A perennial question on the right is “why is there so much infighting?” There are many right answers, with some being more pernicious than others. We will look at one of these more pernicious reasons, and then offer a possible remedy.

Problem

Nature Journal published a revealing article in 2019, detailing four strategies social scientists used to “combat online hate”, ie. to curb the right’s ability to spread its message. Our first take away is that there are social researches who are being paid to analyze the right’s ecosystem, diagnose its weaknesses, and engineer ways to expose those weaknesses. The rightist ecosystem, in The Dynamics of Online Hate by Noemi Derzy, is broken into “hate clusters”, “defined as online pages or groups that organized individuals who shared similar views, interests, or declared purposes, into communities. These pages and groups on social-media platforms contain links to other clusters with similar content that users can join. Through these links, the authors established the network connections between clusters, and could track how members of one cluster also joined other clusters.” In other contexts, a “hate cluster” is called a “fandom”, or in the language of Wilfred Bion of the Tavistock Institute, a “basic assumption group.” What makes these clusters is a i) shared set of authoritative texts, ii) deference to shared influencers, and iii) a shared culture, encompassing both language and aesthetics.

So far this analysis is standard fair, but the novelty comes into play with its ecological bent.

“Previous studies (for example, ref. 8) have considered hate groups as individual networks, or considered the interconnected clusters together as one global network. In their fresh approach, Johnson and colleagues studied the interconnected structure of a community of hate clusters as a ‘network of networks’, in which clusters are networks that are interconnected by highways. Moreover, they propose four policies for effective intervention that are informed by the mechanisms their study revealed govern the structure and dynamics of the online-hate ecosystem.”

Rather than there existing isolated groups, or a single online collective called “the right”, there exists several communities, several fandoms as it were, which are interwoven by various highways. We can think of the elite-theory crowd, Nrx revivalists, nationalists, Christians, Pagans, Nietzscheans, accelerationists, and BAPists, as just a few fandoms which, although separate, are linked to each other via these “highways.” By “highways” the author means any link between different clusters, be it literal links to articles, or personalities that border between clusters. Given the interconnectedness of each cluster, while also acknowledging their distinction, four policies are recommended, but policies three and four are of interest to us here. Quoting from the article,

“Policy 3 leverages the finding that clusters self-organize from an initially disordered group of users; it recommends that platform administrators promote the organize of clusters of anti-hate users, which could serve as ‘a human immune system’ to fight and counteract hate clusters. Policy 4 exploits the fact that many hate groups online have opposing views. The policy suggest that the platform administers introduce an artificial group of users to encourage interactions between hate clusters that have opposing views, with a view to the hate clusters subsequently battling out their differences among themselves. The authors’ modeling demonstrated that such battles would effectively remove hate clusters that have opposing views. Once put into action, policies 3 and 4 would require little direct intervention by the platform administrators; however, getting opposing clusters against each other would require meticulous engineering.”

Infighting via design, in other words. Instead of trying to ban and censor the right out of existence (although limited censorship is recommended in policies one and two), it is easier, and more effective, to get the right to censor itself. It might even be cybernetic!http://(https://theamericansun.com/2023/03/09/cybernetics-hamilton-and-success/) By admission, there are paid professionals who are doing computer modeling to figure out what groups are easily pitted against each other, how to pit them against each other, and when to do so. The best time to do so, as stated above, is when hate clusters are “battling out their differences amongst themselves.” Sometimes these hate clusters are organic, other times they might be artificial, sometimes the disagreements are organic at first, and then capitalized upon later, other times they are purely artificial. Having been around the right since 2014, I can think of a few violent fights that seemed out of left-field. For example, why would Americans who are primarily concerned about limiting immigration, pulling out of the Middle East, and normalizing relations between the sexes (this was the core of the early Alt-Right), suddenly become divided over whether we should be Christian or Pagan, if Julius Evola should provides our philosophical grounding, or if we should support the Azov Division or a Eurasianist front? Yes, you can make all sorts of arguments for these things, but considering the original scope of the Alt-Right, and just the original scope, it was at the very least a distraction, if not outright engineering.

Given the sophistication of the social engineers bent on our destruction, it is likely fruitless to try and determine which clusters are organic, which are not, which disagreements are being exploited, and which are made up whole cloth. To attempt to solve this by “not punching right”, will land us where it did years ago, with people a) afraid to offer constructive criticism, and b) unable to call out legitimate crazies. “Not punching right” led to stagnation, as debate was stifled, and extremists calling for collapse, violence, and advocating treason, were allowed to run rampant, and then used as a pretext to shut down the civil, and reasoned, voices on the right. What, then, is be done?

Possible Solution

Readers of my Substack know that I turn to Father Alexander Schmemann for many things, not because he was necessarily on the right, but because he was a great scholar, and a true gentlemen. I have tremendous respect for Schmemann, and I always worry about bringing his name up in connection with the dissident right, lest he become associated with folks he ought not be. So, as a precaution, let me say I am using him to bring up a similar, though unrelated, example of communication, and that the reader ought to absolve the thinker of any and all associations with anything approximating the Alt-Right or Dissident Right…to do so would be dishonest.

During a grim time for the Russian Church, Metropolitan Philaret, head bishop of a jurisdiction comprised of White Russian emigres who escaped from Soviet persecution, penned an epistle addressing all the local churches of the Orthodox Church, alleging that all jurisdictions except his own (The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, or ROCOR), have fallen into heresy. Father Schmemann of blessed memory belonged to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), which was also formed by White Russians, but wanted to integrate into American culture, whereas ROCOR wanted, at least in its beginning, to be predominately a Russian jurisdiction. What we have here is not too dissimilar to a fight between two rightist clusters, both who equally oppose leftism (Soviet communism), but one is accusing the other of being feds (being heretics). Schmemann, not being a member of ROCOR, is implicated in Philaret’s accusations, and could have lashed out like a rightist might have, but look at how he responds.

First, Schmemann acknowledges the seriousness of the issue at hand,

“These, as one can see, are very grave accusations. The entire Orthodox Church is implied since virtually all autocephalous Churches were represented in Uppsala, sometimes by their highest hierarchs. Patriarch Gherman of Serbia was even elected to the presidency of the WCC. These accusations, moreover, create a malaise among the Orthodox and threaten the very unity of the Church. They must be taken seriously and discussed at the highest possible level. Before this is done, however, some preliminary questions must be raised, which, I hope to show, are of paramount importance for an orderly solution of any problem that may arise within the Orthodox Church. The purpose of this article is to formulate at least some of them.”

Explaining the context of why Philaret wrote the “Sorrowful Epistle”, as it is called, will distract us from our purposes, and would only be interesting to a few readers. Let it suffice to say that Schmemann is acknowledging the naturalness of Philaret’s reaction.

Father Schmemann further affirms the Metropolitan’s concern,

“These are not petty recriminations but questions of vital importance for the entire Orthodox Church — for her unity and order. There have often been serious disagreements among Orthodox bishops, theologians, Churches, etc. Only a few decades ago, for example, the very founder of the “Russian Church Outside Russia,” the late Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, was accused by some of his brothers in the Episcopate of holding and propagating an erroneous doctrine of the Redemption. The famous clash between two leading Russian hierarchs of the eighteenth century, Theophan Prokopovich and Stefan Yavorsky, has been described by Fr. Florovsky as the clash, on the Russian soil, between Latin and Protestant theologies. Did any of these cases destroy the unity of the Church? For one thing is to accuse — this right belongs to every one in the Church — and quite another thing is to judge and to decide: this can be done only by prescribed canonical procedure and our canons clearly define how and by whom bishops are to be judged.”

Where Schmemann, very tactfully in my view, criticizing the epistle is here:

“And it is therefore surprising, to say the least, to see nowhere mentioned in the same “Epistle” a series of actions and statements emanating from the “Russian Church Outside Russia,” which prove beyond any possible doubt, that both de facto and de jure that Church has already prejudged the whole case and, on the basis of that judgment, does not any longer recognize the jurisdictional and canonical rights of either Patriarch Athenagoras or Archbishop Iakovos or, in fact, of any other autocephalous Church. The facts are well known: the “Russian Church Outside Russia” has unilaterally, without any canonical release, accepted clerics, parishes and monasteries from the jurisdiction of Constantinople, has openly given support and recognition to the Old-Calendarists on the canonical territory of the Church of Greece, etc., and she has done all this explicitly on the basis of the claim that the heresy of the Patriarch and the Archbishop terminates their jurisdiction as Orthodox bishops. If necessary, all this can be substantiated and proven by official statements and all kinds of documents written in support of these actions. The church of Metropolitan Philaret does not conceal these facts; she openly claims her inherent right to accept into their jurisdiction anyone, anywhere who wants to belong to “true and unadulterated Orthodoxy.” She may do all this in perfect good faith and total sincerity; she may be right or wrong — all this is debatable. What is not debatable, however, is that all of this deprives the “Sorrowful Epistle” of the canonical significance it may otherwise have had. 

For indeed the appeal by one Orthodox bishop to “Primates, Metropolitans, Archbishops and all brother-bishops,” if it means anything at all, implies first of all this Bishop recognizes them as brothers i.e., as valid bishops, exercising the fulness of their rights, recognizes the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church and seeks the solution of a problem which be deems very serious through established canonical channels. But this is precisely what the “Russian Church Outside Russia” has consistently denied by her words and deeds. By unilaterally prejudging the question on which at the same time she seems to appeal to the universal Episcopate, by openly transgressing jurisdictional boundaries, by interfering jurisdictionally in the affairs of other Churches, she has created a schism and put herself out of communion with the Church Universal. But, then, what meaning could the “Sorrowful Epistle” have?”

Schmemann reminds his readers that a corrective epistle by one bishop to another, or to many, is a formal act in the Orthodox Church, and merits a response. As someone who is subpoenaed must appear in court, so a bishop who is addressed by another bishop via epistle must respond, and if the disagreements cannot be solved through epistles, then steps are taken for convening a council. It should be said that, unlike a subpoena, the canonical process for correction is brotherly, and not accusatory.

What invalidates Philaret’s epistle is that for the epistle to be canonically binding, for it to be an epistle, and thus to merit a response, he must recognize his addressees as fellow bishops, but he denies this. Thus, this cannot be anything but a condemnation, and a rejection of all other bishops as brethren. If we could stretch this a bit, we could say that Metropolitan Philaret is condemning someone as a fed, and thus excludes any possibility of resolving what differences exist…for you do not resolve differences with the enemy. This sort of interaction is the type of interaction encourages by the folks over at Tavistock, and is what segments the right into a thousand splinters.

Okay, that is a nice analogy Rose, but why bring up obscure history about your faith? My proposed solution lies in Schmemann’s response. If there is an established, canonical way, of adjudicating differences between different clusters on the right, then policies three and four would cease to have the desired effect. If all clusters, or a large enough number of them, agree upon a formal process by which differences can be resolved, consenting to the decision of this canonical process, even if it yields undesired results, then a) we could have a more cohesive, and thus larger, political bloc, and b) those who insist upon infighting can be dismissed, regardless of their case, simply upon their own dismissal of canonical resolutions.

There are a few problems with this solution, which makes its possibility doubtful. First, to establish a canonical structure, it would be necessary to call something like a council. This would raise questions of who are to be invited, who gets how much a say, and who would keep the decorum. Second, since this solution would disrupt two key strategies aimed at our destruction, policies deployed by well funded groups, there would likely be many attempts to call a council (or its equivalent), or for delegates, working on behalf the enemy, to push for canons that would make policies three and four even easier. Finally, the canonical process in the Orthodox Church works as well as it does because it would devised by people who shared a common faith, and it is believed by the Orthodox that this process is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Yet, despite its flaws, this solution would prevent us from falling prey to the social engineering we all know is happening on a daily basis, and even if it is impracticable, might provide inspiration for a more workable solution.

Full texts of The Dynamics of Online Hate, On The ‘Sorrowful Epistle’ of Metropolitan Philaret, and an introduction to Alexander Schmemann’s thought in the context of Academic Agent’s article on Christian Nationalism:

–https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/d41586-019-02447-1

–https://www.schmemann.org/byhim/sorrowfulepistle.html

–https://scatteredroses.substack.com/p/a-response-to-academic-agent