Why The Far Right Is As Bad As The Mainstream Right - Brett Stevens

submitted by AFutureConcern from self.debatealtright

A criticism of third-positionist ideas from the right:

http://www.amerika.org/politics/why-the-far-right-is-as-bad-as-the-mainstream-right/

I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Stevens' take on this. As a staunch anti-egalitarian myself, I do note that some elements of leftism can creep into certain circles in the Alt-Right, and it's disappointing because I think it'll only lead to more leftism and ruin.

But I'm not sure it's as pervasive as he makes out. I'm not sure who "praises all Whites as equal," for example. But there are people trapped in what he calls the "Revolutionary narrative" of "the rich people are the bad elites and they are our problem."

What are your thoughts?

all 14 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]NeoRail 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is not a criticism of third position ideas from the right, it is a criticism of third position ideas from the first position (liberalism). This is more or less to be expected, because the writer may be an anti-egalitarian, but he's definitely a materialist. Let's look at the noteworthy points in his article:

We know that mainstream conservatives are irritating cucks because they cannot accept that equality is nonsense.

Is this why conservatives are irritating? Most criticism I see of conservatism seems to revolve around its inability to defend its own interests, not its stance on equality. This type of presentation trick is used throughout the entire article.

However, the far-Right has its share of do-nothings who refuse to reject equality, either. They want equality within a race, and forget that nationalism is ethnic in nature, or want socialism, or insist that we have some kind of classless society. All of these are Leftist ideals.

These are all just misrepresentations and outright lies relying on common tropes and rhetoric to shut down critical thinking.

If you are going to bother challenging the current system, you have to rip it out root, leaf, and branch which means that you have to reject its core concept.

Leftism isn't the current system, it is a part of the current system. It has its origin, causes and function within that system, but it is not the system itself.

Leftism is egalitarianism.

No? Egalitarianism is an important concept within leftism. It is not leftism itself.

Egalitarianism is the belief in equality. If you believe in any kind of equality, you are part of the problem.

Every kind of equality is the problem? Why? Where's the proof? This idea may have merit but without any argumentation it's worthless.

That includes racial equality, ethnic equality (joining together all Whites as one, ignoring ethnic differences), socialism (denying class and caste, wanting subsidies like free healthcare, welfare, retirement, and public schooling), unions (reward the bad workers as well as the good), democracy (the vote of an insane moron is the same as that of a morally-lucid genius), sexual equality (gay marriage, sexual liberation, “game,” unchaste men), and of course equality itself, or the idea that we can be a mob without leaders or choosing one clear, simple and achievable platform.

There are many misrepresentations here that are worth addressing.

ethnic equality (joining together all Whites as one, ignoring ethnic differences)

Who does this? People who promote cooperation between ethnic groups do not reject biological reality, they acknowledge political reality. Intersectional criticism applies just as well to Americans as it does to Russians. It's obvious that different ethnic groups are different, otherwise they wouldn't be different ethnic groups. Does that difference also mean they have to be disunited? Furthermore, this point of view is highly materialist. It considers reality in purely biological terms, leaving no room for cultural, political, intellectual, moral and emotional factors. Is any nationalist more attached to the IQ score of his demographic group rather than its history and traditions?

socialism (denying class and caste, wanting subsidies like free healthcare, welfare, retirement, and public schooling), unions (reward the bad workers as well as the good)

19th century liberal thinking. Socialism and trade unionism are products of the capitalist system and its excessive exploitation and abuse of the traditional loyalty owed by the masses to authority. You can't roll history back. You can only go forward and resolve the problems that have created these movements. The only way to fix that is a sense of solidarity that can only exist in a just society where everyone has his needs met.

democracy (the vote of an insane moron is the same as that of a morally-lucid genius),

Later in the article it becomes apparent that the critique of democracy is not a right wing one, but a liberal one instead.

It's also worth mentioning what was left out from the list of "egalitarianism that has to be rejected". For example, universal taxation, the equal right to engage in commerce, amongst other privileges established by liberals in order to destroy the aristocracy. In other words, the intention here is to reject every form of equality that doesn't explicitly benefit the rich.

For too long the far-Right audience has favored anyone who praises all Whites as equal, both among ethnic groups and between social classes, without noticing obvious hatefacts like some “white” ethnic groups being actually highly mixed with Other, and lower classes being dumber than upper classes. Too much of the far-Right is caught up in the Revolutionary narrative of “the rich people are the bad elites and they are our problem.”

Here again there's this conflation of political unity and "egalitarianism". Every ethnic group is different. This is obvious to everyone, including leftists and liberals. This does not mean that cooperation and unity is impossible. It seems to me that the author of this article just wants more useless IQ nationalism whining. If people from Normandy can be politically united with people from Toulouse as Bavarians can be with Brandenburgers, then why should Frenchmen and Germans be in strict opposition?

At the same time, the correlation between low IQ and working class status is 0.49, which is a weak correlation. If you are working class, it's actually slightly more likely that you're "too smart" for your class rather than not.

Are rich people "bad"? As an anti-egalitarian, the author of the article should know that the upper classes always hold the power. Who, then, ushered in this period of political turbulence and cultural and economic decline? Why did they do that? Is Jeff Bezos the model American?

White votards elected the people who did this and then failed to repeal it. White votards adopted Leftism to get more people into their shops and businesses. White votards continue to virtue signal for Black Lives Matter and Antifa despite having no idea what they are talking about.

This is where the critique of democracy becomes obviously liberal - it criticises the voters, democracy and mass participation of politics by blaming everything on those factors, completely ignoring the structure of the US electoral system which has been blocking almost every serious attempt for reform over the past two centuries. You don't have to be a democrat to acknowledge that if it had been left up to popular opinion, the USA would never have ended up the way it has. Something like Hart-Cellar is possible only in a "representative" liberal system like the American one. There's also blame placed on the electorate for thoughtlessly falling for propaganda, but never any blame directed towards the powerful interests which promote and produce that propaganda.

You people are like mainstream conservatives. You are just conservative-flavored Leftists. No matter how many grossly “racist” things you say, or taboos you break, you still want the current system with its flaws intact, and that will rapidly encounter the same problems. You will defeat yourselves, but you will also defeat the Right, opening the door for the final Leftist takeover.

This is the worst and most ironic example of projection I've seen in my entire life.

We do not need more analysis; we know what the situation is and how to fix it, which is to adopt gradually more Right-wing leaders, starting with Trump.

If you want to know what type of mindset leads to the creation of articles like this - here you go. This is it. "We don't need more analysis."

We take baby steps so that at each step, we prove that our plans are working better than crazy Leftism, and then we push further Right. That works

Really? How?

We need a simple plan, and here it is: push Right. Get involved, and push those organizations further Right. Always vote for the furthest Right candidate you can find.

For an anti-egalitarian and anti-democrat this "strategy" of subverting the GOP against the will of its elites and sponsors is both egalitarian and democratic. I am sure the author is completely unaware of the inherent cognitive dissonance.

[–]AFutureConcern[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is not a criticism of third position ideas from the right, it is a criticism of third position ideas from the first position (liberalism). This is more or less to be expected, because the writer may be an anti-egalitarian, but he's definitely a materialist.

I honestly don't see where the liberalism comes in. Stevens has written extensively about how he considers liberalism to be leftist.

He has also written about how, despite being a nihilist, he can "[reject] solely material existence, including social control, to discover that reality has qualitative dimension".

We know that mainstream conservatives are irritating cucks because they cannot accept that equality is nonsense.

Is this why conservatives are irritating? Most criticism I see of conservatism seems to revolve around its inability to defend its own interests, not its stance on equality. This type of presentation trick is used throughout the entire article.

I personally think conservatives are irritating because they refuse to acknowledge biological difference, yes. For example, a common criticism is that they blame black dysfunction on "lack of fathers" and deny any racial component, leading to civic nationalist-type positions. I do agree that a lot of criticism is not along these lines, but then, this statement by Stevens does strike me as simply opinionated for his particular audience; after all, there's a lot of people who don't consider mainstream conservatives to be "irritating cucks."

Leftism is egalitarianism.

No? Egalitarianism is an important concept within leftism. It is not leftism itself.

He expands on why he thinks this is the case here.

ethnic equality (joining together all Whites as one, ignoring ethnic differences)

Who does this? People who promote cooperation between ethnic groups do not reject biological reality, they acknowledge political reality. Intersectional criticism applies just as well to Americans as it does to Russians. It's obvious that different ethnic groups are different, otherwise they wouldn't be different ethnic groups. Does that difference also mean they have to be disunited? Furthermore, this point of view is highly materialist. It considers reality in purely biological terms, leaving no room for cultural, political, intellectual, moral and emotional factors. Is any nationalist more attached to the IQ score of his demographic group rather than its history and traditions?

Yeah, this was one of my criticisms as well. I think he misunderstands the third position to claim that anyone really claims different ethnic groups are equal. But I don't think he's an IQ nationalist.

socialism (denying class and caste, wanting subsidies like free healthcare, welfare, retirement, and public schooling), unions (reward the bad workers as well as the good)

19th century liberal thinking. Socialism and trade unionism are products of the capitalist system and its excessive exploitation and abuse of the traditional loyalty owed by the masses to authority. You can't roll history back. You can only go forward and resolve the problems that have created these movements. The only way to fix that is a sense of solidarity that can only exist in a just society where everyone has his needs met.

As a reactionary, he really does want to roll history back. He expands on this here - "Humanity went wrong, and we can fix this wrong turn by reversing, going back to where we were before we made this mistake, and then zooming forward along that path. Around here, we tend to suggest the four pillars: aristocracy, pan-nationalism, social hierarchy, and transcendence." He places the blame on the enlightenment.

I do tend to agree that rolling history back is a pipe dream; like piecing together a broken vase, or un-cooking a steak. But I can't prove it's impossible - to be honest, most proposed solutions to our predicament look equally implausible.

democracy (the vote of an insane moron is the same as that of a morally-lucid genius),

Later in the article it becomes apparent that the critique of democracy is not a right wing one, but a liberal one instead.

It's also worth mentioning what was left out from the list of "egalitarianism that has to be rejected". For example, universal taxation, the equal right to engage in commerce, amongst other privileges established by liberals in order to destroy the aristocracy. In other words, the intention here is to reject every form of equality that doesn't explicitly benefit the rich.

Maybe it's a little confused, but I'm pretty sure the author is in favor of aristocracy. I don't know if he does actually support those particular liberal privileges.

For too long the far-Right audience has favored anyone who praises all Whites as equal, both among ethnic groups and between social classes, without noticing obvious hatefacts like some “white” ethnic groups being actually highly mixed with Other, and lower classes being dumber than upper classes. Too much of the far-Right is caught up in the Revolutionary narrative of “the rich people are the bad elites and they are our problem.”

Here again there's this conflation of political unity and "egalitarianism". Every ethnic group is different. This is obvious to everyone, including leftists and liberals. This does not mean that cooperation and unity is impossible. It seems to me that the author of this article just wants more useless IQ nationalism whining. If people from Normandy can be politically united with people from Toulouse as Bavarians can be with Brandenburgers, then why should Frenchmen and Germans be in strict opposition?

At the same time, the correlation between low IQ and working class status is 0.49, which is a weak correlation. If you are working class, it's actually slightly more likely that you're "too smart" for your class rather than not.

Are rich people "bad"? As an anti-egalitarian, the author of the article should know that the upper classes always hold the power. Who, then, ushered in this period of political turbulence and cultural and economic decline? Why did they do that? Is Jeff Bezos the model American?

Here, again, I find myself agreeing with you and disagreeing with Stevens. He simply misrepresents the "far-Right audience" in my view. I don't think many people on the right really think all white people are equal.

As for

At the same time, the correlation between low IQ and working class status is 0.49, which is a weak correlation. If you are working class, it's actually slightly more likely that you're "too smart" for your class rather than not.

I don't think this is actually true. Here's an example - 400 people, 200 are "lower class" (class=0) and 200 are "upper class" (class=1). 200 are "low IQ" (int=0) and 200 are "high IQ" (int=1).

lower class upper class
low IQ 149 51
high IQ 51 149

The correlation between class and int here is 0.49, but if you're lower class you're way less likely to be "too smart for your class rather than not".

[–]AFutureConcern[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

White votards elected the people who did this and then failed to repeal it. White votards adopted Leftism to get more people into their shops and businesses. White votards continue to virtue signal for Black Lives Matter and Antifa despite having no idea what they are talking about.

This is where the critique of democracy becomes obviously liberal - it criticises the voters, democracy and mass participation of politics by blaming everything on those factors, completely ignoring the structure of the US electoral system which has been blocking almost every serious attempt for reform over the past two centuries. You don't have to be a democrat to acknowledge that if it had been left up to popular opinion, the USA would never have ended up the way it has. Something like Hart-Cellar is possible only in a "representative" liberal system like the American one. There's also blame placed on the electorate for thoughtlessly falling for propaganda, but never any blame directed towards the powerful interests which promote and produce that propaganda.

I'm siding with you again on this one. The elites are to blame. Sure, I think democracy (at least as it currently exists) is a stupid system because it fails to empower the people, and where it does, they are merely "thoughtlessly falling for propaganda" - but as you point out, that propaganda is produced by the elites.

You people are like mainstream conservatives. You are just conservative-flavored Leftists. No matter how many grossly “racist” things you say, or taboos you break, you still want the current system with its flaws intact, and that will rapidly encounter the same problems. You will defeat yourselves, but you will also defeat the Right, opening the door for the final Leftist takeover.

This is the worst and most ironic example of projection I've seen in my entire life.

Yeah I think you've got a wrong read on this guy. But still, his targeting of the right in this article isn't exactly helping avoid the "final Leftist takeover".

We do not need more analysis; we know what the situation is and how to fix it, which is to adopt gradually more Right-wing leaders, starting with Trump.

If you want to know what type of mindset leads to the creation of articles like this - here you go. This is it. "We don't need more analysis."

Yeah we need more analysis, but we also need more action. I do agree with him that sitting around pontificating doesn't achieve much.

We take baby steps so that at each step, we prove that our plans are working better than crazy Leftism, and then we push further Right. That works

Really? How?

We need a simple plan, and here it is: push Right. Get involved, and push those organizations further Right. Always vote for the furthest Right candidate you can find.

For an anti-egalitarian and anti-democrat this "strategy" of subverting the GOP against the will of its elites and sponsors is both egalitarian and democratic. I am sure the author is completely unaware of the inherent cognitive dissonance.

It's incrementalist. Much how I don't think there's any contradiction in communists infiltrating capitalist corporations to gain wealth and power before they tear the system apart, I don't think there's any contradiction in a neo-feudalist infiltrating democratic institutions to gain power and influence before he reforges the system as he wills. Not to say it'll work, but you've got to work within the confines of the system you're in to some degree, else you'll never achieve anything.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I only know what I have been presented with and I am not very interested in finding out more. From what I can see, the author opposes very basic social welfare policy that even 19th century hard right conservatives like Bismarck were in favour of. He seems to consider this a corrective and constructive political course of action which already speaks volumes. A lot of writers from the larper variety (NRx, Constitutionalist idolaters and others) follow this pattern of criticising basic, vital social policy under the pretext that it's "subversive" and leads to a gradual and inevitable turn to the left. "Traditionalism" for these people is just the bait they use to get others to endorse their psychopathic socioeconomic policy and dead-end political views. Among the NRx crowd you find these people who promote "aristocracy" conceived as upper middle class and above bourgeois leeches whose job is portrayed as that of "morally" lording their wealth over others and exploiting their labour for scraps. This is basically 19th century liberalism with a thin "traditionalist" coat of paint. Nothing separates their conception of "aristocracy" from people like Jeff Bezos and Mike Bloomberg except lots and lots of word salad. I have a strong suspicion that this guy is the same. At any case the vast majority of his views seem to fall into that category.

The rest of his analysis is also wrong or inaccurate. It doesn't matter what justification he has for his claim that leftism is egalitarianism, because by definition that is not what leftism is. Leftism does not have a claim to everything egalitarian, nor does it only consist in egalitarianism. His understanding of the power process is also very poor. Infiltrating organisations that are hostile to you is extremely unlikely and ineffective. The communists had common values with the liberals, which is why they managed to pull this off to such an extent. The conservatives on the other hand also have common values with the liberals rather than anyone further to the right, which is why this tactic is even worse on the right. Moreover, if you've observed the state of the "communist" movement today, you wouldn't be promoting their tactics as a successful model to be copied. Communism has been completely neutralised and transformed by progressive liberalism and its identity politics. The far left doesn't exist intellectually or organisationally in the West anymore - all of their thinking and planning is done by liberals and they can't even see it. It's over for them.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I don't know what is so difficult about studying the third reich and particularly the SS. Why are political dissidents, who can be unpersoned, imprisoned or killed for their beliefs at any moment such pussies about learning about National Socialism? The blueprint is there for literally everything, how to build the movement to get power and how to organise our society once we're in power.

    Take out the weird physical requirements (height, phenotype, disabilities etc, under the rules they had people like Goebbels and others wouldn't have made the cut despite their obvious gifts) of the SS and it's the perfect selection system for the new ruling class.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Well, in NS Germany people could "be unpersoned, imprisoned or killed for their beliefs at any moment". This is not the type of society, that I believe in.

      There's no such thing as a 'society' that doesn't protect its power from dissidents, you 'believe in' a childish liberal/anarchistic abstraction that has never existed anywhere.

      The time, situation and challenges are different.

      t. Someone who has never studied how the fascists built their movements to get power. Material conditions literally don't make a single bit of difference to what I said, they only change the specific techniques/tactics not the strategy. The formula is still exactly the same, the only way we can achieve power is through mass grassroots activism mobilising MILLIONS of people.

      If it was the "perfect selection system for the new ruling class", why did Himmler become SS leader? Hitler later tried to arrest him. NS in general seems to have failed selecting the best rulers, too. Hitler never got replaced, even after he had made a series of horrible mistakes.

      "Did The Man Who Invented The SS Selection System , Go Through The SS Selection System ?" fucking lol you dumb liberal

      [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      He is a racist liberal stuck in the 19th century, clown reactionary.

      [–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I can hardly believe it but this is actually exactly the 19th century imperialist liberal platform. Then he says it's others who "want to retain the current system" lol. Boggles the mind.

      [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      He's essentially the same as ancaps, lolberts, NRxers etc who want similar kind of capitalist hell worlds but without poz propaganda completely disregarding the fact that it is capitalists in power that push poz propaganda.

      [–]AFutureConcern[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I really think you got the wrong read on this guy. He's a reactionary, but he wants to go back before the enlightenment. I don't think he's a liberal at all.

      [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Stop shilling conservatism. Rich people are objectively pushing globohomo, any revolutionary that doesn't fight against them is not serious

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]AFutureConcern[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Wrong Bret Stephens, this one is Brett Stevens, who to my knowledge is not associated with the New York Times writer.

        [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        but also posturing about how they would never vote for Trump round two since he did not achieve the white ethnostate overnight?

        That's not the argument the anti trump alt right is making.

        These people understand nothing of Constitutional law, not even what a quick internet search would reveal

        You mean constitutional law being shaped by 'conservative' judges like Roberts and Gorsuch? The same Roberts the flew on the blackmail lolita express? I keep hearing we need to re-elect trump to get more conservative judges on the supreme court but what are those judges conserving exactly?

        They are just posturing. They are driven by pretense and scoring internet popularity points.

        They are poseurs.

        Some are. Others (like the FTN crew) are proving really insightful and important push back against Trump. Regular conservatives don't have the balls to critique Trump from the right. If it doesn't come from us it doesn't come from anywhere? Is Brett really trying to argue that the alt right shouldn't criticize Trump?? (and for the record Brett if you're out there I like your work; I'm just providing some healthy criticism).

        We do not need 100,000 different opinions on the far-Right, each one calculated to be quirky and unique enough to get more hits on your YouTube pages and little blogs.

        I agree with this. However, we really don't have the mechanisms to kick out party members that get too far away from the core message. That's the problem with being a leaderless online movement. You're going to have constant internal debate. IMO though this isn't as 'dangerous' as some in the dissident right make it out to be. It's only dangerous when people get heated and try to tare eachother down. When it's just friendly rivalry it can be a strength. We need to do this hashing out of ideas before we are forced to make a concrete platform and roll with it. This might be the only time we have to clearly re jigger first principles. I do think this is an important point by brett though. Nobody once to become an endless debate society like the Jews or even worse the libertarians.

        We also could do without people who reject all known leaders, only to insist that they are going their own way and have the one ultimate truth but people just are not listening

        Is this really that big of a problem? Is Bret not doing this him self a bit in this essay?

        We do not need more analysis; we know what the situation is and how to fix it,

        I actually don't think we know how to fix it. We have good ideas but no silver bullet. Even if we did the problem is boots on the ground organization not ideas or human capital. The core problem is our inability to organize.

        which is to adopt gradually more Right-wing leaders, starting with Trump

        I just fundamentally disagree with this. The type of leader we really need is just not going to be allowed in the electoral arena. Period. They would rather nuke the country before they allowed the type of people we need into the reigns of power. Brett seems almost naive here which is surprising considering he's a veteran in the movement.

        We have no shortage of people who are willing to tell you not to do the effective thing, but instead to work on your weight lifting, weapon collecting, ebook accumulation, bug-out bag arranging, bunker building, or other activities which benefit them (and get them lots of YouTube clicks!) but achieve absolutely nothing.

        This is true but it doesn't hurt the dissident right. Telling people to get prepared for collapse. It's not the ONLY thing you should be doing but if collapse doesn't happen you've still saved money, gotten fit, learned a skill. Those arn't bad things. In fact something Brett and others might not be realizing here is that the work out, shooting and prepping community isn't really about prepping for the apocalypse. It's about NOT falling for all the dopamine traps all around us. It's about being productive. I might not be able to march in the streets for the new 3rd position party but I can at least learn to shoot, lift weights, meet frens, and NOT jerk off and play vidya. I wish people would stop dumping on the lifting/prepping/BAP community. We need people strong and together no matter what comes down the pipe. That's what those groups are about.

        Or maybe you will find them in their bunker, eking out an existence from disability and welfare, surrounded by weapons that they are now too old, too out-of-shape, or too fearful to use

        Most people aren't taking it that far and the ones that are were going to do it anyway. The alt right community telling them not too wouldn't have stopped them. Literally hiding in the ground surrounded by guns and MREs is small small portion of the prepper community.

        We have no shortage of people willing to write off conservatism or the West. “Man, that stuff’s doomed! No point investing in that. Nope, not me, I’m smart. I’m going to pump lots of iron, read Siege, and get ready for the race war. It’s coming man, one of these days!”

        Again maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think that there are that many people that go this far. Most people are doing both. They read seige, prep, learn skills but also have a career and engage in politics and the alt right community. It doesn't have to be an either or thing.

        I think Brett just wrote this article out of sheer frustration that we arn't making headway fast enough and that people aren't working together. I hear those concerns and largely agree. However, his conclusion that we can just get this done with the ballot box and traditional politics is totally wrong. The left got to where they are today because they recognized the power of culture on who gets into power in the United States. The alternative right needs to engage in meta political warfare. It's how we've already gained so much ground. We need to realize that we can totally change the entire system without one vote or one candidate. If you change fundamental how people physiologically and socially live and interact with eachother the politics become downstream of that. Trump didn't get elected because of the alt right getting out of their rooms. Trump got elected because normal people were seriously starting to distrust media and the political process and they thought Trump was a monkey wrench into the system. We in the alt right need to study how people picked up those notions of distrust and we need to amplify them and leverage them to our advantage.

        [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Our White elite are indeed the scummiest, most harmful group maybe that has ever existed. How can anyone deny this? They are indeed one of the largest impediments to awakening White consciousness.

        Say what you want about the elite Jews but they, as their success grows, get MORE passionate about Israel and ethnocentric usually.

        Ours are the exact opposite. The motivation for that idea isn't 'leftism' or some type of egalitarianism. That's ridiculous.