Beyond the Alt Right
Toward a New Nationalism
French version here
The Alt Right is dead. But the Alt Right was so useful—and so much fun—that we need to create a replacement for it, the sooner the better.
By the Alt Right, I mean the online movement of White Nationalist podcasters, bloggers, and social media trolls that emerged in 2014, coalesced around the Trump candidacy in 2015, then began to change the parameters of political debate with stinging memes like the “cuckservative” barb, becoming an international media phenomenon in 2016.
As I argue in my essay “What is the Alternative Right?” (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) this new Alt Right was quite different from the original Alt Right that took its name from the Alternative Right webzine which Richard Spencer founded in 2010 and edited until 2012. The two Alt Rights differed in terms of ethos, intellectual influences, and preferred platforms and media, although they did come to share an ideology and a name. By the beginning of 2015, the new Alt Right was increasingly comfortable with White Nationalism as an ideology and the Alt Right as a brand.
Aside from the fact that #AltRight made a good hashtag, the main utility of the term was its vagueness. It allowed people to signal their dissent from mainstream Republicanism without embracing such stigmatized labels as National Socialism and White Nationalism. The Alt Right was thus an ideal “discursive space” in which White Nationalists could interact with, influence, and convert people who were closer to the political mainstream.
White Nationalists should always remember how we came to our views. We should never lose sight of the fact that it takes an inner struggle, ended by an act of courage, to seriously consider heretical and highly stigmatized ideas, even online, in the privacy of one’s own home. Thus we need safe spaces for trying on new ideas and building new relationships. The Alt Right provided that. It allowed people to experiment with being radical and edgy without being one of “those people” or burning one’s bridges to the mainstream.
The result was a grassroots online insurgency mobilizing a vast network of highly creative individuals and injecting their memes and talking points into the mainstream, where they began shifting popular consciousness and political debates.
But, as I also argued in “What Is the Alternative Right?” (Part 2), the Alt Right’s success in attracting people led to a crisis. Both versions of the Alt Right were always, at core, White Nationalist outreach projects. But there was a perennial battle in the Alt Right between the people who advocated a “big tent” movement and the “purity spiralers” and Right-wing sectarians who wanted to enforce one ideological orthodoxy or another.
I was in the big tent camp. I argued that outreach projects by their nature attract people who do not (yet) agree with us. But you can only convert people who don’t already agree with you. The whole point of the movement was to convert rather than repel people who disagreed with us.
But the new Alt Right was such a successful outreach project that it was being flooded with large numbers of Trumpian civic nationalists, including non-whites, who rejected White Nationalism. I thought this was a good problem to have, and that we needed to take a deep breath, remind ourselves that truth is on our side, and then get back to the battle of ideas. Others, however, became concerned that the Alt Right brand would be hijacked or coopted by civic nationalists like Milo Yiannopoulos. This was the Alt Right “brand war” of the fall of 2016.
The brand war came to an end with the Hailgate incident of November 21, 2016, when, before the cameras of the enemy media, Richard Spencer raised his glass with the words “Hail Trump, Hail our People, Hail Victory!” and people in the audience responded with Nazi salutes. This stunt indelibly identified the Alt Right not just with White Nationalism but with neo-Nazism in the minds of the whole world.
This led to a split between White Nationalists and civic nationalists, who came to be called the Alt Lite. To differentiate itself from the Alt Right, the Alt Lite dug in its heels on the one issue that White Nationalists most urgently need to destroy: the moral taboo against white identity politics. The great big beautiful tent, where civic nationalism and ethnonationalism could be debated—an argument that White Nationalists always win—was replaced by a great big ugly wall, over which only venomous tweet barrages were exchanged.
The expanding discursive space in which White Nationalists could influence the mainstream was replaced by a self-marginalizing political sect which in 2017 began to focus on street activism, even though they were vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the Left, which could count on collaborators in the media and all levels of government, as well as armies of lawyers and effectively unlimited funds. White Nationalists have none of these advantages. Thus, a movement that had grown by attacking the system’s moral and intellectual weaknesses from a position of strength was replaced by a movement that attacked the system’s institutional power centers from a position of weakness. Catastrophic failure was inevitable.
By the end of 2017, much of the American White Nationalist movement was simply exhausted from the wave of doxings, deplatforming, and lawfare that followed the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 12, 2017. In the days following Unite the Right, more than one hundred people disappeared from my social media sphere alone. They obviously did not change their political convictions, but they clearly believed that the movement was going in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, the rallies and college speaking events continued, hemorrhaging people and money—which were in short supply to begin with—until they finally bled out.
The post-mortem of the activist phase of the Alt Right led to a healthy debate about “optics” and whether it is better for American White Nationalists to embrace American political traditions and symbols or imported ones. There was also a growing consensus that the movement needed to return to our strengths, namely the war of ideas. Even activist events needed to be reconfigured along the lines of the European Identitarian movement, which does not battle antifa but engages in low-risk, high-reward publicity stunts, i.e., “propaganda of the deed.”
But for many in the American movement, 2018 has simply been a year of watching and waiting. People hunkered down to let the storm pass. Now that it is dying down, they are surveying the damage and wondering what comes next.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a common cause to rally around again? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a new discursive space in which we could again interface with and perhaps influence the political mainstream?
Some people are hoping that Trump’s re-election campaign might provide a rallying point, but most of us have lost our enthusiasm for Trump. Thankfully, there’s something bigger and better than Trump. While there will always be a place for defending Trump’s National Populist policies from critics and detractors, we can’t lose sight of the big picture. We need to look beyond Trump to the forces that made Trump possible.
These are the same forces behind the Brexit victory; behind the rise of politicians like Viktor Orbán, Matteo Salvini, and Sebastian Kurz; behind the success of parties like Alternative for Germany, Poland’s Law and Justice, and the Sweden Democrats; and behind the Yellow Vests insurgency in France.
All of these are manifestations of what is called National Populism or the New Nationalism. We need to understand the forces driving the rise of the New Nationalism. Then we need to add our impetus to these forces and try to steer them toward White Nationalism. The New Nationalism should be our new rallying point, our new discursive space in which we can inject our ideas into mainstream discussions.
For starters, I urge every White Nationalist to read National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin, two British political scientists specializing in populism and political extremism.
Eatwell and Goodwin are evidently men of the Left, but they do not seem to be liberals or globalists. Indeed, they relish demolishing liberal and globalist illusions about National Populism, arguing that it cannot be dismissed as mere fascism or racism; nor can it be dismissed as simply a flash in the pan, the product of ephemeral events like the 2008 recession or the migrant crisis; nor is it the last hurrah of “old white males” who will soon die off and be replaced by tolerant millennials; nor, finally, is it merely the product of charismatic politicians.
Instead, Eatwell and Goodwin argue that National Populism is the product of deep social and political trends which they call the four Ds: Distrust, Destruction, Deprivation, and De-Alignment. Distrust refers to the breakdown of popular trust in political elites. Destruction primarily means destruction of identity, i.e., the destruction of peoples and cultures by immigration and multiculturalism. National Populism is, therefore, a form of white identity politics. Deprivation means the erosion of First World middle-class and working-class living standards due to globalization and neoliberalism. De-Alignment is the breakdown of voter identification with dominant political parties.
Eatwell and Goodwin marshal impressive empirical studies that indicate that these trends are pervasive in white countries. These trends are deep-seated rather than ephemeral. Not only are they going to continue on into the future, they are likely to grow stronger before they abate. Thus, National Populism is here to stay. National Populism is the wave of the future, not just a ripple in the news cycle, hence the great wave on the cover of their book. Eatwell and Goodwin are so confident of this that in their final chapter, “Towards Post-Populism,” the only post-populist scenario they can imagine is the political establishment adopting National Populist policies. In other words, they think National Populism will likely become the hegemonic political outlook. This is an astonishing concession, since it means that the hegemony of globalism is drawing to a close.
I find this analysis deeply encouraging, and it puts to rest a fear that has been gnawing at me for the last two years. I believe that nothing less than White Nationalism can save our race, thus the success of our movement is the supreme moral imperative. Whites are in a state of emergency. This is serious. This is urgent. Thus in 2015 and 2016, I was thrilled to see forces in the broader political realm aligning with White Nationalist ideas and goals, specifically Brexit and the Trump phenomenon.
But I also thought it likely that this historical moment would be fleeting. Thus we had to capitalize on it while it was still possible. This is why I was so horrified at Hailgate, when instead of giving a statesmanlike speech outlining how the National Policy Institute would serve as the intellectual vanguard for National Populism—a move that would have secured Spencer’s bid for movement leadership and attracted significant resources—he instead chose the path of juvenile buffoonery, hoping to ingratiate himself with the cool kids at TRS and on the chans.
But that was just the beginning of months of sectarianism, schisms, purges, and purity spirals. In 2017, we saw the birth of toxic, self-marginalizing memes like “white Sharia” and the return of the worst ideas and attitudes of White Nationalism 1.0. We had arrived at a moment of decision, and our “leaders” had chosen juvenility and irrelevance. They were not ready for prime time. As I explained in my essay “Against Right-Wing Sectarianism,” this could only lead to a smaller, weaker, poorer, and dumber movement. Such a movement would be unable to halt white genocide.
By May of 2017, I started thinking that we needed a new “brand.” The term “New Nationalism” was already being used to describe National Populism. The term was broad and vague enough to encompass everyone from White Nationalists to sitting presidents and ruling parties. I even went so far as to reserve the domain name newnationalism.net. In keeping with my essay “Redefining the Mainstream,” I envisioned a discursive space that was the exact opposite of Right-wing sectarianism. Our movement must prefigure the hegemony we want to create in the broader society, encompassing the full diversity of whites, united only by the central principle of white identity politics and free to differ on all other matters.
The most important intellectual battle is over the legitimacy of white identity politics. The greatest political taboo of our times is the idea that identity politics is immoral for white people—and only for white people. This taboo unites the whole political establishment against us. The political establishment knows this, but many National Populists don’t. This is why the establishment attacks National Populists as fascists, nativists, and racists.
But many National Populists don’t challenge the idea that white identity politics is immoral. Instead, they insist that they are color-blind civic nationalists, concerned only with a common culture. Then they try to turn the tables on Leftism and accusing it of being the real identity politics.
But, of course, the Left is not going to drop identity politics. Why would they drop a winning strategy? Foreswearing identity politics is a losing strategy for the Right, akin to unilateral disarmament, taking a knife to a gunfight, or allowing one’s opponents a trump card but refusing to use it oneself.
Thus, the New Nationalism platform needed to be a space where one could argue about virtually anything except the moral legitimacy of white identity politics. Instead, our overriding editorial agenda would be to establish that white identity politics is inevitable, necessary, and moral—and to expose the moral illegitimacy of the system.
I shared this idea with a number of writers, podcasters, and video bloggers who also believed the Alt Right was spiraling into irrelevance. They were uniformly enthusiastic. But there were things I had to take care of first, like finishing The White Nationalist Manifesto. I also sensed that it would be some time before the Alt Right would finally exhaust itself and people would be ready for something new. Eventually, though, I decided that I want to stick with Counter-Currents. I still think that a New Nationalism webzine is a good idea. But somebody else needs to create it.
Of course White Nationalists do not need a new platform to contribute to the rise of National Populism. In fact, we have been contributing to it for quite some time. Furthermore, if Eatwell and Goodwin are right, we will be contributing to it well into the future, for white nations will be receptive to National Populism for some time to come. And although nothing has greater moral urgency than stopping white genocide, we’ve got time to get our message and our strategies right. (And if we don’t have time to do it right, doing it wrong won’t save us, anyway.)
So, how can White Nationalists insert ourselves into the broader National Populist phenomenon? Let’s look at Eatwell and Goodwin’s four Ds again.
Distrust: When people distrust their rulers, the system loses legitimacy and power. White Nationalists are masterful at mocking the lies, hypocrisy, sanctimony, cowardice, and degeneracy of our rulers. Furthermore, nothing destroys trust in the establishment quite like learning that its ultimate agenda is the genocide of the white race.
But our propaganda needs to be truthful as well, because we want people to trust us. For if distrust becomes pervasive throughout society, then the people cannot unite against the establishment. Our goal is to promote a high-trust society. We cannot accomplish that if we cynically resort to lies because “that’s what the establishment does to us.” If we want to replace the establishment, we have to be better than the establishment.
Destruction: White Nationalists have been raising awareness of the destruction of white nations and cultures through immigration and multiculturalism for decades. Even so, our educational efforts have awakened far fewer people than the negative consequences of immigration and multiculturalism themselves. The system is doing far more to push people toward white identity politics than we are doing to pull them. Thus, white racial consciousness will continue to rise even if our movement is completely censored.
We should, of course, do everything we can to raise awareness. But I think we have a much more important role to play, namely deepening awareness.
First, we need to help people understand why multiculturalism is a failure—namely, racial and ethnic diversity in the same state is always a source of weakness—so we don’t waste our time with half-measures like “conservative” multicultural civic nationalism. Moreover, only White Nationalists fully understand the forces promoting mass migrations and multiculturalism and how they fit into the overall agenda of white genocide.
Second, and most importantly, we need to defend the moral legitimacy of white identity politics. Vast numbers of whites are in thrall to the establishment because they believe there is something immoral about taking their own side in ethnic conflicts. This taboo is like a dam, holding back the floodwaters of National Populism. Once we break that dam, the wave of National Populism will sweep away the whole rotten system.
Deprivation: Basic economics predicts that globalization will lead to the collapse of middle-class and working-class living standards throughout the First World, although First World elites will benefit quite a lot. Obviously, the masses in any First World society never consented to such policies. Genuine Leftists recognize that globalization has undermined the gains of the Left in the First World. But global socialism is not the answer to global capitalism. Only National Populists understand the natural limit of globalization: the nation-state.
De-Alignment: When voters begin to distrust the establishment, they begin to distrust establishment political parties as well. White Nationalists are masterful at showing that electoral politics, in which voters take sides in the battles between mainstream political parties, is only a superficial distraction from real politics. Political power does not lie in voters choosing between Coke and Diet Coke. That’s an election that the Coca-Cola Corporation can’t lose. Real power lies in framing all political debates so that, no matter which party ends up in power, the establishment always wins. Real power lies in establishing the things about which political parties agree rather than fight and about which the voters are never given a choice. The political establishment, center-Left and center-Right, is of one mind on the goodness of globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism—the very things that National Populists oppose.
What white people want is essentially a socially conservative, interventionist state. We want National Populism. What the establishment wants is socially liberal global capitalism, what Jonathan Bowden called Left-wing oligarchy. The people are never allowed to vote for National Populism straight up. The center-Right packages social conservatism with neoliberal globalization. The center-Left packages the interventionist state with social degeneracy. When the center-Right is in power, they only give the establishment what it wants: lower taxes and freer trade for the oligarchs. When the center-Left is in power, they only give the establishment what it wants: more degeneracy. The parties blame their failures on the opposition and assure their voters that the next time their party is at the helm, the voters will finally get what they want. The people are placated with the illusion of political representation in elections where the establishment parties trade power. But no matter who is elected, the outcomes always drift father and farther from what the people want, namely National Populism—and closer to what the degenerate global elites want.
White Nationalists are also highly aware of how the establishment works to co-opt National Populist uprisings like the Tea Party and now, sadly, Donald Trump. For Trump has fallen into the center-Right establishment pattern of giving the oligarchs what they want (tax cuts), failing to do what the people want (a border wall), and blaming his failure on his opponents (first the establishment Republicans, now the Democrats).
In sum, White Nationalists can intensify National Populist forces and steer them toward White Nationalism by deepening the people’s Distrust of the establishment; broadening and deepening the people’s awareness of how and why globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism are leading them to Destruction and Deprivation; and creating new political possibilities by encouraging De-Alignment with the establishment’s sham political debates and contests.
But to ride the National Populist wave, White Nationalists have to jettison certain incompatible ideological fixations.
First and foremost, we actually have to be populists. Eatwell and Goodwin also show that National Populism is not anti-democratic. National Populists want more democracy, not less. They also argue that National Populism is not fascist in its inspirations or goals, although the establishment loves nothing more than to stigmatize National Populism with such labels. We shouldn’t help them. Thus those among us who sneer at populism and democracy, make fetishes out of elitism and hierarchy, and try to resurrect inter-war fascist movements are not helping.
Second, National Populists really are economic interventionists. Old habits die hard, but those among us who still think in terms of “free market” economics are not helping. Eatwell and Goodwin point out that in the United States, Republican voters are significantly more interventionist than Republican legislators. Which means that Koch-funded free-market fundamentalism has simply produced a party headed by ideologues who are out of touch with their constituency. Don’t be one of them.
Where do we go from here? The most important thing to keep in mind is that National Populism is arising out of the breakdown of the political system. Just like shattering an atom, the breakdown of a system releases immense energies. It also creates radical new possibilities, “holes in being” where new actions can take place and new orders can emerge.
But the breakdown of systems also creates uncertainty and surprises. It is not an environment in which one can expect to unfold grand plans. Thus, the more our movement is tied to long-term plans and fixed ideas, the less adapted we are to the climate we wish to create, and the more brittle and susceptible to catastrophic failure we become. Accordingly, at the present moment, the best overall strategy is not to get ahead of ourselves. We simply need to promote chaos, but also plant the seeds of a new order. Then we need to wait.
The Yellow Vests insurgency is a genuine grassroots National Populist movement. But it was nobody’s grand design. It emerged spontaneously, and it surprised everyone. But spontaneous movements of large numbers of people are only possible because the participants share common views and values. Such movements also propagate through existing social networks. Thus, if we want more National Populist insurgencies, we need to promote chaos in the system, seed people’s minds with models of genuine National Populist alternatives, and build real-world social networks through which we can propagate ideas and influence. Beyond that, we simply need to adopt an attitude of maximum openness and flexibility in the face of new possibilities so we can react with fresh provocations.
In short, we need more New Right metapolitics. But this is second-nature to us. We’ve been doing it for years now. We have the best ideas, the best memes, and the best people. But we need a new focus. If Eatwell and Goodwin are right, though, we now know that we have a vast audience, strong historical winds at our back, and time enough to turn the world around. Let’s make 2019 the year of the New Nationalism.
 Roger Eatwell & Matthew Goodwin, National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy (New York: Pelican, 2018).
Revolution with Full Benefits
Žluté vesty zviditelnily tu nejfrancouzštější část Francie
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 527 Machiavellianism & More
Buddha a Führer: Mladý Emil Cioran o Německu
The Machiavellian Method
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
A “Novel” Approach to the Understanding of Evil
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 526 Cyan Quinn Reports from CPAC & More
Greg, have you seen the video’s from John Mark? (https://johnmarksays.com/)
I found them extremely well done and very instructive. He seems indeed to be picking up where the Alt-Right left off. He has only just started, but I would say that his thinking on left vs right is the most refreshing since 2016.
Btw he is a follower of Curt Doolittle (http://Propertarianism.com) but where Curt can be difficult to grasp, Mark has succeeded in make very clear statements.
thank you Rhodok. I never heard of him before and I watched a couple of his videos and they are excellent.
Thanks for that suggestion.
I’ve just watched his two-parter “Why the Left Never Learns”. Your “John Mark” not only gives a lucid, logical presentation he also doesn’t pull his punches !
Have subscribed to his channel. How long before YouTube quarantines his videos?
Such a positive essay to ring out 2018. Makes me hopeful and optimistic for the new year.
One more positive note — we are not dead on Twitter/social media. I thought for sure this would be the story of 2018. Despite many instances of de-platforming (Jared Taylor most notably) the dissident right is still in force on Twitter. Most who got de-platformed (such as myself) simply made new accounts. Gab has stayed the course and seems to be growing as well.
Here is to an even better 2019. Merry Christmas everybody!
How about Cultural Nationalism?
“Cultural” nationalism feeds the delusion that we can be race-blind Western chauvinists as long as non-whites adopt our culture. But race matters. The African brain can’t run white cultural software. It keeps crashing, as we see in post-colonial Africa and post-white Detroit. Being white is a necessary condition of being Western.
The alt-right existed because one person… Ricky Vaughn. And the wingnats killed him. Don’t forget.
Lol not even close. Turns out “Ricky Vaughn” was a Christian and a larper cuck. Paul Nehlen was right to expose this traitor.
You use Steelhelm (Stalhelm) as your u-name and call somebody else a LARPer?
At this stage any actions on our part that increase distrust and de-alignment should be pursued with vigor. No man or institution can survive ridicule and laughter. The left used that technique against us during the 60s and 70s wave of political satire. I suggest we have a team whose focus is forming jokes and amusing stories that ridicule establishment figures and policies.
Well written, super white pilling.
I think this coming decade is gonna be pretty crazy. Let us see this wretched regime finally fall to pieces. Hope the best for you all.
(And ouch at TRS jab, you’re not lying, though)
Greatley written. Greg is the current light of this movement.
How can you look at females, their actions of today and the past and dismiss white Sharia? You also use the laughable term “toxic”. I know you’re a semi-closeted feminist, maybe just own it already.
White sharia takes sensible anti-feminist, pro-traditional views and irresistibly packages them as kebab barbarism. If that is not toxic and self-defeating, then nothing is.
Master of the soundbite as always, Greg.
Why “new” nationalism? Why not just “nationalism.” Nationalism is itself a foreign enough concept for the average person.
Spencer said recently that he almost wishes that Hillary would have won in order to increase acceleration, a statement which crystallizes the fact that he doesn’t have a very good grasp on our situation. If the Dems were still in power they wouldn’t have panicked and would still be slowly boiling the frog, while civic nationalists would have retained credibility; Gavin McInnes would still be employed and telling everyone that all we need to do in order to solve our nation’s problems is to vote for the Trumpian in 2020.
I wasn’t around for Spencer’s Hungarian debacle but it seems to me like he was trying to cargo cult an American political movement. “Hmm, the blacks were marching around and being arrested by the authorities in the 50’s and 60’s and look at where they are now. All I have to do to take over the United States is to follow their path as if it were a paint-by-numbers kit.” Dumbass.
Obviously, Trump was the accelerationist candidate.
Spencer is such a joke. This movement is in a deep hole if it looks at him for inspiration. Sure, he talks about movement stuff, but anyone with eyes to see recognises that he repells normies. He is not that good looking as he thinks, he debates poorly and he is embarrasingly rude. He is No winning strategy unless the goal is something like run around in fake SS-uniforms and be hated by everybody. If I was the enemy I would be very happy with Spencer.
Greg is right about everything in this article.
Richard Spencer is the Courtney Love of the alt-right.
That is an interesting comment. However, it would be more interesting if you had cast it in the form ‘Richard Spencer is to the alt-right as Courtney Love is to X’. However, I can’t work out what X may be.
Victory looks similar in Lithuania, America, and South Africa: white people safe and prosperous for the indefinite and infinite future.
Much of the above is applicable across the nations, but the path to victory and the scope of victory will differ dramatically in Lithuania, America, and South Africa.
Lithuania can achieve victory through a linear continous process.
America can achieve victory only through a discontinuous process (in other words, we aren’t voting our way out of this) such as a campaign for Partition followed by a Unilateral Declaration of a new nation.
South Africa cannot survive. The people there can be afforded land in a Partitioned America; though all smart nations would covet them as an asset, few have the land. I would place them near Houston, as they would be a hellacious protector of that key territory.
“Muh metapolitics” he cries out as leads our People to surrender. We are at WAR, Greg? Do you understand that? When we did Unite the Right, it was in defense of our People and heritage. You know, Alex Linder has called you a Fed, Greg. He said he has proof you are a Fed too. I originally dismissed Linsey’s thesis because it’s a very serious charge. But now that you are publicly cucking, maybe Linder is right.
I don’t respond to baseless accusations like this because that would just encourage more of them, as people “fish” for information or try to frame you with one of their crank theories. Once you start responding to liars, if you choose to ignore them, they will then take your silence as “proof” (“He doesn’t deny it.”)
Please, stay with the Alt Right or whatever “movement” you identify with.
We really do not need people like you.
The basic pattern of paranoia is thinking you know what you merely fear to be the case. It is a form of psychosis, because people who suffer from it literally can’t control their thoughts and keep them in sync with reality. People like you are either paranoids or just bald-faced liars who pander to them. We don’t need either type.
I doubt that Linder actually said that, but if he did, then he’s a bald-faced liar or a paranoid crank too.
You can’t be a vanguard of sanity if you allow your movement to be a loony bin. You can’t be a vanguard of high-trust society if you allow liars among you.
“Is it good for white people?”
Once established as the first question that whites ask themselves with regard to all political, cultural, economic and ecological phenomena, much of the rest will fall naturally into place.
I’m of mixed mind on the economic question. On the one hand, I completely agree that free market fundamentalism has neutered the modern right. And the accompanying globalization has had deleterious effects on the middle class. But given that the government is hostile to the interests of the general public (and whites especially), I just can’t support expanded social programs or significant public investments (aside from The Wall). Once the government is “playing for the right team,” then I’m open to it.
I firmly agree with the point about needing to establish real political power that isn’t reliant on the useless Republicans. Take a page out of the Jews’ playbook. This is happening naturally as power shifts away from controlled, established organs like the traditional media and academia toward more popular, web-based platforms. Several decades of controlled media has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the vast majority of intelligent white men (again, free market fundamentalism has been a terrible distraction). When a critical mass of that demo wakes up, then things will begin falling into place.
Hello Greg, Great writng as usual
Can I ask if you are familiar with Dr Steve Turley ? He also talks about the four D’s you have outlined, Certainly it appears trends are in our favour. Thanks
Thanks. No. I am not familiar with Steve Turley.
First article I’ve read of yours, Greg. I’m impressed. I do think the TRS guys and chans are great for outreach to alienated younger white males, but your approach is much more appropriate for a mainstream audience.
I agree that the absolute, critical focus must be white demographics. In this article you have focused on combating the negative factors (immigration/multiculturalism/globalisation) and barely touched on promoting the positive factors (social conservatism). This focus may be justified given the differing impact and time-criticality of factors affecting demographics in the short/medium term. e.g. stopping the migrant hordes via Wall and immigration reform will buy time to focus on other factors.
However, considering the medium-long term, how do we promote ‘social conservatism’ (large white families, traditional family-supporting gender roles, ethnocentric communities/cohesion, etc.) in such a way that cannot be easily undermined again? Seems to me much more philosophical, research, educational and propaganda work needs to be done. What will the ‘New Traditionalism’ look like? What current-day models, if any, can we learn from and replicate today? What is the solution to the Feminist Problem? If not a larpy ‘White Sharia’, what is the alternative to get women embracing motherhood as a lifestyle again (assuming Christianity has been compromised by Liberalism beyond repair)? So many questions in this space…
The problem I have with this is a similar to problem to GI in Europe. They have disallowed all fascist-influenced ideas, as you have stated we should not be anti-democratic. It seems obvious that democracy itself is degenerate, and should be replaced with limited democracy or aristocracy. We have to also allow our populace teeth so that everyone has ‘skin in the game’.
This contradicts one of your principles for our movement, which is that we should be honest. I am not sure I am alone in thinking that democracy in it’s current form must be also be destroyed.
Democracy in its current form is a sham. It should be replaced with better democracy. There are all sorts of powerful arguments against democracy, but the fact remains that we would have better policies on immigration and trade if we were ruled by a daily plebiscite of people voting from their smartphones. That is as much a product of the corruption of our elites as of the strength of democracy.
You should take a look at my essay “Notes on Populism, Elitism, and Democracy.” https://counter-currents.com/2012/09/notes-on-populism-elitism-and-democracy/
Like the Post Modern, the Alt Right is or was a condition not a ism or specific set of beliefs. Hence the pin in the grenade(ethno-nationalism) when pulled(hail gate) caused the explosion of the condition and its consequences (“Charlottesville”). Though many consider the consequences a disaster I believe it was positive in the sense that it “stirred the hornets nest” or “poked the bear” and forced the normies to see their enemy. White Nationalists like Greg and others now have the opportunity to open a old/new door of perception to lead many into the Parthenon of new Nationalism.
Do Euro/white Nationalists need a new descriptive ism to define the path? With the speed of the media any ism can be quickly smeared. Fascism is the all encompassing slur who’s principles are at the core the principles of civilization yet the ism is still easily reviled. I suppose in North America it could be a unifying doctrine. But is that positive? Clearly America was born broken and I believe the pieces or regions would be better served to each build its own ground swell of organization. Its a hard pill to swallow but North America will be the new Balkans of belief and likely National as well. National Populism may give North America a ism to the future, but like war, isms are like a dark room, you never know what will happen until you walk in. The goal must always be Euro/White Nationalism’s condition which is Civilization. The “white pill” is that its in our nature to strive for that and inevitable we will develop the formula.
That’s what this white man wants!
“…he instead chose the path of juvenile buffoonery, hoping to ingratiate himself with the cool kids at TRS and on the chans.”
Are you referring to the TRS fanbase, or the TDS guys?
There’s nothing wrong with doing comedy, but people need to have good judgement and understand that there is a time and place for everything. Sam Hyde and Gavin McInnes are examples of people who do comedy but who are ready for prime time.
Given Spencer’s role within NPI and that it was a conference, how Spencer behaved was beyond foolish.
I am referring to the whole TRS scene and the dynamics of it. I was friends with a lot of those people, and remain friends with a lot of them. But because I am older than all of them, I was only in their scene in a one foot in, one foot out sort of way. They were definitely the “cool” kids, as far as the rest of the movement is concerned, with an inside and and outside, and degrees of insiderness. People who are intensely motivated by the desire to belong and be “in” thus behaved in the sort of way that you would expect: sucking up, shitting down, and trying to dislodge perceived rivals. I am pretty much oblivious to that kind so stuff, but there are people who are intensely interested in it, and who really don’t have lives or jobs of their own (they invest every waking hour in the online movement), so it is definitely a huge factor.
Spencer, with his airs and cardigans, was largely perceived as a tool by these people. The “Richard Spencer” song, if you listen to it, entirely mocks Spencer for being weak and shallow. So yes, Spencer tried to curry favor with them, and he succeeded largely by getting Enoch in his corner, but at NPI 2016 the rank and file were still pretty skeptical.
Given how Altright.com came to be largely a tin-eared attempt to pander to the style of the Daily Stormer, it is clear that Spencer was trying to win their readers over as well.
Given enough Scotch, all those insecurities and desires for approval were in the driver’s seat. Like I said, I can’t think of a more disastrous and fatal miscalculation.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment