Print this post Print this post

The Bernie Bro Question, Part 2:
Rebels Without a Candidate

3,360 words

Some in the Dissident Right have pined for and predicted a mass defection from the materialist Left to the Dissident Right.

Of course, people have been talking about a theoretical Bernie Bro-to-Dissident Right pipeline since at least 2016, if not earlier. This has so far not materialized in substantial numbers that I am aware of. But with Bernie Sanders leaving the scene, Democratic Socialism is about to become like Wings without Paul McCartney. Unwoke anti-liberal anti-establishment socialists now find themselves without a rallying point. So perhaps it’s time to revisit this prospect.

I have previously expressed skepticism about a possible Bernie Bro-to-Dissident Right pipeline, as has Counter-Currents’ Robert Hampton in his article “The Fantasy Red-Brown Alliance.” While there is a lot of overlap between the Dissident Right and the materialist Left, race is not one of the things we overlap on, and that’s a pretty large goddamn pill. We have more overlap with civic nationalists than we do with the materialist Left, and we have all seen how stubborn civnats can be on subjects of race. We might have 80% agreement, but that other 20% is huge.

You also have to consider how much money is in the Dirtbag Left, and the fact that getting involved in white nationalism is commercial suicide. Ashley St. Clair’s political career was ended simply for being in the same picture as someone accused of being a White Nationalist. So if we’re talking about the main players of the Dirtbag Left, the guys making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year being Democratic Socialists are going to continue being Democratic Socialists until the audience and money dry up. And if the audience did dry up and they did decide to go right-wing, most would not go further than edgy Tucker Carlson. Anything beyond Tucker and they are putting their Patreons at risk.

But what of their audience? Or maybe of the lesser-known names. There are surely some honest truth-seekers and people who are in it to make a difference. No doubt some will come to the conclusion that the Right is a better vehicle for enacting badly-needed structural change. But I am skeptical.

With all that said, I will now argue against my position, because there are a few stray white pills to be found when you are looking at this issue. As Oscar Wilde once said: “The well-bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves.”

One thing you notice about the Dirtbag Left is that they use a ton of Right-wing slang. It’s common to see unwoke Lefties talk about politicians “cucking” on issues and/or being “blackpilled” after setbacks and other slang and memes that originated from White Nationalist message boards. So the two online communities aren’t exactly living in vacuums sealed off from each other. There is some cultural cross-pollination going on. In the early days of The Great Alt-Right Skeptic War of 2017–18, Morgoth made a similar observation about the YouTube Skeptic community:

The Sceptics are also aware that they simply cannot compete with the Alt-Right as a counter-cultural force, testament to this is that their own subscribers and followers on social media are festooned with memes and tropes emanating from the Alt-Right. What makes this interesting is that the combined reach of the Sceptic community in social media terms is probably far higher than that of the Alt-Right. However, the metapolitical potency of the Alt-Right means that it warps everything surrounding it; like a black hole, its gravity pulls on any other objects within its reach. Indeed, racial thinking is itself like gravity and it has only been with supreme effort that the elites have managed to suppress it for so long.

While I may be skeptical of a Bernie Bro-to-Alt-Right pipeline, there is one group of people who are not skeptical: Antifa.

Antifa are absolutely paranoid that a pipeline is going to open up any day now and that Dirtbag Lefties are going to start converting to fascism en masse. “Paranoid” is an understatement. They are absolutely convinced that this is going to happen. Antifa Twitter is best known for doxing and harassing Right-wingers, but a lot of them spend nearly as much time policing the language of the Dirtbag Left. Indeed, some Antifa actually spend MORE time doing this.

Their objection to the Dirtbag Left is that because they use edgy humor laced with ironic sexism, racism, and anti-Semitism, they are desensitizing their listeners, which over time will result in either a) mass conversions of Dirtbag Leftists to White Nationalism, b) the Dirtbag Left eventually being co-opted and taken over by Nazi entryists, or c) White Nationalists becoming redpilled on the evils of capitalism and incorporating socialist ideas into their ideology, thus making them more formidable ideological competitors.

And this brings us to an important point. The reason why socialists cannot defeat nationalists, in the long run, is that it would be far easier for nationalists to steal socialists’ most popular ideas than vice versa. Nationalists could come out in favor of UBI, student loan forgiveness, or even Medicare For All without much trouble. There would be some spirited internal debate about it, but I doubt anyone would walk out of the movement over it. Free-market purists already hate us.

Socialists, however, would have a much harder time stealing our most popular ideas (immigration restriction, mass deportations, a wall). Those things are much more heretical to their worldview. If Chapo Trap House came out one day said “You know what? I think we should build a wall and deport them all,” that would trigger a socialist optics war that would make the Great Optics War of 2018 look like High School Musical 3. A lot of socialists would rather lose than go racist. We will always be able to politically outflank them.

Antifa secretly know this. So according to Antifa types, if you are going to do communism or socialism, you HAVE to fill your content with a bunch of SJW bullshit to make it completely unpalatable to White Nationalists. That is non-negotiable. If you don’t inject your commie talking points with a bunch of anti-white and feminist flapdoodle, white nationalists will consume it and then either take over your movement or steal your ideas.

Before I continue, I should give a quick disclaimer. Yes, I am aware that Antifa are a bunch of unhinged weirdos that think literally everyone is a Nazi. I am aware that what they consider “Nazi” or “fascist” is a lot different than what we would consider “Nazi” or “fascist.” These guys probably think that Charlie Kirk and Bill Mitchell are Nazis.

So just because Antifa says the Dirtbag Left is cryptofascist doesn’t necessarily mean they actually are. While the fact that Antifa see so many parallels between the Dirtbag Left and the Dissident Right is interesting and noteworthy, it should also be taken with a hefty pinch of salt.

End disclaimer.

In a Splice Today article entitled “The Reactionary Grift of the Dirtbag Left,” Jewish writer Noah Berlatsky elaborates on the problematic nature of the Dirtbag Left and “class-first Leftism”:

What that means, for her and for the dirtbag left in general, is that class oppression is the only real oppression, and anyone who’s concerned about transphobia, misogyny, or racism, is a bad faith person trying to undermine the socialist cause. . .

. . . Class-first leftism is a simplistic and reductive ideology. Like it says on the tin, it reduces everything to a single issue. But the simplicity is part of why the dirtbags find it appealing. If you turn everything into a nail, the only tool you need is a hammer. When you have the one true answer to everything, you have to spend a lot less time preparing for that podcast.

Moreover, class-first leftism allows the dirtbags to imitate reactionary right-wing media’s essential grift: posing as champions of the downtrodden while kicking the marginalized. Attacking women, the disabled, or antiracists, is presented as heroic socialism, since all those people are trying to distract us from the only real nexus of oppression.

Screeching harpy and self-described “professional social justice warrior” Gwen Snyder.

One prominent Dirtbag Left critic in the Antifa Twitter scene is Gwen Snyder, an intersectional labor activist from Philadelphia. In her Twitter profile, she describes herself as an “organizer and consultant combating white supremacy.” She is obsessed (and I mean obsessed) with the idea that the class reductionism of the Dirtbag Left is acting as a gateway to “white supremacy.”

On March 2, the day before Super Tuesday, Snyder went on a 119 tweet tirade (Adderall is a hell of a drug) against Chapo Trap House and the Dirtbag Left laced with seething anti-whiteness. Speaking of her experiences in the Occupy Wall Street movement, Snyder says…

She forgot Erik Stryker who was also an Occupier.

If you are interested in the Dirtbag Left response to this thread, YouTuber Vaush made a video about it.

On March 25, Gwen went on another tweet tirade (Mrs. Snyder goes on a lot of tirades), this time about Dirtbaggers’ use of the word “parasitic” to describe landlords. You know. Because White Nationalists describe Jews as “parasitic” and a lot of landlords are Jews. “It’s too close to home, and too near the bone” as Morrissey would say.

Selectively screenshotting hot brocialist takes for White Nationalist propaganda purposes? Who would do such a thing? The irony is that I am now selectively screenshotting her tweets for White Nationalist propaganda purposes.

But I mean, c’mon, Gwen. Where’s the lie?

Back to Gwen.

For those who don’t know, r/stupIDPol is a 30K member Reddit community started by Dirtbaggers who felt the Chapo Trap House subreddit was becoming too woke and liberal. I’ll be saying more about Red Scare later.

Again, where’s the lie?

Just last week, she went on another tirade (last one from this lady, promise!), this time because the Oriental guy from Chapo Trap House once booked Sam Hyde on a comedy show 7 years ago where Mr. Hyde started wilding out.

I must say, this woman has a way of making Chapo Trap House sound a lot more awesome than they actually are. Like, if I didn’t know what Chapo Trap House was and I just randomly stumbled upon Gwen Snyder’s page, I’d be like “Man, these Chapo guys sound pretty cool. How come I’ve never heard of them before? They’re fascists, they like Sam Hyde, they’re down with pogroms. I really need to check these Chapo dudes out sometime. They sound like my kind of guys.”

While Chapo Trap House may be the most prominent and influential outlet in the Dirtbag Left scene, they are not the most “problematic” among Antifa types by a long stretch. Two names that you see pop up a lot in these anti-Dirtbag Left Antifa diatribes are Aimee Terese, the Australian host of the What’s Left podcast, and Anna Khachiyan, a Jewish-Armenian immigrant and host of the Red Scare podcast. One might say these two are the most “based” of the Dirtbag Left crowd.

Before we continue, we should clarify what it means to be “based” by Dirtbag Left standards. Both of these ladies are hardcore race deniers (especially Aimee Terese) and fanatically anti-identity politics (or idpol as the Lefty kids call it). This is including (although perhaps not especially) white identitarianism. So while they may seem irredeemably fascist from an Antifa perspective, from our perspective (i.e., the correct perspective) and in the grand scheme of things in general, they would be significantly less “based” than, say, Stefan Molyneux or even Milo Yiannopoulos, who recently gave his tepid endorsement of human biodiversity.

These ladies seem more based than they actually are because they are nominally on the Left. They’re only “based” if we’re grading on the curve. It’s like hearing a 7-year-old say the word “fuck.” It’s nothing you haven’t heard a million times before, but it raises an eyebrow when coming from that particular speaker.

With that out of the way, let’s look at what all the fuss is about.

Robert Hampton said in his article that “the ‘Red-Brown’ alliance is a figment of marginalized Right-wingers’ imaginations. No one on the Left wants this alliance.” This is mostly but not entirely true. Most notably, Slavoj Zizek, a much-discussed figure Lefty circles, called for exactly such an alliance in a 2017 article for The Independent entitled “Alt-Right Trump supporters and Bernie Sanders fans should join together to defeat capitalism.”

To cut a long story short, there is no victory of the left without the broad alliance of all anti-establishment forces. One should never forget that our true enemy is the global capitalist establishment and not the new populist right which is merely a reaction to its impasses.

But among Dirtbag Left circles, the person most infamous for calling for an alliance with the Far Right is Aimee Terese of the podcast What’s Left. She posted this tweet back in December, and Antifa has been hyperventilating about it ever since.

Now, she says “red and bronze” instead of “red and brown.” This is a reference to Bronze Age Pervert, a neoreactionary writer and social media personality who stepped up to fill in the void left by Mencius Moldbug’s retirement from commentary to become the king of NRx. [1] Moldbug himself has been championing BAP’s book debut Bronze Age Mindset.

This was not the first time that Terese has been accused of ideological heresy by the Antifa set. A few months prior to that, she was called out for being chummy on Twitter with unapologetic Nazbol Eric Striker.

Now let’s move on to Red Scare.

The Red Scare podcast, hosted by Anna Khachiyan and Dasha Nekrasova, is something of an outlier in Dirtbag Left circles in that it is far more focused on cultural critique than material analysis. Anna Khachiyan, the more notorious of the two, is highly influenced by Camille Paglia, and like Paglia, often arrives at conservative conclusions from a Left-wing starting point. This has led to predictable accusations of cryptofascism from the usual suspects.

Granted, a lot of the things she says sound like Alt-Right talking points from 5 years ago.

She’s also drawn comparisons to Mencius Moldbug.

She recently announced to the world that she was reading Bronze Age Mindset.

By now, everyone has heard about Red Scare shocking the world by having Steve Bannon on their podcast. But what is less remarked upon, yet perhaps even more audacious, is that a few days before that, Khachiyan appeared on Tech Wars, an NRx Irony Bro podcast hosted by Moldbugist Twitter personality @KANTBOT20K. Kantbot has also had Amy Terese and Sean McCarthy of the Dirtbag Left podcast Grubstakers on his podcasts.

So while there are reasons to be skeptical that a red-brown alliance is possible (or even desirable), it is noteworthy that the NRx crowd (of all people) has actually succeeded in making some inroads into the unwoke Left scene. Say what you will about NRx, but they are ideological cousins of ours. Both of our movements emerged out of the primordial ooze of the Dark Enlightenment.

Remember this?

Obviously, optics is a relevant factor here. We’re seen as evil, whereas NRx (to the extent that anyone knows they exist) are merely seen as eccentric.

A little ways up, I mentioned Sean McCarthy, who is another popular hate figure among Antifa types for several reasons.

First, he is against the doxing and firing of “Nazis.”

In addition to believing that this practice undermines working-class solidarity, McCarthy finds the concept of weaponizing the managerial class (the enemy) against workers (the good guys) is morally repugnant. That Right-wing equivalent would be using the liberal media to attack fellow Right-wingers.

Then there’s this.

Remember how I said earlier that it would be easier for nationalists to steals socialists’ ideas than vice versa? I mean, forget about nationalist ideas. Simply not hating your nation or the very concept of nations is considered a controversial opinion in socialist circles.

IMO, McCarthy is more “based” than Khachiyan or Terese. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a leftist through and through, but he’s a lot more on the ball about where the materialist Left is going wrong than most of that scene. He understands that open borders fetishism and virulent anti-Americanism are toxic and counter-productive to their Leftist ends.

Now, if I were to advise the socialist Left, that would pretty much be the same advice I would give them.

But at the same time, it’s like OK, promoting open borders and anti-Americanism are vote losers. But which voters are you losing? White voters. Blacks and Hispanics don’t care about that stuff. It’s white voters who feel threatened by that stuff, and Sean is smart enough to realize they are an essential constituent, and it’s a good idea not to threaten their ethnic interests. Well, if you’re willing to go that far, why not take the next step further and actively appeal to their ethnic interests? I mean, if they are that essential, why not go that one step further beyond merely not threatening them?

In closing. . .

Nick Fuentes said something about the Dissident Right and the Dirtbag Left on one of his streams lately that was a good observation. I’m not going to sift through 100 hours of footage to find the exact passage so I’m going to be quoting from memory:

A lot of people in the Dissident Right will overlook large amounts of overlap we have with conservatives but get really excited over some tiny bit of overlap that we have with the Left. They’ll be like ‘one of the guys from Chapo Trap House said something based about immigration’ or ‘Cum Town said something racist! They’re our guys’ or ‘Bernie Sanders said something based about immigration 10 years ago’ while ignoring huge amounts of disagreement that we have with those people.

That’s not the exact quote, but it was something like that. This is a good point and because I have been doing such a thing in this article, I thought I should bring it up. Optimism should be tempered with caution when treading these waters. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug, and it can be easy to get carried away. But with this article, I’m doing white pills, so I will offer this up as a counter-point. People usually do not switch ideologies overnight. Usually what happens is that people will initially try to graft elements of their new ideology onto their old ideology.

For example, many — if not most — white nationalists are former libertarians, but the switch wasn’t immediate. They would first go from libertarian to “libertarian but with closed borders.” Then after thinking things through a bit more, they might move on to “libertarian but with closed borders and protectionist trade policy.” Then after a while, become “libertarianism but with closed borders, a protectionist trade policy, and some authoritarian elements (just a pinch, just enough to keep things from getting out of hand) but otherwise perfectly libertarian.” And this would go on and on in a “What have the Romans ever done for us?” fashion until they finally say “Screw it. I’m not a libertarian anymore.”

Someone saying something based might just be a one-off. Like Stefan Molyneux showing some anti-Semitic leg before retreating back into cuckiness. But when people do ideologically “lose their religion,” it will start as a slow drip.

So yeah. Maybe it’s something. Or maybe it’s nothing. Proceed with caution.


I would also like to end this article by giving a special thanks to Gwen Snyder and (((Antifash Gordon))). I would never have been able to create this piece of fascist propaganda without your inspiration. I hope to convert as many people as possible to white supremacy and hate with this article and when that happens, I will owe it all to you two.

Merci beaucoup d’etat,
— Trav

Please support our work by sending us a credit card donation through Entropy — just click “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All Entropy chats will be read and commented upon in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.


[1] Yes, I realize Moldbug’s back now but he’s not really NRx anymore. He’s… I dunno what you would call it.


  1. Nikandros
    Posted April 23, 2020 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the centre of which is constituted of technology, science, production, “productivity,” and “consumption.” And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential… – Julius Evola

    • alfa
      Posted May 14, 2020 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      Did Evola explain what is essential?

  2. Archie Bunker
    Posted April 23, 2020 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    I feel like I need to take a bath after reading this. Thank you, Trav, for wading through the sewage of AntiFa twitter so I don’t have to.

    Is this how the battle for hearts and minds will be fought? Makes me long for the days of nationalists and commies duking it out in the streets.

    Ok, time to listen to some Wagner and re-centre myself.

  3. Bruno Bucciaratti
    Posted April 23, 2020 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    If there is one thing I took from this article, it’s that we can hide in plain sight as Dirtbag Leftists.

    We could post the things that overlap on social media with no repercussions, and even do so under our real names. One could build their own blog or podcast and rack in those Patreon bucks, then turn around and send them to deserving outlets like this one.

    Sounds distasteful? Just pretend you’re the protagonist from “The Shadow Over Innsmouth,” LARPing as a Deep One to get away from them.

    • disordered deacon
      Posted April 23, 2020 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      yes, until they dox you when they want you to meet their trans friend and you cannot help but avoid kissing xer gross stubble-filled cheek.

      at any rate, great essay. it’s hard to turn leftists. those who do have had some exposure to right-wing thought somewhere in their past, usually some religious/strong white ethnic background. on the other hand NRx has that pretentious Marxoid-intellectualoid tone about it, so it may turn some heads from some of the less insane leftists who will read anything. but in the end it all comes back to “how do we fit universal brotherhood of man around this?”, and they cannot just square that circle. heck, the word “man” is now problematic to them – that’s perhaps even a more defining tenet, as even the NazBols are more permissive of traditional gender roles than any current leftist. it is an incurable problem, because to the true leftist, any tradition and order is necessarily unequal and repressive. this includes the racial/ethnic/gender (super)natural order.

      also, those 3 countries where the “populist left” won (might also add Argentina), simply followed a traditional left-coalition strategy against divided (Ireland, Denmark) and/or neoconnized (Mexico, Argentina) right-wings who as of yet cannot find their Orban figure. still, these pop-lefts will anyway carry the SJWs around, albeit in a diminished role, but they are still there, because they supported the effort and after all “just want their space”. since the pop-left only believes in allowing whatever masses allow, this would allow any degenerate anticulture to take root as well as intermixing eventually, as long as it is “local”.
      that is how even though Chavez explicitly wrote the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution about only allowing hetero marriage, some fellow traveler SJWs in his party still stayed and increasingly advocated for gay marriage this decade. now Maduro has recently expressed allowing gay marriage in the new upcoming 2020s Constitution that would officialize the one party state.
      [of course the secular right could steal the proposal and at least go silent on morality (Trump holding rainbow flag, Macri in Argentina allowing abortion), but it wouldn’t have nearly the same effect. the lgbtqs who want to get married usually tend to the other tenets of the left, they will not go Milo. if anything, it shows that while the right should have some moderation and less zealotry, it still needs tradition either way. it can allow school prayer and propose traditional gender roles, but not enforce “pray the gay away” nor ban condoms…]
      likewise the Danish pop-left has only somewhat increased border security, and has lost popularity since. in Eire perhaps Sinn Fein has on paper gathered both traditional and secular populism close, however in practice they are establishment pop-left who will not rock the boat much, rather were chosen as a compromise due to the many splinters about the Northern Question and Brexit.
      in Mexico and Argentina the right is sadly and usually truthfully depicted as cronies of the IMF and CIA, only few also notice the left being dominated by Chinese and SJW-(((globalists))) while the race debate is buried to avoid civil war – yet it could and should be broached, because it is lower class offwhites (castizos) and the better of mestizos who bear the brunt of intermarriage and are a middle class stuck between exploitative near-semitical neocon whites (not all of them, but decades of US-is-best indoctrination takes its toll) and the lazy criminal socialist browns.

  4. Fionn McCool
    Posted April 23, 2020 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    This is splendid. LeBlanc is my favourite writer on this site by far.

    Now, what is a “dingus”? Hi Gwen!

  5. Bernie
    Posted April 23, 2020 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    You are a better man than me to follow these specimens. If they want to come over let them come. But leave the brain-dead anti-white leftism at the door.

  6. Posted April 23, 2020 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    The Bernie Bro Question, aka the BBQ.

    I see what you did there, clever man.

  7. HamburgerToday
    Posted April 23, 2020 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Great article. For some reason I started feeling very Situationist and then the thought leapt into my head, ‘This chaos isn’t going to disorganize itself, you know.’

  8. Posted April 23, 2020 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    This is quite entertaining, cultural Marxists versus economic leftists,

    “Class-first leftism is a simplistic and reductive ideology. Like it says on the tin, it reduces everything to a single issue.” Antifa dissed dialectical materialism! The irony is off the charts, folks. Then with this pearl-clutching about putting landlords on target, they dissed old-school Maoism too! I don’t have my finger on the pulse of all this, but if this debate is widespread, then it sounds like they’re coming apart at the seams.

    That said, economic leftism in its pure form is considerably better than cultural Marxism. Still, I’m not anticipating large numbers of recruits from their quarters. Those who do make the switch will have a lot of enemy indoctrination to unlearn and will have to prove themselves.

    Finally, here’s my take on Antifa based on some of their recruitment material:

  9. Lord Shang
    Posted April 23, 2020 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Great piece. Laugh out loud funny in several places. Trav is like the Grumpy Old Man (or someday will be) of the Redpilled Right. Thanks for monitoring the antifa sewage; someone has to do it, but it ain’t gonna be me.

    Alas, this, however,

    “Nationalists could come out in favor of UBI, student loan forgiveness, or even Medicare For All without much trouble. There would be some spirited internal debate about it, but I doubt anyone would walk out of the movement over it. Free-market purists already hate us.

    Socialists, however, would have a much harder time stealing our most popular ideas (immigration restriction, mass deportations, a wall).”

    is very, very wrong on several levels. It is true that no one would walk away from defending our race simply over some socialist add-ons. White survival is more important than free market prosperity, at least for already self-identified white nationalists (a very important qualification). It is likewise correct that leftists could not easily steal even our most mainstream ideas without hemorrhaging much of their own base, given how the essence of the Left today is not socialism and class warfare, but race treason (among whites) and racist hatred of whites (among nonwhites).

    But if our movement idiotically does move very far in that social democratic direction, it would severely limit the attractiveness, not of our MOVEMENT (which will never be large in self-identified number), but of our POSITIONS (at least the moderate ones aforementioned – more on this), to the broad mass of Americans we actually need to be on our side to end the ongoing yet merely preliminary outrages (mainly, immigration) victory on which is the precondition for our true ultimate agenda of securing sovereign white living space (aka, The Ethnostate).

    The ONLY issue that matters is ending the immigration invasion (with the addition, I suppose, esp in America, of preserving gun rights). If we can do that, our chances of having sufficient redpilling time to build the critical mass that can eventually win our racial sovereignty go way up. If we fail to halt the invasion, our Ethnostate chances are nearly nil (we’re nearly out of time already), apart from some unforeseen crisis leading to the unplanned and chaotic fissiparition of the country, after which anything becomes possible.

    Now, Travis lists “our most popular ideas” as “immigration restriction [I hope he means “termination”!], mass deportations [I assume he means “of illegal aliens”; if he means of all immigrants or even all nonwhite citizens, that’s a whole other level of power white nationalists will have to have acquired], the wall”. I agree that those are our most “mainstream” ideas, along with opposition to race quotas, affirmative action, and the new vogue for criminal excusing and coddling. BUT I SUGGEST THAT WE DO NOT WANT THOSE POSITIONS TO BE SEEN AS “WHITE NATIONALIST” ONES. We want them to be seen for what they actually are: mainstream conservative/Republican ones.

    This is important. If immigration restriction can be seen as standard conservative fare, in the same galaxy as anti-tax, anti-socialist, pro-life, pro-Constitution, pro-military, etc, as in fact it is, both intellectually and historically, then we have a much greater chance of legislating it. But if the Left succeeds in ‘tagging’ moderate, sensible, conservative nation-preservation as “white nationalist”, obviously our mostly still blue-pilled fellow whites – even including many who in fact want restriction and deportations – will shy away from it, and allow their elected reps to do so as well. This evasion of the invasion has been going on my whole life, and I am far into middle age. Even though the objective conditions for a big restrictionist push have never been more promising (esp with and post-Covid), that won’t get under way if white nationalists are seen to ‘own’ patriotic immigration reduction.

    IOWs, we want the ‘entry’ costs for becoming a restrictionist to be as LOW as possible; associating restrictionism with white nationalism raises those entry costs to their highest possible amount. Not smart.

    What does this have to do with “UBI, student loans, Medicare for All” and similar socialist stupidity that Trav thinks white nationalists could possibly adopt without harm to ourselves? Simply this: astounding as it may be for CC readers to believe (though it shouldn’t be), there are likely far more average GOP voters who passionately care about ‘muh liberty’; who work in the private sector and recognize that free markets are far more their friend than Big Government (which mostly benefits Democrat constituencies while being paid for by GOP ones); and who have a deep concern with preserving constitutionally limited government (the reach of a Mark Levin or Sean Hannity is likely many orders of magnitude greater than that of a Jared Taylor or Greg Johnson), than there are single issue immigration restrictionists (and this still obtains, despite all the years during which people like Michael Savage, Peter Brimelow, Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter have tried to make Republicans understand that future victories on all other issues are contingent on winning on immigration). UBI, etc, is appalling to me, though I would be willing to trade some of that socialist agenda for a total stoppage of all immigration. But I think I am in the minority among Republicans. If pro-whites move in that direction, they will be hounded by the mainstream conservative movement (and deservedly so), and thus lose the chance to persuade legions of our people to effectively start down the redpill road via voting against continued immigration (which many mainstreamers already support anyway).

    Something like this was at the root of the Buchanan failure in the 90s. I agreed with his prescience on trade and globalization, but I thought his making that a key plank was really dumb. This was because stopping immigration (ie, mobilizing political support for doing so) was both far more objectively important, and far less controversial – AT LEAST AMONG REPUBLICANS. The non-racial policy arguments for the average GOP voter for stopping immigration were and are far stronger than the ones for trade interferences, as well as much easier for the average voter to grasp (and much more difficult for neoliberal propagandists to ‘spin’ away). Yet Pat fixated on trade, which gave his (((internal GOP enemies))) the opening they needed to discredit him intellectually (or more precisely, to give the appearance of having done so).

    UBI etc, is “90s trade policy” exponentialized. Pat’s trade positions were actually correct for the majority of Middle Americans, but hard to explain against the barrage of neoliberal donor-class propaganda. UBI and Medicare For All would be gargantuan fiscal disasters for Middle Americans, who make up the bulk of taxpayers, and student loan forgiveness is just outrageously unfair to good citizens who fucking paid off their loans, as well as to those who went to cheaper schools or didn’t go at all to avoid debt (and you know a disproportionate number of those who did pay off loans were conservatives, as well as that a huge proportion of those whining about them are leftists; why else is it such an issue with Democrat but not GOP voters??????!!).

    And that’s not even broaching the PR disaster for white preservationism should it be loudly moving in a more, ahem, National Socialist direction …

    So when Trav says “nationalists could support UBI, etc … without trouble”, what he means is simply that doing so likely would not cause a drop off in readership at hardcore sites like CC. OK. But it would hugely negatively impact the influence of white nationalism upon the broad Right, and reciprocally consign white survivalism to a durable but limited ideological ghetto (fortified with a teeny tiny number of new dirtbag socialist recruits).

    No thanks. Some of us are more interested in white nationalist victory than in white nationalism as a self-referential, hermetic in-group or discussion club.

    • Nikandros
      Posted April 23, 2020 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

      I hear you. This is essentially the Amnat vs. Wignat (hate that term) debate. But what of these words? The man who said them had great political success while the Michelle Malkin and Nick Fuentes types have been deplatformed and shunned like anyone else.

      The future of a movement is conditioned by the fanaticism yes, the intolerance, with which its adherents uphold it as the sole correct movement, and push it past other formations of a similar sort. It is the greatest error to believe that the strength of a movement increases through a union with another of similar character. It is true that every enlargement of this kind at first means an increase in outward dimensions, which to the eyes of superficial observers means power; in truth, however, it only takes over the germs of an inner weakening that will later become effective. For whatever can be said about the like character of two movements, in reality it is never present. For otherwise there would actually be not two movements but one. And regardless wherein the differences lie-even if they consisted only in the varying abilities of the leadership-they exist. But the natural law of all development demands, not the coupling of two formations which are simply not alike, but the victory of the stronger and the cultivation of the victor’s force and strength made possible alone by the resultant struggle.

      Through the union of two more or less equal political party formations momentary advantages may arise, but in the long run any success won in this way is the cause of inner weaknesses which appear later. The greatness of a movement is exclusively guaranteed by the unrestricted development of its inner strength and its steady growth up to the final victory over all competitors. Yes, we can say that its strength and hence the justification of its existence increases only so long as it recognizes the principle of struggle as the premise of its development, and that it has passed the high point of its strength in the moment when complete victory inclines to its side. Therefore, it is only profitable for a movement to strive for this victory in a form which does not lead to an early momentary success, but which in a long struggle occasioned by absolute intolerance also provides long growth. Movements which increase only by the so-called fusion of similar formations, thus owing their strength to compromises, are like hothouse plants. They shoot up, but they lack the strength to defy the centuries and withstand heavy storms.

      The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others. If an idea in itself is sound and, thus armed, takes up a struggle on this earth, it is unconquerable and every persecution will only add to its inner strength. The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine. The apparent head start which movements achieve by fusions is amply caught up with by the steady increase in the strength of a doctrine and organization that remain independent and fight their own fight.

    • Posted April 25, 2020 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

      It would be great if the Republicans actually would fix immigration. They’ve been promising to do so since 1980, or at least dog-whistling about it. However, whenever they get in office, nothing ever changes. No matter who you vote for, you get the same thing! This is what happens in a two party system in which deep pockets globalists pull the strings behind the scenes in both parties. That particular rabbit hole goes pretty deep!

      Trump is the only one who made a serious effort about illegal immigration, but Congress fought him tooth and nail. As for legal immigration, he’s all for it, and (so I’ve heard anyway) has talked about increasing it. Does it make much difference if we’re replaced by Third World immigrants arriving illegally versus ones arriving legally? This is why civic nationalism — which wants to fix one problem but not the other — is a dead end.

      The only way we’re going to stop that racket is if the White public raises a tremendous outcry, making it clear that it will be career suicide for any politician (Democrat, Republican, or otherwise) to fail to stop the population replacement policies. Raising consciousness among the public is how to get there. Until then, party politics alone is going to go the same way as it has in the last 40 years.

      Finally, about Buchanan, he’s someone who knows the score, and the Deep State folks hate him. That’s why he got hit with a coordinated attack by the Powers That Be. Other than that, back in the day, someone told me, “I really like Buchanan, but we need someone who can beat Clinton.”

  10. A.M.
    Posted July 25, 2020 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    It’s ridiculously ironic that they, and some of you, typically refer to the Western “New Left” as the “True Left.” Isn’t that just a tad bit counter-intuitive? After all, isn’t a thing’s original version it’s most authentic version? I don’t identify as a “Nazbol,” and my views are quite similar to practically any former member of the communist party in my Eastern European country, and I doubt any one of them even knows what a “Nazbol” is, and would think it’s an absurdity if they did, and some of them even actually fought against Nazis during World War 2, and, yet, we’d all be characterized as “Nazbols” by the liberals in Antifa in the North America and Western Europe of today. I never got “Red-pilled.”
    (Ironic term) I was always a Race Realist and supporter of all peoples’ Nationalisms, and initially never surmised that it could possibly put me or anyone at odds with Marxist ideology in any way, far from it, I considered these beliefs required understanding for Marxist ideology to make sense in the first place, and I still do, and I’m not alone in that regard. Learning to understand Western interpretations of Marxism, and what “Cultural Marxism” is, twist my mind into a pretzel, and I’m not even that old. Much of the modern degeneracy you ascribe to the Left and Socialist ideology Socialists ascribed the Right and Capitalist ideology. I find no reason to convert to the former interpretation. Class Reductionism is lifted directly from the literal interpretation of Marx’s own words, and it is one of Marxism’s most fundamental concepts. It is the correct interpretation of Marxism. These people reject it all, and yet they call themselves Socialists and Communists, and so do you. In reality their “Leftism” is a lie, a Capitalist lie, they are the True Left’s gatekeepers, and direct people away from it, and because of them no such thing exists in the West today. “Woke Socialism” is Capitalism’s solution to Socialism, the reason it could never even remotely succeed in the West. “Woke Socialism” is a castrated, impotent caricature of Socialism, one that can never incite the kind of energy needed for revolution in the working class. Liberal Subversive Reactionaries like the ones featured in this article, not Fascists, are World Communism’s greatest enemies today, and the Dissident Right is a natural ally for the Left against such people. Moreover, both political ideologies are effectively completely disenfranchised in the West today, which also makes them natural allies in these circumstances, regardless of the degree to which their politics overlap, it’s an intuitive strategic arrangement, as the old saying goes, “beggars can’t be choosers,” and True Socialists, as demonstrated by most Eastern European countries, are more than happy to put their differences with Rightists, even Fascists, who are questionably Rightist to begin with, aside for the good of the revolution, anyone who isn’t carries other priorities at best, and ulterior subversive motives at worst. My biggest criticism of the Dissident Right, greater than any doctrinal disagreement, is that you insist on affirming the legitimacy of these Reactionaries’ False Leftism to advance your own ideology in the West, by comparing them with us, then associating them with instances of violent conduct, both real and fabricated, performed by us in the past, and saying they’re evil because of that. I don’t think that’s going to make the critical difference for anybody on the fence, especially with regards to White Nationalism, witch isn’t even in binary categorical contradiction with Socialism. It would probably even help your cause to publicly acknowledge that Neo-liberalism, even in it’s “Socialist” expressions, is an illegitimately Leftist, Anti-Socialist, Subversive, “Bad Right” creature, of bastardized Classical Liberal, even arguably bastardized Libertarian, origin, far more so than Marxist origin, and the perversity of it’s “egalitarian” rationalizations should, far beyond, disqualify that association as well. Nobody in the East takes the Frankfurt School seriously, most of the Marxists there have never even heard of it, or have just barley, 2 years ago, on Wikipedia, and is a piece of shit, and a Capitalist propaganda outlet. If either Travis LeBlanc or Beau Albrecht read this comment please reply if you can.
    I’d love to know how much of this you can relate to.

Post a Comment

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace