Facebook is yet to be thoroughly examined to ascertain the full scope of its social impact on the players in the psychodramas that it enables. However, we have witnessed enough to observe that it aggravates the sociopaths who gravitate to this Patriot thing.

The relationship between trolling and the anonymity of social media has been well recognised but whether or not the reach of Facebook creates the sociopath or that personality type is drawn to the Patriot Movement could be the subject of a peer-reviewed paper.

What we have recognised is that when starved of attention, or removed from the spotlight, certain personalities in the Patriot movement become destructive.

UNA offers this insight as Nationalists, whose separate movement doesn’t seem to harbour the same level of miscreants. There is in itself a lesson to be gleaned from a comparison between the two. Who, for instance, could locate in Nationalist Alternative the kind of monstrous egos that are evident in a Neil Erikson, Shermon Burgess or Nick Folkes?

We name these three individuals because UNA has such experience with chronicling their behaviour but they are far from the entirety of problematic persons who feel that the Patriot Movement offers them an opportunity for the celebrity they will never attain on the basis of personal merit in the outside world.

Here, it is probably useful for newcomers if we define the two in a manner that makes this pronounced difference between both movements understandable. We have, at UNA, had cause to define Patriots and Nationalists in a couple of different ways, but here we highlight the aspect of which ‘mainstreaming’ is the significant catalyst for egocentricity in the individual player.

What we have recognised is that when starved of attention, or removed from the spotlight, certain personalities in the Patriot movement become destructive.

The Patriots desire appeal, and as such focus on a message that emphasises the incompatibility of Islam with Western life. Arguably, therein is a kernel of acknowledgement of the Nationalist awareness of race as being central to national and social cohesion, but this is repudiated for the popularity that comes from inclusiveness.

That is to say, the Patriot will argue that ‘Asians’ are capable of assimilation or that non-Islamic Indians are welcome as supporters. This is as much a cynical means for them to dispute accusations of ‘racism’ which a learned Nationalist will dismiss as irrelevant name calling. All of this is for the sake of achieving a wider following, to which they are prepared to surrender a fundamental integrity of the issue, and turn their eyes to the critical truth that all immigration of a non-White European kind principally alters the fabric of the Australianness central to what we are defending.

It is here that we challenge the assertion made by many who follow this path that by broader exposure they will achieve their objectives, since in the course of seeking popularity they have obscured their former goals, and altered them from a mission to change the social contract of Australian citizenship, to one of accruing approval for rewards both definable and less easily classifiable.

The Nationalist has a greater understanding of the futility of challenging the dominant system in a prescribed manner. But we do not wish to be tangentially misdirected because the salient factor here is ‘popularity’ and its relationship to the the Patriot Egoist.

It is much easier to gain Facebook appeal when not exhorting followers to necessarily exclude others. Nationalists will exclude those of non-White European backgrounds. Also, most who subscribe to the Patriot pages are still indoctrinated into a ‘multicultural’ attitude; it’s just that — being creations of the very system they believe they are in dispute with — they desire Diversity minus Islam.

The Nationalist has a greater understanding of the futility of challenging the dominant system in a prescribed manner. But we do not wish to be tangentially misdirected because the salient factor here is ‘popularity’ and its relationship to the pathology of the Patriot Egoist.

Thus, we have those who regard themselves as ‘players’ because they have a message of sorts, an audience, and a platform with which to interact with that active audience. It is no secret that the reach of Patriot pages far eclipses those of the Nationalists and we will argue that those who administrate their pages have become enticed away from the principles that are assumed to be associated with their activities in preference for the ‘Facebook fame’ they feel they have achieved.

Indeed, why change the outside world when what happens out there sustains the inner world of Facebook they have created for themselves?

We will not go into a full definition of a sociopath as that would be treading ground, not in the purview of this essay. But some traits of the sociopath involve a lack of conscience, an absence of remorse or shame, unreliability, and fantastical behaviour.

We have witnessed all of this with, just as one example, and probably the best, Neil Erikson. But we are not here to revisit the topic of Erikson but telegraph a warning about a type that will ultimately destroy this brand of alternative politics for want of attention.

UNA recently had an experience with the admin of a high-reach page who, for over a year, was trusted among us. Yet, he was always of a volatile personality type and began exhibiting the classic signs that of the Patriot Egoist. So concealed was the more extreme elements of his pathology that we didn’t even notice he was suffering from this condition until he outed some of us to Leftists and threw shared admins off his page which he now clings to, not because it is a tool in our political struggle, but as it is an ace in his hand.

Indeed, why change the outside world when what happens out there sustains the inner world of Facebook they have created for themselves?

Never once was he ever concerned with the quality of commentary passing through his page, but was more obsessed with the ‘reach’ and was constantly fetishizing the number of likes and visits and how they inflated his status. But his critical motivator was jealousy over his abilities as a communicator not measuring up to ours and while we never judged him on this defecit it caused in him seething as it challenged his ego. To that end he sought our destruction.

Neil Erikson is the absolute prototype of this in the Patriot scene. When his access to attention is ever challenged, he will dox, defame, lie, and use any tactic within his arsenal to damage the very thing that supposedly spawned him.

When deprived of exposure on Facebook, this type will display symptoms equivalent to narco-dependency. They actually exhibit symptoms of withdrawal. If they do not regain the attention they are reliant on they become dangerous. The ‘movement’ ceases to matter. All that is left is their jilted ego.

Again, we present nationalists like Nationalist Alternative as a counter example. There is clearly humility within its rank and file based on true belief in the cause. True believers will subjugate themselves for the sake of the cause. We see the same thing in the Australia First Party, and the selflessness of Dr Jim Saleam and the Australia-wide party membership, as well as the Australian Protectionist Party, who likewise have no such characters as Erikson to scandalise them.

Finally, we offer ourselves, since no UNA writer who is not already a public figure seeks the attention of notoriety. Let’s hope it stays that way because we forecast a disaster on the horizon based on this beast that is Facebook and the social phenomena it has produced.

Unknown

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s