Many people are saying Lawrence Murray is one of the best writers on the Alt-Right. I have lots of racist internet friends, and they message me and say, “Lawrence, you’re absolutely right. You know, I agree with everything you’ve said.” And I think lots of people feel that way. I’ve been doing very well and gotten excellent feedback, and I’ve found that the response is excellent. There’s tremendous support from lots of people I’ve met and we’ve got a blog that’s in better shape because of it. So many people have asked me, “How do you do it? How do you do it, Lawrence?” And I say to these people what I think, and I think I put in a tremendous effort to get things done for this organization. It’s a tremendous effort and I think we’re doing very well because of it. The Right Stuff is doing very well.
So anyway, someone actually did suggest I do a style guide of sorts and I do think that would be a good idea. One of the things I can do as a keyboard warrior is try to raise the standard of discourse on the things we’re talking and writing about, simply by increasing the share of content that is mine or inspired by mine—we’ve actually had a number of contributors decide to write articles because of my influence or suggestion and I want to see more of that. So with that in mind I’d like to give a pretty straightforward overview of how I do things and what goes into a good piece, what makes a good writer.
I. Read. Read a lot. Read everything you can. You should always be in the process of reading a book. It doesn’t matter what pace you read at, if you only do 20 pages a week, but if someone were to ask, “What are you reading?” you should have an answer. I’m currently reading Michel Houellebecq’s Submission, which was published in French and translated into English last year. Set in near-future France, the novel describes life under a Muslim Brotherhood-Socialist governing coalition for a nihilistic and debauched college professor. Usually I read history or non-fiction but given the recent spate of events in Europe, it seemed like a good choice. [Actually, I read Houellebecq like a month ago—this draft is just old]. Reading does a number of things for you: it makes you think, it exposes you to new ideas, it improves your vocabulary, and it allows you to experience the writing styles of professionally published writers. On the latter, I should clarify that I am in general against credentialism—but in the case of written word, it’s not well-written works that have difficulty getting published but unmarketable or crimethink ones. So if something is commercially published, it is a good indicator that the author or his editor have probably done a very good job with their prose, regardless of the message. Speaking of which…
II. Be efficient. This doesn’t mean you should keep things very short, but that they shouldn’t be unnecessarily long. There is a distinction. Think of the article as the macro-level and the sentence as the micro-level. At the macro-level, you shouldn’t repeat yourself too much except in a conclusion; anywhere else is probably superfluous. Say as much as you need to say. At the micro-level is where people tend to go wrong. Here you can never be too short, I think. If your sentence is more than four lines long it’s almost certainly garbage. I don’t want to have to read it three times to get it, and no one else does either. You are probably trying to express too many distinct ideas—maybe even breaking them up with punctuation like semi-colons, parentheses, or the em-dash—which have only tenuous connections that might not even make sense to other people who didn’t pen them; you should avoid splicing together things just because the rules of grammar, which are as sterile and mechanical as they come, say you can do so (because it results in shitty sentences like this one). It should have hurt your soul to read that. It should have been tiring. You don’t want your reader to be exhausted by the end, especially not for political writing.
III. Be fluent. If your writing is engorged with jargon it becomes increasingly hermeneutic, and obligatory of the audience to acquire competency in the same disciplines that you are familiar with in order to decipher your corpus of literature. If they have to google every other word or be familiar with Continental philosophy, then your work is likely for a very specialized audience, and for my purposes that’s not what I am trying to do. The purpose of political writing is to convert people and build a frame of reference for an ideological worldview. If you are introducing a very specific word or concept that is important to your overall purpose, explain it briefly and simply, and move on. If people find themselves getting bogged down in the marshes of your mind they are going to make an exit. This doesn’t mean you should write in a totally vernacular format, but conversely that if you write like a graduate student the only people who are going to access it are other graduate students. Obviously, you want your writing to sound intelligent, but more important is that the ideas you are expressing are intelligent. Good political writing doesn’t signal how many words the author knows but leaves the reader with something to both think and feel about.
IV. Lead the reader. I am not a huge fan of the traditional essay format. I think it’s cold, sterile, and a very artificial way of receiving and processing information. What I mean by that is the whole structure of the hamfisted thesis followed by a laundry list of evidence makes for a pretty boring read and encourages laziness on the part of the reader. There are times when the essay format is useful, but I feel that for the kind of politics I am advocating it is less effective. In my articles, I want the reader to be an active participant in reaching my conclusion. I start with the problem or event or idea I am writing about, then I provide a mix of evidence and ideological principles, and finally I propose some solution or position on the issue. In other words, the writing mirrors my own thought process of coming to the conclusion that I hold. My goal is for the reader to feel the same way I do before he even gets to the end, so that the conclusion seems as if it were something he could have thought of himself. Such clever goyim! I think that can be much more inspiring than just reading theses and arguments ad infinitum.
So those are really the key things I do. Without them, anything you write will be lacking something or other and less effective than it could be. What follows are the more tailored things I do for the specific world of Alt-Right blogging and media:
I. Link to other work. I might actually be overdoing this but whatever. I don’t want my past work to become buried, since I did put effort into it and think it is pretty good. You shouldn’t link just for the sake of linking, but to connect thematically related articles you or others have written—this helps build a comprehensive worldview that readers can easily reference. If you have written time-insensitive theoretical pieces, keep them around. When writing about current events, see if there’s a pattern going on that you’ve covered before. Providing links is especially helpful for getting newer people interested in your content, because after reading through one article they think is interesting, they now have the easy opportunity to explore further work, which in turn links to other work, and so forth.Think of it as a Wikipedia approach—a much more organic and engaging way of getting information than digging through an author’s archives. [By the way, there are too many articles linked in the above paragraph. Don't go ogreboard].
II. Include image(s). One weird trick to get people to click on things is adding a picture to your article. Bonus points if it is a meme or really aesthetic. Nothing should be posted without an image because then the link previews displayed on major social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter will include a lot of blank space or a default picture from the website. And that just looks crappy. Does that mean the writing will be crappy too? There’s no reason to cripple your reach on this—put a picture in there.
III. Throw in some humor. Depending on the topic, it may be appropriate to lighten the mood or belittle the opposition or make some sarcastic observations. In recent years the left has been very successful at combining politics and entertainment, to the point where many millennials consider shows on Comedy Central to be an important source of news. The only thing actually funny about the whole situation is that only comedians who embrace broadly held left-wing attitudes (which are not at all stigmatized among high-status people) are considered to be very funny or insightful. In reality, these people are just snarky hall monitors. I think a lot of Alt-Right writers and Twitter users already have this covered though, as we are blessed by Kek with skillful memes. See also, the TRS Lexicon.
IV. Use history. History makes a good rhetorical and empirical case for a lot of positions one might hold. History is invaluable to identity formation, but also the only test laboratory we have for political beliefs and ideologies in practice. Now in general, people only know enough history to further their agenda, which means the opposition need only know slightly more than they do, which leads to a lot of omission and the development of parallel data sets, so to speak. But there is no avoiding that—no one has ever made a passionate case for anything by being totally indifferent and narrative-less. Often we are told by our enemies that the past we are referencing is either imaginary or mythical, a kind of strawman unless you are arguing with someone who is purely reactionary. But pure reactionaries are so rare to begin with that usually the charge of idealizing an imagined past is irrelevant—since we are truly interested in the future more than the past. It would be a farce to pick an age in history and say that is the exact year we want to go back to, because the past produced the present, which we want to overcome. I think many of us have a more archaeofuturist conception of what we’d want society to be like, that is to say, combining ancient truths with forward-looking methodologies. That means using history. And going back to the “mythical past” trope, the left is completely guilty of that which they charge the right with, especially in trying to redefine European nations and Anglo settler colonies as having always been “diverse.” The presence of Huguenots in early-modern London for example does not justify London being a British-minority city today, nor does having massive European immigration to the United States from 1840-1920 justify having massive immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa from 1960 onward. Know history and use history.
Now go forth and effortpost, goyim.