I've been listening to and absorbing a lot of the arguments and ideas being discussed here and elsewhere these past couple weeks. My thoughts still aren't completely clarified on these issues yet so this post might be a bit disjointed, but it is clear a change in direction must be made.
I used to have a vision for the alt-right. My vision was a united racially-conscious right, a "big-tent" philosophy. I wanted to define the term "alt-right" as being very simply: Pro-White. It was an inclusive vision, anybody who was pro-white was alt-right, whether you were identitarian or white nationalist, libertarian or natsoc, capitalist or socialist, we all could be united under our single common goal: Loving and saving our people.
I and many others recognize now that this was a mistake, though we were generally aimed in the right direction. This vague and inclusive strategy was not the winning direction for our movement. And the ideal I'd been pushing for the past year was finally and thoroughly refuted in the Charlottesville debacle.
The fundmental issues here are lack of consistency and improper messaging. If I'm arguing "this is about love of our own, not hatred for others," and someone else who falls under the same label is arguing "gas the kikes, race war now," those are mutually exclusive philosophies. And the moderate position will always end up eclipsed by the more extreme message.
One could argue that the reason the establishment has reacted so aggressively to shut down our platforms is that they are scared, that they see we are winning. But this isn't the correct analysis of what has happened recently. The reason the establishment has reacted so aggressively is because we've completely lost the moral high-ground after Charlottesville, and they know it. Our enemies have seen the opportunity they needed to crush us without looking like the authoritarian monsters they are to the public at large. Nobody in the public is going to step up to defend "KKK, Nazi, white supremacists."
Like it or not, a movement will always be defined by its most extreme members. It doesn't matter if you have 99 clean-cut, intelligent, peaceful activists, and one larping psychopath... That one member will come to represent and thus tarnish the rest, unless he is told from the very beginning that's not what the group is about. It is his choice to fall in line, or to find a new group. If he goes on forums to rage against the "alt-right cucks," that is a good thing. He is doing the distancing work for us.
The Nazi larper, Dodge Charger driver, and the Atomwaffen terrorists are exactly the kind of trash you attract when you take inclusivity and "don't punch right" to it's extreme. It's not enough to be white and to be pro-white. Our message must be more specific and exclusive than that.
"The Nazi in our rally was a plant by the feds or the ADL!" Maybe... but let's not deny there are legitimate Nazis out there. In a way, Nazi larping is a manifestation of our ingrained anti-white conditioning. The only images we've ever been shown of pro-white activism are media portrayals of skinheads being hateful and heiling Hitler. Many whites have internalized these images to such a degree that the only way they know to be pro-white is to reenact these images of hateful, racist neo-Nazis. They are subconsciously anti-white, they have internalized and thus reinforce their own oppression. They can't imagine pro-white politics being a positive, mainstream movement.
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether the Nazi is a plant or legitimate, our response must be the same. Anyone carrying a Nazi flag at our events must be treated the same way we would treat Antifa in our ranks. And so long as the media stages bullshit against us, we could even consider staging bullshit of our own, like recording ourselves throwing out our own Nazi plant to send a message. But more importantly, there is a way to avoid Antifa, and Nazi larpers, and fed/ADL plants, all in one fell swoop. I'll get to that below.
Note this isn't a rejection of the National Socialist philosophy. It is a rejection of any symbols or labels which have come to represent hatred in the public's mind. And that may include the label "National Socialist" itself.
Also note that I'm not condoning publicly cucking, disavowing, or punching right. What I'm saying is that this is a propaganda war, and while a specific message is being promoted to normies, you either get in line with that message or get the fuck out.
Perhaps this is too "PR" for you. Perhaps you want to whine about "muh optics" and "cucking." That's fine. Different individuals will fit in different groups and have different roles. Feel free to find a group or label which best represent your ideals. But ultimately those of us who are looking for a mainstream movement must break away from those who aren't, even if that means we drop the "alt-right" label entirely.
Our goal should be a positive, mainstream movement which champions racial, ethnic, and cultural preservation and advocacy for all peoples. And since this is a Western movement, it will primarily focus on whites, who are uniquely denied the right to guard their survival and advocate their interests.
To achieve that goal, we absolutely must tailor our message, to keep our ideas presentable. We want to attract quality people, which means having a quality message.
The message must be tailored for the audience, and the audience are normies who have been brainwashed by anti-white media, anti-white education, and anti-white friends and family. Step one is breaking that conditioning. Your argument should always be directly outside the target's overton window. And if we are trying to convert normies and become a mainstream movement, that is a very moderate message indeed. And there is nothing wrong with that, but it means we must exclude more radical messaging if we hope to win.
For example, talk about mass deportation of legal citizens is definitely the wrong message. It's not just harmful to our image, it is also useless since we aren't anywhere near a position to make that a reality. It is honestly just a few steps down from Nazi larping, when our focus should be on realistic, short-term goals. We are at step one: White advocacy. Breaking the anti-white conditioning and allowing us to have an identity and open political interests.
As much as I loved watching the Charlottesville warm-up rally, the image of angry torch-bearing whites chanting racist slogans is not what we are looking for.
The neoreactionaries say that "right-wing activism always fails." I understand the point they are making, but it's taking things too far. Right-wing activism fails when it attempts to mirror left-wing activism.
Our activism must be positive and productive. A charity event or volunteer work is the right kind of activism we are looking for. Imagine white advocates giving a speech and then getting together to clean up and renovate some filthy part of town. It is win-win: improving our image and our community at the same time. This is the sort of thing that wins hearts and minds. Activism should serve the primary purpose of raising public consciousness and engaging in good PR for our ideas.
And, as mentioned above, this sort of positive volunteer work is exactly the kind of thing that will keep larpers and plants at bay. Antifa could show up, but what kind of assholes would they look like protesting a charity drive? This is the sort of work that will attract the right kind of people.
We must always be pacifist, never looking for a fight. Like it or not, having our peaceful members violently attacked without responding in kind grants us the moral high-ground. The entire purpose of activism is to win hearts and minds, NOT to get into a street brawl with Antifa. We cringe at the thought of being weak, of being martyrs... but it isn't weak to voluntarily put yourself at risk of harm for the sake of your people. If you aren't willing to take a punch without violently lashing out in return, perhaps you should avoid confrontation entirely. Or take up boxing.
Don't put all your eggs into the short game, into an overnight revolution. Place your bet on the long game. Activism shouldn't just be an activity you do on the weekends, it should be manifested throughout your entire life. Improve yourself for your people, raise a family for your people, gain status and wealth for your people, infiltrate or recreate entirely the institutions of power, influence, and control for your people. After all, Jews didn't gain their disproportionate influence in society by marching with torches in the streets.
Our nations will not be won through bullets and bombs. This is a cultural war, a war of propaganda. It will be won on two fronts: through gaining public approval, and through gaining control over institutions of power (technological, educational, financial, governmental, media).
If you've got a fetish for Siege and the Turner Diaries, if you think mainstream appeal is useless and that violence is the only way, I'm sure there are plenty of groups that would have you. But that isn't our message.
A Nativist movement must begin at a national level. If your homeland is the United States, your activism must reflect that fact, with American symbols and American ideals. It only takes a simple history lesson to break the notion of racial diversity or open borders being an American ideal. The swastika and the Roman salute are not American symbols, and they never will be. They must be rejected ruthlessly. There is no greater villian in American history than the Nazi's. And what the Left has successfully achieved is the conflating of Nazism with the alt-right in the public eye. And that is our own fault.
Imagine becoming the modern patriotic movement. "We are Americans. We are proud to be Americans. We stand behind the American flag."
Imagine if every alt-right shield in Charlottesville was adorned not with black suns and white crosses, but were a sea of American flags. Imagine this clean cut, pro-white, peaceful American force facing off against literal communists and anarchists spewing hate and spraying urine. That's how you win the American hearts and minds.
But we must remember that at root, our identity is European, our race is European. So we must have symbols which unite all European peoples as well. The Identitarian flag is a good example of this, but we must push people like Murdoch Murdoch not to combine it with Nazi imagery.
Let me be clear: This isn't about bowing to the media, or trying to get the media on our side. We all know that will never happen. The media will always tar and feather us. It's about appealing to the common citizen, to counter the media narratives spun about us. Most people hate the media already... we simply have to destroy their narratives, and that is easy to do given how much smarter and more dedicated we are.
The media has always called us Nazi, and always will, but that doesn't mean that it will stick. They've compared Trump to Hitler endlessly, but the average person knows what a joke that is. They didn't successfully brand the alt-right as Nazi in the public mind until after Charlottesville. When even the normie CEO of my company sent out a letter referring to "alt-right white supremacists," I suspected it was probably over for "alt-right" as a label. It is possible the term has now been permanently conflated with hate in the normie mind, and trying to separate the two may not be worth the time, effort, or political capital.
If you attend an alt-right rally, or tell your friends or family you are alt-right, what they will likely hear is "I am a Nazi/white supremacist." Do you really want to spend hours trying to convince them you aren't? Is the label that important? Perhaps I am wrong, and overestimating how badly the label has been tainted. I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
In a way, "Identitarian" captures what I was aiming for with my attempts at branding the alt-right, and the term is still largely unknown to the public and thus hasn't been corrupted. It's probably best to choose a term that transcends most political distinctions entirely. Identitarian, white advocate, ethnic preservationist? Something along those lines.
Some may say we fall into a game of whack-a-mole here, where we jump from one label to another as the media corrupts them. But I think the real issue with the term "alt-right" is that we didn't sufficiently establish it's boundaries. We let it be too amorphous a term, and so left it open to subversion not only by the media, but by its own members.
The person who at present best represents the image I'm looking for is Jared Taylor, though we should harp less on things like black crime, and focus more on an inspirational European identity the way Richard Spencer does. The label Taylor he has chosen is "white advocate," which is precisely the sort of neutral and descriptive label we need, although perhaps it should be generalized to all races.
If the alt-right can be salvaged in the normie mind, then we should certainly retain it. But whatever label we attach to, we have to make it clear from the very beginning what it represents...
We are about love of our own, not hatred for anyone else.
We support Nationalism and self-determination for all Peoples.
We embrace national identity, symbolism, and ideals, in addition to European identity.
We are pro-diversity, both ethnic and cultural. But true diversity can only be maintained at an international level through the continued separation of distinct peoples. What we call "diversity" today is really integration, which blends away all unique characteristics into a bland monoculture.
We transcend the political spectrum. This isn't about Left vs. Right, Capitalism vs. Socialism... This is about a People and it's future.
We reject any symbol popularly associated with hatred (eg. swastika, KKK, Roman salute).
We are non-violent, even when faced with risk of violence.
We are fit, healthy, educated, well-dressed, employed, traditional, and family/community-oriented.
We are positive and optimistic, not angry or depressed. We know we are on the right side of history.
We are pragmatists, willing to tailor our message and our goals to political realities.
Date of publication: August 26, 2017