, fittingly enough a kind of mask, designed on the one hand to make a definite impression upon others, and, on the other, to conceal the true nature of the individual[2]. Politics on the right will be reduced to little more than digital simulacra, which explains why we can see the proliferation of alternative (and ironic) ideological labels littering the twitter profiles and chat messages boards of various online personas. As some of humorously note, the young SJW collects identities and labels based on their place within the “progressive stack”, like they are collecting badges or “Pogs” or trading cards, as the popular phrase goes. So too does the political right participate in the postmodern wasteland of insincere and “edgy” political banter in the safe realms of anonymous image boards and obscure twitter direct message groups. All behind a comforting layer of detachment from one’s real existence outside the digital landscape.

Of course, as the political left is free to operate in the open, even spouting violent rhetoric, the Right is pushed into a position of virtual impotence. The obvious rebuttal to this line of thinking is that behind a pseudonym, the Right can effectively “influence” and commit acts of culture-jamming/propaganda behind the veil of anonymity. This is a reasonable argument; anonymous figures have managed to influence the thinking of even mainstream moderates. such as the example of the person known only by the moniker “Anonymous Conservative”, with the evolutionary-turned-political R/K selection theory[3]. A Person who works in the professional field that fears the obvious repercussions to His livelihood for spreading such an interpretation of evolutionary psychology and genetic research. But apart from the more prolific examples, when politics becomes a game, when polemics and rhetoric is rendered mute inside a confined space, real political action often does not manifest from such a playground game. This is why anonymous online right-wingers often adopt the aesthetics and rhetoric of obscure political ideologies, often derivatives of 19th and early 20th century political movements, with an aesthetics of classical antiquity and the renaissance (a lot of profile pictures of ancient Greek and roman sculptures or pastoral landscapes). After time, the subject takes on this bifurcation of online/offline identity, often blending the two but never crossing the threshold into “real life” (if there is such a thing), for fear of the various social and monetary ramifications. One protests and addresses this bifurcation with saying it is only a temporary state. When the Right achieves “real political power”, then things on the surfaces of society and culture will be more accepting of contrarian ideas. Also, every revolutionary met in secret at one point!

This is true, but the problem is (as Mr. Scientism points out) modern technology can have this reality be perpetuated ad-infinite. Also, revolutionaries, even the radical socialist and communist revolutionaries like the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, Mao’s great leap, etc. did operate outside of the venues of official political power and at times had to adopt shadow tactics to avert detection. The difference is, for all the horrors they unleashed, they were clever, they committed to their cause and were willing to suffer the consequences of their beliefs. Now I am not trying to in any way excuse the actions of these revolutionaries, they became even more murderous and tyrannical then the Bourgeoisie systems they rebelled against. The point is this, the only way to achieve lasting political power and influence cultural output in any given society is a sincere commitment to principles and political action. You can “raise awareness” and commit acts of “wrong think” behind a persona, but there is little guarantee this will bleed into future political action. The Right will not achieve political power in a violent revolution, this is inadvisable and more than likely a fantasy. even if the Right managed to cede huge portions of nations and create autonomous political systems (an idea worth contemplating), the US deep state and the EU governing body will probably have these placed droned and reconquered the next day without the Right having sufficient influence over the existing political structures to begin with.

there is no easy way of achieving meaningful political influence for any side of the political spectrum, in our case, the political Right. The most obvious choices in terms of action all seem to lead to failure, such as moderation. There must be a balance between appealing to a wider audience and having political principles. In the case of the edgy brand of various trolling, incendiary, and fascistic styles of political rhetoric (mostly from young and unserious types who wish to merely play a political game), this is one ineffective extreme which will only embarrass and make the Right repellant to most people. The other extreme is that of the ultra-moderate, the Neo-con, the “republicans in name only” who wish to appease the institutional, media and cultural gatekeepers on the Left by selling out any principle or serious engagement with achieving political change in the process of appeasement. These are the professional types, the controlled opposition or token conservatives in left-leaning news sites and institutions. Both extremes will only perpetuate much of the same political insincerity on the Right. The best ways forward are programs of gradualism it seems, not shocking rhetoric and impotent online extremism, or being a meek and posturing moderate who grovels for acceptance, but to adopt the methods and tactics of the New Left. They committed themselves to changing culture, forsaking direct confrontation for subversion (as Yuri Bezmenov pointed out[4]), gradually influencing what is considered acceptable political discourse, especially in the universities, and not being afraid to face the real consequences of being discovered. The road to meaningful change is long and hard, and currently the political Right only offers palliative methods until the total control-society gradually comes into fruition. Therefore, the Right must be sincere in its political discourse, and have the courage to face the consequences of being a contrarian[5].

[1] The thread can be found here:

[2] Jung, Carl, Gustav. “The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious”. In The Collected Work of Carl Jung, Volume 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. (Princeton, New York: Princeton University Press, Bollingen Foundation Series. 1928): 305.

[3] Anonymous Conservative. “R/K Selection Theory, The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics”.

[4] This video is mandatory material for everyone on the political right.

[5] Artwork done by Me. Entitled “Insincere Persona”. (Pen and ink).