Recently I’ve observed that a lot of Tradcons really enjoy sneering at childless people—so much so that they’re willing to expend significant political capital (and seriously jeopardize policy objectives they claim to prioritize) just to continue doing so.

Obviously this tendency has existed among Extremely Online rightists for ages now, but this past week it drifted into normie consciousness when JD Vance came under fire for his comments about Kamala Harris being a “childless cat lady.”

I’m not sure Trads realize just how big an unforced error it is for someone on the ticket to talk like that. Expressing naked contempt for a huge chunk of the electorate accomplishes literally nothing, and in all likelihood will massively increase opposing turnout while negatively polarizing thousands of swing voters against you.

We all remember Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” and Romney’s “47%”—will Vance’s “cat lady” comment go down in history as a similar fuckup? Even if it doesn’t cost Trump the Presidency, it could easily lose the GOP crucial downballot races.

And don’t think for one second that Trads are merely alienating ultra-liberal feminist wokescolds with this sort of behavior. Take a look at how Babylon Bee editor Joel Berry recently approached Dave Portnoy (the original Barstool Conservative):

Portnoy is a tremendously influential figure with significant media talents and a huge audience. Alienating him for the short term dopamine hit of dabbing on degens is clearly retarded—not merely because Portnoy himself is a useful ally to have on your side and very irritating to have as your enemy, but because he’s a cultural champion for a particular Type of Guy who’ll feel personally attacked when you say shit like this.

Unlike “childless cat ladies,” this type is a natural GOP constituency and you have to work hard to lose his vote. But if anyone can accomplish that it’s fellers like Berry.

Trads should frankly be a lot more disciplined in pursuit of their goals, and ought to remember that every GOP vote lost means more power for the faction that wants to sterilize children and dismember infants in the third trimester.

If they genuinely care about those things they need to ask themselves whether it’s worth it to negatively polarize potential allies just to insult rich and charismatic men who occasionally have consensual sex with much younger women.

…particularly because this description perfectly matches Donald Trump—a man virtually all Tradcons have come to deeply admire despite his famously degenerate lifestyle and obvious lack of interest in religious faith. If you can tolerate Trump’s sleazy comments on Ivanka’s body, there’s literally no reason to burn bridges with the likes of Portnoy.

Subscribe now

As I see it there are two distinct issues undergirding this tension.

First is the relatively boring policy debate over the extent to which society should deliberately create a material incentive structure that rewards having children.

Second is the increasingly nasty and resentful identitarian struggle that’s brewing between people who have kids and people who don’t.

It’s important to begin this discussion by noting that as it stands the state already creates a pro-natalist incentive structure—both implicitly in that childless people pay taxes to finance services they never use (like the public education system), and explicitly in that families enjoy a significant child tax credit.

Together these factors amount to a substantial wealth transfer from the childless to parents—something the vast majority of childless people are basically fine with! Virtually all educated adults understand and accept that society has a legitimate interest in subsidizing procreation to maintain a healthy demographic mix and ensure the long-term solvency of our pension system.

Now obviously we could take a page from Orbán’s playbook and push things *even further* in this direction, but that would be incredibly expensive and (based on my reading of the data coming out of Eastern Europe and East Asia) wouldn’t be that effective. It’s incredibly hard for the state to directly manage the fertility rate.

That said, I wouldn’t necessarily oppose expanding the child tax credit for pro-natalist reasons. We’d obviously need to determine a sensible limit to account for diminishing returns, but in principle I’m all for celebrating parents and giving young people more reasons to settle down and start a family.

The issue with this is that instead of playing up the positive angle Trads frequently come at this issue from a completely toxic direction of wanting to “punish” childless people or deprive them of political power. This is a fantastically retarded framing when it comes to something as personal as family policy, and a great way to alienate many millions of swing voters who would otherwise agree with you on cultural issues.

Read more

It’s time for society to draw a hard line.

Ever since Covid we’ve grown far too accommodating of ineptitude in every sphere of life. We all enjoy it when lower standards are applied to us, and as a compromise have come to accept significantly lower standards being imposed on everyone else.

At scale this has rendered every sector of society ridiculously inefficient and wasteful, and is ultimately responsible for the much-discussed “Crisis of Competence.”

Until yesterday this malaise had been absorbed by the spectacular abundance of modern America, which made it easy to dismiss the aggrieved as entitled “Karens.” But the attempt on President Trump’s life simply changed the equation.

It came far closer to succeeding than any of us thought possible in the 21st century, and needs to serve as a wake-up call to everyone in America that results fucking matter.

The next steps are clear.

First Biden must fire everyone directly involved in overseeing this mess. It is simply unacceptable that a rooftop so close to President Trump was unsecured during a major event, and multiple careers need to end for this.

I mean, can you even fathom something like that happening in any of the last four administrations? Trump and Obama and Bush and Clinton all had thousands of fanatical enemies who hated their guts and absolutely wanted them gone, but everyone also knew it had become impossible to take down a President. The security state had simply grown too powerful, and we all had the vague notion that even joking about such a thing would result in a stern knock on the door.

Yesterday that myth was shattered, and that’s incredibly dangerous for the country at large. Because if a greasy incel with an AR-15 can nick a President, do you feel good about your chances as a Congressman or even a Senator? The security apparatus seems ridiculously fragile and incompetent right now, and you can bet this country’s enemies are all watching with a raised brow.

For very basic national security reasons we cannot let that stand, but when people aren’t fired for basic fuckups this is the culture that always results. And as Trump pointed out in their debate last month, Biden doesn’t fire people.

No more of that malarkey. In addition to everyone directly involved, President Biden must immediately terminate Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, the PepsiCo alumna now infamous for her goal of 30% female recruits by 2030.

Cheatle must be publicly humiliated for the anti-meritocratic culture she’s sought to create in America’s most important security body, and we need to make sure this fiasco is attached to her name specifically for the rest of her days. In a just world this creature would be permanently denied employment after something like this.

It’s honestly worth looking into whether her conduct as Secret Service Director constitutes gross misconduct, given that her ideologically biased approach to leadership demonstrably created a huge national security breach. Nobody denies that a successful assassination would have produced tremendous social unrest, if not a full-fledged Civil War. So why should Cheatle get to walk because of a turned head?

During his next administration President Trump should instruct his Attorney General to look into Cheatle’s situation and appoint a special prosecutor if necessary.

And he also needs to fire all female Secret Service agents.

Read more

So after Biden shit his pants during last week’s debate I immediately released an article warning Republicans that Gavin Newsom is a serious threat to the numerous cultural advances we’ve made over the past decade.

In this piece I strongly urged my followers to lend their support to racially aggrieved Kamala Harris fans to help stymie what I perceived at the time as Gavin’s inevitable ascent to the top of the Democrat ticket.

Almost a week later it appears this impulse was entirely misguided, because right now the shifty subcontinental sugar baby of San Fran is tied with Biden in the prediction markets, while poor Greasy Gavin has barely remained in the double digits.

Obviously this is a pretty remarkable development. But it bears considering—how exactly did I fuck this up so badly?

It’s pretty simple. In my boundless naïveté I had presumed that the Democrats were serious about beating Trump, and that given an opportunity to replace Sleepy Joe they’d choose someone who stands a decent chance at winning over Middle America. Someone who projects strength and competence—who might just flip the script and make Trump seem like the more feeble candidate.

I was making the common mistake of taking the liberal intelligentsia at their word instead of accepting the happy fact that white liberals are deeply terrified of black people and will always do literally whatever they want in every single situation.

Subscribe now

Read more

So a few things about last night.

Obviously we all just watched a doddering old man humiliate himself in front of tens of millions of people and completely obliterate his legacy in the span of a few hours.

For the past five years our libtard friends have persisted mightily in their admiration for the emperor’s increasingly dubious finery, but last night Biden proudly showed the world his ass and cock and wrinkly old man balls, and today even the most obnoxious Democrat partisans admit that they can’t spin their way out of this one. The sheer spectacle of Biden’s humiliation virtually ensures that legions of voters will start to abandon him, and it seems popular culture will quickly immortalize him as “President Senile” in the same way Taft has become “President Fat” or Nixon “President Shifty.”

And on one hand this is pretty fantastic for the country. It will start lots of important conversations about gerontocracy, which in turn will facilitate the generational transfer of power and resources. We’ll probably see a lot of old dudes retiring earlier than they would have otherwise simply because they don’t want to be compared to Biden, and I anticipate that even libs will start using “Biden” as a slur against oldsters. All of these developments will obviously have a welcome impact on society at large.

But on the other hand, I think conservatives are incredibly naive to celebrate right now. It actually would have been much better for Trump’s chances if Biden had put in a somewhat respectable performance. That’s because such an outcome would have ensured Biden’s continued presence in the race, which is now very much in doubt.

The plain and bitter truth is that what happened in Atlanta last night is precisely what the most dangerous faction of the Democrat Party has always wanted to happen.

Subscribe now

And no, this isn’t just me being a conspiratard. Look at the underlying incentive structure. Pray tell, why else would the DNC move the debate to months before the Democratic convention when that has literally never been done before?

Last night’s circus was quite simply a calculated maneuver of realpolitik to force an intransigent and overconfident President into stepping down at a point when replacing him is still logistically possible and won’t terrify the electorate.

Now perhaps some of Biden’s inner circle genuinely saw an early debate as a chance for the President to prove himself and manfully put to rest concerns over his age months before the convention. But it seems even those parties recognized a need to force the issue one way or the other. Simply ignoring it would have been courting disaster, and forward-thinking elites tend not to allow space for themselves to lose.

So Biden’s handlers and loved ones basically just let him shit his pants on national television. His most trusted inner circle subjected him to a level of indignity and personal humiliation that the history books will no doubt condemn in the harshest of terms. In a few decades people will pity Grandpa Joe as a tragic victim of elder abuse.

But today I mainly sense a seething frustration with the President, as well as the sense that Dems have no choice but to take the Ezrapill and nominate an alternative at a brokered convention. Even Biden superfan Fatty Yglesias came out in favor of this on a surprise podcast episode he posted only a few hours after last night’s debate.

Sleepy Joe is basically finished. Nominating him would mean losing 45 states while ceding scores of crucial downballot races to the GOP. The Democrat elites have known for ages what was going on behind closed doors, and would never let this happen. And that’s why they let the old dog wither away in the summer sun.

They are buying themselves the necessary time and space to coronate someone else—someone much more formidable and a hell of a lot more dangerous to the country.

Blessedly, that person clearly isn’t Kamala Harris. Everyone knows she’s a talentless affirmative action hire who shamelessly fucked her way into political office, and nobody even likes her at this point other than weird #BlackGirlMagic types.

Now don’t get me wrong, those people will need to be mollified, but the way to do that is getting Oprah / Michelle Obama to vigorously endorse Gavin while bribing Kamala into fucking off with some grotesque sinecure running a university or nonprofit.

And make no mistake, Kamala would definitely accept that offer. Homegirl might be a cynical striver who openly worships nothing but power, but like all elite sugar babies she’s also ferociously calculating about her own position in life (consider how early she dropped out in 2020), and definitely won’t be keen on facing the Democrats as another Hillary if and when she loses to Trump. A marginalized life in the political wilderness would immiserate a narc like her. Far better to cash out now while her hand is relatively strong and she retains something substantial to trade away.

Shawty’s finna sell her shot at the White House in the same way she sold the last years of her youth to Willie Brown, and the Democrat Party will be far the stronger for it.

The nominee also won’t be Whitmer or Warnock or Polis, because once the Dems have free reign to choose they will almost certainly conclude that they need another straight white dude to have any shot at holding the Rust Belt. Democrats understand that the level of animosity a woman or minority running against Trump would inspire among aging flyover dudes would be almost certain to swing the election.

People forget that Biden only won in 2020 because he didn’t inspire anything approaching that level of resentment in people (and still hasn’t, except briefly during the vax mandates), and this lack of engagement via negative polarization probably is what hurt turnout in Drumpf’s key low propensity demos. But with a woman or a black guy leading the ticket you’ll definitely see every one of those dudes at their polling station, and the Dems absolutely will have this gamed out in their electoral calculus.

The Dems know they can only win if they have a White guy to lead them. And not just any White guy—the sort of White guy who can play the masculinity game against Trump in a decently convincing way. And since Joe Biden’s brain is now tapioca pudding, there’s basically only one major figure who fits the bill.

You all know who I’m talking about.

He’s the Great Snake of the West. Xi’s Bulldog. The libtard Gordon Gekko.

He's Greasy Gavin Newsom.

Read more

This essay is an attempt to define a more principled version of Barstool Conservatism, which has hitherto lacked any clear formulation or inspirational mythic vision for the world. It tends to evoke very normie “grillpill” vibes, and is too often used as a synonym for libertarian or South Park Republican.

I aim to distance the term from these connotations, from Dave Portnoy, and from sportsball more generally, and articulate a comprehensive and consistent worldview that appeals to successful and civicminded secular straight men in the prime years of life.

To that end I have three primary goals for this piece:

1. Formalize the basic assumptions, heuristics, and ethical principles undergirding the Barstool Right ideology

2. Detail some specific changes that Barstoolers would like to see in public policy, discourse norms, and cultural sensibilities

3. Create a framework for building a good faith coalition with adjacent interest groups, including religious conservatives like Dave Greene and , anti-woke gays like and , and reactionary feminists like and .

   The Walt Right is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Fourteen Principles

(P1) Sexual Essentialism - Men and women have different capabilities on average, as well as vastly different experiences that make us look at the world in completely different ways. Downstream of this are lower-order differences in values, priorities, hopes and dreams, and fears and anxieties. Society would be better off if we became a lot less androgynous and stopped pretending men and women are the same. We should talk openly about sex differences and accept them as a fact of life.

(P2) Inevitability of Patriarchy - Men display considerably more variance than women in most personality traits, which means the most intelligent and agentic people are usually men. Combined with the greater male propensity for aggression and risk-taking (not to mention obvious differences in physical strength and size), this ensures society will always be ruled a cadre of elite men. Even the most capable women like Hilldawg and Cleopatra tend to crumple like a tissue when squaring off in direct conflict with the likes of Donald Trump or Caesar Augustus. Distributionally speaking, women as a class just don’t have what it takes to rule. We must therefore talk about society with the assumption that elite men will always be in the driver’s seat and that their interests will always be privileged in some sense.

(P3) Demands of Chivalry - As a high status man, you have a basic moral obligation to protect both the women in your life and any lower status man who formally affiliates with you. You also have an obligation to represent their interests alongside your own when operating in public life. When you meet this obligation women and subordinate men will usually be very happy to submit to your judgment, but when you fail to do so they will feel betrayed and unprotected, and this inevitably causes a devasting breakdown in social order. Per P2, elite men must accept (and in practice all of them do) that they’ll always be in charge, and must game out the right concessions to extend other groups to best cultivate a productive and harmonious society.

(P4) Behavioral Elasticity of Men - Women are very agreeable to social convention and usually do as they’re told by society. Even the laziest and least conscientious girls are more likely to do their homework and follow the rules than similarly indolent boys, which is why modern dopamine traps have had a less pronounced impact on female educational attainment and professional success. Men respond more strongly to the brute material incentive structure, and are much less likely to work hard if they don’t feel like something’s in it for them. This means—very crucially—that our social policy and cultural mores should be calibrated with a focus on male behavior.

(P5) Longhouse Bad - We need a material and cultural incentive structure optimized for increasing the agency, energy, and grit of men in the “malleable middle”—think roughly the fortieth to ninetieth percentiles of ability. This requires investing in a more competitive, uncomfortable, and dare I say vital civilization. We must go to war with the stultifying Willendorfian impulse for a gentler and cozier society. We can and should give that sort of life to our women and old people, but men in the prime of life should never be allowed to be comfortable. It makes them miserable and worthless and at scale gives us a Wall-E society. Young men should be encouraged to constantly take risks—not by coddling them when they fail, but by venerating them when they succeed, while drastically raising the ceiling on individual success.

(P6) Sex Roles Good - Due to evopsych factors we’re all painfully familiar with, men and women desire fundamentally different things in a relationship. Women want to feel protected / cherished, men want to feel respected / needed; men are afraid of being betrayed, women of being abandoned; the masculine tragedy is disposability, the feminine tragedy replaceability. Obviously exceptions exist, and some outliers will always feel pressured into sex roles that don’t jive with their natural preferences. But all cultural norms are reinforced in a feedback loop, and we must reject all advocacy for outliers that practically immiserates the heteronormie majority.

(P7) Sex Roles are Flexible - The precise nature of sex roles varies across societies due to “cultural” elements downstream of genetics, technology, climate, and other material conditions. In any society you’ll also see lots of variance in sex roles across different ethnic groups and social classes. Something that codes as masculine to one group might code as faggy or barbaric to another, and these things can change very quickly. It is therefore silly to think sex roles can ever exist in stasis, and efforts to culturally retvrn to the precise sex roles of the 1950s etc. are wrongheaded. But it’s equally dumb to think sex roles are “socially constructed,” because such construction is always downstream of biology / hard material factors. We must instead think proactively about how to control these factors as best we can to create a beautiful and functional system of sex roles suited for the twenty-first century.

(P8) Heterosexuality Good - On a very basic level, men and women need each other to self actualize as adult humans. Without men in their life, women live like children, and without women in their life men live like animals. A crucial part of animus / anima integration is learning how to maintain a productive and harmonious relationship with people of the opposite sex. Meanwhile, society obviously needs a stable TFR to persist into successive generations. It is therefore vital that society invest in a healthy and stable culture of heterosexuality where boy-girl romance and sexuality is venerated as a sacred ideal.

(P9) Sexual Enmity Bad - There is almost nothing more dysfunctional and socially maladaptive than ginning up resentment and hatred between the sexes. It makes everyone miserable and leads to hugely negative outcomes on both an individual and societal level. Anyone who traffics in this kind of language, whether they’re an incel or sex negative feminist, deserves to be ostracized from respectable society. Naked contempt for the opposite sex should be outside the Overton Window.

(P10) Encourage Marriage - Most people are happiest in a stable monogamous relationship, hence the development of marriage as a persistent social technology across many diverse societies. The overall social incentive structure should therefore be calibrated to encourage marriage for most people, and we need to make it easier for the average heterosexual to find a suitable partner for a monogamous union. The modern rate of inceldom is much too high, and measures should be taken to make things easier for middle SMV guys (who are the ones actually suffering under the Tinder paradigm; low SMV guys wouldn’t be successful in any ecology). The average low-mid status woman should likewise be gently pushed into more chaste behavior (though this is already happening, so I don’t think we really need to do anything—if anything it behooves us to somewhat restrain the recent overcorrection).

(P11) Traditional Degeneracy - Due to the Coolidge Effect you can’t expect most elite men to remain perfectly monogamous, and you need some cohort of highly promiscuous women to absorb their libidinal energy so as to keep normie women sexually reserved for normie men and discourage maladaptive trends like harem-keeping. That can look like hookup culture among elites, prostitution, or mistress-keeping / sugaring / goomahs, but some such accommodation is always necessary to maintain a stable and enjoyable sexual ecology for the average person. Women who choose this lifestyle therefore need to be respected as an essential component of a well-ordered sexual ecology. But it must also be acknowledged this life isn’t remotely scalable to the average woman, and especially in online spaces we need to embrace an esoteric tolerance of promiscuity among elites while exoterically preaching a slower life strategy to the masses. A lot of this will involve simply being a lot more private about these discussions (hence me publishing this on Substack and not on Twitter).

(P12) Fringe Nonconformity - Promiscuous women, homosexuals, and gender benders shouldn’t be bullied or shoved back in the closet, but their behavior also shouldn’t be “mainstreamed.” Context is key here—nonconformists and degenerates should have spaces for themselves in the urban core of cities where they set the tone (and children aren’t permitted), but outside these spaces they need to be more circumspect and abide by flyover chud sensibilities. They must tone down their behavior in any space dominated by low openness suburbanites, and should mask almost all of it around old / religious people and especially children.

(P13) Curb Rakishness - Certain women are off limits for rakish behavior. High status promiscuous men must never sexually pursue a woman who is married with children or belongs to a close-knit religious community. You must restrain your advances to unmarried women who have consciously chosen a more free-wheeling lifestyle. When you go after the trad’s women you just make him hate you, destabilize society, and undermine the coalition we’re trying to build. It should likewise be incredibly stigmatized to go after the women of your subordinates, clients, or personal network. That said, it’s entirely kosher to steal the girlfriend / childless wife of a fellow elite degenerate.

(P14) Center Intergenerational Amity - One of the most poisonous social ills of the modern world is the breakdown in intergenerational friendship. Young people need to interact with older people to gain wisdom and benefit from their experience and accumulated knowledge, while older people need to interact with young people to regularly update their priors and adequately understand how life on the ground is changing outside their self-selected bubble. This usually needs to occur in a sex-segregated environment where people can speak candidly about the opposite sex without the risk of crossed wires or hurt feelings.

What do we want?

Below are a few policy and socio-cultural initiatives for the Barstool Right that follow from the above principles, and which I believe are achievable in the medium term.

Moderation on Abortion Policy - Barstoolers don’t want abortion illegal should we ever knock someone up in a night of Dionysian excess, but we’d also feel really shitty if this was ever necessary. This is because we do extend the fetus some moral dignity, and are repulsed by the Left’s increasing comfort with flagrant infanticide. And for a long time (before the GOP’s recent overreach) this was also the sensibility of the median American. I think Louis CK sums this attitude up best:

We simply need to depolarize the issue of abortion, and shouldn’t tolerate this simplistic Manichean discourse between infanticidal prochoice extremists on one hand and prolife maximalists who push for politically unsustainable six week bans on the other.

My personal stance is that abortion should be legal in the first trimester and banned thereafter with exceptions for rape and incest, but I am entirely willing to form a coalition with people to the right of me here. I only demand that they take things one step at a time and work on changing hearts and minds on the ground instead of provoking a thermostatic backlash from women and normalizing infanticide by adopting rabidly intransigent views on the matter.

Burn Down the Longhouse - We need to stop emasculating young men in primary and secondary education. It is deeply unfair to shame boys for fidgeting around or not doing their fake and gay homework when the surrounding incentive structure is so horribly maladaptive and the culture so disengaging. The education of boys needs to involve regular physical excursions to burn off energy and harden them up, as well as high stakes competition with other young men to adequately prepare them for the reality of masculine conflict. Around puberty we also need to sex segregate education for most classes to take the edge off stressful intersexual status hierarchies.

The most immediate obstacle to this initiative is that teachers primarily come out of the cohort of young women most heavily indoctrinated by libtarded social constructivist ideology. But these women are also very agreeable by nature, so I don’t see this as an issue. You simply need to hammer sex realism into the educational infrastructure by legislative and executive fiat, and can facilitate this by i.e. offering teachers a $5k annual raise if they attend a comprehensive training session on sexual differences in cognition / behavior. DeSantis already did something similar with training for civics education, so we already have a workable model for this.

Privatize Marriage - Marriage is broken these days and many men have tragically little faith in it as an institution. If you are a financially and sexually successful man then a legally recognized marriage doesn’t offer you much. The tax benefits are outsized by the legal exposure, especially because most women see getting an ironclad prenup as a hostile act. This creates an asymmetry where marriage is usually much more attractive to women than men, with the exception of low status men in more traditional communities wanting to “lock her down” etc.

My suggestion is that we scrap the whole thing as a public institution and instead let people define their marriage contracts on a case-by-case basis. Before being recognized for tax / inheritance purposes, every marriage contract should be signed off on by a judge who’ll require both parties to confirm they’ve reviewed all conditions with counsel and assent to the terms of the marriage agreement. The private marital contract should then be held as a sacred and inviolable institution in our society.

Trads and reactionary feminists should support this because in practice it will allow for much more robust and meaningful marital contracts than can otherwise exist in the modern world. You can police things like adultery, financial profligacy, and addiction with a lot more rigor. Each religious community can also have its own “standard marital contract,” and this will enable a pluralist traditionalism that makes everyone much happier in practice.

You can also have parallel contracts for mistresses etc. that ensure women on the side receive adequate protection and make the culture around this practice less seedy.

Embrace The Chase - We need to make it significantly easier for men to pursue women romantically, and this means taking a chainsaw to sex negative feminism and ankle biting cock blocking incel culture. You can’t have a functional heterosexuality if asking a woman out in public is seen as “creepy” or inappropriate, and we need to do whatever it takes to move things in a better direction.

To that end, we should cultivate female / gay allies and demand they tone police Lisa Simpson HR types who shame straight men for displays of sexual exuberance in “inappropriate” situations. The poisonous concept of “appropriate” must be set on fire when it comes to sex and love. It’s not creepy to ask out your waitress, and if you think it is then you are responsible for social decay and ought to be bullied.

A big part of this impulse will be destigmatizing relationships in the workplace. These days white collar office workers are repulsively effeminate nebbishes who almost never ask out their female coworkers for fear of being #MeToo’d. We need to obliterate this horrible culture by abolishing all provisions surrounding sexual harassment in the workplace. As I have argued to longtime foil , this will actually benefit the average woman, and I suspect if you put me in charge of propaganda I could get most women supporting this initiative.

We likewise need to destigmatize age gaps in hetero relationships. These days it raises eyebrows in many circles for a 30 year old man to date a 23 year-old girl, and this is incredibly toxic and retarded. It also doesn’t make sense in a world where young women are starting to significantly outperform their male peers but still desire higher status male partners. We need to push opposition to age gaps firmly outside the Overton Window and make it laughable to shame heterosexual couples in these relationships.

Stigmatize Swipe Apps- This goes hand in hand with the above proposition. Swiping apps like Tinder and Hinge are based on the Grindr model and are generally not suitable for heterosexuals. They don’t give women sufficient information to make a good decision, so gals end up applying simple heuristics like excluding all guys under 6’0, and this obviously skyrockets the incel rate (particularly because straight men are horrible at taking selfies and are always worse looking in their profile pics than IRL).

But the incels err in thinking this is some conspiracy of women and chads against them. Most girls obviously don’t want to be pumped and dumped by West Elm Caleb. They don’t want to assess men based purely on looks. They don’t like the swiping apps any more than we do. They’d much prefer to be asked out in person by guys they actually like, but this is just not happening, especially as Zoomers increasingly eschew alcohol consumption. When you say it’s creepy to ask girls out IRL, only creepy guys will do so. And so as it stands the majority of young people date through the apps, which has really terrible social consequences.

In an ideal world we’d obviously just ban Tinder and Hinge (also gayer apps like Bumble), but this is never going to happen. So I suggest we lean into the resentment that already exists towards the apps from both sexes and mobilize that into a stigma against them to accompany the renewed impulse to destigmatize asking girls out IRL. This will require effective propaganda and lots of grassroots argumentation, but I believe it is nothing short of essential if we’re going to solve The Incel Question.

Curb Porn Addiction - I sincerely believe the overwhelming majority of guys these days are at least moderately addicted to internet porn, and a lot of them are severely addicted. This has created an epidemic of erectile dysfunction and paraphilias in the youth while draining young guys of vitality and agency. It’s become a crisis comparable to opium use in China or alcoholism in 19th century America, and we desperately need something like the Temperance Movement to adequately contain it.

But unlike Temperance, this effort can’t become coded as longhoused/schoolmarmish; it must remain masculine and vitalist. Thankfully, the NoFap movement has already developed such a culture, and can easily be co-opted by the Barstool Right. We must embrace and scale up the institutions NoFap has already built and start treating porn addiction as a serious public health issue that ought to command the same level of compassion and civicminded problem-solving energy as drug addiction.

It’s going to be a long time before we muster the political capital and grassroots support to actually ban porn, but in the interim I suggest we allow men to voluntarily submit to an onerous IP block on all porn websites and major VPNs, and if any website / VPN doesn’t comply we’ll send in the FBI to shut them down or have the FTC drown them in fines. We should also invest resources in creating zero cost rehabilitation centers for porn addicts where one can work remotely and use the internet for other activities but there’s absolutely no opportunity to access porn. This can be funded with a “sin tax” on porn studios and streaming websites.

Legalize Mutual Combat - This is more of a frivolous / fun one, but I think it would have enormously positive downstream effects on culture. We all agree men are too soft and bitchy these days, and that this stems from never being hit / being too reluctant to engage each other in physical combat, but it’s hard to change this on a cultural level given the existing legal structure in which participants in streetfights can get charged with serious crimes like assault. We should pass federal legislation decriminalizing mutual combat so it becomes legally and culturally acceptable for guys to take it outside. This will result in a few injuries here and there, but in most cases two untrained skinnyfat guys aren’t going to seriously hurt each other, and in situations where someone *might* get hurt the guys will be more cautious.

What will we give?

As I frequently say, politics is transactional and coalitional, and achieving any of the initiatives listed above will require strategic flexibility and compromise with other groups in a way that doesn’t contradict our fundamental vision for the world.

To that end, successful Barstoolers in their thirties and forties first need to bring young men on board by committing to practical mentorship. We need to teach these guys how to get laid and make money so they start to think of themselves as winners. This will instantly make them side with us, because Barstoolism is the natural and obvious sexual ideology of the secular and upwardly mobile young man.

We can then make specific and targeted appeals to adjacent interest groups to create a pluralistic right wing coalition capable of effective action on shared issues.

To the trads…

CC: ,

My good sirs,

Obviously we have lots of substantive disagreements on things like abortion and surrogacy. I’m not asking for you to cuck on those issues, because I know you won’t.

I *am* asking for you to pursue your objectives in a strategically sound manner by not wasting political capital on unsustainable bans that only mobilize ferocious backlash from the Pantsuit Brigade. I myself would much prefer a shorter window of legal abortion, but you can’t just impose a six week ban out of the blue when there isn’t an appetite for it, or you will just get thousands of babies butchered in the third trimester.

So please let’s work together to move in a more productive direction on this issue and others. When it comes to things like dopamine traps and porn addiction in particular I am certain we have a lot of common ground.

On a personal level, I recognize that you disagree with certain aspects of my lifestyle. To that I’ll just say I won’t talk about those things around you, and will make sure our coalition partners follow suit. I will also do my best to ensure that your women and children are never forced to confront the ugliest facets of modernity.

In return I ask that you reproach other tradcons whenever they shame right wing urbanites for not being married with children. This is maladaptive and only frays the coalition for no good reason. Please understand that the vast majority of us *plan* to take a wife one day, but everyone is ultimately on his own path, and finding a marriageable girl is significantly harder when you aren’t a believer and can’t organically affiliate with a religious community.

At any rate, I hope my earnest commitment to civility, alongside a basic respect for temperamental pluralism, can facilitate productive collaboration between us.

Your obedient servant,

Walter Bismarck

To the reactionary feminists…

CC: ,

My dear ladies,

I understand your issues better than most, which is why I famously annoyed most of Hanania-adjacent Substack by siding with you on agreeableness and consent against ’s more individualist sex positive position.

Regretfully, I was kind of mean to her about this, because I’ve had a lot of personal experiences that have convinced me Zoomer women are experiencing a genuine crisis in their ability to demonstrate meaningful agency in their sexual choices, and I am quite frustrated by how older generations seem to lack any understanding of this. That is why in my recent manifesto I advocated for the return of Breach of Promise laws and even floated a “rakishness” civil charge for coerced consent situations.

To put it bluntly, I want to be an “Uncle Tom” for your position against rakish guys who take an individualist stance on consent norms in bad faith because they personally want to continue taking advantage of this dynamic.

Some people will object that this contravenes the whole point of Barstoolism, but this is an incredibly smooth-brained take. There is nothing anti-Barstool about having a chivalrous impulse towards women, so long as this impulse isn’t longhoused or anti-vitalist. Per my formulation above, a lot of RxFem ideas actually follow quite organically as corollaries to Barstool ideology. Barstoolers don’t want to destigmatize pressuring girls into sex or make excuses for rapacious pornographers. We just don’t want to be shamed for dating a grad student or talking about tiddies with the boys.

Barstoolers are superbly positioned to support RxFem positions re: how female agreeableness undermines life outcomes in situations involving casual sex and pornography, and will have lots of credibility with the guys who would ordinarily call your rhetoric longhoused. We can get 4chan/reddit type guys on board with your program and push them away from their individualist and libertarian sensibilities.

In exchange I’d like for you to use your own credibility with more normie women to push back aggressively on the worst excesses of sex negative feminism and help Barstoolers destigmatize the kind of exuberant and assertive male heterosexuality that will help create better life outcomes for both sexes.

So when you hear a woman calling a guy a pedophile for dating a 24 year-old, or saying a dude is creepy for asking out a waitress / talking about Sydney Sweeney’s boobs, can you please call that woman retarded?

Also will one of you please write about the early puberty thing? We need to get people aware of this and mobilize normie women against endocrine disruptors.

Thank you kindly for your consideration,

Wally B.

To the anti-woke gay dudes…

CC: ,

Hey fellers,

I recognize and empathize with the complexity of your position.

On one hand you want to live in an energetic and vital society that rewards excellence and is honest about the nature of reality, and progressivism is actively hostile to all of those impulses. But you likewise find it difficult to build a coalition with social conservatives, many of whom are still very hostile to gays and will always be suspicious of you no matter how many boxes you check. I’m sure it’s maddening.

But I think Barstoolers are superbly positioned to serve as an honest broker between guys like you and social conservatives. Gays and tradcons probably can’t ever trust each other 100%, but I think both of you can trust Barstoolers to collaborate with you in good faith and ensure that promises are kept.

Ultimately if we’re gonna defeat the Woke Left we desperately need the numbers tradcons bring, but our side can also benefit tremendously from your disproportionate wealth, influence, and cultural clout with Lisa Simpson type straight women. We can also use you to go after Corporate Memphis Buttigays in situations where such women would perceive it as bullying / bad faith coming from a straight dude.

But to do this effectively our prospective coalition needs to figure out ways of moving past intractable conflicts on very spicy topics like gay adoption and surrogacy. And I won’t pretend to have a good answer here.

As I expressed to in my recent discussion with her, I will always stand by the right of exceptional people like Jeff and Trace or my BFF to do this, but given the worrying statistics we’ve all seen, I also feel like there should be a higher bar for gay people when it comes to becoming a parent. We can’t pretend that homosexuality and heterosexuality are interchangeable, and exceptions need to be exceptional… but exceptional exceptions are also worth taking a stand for.

This position obviously risks alienating both sides and destroying any such coalition in its infancy, but it’s how I honestly feel. Ultimately I think it’s the only sensible point of equilibrium on something like this.

But perhaps we can’t reach an agreement on this topic because the stakes are simply too high. In that case I suggest we do our best to simply ignore the issue until it becomes salient, and continue to collaborate directionally where our issues do overlap.

I’m quite optimistic about the prospects of this, as I suspect that anti-woke gay dudes are already quite used to the idea that the world is a contradictory and messy place, and will find it relatively easy to get on board with a Barstool alliance.

Love you guys (no homo),

Walt

This is the first time I’ve attempted to articulate this vision in any systematic way.

As such, I reserve the right to refine certain elements of this manifesto over time as my thinking develops and coalitional prospects change.

But for now I look forward to hearing your feedback on my ideas.

This past weekend I published a manifesto outlining my plan to castrate the Left through coalitional dealmaking under a pro-white, pluralist, and vitalist framework.

Yesterday the inimitable responded to my article with a note I’ll be addressing in its entirety here, as most exchanges tend to get lost in notes and it’s very important that everyone see my arguments are much better than Dave’s.

Subscribe now

Walt Bismark finally posted an outline of his ideas in full. As such, I am going to assume that these propositions are serious and proper objects for critique, not just provocative performance art. As such, I intend to provide push-back.

I wouldn’t expect anything less from Dave Green!

I do appreciate the author for putting the essay together, but I think there are a lot of problems with the author’s political plan.

First, it's full of contradictions.

Most notably, you can see this in Walt's idea to "Win Back White Women" while "Running up the score with young white guys" which involves simultaneously giving young men license to "break social norms" while providing their female counterparts with avenues to financially devastate them with alimony settlements for situationships. This is a glaring contradiction that will require a mass propaganda campaign to cover up, and even that probably wouldn't work. Otherwise, the net effect would be alienating both parties when they realize that you are lying to them.

This isn’t a contradiction in the slightest, and I’m not lying to anyone. Dave is either severely misstating my views here or seems not to have read my piece very carefully.

Literally nowhere do I offer women alimony for “situationships.” I’m very specifically offering them alimony for engagements lasting multiple years wherein the man ends the relationship past the woman’s peak SMV. This is grotesquely antisocial behavior that causes women to become femcel man-haters in their thirties, and we need to alter the legal incentive structure to make men less morally lazy in their dating habits.

If David actually read my piece, he’d understand that my offers to men and women are orthogonal and not oppositional. The promises I’m offering to women deal with marital engagement, coerced / ambiguous consent in casual hookups, and involuntary pornography. The promises I’m offering to men as part of my “Barstool Conservative” platform involve destigmatizing things like age gaps in adult relationships, mutually inebriated sex, and the male gaze.

There is literally nothing contradictory about offering both of these platforms simultaneously, because they deal with completely different issues. But the venerable Dave can’t grasp this because he’s a rigidly ideological thinker who insists on painting the world with a broad brush. As such, he can’t conceive that we might conjoin elements of traditionalism and modernism to generate a positive sum outcome for factions that seem intractably opposed under his crusty Gen X framework.

I should also note here that Walt’s proposed trade-off of emotional support for male promiscuity combined with legal wealth transfers for women to offset its consequence is the OPPOSITE of what a good sexual compromise would look like, which should involve EMOTIONAL support to women while transferring more FINANCIAL resources to men to make them better marriage prospects.

Horrible take.

Dave is probably too far removed from young people to realize this, but most of the problems in the current dating market involve Zoomer men being unagentic pussies who are too afraid to approach women thanks to crippling anxiety, falling testosterone levels, overly accessible porn, and a culture that abhors male sexuality.

In my piece I propose measures to address these problems both directly (by curbing endocrine disruptors and offering men free rehabilitation for porn addiction) and obliquely (by taking measures to reduce mass sexual trauma in young women).

But a big part of this impulse must be encouraging an assertive laddishness in younger guys, because your typical 20 year old dude these days has all the masculine presence and sexual confidence of a middle schooler. Your average young man needs a lot more emotional support than your average young woman, whose self esteem is perpetually buttressed by an unlimited reserve of Tinder matches and Instagram likes.

Young men need to be encouraged by older guys (by which I mean men my age, not someone as old as Dave) to be more aggressive and ask women out. And yes, this is entirely aligned with my efforts to curb female sexual trauma, because as my girlfriend Alyssa pointed out in our pod together, women are vastly more comfortable around sexually assertive men than guys who are covert about their intentions.

Anyway, in terms of transferring financial resources to men, I fully agree with David. Young men should read my job stacking guide so they can learn how to make $450k per year by age 28 scamming woke megacorporations. They should then use their newfound wealth and status to obtain a buxom housewife they proceed to impregnate multiple times per year. This is the way you secure your imagined trad future, not by operating a dour integralist blackpill pharmacy.

Second, a lot of Walt's ideas are notably unoriginal. Most of the propositions he lists in his essay are slight variations on the old neo-con talking points that I remember seeing in the California Republican party in the early 2000s, and which famously ended in disaster.

Some examples here would be Walt's presumption that, because Brahmin families tend to be socially conservative, therefore Indians are somehow a getable voting block for the right. This is IDENTICAL to the mistake California Republicans made with Hispanics. Admittedly, the proposition does have a kind of logic to it, but it doesn't work because of how real human social dynamics operate at a group level.

Individually, elite members of socially conservative minority groups go through the same progressive education that we all do to get ahead. And they are always INDIVIDUALLY benefited by playing along with the regime's anti-whiteness ideology rather than taking a risk to stand against it. Furthermore, on a collective level, the overall group interests will always be against the native population for as long as mass immigration increases their overall share of the voting population.

I am notably someone who doesn't care about race when building individual alliances. But I recognize history, and this strategy does not work at scale.

Three points:

1. You obviously can’t map a heuristic developed around Aztec farm equipment to a population of software engineers descended from their nation’s priestly caste.

2. Dave is exhibiting the very obnoxious tendency of Californians to inappropriately apply the Californian experience to everywhere else in the country. I grew up in Arizona (where the Hispanics are as bad as they are in Cali) so I understand this impulse, but I changed my tune after moving to Florida, where courting Hispanics has been an incredibly effective strategy for Republicans. For example, in the 2022 midterms Ron DeSantis very famously flipped Miami, which is full of middle class Cubans and Venezuelans who map a lot more closely to Brahmin Indians than the four foot tall Mayan peasants in Dave’s backyard.

3. Nowhere in my piece did I advocate for continued Indian immigration (in fact I advocated the opposite), and I also didn’t suggest we make a play for winning the Indian American vote as a whole. My goal is to prevent Brahmins from occupying the same metapolitical role as Jews in the twentieth century by working with select allies like Vivek and my BFF Rajeev to bolster opposition to further immigration while building space for white advocacy / Castizo Futurism in the discourse.

Similarly, Walt’s idea that conservatives can win Jewish support by… uh… flattering Jewish people and supporting Israel harder has a lot of problems. Do I even need to explain to readers that this has been done before? Good grief, I don't think I have ever seen a political party more deeply fellate a constituency that consistently VOTED AGAINST THEM. It might be unique in human history.

So how is Walt’s deal going to suddenly start working now? It’s unclear. The deal certainly can’t be getting Jewish votes and dollars in exchange for flattery and financial support for Israel. The deal can’t even be getting reciprocated praise for gentile whites. Otherwise, these things ALREADY would have happened sometime in the last 40 years.

Again, not what I was advocating.

Jews aren’t even numerous enough for me to care about their votes, I am interested in accessing the resources and rhetorical talents of a select group of elites who I expect to behave in an entirely self-interested manner. Instead of merely pointing and laughing at them, or acting like a cool exhausted above-it-all Gen Xer, we need to exploit the pressure Jews are under from third world student protestors to extract useful metapolitical concessions and pressure them where possible to identify as white.

This is completely different from the Bush-era philosemitism that David alludes to because Jews are no longer in control of the GOP and Boomer sensibilities are rapidly fading. This time we have all the leverage.

Dave needs to realize it’s possible for circumstances to change in a way that impacts the relative viability of various tactics. He should take note of shifting conditions on the ground and make some effort to update his stale Butt Rock mid-aughts priors.

Still, a worse idea is Walt's notion that paying trillions of dollars of Slavery Reparations to Blacks will be a "poison pill" for the regime’s reigning racial ideology. Could we pay reparations and in exchange undo Affirmative action, eliminate DEI, and wake white people out of their individualist complacency?

Probably not.

Once more we have to begin by recognizing that this is not a new or radical idea, this is a David Brook's article from 5 years ago, and I think I've seen similar think-pieces from conservative-leaning Atlantic writers in the early 2000s.

It’s really annoying how Dave completely ignores the specifics of my proposals and instead maps everything onto something from his distant Bush-era youth. Unlike any of the cuckservatives he cites, I am operating under a framework that accepts HBD and is explicitly focused on undermining the epistemics of white guilt.

My proposal is substantively different from anything Dave mentions, but Dave needs to play the aloof hipster who has seen everything and is so terribly bored with my optimistic and forward-thinking late millennial exuberance. And so he willfully characterizes my proposal as a lot less interesting and innovative than it actually is.

Still despite how many people suggest this idea, it will never work. The exchange Walt imagines will never be honored

THAT IS THE LITERAL POINT.

The entire purpose of reparations, as I clearly state in my article, is to provoke black people into betraying their promise and thereby undermine white guilt in a much more permanent way than typically occurs in the course of America’s dysfunctional cycle of reverence and hatred for blacks.

I am really starting to suspect that Dave only briefly skimmed my essay.

The critical distinction we need to be aware of Is between the things our government WILL DO and things that our government WILL NEVER DO.

Things our government WILL DO:

1. Payout mass entitlements to client groups on the order of trillions

2. Print money to obscure the connection between said payouts and the middle-class tax burden

3. Funnel entitlements paid to individuals BACK into activist groups to lobby for MORE entitlements

Things our government WILL NEVER DO:

1. End Affirmative Action

2. Purge DEI bureaucrats either at the state or corporate level

3. Stop teaching progressive ideology that supports DEI principles to all prospective professionals in college

How do I know this? Well because for the last 60 years, the government HAS been doing the former despite repeated popular opposition, and HAS NOT been doing the latter despite repeated popular support. A deal where your enemies get realizable promises and you get fake promises is a bad deal by definition.

In this case Dave is just demonstrably wrong, and I feel very embarrassed for him that he would post something so retarded.

Affirmative Action is being rolled back as we speak. This process will take time, but we’ve made sizable victories and it’s well underway. Also items 2 and 3 are literally being implemented at the state level all across the country.

Dave should remember that not everyone lives in a progressive shithole like California or New Jersey. Here in the Free State of Florida that shit doesn’t fly.

And there are similar problems with the idea that operations will change the cultural dynamic. While Walt understands, from the history of racialized entitlements, that reparations will not satisfy the Black community. But he does not seem to understand from the same history, that reparations will not outrage the White community.

As 80 years of debt-based government waste shows us, middle-class people aren’t outraged by line items on a budget, regardless of the digits behind them. As for the symbolism, White Americans don’t object to racialized humiliation as long as they have been educated to accept it by people that they perceive as high status. Never forget that the explicitly genocidal anti-white EFF party in South Africa still has some white supporters. You can’t outrage people out of these habits.

Another straightforwardly retarded take.

I know Dave is getting on in years and his memory probably isn’t what it used to be, but he should recall that Ronald Reagan twice secured a landslide victory by exploiting ferocious hostility from the white middle class toward black “welfare queens” who were exploiting Great Society programs.

This maneuver was so effective that Bill Clinton famously adopted the same strategy in his triangulation against the 90s GOP, hence his famous declaration that “the era of big government is over.” It wasn’t until very recently that advocating for extensive redistribution was even politically possible in America.

Also, affirmative action was recently overthrown and a massive legal infrastructure has emerged to undermine it specifically because of outrage from the white community (safely masked as outrage from or on behalf of the Asian community). Similarly, the Alt Right emerged largely in response to antiwhite racial humiliation, and thanks to our efforts the worst excesses of that era have mostly disappeared from public life.

All this is not to say that I don’t like Walt. He is a good guy, and I am a big fan of his old Disney parodies. However, I think he makes a bunch of fundamental mistakes in thinking about politics.

First, he doesn’t respect or learn from past failed efforts by the conservative movement. He proposes things, that while technically possible, rely on everything working perfectly with none of the complexities that have sunk previous efforts in the same direction.

I like you too, Dave. Honest Injun.

But I am right here and you are wrong.

I am not advocating the same thing as past iterations of the conservative movement, and you should be a little less smug and supercilious when engaging with my ideas. Instead of finding a David Brooks article that is vaguely similar to my suggestions, you should actually look at the details of what I propose and assess how my platform differs from what was tried in the past.

I am not ignorant about HBD or naive about Jews. I am not an adherent of the magic soil hypothesis. I am not a colorblind civnat, and I don’t think you can trust average IQ people to make good decisions absent a firmly paternalistic incentive structure.

But unlike you, I recognize that the world can change in a way that necessitates tactical flexibility. I also update my priors when experience gives me data that challenges my current heuristics and mental models.

Unlike you, I’m not always fighting the last war.

And unlike you, I present an exciting and invigorating vision for the future that inspires young men to follow me into battle in pursuit of my vision. I’m bellowing a victory march while you chant a requiem. And that’s why Zoomers like our mutual friend vastly prefer my approach over yours:

To complicate this, I also notice that Walt relies on a level of secrecy and privacy that the very existence of his articles undermines. This is most obvious in his contradictory approach to sexual norms, which MIGHT be reconciled if kept absolutely private, but which will NEVER work once they are loudly proclaimed on social media.

That’s because this is Substack, where everyone can handle the nuances of a private position poorly scalable to low IQ normies.

But judging from the comments of your followers on Twitter, I can certainly see why this is something that concerns you. Take, for instance, this knuckle-dragger:

A similar problem exists with the handling of Walt’s pro-life issue. I have been a pro-life skeptic of the strategy of focusing on Roe-v Wade for years. However, if we follow Walt’s lead and PUBLICALLY disparage pro-lifers for being pro-life all while effusively flattering long-time enemies, we can kiss the hopes of an anti-progressive movement goodbye. No one is going to join a coalition that rhetorically throws its loyal soldiers under the bus the minute it becomes convenient to do so, progressives never do this.

I’m not suggesting we publicly disparage pro-lifers.

I’m suggesting that we chastise pro-life maximalists who push for maximally onerous abortion restrictions without giving any thought to political sustainability, because this is what provokes a thermostatic backlash that normalizes partial birth abortion.

This is the only sensible policy. Most people (including most Republicans) are centrists at best on the abortion issue, and the only way to meaningfully progress toward the world you desire is to change hearts and minds at the grassroots level.

Otherwise you, Dave Greene, are murdering babies.

Lastly, I think Walt suffers from a bit of “main-character syndrome” as he frequently assures his audience that he and his friends will be able to succeed in the brinksmanship when many many many others have failed before. I guess the idea is that everyone else who tried this previously was a low-IQ redneck Chud who couldn't get shit done? But I know this isn’t the case witnessing the California Republican party led by very competent people.

I probably am more competent than them, but the real issue is they were in California.

Walt is always ready to remind readers of his elite status. And I do appreciate the success he has had making parody videos and job-stacking (though his bragging about sexual exploits is cringe and low-class).

I never pretended to be high class. I’m just a very white trash guy with an extremely high IQ and a lot of money.

And I don’t really brag about my sexual exploits so much as recount them in a neutral way to give an example of what works to Zoomer guys. You need to allow for some amount of this behavior if you want to facilitate effective intrasexual mentorship.

It’s not the role of a dour tradcath father to teach young guys how to approach women—it’s the role of a successful single guy 5-10 years older than them.

However, does Walt Bismark’s brilliance somehow outshine the previous Californian Republican leaders who I have known in the past: all Ivy-League graduates, college football stars, Corporate Executives, and successful Start-up founders?

Probably.

Anyway, I’m not operating in Fagifornia (again, an overwhelmingly Democrat state full of soft effeminate people), and am not especially interested in its political history.

I’m in the Free State of Florida, where strategies like mine have been very effective in recent years. We’re on the cutting edge of efforts to dismantle the wokeocracy, so I refuse to let you blackpill me with your postapocalyptic blue state sensibilities.

I guess I will end my critique here. I know Bismark has asked for debate, and I may in the future. as my schedule permits. However, I hope that these initial critiques serve to sober up the conversation and remove the chaff from the arguments so we don’t end up repeatedly listing the same talking points.

We don’t need sobriety.

We need enthusiasm. We need energy. We need balls.

That’s what I am offering in the Walt Right.

Whenever I read Dave’s work I notice he talks a lot about being exhausted. He calls things tiresome a lot, and talks a lot about being bored.

This lack of energy and vitality really isn’t healthy, even for someone Dave’s age.

I think what he needs is a vacation. He deserves to take a few weeks off being a hectoring schoolmarm on the internet and spend some time in the sun recharging and relaxing with his family.

To that end, I suggest that all my followers visit ’s page and purchase a paid subscription to his publication. Give my man Dave some money so he can buy himself a nice cruise to the Bahamas.

Maybe this will help him be less exhausted.

Last month I recorded a podcast episode with in which the reactionary theorist pressed me to identify specific ways in which my framework of intersectional identitarianism might break off key constituencies from the Left.

As of that recording my worldview was pretty inchoate—I was still trying to formulate the specifics of Walt Bismarck Thought, and certainly wasn’t ready to embrace a concrete plan of action. But following several weeks of lively discussion with my inner circle, I am now willing to commit in writing to a more precise strategy.

In the following essay I will explain this strategy in painstaking detail, and in doing so will hopefully convince Mr. Greene and his fellows on the dissident right that I’m not an inauthentically exuberant LinkedIn grifter.

Subscribe now

First some brief notes on motivation—why am I doing this, and what are the foundational values I will never compromise on?

I lay out most of the specifics in my essay I’m still right wing, which details the reasons I’ve resisted the movement of fellow travelers like and towards a more centrist worldview. In particular I mention…

• my preference for overtly self-interested and natural hierarchies of the market over covertly self-interested and artificial hierarchies of state bureaucracies and international corporations propped up through regulatory capture

• my commitment to individual and social vitality, which to my mind requires a ferocious devotion to struggle and competition for its own sake, as well as a collective abhorrence of stultifying dopamine traps like TikTok and internet porn

• my steadfast belief in the inevitability of sex roles, as well as the desirability of a more formalist patriarchy that enables both men and women to operate more adroitly in our particular sexual ecologies

Today I will add to these a fourth principle, which is racial realism. Like the venerable , I recognize the empirically demonstrable fact that intellectual capacity and temperament vary across clinally distributed genetic clusters colloquially called “races.” I likewise recognize the intractability of racial ingroup preference, and refuse to apologize for any such preference in my own cognition and behavior.

I am no longer a white nationalist, because I no longer seek the formation of a white ethnostate, and race is no longer my number one issue. This is because I feel—contra Jared—that the speech norms surrounding human biodiversity and white identity have eased up enough for intellectual young conservatives with mainstream political clout (like my lovely collaborator / podcast alumna , as well as several close friends at organizations like Heritage and TPUSA) to almost universally approach topics like affirmative action and crime from the right direction.

That said, I remain moderately identitarian in my own views, and emphatically reject the “colorblind” individualism of interlocutors like . To my mind identity politics are inevitable in any pluralistic democracy, and trying to push identitarian sentiment outside the Overton Window only makes these sentiments more hateful, intractable, and needlessly oppositional.

Most people are pretty reasonable until you start to tell them it’s verboten to peacefully pursue their own interests. Denying people such a seat at the table is precisely what will radicalize them and produce something like Charlottesville.

In describing my project I’ve come to rely on something of a catchphrase:

What does this mean? Basically that nobody will always be your ally, and that looking for permanent allies is reflective of an immature and retarded understanding of politics.

You can and should collaborate with someone you agree with only 60% of the time, simply to move things in the general direction you want. There’s no need to break ranks over disagreements until your difference of opinion is actually salient. Unless you are Kim Jong Un, practical reality behooves you to assess which issues are your biggest priorities and build your coalition around them, and you must likewise be willing to jump ship to a new coalition as circumstances change.

The Left understands this implicitly because it’s the only way to get black people and Mexicans and pantsuit women and bisexual guys who hate their dad to all vote for the same shitty platform. They’ve been a Coalition of the Fringes since time immemorial, so you don’t need to explain any of this to them.

The Right is comparatively horrible at coalitional thinking because conservatives tend to be linear thinkers prone to moral absolutism. And that’s why they say “Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line”—the Democrat primary meta is all about getting “The Groups” to trust that you’ll fight for their interests, while the GOP primary has traditionally been a brute force slugfest between slimy pink-cheeked Chamber of Commerce types and Flyover Chud ideologues, in which the winning faction simply bullies the loser into getting with the program.

But the GOP strategy can only work in a country where at least half the population is fairly homogenous and culturally unified. There just aren’t enough middle class suburban WASPs to make this strategy viable anymore, and these days even that group is hopelessly fractured by sexual identity politics and educational polarization.

If we’re going to defeat the Left we need a lot more agility. We need a willingness to use oblique tactics and ruthless transactional dealmaking to slice off chunks of the Democrat coalition like lunchmeat. The way we currently do politics is like playing rock-paper-scissors and choosing rock every time. Conservatives will act like this is a more noble or masculine strategy because they’re “standing firm in their principles”, but in practice they’re just getting covered in sand as the world moves on without them.

They’re exactly the sort of people who would have harangued Manstein for not charging straight at the Maginot Line.

So far I’ve encountered two arguments against my approach.

The shittier of these arguments, advanced by the precocious center-left utilitarianism enjoyer , maintains that I focus too much on “vibes” and should pay more attention to object-level policy concerns. This is a bad take and misses the point of my project, which isn’t particularly concerned with short term economic outcomes. I’m not a libertarian or national socialist or distributist, and don’t really care about the specifics of how we organize the economy so long as we directionally move towards natural hierarchy, vitalism, and a more formalist patriarchy.

When dealing with Yglesian minutiae like tariff policy or the marginal tax rate, my general position is that we need to be very agile and responsive to overall macroeconomic conditions, as well as to geopolitical / technological developments and the realpolitik of coalitional horse-trading. Beyond that I’m entirely happy to leave the policy specifics to allies like who are more interested in these matters, and to focus my own efforts on metapolitical theorycrafting. My role is to kick down doors on thorny topics and introduce creative new ideas into the discourse space.

The second and more formidable objection to Waltrightism comes from himself, who expressed skepticism during our discussion that the Burger King Kids Club of high openness contrarians I’ve built on Substack is a model for effective coalitional dealmaking in the real world.

On some level this objection feels unfair, because the early months of my project were mostly exploratory in character, and largely dedicated to figuring out new ways of discussing incredibly fraught topics like America’s black-white conflict or girls growing boobs three years earlier than they should be. My goal was to allow people from different backgrounds and seemingly oppositional worldviews to find common ground so we can approach these issues in new and interesting ways. It’s only recently that these lines of inquiry have congealed into a more actionable plan of attack.

But it’s not like I don’t understand the skepticism. I certainly can’t fault an aging and world-weary cynic like Mr. Greene for being skeptical of something so untested, and I obviously understand why he’d want more specifics from me.

So let’s discuss what I have in mind.

As it stands the Bismarck Proposal to castrate the Left consists of seven points:

1. Stop the bleeding with white women by offering them forward-thinking solutions to women’s issues in a way the Left can’t due to pressure from The Groups

2. Make a real play for young men through a serious commitment to mentorship and a full-throated embrace of “Barstool Conservative” attitudes on sexuality

3. Use Gaza as a wedge to persuade Jews into abandoning anti-whiteness and instead dedicating their considerable resources / talents to right wing initiatives

4. Resolve the Brahmin Question before Indian Americans become a hostile elite

5. Embrace a prowhite racial pluralism—or “Castizo Futurism”—as a compromise between implicit white nationalism and tepid colorblind civic nationalism

6. End white guilt by neutralizing the moral weaponization of black people by the Democrat Party and antiwhite forces in the media / academia by offering a reparations “poison pill” (which can also be used to restrain black criminality)

7. Build power on the ground—loot corporate America to stack piles of cash, then use it to doxx antifa, pressure politicians, and gentrify neighborhoods

Got all that? Good.

Now let’s go through each point in detail.

Step 1 : Win back white women

One of the most pathetic developments of recent years is that unmarried white women are increasingly voting like black people, and a lot of GOP functionaries have made their peace with this, probably because racial polarization is decreasing rapidly and they’re ostensibly making up the difference with Gen X dudes and Mexicans.

But this is a horrible trend we desperately need to reverse. Sexual polarization is much worse for society than racial polarization. With the latter you merely risk a race war, but the former threatens to turn us all into incels! Gendered political animus massively undermines social harmony and collective happiness—let alone the TFR—and if you don’t believe me just look at South Korea.

So how do we fix this?

The first step is obviously to follow Trump’s lead and adopt a more sensible line on abortion: religious conservatives need to aggressively sideline prolife maximalists with the understanding that achieving their goal of saving as many babies as possible requires an incremental approach and a grassroots change of hearts and minds.

In practice the prolife movement has precipitated an enormous thermostatic backlash in women by pushing for politically unsustainable bans, and have actually managed to convince the majority of Americans into supporting abortion up to the point of birth:

In that sense prolife maximalists should be held responsible for the murder of thousands of babies via late term abortions. If your overambitious policies cause a backlash that makes the problem you were trying to solve worse then you are responsible for all the negative things that result from that backlash.

Even from the tradcon perspective, the most virtuous abortion policy is surely the one that maximizes the number of babies saved. By definition that’s a policy that is politically sustainable and won’t immediately get overturned by the Pantsuit Brigade and replaced with something much worse than we had originally.

Trads need to take the John Roberts Pill. Boil the frog, change hearts and minds, fight on the hill where you can actually win. Stop scaring women with insane six week bans out of fucking nowhere and they’ll be perfectly amenable to third trimester bans, and can be persuaded from there, just as they were in like 2013.

Anyway, abortion is hardly the only issue where we can make inroads with women; on lots of policies we can actually go on the offense and make the Dems look bad.

Crime is the big one I’m thinking of here. Right now white women are terrified to walk around major cities at night because they’re full of diverse and vibrant homeless dudes on fentanyl lumbering around like zombies and peeing on everything.

To address this we should build an enormous facility in Western Nebraska to house the homeless and cheaply shelter the ones who can’t take care of themselves (or who have severe mental health issues) while rehabilitating the ones addicted to drugs. Make this a federal mandate and sweep the homeless off the streets, but take care of them in a really nice way so the bougie gals have an excuse not to feel bad about it.

The Dems will naturally oppose this and call it a concentration camp, and this will make a lot of girls feel like the Demon Rats don’t care about protecting them.

Score one for the GOP!

Another good one that’s still fairly right-coded is creating onerous federal laws against revenge porn / AI deepfakes. You could then give women access to (greatly expanded) FBI resources with which they could swiftly remove porn of themselves from any online platform and then press charges against the dude who uploaded it.

We should likewise push to restore breach of promise laws, whereby women can sue ex-fiancés for wasting their time. There are too many women these days who give the last days of their peak beauty to a guy who stays “engaged” to them for three years only to dump them and immediately marry a 23 year-old. In a sane world the girl should be able to sue a guy for alimony if he does that, and if we put this on the table I think a lot of vaguely centrist girls in their late twenties will vote GOP. This will also make dating in your thirties a lot less annoying for single guys, who’ll no longer need to deal with resentful man-haters who won’t stop talking about their “narcissist" ex.

I also think we need to address the stunning lack of sexual agency in Zoomer women, whose arrested development and crippling anxiety seems to preclude them from enforcing their own boundaries in a meaningful way behind closed doors. I interviewed my Zoomer girlfriend about this a while back and she confirmed this is a big problem in her age cohort, furthering my suspicions that the reactionary feminists are right about agreeableness undermining female life outcomes.

To that end I think there’s a case to be made for introducing a civil “rakishness” charge for coerced consent situations (with an exemption for when it happens inside the guy’s dwelling, as this caveat will create a legal incentive structure that protects men from false rape accusations by making going back to a guy’s place an implicit sign of consent), but my podcast alumna and consigliere made a good argument that this would be unworkable in practice, so I’m still ambivalent on whether this would be a good idea.

In either case, we absolutely need to reckon with the startling drop in the age of female puberty, which has clearly precipitated mass sexual trauma in Zoomer women, who are developing adolescent bodies alongside childlike minds and are increasingly turning to things like transgenderism and sex negative feminism to deal with it.

As far as I know, I’m the first person to raise this as a major issue, but it’s obviously not something a man can take up very effectively, so I’ve encouraged women in my community to write about it in a way that popularizes / sanitizes the issue. Some of the best contributions so far include:

• ’s Age of puberty in girls

• ’s Bring Back the Red Tent

• ’s The Lost Girls and Boys

These ideas are slowly starting to penetrate the discourse, and my medium-term goal is to lobby or into taking this up so more normie women are exposed to the arguments. I think in five years it could become a mainstream Crunchy Mom thing that we could mobilize into a concerted push against endocrine disruptors (including things like falling testosterone levels in men) in a very right-coded way that would restore affiliation with the GOP among suburban women.

My final tactic for winning back women is less about policy and more about cultural positioning and internal communicative norms.

First and foremost the Right must come to the defense of Karens, and stigmatize that word as a vile and indefensible slur against white women. Many people conflate Karens with AWFLs, but this is quite retarded. When you think of a Karen you picture a woman who is thin, blonde, and a wife / mother—all of which are right-coded!

Karens are conservative women who are high in trait conscientiousness and deeply concerned with policing standards of behavior. This is admittedly very annoying if you’re a Zoomer guy who works with them directly, but it’s also what keeps the biracial teenagers at McDonalds actually doing their job. The Karen is a vital civilizational force, and she needs to be cherished and respected, not opportunistically attacked because she feels vaguely AWFL-adjacent to less established guys.

Speaking of that, we need to clamp down on resentful men on the right (many of whom are teenagers of dubious extraction who oughtn’t set the tone in any case) when they act very aggressively toward promiscuous women. This behavior is counterproductive because it codes as low status and drives women away from traditional femininity in particular and conservative politics more generally.

But the answer isn’t to schoolmarmishly chastise and restrain young men with a faggy longhouse dynamic—it’s to give them a more compelling and aspirational vision of masculinity that lets them treat women well from a position of abundance and strength that inspires a natural and organic submission. You undermine Andrew Tate only by providing Zoomers what he purports to provide without also being a chinless pimp.

Which brings me to my next point…

Step 2 : Run up the score with young white guys

This one will be significantly easier because we already have good momentum. The crosstabs of recent 2024 polls indicate that age polarization is starting to decline from the Obama era, and may soon revert to historic trends (look at that 2000 number!):

Young guys are already flocking to the Right in large numbers; we just need to step on the gas pedal. To that end, as I alluded in the last section, the first thing we need to do is lean into mentorship with the goal of displacing the dysfunctional and antisocial Andrew Tate ethos among Zoomers, which is obviously unbecoming for white men.

This requires significant course correction. Much to my shame, Millennials have mostly done a terrible job mentoring our little bros. Much like our Boomer fathers (and unlike our Gen X big brothers), a lot of guys my age tend to have Main Character Syndrome and a Peter Pan Complex of their own, and this has made the most successful among us really lazy and selfish when it comes to passing down wisdom.

Millennial men on the Right have a moral obligation and practical imperative to stop grilling and actually make an effort to mentor Zoomer guys in the same way Gen X dudes mentored us during the New Atheism / Ron Paul / Alt Right era. More than anything else, that means teaching them how to get money and how to get laid. That’s how you get young guys to trust in your leadership abilities and follow you into battle.

An equally important part of cementing our appeal with this cohort is going to be a full-throated embrace of “Barstool Conservatism”, which Wikipedia defines as follows:

In general, it supports Donald Trump, and combines non-religious libertarian concerns, such as opposition to COVID-19 lockdowns and bans on abortion with "tooth-and-nail, middle-finger unwillingness to accept liberal social norms", such as "gender pronoun usage and diversity, equity and inclusion practices", and embraces "sexual libertinism, anti-authoritarianism, ... and lots of f-bombs"

This is the natural ideology of upwardly mobile and sexually successful straight guys in their twenties and early thirties, and should therefore be the default positioning of the mainstream right if it wants to attract capable young men.

Understand I’m not against a pluralistic coalition with religious conservatives. I can very easily collaborate with a high openness tradcon like , because he has a good job and an attractive wife, and therefore has better things to do than complain about degenerate urbanites all day. I’m more than willing to listen to someone like him if he thinks my libertine sensibilities are wrongheaded in some respect. But I’m not going to defer to a hormonal teenager on the Woman Question, let alone a dude my age who is butthurt at women because he is short or broke or ugly or emotionally disturbed. The right needs to be about embracing winners over losers, and most young men who are winners have Barstool Conservative sensibilities on sex.

As it stands, Barstool Conservatism has a rather unserious and chuddish reputation, but I aim to change that. A major aspect of my project is providing a more intellectual formulation of Barstool principles that allows normal straight guys to advocate for their interests in an explicit / formalist way and thereby negotiate transactionally with feminists, gays, and trads.

This formulation will center an emphatic reverence for unbridled heterosexuality that aims at destigmatizing things like age gaps in adult relationships, mutually drunk sex, the male gaze, approaching women in public, and so on. The goal is reverting to the sexual mores of the early aughts. This entails a mild but non-simpy chivalry towards women as well as a benign heteronormativity: “no homo”, “gay dudes are fine so long as they don’t hit on me!”, playfully calling other guys faggots, etc.

In this formulation transexualism will be absolutely off the table, and homosexuality will not be considered equal to or interchangeable with heterosexuality. But beyond that gays will not subject to any serious opprobrium, and won’t be forced in the closet. I also don’t think overturning gay marriage is on the table at this point, though I don’t really value denatured modern marriage as an institution even for heterosexuals, and I think it’s correct to blame the LGBT movement as having played a role in this decay.

Of course, it’s another matter entirely when children are involved, and going forward surrogacy / adoption rights should be extended only to truly exceptional gays. The bar needs to be much higher for this population given the concerning statistics we’ve all seen on gay adoption. But I also don’t feel comfortable saying it’s totally off the table for them—someone like or or should obviously be extended these rights. It’s just that exceptions need to be exceptional.

Another good step (which would also facilitate outreach to women while offering the trads something substantial in exchange for accepting a Barstool platform) would be to embrace the NoFap movement and start treating porn addiction as a serious public health issue that ought to command the same level of compassion and civicminded problem-solving energy as drug addiction.

At this point internet porn has become just as dangerous as industrial-scale liquor production was in the nineteenth century or opium was in China, and we need something comparable to the Temperance Movement to adequately contain it. But we also can’t subject young men to schoolmarmish longhouse dynamics or wag a finger at them, as women and older married trads tend to do. We have to go about this in a masculine way that empowers young men to be more agentic.

To that end, I suggest we allow young men to voluntarily submit to an onerous IP block on all porn websites and major VPNs. If any website or VPN doesn’t comply with this, send in the FBI to shut them down or have the FTC drown them in fines.

We should also invest resources in creating zero cost rehabilitation centers for porn addicts where one can work remotely and use the internet for other recreational activities but there’s absolutely no opportunity to access porn. This can be funded with a sin tax on porn studios and streaming websites.

Now onto something a bit spicier…

Step 3 : Use Gaza to win over sympathetic Jewry

The recent war in Gaza has been a literal godsend for American pro-whites, who have tragically proven too paranoid to take advantage of this by making a favorable deal with Jews. This is because—as usual—they insist on looking a gift horse in the mouth.

One can’t entirely blame them for this, because until recently Jews have on aggregate been a powerful force against white advocacy in America, despite mostly supporting ethnonationalism for their own people in Israel. This feels very hypocritical, and I won’t pretend I’m not still annoyed by how neoconservatives treated Ron Paul in 2012, or by how curly-haired Buzzfeed Bergs with problem glasses wrote endless 10 Reasons White People Suck articles while trying to doxx me back in 2015.

But the fact remains that conditions on the ground have shifted a lot over the past nine years, and that being an antisemite in 2024 is kind of silly, both for short-term circumstantial reasons and long-term structural reasons.

The short-term reason is obviously Gaza—right now Jews are spooked and looking for allies. The recent wave of student protests by third world Zoomers has left them paranoid about antisemitism, which they see as coming primarily from the Left.

Of course, these protests aren’t actually antisemitic—they are antiwhite.

The campus protestors see Jews as white people, and absolutely despise them for that. Despite the longstanding efforts of organizations like the SPLC / ADL and scoundrels like Tim Wise and Noel Ignatiev, none of these kids see Jews as a fellow oppressed group. They see them as evil white settler-colonialists. Whether Jews like it or not, and whether white nationalists like it or not, third worlders will always see Jews as white, and that will indelibly shape the coalitional forces dictating American politics.

Now, most white nationalists will say this doesn’t matter. They’ll insist the Jews aren’t *really* our brothers, can’t be trusted, and will always elevate the interests of Jews over broader goals. Because of this, they aren’t willing to negotiate with Jews, and prefer to stand back and gloat as the Chosen are attacked by their subaltern golem. Some white nationalists will even back Hamas, not caring that siding with third world savages seems performative at best and barbaric at worst to most right wingers.

In my opinion this whole impulse is obviously wrongheaded. It’s simply bad strategy to elevate a desire for revenge over a soberminded pursuit of the best outcome for your side. Whether you trust Jews or not, they straightforwardly need us right now. They need the votes and public sympathy of Heartland Chuds to ensure Israel remains protected in the coming years, and the triumph of MAGA over the Neocon / Fundie alliance within the GOP coalition means that our side has the leverage now when litigating the terms of this transaction.

And that’s why we ought to ally with Jews. We’re in a good fucking negotiating position and they need us. And they obviously have something to offer—lots of money and media influence, an incredibly robust legal and public advocacy infrastructure, plus the talents of countless individuals with incredibly high verbal IQs. Throwing those assets away because of simple vindictiveness and paranoia is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Also, most of the white nationalists who distrust Jews just don’t know how to negotiate with them because they’re gullible cishajnals from Kansas or some shit. Of course someone like that is going to get swindled—they’re just bad at doing business!

But there’s no reason Plains Teutons should have to negotiate with Jews. They can leave that to sleazy Ellis Islanders like me. As discussed in my podcast episode with kosher kamerad , Jews in America have always been able to negotiate productively with Irish, Italians, and Borderer rednecks, because we all kind of think the same way. It’s specifically overcivilized Yankee Protestant WASPs / Germans who don’t mix well with Jews, but they don’t mix well with my people either (hence my famous screed against Nebraska). The answer here is separate spheres.

Anyway, over the long term the Jewish Question is going to rapidly become a non-issue for entirely structural reasons. Liberal and secular Jews are either very infertile or very prone to miscegenating with filthy goyim (particularly, it seems, with former white nationalists). It’s specifically the Ben Shapiro types who actively produce more Jews in America, and that type of Jew is basically pro-white at this point. In twenty years they’ll be a solidly Republican constituency, and Gaza will only push this along.

It’s also worth mentioning that among Zoomers even liberal Jews are basically just Desert Italians at this point. I interviewed a liberal Jewish college freshman for my podcast and he noted that pretty much all of the discrimination he has personally faced has been as a white person. Modern Jews have been in America a long time and aren’t growing up with Holocaust Grandmas pushing a paranoid attitude onto them.

Long before anyone expects it, Jews are just going to become another type of white person. The religious difference will remain salient, but I expect we’ll think of them in basically the same way we do Mormons. And by that point America will likely be dealing with a completely different counter-elite.

Which brings me to…

Step 4 : Get our arms around the Brahmin Question

Whenever people talk about Jews as *the* rich and influential minority group it always feels kind of weird and antiquated to me, as though my interlocuter is eternally stuck in the twentieth century. It’s certainly true that Ashkenazim are more visible than other groups, as they have very high verbal IQs and are correspondingly more likely to pursue careers in fields like media and law, but when it comes to raw money and power they are getting smoked by Brahmin Indians, who have recently established themselves as America’s wealthiest and most educated ethnic group.

If you work in tech or an adjacent field (or are close to anyone who does) you will understand the scale of this development. You’ll have also seen the first signs of backlash. White and Northeast Asian software engineers are complaining a lot these days about Indian H-1Bs driving down salaries, while rumors abound of Indian tech leads filling their entire team with coethnics who talk to each other in Hindi or Tamil. A deep and increasingly vocal anti-Indian sentiment is rapidly emerging among much of America’s professional class, and these days it’s not uncommon for otherwise liberal knowledge workers to complain on Reddit or X about their Indian coworkers.

Naturally, this backlash has started to produce a counter-backlash among Indian immigrants who feel their contributions aren’t being properly appreciated, as well as from second and third generation Indians who resent being subject to ethnic scorn despite feeling entirely American.

This conflict is still in its very early stages, but ten years from now it’s going to get really fucking ugly if we don’t do anything. The Brahmin Question has the potential to make the Jewish Question look like small potatoes if we don’t get our arms around it.

So how do we resolve this issue?

The first step is simply opening a dialogue between the nationalist right and Indians so we can better understand each other’s perspectives and discuss what a positive sum solution might look like. I’m proud to have contributed to this effort by interviewing two high caste Indian Americans ( and ) as well as a Marathi Brahmin immigrant (). All three of them have become close friends and active participants in my burgeoning community here on Subtack, and our conversations have produced lots of fascinating insights I think will be useful for resolving the BQ.

For instance, during my conversation with Sai we recognized that white Americans and Indians have experienced immigration in totally different ways, and this causes us to talk past each other on the issue.

Most white Americans descend from the relative dregs of European society—our distant grandfathers came to America fleeing poverty or oppressive power dynamics like the Irish potato famine, oppression by the Sicilian Mafia, Prussian conscription / kulturkampf, and Cossack pogroms. For our forebears, immigration offered not just a large increase in wealth but an enormous increase in personal freedom and relative status. This means we instinctively and understandably think of immigration as a tremendous gift to immigrants, and expect them to perpetually be on their best behavior. That was the dynamic that always existed for Ellis Islanders, as well as for subsequent waves of migration from East Asia and Latin America.

India is different. The vast majority of Indian immigrants to America come from the subcontinent’s upper castes. They aren’t “huddled masses yearning to break free,” they are almost entirely local elites who just want to be where the action is. They are educated people with specialized skills who had a high standard of living back home and frequently grew up with literal servants. They don’t really need to be here, especially because life in India is pretty decent these days for knowledge workers. It’s a rapidly developing country, not a third world shithole still recovering from famine.

This causes a lot of Indians to resent the American expectation of ostentatious immigrant gratitude. From their perspective they are contributing their skills and energies to their new home and people are spitting in their face. It’s as if an American programmer from San Fran moved to Berlin and everyone there started acting like he should be incredibly grateful for the “opportunity.” Feels kind of shitty.

Another point Sai brought up is that while Indian Americans vote heavily Democratic and on surveys will identify heavily with shitlib positions on free speech etc., this isn’t because they themselves are shitlibs, but rather because they’re earnestly trying to assimilate into the culture of white urban elites. But if you actually look at Indian American families they tend to be very traditional even several generations in, and are often ferociously hostile to the very modes of social decay that the dissident right finds most problematic. Indians cling to Hindu religion / naming conventions and seldom marry into white society because they see mainstream American culture as deeply sick and degenerate, and their traditions are a highly effective shield against this.

But that doesn’t mean they don’t want to assimilate. Something I’ve learned over the course of my project is that Brahmins are incredibly civic-minded and have a very genuine desire to help save America and build a more functional society. I never appreciated the depth of this until I first discussed the Brahmin Question with , who has since become one of my closest friends and confidantes.

Rajeev is a second generation Brahmin immigrant who was born a year after me in exactly the same state. His parents came to America from Tamil Nadu (TN), and these days he is building a new life for himself in Tennessee (also TN). Rajeev is a practicing Hindu, but he attends a Christian church because Hinduism is a pluralistic belief system that leaves room for syncretic practice, and he also wants to understand how to bridge cultural and theological gaps within America and help his fellow second-generation immigrants more properly embrace the Anglican roots of this country.

At one point, as an off-the-cuff marketing strategy, Rajeev suggested that Vivek Ramaswamy present Hinduism through a lens of Deism, similar to the operating religious impulse of many of the Founding Fathers (most notably Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson). This would certainly be far more effective than branding himself as a "monotheist", and provides a plausible frame for Christians and Hindus to trust each other more easily.

Anyway, both Rajeev and Vivek (who famously defended the Great Replacement on national television and thereby did an enormous amount to shift the Overton Window in a prowhite direction) have demonstrated to me that second generation Indian Americans can assimilate very naturally into the vision I have for the country. Their Brahmin civicmindedness also makes them uniquely valuable allies, as they can help us keep to a more upright morality ourselves—I know I can always rely on both Rajeev and Sai to admonish me when I’m being too sleazy or grifty!

But implementing this vision requires an immediate pause to further Brahmin immigration. We need to assimilate the Brahmins in the same way we assimilated the Jews, Italians, and other Ellis Islanders. That means closing the door for a generation and letting the Melting Pot simmer a bit. We can let in some exceptional Brahmins to ensure we stay ahead of China on AI development, but if we let in any more of them the situation is going to get out of hand. Brahmins will become a hostile counter-elite that is (justifiably) paranoid about ethnic resentment from whites and Northeast Asians who (justifiably) resent their lack of gratitude and ethnic nepotism.

Right now it doesn’t make sense to optimize for GDP growth at the expense of literally everything else. We need to focus on internal consolidation and national soul-searching, and Brahmins should play a big part both in this and in advocacy for immigration restriction. Then once we demonstrate we’re building a vital and beautiful civilization worth assimilating into, I believe that second and third generation Indians will rapidly start to blend in via conversion and miscegenation, much as the Jews have done. The existence of my quarter-Indian and very prowhite collaborator is living evidence for this thesis.

Which brings me to…

Step 5 : Embrace Castizo Futurism

One problem with white nationalists is that they inappropriately and unfairly apply racial heuristics developed for black people to nonwhites as a whole.

This is especially the case with crime and voting patterns. Black people are so much more criminal than other races that there’s no way to adequately police the nation without incarcerating tremendous numbers of black men in a manner that most black people (plus lots of squishy sentimentalist white women / effeminate men) won’t find acceptable. Similarly, black people are so racially motivated in their political behavior that it doesn’t really make sense to treat them like a normal part of the electorate that can be swayed issue by issue. They vote as black people. They need to be seen as a hostile population of politically radical ethno-nationalists with whom the options for productive negotiation are—very tragically—quite limited at this time.

With other races this obviously isn’t the case. For most of them at least 30 - 40% of the population votes Republican and is white-adjacent in their lifestyle and sensibilities. MENA / Subcontinental / Latin American people are close enough to us genetically that they can be assimilated into white society very easily through religious conversion and two generations of miscegenation, as argues very eloquently in this piece and in this podcast discussion with my inner circle.

This is especially the case with Hispanics, given that Latin American society has long featured a complex racial caste system in which whiteness was seen as aspirational and bleaching your familial phenotype through calculated miscegenation literally has a formal term associated with it: “mejorar la raza”

'Mejorar la raza' is a common phrase used in Latin American countries, which means 'improve the race.' It implies that you should marry or have children with a whiter person so you'll have better-looking kids. The phrase is used by people of any race without much thought.

You see this attitude everywhere here in Florida. There are plenty of nominal “Hispanics” who are fiercely proud of their Cuban or Venezuelan heritage but would also break your nose if you implied they’re anything but white. And very frequently the most successful among these guys have suspiciously Aryan-looking wives.

This “Castizo Futurism” is precisely the attitude America needs to lean into, because it’s simultaneously pro-white and racially tolerant. It combines the ethnic chauvinism you need for cultural vitality with the racial pluralism you need for empire. In doing so it calls upon precisely the same impulses that made Alexandrian Macedon, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Classical Rome so wonderfully successful.

It is certainly messy and contradictory and won’t appeal to principled idealists in either the white nationalist or colorblind civnat camp, but it appeals tremendously to people on the ground (especially religious conservatives from diverse backgrounds and Hispanic / MENA types, for whom it’s a framework that lets them into the family of Western Civilization). In this respect it’s very scalable to normies, which is a point that both and have insisted I improve on.

A note to all my old WN friends who will call me a treacherous cuck for this opinion: While I myself do retain a moderately strong preference for living in a white country, I don’t really care if a few decades of miscegenation with beige foreigners results in coastal white Americans looking more Calabrese than Swedish. The way I see it, religious conservatives in our Anglo-Teutonic interior regions have a fairly high TFR, and in the long term should produce enough cornfed Aryans to bleach the progeny of transhajnal coasties with a penchant for MENA baddies or Khazar milkers.

It’s fine, just be chill about it.

Anyway, I’d be remiss to ignore that my Scrutonian Hapa Zoomer friend and Overton Window cohost makes a very compelling case in his piece Blended Identities (as well as our aforementioned podcast episode) that Asian and half-Asian fellers like himself have much less of an impetus to assimilate given their greater genetic distance from wypipo, as well as the existence of large Asian subcultures among Zoomers (particularly in California and Hawaii).

Sunshine has basically convinced me of this point, and my current stance is that we shouldn’t actively try to assimilate Asians / Hapas, and instead should conceive of them as Elves who will generally vote 30 - 40% GOP and can occasionally be pulled onto our side to oppose affirmative action and other anti-meritocratic excesses of the Left. We should definitely oppose further immigration from China etc., but to the extent it happens on the margins it’s not that big of a deal. It’s kind of cool having Elves around to make us boba tea and give libertarians more dating options.

Anyway, my main point is that when it comes to race the main thing we need to reckon with is the black-white issue. Which brings me to…

Step 6 : End white guilt and neutralize the weird American civic religion around black people

This is probably going to be the most difficult step of all.

White Americans have a really bizarre relationship with black people. On one hand we love their music and slang and practically orgasm whenever they agree with us (hence the popularity of “black guy reacts” videos on YouTube, as well as Tim Scott’s political career), but we also deeply resent them for making our cities so unlivable.

In my Metapolitics of Black-White Conflict I explore the long and complex history behind this dynamic, and make the case that both sides are basically justified in resenting the other, because our relationship has so many intractable conflicts and zero-sum dynamics that it ultimately resembles a deeply incompatible / toxic marriage:

I’m sure everyone reading this has been in some conflict with a parent, romantic partner, or coworker where there are two sides to the story that would be equally compelling to a third party but are fundamentally at odds with one another.

That’s basically how I see the conflict between whites and blacks in America.

Is it true that whites have repeatedly pulled the rug out from under blacks, and broken promises like “forty acres and a mule,” while quickly abandoning projects like the Great Society? Yes.

Is it true that blacks have repeatedly taken advantage of whites? Absolutely.

You’re just going to see it differently and give weight to different parts of the story depending on who you are. As a conservative white guy I will say that affirmative action and welfare have repaid slavery many times over, but I don’t really blame the black guy for tuning me out when I make this argument. I’d almost certainly do the same thing in his shoes. That’s just how the human mind works.

It’s important for people to understand that there’s no way to teach history that isn’t extremely biased and ideological. You can’t cover literally every event in any textbook or lecture, so especially when teaching kids, you need to focus on the most important stories and personalities from the era to present a “historical narrative” that aligns with the basic goals of society and gives people a sense of pride.

The problem is that you can only do this when all parties in society are on your side and are in basic agreement about what happened. This has become impossible when it comes to American history because the slavery issue is so important to black people, while conservative whites are extremely protective of the founding fathers. Because of this dynamic there is literally no way to teach early American history that won’t be at least mildly disgusting to some segment of the population.

To give a more visceral illustration of this principle, I suggest you watch this:

Has there ever been a more accurate representation of the feelings between blacks and whites in America? If so, I haven’t heard it.

In the same article I go on to argue that our strange Puritan religious heritage and the carefully curated national mythology that emerged from the Civil War has given White America a bizarre religious fixation on black people that produces a periodic cycle of reverence and intense resentment:

…white people have a lot of genuine goodwill towards blacks and sincerely want to help them. It’s because of this goodwill that White America periodically will center the needs of blacks over all other national goals, and will then start to resent black people when it feels like they are taking advantage of our goodwill via crime and racial grifting. Black people will perceive this quasi-religious cycle of worship and resentment as “broken promises”, and it makes them resent white people in a uniquely intense way that’s basically understandable.

How do we fix this? That is the subject of my Pro-White Case for Reparations, which was received fantastically on Substack but is now infamous among 103 IQ wignats on Twitter who never read the article and now call me an engagement farming mischling.

In this essay I argue that the real issue is white guilt, and that the only way to prevent another “racial reckoning” is to execute a campaign of propaganda that makes squishy white moderates (especially women) permanently immune to the race card. This can be achieved by offering a Reparations “Poison Pill” intentionally structured to entrench white racial conservatism towards black people by making the argument for systemic injustice completely untenable and extremely annoying.

The way it would work is you’d give all black Americans the present day value of forty acres and a mule (which I calculated at $250k) paid out as a life contingent annuity. It would essentially function as a UBI for our melanated friends.

But there would be three caveats to this policy:

First, you lose your reparations if you commit a crime. A misdemeanor freezes the account for a year, while a felony zeroes it out permanently. To my mind, this is the only way to adequately restrain black criminality in the short term without making sheltered and affluent white women yell at us.

Second, in exchange for reparations black people need to permanently give up affirmative action and all DEI initiatives. If possible, we should also use reparations to secure their acceptance of a general rollback of the Civil Rights regime and guaranteed freedom of association, but that is more of a stretch goal.

Finally—and most importantly for my propagandistic objectives—we’ll require the leaders of Black America (think the Obamas, Oprah, Jay Z, Beyonce, Kanye, Lizzo, Al Sharpton, Kobe Bryant, Snoop Doggy Dogg, and Mavis Beacon) to go on national television and sign a Declaration of Absolution towards white people stating that they as a community forgive us for the crimes of slavery, Jim Crow, and police brutality.

This should be accompanied by the creation of a national Monument of Unity, which would include a museum that ostensibly shows moments of whites and blacks coming together throughout history, but subtextually paints a picture of white people always having made enormous efforts to uplift the black population, with lots of references to Great Society welfare programs and affirmative action.

Lots of white nationalists think I’m retarded and expect black people to actually follow through on their promise to forgive us. Obviously this won’t happen and they’ll be hounding us for more bennies in five years. That doesn’t matter, because the point of this policy isn’t to influence blacks—it’s to shatter the emotional basis for white guilt and make squishy moderate white women ferociously resentful of race grifters.

The annuitized structure of my reparations scheme will mightily reinforce this resentment because it will last for several generations, and by my math will constitute roughly 4% of the federal budget for roughly 80 years. That’s not enough to break the bank, but it’s more than enough to serve as a fiscal hairshirt that really pisses white people off and stimulates further racial conservatism on welfare and crime. And this can only be a good thing—hurting white people fiscally will save thousands of white people from rape and murder by generating support for a more aggressive carceral state.

Some people might worry this policy could establish a dangerous precedent for additional reparations, but I can’t imagine white people would tolerate that after being infuriated by Black America’s inevitable betrayal. If anything the precedent would be good for us, as it could be used to bully Arab nations into giving us their oil wealth as reparations for enslaving white people during the Middle Ages.

Regardless of whether we commit to this particular direction, America will never solve the black-white issue through colorblind Reganite individualism. Black people operate politically as black people and want to be treated as black people, so that’s how we ought to treat them. This point was perhaps made most adroitly by my talented southron friend , who recently argued The Right Should Embrace the 1619 Project while rejecting the Trump administration’s vapid 1776 Report.

Anyway, on to my final point…

Step 7 : Build power on the ground

This one is less about policy and more about the broader life strategies and organizational tactics we should adopt over the long term. To put it bluntly, Men of the Right need to be a lot more agentic in dealing with the world, and a hell of a lot more ruthless in dealing with the people and institutions who hate us.

In my essay How to Pillage Corporate America I make the case that we should begin this assault on the Left by collectively embracing the practice of “job stacking,” or working multiple remote jobs in parallel to collect several six figure salaries simultaneously. I argue that this fundamentally deceptive practice isn’t just permissible, but obligatory under an ethically particularist right wing worldview:

When push comes to shove, your coworkers are not your friends. Your boss certainly isn’t your friend, especially if he holds any equity in the firm that pits your salary against his kid’s college fund (or more realistically, his stripper money). We have at-will employment in the U.S., which means he can fire your ass whenever he wants (especially if you’re a straight white male!), and in this day and age he will suffer no negative social consequences for doing so. That is a terrifying asymmetry, and an indication that our elite class has abandoned any feelings of noblesse oblige.

It’s also what gives you the right to ravage your boss’s bank account in preemptive self defense. The modern economy is ultimately ruled by a Stirnerian law of the jungle—if you can’t defend it, you don’t deserve it. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. And by that token, if you don’t get caught job stacking, what right has your boss to object? Why shouldn’t your boss be the weak one who suffers what he must? Anything you can pull off in the real world is self-justifying by the businessman’s own ruthlessly amoral Boomer logic.

Later in the essay I explain to my reader precisely how he can make this strategy work for him, and encourage him to do so with the goal of amassing resources to finance lindy and prosocial right wing goals like:

• buying up houses in the ghetto so your local cell of anime frogposters can gentrify entire neighborhoods for fun and profit

• rescuing an attractive and intelligent woman from wagecuck hell and repeatedly impregnating her without any concern for financial scarcity

• paying top shelf private intelligence firms to doxx antifa so they’re forced on the defense and are no longer able to harass our guys

• financially pressuring local, state, and eventually federal GOP politicians into adopting platforms more in line with our views

These are all things that our most agentic guys on the ground are actively doing right now, and if you’re a high IQ and motivated young fella there’s no reason you shouldn’t join us! If you want to learn more you should read the article linked above and listen to my most recent podcast episode with the incredibly talented coach Noah Revoy, which goes into a lot of details about what this looks like and how to get started.

Then you should DM either of us and we’ll see if you’re a good fit for our network.

Most of the ideas I propose here are novel and weird and probably seem unworkable to folks with fragile imaginations. But twenty years ago everyone said precisely the same thing about overturning Roe v. Wade, and nobody would have dreamed that either DEI bullshit or the Alt Right’s talking points on human biodiversity and the legitimacy of white self-advocacy could ever penetrate mainstream discourse.

But they have. And with your help, so can the ideas outlined above.

If I’ve observed anything in my years as a propagandist and metapolitical theorist, it’s that the Overton Window shifts mostly as a function of Will to Power. The bounds of acceptable discourse are transformed whenever intelligent and charismatic men are willing to take risks, explore new possibilities, and promote socially unacceptable ideas. That’s why I place such a premium on openness to experience, intellectual conflict, and ideological pluralism.

If there’s anything you should take away from this piece, it’s that we don’t need to agree on everything to collaborate, and the most important thing is that we figure out how to move past the polarization and gridlock of the past two decades and chart an energetic and civicminded new course for America out of the swamp we’re in.

In this treatise I’ve offered some very specific suggestions as to how we might achieve that, but I’m open to criticism and will gladly throw out any idea someone convinces me is unworkable (as did with my plan to bleach Hapas). As I’ve stated from the beginning, the Walt Right isn’t a “movement,” but rather a pluralistic idea space intended to generate creative and civicminded solutions to the issues of the day under a vitalist and pro-white framework.

To those of you who call me a grifter or a sellout or a shifty LinkedIn pick me, hopefully this assuages your concerns and shows you where I’m coming from. I would be happy to relitigate these ideas publicly on my podcast with or anyone else who is interested in debating me.

But from now on any wignat chud who refuses to engage me in good faith and just calls me a slippery mischling / degenerate / homosexual is getting blocked. I have very explicitly laid out my plans, principles, and strategic vision in this essay for everyone to see, and no longer feel the slightest need to justify myself to the folks who find my style annoying. From now on you’ll either be nice to me or you’ll earnestly debate me or I’ll permanently block you. Simple as.

To everyone else I offer my sincerest thanks for being part of this project and sticking with me through my many rebrands and our scene’s numerous internecine squabbles. We are building something truly remarkable here, and I haven’t been so energized by a community since the glory days of 2015.

We are also growing incredibly quickly, and at this rate it won’t be long before I can doxx myself and transition into doing this full time, at which point I’ll be able to make a play for external funding and can scale this thing up massively. Once I can actually hire people I’ll be able to produce a lot of exciting new content at scale, and that’s when the real fun begins. Imagine a Rebel Media or Breitbart with someone like me at the helm, and think about what that would do for the American Right.

If you want this to happen sooner (and also participate in our active and big-brained community chat), please consider becoming a paid subscriber today:

Subscribe now

Either way, thanks again for your support, and be sure to tune in to the podcast over the next few weeks for some big-ticket guests!

Yours somewhat exhaustedly,

Wally B.

***EDIT 6/17 - Read my response to Dave Greene’s objections to this piece

I recently published an article pushing back on my friend John Arcto’s view that gay marriage should be a “red line” for the modern right. I think my arguments were very strong (and they inspired even better insights from people in the comments section), so I am putting the gay marriage issue to bed for now, as it doesn’t really animate me.

That said, I don’t want to leave the topic positioned as a “pro-gay right winger” either.

I can’t negotiate effectively with future interlocuters like Dave Greene if they can’t trust me to take a stand against obviously annoying aspects of the gay movement. And I certainly can’t have them suspecting that my high-minded talk of coalition building was merely a flimsy excuse for getting TracingWoodgrains to retweet me while engagement farming hot takes on substack dot com.

W.B. is a mischievous chap from time to time, but he’s certainly no cynical grifter!

The tricky thing is that on issues like surrogacy Greene and I actually are substantively opposed purely on the merits of the issue. And I actually will be quite cross with tradcaths if I ever marry a girl with fertility issues and these guys manage to ban IVF. On many issues there simply are intractable differences, and this has caused some of my podcast alumni to question whether overtures to Greene will be of any interest to him—and even whether I am truly a man of the right!

But I’ve also gotten enough of a feel for Greene as a thinker to understand that he actually does value effective rhetoric and an intelligent understanding of metapolitics. Meanwhile (as was mentioned in my initial article), our worldviews clearly overlap more than my own does with Trace’s. I suspect Greene and I just negatively polarized each other into a pissing match due to a misunderstanding borne of mostly aesthetic differences. At the absolute least, our mutual fondness for young Arcto suggests some dispositional overlap that could serve as a basis for future collaboration.

And since Greene is the latest person to be nice to me online, I feel enormously compelled to offer some support to traditionalists, and to show how I might be a useful coalition partner to them on issues where we can find common ground.

That’s because on at least some vital issues I think we are uniquely positioned to broadside Big Gay from both directions, like in the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie:

One really annoying thing about the gay movement—and particularly the idea of “gay pride”—is that it leads to a kind of asymmetric exhibitionism.

By this I mean that whenever a gayman mentions his “boyfriend,” or holds hands with a guy in public, he sort of forces me to think about the unconventional way he fucks. He is forcing me to experience a brief subliminal image of him engaging in anal sex with a sweaty dude with a gross hairy man ass. That doesn’t bother me too much because I grew up on 4chan, but to normie chud guys it’s sort of emotional terrorism.

The typical pushback to this idea (which I hear from Lisa Simpson-type straight women who project straight woman sensibilities onto gays, and not gays themselves) is that *I* am the weirdo for making it sexual, and a gayman mentioning his boyfriend is no different from me mentioning my girlfriend. This take is obviously retarded.

Homosexuality is meaningfully distinct from heterosexuality in its biomechanics, courtship rituals, cultural norms, and so on. It is a distinct sexual subculture with its own rules. Mentioning you have a boyfriend as a dude advertises your membership in this subculture in a way some people won’t like, particularly when it’s done around old people or more innocent women, and especially around kids.

Most of the people who dislike it are low openness, high conscientiousness normie types with a strong disgust reflex. But you are also going to piss off extremely high openness and low agreeableness heterosexual degenerates like myself, because you are essentially exploiting the gray area between homolove and homosex to engage in a sort of exhibitionism in a way that straight nonconformists aren’t really allowed to.

Dave Chappelle makes this point best:

If you are a straight guy with an intense fetish, or someone who engages in lifestyle BDSM, or somebody involved in a subculture like sugaring or swinging, your participation in these behaviors is as much part of your identity as a homosexual’s gender preference is for him. But it’s considered weird creepy sex pest behavior for a straight guy to bring these things up in public. If my girlfriend calls me “daddy” in Publix it’s entirely acceptable for some old lady to furrow her brow and chastise us. We can’t hide behind “we’re just in love~” manipulations of gullible straight women.

And it really is HR liberal straight women who object to this comparison in practice. Actual gay guys tend to be high openness sorts who understand the similarity and will typically agree with me. They realize that them saying “my boyfriend” isn’t the same as me saying “my girlfriend,” but is more comparable to me saying “my sugar baby” or “my slave” or “my little” or “daddy’s princess” or some shit. It turns heads.

When a guy says “my girlfriend” he isn’t offering any new information about himself that will make your mental model of him diverge from your model of the statistically average male. But saying “my boyfriend” or “daddy’s princess” advertises unabashed sexual nonconformity in a way that some people will find weird or groace, and that is why both I and the gayman are obligated to be more circumspect in our dealings with normies (particularly in family settings) than a sexual conformist.

Not everyone has to know how we fuck—especially more conservative types. And it shouldn’t even come up around old people or kids as a matter of simple courtesy.

And to be fair, a lot of gays are pretty private about it when operating in more conservative ecologies. These types understand the practical need to mask / code switch in mixed company, and might say this asymmetry works in my favor, as it is trivial for me and my girlfriend to present as conventional vanilla heterosexuals. A more conservative / monogamous gayman would probably LOVE to have my problem.

The thing is I find a lot of aspects of mainstream hetero dating culture just as repulsive as the idea of taking it up the ass. The way most straight men act around their girlfriend in public these days is incredibly neutered and off-putting, as is the casual acceptance of dating apps like Tinder, which are structurally designed for ghey guise and simply double the number of incels when adopted by straights.

I don’t want to go along with the “happy wife, happy life” culture of mainstream heterosexuality. It very much feels like pretending to be gay. I find it onerous and grating when I answer for my girlfriend in public and some hatched-faced virago snaps “I was talking to her!” But I don’t chimp out in these situations because I am a well-socialized and functional participant in modern civilization and I have made my peace with the practical need to mask in mixed company.

This makes it incredibly annoying to encounter the type of gay who aggressively demands the right to leave the closet but never thinks to advocate for nonconformist straight men. It’s true these types usually don’t go after us in the manner of incels / chuds / Lisa Simpson girls, but they seldom use their power and special protections to advocate for us in the way we advocated for them back in the 70s and 80s.

That feels like betrayal.

Either we all get to leave the closet together, or none of us should be allowed to.

And if you won’t aggressively have my back when radfems call me a rapist for dating a 23 year old, don’t expect any support from me if guys like Greene or Arcto find traction trying to push you back into the closet.

If anything I’ll be pulling you back in myself.

It seems my talented young friend John Arcto has publicly broken with me over the dreaded Homo Question. You can read his article here, and I strongly recommend that all of you do so—mostly because Arcto dedicates a few paragraphs in the first half to explaining how much of a Chad I am, and it’s crucial that you guys internalize this.

Anyway, before I address the meat and potatoes of Arcto’s argument about gay and homosexual stuff, I’d like to push back a bit on how this piece characterizes my work.

At the end of the day I wouldn’t say that Rachel Haywire and I are part of the same precise faction right now. She and I are good friends, fellow travelers, and occasional collaborators—and we are both autistes who love AI art—but she is also far more of a hipster / aesthete / philosopher than I am, and is much less interested in democratic policy debate. Meanwhile, I’m still a lot more identitarian than her, probably more libertine, and more interested in building out exoteric material power structures.

Now, I’m certainly not offended to be grouped together with Rachel. But I think John is displaying a blindspot here, because like all clever young men developing heuristics for understanding a messy and chaotic world, Arcto really likes to categorize things.

…so much so, in fact, that it’s become his claim to fame! John’s most prominent work here on Substack is his excellent Factions of the Rightosphere series, which catalogs in painstaking detail the history, characteristics, and internecine squabbles of various right-wing subcultures. These articles are a superb resource for anyone new to these circles—especially younger Zoomers and Gen Alpha kids just getting into politics.

John’s archivist impulse makes great sense given that he came of age and joined the online intellectual right during a time of tremendous cultural diffusion. Ever since Charlottesville, the trend in our circles has been in the direction of greater differentiation and specialization. Most figures in the online right have become intellectual nomads, eschewing big tents and complex status hierarchies for comfy self-selected bubbles. When trying to understand such an ecology—particularly as a Zoomer—it makes perfect sense to “pattern match” to whatever extent possible, and thereby impose at least some order on an increasingly anarchic thoughtscape.

And that is the mindset under which Arcto groups me and Haywire together, because it’s absolutely true that she and I share some superficial commonalities, in that we’re both focused on cultivating a rightist ethic among the “right” sort of people:

As mentioned, this space eludes naming as of present. Walt Bismarck stubbornly stuck to the name ‘Alt-Right 2.0’ for a while, believing that ‘Alt’ captured a large part of what the old Alt-Right had been before it became synonymous with Neo-Nazism, though he soon gave up, and now uses the humorous name ‘Walt Right’ to describe himself and his circle. Rachel Haywire likes to call herself ‘Art Right’, similar sounding to ‘Alt’ whilst separating it from White Nationalism, and emphasising the artistic character of the movement, that Walt Bismarck characterised the early Alt-Right of having. Whilst they do have their own circles, there is some crossover, Walt Bismarck did show up for one of Haywire’s Salons that I was also in attendance of.

Arcto frames the Haywire / Bismarck impulse as a specific desire to build right wing “Elite Human Capital” (or EHC, hence the moniker “EHC Right”) by attracting more intelligent / honest / creative people into the movement.

Now obviously Rachel and I both want to do this. But as John himself notes, so does he. And so does Nathan Cofnas. And Scott Greer. And Richard Hanania. And when I appeared on Richard Spencer’s podcast a few months ago, he too endorsed this impulse, as did my fellow guest and future WRP contributor Daniella Pentsak.

I’m pretty sure you’d have the damndest time finding a single rightist on Substack who’d oppose this project. If anyone ever does it’ll probably be me breaking up a circlejerk!

So the more I think about it, the more I suspect that the commonality Arcto had identified between us was something superficially very similar to a desire for EHC, but substantially quite different. That’s because our actual overlap is an enthusiasm for intellectual salons, which itself stems from particular temperamental qualities.

Rachel and I each march to the beat of our own drum. We’re passionate and strong-willed people who don’t like being pushed in any direction we find disagreeable. That means neither of us neatly aligns with any particular subculture. More happily, it also means we’re both very good at talking to people with different perspectives from our own, and are fascinated by novel and innovative ideas. That’s what makes Rachel such an effective salon host, and has given her such an extensive circle on Substack.

It is also why my own podcast Walt Right Perspectives has proven so successful and intellectually generative over the past few months.

At this juncture I’ll stop speaking for Rachel and purely discuss the Walt Right.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that the format of my show goes hand in hand with my metapolitical philosophy. I don’t approach politics in an “ideological” way like most people do, because I don’t really have fixed, object-level views on most issues.

Instead I proceed from three fundamental principles:

• Politics is circumstantial. Your specific policy preferences (and prioritization thereof) will usually change with your own material situation, as well as shifting identarian factors like age and marital status. A lot of someone’s views will also change based on largely unpredictable factors like macroeconomic conditions, foreign wars, variations in climate patterns, and technological breakthroughs.

• Politics is coalitional and transactional. In any society, people need to coalesce into interest groups / factions / political parties to exert any influence over the state. In practice, this requires lots of backroom transactional horse trading between various subfactions to secure a common platform generally acceptable to all groups. Then in the wider body politic the same transactional horse trading occurs between coalitions, which break apart all the time whenever the opposing side successfully employs a wedge issue or tactics like triangulation. When this coalition is a political party it is typically called a “realignment.”

• Politics is personal. That means a tremendous amount depends on messy and unpredictable human factors. New and exciting doors are opened when you can rely on the administrative competence of a Mitch McConnell, or the preternatural charisma of a Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, personal honor is incredibly significant, because you can’t get anything done in politics if nobody trusts your word. And in this context honor also means reciprocity—you need to punish people who hurt you or betray you and reward people who help you. This creates an effective incentive structure to undergird the rules of political gamesmanship.

Note that all of these principles are metapolitical, not political!

I do not have any doctrinaire object-level political philosophy that proceeds syllogistically from first principles. That is why I am not a “principled” advocate of any ideology like white nationalism, libertarianism, or Catholic integralism. It is likewise why I reject such ideologies as mostly retarded and unworkable.

No ideology gives you literally all the tools you need to handle the challenges of a dynamic world. I therefore deem it essential to build a flexible coalition of agentic and high openness people from all ideologies and backgrounds who can respond with agility and flexibility to new conditions on the ground, while providing key insights that others in the coalition might miss about the practical nuances of any given situation.

I will freely admit I’m often pulled in different directions by countervailing moral intuitions and personal affiliations. Sometimes I put on a libertarian hat, sometimes I put on an identitarian hat, and sometimes I am motivated chiefly by loyalty and reciprocity. But I never oscillate randomly or by blind sentiment—I draw from my intuitions very carefully, using heuristics that have proven reliable in the past.

My good friend and collaborator Philippe M. did a fantastic job fleshing out my metapolitics and contrasting it with Hanania’s more ideological approach as follows:

Unfortunately, not everyone on the right properly understands this mindset. Many see a Burkean / Scrutonian approach as shifty, unreliable, or devoid of principles. And while John himself certainly doesn’t hold this view, it appears from all available evidence that his good friend Dave Greene (AKA The Distributist) very much does.

This is salient because in this piece John calls me out for being too hard on Greene in a comment I posted on ecks dot com. But had he paid closer attention to the wider situation at play, I think he’d better understand the point I was making here.

Several weeks ago I published an article called Jeb Bush Was Right.

Despite the provocative title, this was an introspective piece that mostly laments the part I played in eroding the country’s norms of civicmindedness and truth-telling as a fairly prominent Trump supporter back in 2015:

Trump’s a moron in a lot of respects, but there’s no one on the planet more talented when it comes to scamming resentful idiots at scale. He instinctively knows how to weaponize the friend-enemy distinction like no one else.

Crucially, he understands that people who paint themselves as cynical outsiders are usually the most credulous and gullible of all when you show them a little love. Meanwhile, it’s easy to exploit the arrogance of weird nerds who feel unappreciated by other elites. Guys like that are always itching to let the fox in the henhouse.

And that’s how Trump bamboozled a movement of intelligent and disagreeable men into becoming his staunchest cultural vanguard, while agitating against their own interests to empower a mob of cynical grifters and resentful, anti-intellectual yokels.

This sentiment very obviously makes perfect sense in the context of a more situational and transactional politics based around good faith coalition-building and personal honor. But it doesn’t make sense if you are simply an inflexible rightist ideologue—to such men it will come off as cravenly cucking or cynical engagement farming.

And sometimes it even provokes conspiratorial insinuations about your motives:

When I first saw this my initial reaction was confusion.

To this date I have never consumed any of Greene’s content, but lots of people I respect have emphatically recommended him on various occasions.

So surely this man is worth engaging with. Right?

Here Greene is simply revealing himself to be painfully low in openness to experience. He doesn’t respect the fact that saying something novel or provocative will often allow you to approach an issue from a more oblique high-leverage angle that enables you to win considerably more hearts and minds over to your cause.

See my article Pro-Lifers are Murdering Babies for a practical example of this.

At any rate, I’m not sure how anyone who actually listens to the Richards on a regular basis could deny that these are both insanely principled men. They’re undeniably pragmatic in advancing their principles, and both of them have a massive contrarian streak, but within the context of their respective worldviews, such impulses are entirely legitimate (if not explicitly lauded as anti-authoritarian / Faustian).

But tradcaths—much like non-Hananiac libertarians and non-Spencerite WNs—have a hard time properly understanding rhetoric and metapolitics. Even the high IQ ones like Greene will demand you mirror their rigid / syllogistic approach to debate while chuddishly stigmatizing rhetorical creativity, creating a shallow and simplistically masculine communicative framework that is mogged by libtard mean girls every day.

Being unfamiliar with Mr. Greene—but all too aware of this tendency—I attempted to humor his last response in an earnest / formalist way, sending him an article where I explain the exact nature of my rightist politics in a relatively straightforward fashion.

Naturally this produced a very bitchy and supercilious response

Greene chose not to respond after this, and ultimately disengaged. But this exchange left a serious impact on me, and was a central motivating factor in writing my essay Conservatives Suck at Art, where I castigate the right for its chuddish bigotry:

…to a certain type of conservative mind my style comes off as shifty slimy sophistry. They have an instinctive aversion to rhetorical provocation, and think of posts like this as “engagement farming” because, again, they don’t understand art. They don’t see you as trustworthy or “serious” unless you write in a very boring and direct way.

They obsess over tensions in your worldview because they don’t have the emotional intelligence to see the world as a messy and complicated place that’s inescapably contradictory and makes hypocrites of us all. To these guys the only legitimate approach to political debate is stoically presenting your opinions as a straightforward “platform” or “ideology” with perfectly Kantian internal coherence.

This mindset is frankly retarded.

Having fixed views on object-level issues is basically just LARPing. Nobody of consequence thinks this way in practice, and virtually nothing in politics gets done like this. You will always refine and pivot your exact positions based on edge cases, in accordance with changing macroeconomic / technological / geopolitical conditions, or in response to coalitional pressures.

How I feel about trade, immigration, monetary, or foreign policy is hugely circumstantial, so I don’t feel any pressing need to write some elaborate general treatise explaining my views on all these things. I can just align directionally with subject matter experts in my coalition where appropriate, and instead focus my energies on more engaging topics where I have something interesting to say.

Greene and I wouldn’t cross paths again until just a few days ago, when he got into a Twitter confrontation over surrogacy with TracingWoodgrains, the “gay ex-Mormon furry” who brought me back as an eceleb and publicly clashed with me on a rationalist podcast before joining me for a much less adversarial discussion on my own pod.

Trace and I can hardly be called allies, and just in terms of object-level policies I’d assume that I overlap with him a lot less than I do with Dave Greene. But I also trust him infinitely more, and that type of personal honor has become enormously salient to me, because you simply can’t form a coalition with someone you don’t trust.

That’s why I left that comment to which Arcto objected so vigorously:

To put it plainly, Trace has always treated me fairly—especially when the two of us were at odds—and because of that I have absolute conviction in his personal character.

As of now, Greene inspires no such confidence. Others vouch for him, and that means something, but in communications with me he has been dismissive and bigoted.

That matters because a central element of transactional politics is reciprocity. You need to create a favorable incentive structure by punishing people for treating you poorly and sticking by people who deal with you in good faith.

In this case the gay centrist furry has consistently like a valorous knight, while the hard right trad Catholic has acted like a pedantic menopausal schoolmarm. And in coalitional politics a 30% overlap you trust 100% is worth infinitely more than a 60% overlap you don’t trust at all.

Anyway, I really mean what I said in the above comment, and in this recent addendum:

Generally speaking, I’m skeptical that anything good can come from empowering and allying with religious extremists like Dave Greene.

Don’t get it twisted—I’ll absolutely work with religious moderates and secular people more socially conservative than myself. There are, in fact, plenty of issues (porn, Tinder, female sexual agency…) where I have much more socially conservative instincts than most people, and am very interested in substantially reforming society.

But my arguments to such ends are always pitched in entirely secular, transactional, and civicminded language designed primarily to appeal to the reader’s rational self-interest. To me this is the only remotely tenable path for socially conservative rhetoric.

The moment you start weaponizing man’s disgust impulse is the moment you lose me.

But perhaps Arcto’s right. Maybe I misjudged Dave.

Maybe I simply caught him on a bad day, and he’s normally as reasonable and sophisticated a thinker as John claims. I had some reason to think this at first, because after our exchange on Twitter, I was able to get Dave momentarily interested in hashing out our disagreement on my pod.

Sadly, even then he maintained that same bitchy and chuddish attitude:

You get the idea. We took it to the DMs, and currently the discussion logistics are in his court. And I was initially excited about him coming on my pod to clear the air!

But then today I saw this little gem…

It’s quite ironic that such an avowedly “trad” figure would so shamelessly traffic in gossip and conspiratorial innuendo like a teenage girl. Whenever I engage Dave in a manly and straightforward way, he tosses some snark my way, quietly retreats, then strikes at me from the shadows. I hope John is paying close attention to this behavior.

As for Dave Greene himself, all I’ll say is he should take a page from the gay furry’s book and engage me like a man. But sadly, to my chagrin, it’s not easy meeting Greene!

Anyway, that’s quite enough vacuous e-drama for now.

The rest of this essay will be dedicated entirely to grappling with the perennially divisive Homo Question in light of the transactional and coalitional approach to politics outlined more thoroughly above.

I’m going to organize my thoughts numerically, both to impose some space constraint on myself and to make it easier for Arcto et al to respond to specific points.

I will begin by discussing my metapolitical framing and will then end by clarifying my own sensibilities on homosexuality.

1. I first want to emphasize full-throatedly that The Walt Right is not a “movement,” nor does it belong to any “political faction” as the term is understood by our tea-drinking Zoomer friend. A movement requires an emergent political impulse (i.e. “elect Trump”) that can serve as a kind of “north star” to A) direct and consolidate energy; and B) motivate diverse coalition partners to temporarily put their pet issues aside for the sake of compromise in support of a shared objective. No such impulse currently exists on the intellectual right, so even trying to mobilize such a “movement” would be quite silly at this juncture.

2. The Walt Right is best understood as a salon aspiring to be a scene aspiring to become a subculture. We are intractably “right wing” insofar as our norms inherently promote differentiation, vitality, and productive conflict, but I am always more than happy to speak with interesting leftists and centrists. As such, there is no ideological litmus test for participation in this community, and this will remain the case in perpetuity. I have zero interest in leading any organization that curtails the discourse space with “red lines” or requires “gatekeeping its left-flank” (to use Arcto’s terminology). I am optimizing for cross-pollination.

3. The Walt Right is not interested in concrete, object-level political goals. To the extent we’ll pursue any goals as a community, they’ll be metapolitical and cultural—i.e. mainstreaming discussion of a thorny and controversial topic; devising a creative “line” to take that stimulates productive discussion; or creating a new vocabulary to facilitate transactional coalition-building between external factions. These efforts will generally appear nonpartisan and broadly civicminded.

4. The Walt Right must be a welcoming and convivial space to partake in new kinds of discussions that probe the edges of acceptable discourse under safe and controlled conditions. This is easily achieved (at least in the early stages of community building), as our group is functionally selected for sky-high openness to experience, while my marketing tactics often employ abrasive low resolution filters that scare away people who won’t fit in.

5. The basic teleology of (4) is to create a giant “intellectual pool” we all can swim around in. Inside this pool restrictive speech norms collapse and the visceral friend-enemy distinction of normie life vanishes, which lets us enter into an exciting new realm of possibilities for both competition and cooperation.

6. At any moment during a swim, you are free to leave the pool and return to the sort of dry-land, object-level politics Arcto is discussing in his article. We all have our own platforms here on Substack, and that is the realm where you can go on to form a movement, join a faction, maintain a high stakes friend-enemy distinction, maintain your red lines etc. But nothing like this is going to involve me or any Walt Right platforms anytime soon, and I won’t tolerate consensus-building behavior in any of the spaces I directly control.

7. Within the pool, swimmers are obviously allowed (and even encouraged) to splash at each other and play-fight, but there are certain courtesy norms expected of everyone. For instance, you can’t just drown someone, or throw them back onto dry land. You also aren’t allowed to pee in the pool, i.e. by referring to surrogacy as “child trafficking” or something. Arcto obviously has every right to do that here because he’s on his own platform, but I don’t want that kind of hysterical language on anything in *my* world. And I’d say exactly the same thing about radfems calling prostitution rape or MRAs calling circumcision baby mutilation.

8. Most courtesy norms should remain uncodified. This isn’t Reddit. But one exception to give autists a comfy handrail is that in Walt Right spaces you must simply avoid anyone whose identity, beliefs, or behaviors cross your own “red lines.” And as a corollary, you also need to preserve social harmony by not provoking people with something you know crosses a “red line” for them. This has to be a two-way street.

9. As The Walt Right scales and our community grows more diverse, (8) will become increasingly important, because a sufficiently large community will have people offended by everything and capable of offending in every way. This is the first internal division we’ve faced as a distinct community, but having come out of the Alt Right, I recall MANY such internecine struggles during our 2015-2016 heyday. We fought over Based Jews, gays, trans people, religion, off-white proto-Tate PUA types like Roosh… and I’m not interested in my platform becoming a venue for that kind of shit. So by all means draw whatever red lines you want yourself, but don’t make them my problem or it will distract from our broader mission.

   ---

   Shifting gears now to a more object-level analysis of gay issues outside the Walt Right’s metapolitical explorations…

10. In my experience, the average urban hetero guy in this country has “barstool conservative” sensibilities. He is moderately heteronormative and casually homophobic, but also pro-choice and vaguely supportive of gay marriage. He wouldn’t be remotely comfortable going back to a 1995 or even 2008 attitude towards gays—this is basically my own sensibility these days.

11. Meanwhile, a lot of masculine / conservative straight guys really don’t want to have to think about homosexuality too much. By raising the salience of the issue you will engender some moderate resentment among them that is counterproductive and could be channeled in a much worse woke direction.

12. Young modern women are ferociously protective of male gays, and any perceived action against them (these days gay marriage is a non-issue so it will be surrogacy etc.) threatens to provoke a huge thermostatic backlash against the GOP and broader social conservatism in young women.

13. Practically speaking, gay marriage is a “red line” for an incredibly small proportion of the modern straight population. It’s just a weird thing for anyone who isn’t very religious to care about from an avowedly restrictionist direction. Yes, that means everyone kind of thinks of Obama circa 2008 as fascist—they are simply comfortable with that conclusion.

14. John specifically advocates “marriage privatization” as an interim step, but I don’t see any demand for this policy, and it would create a lot of weird gray areas around property, alimony, etc. You’d also run into PR issues with it being so libertarian and incel-coded that nobody wants to admit they like the policy.

15. To the extent there exists any popular sentiment against gay marriage in the West today, it is either A) associated mostly with the trans movement, and would disappear alongside the most odious aspects of trans ideology; or B) associated with an extreme religious fanaticism that wouldn’t be satisfied with merely driving gays back into the closet, and would likely restrict heterosexual behavior as well.

16. John Arcto is in kind of a unique position, because he specifically wants to return to a sort of 1990s sexual ecology that is extremely tolerant of straight promiscuity but rolls back gay marriage and adoption / surrogacy. This is an incredibly rare pepe belief system, but I’m not at all unsympathetic to it. Hell, if I were Kim Jong Un, I’d embrace Arctoite sensibilities with gusto. Unfortunately I don’t have absolute power. But in practice we almost always observe that when a state attempts to roll back social progress it is very hard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Think Iran and Afghanistan, Victorian England, etc.

17. In any diverse coalitional society, you will only be able to draw support for a rollback from fanatical Christians / Muslims, and if those guys win they’re absolutely gonna start making it illegal to “fornicate” with your girlfriend. This isn’t idle speculation either, trads very explicitly say they want this to be illegal, and many think it’s just as bad as gay shit (if not worse because straight promiscuity is “contaminating” marriageable women—you need to be incredibly careful around those incel types). I don’t want to empower these guys one iota. In fact, I quite like having gays around as a “buffer” between me and them.

18. John writes:

    And I think the real danger of this EHC Right is that it becomes an ‘IDW 2.0’, or to be more generous ‘IDW with HBD mixed in’. It simply absorbs all those disaffected liberals who have been pushed out of their own side, but have not repudiated their former positions. They still take the left’s previous advances and assumptions for granted, and worse, start getting entitled and aggressive when they realise that certain people still haven’t forgotten what those things led to.

    The thing is John also takes plenty of the left’s previous advances / assumptions for granted. He just wants to arbitrarily stop them at 1992. Amish instinct!

19. When you use “kidnapping” / “human trafficking” language to describe surrogacy situations you risk turning people against you in the same way vegans do when they say “meat is murder”. Adopting an unconventional nomenclature is best done internally. Also you make it personal on a level that really isn’t doing you any favors. Look, I have my differences with Trace, and I am not entirely comfortable with surrogacy and gay adoption myself… but putting it in these very extreme terms creates a vibe where it feels like you’re accusing Trace of something much worse. As someone personally loyal to him, I suggest you take a different approach.

20. John says the following:

    Walt is choosing to buy into the propaganda that forces an equal standard between heterosexuality and ‘gay marriage’. But just a simple look at history shows that heterosexuality promiscuity whilst homosexuality was not given equal standing has been far more common than the reverse, it was the norm from 1960 to around 2008. It may be an uncommon view in the Anglosphere now, but doesn’t mean my view is an uncommon view historically. It is still a normal view in places like Russia, which is relatively secular and not very religious though very heteronormative.

More like 1970 to 2005. And hell, even this period was complicated by sex negative feminism and political lesbianism, the AIDS crisis, etc. And even then, it only lasted a generation, really—compared to the hundreds of years of stigmatized hetero promiscuity before this period, and the millennia of weird gay shit that are likely before us, this beautiful era you and I perceive as a Golden Age was a veritable blip!

Anyway, I don’t think Russia is a good counterexample, they are just a few decades behind the West because of communism. These days Poland etc. is already modernizing, and Russia won’t be that far behind.

21. As mentioned earlier, I have very heteronormative priors and don’t myself feel comfortable with gay adoption / surrogacy. But am I going to myself expend political capital to end this thing? Obviously not.

    There are a lot of gay parents who ostensibly meet some threshold where trying to stop this is simply no longer attractive or “worth it.” The juice isn’t worth the squeeze, because pushing back at the level Arcto demands would require you to become a single issue voter who annoys people by demanding they pick an insanely personal fight with their gay friends.

    

22. Gay guys are disproportionately very powerful / wealthy / competent. Making an enemy of them is like making an enemy of Jews. It just puts you ten spaces behind from the very start. And just like with Jews, taking such a stance will horribly alienate even most high status straight people, who have lots of gay friends.

23. Even as a fairly conservative straight guy, I have a lot of gay guys who support my various projects or help me make money in various ways. These dudes are smart, conscientious, and agentic. Complicating this is going to make people choose between you and their gay friends / business associates, and you really don’t want to push people into that sort of harsh ultimatum, especially as a young man still accumulating power and influence in the world.

24. By saying things like “I consider gay marriage an absolute litmus test” Arcto is simply ghettoizing himself. You only impose a litmus test when you have power.

25. He is also taking a very autistic / formalist stance that overstates how much most straight guys buy into any of this stuff. Most of the time you say what you need to in order to be polite / empathetic, and then you move on. You can easily support a much more gender essentialist / heteronormative society without adopting such a radical posture against our current institutions that functionally makes you an enemy of normal society (plus the vast majority of elites). It would be extremely retarded and self-sabotaging to force people into making these sorts of decisions while you are still a tiny minority and there is literally no need to force the issue.

Anyway I could go on, but you get the drift… Ultimately I don’t care that much about the gay issue, and never really have, so I want to talk about something else now.

If Arcto wants to respond to this, I’m sure a gay dude can take the issue up so I can focus on other topics. But both factions must keep this outside the Walt Right from now on, or if they discuss it in my spaces must talk like dispassionate autistic robots.

I won’t let either side of this debate turn it into a wedge issue that unnecessarily divides my community and compromises an essential metapolitical project for literally no reason—at this point the stakes are simply too high

Anyway, throw me a sub if you haven’t, and stand by for some truly amazing episodes of Walt Right Perspectives over the coming days.

For the past eight years one of my occasional hobbies has been rewatching YouTube clips from the 2016 GOP primary debates. These debates still hold a lot of resonance for me emotionally, as I watched virtually all of them live as a fervent Trump supporter. It’s a lot of fun to recall how energized and inspired I felt whenever our “God-King” landed a superbly timed insult against one of his many rivals.

One of the most memorable dynamics from these debates was the rivalry between Trump and Jeb Bush, who’d started the race as GOP frontrunner and then quickly collapsed as other neocons entered the race and Trump sucked up all media oxygen. Despite this humiliating decline, for much of 2015 Jeb acted as Trump’s chief nemesis in the race, and to my mind this played a crucial role in Trump’s rise.

One reason for this is that attacking Jeb let Trump stay in the spotlight and gradually endear himself to Republican voters while waiting out more marginal rivals. It also let him play nice with more formidable candidates like Ted Cruz, a former debate champion and Tea Party darling who actually could have wounded Trump in the early stages of the race. It was only just before the Iowa caucuses that Trump fully engaged Cruz, and by that point the Trump Train was unstoppable (despite some altogether impressive ratfucking from the Cruz Campaign later on).

More crucially, Bush’s lineage and porcine physiognomy made him the perfect embodiment of everything MAGA opposed, and this let Trump treat him as a kind of electoral piñata. Whenever Trump whacked Jeb! good he would go up in the polls because it felt like a victory for everyone opposed to the hated neocon establishment.

It was also consistently hilarious, and that’s where a serious danger emerged—eventually Jeb!-punching became so fun and such a fixture of beloved meme content that all lingering doubts about Trump’s life of grifting and con artistry were tossed aside. Before long even the most purity spiraling NS types in the Alt Right started to conveniently ignore the parts of Trump’s worldview that obviously clashed with their own, such as his avowed Zionism and hostility to Iran. It was just too much fun to indulge in anti-Jeb memes.

Trump clearly knew what he was doing here. He’d known for years about the base’s ferocious hatred for the neocons. I suspect he took one look at Jeb and saw a schlubby, pink-cheeked ticket to the White House. He realized that by bullying Jeb on national television he could scam bunch of angry libertarians and protectionist midwesterners into ignoring a parade’s worth of red flags and thinking he was on their side.

Trump’s a moron in a lot of respects, but there’s no one on the planet more talented when it comes to scamming resentful idiots at scale. He instinctively knows how to weaponize the friend-enemy distinction like no one else.

Crucially, he understands that people who paint themselves as cynical outsiders are usually the most credulous and gullible of all when you show them a little love. Meanwhile, it’s easy to exploit the arrogance of weird nerds who feel unappreciated by other elites. Guys like that are always itching to let the fox in the henhouse.

And that’s how Trump bamboozled a movement of intelligent and disagreeable men into becoming his staunchest cultural vanguard, while agitating against their own interests to empower a mob of cynical grifters and resentful, anti-intellectual yokels.

Recently I was watching one of the most famous exchanges between Jeb and Trump, and started to feel a deep pit in my stomach.

You have almost certainly seen it—it’s when Jeb called Trump a “chaos candidate.”

The surface-level analysis of this clip is that Bush was simply being a square—that he was hopelessly out of touch for not realizing that associating Trump with chaos just made him sound cool. This is the take I maintained for a long time.

But I recently watched the film Lord of the Flies, and couldn’t help but notice that Jeb’s tirade against Trump almost perfectly resembles Piggy’s impassioned plea for the other boys to act civilized before he is brutally killed by antagonist Jack Merridew:

As I dwelled on this I came to understand the horrifying truth behind Jeb’s words.

Everything Bush predicted has happened. Trump has unleashed into American politics the same primal savagery that Jack Merridew tapped into. A once understandable populist rage has transformed into vulgar epistemic nihilism and a total disregard for civicmindedness. MAGA is all prole resentment at the bottom and cynical grifting at the top.

When Bush called Trump the “chaos candidate,” he thought he was speaking to an audience of mature adults who understood that chaos is bad and should generally be avoided. He didn’t realize the GOP electorate at that time felt so suppressed and disenfranchised by elites that they’d become ferociously hungry for chaos.

This was doubly true for the Alt Right, most of whom were Millennials born and raised in an era where chaos was “in”. For our cohort, chaos was associated with a virile, ambitious, and youthful masculinity—Tony Hawk and Kurt Cobain and T.J. Detweiler. For us chaos gave roughly the same vibes as the Rocket Power theme song.

At the time we were too young to understand that in the real world chaos is never cool. Chaos does not mean extreme sports or a punk rock concert or even a dissident intellectual movement. All of these things are successful because they sufficiently ordered to very deliberately create a glamorous but highly synthetic image of chaos, or alternatively because they are governed by an emergent, implicit, and spontaneous order with firm rules that enable participants to expel nonconformists.

Real chaos is never glamorous, and doesn’t have an emergent order. You can’t negotiate with chaos, because it never keeps its promises. Real chaos means bleak uncaring randomness. It means senseless and arbitrary cruelty. It means rule not by the strongest, but by those with the least to lose. It means a life of slavery to appetite and sentiment and impulse, undirected by any higher ideals.

Real chaos is the junkie suffocating on her own vomit as she’s tossed in a lonely ditch off the interstate. Real chaos is the backwoods troglodyte impregnating his obese paraplegic mother in a bed reeking of sweat and shit and piss. Real chaos is the sadist who breaks into your home and rapes your wife before drowning you in the toilet.

Real chaos is the narcissistic conman sexualizing his daughter on national television:

I’m still shocked Trump got away with this. It has a “hiding in plain sight” vibe to it.

Honestly if I were Jeb I would have leaned into this more. Every debate he should have said Trump wants to fuck his daughter. Just don’t shut up about it, say it whenever they ask you a question, no matter the topic.

“Mr. Bush, how are you going to contain Iran?”

“Excellent question, but let me start by reminding everyone that Trump wants to date his daughter. Anyway…”

If he did this relentlessly I think it might have worked, but of course Jeb was a pampered aristocrat, and couldn’t lower himself to something like this.

As a young unmarried guy of a disagreeable and novelty-seeking disposition, I generally enjoy the “aesthetics of chaos.” I like the vibes of pirates and rebels and revolutionaries and dissidents.

But I now realize that what I actually value is a decentralized and multipolar power structure that makes room for pluralism and ordered disruption. The disruptors need to agree to play by certain rules and must be amenable to good faith negotiation, otherwise they’re just goblins outside the national friend-enemy distinction.

You don’t want to give power to the Jebs and Piggies of the world or they’ll turn society into a corrupt and stultifying longhouse. But you likewise need to swat down Trump / Jack types the moment they emerge and start riling plebs into primal chaos, or else you open the door for vacuous figures like Boebert / MTG to emerge.

It’s too late to put The Beast back in its cage at this point—we can only wait for MAGA to tire itself out. That’s why I’ll be voting Trump this November despite my intense hatred for the man. At this point we simply need him out of politics ASAP.

But as we build a more civicminded right, it’s crucial to start thinking about how we can establish the infrastructure and intellectual / emotional defense mechanisms to ensure this never happens again.

Many people have reached out to me recently suggesting that instead of building an Alt Right 2.0 it would be better and more accurate to call myself “Alt Center”.

This is an understandable thought. Most of my essays here on Substack have taken a stance in opposition to conservative sensibilities and today’s GOP. I was also brought back to relevance by Richard Hanania, who identifies with the centrist label. He’s obviously the major figure I’m closest to in ideology and temperament, so it’s not surprising people would likewise classify me as centrist.

But I am still very much a man of the right, and probably always will be. I am just as right wing as I am alternative—each of these labels is meaningful and indispensable.

AR2 is currently aligned almost perfectly with Hanania Thought because we have precisely the same goals, enemies, and coalitional rivals in the short to medium term. But his long term focus is different from mine, and in a few years I suspect he and I will disagree on many things, because I am broadly to his right.

But what does it mean to be right wing? And how can someone identify with that label when he’s very openly a degenerate urbanite who disparages Middle America?

Those are the questions I’ll answer in this essay.

Lots of people try to sound smart by saying the right vs. left distinction is meaningless. This is obviously a bad take. This binary has stuck around so long for a very good reason: it has tremendous explanatory and predictive power.

You can generally tell from someone’s face and clothes and speech patterns whether they fall on the left or the right, and once you know that, you can generally predict how they feel about a whole host of issues.

It is certainly highly contextual—someone far right today would be far left in medieval France, and a Californian rightist might be a Texan leftist—but so is literally any other system of classification. Within a fixed political ecology you can generally compare two people and determine who is more right or more left.

In the context of American politics I am definitely to the right of 90% of people, because I believe the following things are true.

Hierarchy is inevitable and mostly good

Some people are naturally a lot more capable than others. IQ plays a big role in this, but so does individual agency (how much control you have over your actions) and vitality (how much energy / verve you have to accomplish challenging things).

Differences in ability will inevitably lead to enormous inequality in all dimensions of observable human success, including power, fame, money, and sexual access. But this inequality also can stem from good vs. bad luck at the individual level, as well as from simple nepotism or ingroup bias, and most people have the intuition that people who benefit from luck or bias shouldn’t get to lord their status over others.

The problem is that it’s practically impossible to disaggregate merited from unmerited achievement, because everyone’s road to success is inevitably a conglomeration of talent / hard work, luck, and connections. But everyone is biased, and the successful “natural elite” will put more weight on the first factor, while unlucky and talentless losers will put more weight on the last two. This creates resentment and envy among the proles and contempt in the elite. And it’s from this dynamic that the left-right binary emerges.

The leftist view is that social, political, and economic inequalities should be compressed as much as possible—usually through coercive state action. The idea is that the state can and should reduce “power asymmetries” (i.e. protect marginalized groups from exploitation by the powerful) by putting its thumb on the scale.

The rightist view is that all power structures necessarily create elites, but any egalitarian state leveling action can only create a “shadow elite” of bureaucrats, DEI apparatchiks, academics, journalists, “fact checkers,” and “mental health experts.” The rightist sees these shadow elites as far less meritorious and virtuous than their predecessors, and a lot more dangerous because they aren’t honest and straightforward about their desire for power. He therefore seeks to minimize the power of this “shadow elite” and maximize the influence of the “natural elite”.

In other words, hierarchy is inevitable, but you can only get a virtuous elite if you create a formalist and explicit power structure where everyone can pursue his self-interest in an honest and straightforward and predictable way that at scale benefits the collective (Smith’s “invisible hand”). To most modern rightists, that power structure looks like an orderly and competently governed free market.

Of course, it’s easy to be right wing until you’re too poor or weak to participate in the elite coalition and are yourself marginalized. If left unchecked, the natural elite have a tendency to keep shrinking everyone else’s share of the pie, and will start kicking out weaker coalition partners until they go too far and provoke a leveling backlash. This is what happened during the Gilded Age, ancien régime France, and in the late Roman Republic—the extreme fat cats overreached and alienated too many lower status elites, and ended up much worse off for it.

This isn’t as possible nowadays, as industrialization and mass literacy / enfranchisement have left most rightist parties catering to the petit bourgeoisie instead of capitalists or aristocrats. America in particular is so wealthy (and culturally polarized) that both parties now cater to different factions of the “mass affluent” top quartile—the GOP to small business owners and the Dems to suburban professionals. There isn’t really a politically credible appetite for leftism in America.

But to the extent there is one, it is illegitimate and destructive and needs to be squashed. America is a society that makes it enormously easy to become wealthy and successful if you just show up and try. This is a country positively brimming with wealth from sea to shining sea.

For instance, I know a girl in her early twenties who made $70k last year cleaning houses and dogsitting for rich people. Anyone who wants to increase her taxes is eternally my enemy. This is a chubby Mexican girl who definitely wasn’t coasting off her looks, and she probably has a 104 IQ. If you can’t achieve that what’s your excuse?

You literally just need to show up.

Sadly, a lot of people manage not to show up, simply because a life of easy pleasure and zero struggle has numbed them into a permanent state of dissociated impotence.

Which brings me to my next point…

Individual vitality requires pain and struggle

People don’t feel enough pain in the modern world.

There aren’t any negative consequences for failure these days because liberals have been fabulously successful at creating a kinder, softer, and gentler society. This wasn’t achieved through a leftist nanny state so much as through the lowered standards and complacency that inevitably follow extreme abundance. We are so wealthy that the margin for error has expanded towards infinity and nobody feels the need to try anymore. Everybody gets a second chance and no one is held accountable.

Therapeutic culture in particular has gotten out of hand over the past decade. Everyone is talking about their “spoons” and “headspace”. Every middle aged woman is crippled by pain and claims to have fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue system or long covid. Every zoomer girl in her early twenties thinks of herself as a literal child because of retarded memes about the prefrontal cortex.

Teenagers and young adults are taking far longer to achieve traditional milestones of adulthood and nobody is pressuring them to grow the fuck up and contribute. And old people are even worse—we let them drop out of society two or three decades before croaking, and give them massive pensions at the expense of young workers in an unsustainable ponzi scheme nobody is willing to reform.

Meanwhile there are too many addictive dopamine traps that make it almost impossible to concentrate and take advantage of the incredible opportunities surrounding us. Girls are enslaved to social media and guys are enslaved to porn. There is too much infinitely novel content at our fingertips and everything is becoming a hyper-addictive Skinner Box algorithmically optimized to keep you consooming. This is just going to get worse as VR and AI continue to improve.

I want us to colonize Mars, but I genuinely worry humanity will go extinct before then. Not from nuking each other to death, but from withering away in VR blowjob pods and AI boyfriend simulators. Or just from getting extremely fat and retarded and helpless and requiring robots to do everything for us. Wall-E has always been the scariest dystopia to me, because it seems like the only realistic one.

Humanity can always solve problems that cause us pain, but how do we solve problems that cause us pleasure? How on earth do you assemble the collective will?

The free market will always develop technology in accordance with what people want. That’s been a very good thing for most of history, but it becomes genuinely dangerous when you enter the realm of hyperreality.

Can a mind evolved for apples truly handle a Snickers bar? Can a mind evolved for saggy cavewoman tits handle Sydney Sweeney Simulator 69? I honestly have my doubts, and that’s where I could conceivably part ways with Hananiac libertarianism.

People are just too happy and it’s making them miserable. Not to mention impotent to the point of paralysis. Our hedonic treadmills have all been blown to smithereens, especially since covid. No wonder everyone’s slamming Adderall right now.

And I’ll freely admit to being a tremendous hypocrite on this point. Four years of remote work and daily Uber Eats deliveries have left me pampered like an Ottoman princeling. Doing difficult things I don’t want to do has become a lot harder for me because my life is so enjoyable and easy. I don’t think banning remote work or food delivery is the answer, though. At this point people like me just won’t let you.

The answer is to channel more of our wealth into glamorous and aspirational megaprojects. The issue we have right now is dopamine addiction, and everyone knows the only way to fight addiction is with another addiction.

Let’s get society maniacally addicted to doing big and bold and impressive things. Space colonization is an obvious candidate, but fuck it, let’s also terraform Antarctica and the Australian outback. Lets build a bunch of mile-high skyscrapers. We need to go balls to the wall and give everyone a reason to be excited and try hard again.

We could also revitalize society by seriously raising the stakes. Which brings me to…

Prosocial conflict should be encouraged

Competition is always a good thing—it makes both the individual and the tribe sharper, tougher, leaner, and less complacent.

It’s also the only thing stopping the malaise described in my last point from engulfing everyone’s brain and turning them into a fat inert coomer. The top quartile of American society is insanely competitive and obsessed with accumulating wealth, getting famous, and looking young and beautiful. This competition can cause a lot of negative psychological effects, especially in teenage girls, but it’s probably the only thing keeping us from going full Wall-E so I can’t disparage it too hard.

With almost everything in life, easy come means easy go. This is due to basic human psychology—when you never had to fight for something and it didn’t cost you anything, you tend not to value it as much, whether it’s a woman or a job or a country. You are infinitely more likely to throw it away in a high time preference flight of fancy, or just take it for granted until reality slaps you in the face with its big smelly cock. It’s like building a house on a foundation of loosely packed sand—the slightest tectonic shift will obliterate everything.

I don’t think it’s good for a nation’s soul to not have any serious external threats, as America has enjoyed since the fall of the USSR until very recently. This causes a kind of malaise and existential discontent—people need something to fight against or they turn inward and either begin hating their countrymen or hating themselves and engaging in horribly self-destructive behavior.

This will make me sound like an edgelord, but a massive conventional war with China over Taiwan would honestly be good for the soul of America. It would make us realize that our extreme wealth and abundance has a cost and needs to be won with iron and blood. I believe Americans would be up to the task. It will be a grizzly thing and I’m probably young enough to get drafted if we’re short on zoomer manpower, but I still would support something like this if it means revitalizing the American spirit.

I also support a high level of ordered internal competition within the tribe. This is why I am so contrarian and enjoy dealing in hot takes. There is a time for building consensus—when you are directly marching off to face a rival and need a united front. But that is not the posture you should take in “peacetime”, and in most cases an “iron honing iron” approach to internecine squabbles will emergently produce significantly better takes that are more virile and competitive in the marketplace of ideas.

Mainstream society’s communicative norms have gotten too feminine and indirect. People are too focused on “reading the room” and policing their own language for problematic implications or unprestigious cultural coding. Everyone is far too concerned with being cool and fitting in. Verbally adroit men on the right need to understand what is happening with this and call out liberal men for adopting the rhetorical techniques of teenage girl / gay bullies whenever they fall into this behavior.

Which brings me to…

Sex roles are inevitable and mostly good

Men and women have different capabilities on average, as well as vastly different experiences that make them look at the world in completely different ways. They also have lots of blind spots about the other’s experiences and perspectives. Downstream of these differences the sexes also have different values, different priorities, different hopes and dreams, and different fears and anxieties.

Because of these differences, I think society would be better if we became a lot less androgynous and stopped pretending men and women are the same. We should talk openly about gender differences and accept them as a fact of life.

I’m optimistic on this front because I notice this happening already among Zillennial and Zoomer women—they’ll say things like “girl moment” in a way that Elder Millennial and Xer women never would have. Women born 1970-1990 are the only ones who buy blank slate ideology on sex. In 1990-2000 you see a tapering off, and then after 2000 they’re hardcore gender essentialists.

Obviously a lot of zoomer girls are trans/enby or Dworkinite political lesbians or xanax-popping sex negative Red Scare girls who call things “tiresome,” but they’re all essentialists. The trans/enby ones are there because essentialist trans ideology crowded out tomboyism, and the other gals understand their problems and frustrations as those of women. You never hear dumb shit like “gender is a social construct” like you did from girls born in 1988, and this is a massive improvement.

But one additional change I’d like to see is society becoming more formalist about The Patriarchy, which I define as the set of sex norms dictating who is considered valuable by society and who has access to power.

I’ve long maintained that the most important difference between the sexes is that men display much more variance in their personality traits, talents, and overall quality as a person. Obviously the male bell curve for IQ is wider, but this is just one small part of the picture, and is usually overblown by IQ maximalists. This phenomenon is driven far more by differences in agency and risk appetite.

Men are much more “Faustian” than women—they are more likely to “roll the dice” and pursue a life strategy that’s high risk and high reward. Men have more control over their actions under extreme duress, and will make bigger sacrifices and break more eggs to reach the top. Whenever a woman does this (Cleopatra, Eva Peron, Elizabeth Holmes) it’s seen as exceptional and somewhat glamorous, but for elite men such behavior is par for the course and you’re just a pussy if you don’t act like that.

It’s hard to quantify this phenomenon, but if you take into account the scalability factors of leadership, my impression is roughly that the best women are 10x as capable as the worst women, while the best men are 100x as capable as the worst men.

Even stupid and lazy women can generally be pressured into not falling below a certain threshold, but a huge proportion of guys will just sit around smoking weed or jerking off all day (or become criminals) if the incentive structure is bad. Society quite rightly perceives these men as completely worthless, and they have such low prestige that advocacy on their behalf will cause their allies to lose prestige by association. We probably have a deep primordial impulse to never feel bad for low status men, because we need the bottom cohort of men to be incels for eugenic reasons. Just as men “roll the dice” more in their personal and professional lives, nature “rolls the dice” more with men genetically, and the least adaptive traits are supposed to die out.

Meanwhile, womb scarcity and higher male sex drives mean that even when a woman is a loser, we typically don’t perceive her as such if she’s still young—particularly if she’s cute and comes from a good family. With a decent upbringing and education and face a girl can easily live an aimless bohemian life for a decade and then marry a doctor at 33. Women simply have a high “floor” on how much they are valued (with the tragic exceptions being women in the bottom 10%, like downscale prostitutes and very obese women, who are valued about as much as a 30th percentile man).

But with this high floor comes a low ceiling. Even the most capable and ruthless women like Hildawg and Cleopatra tend to get outmaneuvered and overwhelmed when playing at the very top level. These women have an enormous tolerance for conflict compared to the average male, but up against hyper-aggressive narcs like Trump or Caesar Augustus they crumple like a tissue.

Sadly, even if they were equally capable, sexism would always be an intractable obstacle for such women. The traits and behaviors that let you handle conflict at an elite level usually make women unlikable.

This isn’t because such traits *are* likeable in men, it’s just that when a capable man exhibits them it’s usually too intimidating for you to hate him, whereas from women it feels like hectoring. Incidentally, this is also why teenage boys need a father around to serve as disciplinarian—it’s pretty annoying to follow the orders of someone much smaller than you with a high pitched voice, especially for a pubescent male.

These distributional differences in ability, social value, and access to power are what feminists call The Patriarchy, and I agree with all of the things feminists say about it. I just think these things are inevitable and mostly good and eugenic, including the infamous “ways The Patriarchy hurts men”.

Because I appreciate hierarchy, I am comfortable with society more or less burning away the bottom 15-20% of men. Let them rot in prison, or give them porn and weed and a UBI and let them disappear. Most of these guys are pretty contemptible when you meet them, so it’s no great loss.

I also don’t want to expend too many resources making things better for guys between the twentieth and fiftieth percentiles. They need the right incentive structure to discourage excessive violence / indolence, and you shouldn’t let more than half of them become incels (we’re getting close to that and should be careful), but you need to generally let these men suffer, or else society will become dangerous and inefficient.

The real question is how you handle men between the fiftieth and ninetieth percentiles. Should you encourage monogamy so these guys can easily find wives and become more productive as a result? Should you adopt a highly unionized economic structure with high marginal tax rates to build a robust middle class? Or should you instead enable the top decile of men to hoard women, money, and power, largely at the expense of this upper-mid cohort (since the bottom half of men are losers either way)?

In other words, should your incentive structure raise the floor of male motivation to invigorate plebs, as you saw in postwar America, or raise the ceiling as in classical times or post-Tinder neoliberal modernity to drive elites to the heights of Alexander / Caesar / Musk? I think this is an open question and reasonable people can disagree.

The key thing is that moderate and high value men are the people you need to motivate with carrots and sticks. Women always obey society’s prevailing mores because they like to follow instructions and fit in, and you’ll always have a rabidly dysfunctional bottom quintile of men. But men in the middle and on the top are a lot more elastic and agentic, and you can pull a lot of levers to change how they behave.

I want a more formalist (and therefore rightist) understanding of Patriarchy because I think people would be less miserable and could negotiate sexual politics with less hostility if they better understood the above dynamics.

I think a lot of Xers and Millennials were hurt badly in their professional life and love life because they were taught that the world is a lot more androgynous than it really is. Zoomers have mostly overcome these deceptions, but I think there is more acrimony between the sexes than there needs to be because the truths of Patriarchy are delivered to young people as unsettling “redpills”—disruptions to comforting lies about human nature they were told as children.

I think if we were more candid about the nature of men and women with children at an early age we could better contextualize these things with a more mature adult perspective, and help children develop the coping mechanisms that we ourselves use to handle these things. Even the unavoidably painful lessons will be easier to hear at thirteen than twenty-three.

We also should do away with androgyny in the workplace. A lot of corporate environments are too feminized these days, and this is making the workplace less efficient. We absolutely shouldn’t drive high performing women out of corporate America, but we need to stop slowing things down for men to accommodate women’s lower tolerance for conflict and risk. This will naturally cause a lot of women to leave, and this should be accepted.

We also need to make it more culturally acceptable to flirt with your female coworkers. Waiters etc. still do this, but white collar men have turned into giant pussies (especially since #MeToo), and this is causing the incel rate to soar. The decline of “third places” like churches and pubs means work is one of the few places to interact with people these days, so if you can’t ask out your coworker you are basically forced onto the apps. This is bad for society and needs to be reversed.

Men also need to display more leadership in their love lives.

I often hear men complaining about women not being submissive enough, and this always seems retarded to me because there is clearly an enormous appetite among women to submit and always has been. Women hate dealing with stressful situations and love having a man come in to fix everything. If you pay a girl’s bills and handle all conflicts in her life she will usually be perfectly happy doing whatever you say.

The issue is that men typically find the responsibility that comes with leadership onerous and annoying. When men demand “submission” what they usually mean is “stop nagging me” or “have lower standards”. They don’t realize women specifically get mean and bitchy when you don’t let them submit because you’re acting way too soy and submitting to you would be like handing the steering wheel to a toddler. These guys don’t have the leadership ability, financial resources, or stress tolerance to inspire real submission in a girl, so they just impotently complain or take the passport bro Columba Bush bargain bin route.

We need to raise men with more of an understanding of the female desire to submit. It has to be cemented in the male brain that this is just an expectation women have of you. Men will have a better idea of how they’re supposed to approach women and eventually we’d see considerably less animosity between the sexes.

That said, I don’t necessarily advocate #tradlife. I believe the man should pay the bills and open doors and pickle jars, but I don’t see this as a political or culture war thing so much as a dynamic that makes heterosexual courtship more enjoyable for almost everyone. It’s almost more a performative or fetishistic thing that people do as a sort of extended foreplay to create a gender polarity that makes sex better.

I personally think it’s hotter if the woman doesn’t work, and think most people would agree with me. The idea of my wife having a “boss” or stressing about “deadlines” is groace. But I also don’t think a one income family is a good idea for most people in the modern world, as it usually will make you kind of poor. The man needs to be solidly upper middle class for it to make sense. You should be able to afford a nanny and maid so she doesn’t get bored and can use her education for more bigbrain housewife activities like volunteering / planning events / participating in high society.

In my opinion, it’s best for your average woman with a professional husband to get a part time job doing something she finds enjoyable. The goal isn’t to bring in necessary income, but to keep her occupied and let her buy things she really wants but hubby thinks are stupid. But most of the time it doesn’t make sense for a woman with a successful husband to have a “career”.

Meanwhile, women middle-middle class and below should probably work full time in most cases. These days most non-credentialed white collar jobs are incredibly feminine and she will probably find the work much more enjoyable than cleaning poop and puke all day as a nannyless housewife.

The “trad” lifestyle (and sexy gender polarity in general) needs to be seen as a luxury of the upper classes. It’s an elite thing to have a trophy wife. Among the proles women have always been sturdier and more of a provisioning force.

These are the things that make me right wing.

I think you can see it’s pretty clear I’m not a centrist, and have some huge philosophical disagreements with centrism that are pretty intractable.

That said, I am temperamentally nowhere near your average “conservative”, and fit in a lot better culturally with liberals. This means I occupy a position in the overall discourse very similar to that of centrists, and will be able to find common ground with both parties in day to day life. In that sense I am somewhat “rhetorically centrist”.

Hopefully this helps to clear up any ambiguities related to my overall position.

Yesterday the esteemed Hunter Wallace at Occidental Dissent published an article entitled Alt-Right 2.0 Is a Terrible Idea.

I was hoping this piece would respond to some of the arguments I’d made in my initial call for an Alt Right 2.0, but I’m not sure Wallace even read my original essay. In none of his fifteen points of criticism does he bother responding to any of my ideas.

Instead he dedicates most of his article to complaining about Richard Spencer, which is a bizarre move because Richard Spencer isn’t involved with the project.

It’s true Daniella Pentsak and I became interested in an Alt Right 2.0 after reminiscing about the movement with Richard on his Alexandria podcast, but Spencer himself was lukewarm about the idea and explicitly said he’s going in a totally different direction. He wants to be a cultural critic and esoteric religious theorist, not a movement leader, and we understand and respect that choice.

For this reason I’m not going to dwell much on Wallace’s critiques of Spencer’s leadership in Points 1-7 of his article. I honestly can’t even assess how legit most of them are, because I never participated in any IRL political action, and was mostly irrelevant by the time people started to do so en masse in 2017.

That said, I have zero interest in adopting tactics from the 2017-2018 AR, and in my capacity as a leader of Alt Right 2.0 will discourage others from doing so.

I am interested in reviving the spirit of 2016 and especially 2015—the period in which I was a public figure and the Alt Right’s tactical choices were overwhelmingly correct.

As such, Wallace’s third point forces me to dispense some anti-Occidents:

3. Cultivating Liberal Journos – Richard Spencer had a bizarre obsession with cultivating liberal journalists like Elle Reeve and Rosie Gray. This led to fiasco after fiasco that steadily deflated and winnowed the movement: Heilgate, Charlottesville III when Spencer returned to Charlottesville with a CNN camera crew after the Unite the Right rally, the New York Times expose of Eli Mosley’s stolen valor, etc.

The coda to Alt-Right 1.0 was the interview that Spencer gave to Elle Reeve during the Charlottesville trial when even she appeared to be baffled by his lack concern for the well being of the people who came to his events. “It should have just been about Richard Spencer” summed up the whole era.

Literally no one was attracted to the movement because Spencer was reaching converts on CNN or constantly sucking up to liberal reporters from The Atlantic, BuzzFeed or VICE News.

This take is retarded.

During 2015-2017 I personally met and befriended dozens of people (including several guys who became respected movement leaders and content creators) who were exposed to the AR through mainstream articles about Spencer.

They were generally liberals by upbringing and temperament who had grown attracted to our ideas because they found Spencer’s theater kid energy charismatic and his rhetorical style compelling. They were the same type of person who came into the movement through my Disney parodies, or through figures like Millennial Woes.

I think Wallace’s view is distorted because it’s unquestionably true that Spencer didn’t bring in many guys named “Hunter” who enjoy this aesthetic:

But guys like this weren’t the core of the 2015 Alt Right.

Most of us were rebellious nerds and hipsters from liberal families. Our tastes and sensibilities were not those of Middle America, and that’s what brought in lots of educated young people outside the traditional Republican coalition. Spencer was an excellent representative of this cohort, and his cultivation of liberal journos played a big role in attracting more of them.

In 2015 and early-mid 2016 he was a perfect leader for us. By 2017 he was no longer an appropriate leader, because the Alt Right had become a lot more temperamentally conservative as it interfaced with the Alt Light and MAGA. This was something all of us welcomed at the time, as it polarized American society and shifted the Overton Window to accommodate our ideas, and in retrospect it was probably good overall.

But the cost of this maneuver was filling the Alt Right with a bunch of guys from Kansas who called Spencer a faggot. These people basically look control of the movement and started to define our online presence, aesthetics, and tactics on the ground. And when Spencer was no longer opening doors for them and had become too toxic, they loudly and aggressively repudiated him.

Spencer certainly made a lot of unforced errors during the “second half” of the AR, starting very notably with Heilgate. But he made those mistakes precisely because he was the type of person who could win so many converts and deliver so many unqualified victories in the first half of the movement.

He’s certainly a complicated man. But it takes a unique mind to lead any radical or countercultural movement, and you always need to accept the bad with the good. Instead WNs treated Spencer the same way black people treated Kanye West—loved the guy when his star burned bright, abandoned him the moment it burned hot. Lame.

Anyway, Spencer wasn’t the right guy to lead the Alt Right in 2017, but I’m not sure who would have done better. Maybe Jared Taylor minus twenty years and plus a billion dollars. Or Batman. Everyone else would have done worse.

That’s because the movement didn’t have much of a purpose by that point. Trump had won and everything depended on whether he’d spoken to Bannon or Kushner more recently. If anything, we should have just become an online pressure group that exerted pressure on the administration and executed propaganda campaigns with surgical precision (It’s Okay To Be White was one fantastic example of this).

But it’s easy for me to say that as a middle aged man. At the time I was 23 and thought Based Stick Man was cool. It felt like we had momentum and should stand our ground against Antifa, and I definitely wasn’t about to countersignal the guys showing up IRL when I was still anon. There was simply an ENORMOUS appetite among the Millennial rank and file for IRL activism, and if the Xer leadership like Spencer/Enoch had tried to suppress this, our cohort might have just propped up one of our own and done the same exact shit.

I’m not sure there’s any alternate history where 2017 goes better for the Alt Right.

Anyway, I’m building AR2 and not Spencer, so let’s skip the hate and move to Point 8:

8. Negative Definitions – The Alt-Right defined itself as a big tent space outside the pre-Trump Conservatism, Inc. consensus. It was originally a space where White Nationalists rubbed shoulders with paleoconservatives and libertarians in the George W. Bush era. It was conceived as a means for White Nationalists to reach a larger audience. If there was anything of substance at the core of the original Alt-Right, it was White Nationalism or what Richard Spencer called Identitarianism.

In 2024, the contrarians who want to give “Alt-Right 2.0” a whirl have abandoned White Nationalism and Identitarianism. Paleoconservatism is ascendant. Reactionaries are influential. Libertarians have a voice in Congress. White identity politics is increasingly mainstream meat and potatoes discourse on the Right. National Socialists remain as marginalized as ever. There is no longer any ossified conservative establishment to challenge like the tottering dinosaur that was Reaganism in 2012.

By defining itself in purely negative terms against True Conservatism, the incoherent Alt-Right was always destined to disintegrate once those people were toppled from power. There is no need for an Alt-Right or Dissident Right when White identity politics is simply the Online Right in 2024.

Here Hunter once again loses track of his prey, failing to address the most important argument in my article. In the second passage of Alt Right 2.0 I state the following:

What was it that made the Alternative Right different from the normie right in 2015? In what respects were we actually “alternative?”

It certainly wasn’t racism. Normie conservatives are very racist and always have been. Their racism is just unsystematic and incoherent. Everyone has an uncle who talks like George Wallace after a few beers but then passionately supports Tim Scott (or Herman Cain or Ben Carson) because he orgasms whenever a black person agrees with him. All of our dads love YouTube videos where a conservative black guy yells at other black people for being “thugs” while eating a chicken sandwich in his car.

It’s true we were explicitly White Nationalist in a way normies weren’t. We wanted to maintain a consistent worldview, which often meant “biting the bullet” to embrace difficult conclusions that scared people far more hateful or bigoted than us on an instinctive level. But I think this gets at a more fundamental difference in temperament that was a lot more significant.

With Alt Right 2.0 I am building a space on the Right (here meaning a political tradition that respects hierarchy, prosocial struggle, and social vitality) for people who don’t come from a traditional conservative background and don’t have a typical conservative temperament.

I want to attract educated, thoughtful, and creative young people who can solve the Right’s enormous human capital problem (see Hanania’s excellent piece) and generate a leadership class to staff our institutions and produce art better than God’s Not Dead.

That means I want to appeal to coastal elites—people with a serious education, who aren’t attracted to Middle American sensibilities or aesthetics, and who roll their eyes at maudlin apple pie constitution Hallmark Movie shit.

I am not trying to attract Hunter Wallace.

I have absolutely nothing against the guy—we were probably Twitter friends in the old days, and I’m sure he’s a good man with a high IQ and charming personality and dashing good looks and beautiful family. But the movement I’m building simply isn’t designed for him or people who think like him.

That is how we are “Alternative”. It is a deep and substantive difference. We have a positive vision for who we are, and are not “defining ourselves negatively” at all.

If that criticism applies to anyone, it’s normie conservatives (and particularly MAGA), who are ideologically vacuous and driven by nothing but prole resentment at the bottom and huckster nihilism at the top. At least the Tea Party had some kind of civicmindedness and intellectual consistency—MAGA is nothing but cynical Will to Power and animal instinct to “own the libs”. Purely negative.

It’s a repulsive movement that honestly deserves to be destroyed and humiliated. But Neo-Cons and Liberals are worse, so I’ll vote Trump all the same this November and hope these chuds burn themselves out over the next four years. Then in 2028 there will be a huge appetite for real administrative competence and intellectual rigor, and perhaps then Alt Right 2.0 can get behind a GOP primary candidate.

Until then I am perfectly fine (and actually prefer) to remain a marginal movement for marginal people. I want to build a culture that optimizes for generating true and useful ideas instead of winning elections and “redpilling the normies”.

The Alt Right 2.0 will exercise influence among elites by creating good art that provokes meaningful discussion, and by sending white papers to politicos, staffers, and mischievous tech CEOs. We have precisely nothing to gain from talking to Huskers Fans who will make us pretend to care about abortion etc.

Hunter ends Point 8 with the following:

There is no need for an Alt-Right or Dissident Right when White identity politics is simply the Online Right in 2024.

This is exactly why we need an Alt Right 2.0.

The first iteration basically succeeded in its goals, as I argued in my Alt Right Retrospective. We normalized white identity politics in conservative spaces; that was unquestionably a good thing and is why I stopped calling myself a white nationalist.

But in doing this we also unleashed some horrible tendencies in the American Right—nihilism, cynicism, vacuous Trump worship, misogyny, and religious extremism. Those impulses are what the second iteration is going to combat.

We can’t put the beast back in its cage at this point, but we can show what the alternative looks like to smart and curious young people who don’t want to be liberals but are disgusted by modern conservatives.

Onward to Point 9:

9. Pseudo-Intellectuals, Dandies and Dilettantes – Far from offering “intellectual seriousness,” Alt-Right 1.0 is remarkable for producing virtually nothing of intellectual substance, and particularly Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute and Washington Summit Publishers. The lowbrow popular version of the Alt-Right on 4chan, YouTube, Daily Stormer and TRS was even less intellectual.

Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis did all the heavy lifting in fleshing out a nationalist vision and political agenda. Jared Taylor and the race realists like J. Philippe Rushton were around long before the Alt-Right. Identitarianism was borrowed from the European New Right. Peter Brimelow and VDARE had been pushing for immigration restriction since the 1990s. Even the accelerationist mass shooters were inspired by James Mason’s SIEGE. Spencer gestured at vague Nietzschean platitudes.

This is basically just snobbery over medium.

Ryan Faulk and Sean Last’s YouTube videos were easily more rigorous than most formal academic scholarship, and the wider community surrounding them produced thousands of enormously substantive video essays, debates, etc. This content was highly intellectual, and influenced millions of smart and creative young people. It was certainly not just rehashed Francis and Rushton.

The problem is that if you don’t put your idea in a book, journal article, or white paper it won’t be taken as seriously for entirely vapid reasons. More crucially, it won’t necessarily have staying power, and it’s easy for people to plagiarize you or mutilate / censor your thoughts with a line item veto. To some extent this happened to the AR in 2018-2022 as prowhite ideas disseminated in much dumber and uglier forms throughout the Alt Lite and MAGA.

For this reason I actually do think Spencer should have written a book or two during this period, but he was probably too busy with activism.

I won’t make the same mistake with AR2. I’m starting with longform content here on Substack so I have a corpus of essays that can be collated into a book and serve as the basis for our new movement. Eventually I’ll form a thinktank that publishes the kind of literature deemed respectable and serious by the august blogger Mr. Wallace. But that’s a long term goal (which my dear reader can expedite by becoming a paychad).

Next to Point 10:

10. The Lowbrow Alt-Right – In its heyday, Alt-Right 1.0 was known for Nazi toilet humor, gas chamber memes, trolling journos on Twitter, sonnenrads, Pepe the Frog, anime, Kekistan flags and parody songs, not original groundbreaking ideas. When this culture came offline into the real world, it produced gladiators like Based Stick Man. Ten years later, most people who were amused by that have matured. It looks juvenile and ephemeral to grown men who are now in their late thirties and forties.

Is it all Richard Spencer’s fault?

No, he is simply a rich target. He also isn’t wrong about a lot of things

Late thirties and forties? Try late twenties and thirties, grandpa.

But I mostly agree with this, which is why I’m taking things in a different direction with Alt Right 2.0. Crude racism never belongs in public, and the gas chamber memes etc. (which I myself never trafficked in) should be left in the dustbin of history.

But we absolutely shouldn’t abandon satire or memes—without those things you simply won’t attract smart young people. We should just have higher standards for them and demand a greater degree of subtlety and artistic depth. Thankfully, AI tools like Dall-E and Suno let us produce much better memes than we ever could in 2016:

Today the world can appreciate my lyrical genius without ever having to suffer through my awful singing, and that’s going to open a lot of doors for compelling art.

Trolling Twitter journos is likewise an unbridled good if you keep it subtle and high verbal IQ like Hanania. There are lots of hilarious and socially beneficial ways to piss off people you hate while maintaining plausible deniability. We just can’t let in temperamentally conservative people because they are too straightforward in their rhetoric, and their idea of “trolling liberal journos” is sending Ezra Klein oven memes.

On to Point 11:

11. Incels – In Spencer’s view, he was slumming with losers and ankle biters – low status White men who are incapable of attracting women – who brought him down in Charlottesville and pushed him aside in its wake. He tried to lead those people. He more or less jumped in front of the crowd and tried to ride the wave in an effort to become famous. There is a kernel of truth to this.

While Richard Spencer had created the original Alternative Right website, he quickly lost interest in the project and had a bitter falling out with his colleagues. He ditched the Alternative Right in favor of Radix Journal and hosting NPI conferences. The true social base of the 2015/2016 Alt-Right emerged out of Gamergate and was centered on 4chan and cultivated by Daily Stormer and TRS.

There really was an insurrection against Spencer after Charlottesville that was led by angry manlet types like Weev, Beardson Beardly, Nick Fuentes and Andrew Anglin. Those people also took over the main body of the movement in 2018 and increasingly defined it in terms of their resentments about women. Weev would post psychotic rants about his desire to beat and rape women. Andrew Anglin spent years celebrating Elliot Rodger. Fuentes would come on his show and talk about burning women at the stake.

In retrospect, why would anyone want to go down the same road again in light of how it turned out? This is another reason why we don’t need an Alt-Right 2.0. At a time when White identity politics is increasingly mainstream, why would you want to attract legions of bitter, marginal, sexually frustrated losers? Spencer is correct that to a large degree this is what the movement always was.

Agree with all of this. I don’t want incels and low status men in my movement.

That’s why to join AR2 you'll need to be at least 5’10. We’ll keep a measuring tape outside the door and shoo away manlets like with the Brown Paper Bag Test.

Let’s also reject anyone over Norwood 3 and guys who earn less than $120k / year.

Point 12:

12. Censorship – Alt-Right 1.0 rose and fell with the tides of social media censorship on Twitter and YouTube. As with the pre-Trump conservative establishment, the conditions which facilitated the rise of the original movement no longer exist. It is a different world now.

Bizarre, out of touch take.

2024 feels very similar to 2014-2015 to me. That’s literally why I came back. Substack and Elon’s Twitter have made it possible to have interesting conversations again and basically vanquished cancel culture.

And as a result the intellectual environment on the Right has become tremendously open and generative. People are practically begging for hot takes and bold new ideas, which is why Hanania has been so wildly successful and I’ve made such a splash on Substack over the past few weeks.

This is precisely the right time to start an exciting and interesting new movement.

13. Third Reich Nostalgia – I’m tired of rebrands.

White Nationalism was a rebrand. The Alt-Right was a rebrand. Identitarianism was a rebrand. The Dissident Right was a rebrand. As the TRS / NJP saga shows, no list of why Alt-Right 1.0 failed would be complete without bringing up the cycle of how the movement always returns to its origins of George Lincoln Rockwell trolling the normies on a street corner.  

The movement is like an alcoholic. After a major failure or collapse, it will sober up, rebrand and promise to be a new me. A new guy will come along who will promise good optics and success in mainstream politics. A few years later, the same guy will be throwing up Roman salutes or praising Hitler. Everyone in the organization will turn on everyone else. See NJP and America First.

Yeah, I’m not promising “good optics and success in mainstream politics.”

If anything I want to alienate normies and piss off conservatives. I endorse Hanania’s strategy of punching at low IQ incels and Nazis. I want guys who drive pickups to call me a faggot, and I want as many people to see that as possible, because that’s how you build credibility with urban coastal elites, intellectuals, and artists.

It gets your foot in the door to promote hierarchical / vitalist ideas in your art, privately build knowledge of HBD to intellectually undermine affirmative action among centrists, and discredit the worst excesses of mainstream politics (i.e. Hanania’s broadside on Civil Rights law).

14. Antisocial Personality Types – I can already hear it now.

Sure, White identity politics is increasingly mainstream. The taboo on criticizing Israel is beginning to erode. Immigration restriction couldn’t be more mainstream. Nationalism is no longer the preserve of edgelords. Pretty much everything we used to say we wanted has gained traction.

But … CHRISTIANITY IS A JEWISH PLOT.

For lots of people who were involved in Alt-Right 1.0, the marginalization was the point. Being a fringe edgelord was their whole reason for getting involved in the scene in the first place. Political success and normalization is by definition the worst possible outcome for these types. They were in it to shock the normies or for the contrarian hot takes. They enjoyed being outrageous.

Outrageousness has a low ceiling. We need the support of boring, normal people.

What boring, normal people? Do you mean the ones who stormed the capital?

Normie Christian conservatives are the ones acting outrageous and out of control right now. It would honestly benefit these kulaks to spend a few years in Gitmo.

If anyone is “boring and normal” these days it’s Richard Spencer, who’s embraced the Gen X grillpill and spends his days reviewing Depeche Mode albums. Sure, he loves his contrarian hot takes. So does Matt Yglesias. Hell, the two of them basically have the same worldview at this point. To anyone who doesn’t recognize him from 2016, Spencer comes off like a CNN host or the coolest dad at a Boston PTA meeting.

Look, guys who spit contrarian hot takes aren’t “antisocial”. We just hate circlejerks and womanly consensus building. We poke at pressure points, asymmetries, inconsistencies, frictions, and unfortunate implications. This really pisses off low openness chuds because it reduces social cohesion and isn’t good for building an institution. But you need people like Spencer and me and Hanania to prevent your ideology from growing vacuous and stale and boring, as has very obviously happened to the DR / MAGA / broader populist Right.

We also point out more subtle weaknesses and vulnerabilities the Left doesn’t want to call attention to because it would hurt them for us to fix those things. Conservatives don’t realize this because they are mostly very weak in verbal and social intelligence, and generally don’t understand things like cultural coding and subtext.

Finally we come to Point 15:

15. Contrarians – This brings me to the contrarians who want an Alt-Right 2.0.

These people have an itch to scratch. They are driven by an impulse, not an ideology. When neocons were the conservative establishment, they were for White Nationalism, HBD, populism, anti-globalism, immigration restriction and so on. But today, they have rejected White Nationalism and HBD and want free trade, mass immigration, a neocon foreign policy to weaken Russia, etc.

He’s not entirely wrong about this, but this isn’t a bad thing.

If our poor wayward Hunter had actually read my original essay, he’d know AR2 is very deliberately not focused on ideology so much as temperament and character.

I certainly have my own technocratic platform that I’d like to see adopted, but object-level issues aren’t as important to me as metapolitics and basic civics. The primary objective is to build a space on the Right for educated people with taste and a general respect for honesty and intellectual rigor.

This is what Hunter means by us having “an itch to scratch”. He is thinking about the world purely in terms of ideologies and platforms and issue sets, but I reject that vision. Sometimes a nation needs free trade, sometimes it needs protectionism. Sometimes it needs mass immigration, sometimes it needs extreme restriction. Purism about these things is almost always childish and wrongheaded.

I’m more about generally promoting hierarchy, vitality, and prosocial conflict. That’s why I’m “Alt Right” and not “Alt Center”.

I will have changing opinions on the issues of the day as demanded by changing circumstances and coalitional pressures, but I will always be more focused on things like who’s in charge, who defines the rules of debate, how rules are adjusted if necessary, how disagreements are adjudicated, how losers can relitigate past failures, how flexibly policy can pivot in response to change on the ground, how political actors define friend vs. enemy, etc. Those metapolitical factors are infinitely more interesting to me than something like, say, abortion.

I don’t know about you.

I’m too old for this though.

Finally something we agree on!

My two sons are Generation Alpha.

I want them to grow up in a world where pro-White politics has been normalized. Winning metapolitical battles on the Right also isn’t enough. It is a small consolation prize. The ship is still sinking even if some conservatives are grudgingly coming around to our point of view.

We can’t afford to spend another decade goofing off and shooting ourselves in the foot. Trolling epileptic libs with strobe lights on Twitter is great for giggles, but we have work to do.

Your sons are growing up in a world where normie conservatives keep threatening to overthrow the government and start a Civil War that will immiserate millions. It’s the contrarian Richard Spencer who constantly rails against this poisonous instinct.

Your sons probably won’t have access to Social Security because normie conservative Boomers are too selfish to accept any reform. It’s the contrarian Richard Hanania who pushes back against gerontocracy and the meatheaded populist maximalism of MAGA luminaries like JD Vance.

Your sons are faced with a cultural, intellectual, and administrative elite that is overwhelmingly hostile to them, and mainstream conservatives are doing everything in their power to make this problem worse by adopting and encouraging behaviors and sensibilities that are repulsive to smart and creative young people.

It’s the contrarian Walt Bismarck who’s trying to fix this by creating an alternative right wing space that Zoomers and Alphas will find inspirational and cool.

Hunter Wallace is a smart guy, but he’s probably too old and out of touch to get it.

And that’s fine. In a few years his sons will bring him on board.

Thanks to political polarization, America has reached an unfortunate impasse in both foreign policy and immigration policy that is starting to cause serious problems.

I believe the Alt Right 2.0 can offer a unique solution to this issue that cuts through the gridlock and helps to secure American prosperity in multiple dimensions.

That solution is mass immigration from Russia.

Currently a large segment of the Republican electorate has no interest in helping Ukraine stand up to Russian aggression. This is largely a reaction to Democrat hysteria and conspiracy theories about “Russia, Russia, Russia” during the Trump years, and has been exacerbated by a successful Russian propaganda campaign to make American conservatives think Putin likes them.

It is also a very stupid impulse. The Ukraine War presents America with a fantastic opportunity to bleed Russia dry and further our geopolitical dominance over Eastern Europe. This would help to maintain the dollar as global reserve currency, which is currently the most powerful advantage we enjoy over the nations of Europe and Asia. No other empire would blow an opportunity like this, but the resentment and delusion of MAGA Republicans has tragically caused them to elevate Owning the Libs over pursuing the national interest.

And on immigration policy we’re similarly paralyzed.

Years of full employment have left us with a shortage of cheap underclass labor, and this is severely hurting the middle class. Normal people with high five figure salaries can’t afford babysitters and maids like they used to because wages for the poor have risen too high. Meanwhile, every node of the consumer supply chain is having a harder time attracting quality workers, which is translating to higher prices and creating a “crisis of competence” because unskilled service workers don’t need to try as hard. Things have gotten much better for Doordash drivers and the mass affluent “laptop class” that can still afford to hire them, but people in the middle are really feeling the strain.

Normally the way you solve this issue is through mass immigration, but this has become politically untenable due to intransigent Republican opposition, even though your average middle class GOP voter would be the main beneficiary. And for this development we can mostly blame Democrats, because they spent much of the last decade framing immigration as an antiwhite cudgel.

In 2013-2016 Dems popularized the idea that Latin American and Asian immigration was creating an “emerging Democratic majority” that would give them a permanent electoral advantage, and that scared the shit out of Republicans. They also constantly bombarded white people with the idea that we’re becoming a racial minority in our own country, and virtually all projections to this effect conveniently ignored Castizo / Hapa / MENA assimilation into the white mainstream, making the transformation seem a lot more dramatic than it actually was.

Thanks to this obnoxious antiwhite triumphalism, white Republicans grew enormously wary of the “Great Replacement,” and started to adopt far more nativist and even implicitly white nationalist views on immigration. As a consequence, it is pretty much impossible to build support among Republicans for mass immigration in 2024, even in the midst of an unskilled labor shortage.

I propose that we square the circle on both of these issues by passing legislation that immediately grants American citizenship to all Russians who want it.

This would accomplish several important objectives.

First and foremost it would hurt Russia severely, because many millions of people (especially young people) would desperately want to make the move to quintuple their income and secure a vastly higher standard of living.

Putin would obviously take measures to stop the outflow, but it would be impossible to block it completely. Just to contain 80-90% of the movement he’d need to expend significant resources policing Russia’s massive border with Eastern Europe and the ‘Stans. This would make it a lot harder for him to press forward in Ukraine, and would significantly increase domestic tensions.

Meanwhile, it would give America a huge influx of cheap labor that would greatly reduce inflationary pressure on the middle class, while forcing the underclass to once again put in effort at their fast food / airport / motel clerk jobs.

These Russian migrants would obviously be mostly white, with a small cohort of central Asians that would assimilate into the white mainstream in just one or two generations. All of these people would very quickly climb into the middle class. They also would overwhelmingly support the GOP due to their strong disapproval of homosexuality and Democrat Russophobia. This would make it a lot easier to get Republicans to support this proposal and would allay fears of the Great Replacement.

To secure Democrat approval you would obviously play up hurting Russia, but this might not be enough. If so you can tie this policy to amnesty for some proportion of Mexican illegals (who will likely become less scary to GOP voters after Trump wins 45% of Hispanics this November).

In practice this would be bipartisan legislation that would get incite ferocious opposition from factions in both parties, but I think Trump could cut a deal with certain Democrats to get them on board, especially if he plays up the amnesty angle.

It would be very smart for Republicans to pursue this next year.

In this piece I’ll give a practical example of how the Alt Right 2.0 might build salience in a slightly edgy but harmless way and potentially do some real good for people.

My idea is simple: I want to throw a Straight Pride Parade.

The goals of this would be twofold. First we would use the event to inspire a spirit of reconciliation and amity between men and women that seeks to reduce polarization and resentment in both directions. Second we’d use it as a dating venue to get Zoomers off the apps and inspire more healthy and equitable courtship norms.

But before I describe my idea in any further detail I need to provide some context.

There are two enormous problems with heterosexual dating culture right now.

The Incel Question

This is a metapolitical briar patch because it’s almost impossible to discuss this problem without lowering your own prestige / credibility. Simply acknowledging it as a thing makes you look like an incel, and will cause some segment of the population to tune you out.

Normally this would be a good thing, as society can’t afford for people to be too concerned with the problems of low status men. But the Incel Question has reached a point where it demands a serious response.

Young men are dropping out of society. They are rapidly falling behind their female peers in university graduation rates and median income. Any mental health professional will tell you there is an enormous crisis among young men right now.

And if you talk to these guys it is clear what’s causing this crisis: they aren’t motivated by anything. The juice of life is no longer worth the squeeze. They don’t want to work hard because it doesn’t seem worth it anymore, and a huge part of this is that it seems prohibitively difficult to find love.

If you want to maximize society’s productivity and prevent a collapse in the birthrate 5-10 years from now, you need to do at least something to address the Incel Question.

And your solution isn’t complete unless it addresses Tinder.

The proportion of men who can’t attract a partner has roughly doubled from 15% to 30% over the past decade. This is obviously a result of Tinder and similar swiping apps:

Everyone knows what’s happening here. On dating apps women evaluate men almost entirely based on looks. Women find a very small proportion of men physically attractive, so those men are getting a massively disproportionate amount of success, while men at the bottom of the distribution are getting almost none.

But incels misfire by getting blackpilled over this, because they fail to realize women don’t actually want to evaluate men based on looks. They don’t want to get pumped and dumped by West Elm Caleb. In real life looks are only about 30-40% of the equation, and the “vibe” you emanate is easily 50% of what gets you laid or rejected.

Sadly it’s impossible for any dating app to capture your “vibe” even 10% as strongly as a real life date (or even a phone call). Writing an elaborate profile makes you look tryhard, so your best bet is to convey status subtextually through profile pics with a lot of sprezzatura. Sadly most heterosexual men are abysmal at this and it still only helps you on the margins, so Tinder is pretty much purely a looks game

The problem is that Tinder copied the Grindr model (which works swimmingly for gay men) and imposed it on heterosexuals without our informed consent. Every attempt to innovate on Tinder, like Bumble and Hinge, has never fixed the fundamental problem inherent in suppressing a man’s vibe.

And this is why inceldom has become more and more of an issue. It used to be easy for George Costanza type men to date beautiful women by dint of sheer charisma. Seinfeld was not at all unrealistic in this regard. But it’s impossible for an exceptionally charismatic but short / chubby / balding man to be competitive on Tinder. Dating apps have cucked the Costanzas of the world.

This could be fixed very easily if you just magically got rid of dating apps and forced people to hook up in person again. You would easily drive the incel rate down to a more historically normal and eugenic 15%.

But this would never be acceptable among women, because of…

The Femcel Question

It’s a lot easier to discuss this one because it doesn’t inherently make you seem low status. But you still have to frame it as caused by circumstances unfair to women or people will think you are an incel, and that’s what I will do here.

Basically the issue is that women are pulling away from men and have become frightened and disgusted by male sexuality. I think this has several causes.

The first is that women have started going through puberty at vastly younger ages:

This has happened as teenagers have grown a lot more immature and childlike in each successive generation. We have loosened social expectations around traditional “milestones” of adulthood, and these days Zoomers think of 25 as the actual age of maturity. In practice the 14 year old of 1920 probably would be about as mature and agentic as a 21 year old today.

This means you have a bunch of twelve year old girls going through puberty and developing secondary sexual characteristics at far too young a mental age. When they go out into the world they understandably aren’t able to handle the results of this and it traumatizes them.

Some significant proportion of these girls end up identifying as trans and cutting their boobs off because they hate male attention so much, but even the ones who avoid this fate will often end up resentful of men and scared of male sexuality because of unpleasant girlhood experiences. Literally every woman I’ve dated seems to have been impacted by this on some level. I also think this explains why everyone is so fixated on pedophiles these days; it has genuinely become a much bigger problem.

Because of this phenomenon, I am starting to support the idea of using modern endocrinology to delay the onset of puberty at least 2-3 years in young girls so they are more mentally ready for it.

Obviously the “trads” are going to hate this proposal, but if you look at the above chart it seems that my ideal world is a lot more “trad” than yours. It isn’t in the least bit “traditional” for anyone to go through puberty when she still has the brain of a little girl—it’s probably one of the most dangerous developments of modern society.

Anyway, the other reason women are starting to hate male sexuality is obviously porn.

Porn use has become almost universal even in very young boys. These days a huge number of boys become addicted to porn before they even have a pubescent sex drive, which causes some of them to permanently view sex in a disembodied and nonphysical way largely rooted in a desire for limitless novelty and transgression.

As an adult this can make it prohibitively difficult to enjoy sex as a bonding mechanism with girlfriends because you inherently view it as a degrading act. It can also make it vastly easier to grow sexually bored with a single woman, because you’ve habituated yourself to orgasming only after experiencing tremendous sexual novelty.

Meanwhile, girls are confronted at an extremely young age with the idea that sex will involve hardcore and degrading acts, so the ones who aren’t high in openness with a low disgust reflex are going to start thinking of male sexuality as groace.

Then once these girls become sexually active they often find their boyfriend can’t get hard for a real life woman. Or he’ll grow bored of them and start to prefer masturbation over sex, or cheat on them due to a compulsive need for sexual novelty.

As a result of the above two factors, a huge proportion of young women implicitly think of male sexuality as gross or evil in a way they never would have a century ago. Thus women desire men less on aggregate, and they start to want to “opt out” of dating and take themselves off the market. In this way they become Femcels.

Crucially, this isn’t a matter of getting off Tinder. That would be a fantastic development in isolation. The issue is that they become less receptive to male courtship in person, and start to feel hostile to even completely benign and harmless expressions of male sexuality.

A schoolmarmish culture begins to emerge where men are punished for even talking about a woman being attractive, and norms begin to shift such that asking out a woman at work or even school is increasingly seen as “inappropriate.” Eventually this produces a dynamic where men don’t even bother asking women out in person anymore, and pretty much everyone exclusively dates on the apps.

…which of course only exacerbates the Incel Question.

I think you could basically solve the problems of heterosexual dating if you medically delayed female puberty by three years, banned internet porn, and banned dating apps. This would make men and women stop hating each other and all men who deserved a girlfriend would get one. But this would require an Orwellian nanny state and lots of people would probably riot in the street, so it will never happen.

At least in the short term we need to adapt to a sad and unfair world where lots of women are traumatized and resentful while lots of men have almost no way of making themselves attractive to women. We need to take some measures to reduce the harm of this landscape and start to create a more positive incentive structure.

And that’s where the Straight Pride Parade comes in.

The basic idea is every year you throw a parade in a bunch of major cities with a festival-like environment. You’d invite a bunch of feminist and redpill thinkers to give speeches about how they have deradicalized and come together under a unity platform dedicated to solving issues between the sexes in a mutually agreeable way. Maybe they could try to build some kind of culturally neutral stigma against porn and dating apps, but that wouldn’t be the main point. The point is creating good vibes.

The overall aesthetic would be agreeable to both trad types and Barstool Conservative / sorority girl types. It needs to be inoffensive to 70% of the country. You definitely want this to piss off LGTB advocacy groups to seem edgy/cool, but you also need to ensure moderate liberals think they’re overreacting and are just being humorless.

The main point of the parade would be providing a bespoke dating venue for single people (maybe with an upper age limit of 35 or 30). You want it to serve as a proof of concept to Zoomers who have never even tried to ask out a girl IRL before (and there are a ton of these guys). Basically you’d want to make it as easy and safe as possible for people to start flirting in meatspace with no apps involved.

To that end you need to get everyone marching together and provide them lots of alcohol. This would create an environment where young guys can easily approach girls and flirt with them in a non-threatening environment with lots of people around so the girlies don’t get scared.

Everyone can walk at a different pace (perhaps with women on the outside and guys on the inside) so if you get rejected it’s not a big deal and can just walk forward to the next group of girls.

Maybe there could be a mechanism where if a girl likes you she can pin you with a ribbon or something and you could go have a private date together. Alternatively she could pin you with her number to indicate she wants you to hit her up later. And if she doesn’t pin you at all you would get the hint and keep walking (it would be dumb for even thirsty / desperate guys to hang around in this environment).

In my opinion this is a much better and less stressful way to do “speed dating” than the cringefest format that actually exists.

In addition to a general march, you can also have different marches for different types of people. One for under 21, one for over 30, one for trads, one for degens, one for nerds, one for artsy types. This will probably make it easier for people to open up and take risks or start conversations.

Obviously you need to take measures to ward off bottom 15% guys who would kill the vibe, as well as anybody predatory. This would require a level of logistical planning beyond the scope of this essay. But I think it could be done.

If you pulled this off well, the result would be a bunch of short / bald / chubby guys who can’t score on Tinder realizing that they’re actually charismatic and attractive to women, and this would cut the incel rate in half. Meanwhile a bunch of women would realize they have nothing to fear from assertive male sexuality and they would eventually become a lot less neurotic and more receptive to in-person courtship.

Obviously this is a somewhat LARPy and fanciful idea, but I think it could be done. But you’d need a woman organizing it to pull it off optically, since a man doing it would be incel-coded. A conservative gay guy like Peter Thiel or a Milo-type figure would be even better and could generate a ton of hilarious press. And a conservative lesbian would obviously be the best.

If anyone powerful is on board with this idea please contact me and I’ll help you make it happen.

One thing that annoys me about “Trads” is that they call me a “modernist” but will never themselves push back against a lot of extremely modern assumptions about the world. In most respects Trads are just advocating normie sensibilities from the 1980s.

Their thinking is indelibly shaped by hard-fought feminist and progressive arguments from a century ago, but they don’t realize it and would never think to question those arguments. And yet if any of them actually retvrned to premodern and prefeminist America they would think of it as a third world hellhole.

Below are some modernist assumptions Trads never would think to challenge.

Men should spend time with young children

Your great-great grandpa would think it’s weird and effeminate that you as a man want to hang out with your toddler. He would definitely call you a pussy and say you should be having a beer with the guys instead.

In most societies throughout history the father wouldn’t be that involved in raising the kids until the boys reached a certain age and needed to be initiated into manhood. In a lot of times/places men weren’t even permitted in the birthing chamber. Everything that dealt with young children was mostly part of the female sphere.

For most of history it was pretty much necessary to have this division of labor. This could only change with the widespread access to industrial wealth and leisure time that emerged from the labor movement and postwar economic boom.

Children’s feelings matter

Your great-great grandma would probably say your kids are horribly behaved and you are a terrible parent for indulging them as much as you do.

For most of history children were seen as stupid and not fully formed, and people didn’t care about their feelings. Parents would yell at and beat their kids pretty regularly, and children weren’t supposed to say anything when adults were having a conversation.

Women would regularly swaddle their kids so they could do home textile work for a bit of extra money. Children had no privacy and often had to share a room well into adolescence, or even sleep in close proximity to their parents so they could hear their mom getting plowed like in Angela’s Ashes.

Sex is a reciprocal thing and the female orgasm matters

Your great-great grandpa almost certainly never ate pussy and would absolutely roast you for doing so.

The idea that sex is a mutual act and not something the man does to the woman is extremely modern. Until the birth control pill the risk / reward ratio for women was simply too high for this idea to catch on.

That’s not to say past cultures had no concept of the woman enjoying sex; it varied a lot and Georgian society was a lot more egalitarian than Victorian society for instance. But it NEVER reached modern levels until the 60s-70s when the pill changed everything and you saw the publication of The Feminine Mystique, Fear of Flying, etc.

A man’s looks are important

Your great-great grandpa would definitely call you a queer for caring so much about your “physique” or doing weird shit like “looksmaxxing” or “mewing”. That kind of stuff has always been associated with homosexuals. Hell, it wasn’t uncommon for men to get called gay just for being handsome (Julius Caesar had to deal with this).

Prior to the widespread adoption of dating apps a man’s looks just weren’t that important when it came to sexual success. The 90s sitcom dynamic of the schlubby guy with a hot wife actually was a realistic thing for most men to achieve, because in person women care a lot more about the “vibe” you emanate than your appearance.

But Tinder made this a lot harder to achieve for Millennials and especially Zoomers, and these days nobody questions whether this is a good thing. Doing so would come off as low status and get you called incel / ugly.

We should be nice to animals

Just a century ago people had a much more utilitarian attitude toward animals and didn’t really think of them as “members of the family”. This is an extremely postwar development. Even 20 years ago it was extremely common for Boomers to stick a dog’s nose in its pee and avoid spending lots of money on surgery for their pets like subsequent generations do as a matter of course.

Back in the day it wasn’t uncommon for teenage boys to torture dogs and cats and frogs for fun. Hell, you still see this today in some especially brutish subaltern and rural types. These cretins will just shoot small animals with BB guns and people will act like it’s youthful hijinks.

It takes modern civilization to beat this savage impulse out of people.

We should let women enjoy a relatively innocent girlhood

A lot of your male ancestors would be seen as pedophiles today.

My own great-grandmother was 13 when she first got together with my 20-something great-grandfather, and my uncle used to tease my grandma about this and call her dad a pedophile. This naturally made my grandma absolutely furious, but was my uncle wrong? There’s really no way to square the circle on this.

A major talking point among sex negative feminists of the 70s and 80s (and Zoomer feminists today) is that the 19th century push to increase the age of consent was a feminist project that faced backlash from men. Whenever they say this they get dismissed as hairy legged feminazis because the implications make people uncomfy.

This is one of the most difficult things to grapple with about the past and honestly the present. Pretty much every girlfriend I’ve had has told me that around 12-13 she would start getting creepy stares from friends’ fathers at sleepovers etc. And yet no girl ever seems to wonder if her friends felt the same way about *her own father*.

I think we need a much more candid conversation about this issue to improve life outcomes for young girls, but the moment you try to get real about this as a man you will just face a hysterical backlash, so it needs to be a woman who does it. Hopefully someone will soon.

Obviously there are some trads who object to the above things. But they tend to keep mum about this. Whenever someone *does* say that animals don’t matter or we should lower the age of consent, other trads will inevitably call them a psycho or a freak and ostracize them. Objecting to any of the above views would be seen as either unacceptable or low prestige, and I don’t see this ever changing.

In practice there is a very firm Overton Window and you simply aren’t allowed to advocate returning to a pre-1960s world. For the most part this is a good thing.

Many aspects of life in the past (certainly as a non-elite) were extremely unpleasant. Childhood especially was incredibly traumatizing and probably caused a huge proportion of the population to have emotional issues as adults. It probably wasn’t rare to spend a huge chunk of your early years getting beaten up or molested.

This was exacerbated by the lower access to protein and saturated fat, which depressed IQs and probably created personality disorders in most of the peasantry, while lowering executive functioning and creating a feedback loop for bad behavior.

If you go to isolated rural areas or the inner city today you will see what this combination looks like. That is also how most normie white people used to act prior to industrial agriculture, and that explains why crime rates used to be so much higher.

For most of human history your life looked like either The Hills Have Eyes or Precious.

Happily, the Industrial Revolution has given us enough wealth that we can create a softer and gentler society where people don’t have to live like animals or be cruel to one another just to get by. If you aren’t willing to challenge the above principles then you should be willing to thank feminists and progressives for this development.

That said, we can obviously indulge this desire too much and get the problems inherent in socialism / wokism. People today don’t feel enough pain or harshness, and are slaves to their hedonic treadmill. That is why everyone finds it so hard to get out of bed in the morning and is dissociating or developing ADHD.

And this in turn is why you need a countervailing fascist / vitalist impulse from men that will push back on woman’s gentleness and soppy sentimentalism and help people feel things again.

But ultimately it’s a dialectic and you probably need both sides pushing back on each other to achieve the optimal societal outcome.

One of the big developments in my thought over the last few years has been the idea that women are much more talented at conflict than men.

Obviously they are bad at physical violence and direct confrontations like chess or asking for a raise. That’s not what I’m talking about here.

What I mean is that women are much better than men at defining a conflict’s “narrative” or “terms of debate”. They hold a kind of automatic and self-evident moral authority that men find it almost impossible to challenge in practice—particularly as women usurp material power structures that historically granted men some leverage against femininity.

While on a micro level it’s obviously masculine vigor and aggression that push society forward, on a macro level femininity is the true driver of civilization, because it shapes and directs male behavior without men even realizing it. Women exercise an enormous indirect control over the overall trajectory of society by defining our communicative norms and influencing what men value.

Men might be the head of our body politic, but women are the neck.

And for most of history this actually worked to the Right’s advantage. Women were much more religious than men, and correspondingly more conservative. A century ago they played a huge role in fighting to restrict immigration and instate prohibition against the wishes of their more progressive husbands and brothers.

But these days educational polarization and credentialism have shifted the dynamic sharply in the opposite direction, and women are much more liberal than men. This is becoming an enormous problem for the Right as progressives increasingly wed liberal rhetoric to feminine communicative norms that are a lot more powerful than anything conservatives have on hand.

In this essay I will explore this problem in greater detail and give some advice to conservatives as to how they might begin to push back

Feminine power emerges from three sources.

The first source is simply the mechanics of heterosexual courtship.

In the vast majority of cases, men chase women and women are pursued. Men are generative while women are receptive. Meanwhile, sex is much riskier for women and their pleasure less assured, so they usually expect the man to do something cool first.

This basic need to “perform” for women allows even moderately pretty young girls to trade on their looks for power, money, or fame. If they are smart about this it enables them to climb very high very fast, as Theodora / Evita / Kamala Harris can attest.

But even normie women in more typical relationships will benefit from this dynamic. Most men enjoy spending money on their girlfriend or opening the pickle jar. Women can be a lot needier and more helpless with their boyfriend than vice versa. Nobody will judge a woman for being a NEET at 30 if she is cute; her social class is her father’s and then her husband’s.

Meanwhile, men instinctively have a “women first” mentality and will sacrifice their own life to protect their girlfriend if need be.

The second source of feminine power is crying.

Crying is an incredibly potent rhetorical tactic because men usually have an immediate and intense urge to do whatever it takes to dry a woman’s tears. Once she starts crying you can’t really retain an aggressive posture—you will feel like a giant asshole and you will look abusive to any onlookers. For some segment of the population, a woman’s tears will ipso facto make her boyfriend / husband / father the Bad Guy, even when she is straightforwardly in the wrong.

Now in most cases crying is obviously an automatic response and can’t be controlled, but even then I think it has substantial rhetorical content.

In some sense crying is a submission ritual, like a dog showing its belly. It is your body’s way of communicating that you are the weaker party and can’t properly defend yourself, and imploring your interlocuter to go easy on you. This alone will be enough to “win the argument” against a lot of guys. It just triggers something protective in the male brain. Lots of BPD women turn their man into a husk this way.

There is also something of a tacit threat that comes with crying. When you start crying your body is expressing that it can’t take any more conflict. It is setting a boundary. If that boundary is broken, as the weaker party you will have no choice but to mobilize the community against your interlocuter.

And that’s a big reason guys often lose their nerve when a girl starts crying—it creates an image of helplessness that prejudices third parties against you and forces you to optimize your rhetoric for inoffensiveness and restraint. In some circumstances you might even worry about a false accusation to the police, just as many decades ago you might have feared getting beaten up by her brothers.

All of this obviously undermines your ability to advocate for your own interests in a straightforward way, so crying is clearly stronger than masculine argumentation.

The third and most significant source of feminine power is the female understanding of social dynamics, which is vastly more sophisticated than the male understanding.

Compared to men, women are much better at picking up on subtext or implication. They can grasp things like implicit power imbalances and status inequalities very quickly. They’re also great at sniffing out trends and patterns in human behavior.

Of course men can also do these things, but when we do so too openly it usually elicits a very negative response. Most people don’t like it when men spend a lot of time thinking or talking about social dynamics. This is because a lot of social reality is extremely painful, and men can’t deal with it the same way women can.

A great deal of human happiness rests on copes, white lies, cognitive biases, leveling rituals, and subtextual social accommodations that distract everyone from the basic inequality and inescapable unfairness of life. This crucial social infrastructure comes almost entirely from women, who maintain it on a mostly subconscious level as a constant background goal of everyday life.

Women are worse than men at debate and transactional dealmaking despite a greater verbal intelligence because they’re constantly dedicating mental energy to keeping the peace, managing egos, aligning goals, enforcing unspoken norms, and so on.

A woman can’t afford to care whether a proposition is true or false in the same way a man would, because its social implications are almost always more salient to her. There are a lot of situations where a woman saying something true instead of something polite would literally cause men to fight to the death.

Women *feel* painful social truths on a very deep level. But they don’t *think* them. Most of the time they will *think* the opposite of what is true, because that makes it easier to *act* in a way that practically gives people emotional relief from a deeply immiserating truth. For instance, a pretty girl will consciously believe “there’s someone for everyone if u just bee yourself :)”, and that will make it easier for her to turn very ugly men down gracefully.

Most men aren’t able to “feel” complex social dynamics this way , and only reach a fully accurate understanding of how people behave by systematizing and theorycrafting an explicit mental model that’s usually centered around painful “redpills” (basically unpleasant heuristics that deliberately pry the comfy feminine scaffolding off the harsh inequalities and power dynamics of life). Women inevitably find this horrifying, hence the hatred for PUAs / incels / rationalists.

I used to really resent women for this, because developing such a model was the only way I as a moderately autistic guy have ever succeeded socially. I don’t think this way because I’m Patrick Bateman, but because I’m kind of bad at reading social cues organically. At least a mechanistic worldview lets me sort of mask as neurotypical..

But as an older man I can now see why women have this reaction. Autistically shooting down leveling platitudes like “just bee urself :)” only makes it harder for them to emotionally maintain the “sweet little lies” that keep society running. Maintaining this social harmony is extremely important and I think we need to give women more credit for it!

Also, most guys aren’t nearly as autistic as me, and will not benefit in any way from “redpills” like I did. They will probably make the most money and get the prettiest wife by being maximally confident, and for 97 IQ normie guys from a happy family that often comes from hot girls telling you to bee urself after rejecting you.

It is probably best for society to keep praising the emperor’s clothes, both for this guy’s sake and for the sake of women, even if it annoys spergs like me. And it’s also just healthier for the political order—men need to have some illusion of equality or they will become unproductive or violent.

So let’s bring this back from the personal to the political.

Over the past decade American liberalism has become a movement intellectually and emotionally dominated by affluent suburban white women with graduate degrees.

This group has the most feminine communicative style of any major demographic. Not because they’re dainty tradwives, but because their husbands are enormous wieners who can’t inspire them to adopt a more straightforward and masculine style, as usually happens with married women. Instead the men begin to talk like their women, even adopting uptalk and a disdain for declarative sentences.

As a consequence, female communicative norms and liberal rhetoric are by this point pretty much one and the same. Everything is about reaching consensus, all decisions are made by committee, and nonconformists are chastised for not “reading the room.”

In this epistemic kindergarten claims are backed up first and foremost by credentials and appeals to authority. At this point more plebeian liberals on Twitter don’t even pretend to care about arguments; they just want Bill Nye to run everything. Meanwhile the ones who still try to think for themselves, like Ezra Klein and Nate Silver, have to put up with hundreds of hectoring credentialists who’ll demand they simply defer to specialists instead of ever trying to form their own opinions.

One of the things I’ve always loved about the extremely online right is that someone can roast me on Twitter or on their blog and we can usually punch it out in the comments like gentlemen and emerge as friends. There is a culture of “iron honing iron” among right wing keyboard warriors, in which prestige comes from the ability to acquit yourself well in a sustained and direct confrontation.

This impulse has almost completely disappeared from American liberalism. Liberals these days are never keyboard warriors—they’re keyboard mean girls. These people have no interest in an honest and straightforward debate, and when challenged will adopt a bitchy passive-aggressive tone while trying to undermine your respectability and social clout by pointing to “cringe” things you said or did.

Below is a great example from Matt Yglesias. This is a very common type of tweet from him. Some conservative pol will express opinion X that is socially unacceptable and chud-coded, and Yglesias will simply quote tweet it saying “I don’t think (X)”.

This is very similar to how teenage girls and gay guys bully people in nonpolitical settings—their opprobrium is always centered on your failure to adequately conform to group norms. It is simply taken for granted that this is a bad thing, because these people have an adolescent fixation on fitting in.

For a liberal, to be “cool” is understanding what other people like. It’s having a sophisticated knowledge of the latest trends and fashions, as well as a good intuition as to what will be fashionable in the immediate future.

This is generally how women establish an implicit pecking order among themselves, and it’s also how liberals accrue prestige in academic or corporate environments. Trendy language like “cisgender” or “unhoused” or pronouncing Kiev like “Keev” is a way to convey you’re “with it” and fashionable, which to liberals is self-evidently prestigious.

And just as women despise the incel, liberals usually don’t like it when you talk about these dynamics in an explicit way, because they are extremely fond of implicit power dynamics and unwritten rules.

Liberals derive much of their power and status in society from creating complex subtextual status games in which they can outmaneuver more direct thinkers and conservative types.

When a verbally sophisticated rightist starts breaking down what they do in a reductive way that can be algorithmically internalized by the conservative chud shape rotator mind, that is extremely threatening to their power base.

Conservatives obviously have a more masculine way of communicating. It is very direct and codes as oafish in liberal spaces, and I don’t disagree with that assessment.

Conservatives are more fond of simple declarative sentences. They don’t like grey areas and blurred lines and nuance, and tend to view these things as loopholes that predators or parasites will just exploit.

They like clear and easily understood hierarchies, and will get stressed out or annoyed by ambiguity and a lack of boundaries or direction. For them conflict is best kept direct and unambiguous, and in conservative spaces communicating through subtext is usually seen as a waste of time. If you aren’t straightforward you are probably shifty and untrustworthy.

This means conservatives are terrible at making art.

They don’t know how to be subtle with their messaging. When they try to make a “conservative movie” it’s almost always something like God’s Not Dead or Hallmark Channel shit that hits you over the head with a simple didactic message and has a bunch of based black guys singing Christian Rock at the end.

Meanwhile liberals understand that good propaganda comes from a lower time preference approach. Liberal movies never just bash you with the lesson you’re supposed to take away. They push you subliminally through tropes and symbolism that move you on a primordial level—what Mark Brahmin has called “esoteric moralization”. In the laziest cases this will just involve making the white guy the villain, but with more complex pieces it’s not uncommon for liberals to create work that rightists enjoy even on our own terms.

In fact, the best conservative art is always made by disagreeable / contrarian liberals who are annoyed at other liberals and want to tell an intellectually honest story that will sometimes challenge liberal premises. A lot of HBO prestige television is like this—The Sopranos, The Wire, Girls, etc. This is also what made Red Scare so successful.

Meanwhile conservatives *never* make art that appeals to liberals. Most of the time they can’t even appeal to conservatives!

Conservatives are also really bad at keeping up with the Left’s infantile status games over fashionable language. This is partially due to educational polarization, and was much less the case 30 years ago. Back then GOP was very successful at branding the inheritance tax the “Death Tax,” and benefited from this electorally.

But as MAGA has rendered the Right more chud-dominated and purely masculine in its rhetoric, the Left has leaned into femininity to marmishly oversee our political lexicon and distort public sentiment. They were thus able to rebrand “global warming” as “climate change”, and “gay marriage” as “marriage equality,” with nary a word of resistance from mainstream conservatives. At most you see midwit YouTubers snarking at them for this linguistic warfare.

Why don’t conservatives ever attempt the same thing? Why not call gun control “civilian disarmament”? There are a million things you could do to fight fire with fire, but MAGA is a lot less interested than the Frank Luntz types of yesteryear.

This is mostly because conservatives are verbally dim people who don’t place much importance on metapolitics or how opinions get shaped in practice. They don’t think of the world in terms of “narratives” so much as shopping lists of facts and events.

They usually aren’t very introspective and their extreme disdain for relativism makes it hard for them to have any tactical flexibility (or hell, any tactics to speak of). Especially since MAGA took over the GOP, conservatives mostly will “debate” by earnestly asserting their own beliefs and that’s it. They don’t seem to have a theory of mind that enables them to meet anyone else where they are, or even approach politics in a transactional way with potential coalition partners.

Compare that to the liberal mind, which naturally looks to form coalitions between odd bedfellows to assail the mainstream white cis male center of power. Getting “the groups”—blacks and feminists and Chicanos and union guys—to agree on shit is hard, so they optimize for reducing internal friction with ideas like intersectionality and lots of tone policing.

Meanwhile conservatives optimize around the solidaristic defense of this hot dog mainstream. They are willing to ostracize people and factions who don’t play ball, because to them hierarchical obedience is vital for social health, and subversives are morally dangerous. They also think of themselves as “real America” or the “silent majority,” and are more prone to seeing dissidents as nonessential than the liberals relying on turnout across a highly diverse “rainbow coalition”.

Consequently, depending on which faction is in charge of the conservative coalition at any given time, there are always enemy factions “in the jungle” without any influence in the mainstream GOP. It used to be libertarians and WNs, these days it’s the traditional eastern establishment and anyone opposed to MAGA.

There are also lots of respects where conservatives have advantages over liberals.

They have more money. They are harder working. They are more likely to incorrectly attribute individual success to hard work, which is a huge advantage because it gives them a greater level of practical “free will” and personal agency”.

They are less likely to be addicts or suffer from a debilitating mental condition, and are much more likely to be physically strong. They also likely have a higher level of visual-spatial and mathematical intelligence.

They often have more robust and reliable social networks through their churches. They are less scattered and more prone to forming consistent habits. They can deal with boredom and unglamorous periods of “downtime” more easily.

These advantages and others allow conservatives to win elections a lot of the time despite being vastly outnumbered in the institutions and having a much lower level of cultural competence / social intelligence.

However, conservatives are not properly weaponizing their advantages and are making a lot of unforced errors because they are too rigidly committed to masculine norms of discourse.

If you want to win over or triumph over progressive Mean Girls you need to learn how to handle yourself in the world of feminine rhetoric.

Below are some clever tips and tricks to help you do this:

Integrate your anima

The psychological framework of Carl Jung asserts that every man has an anima, or “inner woman”, that exists in his mind at an unconscious level. Your anima is effectively the feminine part of your personality.

A lot of times when you fall in love with a woman, especially as a young man, you are in fact projecting your anima onto her. You are falling in love with the feminine side of your own personality, and hoping the IRL girl will actualize that part of you.

However a man treats his girl is what he thinks of his anima. Oftentimes the men who are most sadistic in raping or beating up women do so because they are extremely contemptuous towards the most vulnerable parts of themselves.

Meanwhile it is enjoyable to spend money on women or open pickle jars because you vicariously feel a lot of the good vibes through your anima, and in that sense get to psychologically benefit from your own chivalry.

A major goal in Jungian analysis is working to “integrate” your anima into conscious thought, both so you are more aware of her wants and needs and so you can separate her from the women you date and hook up with. If you fail to do this, she can start to influence your behavior in ways you don’t understand or control. If this gets really bad you might become “anima possessed” and start to act like a BPD girl on her period all the time, which I think happens to a lot of incels.

Meanwhile I suspect the average conservative chud is mostly cut off from his anima and would instinctively associate the whole venture with trans ideology or gay stuff. That is extremely dumb, as anima integration is most practically useful for enjoying women more as a heterosexual man. If you don’t integrate your anima you’re basically just masturbating with her pussy.

Anyway back to the point at hand: anima integration is enormously useful for debating with bitchy progressive mean girls who will make fun of you using adolescent shaming tactics, because your anima is the part of you that they target.

They will try to make you feel like a loser, on the outside of the group, like a oafish or unsophisticated person—all the things that teenage girls are terrified of being. But once you have intellectually explored any insecurities you have in this direction, their hollow shaming tactics will roll off you like water.

Mentally explore and then exploit your own victim narrative

Generally liberals want to live in a softer and gentler world that gives people lots of grace when they fuck up.

Many of these people are so hateful towards you because they came from dysfunctional conservative families that didn’t appreciate them and adopted a grug “bootstraps” attitude towards their mental health issues that wasn’t useful or productive. Or alternatively, they were genuinely bullied in a hateful way by white trash kids when they were 13 and called a queer or something.

The angriest and more censorious liberals aren’t the elite ones, they’re the traumatized hicklibs who fled the sticks because people were assholes to them. But I find you can often establish common ground even with these people and get them to stop being bitchy if you are open about your own pain and past traumas.

This isn’t an easy task for conservatives, especially conservative men, because we don’t like feeling like “victims”. We like to downplay our moments of vulnerability and play up our successes.

A big reason for this though is that other conservatives will be bragging/exaggerating themselves. and if you try to express any kind of pain to them they will act awkward or even reproach you. Conservative women will often get turned off when they see their man struggle in some way, much more so than liberal women will.

But you don’t have to do that with liberals. They all want to be your therapist. They will overshare their own trauma and bond with you when you reciprocate. You can exploit this as a valuable inroad into their psyche. I have been very successful at gaining empathy from people like this by talking about my own feelings of ostracism from normie society, and then parlaying this into explaining how I felt assailed at college for being a white man etc.

It helps if you have some diagnosed mental illness you can lean on. You can really make ADHD your personality with liberals and use that to act like Frederick Douglass, and if you have a high enough verbal IQ they won’t be able to push back on you too hard.

Exploit liberal relativism to build empathy

Liberals are a lot more relativistic than you in their assessment of right and wrong in mundane, people-level situations. On a macro level they often have an unnuanced and Manichean hatred of conservatives, but on a micro level it’s easy to leverage this relativism into getting them to see you as “one of the good ones.”

Compared to conservatives they have less of a dogmatic belief in “Free Will” and don’t assume someone has absolute control over their actions at all times. Compared to you they place a lot of value on where someone’s “headspace” was, their number of “spoons”, etc.

When rightists hear liberals say “speak your truth” they often interpret this as epistemic nihilism, but really it’s just the trivial grandma insight that there are two sides to every story and you shouldn’t be afraid of voicing yours.

With that in mind, you can usually have some success opening the liberal mind if you can explain what led you down your path using a lot of emotionally vivid language.

Don’t do the normal conservative storytelling thing where you recite a laundry list of events in monotone—make it a narrative with arcs and plot twists and a three act structure. Obviously exaggerate some stuff or move small things around if it makes the story better.

Have sex with liberal women

Generally speaking it’s easiest to be conservative in liberal spaces specifically when you are flirting with and dating a liberal woman.

It codes as very masculine/roguish so long as you are higher IQ than her and make more money. Also if you are good at bantz it produces a fantastic sexual tension.

You can make fun of her fat / gay friends who hate you and she will go “staaaahp” and giggle, and that will start to build a permission structure where she’s laughing at Morrakiu songs after a few months.

If you are less of a normie conservative and more of an eccentric and high openness feller like me, you will also find that these women are a much better fit for you than conservative church girls. You’ll also observe that in practice high bodycount liberal women are much more submissive and feminine than low bodycount conservative girls, who are often quite frigid and masculine Dagny Taggart types.

You shouldn’t go for a lady in the 50s or something, but if she’s been with, say, 18 guys at 26, that probably just means she’s very obedient and high openness by disposition. That is also why she is a liberal, and why she’d make a good wife to someone batshit insane and weird enough to get into esoteric far right politics.

Make them look unreasonable with Motte and Bailey tactics.

This one works in situations where you have an extremely liberal person being bitchy and a more centrist person in close proximity.

You need to say something that will really get the extreme liberal’s jimmies in a pickle, but would also go over the head of any 60th percentile liberal American.

It’s almost like “reverse dogwhistling”—you’re figuring out the Brown Note that will make them shit their pants and lose credibility with the neutral party. If you look at internecine debates among Twitter leftists you will probably find something good.

I loved doing this to my girlfriend’s roommate a few years ago. One time I kept saying “transgendered” instead of “transgender” and that got her to slam a door on us.

The great thing about these people being so volatile and mentally ill is it makes it very easy to provoke them into uncharismatic and tactically unsound behavior.

When in doubt, don’t be afraid to coon

If you ever have to hang out with a ton of liberals at once and start to feel uncomfortable, you are probably best served by doing the Shane Gillis bit and “cooning” as a Dumb White Guy.

Just act like a Big Dumb Chud, but be very deliberate about it and be absolutely certain as to which rules you can break. Basically this requires you to lean into the stereotype in a way that simultaneously shows you can laugh at yourself and asserts the dignity of your own perspective.

This is easily done by playing up things that are low prestige in their world and high prestige in yours. This kind of rhetoric allows you to be self-deprecating in one sense and braggadocious in another, which is a great look for a conservative white guy.

Note this isn’t the same thing as simply letting them laugh at you. Shane is an incredibly clever guy and makes liberals crack up on HIS terms, in the same way Chapelle or Katt Williams does with white audiences. Being able to do this is definitely a tricky skill to develop, but it gets easier with time.

While feminine power structures will always remain hegemonic and liberal communicative norms will be hard to supplant, it’s important to remember that individual women aren’t really complicit in any of this. Like you and me and anyone else, they were thrown naked and screaming into a chaotic and painful world and are only looking for happiness and love.

Virtually any young girl you meet will stop talking like that after a few months of dating you. These women don’t really like the specific academic / corporate status games. Most would rather be a wife than a Director of Brand Solutions. But they were never taught how to operate in any other way.

Besides, women are temperamentally very conservative and risk averse and become scared if there isn’t a reliable way to enforce group norms or coordinate behavior. You should find that cute more than anything.

Also girls are pretty non-ideological. The Cyndi Lauper song is mostly true. If they had a choice they’d be coordinating spicy margs with the gals every afternoon, not advancing cancel culture or making PowerPoints for HR.

So never resent women when you’re annoyed by how effeminate Matt Yglesias is. Instead focus more narrowly on talking the way you want to talk and inspiring the change you want to see in the world.

You’ll be surprised by how far you can get.

The United States needs a new capital city.

It needs to be much closer to the median American than Washington D.C., both geographically speaking and culturally.

Right now we have an unfortunate situation where millions of people, especially in Middle America, don’t really identify with their capital or feel any pride in it, and oftentimes they actively despise it.

This situation alienates people from their institutions in an unhelpful way and encourages a functional separation between “heartlanders” and “coastal elites” that unnecessarily divides people. We need to fix this.

I don’t blame anyone for disliking D.C. The place has horrible vibes—a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm, as JFK famously put it.

It was probably inevitable that it would develop such a character, having been established in a sleazy backroom deal between Jefferson and Hamilton as part of negotiations over the country’s banking system.

But to give the founders their due, the Potomac made a lot of sense for our capital in the early years of our republic. In this period America was effectively an Atlantic society highly dependent on trade with Europe and Africa, and our “mean center of population” was roughly in Maryland or northern Virginia (this probably explains why so many of our earliest leaders were Virginians):

But this location become a much more questionable choice in the 19th century, as Manifest Destiny propelled our nation across the Appalachians and toward the Pacific. During this period America became more of a riverine civilization centered around the Mississippi and its great tributaries the Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, as well as the Great Lakes and Erie Canal:

This incredibly extensive system of internal waterways, which cut through some of the most fertile land on the planet, facilitated rapid growth and the development of a robust internal market. Over the course of the 19th century America thus became less of an Atlantic society and much more inwardly focused. In these decades she dedicated most of her energies to settling the frontier, driving off the Indian, and adjudicating internal disputes over slavery.

As this occurred, the mean center of population moved west into Ohio, and that state unsurprisingly produced a large number of Presidents, as Virginia had in decades past.

But despite this shift, we kept our capital in Washington D.C., and mostly centered the priorities of America’s “eastern establishment” in NYC, Boston, and Philadelphia. These men remained staunchly focused on Europe and the Atlantic; to them all states west of the Appalachians were basically colonies.

During the Civil War this became an awkward affair because D.C. was situated immediately on the Confederate border, not far from the CSA’s own capital of Richmond. From a purely military perspective, it probably would have been wiser to relocate to Philadelphia or NYC or even Chicago after Virginia seceded, but from a symbolic perspective D.C. was too valuable as a representation of historic compromise between North and South. Had Lincoln abandoned it, he probably would have lost crucial support in Maryland and Kentucky. So for morale reasons D.C. remained the capital, and this likely made it much easier to reintegrate the South after the war.

But during the Gilded Age that followed American politics were no longer a simple dialectic between North and South. The rapid expansion of rail networks had opened up California to mass settlement, and Pacific entrepots like San Francisco began to flourish as Americans grew curious about Polynesia, Japan, and China.

Meanwhile, the Homestead Act had drawn millions of German immigrants into the agricultural Midwest, enabling Corn Country to assert its own distinct sectional identity. This was first apparent in 1896, when the Nebraskan firebrand William Jennings Bryan faced off against McKinley bearing a populist agenda that emphasized inflationary debt relief for impoverished farmers. Bryan lost because he got crushed in the rapidly expanding cities of the industrial Midwest, but he won sweeping victories in the more agricultural prairie states and thinly peopled Mountain West.

Notably, this was the first time in American history where the electoral narrative wasn’t “North vs. South”, but some manifestation of “Heartland vs. Coastal Elites”. There was definitely a sense in Bryan’s rhetoric that distant and out of touch plutocrats in D.C. had betrayed the simple farmer of Middle America by pursuing cruelly deflationary hard currency.

Would this kind of rhetoric have been so powerful had the capital been moved at some point to better reflect the country’s new population distribution? I suspect not.

Anyway, as the Gilded Age turned into the Progressive Era, America’s mean center of population slid further west into Indiana. But curiously, we never saw an incredible density of Hoosiers in the White House, as we had Ohioans and Virginians.

I suspect this was in large part caused by a kind of “geographic polarization".

The American population started out unimodally clustered around the Tidewater region, with lower densities in the Deep South and New England. But settlement/growth over the 19th century was bimodally distributed between two distinct poles in the Mississippi River and Northeast Corridor.

The former pole rose faster, and that moved the population center west on aggregate, but the simultaneous rise of New York and other northeastern cities meant that the “center of gravity” became a lot less influential than it had been.

In other words, Virginia in 1800 was like a “mountain” between Boston and Charleston, while Indiana in 1900 was like a “valley” between Chicago and NYC.

Despite Bryan’s failure, the early 20th century was in many ways the peak of the agricultural Midwest’s power and influence. Missouri of all places was actually the fifth most populous state in 1900.

But alas, the ruralites quickly ran into hard limits on their expansion—the midwestern dry line, the rocky mountains, the Dust Bowl—and urban industrial regions continued to rapidly overtake them in population.

Meanwhile, as the 20th century progressed and America began to engage as deeply with the Pacific world as it always had the Atlantic, California began to rapidly expand in population, quickly becoming the largest and richest state. It arguably still fell behind New York in overall influence, and could never catch up to its eastern rival as a major financial center, but Los Angeles and San Francisco were nonetheless able to establish powerful specialized niches in entertainment and tech. These cities developed alongside Portland and Seattle into America’s most forward-thinking and often insane bastion of progressivism—a “Left Coast.”

At the same time, Texas managed to build an impressively diversified economy upon the oil and agricultural wealth it had established in the 19th century, and in doing so became the most vibrant and powerful pole of “Red America”.

Following the widespread midcentury adoption of air conditioning, it was joined in this position by other “Sun Belt” states like Florida and Arizona, who enjoyed explosive success attracting retirees and tax refugees from northern climes.

The rise of California and the Sun Belt completed the transformation of America’s demographic landscape. It moved America’s center of population south and west, from Indiana through Illinois and into south-central Missouri, where it stands today.

I think America’s “demographic geometry” has a really big fundamental problem:

It is incredibly harmful that so many of our elites are distributed specifically on the coasts in a kind of “woke ring” that very palpably surrounds Middle America.

Polarization is almost inevitable when the mean center of population is thousands of miles away from one hostile pole (controlled by entertainment / tech elites) and almost equidistant from another hostile pole (controlled by media / financial / government elites), while itself sitting in a region that’s sparsely populated and culturally impotent.

This dynamic makes people in the sticks feel like they’re “trapped”.

It gives people in the interior regions a “concentric circles” model of the world where they live in a peaceful and nice Shire that’s surrounded by an urban jungle full of bizarre and licentious city folk, with hordes of unfamiliar foreigners beyond that who are being admitted in excessive numbers by the irresponsible (if not actively malevolent) liberals watching the gates.

This encourages them to either disengage from the broader world and essentially think like provincial and sectionalist hobbits, or to actively fear and resent the “coastal elites” who seem to want to impose strange and foreign customs on them.

Thankfully it seems that Texas and more recently Florida basically exist outside of this dynamic. Conservative white people in these states don’t feel “trapped” because they control their own ports and maintain their own centers of power that aren’t pathetic compared to NYC and LA. They don’t have the same disengaged / resentful hobbit attitude you see in the Midwest, and instead will aggressively assert their own will to power. You see a somewhat similar attitude among Bavarians toward Berliners.

But on the whole most conservative whites have the pouting hobbit mentality, and this is what I’m trying to mitigate.

I’m also trying to fight an equally destructive mindset that emerges among the coastal elites. The current landscape makes it very easy for them to dismiss Flyover Country as irrelevant and not offer them any basic respect, or even pay attention to what’s going on there. Hence Trump 2016 and subsequent developments. This needs to change and we need to get elites more engaged with prole discourse.

I also want to make elites more patriotic. In the current system, once you have money and education it’s too easy for you to identify with foreigners over your own countrymen. Instead of thinking of yourself as a protector and representative of your nation’s proles, you begin to think of yourself as a “global man” who ackchully has more in common with globalists from other countries (i.e. foreigners who transparently ape midwit American attitudes). Obviously this just furthers the cycle of mutual resentment and deepens polarization.

I think it’s much healthier for a country to have the dynamic you see in the medium-sized nation-states of Europe and Asia. In these countries, most obviously France and Japan, it is the geometric center of the country that has the elites, while the proles live more on the periphery.

This in my assessment creates more of a “noblesse oblige” in the elites, and generates a sense of civic duty, because instead of shifty merchants on the outside of society they feel like “kings in the castle.”

They are still cosmopolitan and decadent for sure, but when they meet foreigners they’ll at least try to be cultural representatives, and will have some sense of loyalty to the higher ideals of their nation.

Meanwhile there is more of a healthy mindset among the proles, in which the smart ones can easily move to the big city and the grug ones can stay put, but it isn’t necessarily a high-stakes identitarian thing like it has become in America. The proles don’t feel trapped by the elites, and there isn’t as strong a conservative - liberal - foreigner continuum.

It’s all still there to some extent, don’t get me wrong, and I’m sure many a Breton farmer resents the Parisian bureaucrat bossing him around. But it’s nowhere near as toxic as you have stateside.

So I’ve laid out the problem, how do I aim to address it?

I think America can only be reintegrated, revitalized, and depolarized by taking a page from the Emperor Constantine’s book and moving the capital to a location that better reflects our polity’s current geographic and demographic center.

To that end, I want to create a massive new capital complex in the Midwest that will serve as a more culturally neutral power center. This city will be created essentially from scratch, much as Washington D.C. was created, and will be run as a very deliberate ideological project.

I want to use this capital to erase the idea of “Flyover Country”. I want to squeeze American power and wealth and influence inward from the periphery, so we become less of a donut and more of a delicious cookie. Above all, I want to make Middle American whites more ambitious, and forcibly break them out of their disengaged hobbit mentality by forcing them to engage with power.

Not all government functions will be moved to this new capital. Some of the less glamorous ones can stay in D.C., which will henceforth become part of Maryland. We should probably put our Asian embassies in San Fran or even Honolulu, and definitely should conduct all European diplomacy out of NYC. Then most administrative departments we will move to Seattle or Boston or Phoenix or Miami so as to promote a general connection with the federal government and higher society across all regions of the country, and not just its demographic center.

But the most important functionalities—Congress, SCOTUS, and POTUS—must all move to the Midwest.

To house these bodies our new capital must have an awe-inspiring Presidential Palace. The White House is far too understated and WASP-coded for modern America—let’s have Trump or his descendants replace it with a big gold tower that’s more appealing to the Ellis Islander sensibilities of trans-Hajnal whites like myself.

I’m thinking we should pour billions of dollars into making this the tallest building in the world. Let’s create a Mile High Tower with the President’s office at the summit. Maybe it can have a balcony where he can take Xi or Kim or Putin during high stakes negotiations.

It’s extremely dumb that a nation as wealthy as America ever let some podunk Arab oil sheikhs build the world’s tallest building. We should never have given up that title.

We have a moral obligation to ourselves and our progeny to build something so tall and so expensive and so beautiful that no other nation could even *fathom* building anything comparable.

We need a monstrously imposing phallic symbol that constantly reminds us and everybody else that Americans are superior, and that other people are obligated to kiss our ass and do what we say.

So let’s talk specifics for our new capital, starting with name.

“Washington, D.C.” has always sounded very awkward and stupid to me. Even the “District of Columbia” sounds off. Why did it need to be a “district”? Who came up with that? Does any other country use this nomenclature?

It should have just been “Washington” or “Columbia”. The most powerful country on the planet needs a capital that doesn’t sound clumsy and weird.

So I propose we go with the simple and elegant New Columbia. This works because it gives proper acknowledgment to the old capital’s history (which will mollify traditionalists) while asserting its own bold and distinct identity.

Next let’s talk geography.

I propose a site on and around the town of Cairo on the southern tip of Illinois, at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers:

Cairo is an ideal location for several reasons.

Obviously it is geopolitically strategic, being both highly defensible and easily accessible. No rival could harm this city with anything less than an ICBM, but you could sail there from Pittsburgh, Omaha, or New Orleans. Meanwhile, you could build a massive airport here that could reach anywhere in the lower 48 in just a few hours.

It’s also situated neatly between the country’s mean and median centers of population:

This is a part of the country that feels equally “southern” and “northern”, and equally “western” and “eastern”—the vibe is best described as quintessential Americana. The nature is gorgeous, the culture convivial, and I think anyone from California to Vermont would feel comfortable here.

Cairo itself is a poor and mostly black town with a pretty sad history, while the wider region is rural and conservative. All of these people, black and white, would need to have their property appropriated via eminent domain so we can bulldoze everything to build dense high rises. We should probably give these people 10x market value for the land so liberals never bitch about it and taint the legacy of our project like they did with Washington.

In practice the city that develops here will draw educated 115 IQ whites from across the region, and will quickly start to resemble St. Louis or Kansas City or Omaha more than either Chicago or Nashville.

It will be an environment where both liberals and conservatives basically feel comfortable, which is an absolutely essential condition for our national capital.

The great thing about creating a city from scratch like this is you can experiment with a lot of cool ideas in urban design that would never be possible in an existing city.

You can implement the sort of dense and walkable neighborhoods liberals like while employing more traditional aesthetics like Art Deco that conservatives tend to enjoy. This combination will likely make everyone happy.

You can likewise ensure NIMBYs never take power and property values never get out of hand by creating enormous complexes of cheap condominiums that connect to more beautiful and less utilitarian public spaces via free public transit. Anyone who wants to live in New Columbia and contribute to public life should be able to do so cheaply and easily.

Most importantly, you can use the extraordinary circumstances of a planned community under the control of the Federal Government to restrain criminality with significantly greater force than is tolerated in most cities. Unleashing a Singaporean level of brutality on criminals will contain the worst externalities of cheap housing and provide a workable model for other cities to imitate.

I am not sure how this plan would get achieved in practice. It would obviously require some kind of massive sea change that makes the unthinkable thinkable.

But from a broader historical perspective, this sort of thing happens all the time. Nations *very* frequently move their capital to better service a new demographic geometry. We all know the famous cases of Rome to Byzantium and Moscow to St. Petersburg, but there was also Istanbul to Ankara and Beijing to Nanjing, both of which are pretty comparable to what I’m proposing here.

People will bitch and moan about the inviolable “history” and “majesty” of Washington, but Istanbul had a hell of a lot more of those things than D.C. ever could, and the Turks still knew it was a good idea to put their administration in Ankara instead. We need to popularize this as a talking point until it enters the discourse and this goal becomes a mainstream GOP objective.

At that point I suspect that if you somehow got DeSantis / Masters / Vance in power circa 2040 and had 60 GOP Senators on board this could be achieved in our lifetime.

This is a follow-up to my earlier essay arguing that white people would benefit from passing slavery reparations for black people.

In this piece I will provide a more complex and somewhat meandering take on the relationship between Black America and White America that should help you understand why I feel reparations are necessary.

My narrative will be delve into factors historical, philosophical, and psychological. It will attempt to show empathy for black nationalists, white nationalists, and all the normies in between.

I’ll also be making fun of each of these groups, so try not to get offended once you’re in the crosshairs. If any topic needs to be approached with levity, it’s this one.

Richard Hanania recently wrote a fantastic article arguing that America’s racial strife isn’t white people vs. nonwhites so much as a highly racially motivated population of black people vs. everyone else.

I was glad to see a major figure inject this idea into the discourse because I’ve felt this way for some time. It seems clear now that the intense racial polarization of the 2010s was caused by everyone’s judgment being distorted by a confluence of societal red herrings.

The first and worst of these was a catastrophic mischaracterization of exit polling from the 2012 election. This extremely dangerous analysis—which was ubiquitous on both sides of the aisle—misattributed Obama’s victory to Hispanic immigration, when it was actually caused by secular but culturally conservative white people in the Rust Belt hating Romney for being an effete rich guy.

Virtually nobody in the mainstream press gave an accurate representation of what actually killed Romney’s campaign in 2013-2016. One reason for this is that journalists were too innumerate to properly comb through the data, but the main reason is that (at least superficially) everyone benefited from spinning a false narrative.

This false narrative allowed Democrats to indulge fantasies of an “Emerging Democratic Majority” propped up by an unending tide of Latin American immigration that would give them 60-70% of the vote in every election. Today liberals call the “Great Replacement” a conspiracy theory, conveniently ignoring that a decade ago they were telling everyone it was going to happen and was a Good Thing.

Like Karl Rove a decade earlier, these people had apparently never paid attention in Political Science 101, or they would have known that First Past the Post systems will always trend towards a 50-50 power split, and that large coalitions like FDR and Reagan put together are very easy to pick apart once the charismatic figurehead dies.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side this story deepened the cleavage between rich chamber of commerce types who wanted open borders and populists who wanted further restrictions. By raising the salience of immigration it enabled both factions to make a play for power.

The GOP establishment argued in its famous “postmortem” that Republicans could never win enough Hispanics to triumph nationally unless they moderated on immigration, while Tea Party stalwarts and crypto-WNs claimed Latinos would never be conservative, and would just flood the country like Orcs voting for more handouts at the expense of the beleaguered white middle class, who wouldn’t have the numbers to electorally defend themselves.

10 years later it seems all of these factions were comically wrong in their predictions.

It turns out Hispanics will vote Republican very easily, but going soft on immigration so Mitt Romney can hire cheaper day laborers isn’t how you achieve that. You just need to give Latinos a rightist party that looks like the ones they had back home—one that ostensibly prioritizes the interests of uneducated and superstitious peasants over those of educated urbanites, and is led by a charismatic alpha male caudillo.

Once MAGA dropped explicit racialism (implicit racialism is fine because plenty of Hispanics are “aspirationally White” and the Latin American caste system has always been built on the impulse to mejorar la raza) the movement fit Hispanics like a glove.

The real narrative on 2012 should have been educational polarization.

The Tea Party had left the GOP coalition completely dominated by a fanatically ideological and highly educated suburban petit bourgeoisie that didn’t care about anyone but themselves. To a lot of this contingent, anyone who couldn’t succeed could just go fuck themselves, be they a black single mother on food stamps or an alcoholic white guy who had lost his union factory job to NAFTA.

Mitt Romney barely triumphed over this faction in the primaries, and then had to pander to them by choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate and adopting a quasi-Randian fiscal policy that was always going to doom Republicans in the Rust Belt.

This faction was very damaging to GOP prospects for a long time because they were too intransigent to take any Ls for the good of the coalition. They only lost power once Trump came along and upset the apple cart by introducing white identity politics, which split the Tea Party mostly along class lines.

In 2016 the downscale Tea Party (which was less about ideology and more about Fuck Liberals) supported Trump, while the upscale Tea Party supported Cruz, and there was too much resentment between the Tea Party leadership and GOP establishment for Cruz and Rubio to coordinate to take down Trump. So in the end Trumpism devoured and absorbed the Tea Party, while the establishment sighed and did its best to control and co-opt Trump in the years that followed.

MAGA is a lot more electorally viable than the Tea Party ever was, but it’s also ideologically vacuous, and is essentially a peasant movement dominated by superstition and blind loyalty at the bottom and cynicism at the top, and features lots of resentment at all levels. This makes it extremely appealing to low status whites and a lot of Hispanic migrants fleeing corrupt or violent hellholes, as well as lumpenbourgeoisie boat store owners who laugh at homeless people and choke hookers.

But it also turns off the educated and comfortable middle classes who always vote and helped the GOP dominate midterm and local elections a decade ago. It is absolutely poisonous to the sort of educated and civic-minded people who make the most competent bureaucrats and civil servants, and this makes it incredibly challenging for a MAGA-dominated GOP to staff key institutions (which are already overwhelmingly liberal, since high IQ conservatives value money more than influence and all become consultants instead).

In this sense education/class polarization is much more dangerous than racial polarization. Thankfully it seems a lot of people are waking up to this dynamic today.

But in 2014 nobody was talking about education. Back then the salient topic was race.

Race was everywhere. It seemed to a lot of educated and reasonable people that the GOP was the White Party and becoming more White, while the Democrats were the party of nonwhites and (depending on your alignment) virtuous white allies or bootlicking traitors.

Today it’s easy to forget how annoying antiwhite sentiment used to be, but in 2013-2015 you constantly had articles coming out saying that white people will become a minority in America by such and such date, and that this is a Good Thing.

On shows like Colbert they would read these headlines and the audience full of chubby HR Managers with horn-rimmed glasses and frizzy hair would all clap and hoot and holler. Then it would cut to a commercial break and you’d see at least three advertisements where a beautiful blonde woman was kissing a muscular black dude.

There was definitely something intentional going on with this.

The Alt Right take at the time (which I originally subscribed to) was that it’s all a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the white population. It made some sense to think this way, as the most horrifically antiwhite Slate and Salon articles that would never get published today were indeed written by -steins and -bergs and -blatts. In retrospect I think this was just an extremely visible quirk of the mid-2010s digital media boom that was centered in NYC and as a result mostly employed young Jews.

As wider phenomenon I now think it was mostly driven by goyish hicklibs a la Will Stancil—midwit elder millennials with low testosterone who’d moved from the sticks to second rate cities like Atlanta or Chicago or Minneapolis. The kind of guy too smart for Kansas but too dumb for New York.

These people deeply resented their Boomer conservative parents for not having any empathy for their downward mobility during the Great Recession, and were disgusted by the simple bigotry and ignorance of their former classmates in Middle America. To these people a career in media or liberal activism was a way to hurt and humiliate the exurban and rural chuds who called them a queer in seventh grade.

As someone who has spent a lot of time with elite Jews, briefly worked with them in NYC, and has miscegenated with more than a few JAPs, I can say with authority that they mostly see such people as irrelevant provincials and wouldn’t waste political capital just to cause them pain in a high time preference way that will only provoke a thermostatic backlash.

Some Jews are a bit paranoid where their own race is concerned and will throw around spurious charges of anti-Semitism (though even this is more of a trashy lumpen middle class thing), but that’s typically where it ends. To a rich Jewish guy who’s always lived in a cosmopolitan area, Flyover Country doesn’t have any emotional salience. Usually he resents the bisexual antifa communist from Tennessee who works through childhood trauma by acting in an obnoxious way that makes normie conservatives more sympathetic to fascism.

What WNs from Middle America don’t realize is that the sort of Jews who worked for Buzzfeed etc. and wrote those really hateful antiwhite articles in 2014 are the low status ones that other Jews laugh at for not making it at a real publication or just getting a job that pays well. They’re the Kosher version of the guy in the Alt Right we all came to hate who blames his being a loser on affirmative action.

Even back then their peers saw them as hacks, and most of them have since been fired as digital media collapsed, and they ended up leaving the industry. The silly bundle of sticks who tried to doxx me is now working for legal aid, and probably spends his days getting yelled at by black people for a salary that barely pays his rent.

People who are actually rich or influential—be they white, black, or Jewish—almost never waste time hating people. It codes as low status for a reason.

These days it seems the Jewish journos with the most influence on the ground—folks like Matt Yglesias, Nate Silver, and Ezra Klein—are also the ones with the most nuanced and reasonable takes. Functionally speaking it’s these Jewish Elites (and a bunch of old black people in South Carolina) who are holding back the Democratic Party from adopting the hysterical and toxic views of affluent blonde women and tattoo-laden Scotch-Irish crustpunks. These guys are the reason the Biden years haven’t been as annoying as Obama’s second term despite a lot more left wing legislation having passed Congress.

If we ever see real organized violence against white people in America it’s not going to come from blacks or Jews. It’s going to come from white guys who hate their dad.

But none of this was apparent to me in 2014—the narrative of racial polarization was just too strong. In that era it was easy to look at Ezra Klein’s last name and instinctively see him as the same Type of Guy as the loser who tried to doxx me.

It didn’t help that I was just coming out of college and had been bombarded with the worst excesses of antiwhite ideology in the classroom. The decline of free speech on campus was deeply troublesome to a contrarian gadfly like me, as were the many instances of smug Orwellian newspeak (“undocumented immigrant”, “sex work”, “marriage equality”) imposed on me by the useless slave labor adjuncts grading my papers. It was this experience, in conjunction with the annoying media climate described above, that served to negatively polarize me into radicalization.

I don’t blame my young self for this. Back then if you were a white guy of a neurotic, disagreeable, high openness temperament—and particularly if you were Extremely Online without normie meatspace friends to pull you back into the real world where commercials and Salon articles don’t fucking matter—this cultural and political ecology made it incredibly easy to become a White Nationalist.

And this is what happened to me in 2015.

Thankfully the landscape is very different today. We’ve moved past the antiwhite gloating and triumphalism of 2013-2016, as well as the hysterical and repressive censorship and ostracism of 2017-2021.

MAGA has become a multiracial coalition without purging crypto-WNs and has thereby set the stage for a more relaxed and mainstream kind of white advocacy in the medium term.

Meanwhile, the 2024 election is more likely to have the racial demography of 2004 or 1984 than that of 2012 or 2016. If we’re lucky we may even reach a midcentury level of racial depolarization.

Because of these factors, I am mostly optimistic when it comes to American race relations.

The one exception is in regards to Black People.

We whites have had a mostly toxic and painful relationship with our melanated neighbors for as long as we’ve shared this continent, but the picture is nuanced and defies easy characterization. It certainly fluctuates a lot with time.

Looking at American history I see a reoccurring “cycle” in politics and culture that seems to govern how white people feel about blacks. Generally it occurs as follows:

Every two or three generations we have a brief moment of intense “racial reckoning” where the relatively terrible condition of blacks emotionally overwhelms white people and we are briefly possessed by an ideological fervor that makes us put them on a pedestal and see them in a quasi-religious way.

During these periods we become obsessive about purging ourselves of bigotry, and start to venerate figures like MLK and George Floyd in a way typically reserved for saints and founding fathers.

This impulse probably stems from America’s rather strange Puritan foundation, which makes sense given that every time this has happened historically the fire always burns hottest in New England despite the region’s relative homogeneity.

During this phase of the cycle we basically subordinate all other national goals to the mission of improving the lot of black people, and anyone who objects to this mission is seen as grossly immoral.

This oftentimes terrifying sanctimony and groupthink ensures that highly impactful legislation can be passed—think the banning of slavery in the northern states and outlawing of the Atlantic slave trade by Jefferson, the Civil War Amendments and Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, and DEI policies implemented during the Summer of Floyd. Coalitions will always adjust as necessary to force these policies onto intransigent holdouts.

But inevitably the honeymoon period doesn’t last. Something always happens to break the spell and white people start to become a lot more racially conservative.

In the early 19th century this event was the Haitian Revolution, which had involved lots of antiwhite ethnic cleansing and the mass rape of white women, and made white people fear that southern blacks would revolt and massacre them in the same way.

This probably wouldn’t have occurred in Virginia or Kentucky where slave density was low and conditions fairly humane, but it was a real threat in states like South Carolina, where some counties had a black supermajority and conditions weren’t much better than in Haiti. Paranoia over this mightily hardened white hearts.

Meanwhile, southern leadership was starting to pass from the stately and mostly Virginian Jeffersonian generation—whose tobacco plantations by that point were barely profitable—to a younger and more enterprising cohort more heavily from the Deep South, led by the infamous South Carolinian firebrand John C. Calhoun.

In the Revolutionary Era Jefferson had looked at social trends and the unhappy state of his own finances and concluded that slavery was an antiquated relic of the past that would inevitably die out over time. But thanks to Eli Whitney and the insatiable industrial demand of London and Boston (both of course hotbeds of abolitionism), the “peculiar institution” seemed more like the future to men like Calhoun.

Calhoun’s generation was making enormous profits growing cotton, the likes of which would have been inconceivable in prior eras, and in an era where soberminded Enlightenment rationalism had given way to Victorian romanticism and bold imperial dreams of Manifest Destiny. This landscape made it a lot easier to find reasons to keep slavery around than it had been in Jefferson’s day, and southerners started to see it less as a necessary evil or neutral fact of life and more as a Positive Good that benefited both blacks and whites and was worth spreading for its own sake.

Meanwhile, white northerners mostly stopped caring about slavery. Sure, they hated how the Three-Fifths Compromise gave southerners too many electoral college votes and House seats, enabling Dixie to force free trade onto Yankee industrial centers while blocking the passage of crucial internal improvements. But this didn’t equate to loving black people or in any way caring about their interests. They certainly didn’t want blacks in northern cities. The average white northerner wanted to live in a free white country, and if the slaves were freed would have wanted them deported to Liberia or Central America.

And plenty of northerners themselves benefited from slavery, the fruits of which helped to industrialize the North. You can bet the average white Bostonian circa 1830 thought about the black slaves in Alabama who picked the cotton sent to his textile mill about as much as you think about the Bangladeshi orphans who make your shoes or the trafficked girls in your porn.

Most Yankees were either very racist or very morally lazy, and didn’t care about slavery persisting in the South. They just didn’t want it expanding west into virgin land that should be saved for Free White Men. They saw a homogenous society of free yeomen farmers and tradesmen as the true realization of the Jeffersonian Ideal, which had been imperfectly realized at the founding, but could be actualized as America expanded in a more deliberate way. The first Oregon constitution literally banned black people for this reason.

The Yankees didn’t want to see their dream compromised by a bunch of fat guys in seersucker who’d import blacks into their ethnostate and sit around sipping mint julips all day. When this started to happen in Missouri alongside Yankee settlement it really pissed the North off.

Eventually the planters just got too big for their britches. It was probably inevitable that they’d push everyone too far. These men were in their own way just as ideologically rigid and fanatical as New England Puritans, having largely descended from royalist “Cavaliers” who came to the New World seeking to build a more authoritarian and stratified society than England, where they could retain feudal power structures and were free to beat up poor people and rape their servants. It’s only when lower class whites became too prosperous to allow themselves to be treated in this manner and started pushing back in large numbers that the Cavaliers started importing African slaves to fulfill the same role.

Unlike their equivalents up north, the southern ruling class didn’t have to work. They were born and bred to rule. This heritage made them exceptional diplomats and generals, but it also created an impetuous and entitled culture prone to ignoring things like a 3-to-1 population disadvantage and much smaller productive capacity.

And so the South began to take an attitude of extreme intransigence despite already enjoying massively disproportionate political power in Congress and the Supreme Court. They tried to push their plantations past Missouri and into Kansas, starting a low level guerrilla war that massively raised the salience of slavery. One of their leaders famously beat the shit out of a rival in Congress who criticized their Peculiar Institution. Worst of all, they violated state sovereignty and the political dignity of northern whites by imposing gross shit like the Fugitive Slave Act at the federal level.

And so we elected Lincoln to roll these excesses back, which made them chimp out and provoke us into permanently ending their way of life.

As the Civil War progressed—and especially as it drew to a close—the conflict became more about freeing black people. But it didn’t begin this way. It basically started as White Nationalism vs. White Supremacy.

Characterizing the Civil War as “about slavery” as modern liberals do is dishonest because it makes it sound like there were hordes of young men marching down south specifically to free black people.

You had some of that from insane religious fundamentalists in New England, but the median northern white person circa 1860 was *incredibly* racist and unconcerned about black people. He went to go fight because he wanted to kick some southern ass and punish the planters for acting like dicks politically.

But even this enthusiasm faded fairly quickly—Lincoln famously had to staff his armies with hardscrabble Irish immigrants and put down draft riots because nobody wanted to fight in what people hilariously called his Ni… well, click on the link.

Anyway, as the war ended and Yankees made contact with the mass of Black America for the first time—and then especially after Lincoln was martyred—much of Northern society mobilized to help elevate the freedmen. But outside of the usual New England crazies nobody likes (not even black people, really), this impulse was pretty shallow.

A lot of the carpetbaggers who moved south to implement Reconstruction were Robin DeAngelo-type grifters or fanatical hatemongers like Tim Wise, and they never developed a mode of governance that met southern whites where they were or could establish lasting change. As a result, most of these people got thrown out of power quickly by southron “Redeemers” who rolled back reforms and instituted Jim Crow.

These setbacks were never reversed because by the mid-1870s white northerners had lost all appetite to finish Reconstruction. Their main goal had already been accomplished—the planters had been crushed, the South had stopped acting important, and southron leaders were now content to play a second fiddle role in the Democratic Party to the Irish and German immigrant political machines that had grown powerful up north.

The Redeemer leadership who replaced the planters turned Dixie into a slow, backward, inward-looking place that was actually worse for black people in most respects. But white northerners were basically fine with Jim Crow, since helping blacks was always a secondary goal tagged on at the end of the war.

It was thus for the next century that white northerners mostly gave up on blacks, and America entered what historians today call the Nadir of American Race Relations. This would be the prevailing state of affairs until Soviet accusations of hypocrisy motivated Yankees to end Jim Crow and force desegregation on the South.

Whenever public sentiment turns against Blacks so quickly it usually stems from either mass violence—the Haitian revolution, black riots after MLK’s death, “mostly peaceful protests”—or the perception of widespread corruption and grift.

White people start to feel like blacks and their allies are taking advantage of our liberal attitude and generosity, and there is a severe conservative backlash against doing anything politically for black people—a “Blacklash”, if you will.

Whites will start to crack down on crime in a very bloodthirsty and punitive way (e.g. lynching, chain gangs, the War on Drugs) and even the most liberal Whites stop voting for any politician promising mo money fo dem programs.

In the 1870s this happened due to the excesses of Reconstruction as well as the need to build coalitions with white southerners to properly address the issues of the day.

In the late 1960s it was caused by the aforementioned riots, as well as the emergence of black radicalism, which scared the shit out of White people.

In 2022 and 2023 it was caused by lingering resentments over the Floyd riots, plus the colossal waste and rent-seeking of DEI.

An interesting pattern always emerges after a decade or two of Blacklash. Conditions on the ground start to quiet, and racial issues fall to the background of American life such that most people aren’t thinking about race much at all.

Or at least no one is among the white middle class. The prison population will be enormous during this part of the cycle, and every now and then you’ll talk to a black guy who has an uncle serving a long sentence for some nonviolent offense that should probably have been half the length. Meanwhile, a lot of black people will live in quiet poverty, but they have no influence because white liberals know that advocating for them is politically toxic.

Crucially, during these periods even the Talented Tenth will build islands for themselves and have fun doing the Harlem Renaissance thing, or alternatively will fashion themselves as One of the Good Ones or a Cool Black Guy, and cash in on that status by making white people who are anxious about the era’s racial conservatism feel like they are actually progressive and broadminded.

Sometimes this even gets them elected President.

And this is what gives you the comfy (for wypipo) dynamic of the late nineties and early aughts, in which the black underclass has been so marginalized by mean and vindictive conservatives that most white people only interact with the black middle class. Everyone is obviously aware of black poverty and mass incarceration, but it’s so abstract that it can be idealized, and simultaneously becomes very cool to edgy teenage boys and sympathetic to young women.

This in turn gives black people enormous prestige, and soon every white person becomes eager to have a Black Best Friend, like Ben Carson or Brenda from the Scary Movie series (honestly every movie from this era has basically the same character, and they’re often written by black people who have fun getting meta with the archetype).

These white people are looking for someone who reacts to things in more emotive ways, on occasion code switches into AAVE for comedic effect, and can give them the “black take” on things, but mostly has precisely the same sensibilities as a middle class white person. Most importantly, because you are nice to them specifically they will always tell people you aren’t racist.

Middle class black people who grew up during the initial phases of the Blacklash are usually somewhat resentful of this dynamic, but can compare it to something a lot worse for them and will make their peace with it. But their children, who have never known anything but this landscape, will be a lot more prone to radicalism. To a lot of black people born in the 90s, becoming some peckerwood’s sidekick and assuming the role of Black Best Friend is basically cooning.

And perhaps they have a point. It’s true that a lot of white people during these interim phases are basically expecting their black friends to never be the main character and just make funny faces and go “mmm-mmm chile.”

It’s sort of like how Missy-Anne treated Kizzy in Roots.

But black radicals approach this behavior without any nuance to their understanding. They imagine all white people will treat them like this, and largely misunderstand where the cringey behavior comes from.

It doesn’t come from a place of malice or looking down on black people in any way. White people who actually look down on blacks or hate them don’t want black friends.

It’s a way to deal with the immense anxiety that comes from the fact that white-black racial politics in America are a zero sum game.

Practically speaking, you need to subject white people to an onerous level of affirmative action and redistributive taxation to give black people a reasonable level of dignity / prestige in society and a good standard of living. Likewise, you need to subject black people to an onerous level of policing (stop and frisk, drug war, etc.) to bring down crime rates sufficiently for white people to feel safe.

We’ve tried very hard to make the relationship a win-win, but in practice it never is. Uplifting black people requires whites to put up with increased crime and racial wealth redistribution, and we never tolerate that for very long. This creates a dynamic of mutual resentment that more or less permanently puts us on opposite sides of what the philosopher Carl Schmitt called the Friend-Enemy Distinction.

Black people feel this distinction in their bones and love to talk about it. White people also feel it in their bones, but dedicate a tremendous amount of mental energy to *not* talking about it because it makes us so very uncomfortable.

And that is why whites act so cringey to blacks sometimes—we desperately need a release valve for this discomfort, and there’s no better release valve than a Black Best Friend who says “mmm-mmm” while shaking her head and never hesitates to assure you that you weren’t being racist when you said that thing to that lady in the Target parking lot.

And to be fair to us Whites, lots of Blacks find it really fun to play that role. And in practice black people aren’t the only ones who do this. We ALL like to “coon” sometimes as the most extreme version of what we are.

“Reverse code switching” by embracing a stereotype for comedic effect is a charismatic way to diffuse the tension inherent in being around a lot of people who are different from you by leaning into it in a nonthreatening way. If I’m around my very conservative family or old internet friends in the Trad sphere I will play the degenerate polyamorist urbanite, just as I’ll play the Dumb White Guy chud around my girlfriend’s liberal trans friends.

There’s an undignified way to do this where they are laughing at you rather than with you and which *can* be fairly criticized as cooning, but this won’t happen if you have a sufficient understanding of group dynamics and a high enough verbal IQ. The key thing is that you crack jokes that subtextually convey your perspective and assert your dignity while superficially using the language of the other side. You lean into things that are high prestige in your world but low prestige in theirs in a clever way that acknowledges you value different things without making it a fight.

Black comedians have always been good at using this dynamic to become popular with white audiences, but recently we’re starting to see the same thing happen from the opposite direction. Comedians like Shane Gillis can send extremely liberal audiences into hysterics by leaning into the Dumb White Guy role. The fact that Gillis has amassed a sizeable fanbase of conservatives is proof that he’s not just doing Chudface. He’s making his audiences laugh on his terms by knowing the rules very well and understanding how to break them in a calculated way.

This approach is how the most effective black people in America have used the Black Best Friend dynamic to make things better for black people or simply accrue lots of money and status for themselves. Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, MLK, Oprah, Will Smith, and Obama were all masters of capitalizing on this pressure point in the White American psyche without “cooning” in a way that seems undignified.

But while individual black people can and do become incredibly successful in this manner, the condition of black people as a whole tends to improve a lot more slowly, and “hard” institutional advancement has always come much more easily than “soft” social change.

Because of this dynamic it often feels like a zero sum black-white divide is an intractable part of American life.

Crucially, this isn’t the case with racial politics generally.

With Native Americans and Asians and Hispanics it’s a lot messier. They don’t vote like a political bloc like blacks do, and when they marry white people their kids usually see themselves as white.

It’s basically the same dynamic that surrounded my Irish and Italian ancestors, and is why I strongly doubt white people will ever become a “minority” like I feared 10 years ago. America is always going to be a “white” country—it’s just that the modal white person will start to look like Richard Hanania or Anna Khachiyan or Nick Fuentes, and I am totally fine with that.

If we start doing any kind of ethnic purity spiraling we’ll end up at Ben Franklin’s position that Wogs Begin at Calais, and quite frankly I prefer my fellow Ellis Islanders to the Albion’s Seed people.

But when a white person has kids with a black person the kids will almost always see themselves as black. This isn’t “the cultural legacy of the One Drop Rule,” it’s the obvious fact that black people have much more dominant genes than everyone else.

And that isn’t a bad thing! If they didn’t have such dominant genes black people almost certainly would have faded into the white population very quickly after 1865. Their strong genes give black people an incredible cultural virility no other group has, except maybe Jews.

If I were a black guy I’d be very proud of this. Given my personality, I almost certainly would have gone through a Hotep phase as an edgy teenager where I insisted this phenomenon makes black people the master race, and spent all day spamming BBC porn on 4chan. I would probably marry the most Aryan looking woman I could find and make pissing off racist white guys my personality.

But I was born white, and so I became the Hyperborean version of this archetype.

Anyway, while their strong genes endow black people with a lot of staying power and cultural energy, it also hurts them socially and financially, because it makes it harder for whites and blacks to “blend” in the very seamless way that whites can with Amerindians, Hispanics, MENA people, and (to a lesser extent) South and East Asians. These days being a quarter Korean or half Arab is functionally identical to being part Italian 50 years ago or part Irish/German 100 years ago. Meanwhile, being one eighth black just makes you Team Lightskin.

And this is why black-white mixing has always carried a higher level of stigma than any other combination.

It’s extremely hard to talk about this fact in polite company, and we should be sensitive not to hurt anyone’s feelings more than we need to. I would never bring this up with someone actually in such a relationship, and I would encourage my dear reader to behave with similar courtesy. But when we’re operating in the realm of politics I think it’s important for us to be frank about the issue to get clarity here.

The reality is that even very racist parents usually won’t care that much if you bring home a Mexican girl, so long as she is sweet and feminine. This is because they know your kids aren't going to run around talking about La Raza Cosmica and posting Aztlan maps all over the internet. They’ll just be kind of swarthy white people.

Basically the same principle applies to marrying Asians—you’ll see a bit more hesitation if her parents have an accent or come from a tropical clime, and a bit less if they’re heavily assimilated or specifically Japanese or Korean. With MENA girls the religious factor might pose a big problem in some families, but that’s a separate issue. I think most White Americans see Arab Christians in the same way they see Greeks or Serbs and it would be more of a fun exotic thing for your family in practice.

Likewise, even during the most extreme and purity-spiraling era of the Alt Right, people would call you a psycho if you objected to Gavin McInnes marrying a Native woman or John Derbyshire having part-Chinese kids. Similarly, only the most extreme and disagreeable edgelords would countersignal the inclusion of Levantine / Iranian / Castizo people under the umbrella of Whiteness. This is where the meme comes from that modern White Nationalism is full of Hispanics and Arabs.

But because of the strong genes factor, this easy tolerance of blurred lines never seems to extend to black people. If you bring home a black girl and she’s not Meghan Markle levels of passing, lots of conservative parents will have a somber conversation with you in which they’ll say things they’d never even think in any other context.

Meanwhile even the most liberal parents will have some instinctive feeling of unease, and compensate for this with exaggerated behavior to demonstrate their comfort with the match in a Doth Protest Too Much kind of way. It’s because of this phenomenon that Jordan Peele’s Get Out was so popular—lots of black people had dealt with something very similar to the behavior of the girl’s parents in the first act.

The fundamental problem here is that there’s no way to say you don’t feel comfortable with your kids marrying a black person without sounding incredibly racist and making people think you’re simply dehumanizing millions of people. But the level of stigma that gets attached to this sentiment is actually very unhelpful.

Feeling this way doesn’t have to mean you *hate* anyone, or even that you feel very strong racial sentiment yourself. It can simply mean you want your grandkids to look somewhat like you. It can mean you don’t want your kids to have to deal with the greater social stress or disapproval from less tolerant family members on both sides.

Most crucially, it can mean you don’t want your grandchildren identifying with a group that votes 90% for the other political party, on some levels sees itself as oppositional to mainstream society, and can’t feel patriotic in the same way you can because George Washington held hundreds of their coethnics in bondage. Going to any American history museum with them will always be incredibly awkward.

It’s easy to see why someone would be upset to think their grandkids would automatically become part of this group. It means you are no longer on the same “side” as your own family. This isn’t really “racism”. It’s a sober assessment of the most powerful Friend-Enemy Distinction undergirding American politics and the inevitable personal consequences of this.

This is, after all, a group that now dismisses even Hamilton as “problematic” or “corny” for trying to create a narrative that lets blacks identify with America instead of dismissing the Founding Fathers as ipso facto evil for owning slaves. White people can’t bear to hear this, but large proportion of black people really do hate everything about the America that existed before MLK.

And can you really blame them?

Don’t get me wrong, to feel this way as a white person is cringeworthy ethnomasochism, and white people who don’t take their own side ought to be bullied.

But I understand why black people feel like White America is the villain in their own historical narrative.

Imagine a world where China defeated America in a giant war and then sold us all to Martians to work as slaves in the salt mines of Olympus Mons.

Imagine that after we’d been there roughly a century Mars declares independence from the Saturnine Empire, and the most important Martian founding fathers are aristocrats who own many hundreds of human slaves. The man leading the fight for freedom wears false teeth extracted from his human property, while the most articulate defender of Martian liberty regularly beds his teenage human concubine.

Imagine that after a century of this, the Martians began to free us as the salt mines dried up and it’s become inefficient to pay for our food and shelter, and that after a few decades half of Mars was free, while slaves were no longer imported from Earth.

Imagine that at this juncture a new technology emerged which allowed Martians to harvest rare metals in Ares Valis, and they then pivoted into expanding slavery on an industrial scale in much worse conditions, all the while policing us much more sternly due to a successful slave revolt on Venus.

Imagine that half a century after this development we are finally freed thanks to an internal struggle that produced a temporary surge of goodwill from the victorious free half of Mars, which briefly tried to uplift us after concluding it would be too expensive to deport us all to Phobos and Deimos.

Imagine that this faction then abandoned us the precise moment our alliance became inconvenient (but not before it has provoked intense hatred from more local Martians).

Imagine we spent the next 80 years languishing in a caste system under these local Martians that is oftentimes more brutal and impoverished than slavery. Imagine that whenever we manage to migrate to the other side of Mars we are often treated worse because they have much less experience with us.

Imagine Mars suddenly enters into a Cold War with a formidable confederation of Space Dwarves on the Asteroid Belt who try to manipulate the nations of Earth into siding with them by playing up how badly Mars treats humans. This compels the nicer half of Mars who freed us but then abandoned us to once more come in on a white horse and pressure local Martians into giving us civil rights. Suddenly all legal barriers are removed and we can now vote and participate in polite society.

But it also turns out the average Martian IQ is 130, and to be the status equivalent of a doctor or engineer in the significantly more complex Martian society requires an IQ around 150. Almost no humans are capable of that, and even average jobs require a level of intelligence that would be pretty remarkable back on earth. Meanwhile the Martian temperament is extremely calm and forward-thinking and much less prone to violence than ours, and they have the same murder rate as Asian female octogenarians do among humans.

This means we can never really catch up with Martians collectively no matter how hard we try. Humans will commit more crimes and this will make the Martians terrified of us and prone to locking us up for a huge chunk of our shorter lifespan. The IQ differential will also make it impossible to compete with them, but Martians aren’t allowed to talk about this because the evil Helium Dragons of Jupiter also talked about racial differences, and a few decades ago they tried to kill everyone on Pluto with poison gas from Uranus.

And so nothing ever works to level the playing field. Every now and then the Nice Martians try to help us with increased social welfare spending or defunding the police or affirmative action, but this just leads to waste and abuse while increasing crime.

This in turn engenders resentment and makes more people side with the Mean Martians, who take away those programs and figure out ways to severely repress our much higher crime rate by locking adolescent human males up for drug offenses before they can commit any violent crimes as adults, leaving our women dependent on handouts and prone to raising fatherless human males who are themselves locked up at an even younger age.

I could belabor this analogy further, but I think you get the point.

I think the above exercise in creative empathy hits at two key points that make black resentment so powerful in America.

First, from the black perspective it feels like they are always getting the rug pulled out from under them.

On four occasions now, they have made rapid progress by inducing the majority of white society to ally with them, only for this progress to be revealed as hollow and for virtually all white moderates to abandon them once it’s revealed that progress won’t be quick and easy (and as it turns out is probably impossible).

If I were a black guy and studied American history in a rigorous way, I probably would just conclude that “white allies” can’t be trusted.

Second, unlike literally every other group in America, blacks didn’t choose to come here. They were kidnapped by the ancestors of modern Africans in tribal raids or internecine warfare and then sold to wypipo, who brought them here in a voyage of captivity that itself retains cultural significance to them.

They don’t have the same fanciful Mayflower or Ellis Island narrative the rest of us do about our heritage that makes us feel—rightly or wrongly—like we’re descended from the most enterprising and adventurous people from our ancestral homelands. Instead they descend from people who lost a battle and got kidnapped. Their story as a distinct people is steeped in this humiliating lack of agency, which psychologically compels them to overcompensate with a greater level of aggression, group solidarity, and distrust for outsiders.

I can empathize with this tendency, because I too would be pissed if everyone associated my people with slavery just because great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpa Mbutu was distracted one afternoon and got hit in the neck with a dart. There is something deeply unfair about that on an existential level.

From the white perspective, one can make the obvious point that Black Americans have a much higher standard of living here than they would have in Africa, and that we’ve repaid them for slavery many times over through welfare and affirmative action. These points are entirely legitimate from the white perspective.

But if I were black I don’t think I’d care about them at all.

I’m sure everyone reading this has been in some conflict with a parent, romantic partner, or coworker where there are two sides to the story that would be equally compelling to a third party but are fundamentally at odds with one another.

That’s basically how I see the conflict between whites and blacks in America.

Is it true that whites have repeatedly pulled the rug out from under blacks, and broken promises like “forty acres and a mule,” while quickly abandoning projects like the Great Society? Yes.

Is it true that blacks have repeatedly taken advantage of whites? Absolutely.

You’re just going to see it differently and give weight to different parts of the story depending on who you are. As a conservative white guy I will say that affirmative action and welfare have repaid slavery many times over, but I don’t really blame the black guy for tuning me out when I make this argument. I’d almost certainly do the same thing in his shoes. That’s just how the human mind works.

It’s important for people to understand that there’s no way to teach history that isn’t extremely biased and ideological. You can’t cover literally every event in any textbook or lecture, so especially when teaching kids, you need to focus on the most important stories and personalities from the era to present a “historical narrative” that aligns with the basic goals of society and gives people a sense of pride.

The problem is that you can only do this when all parties in society are on your side and are in basic agreement about what happened. This has become impossible when it comes to American history because the slavery issue is so important to black people, while conservative whites are extremely protective of the founding fathers. Because of this dynamic there is literally no way to teach early American history that won’t be at least mildly disgusting to some segment of the population.

I know the above thoughts were somewhat rambling and disorganized, so let me try to hammer them into a few central points:

• Hanania is correct—race relations are rapidly improving in America and our politics are racially depolarizing

• The one major exception is among black people, almost all of whom are black nationalists in practice, given their practical tendency to vote for their racial interests as a unified ethnic bloc

• The relationship between blacks and whites in America is highly “zero sum” and intractable compared to other racial dynamics. It’s relatively difficult to transcend this “friend-enemy distinction” because in practice there’s no way to make white people feel safe without heavily policing blacks, and there’s no way to economically uplift blacks without heavily taxing whites.

• Despite this, white people have a lot of genuine goodwill towards blacks and sincerely want to help them. It’s because of this goodwill that White America periodically will center the needs of blacks over all other national goals, and will then start to resent black people when it feels like they are taking advantage of our goodwill via crime and racial grifting.

• Black people will perceive this quasi-religious cycle of worship and resentment as “broken promises”, and it makes them resent white people in a uniquely intense way that’s basically understandable.

As I argued in my previous essay, I think that breaking this cycle has to be a priority for any prowhite political movement in America. If you don’t do this and “wipe the slate clean” you will always lose the white moderate normie to people like Kendi at some point. You will also get him back later, but only after a lot of pain and stress for pretty much everyone in society.

More broadly, I believe that making peace with blacks is essential for the basic political health of America. Black resentment was used against America by the British Empire in the 1770s and the USSR in the 1950s, and I’m sure China likewise had a hand in amplifying BLM in 2020. This is something America needs to address for basic national security reasons.

Conservative white people need to be at the forefront of advocating reparations. We need to seize moral authority and make sure that all future racial discourse happens on our terms. We need to ensure that fanatical neopuritans in New England can never again threaten our livelihoods for not bowing to their latest intellectual fad.

The reparations scheme I propose will cost about 4% of the current federal budget and will last roughly 50 years. To my mind that’s a small price to pay if it liberates both whites and blacks from this miserable cycle of racial strife.

In this essay I’ll try to convince white conservatives and especially white nationalists to support slavery reparations for black people.

My goal here is to get people talking and start to create an intellectual infrastructure for the idea so someone can run with it in a future GOP primary.

My argument will not be based on white guilt, the idea that black people “deserve” reparations, or even the idea that this policy would benefit America as a whole.

I am making the narrow claim that reparations would be good for white people specifically, and in particular would benefit white people with a strong ingroup preference who are tired of being smeared as “racist.”

The basic idea would be to use a finite payment distributed as an annuity to every black person to negotiate a permanent end to affirmative action and DEI, while securing political cover for cracking down on crime and dismantling the welfare state.

The broader goal would be to permanently castrate antiwhite grievance in America and prevent something like 2020’s “racial reckoning” from ever happening again. By securing the right symbolic victories I believe we can make the race card powerless among even the squishiest white people.

Imagine the year is 2033 and a ceremony is taking place at the Lincoln Memorial to celebrate the passage of reparations.

All the leaders of Black America are there. Obviously the Obamas would take center stage, as would Jay-Z and Beyonce and Oprah. Behind them stand the leaders of the congressional black caucus. An emaciated Al Sharpton is wheeled out beside them by Lebron, who is followed by Colin Kaepernick and Kanye and Kyrie and Steph Curry and a bunch of other artists and sportsmen I couldn’t name.

The pageantry is turned up to eleven. President DeSantis emerges from behind a curtain, followed by the four biggest and blondest members of the Marine Color Guard, who wheel out a giant piece of parchment paper intentionally drawn up to look like the Declaration of Independence.

As Beyonce sings the Black National Anthem, these luminaries proceed to walk across a stage erected in front of Lincoln’s statue to sign their name to what is subsequently called the Declaration of Absolution.

This document forfeits any claim to affirmative action and similar privileges, and states that black people formally and permanently forgive white people for the crimes of slavery and Jim Crow.

Fireworks erupt and Beyonce closes the ceremony by singing the conventional wypipo national anthem. As the black leaders leave the stage, each of them shakes the hand of President DeSantis. Dave Chapelle causes a stir by being the only one who refuses to do this.

Over the next year an enormous Monument of Absolution is erected in D.C., the centerpiece of which is a marble statue of George Washington shaking hands with an onyx statue of MLK. This monument has a museum dedicated to celebrating the amity between blacks and whites, which features a lot of exhibits showing moments in history where our races came together (and quietly presents a subtextual narrative that whites have invested an enormous amount to help blacks over the years).

It also has a cafe where you can buy white and black cookies.

The day the declaration was signed is made a national holiday and branded the National Day of Reconciliation. Across the country GOP leaders celebrate it by packing college republicans on a bus and taking them to a barbecue at a black church. Meanwhile a new $200 bill is issued bearing the image of both Obama and Trump.

It’s fine if the above imagery makes you roll your eyes. You aren’t the target of this propaganda. The target is the sort of white person who is psychologically susceptible to claims that we haven’t done enough for blacks—affluent white women and very young whites of a more agreeable nature.

You probably think we already repaid black people for slavery through welfare or affirmative action. I agree. Hell, I'm sure we’d done so five times over by 1970.

It also doesn’t matter one whit. That kind of argument only works on high IQ and disagreeable people, or smart people who already trust you and will hear you out. It’s almost impossible to use econometrics to convince midwits excessively sensitive to social norms and “reading the room”, especially when said midwits are single women or under 25.

Even if you succeed, redpilling folks individually is like swimming against the tide. Every time some bleeding heart girl gets a fashy boyfriend or big girl job and abandons woke ideology she is replaced by an incoming college student or embittered divorcee with an axe to grind against white men.

These people vote based on literally nothing but their feelings, and 2020 shows that in the right circumstances it’s incredibly easy to manipulate the weakest among them with sentimental wambulance rhetoric.

This is a huge threat because once these people are activated they Maoistly bully everyone around them (especially other women and young people) into going with the flow and silencing all opposition. Back in 2020 many Zoomers were ostracized merely for *not posting* that black square thing on Instagram. Eventually women start pressuring their husbands and fathers and this causes major institutional change.

The kind of symbolism I propose above is calibrated to tug on the heartstrings of people like this and hammer home the message that We Have Done Enough until it’s part of our political religion and black nationalism no longer has any pull among softer and gentler white people.

The goal is to make arguments for babying black people so absurd that moderate liberals will let conservatives be a lot harsher towards crime and a lot stingier in dealing with inner city poverty.

You might object that we’ve tried this before—that neither liberals nor black people are willing to acknowledge the magnanimity of welfare and affirmative action, and that they’re bound to demand even more in the future.

It’s certainly true that white moderates and squishy conservatives supported these policies as reparations at the time, but because they weren’t explicitly framed as such it’s not effective to present them this way in arguments with black nationalists and their allies. Sadly, most people are too stupid or simply too distracted by life to form coherent narratives about things like this unless you spell it out for them.

Crucially, we also never asked black people for anything in exchange in the past, and that is an integral part of what I propose. We need to get them to sign a “contract with White America” that we can forever point to when our wife starts nagging us to vote Democrat once the next Summer of Floyd rolls around.

The centerpiece of this contract will be that black leaders sign the Declaration of Absolution. Such a document will of course be purely symbolic, but I think it will be enormously powerful in liberating people of white guilt and destroying the power of the race card.

Perhaps the 95th percentile squish will be unmoved, but I am certain the 60th percentile squish—think the Michelle Obama-loving housewife in the Dallas suburbs or liberal college girl with a conservative boyfriend—will forevermore find black nationalism a lot more annoying, and become much less supportive of opening the prisons, affirmative action, etc.

These people want to seem generous and fairminded, but they also don’t want to be taken advantage of, and in a post-reparations world I think it would become trivially easy for conservatives to characterize any riots or rent-seeking as bad faith.

Reparations will also push some proportion of middle class black people—not a huge number in absolute terms, but enough to have an impact for sure—into not feeling like they have to vote Democrat against their own economic self interest because they need to support “the culture.”

Lots of wealthier and higher IQ black people resent inner city dysfunction as much as anyone, but would never say this openly because they don’t want to feel like an Uncle Tom, and when they do so are punished by black society writ large (see Bill Cosby’s famous Pound Cake Speech). Reparations would create a lot of space psychologically for these people to defect to the GOP and start openly reproaching their coethnics for bad behavior. Clearly on the margins this will have a positive impact for white people.

So what would reparations look like in practice? And how much do we need to give?

Personally, I like the idea of tying it to “forty acres and a mule” to further the symbolism and establish the most realistic basis for agreement between blacks and whites. With that in mind let’s get autistic and do some math.

According to a-z-animals.com, the cost of a donkey can range from $135 to $20,000, but a “Large Standard Donkey” ranges from $500 to $1500. Let’s split the middle and go with $1000. General Sherman was pretty racist even for his time, and I doubt he was planning to give black people a top of the line “Poitou Donkey” for $20k.

For the forty acres there’s a lot to consider given that the cost of land varies so much by location, so I think we should just go with the simplest approach. According to agweb.com the average price value of U.S. cropland was $5460 per acre in 2023, so I’ll use that figure and multiply it by 40 to get $218,400

If you sum these values together you get a little under $219,400, but I say we make it $250k because a nice round number sounds a lot better, and inflation will take the number there anyway by the time anyone might attempt this.

According to the Pew Research Center there are about 48 million black people in America, so the total cost of this scheme would be just over $12 trillion.

Obviously this wouldn’t be distributed as a lump sum. That would break the bank, and a lot of money would just end up in the hands of Nike instead of creating any persistent wealth. In practice you would instead have it work like Social Security and pay out monthly as a life contingent annuity.

Every black person born prior to a certain date without a felony offense in their history would at the age of 18 receive a “reparations account” that starts at $250k and accumulates interest at the inflation rate.

Each month they’d receive a check from this account based on their age and life expectancy—the older you are, the more you get. They would also inherit into their own account any funds their parents don’t manage to withdraw before they die.

To estimate the actual budgetary impact of this approach we can do some back of the envelope calculations. The median U.S. black person is 32 years old and the black life expectancy is 76, so we’d be paying the average black person for about 44 years. This means the median payment per person per year would be $5700, which in aggregate comes to $272 billion per annum—roughly a fifth of what we spend on Social Security.

That’s not nothing, but it’s not an enormous amount either. It’s small enough that we can fund it without breaking the bank, but big enough to consistently annoy white people whenever they see it in budget statistics, which will have the positive externality of making whites even more conservative in their voting habits for a good 40-50 years. Annoying white people like this is a feature of reparations, not a bug.

There are also lots of creative things you can do with a program like this. Maybe let people move some additional proportion of their monthly benefit into a 401k or IRA, and allow loans against the fund for tuition, medical expenses, and down payments on a house. This would make the program more expensive, but also create a Singapore-style incentive for private wealth creation that induces black people to save, and could be used as as an example for future attempts to privatize social security.

More importantly, you can use reparations to restrain criminality.

In the hands of a GOP administration, reparations could be passed with the stipulation that any misdemeanor offense would freeze your account for three years, while a felony conviction would zero it out permanently.

By blocking criminals from receiving any money you will give the black underclass an enormous incentive not to engage in dysfunctional behavior. Meanwhile, you’d now have a lot more latitude from white liberals and the black middle class to crack down aggressively on any crime that *does* happen. By combining the carrot with the stick in this fashion we can start to make our cities nice again.

Reparations also will let you dismantle much of the welfare state. As Andrew Yang argued in 2020 and Milton Friedman claimed many decades ago, a UBI is much more efficient to administer than any welfare program. Reduce the distribution of food stamps etc. in situations where reparations checks make up the cost and then start firing lots of unneeded bureaucrats and social workers en masse. This will break the legs of the Democrat Party. Without this apparatus it will become a lot harder for them to politically mobilize black urbanites.

You will also see a lot of black people on the margins quitting their jobs at the airport or DMV or various low level bureaucracies to live off reparations in low cost housing situations. This may expand the black underclass in an unhelpful way, but these people probably won’t become criminals since they don’t want to lose their reparations. They will just sit around smoking weed and kind of disappear.

But by quitting their jobs, these people will be opening up decent paid and respectable positions for the white working class, and this will be a huge boon for all white people. Instead of a black single mom getting paid $70k to push papers around at the DMV, it will be a white single mom who today works as a waitress at Denny’s or does Doordash or is involved in some kind of sex work.

Even the wealthier among us will benefit from this, as going to get your driver’s license renewed or through airport security will become a lot more pleasant.

Meanwhile the operational culture of a lot of state bureaucracies will become more conservative and give the GOP a foothold in regaining control over institutions as some of these people inevitably rise through the ranks of the civil service.

So how does something like this even get passed?

So long as Trump is around it won’t be. It can’t even enter the discourse, because right now the Orange Man sucks up all oxygen on the Right and nothing interesting can happen. But Trump won’t be around forever, and once he’s gone a vacuum will quickly emerge in which people will be looking for bold new ideas.

In that universe this idea is less inconceivable, but it would still have to come from a GOP candidate smart and creative enough to do something unconventional, who also doesn’t have any incentive to play it safe. But this candidate would still need to be kind of autistic and weird for them to even consider it. They’d also need to be somewhat “racist-coded”, and would definitely have to be a white male, otherwise the magic disappears and the policy will seem inherently squishy / cucked. So it couldn’t be someone like Vivek or Kari Lake pushing this.

With that in mind, I think Ron DeSantis would be the most likely to attempt and succeed at something like this, and could try to do so in 2028 (or 2032 if he takes Rick Scott’s Senate seat and can run against an unpopular populist Democrat elected during a backlash to Trump). DeSantis is a contrarian nerd who looks at things from different angles, and that’s what led him to take the right line on Covid in 2020-2021. I think he could be persuaded to take a similar line on reparations if he had the right white paper in front of him and the right strategic team. If a big name like Hanania endorsed this I think it would percolate through the conservative intellectual ecosystem and the ball would start rolling in a useful direction.

Of course Meatball got clobbered in 2024, but nobody could beat Trump this cycle, so you can’t count that against him. DeSantis’s problem wasn’t, as many claim, that he wasn’t “likable”. GOP voters don’t want likeable, they want *dominant*.

Newt Gingrich definitely wasn’t likable, but he got very far in 2012 because he could frequently dominate Romney and various CNN anchors in the same way DeSantis excels at. If he leans into this energy like he did against Haley in the last 2024 debate I think he will do fine.

But DeSantis certainly doesn’t have the insane charisma of Trump, and after his humiliation in 2024 needs a game changer to win in 2028 against Don Jr. or Vivek or whoever else runs. That’s what this policy could offer him.

The beauty of running on reparations is it gives you space to run *far* to the right of everyone else on issues of white identity. Crucially, it allows you to say the forbidden words “White People” instead of relying on dogwhistles like every other Republican.

You can talk about antiwhite crime, racism against whites, affirmative action being unfair to whites, and so on, and make all of these reasons to support reparations as a means of transactionally dismantling antiwhite policies.

Every time DeSantis says “White People” on stage it will make everyone uncomfortable. They’ll start to get awkward and clam up because he is breaking the rules, but in a way that makes it almost impossible to reproach him. Meatball’s autism will suddenly become a huge advantage, because it makes it easier for him to break social norms in a big brained way. The CNN anchors won’t know how to handle it.

Nobody can punch him from the left because he’s proposing reparations, and nobody can hit him from the right because he’s talking about white interests. It’s classic triangulation, and will give his candidacy a lot more energy than someone like Don Jr. or Vivek could ever bring to the table trying to resuscitate a hollow and zombified MAGA everyone will be bored of by then.

The general election will be easier than the primary if he can find the right black surrogates to build support for his candidacy. Kanye is an obvious one who will definitely support this, but people like Jay Z and Obama will definitely resist for obvious reasons, as will much of the black elite in media and academia. These people will correctly understand this policy as threatening their own power base, and they will discourage rank and file black people from supporting DeSantis.

But I don’t think this will work any more than neoconservative disdain for Trump stopped rank and file conservative Jews from loving him when he became super pro-Israel, or Mitt Romney’s efforts drove down his support with Mormons after he put a ton of conservative justices on SCOTUS. This kind of agitation had *some* impact for sure, but Trump still won Utah by a comfortable margin.

When you pit the elites of a group against their proles in such a powerful way there is only so much the elites can do to stop the bleeding. In practice you would see thousands of young black guys on TikTok yelling at old black people for not supporting DeSantis to secure the bag.

One potential threat to this strategy is that the Dems will just offer their own reparations scheme with double the benefit amount and no restrictions based on criminality. I don’t think this would work, since the GOP can just say to black people quite credibly that they will nuke any Democrat reparations bill, while the Dems would be unable to block any GOP reparations scheme without infuriating their base. DeSantis could easily mock such a tactic as lame and cynical.

I suspect that on election day the black youth would break overwhelmingly Republican while the older black vote stays loyally Dem, and the final black vote would be about 60-40 Dem. This would easily bury the Democrats in Philly and Detroit and secure the White House for DeSantis.

Once that happens the task is getting enough black leaders onboard to sign the Declaration of Absolution. This will likely require some protracted negotiations, so Meatball’s initial offer should probably be very punitive on crime with a lower total benefit, and this will give him room to negotiate.

Maybe Obama will agree to sign only if DeSantis raises it from $100k to $250k or something, so it makes sense to start small. But elder black pols are mostly reasonable and fine with transactional politics, and once you get their support they’ll pressure Lebron et al to follow suit.

In the years immediately following reparations the Democrat Party will be terrified about having lost such a massive proportion of the black vote, while Republicans will arrogantly dance on their grave and talk about a permanent GOP majority. This will of course be overblown and coalitions will trend back towards 50-50, as is inevitable in First Past the Post systems.

The Dems will also find clever ways to accelerate this development. In the first weeks of reparations a few black guys in Alabama will have their accounts frozen for marijuana possession or something, and the Left will turn this into a national cause célèbre. Popular sentiment among most young black people will start to turn sharply against Republicans.

But if DeSantis holds firm I think he will retain 25-30% of the black vote and blacks will start to occupy roughly the same place in politics that Hispanics did in the 2010s. Black Republicans won’t just be a Key and Peele joke anymore, because conservative black people will pretty much always vote GOP, and race relations will benefit as a result. People will mostly stop talking about America balkanizing along racial lines.

Meanwhile, as white people grow up in a post-reparations world, midwit white kids entering college will have a *vastly* stronger intellectual immune system when encountering antiwhite professors who tell them the black man is oppressed in America. A lot of them will deeply resent that their black peers are just getting free money, while the rest of them will have gone to the Museum of Absolution as kids and will have plenty of arguments to rebut any antiwhite grievance they encounter.

As these kids graduate they will become journalists, educators, and high level bureaucrats. They will become the vanguard in reclaiming our most important institutions. Educational polarization will decrease and sanity on racial issues will start to prevail.

The approach I outline above rests on somewhat accelerationist logic that a lot of conservative whites won’t like.

The basic idea is to approach white liberals like a parent who catches his kid smoking a cigarette and makes him smoke the entire pack so he never wants to smoke again.

A lot of you will probably hate this idea, and would rather continue hammering at affirmative action and DEI in a straightforward way while we have momentum on these issues.

Your approach will probably succeed in the short term, but I fear in the long term you’re just setting yourself up for a thermostatic backlash. You will inevitably “overreach” in the mind of white moderate normies and eventually we’ll just have another Summer of Floyd.

I’m going to publish a more substantive article about this soon, but to summarize:

It seems White Americans have an almost religious dynamic with black people where we periodically cycle between worshipping them and despising them, with brief periods of friendliness in between, like the late nineties and early aughts.

This dynamic prevents white people from pursuing our rational self interest in a consistent and diplomatically optimal way when negotiating with black people, and the resulting confusion and mistrust creates a lot of bad faith actors on both sides. Black people feel like we always break our promises and betray them, and white people feel like they always take advantage of us.

We need something incredibly powerful to break this cycle and “wipe the slate clean” in an almost metaphysical way. If you don’t break the cycle, you’ll just see “racially moderate” whites jumping flamboyantly between worship and resentment for the rest of eternity, and the dynamic will continue to present a dangerous “Fifth Column” that can be exploited by geopolitical rivals like the British Empire, USSR, and China.

In my opinion, any prowhite political impulse in America needs to center the goal of breaking this cycle above almost everything else. If you can’t destroy the systemic factors religiously empowering antiwhite grievance, you will at some point lose the white moderate and will need to start from square one.

By supporting reparations, prowhites can “square the circle” on this issue. Instead of being the Bad Cop in a dialectic with Thaddeus Stevens / Robin DeAngelo types—and only making impermanent progress whenever we’re proven right by riots or racial grifting—we can triangulate the existing discourse and deliberately hack the mind of the white moderate normie, permanently winning him to our side.

We’ll sacrifice a bit of treasure in the short term, but in doing so will permanently reshape the metapolitical contours of American racial discourse.

Hopefully you found this argument interesting at the very least. I don’t expect to have convinced anyone entirely, but I’m sure at least some of you will be amenable to further discussions.

As mentioned, I will be publishing a more substantive exploration of the White-Black political dynamic described above in the coming days, and I think that will start to convince a lot more people.

EDIT: This piece has since been published, and you can read it here.

In the meantime, please give me any initial pushback you have in the comments—I would love to hear your thoughts!

If you’ve spent any time in the world of right wing politics you’ve likely observed a guy who used to say edgy things trying to rehabilitate his image by publicizing his departure from extremism.

This article will be somewhat in that vein, but not entirely, so please pay careful attention to what I’m doing here before you call me a sellout cuck.

In this piece I’ll explain why I’ve stopped calling myself a white nationalist (WN). Do not mistake this for a disavowal of my past or some kind of groveling apology. As expressed in my retrospective on the Alt Right, I’m not in the least bit ashamed of anything I did in 2015-2018 while I was active in the movement.

During the early 2010s white Americans were under serious attack as a collective in a way that warranted an organized response. That era combined prohibitive speech norms against white self-advocacy in both liberal and conservative spaces with a bizarre surge of talk shows and clickbait articles openly celebrating the replacement of white Americans in a way no heritage population would or should tolerate without pushback. In this political ecology America needed a fanatical movement of smart and angry young men with a “shock jock” sense of humor to break the status quo and kick down the door for bold new ideas.

I am incredibly proud to have been one of these young men. Years later I still consider my activism during this period the crowning achievement of my life.

But politics is fundamentally about joining the right coalitions to achieve progress on the issues most salient to you individually, and over the past nine years a lot has happened to recalibrate my priorities. I’ve not abandoned White identity politics by any means, but I’m no longer a radical, and feel there are a number of nonracial issues that have since become much more important than the things WNs fixate on. I’ve also stopped identifying “white people” or even “white Americans” as my primary ingroup, and instead see race as only one important piece of the complex tapestry of identities that constitute citizenship and the optimal basis for coalition building.

Regardless of how you feel about the above, hopefully this piece will help you to better understand my journey and see where I am coming from.

First some notes on terminology.

In this article I’ll be making a distinction between what I call Hard WN and Soft WN.

Hard WN refers to the explicit desire for a white ethnostate formed through peaceful racial separatism. This was the ideology advocated by Richard Spencer during the Alt Right’s heyday. I subscribed to this view quite fervently from 2016-2018.

Soft WN refers to any political agenda that centers the interests and rights of white people as a collective. In practice this is most associated with a kind of racially conscious conservatism Jared Taylor calls “white advocacy”, which focuses on limiting immigration, securing free speech while spreading a general understanding of HBD and interracial crime rates, rolling back affirmative action, protecting whites from crimes committed by other races, and so on. I subscribed to several distinct variants of this ideology from 2013-2015 and 2019-2022.

In this article I will mostly be describing why I left Soft WN. My reasons for leaving Hard WN in 2018 are pretty straightforward and uninteresting—it was an idealistic and aspirational project meant to orient the Alt Right in a big bold direction, but was obviously not a tenable program for the immediate future. As I entered my late 20s I became a lot more interested in practically achievable goals, and so my mind turned back to what could realistically be achieved over the next decades to secure the safety and political sovereignty of white Americans. I thus reverted to Soft WN.

I became less racially polarized in 2019 as I flirted with #YangGang nihilism, but was reactivated in 2020 during the Summer of Floyd. Then, thankfully, in 2021-2022 I was so bombarded with whitepills that my radicalism was altogether broken.

Let’s go over the reasons why.

Reason #1 - Soft WN achieved its most important goals

I write more about how the Alt Right won in my retrospective How the Alt Right Won, so go check that out if you haven’t yet.

My basic thesis here is that while Hard WN obviously lost, Soft WN achieved a pretty sizeable metapolitical victory in that its talking points now constitute a normal part of mainstream discourse.

White people can now openly advocate for our interests in conservative and centrist spaces without facing any kind of censorship or purging. Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh are saying the same things as Jared Taylor, and if Jared had emerged fresh in 2024 without a Wikipedia page written by SPLC goons in the Before Times everyone would regard him as safely ensconced within the Overton Window. A few months ago Vivek spoke about the Great Replacement on national television and didn’t get in trouble. Hanania talks about HBD to normie conservatives and he’s basically untouchable.

This is all huge. From what I can tell, Soft WN has almost entirely fallen within the realm of acceptable discourse in the world of mainstream conservatism. It’s become incredibly normal for white people to simply air their grievances and stand up for themselves. This was always my main objective as a WN, far beyond any particular object-level policy goals.

We’ve also passed Peak Woke, and cancel culture is on its last legs. Elon buying Twitter hasn’t entirely secured free speech (he still won’t give me back my account for some reason), but it’s moved us admirably far in the right direction, and at this point anonymity almost feels unnecessary.

When I became a white nationalist circa 2015 I wasn’t confident I’d ever live in a world where I could freely express my thoughts and pursue my interests in an open and dignified manner. In today’s world I empirically *just can*, and things are getting better by the day. I honestly can’t think of any prowhite ideas I wouldn’t feel comfortable expressing before a mainstream Republican audience, and I’m certain I’ll never lose a job over politics at this point.

In 2015 I was worried that any future children I had would live in a world where their material living standards would suffer strictly for being white. In 2024 I no longer worry about this due to the decline of affirmative action and rapid destigmatization of white identity politics.

But other issues still worry me a great deal, which brings me to my next item…

Reason #2 - Nonracial issues have become far more salient while racial polarization is rapidly decreasing

Given the victories noted above, I no longer want to advocate for “white identity” issues at the expense of literally everything else. As a WN—even a Soft WN—it felt like I had to do that. I couldn’t care about, say, income tax rates or fixing Social Security, because issues like that are polarized around nonracial axes and don’t have any long-term impact on America’s racial composition.

This was a problem at the time and it’s a much bigger problem now. Even if you look at the world through an entirely racial lens, boring mundane policy issues like this have a much bigger impact on the average white person than something like immigration policy.

If you actually want to improve things for white people you sometimes need to think about the best way to govern period (this was a big reason Spencer endorsed Biden in 2020). But WNs tend not to like having the dry policy discussions this requires—it instinctively disgusts them and makes them think of portly cuckservative chamber of commerce types who pedantically obsess over tax policy while Rome burns.

I still think and talk about racial issues a lot more than liberals would like me to, and certainly more than would have been acceptable in 2013 (even among conservatives), but I have other priorities now. And the things I find most unsettling today are a lot more nebulous and difficult to combat than liberal censorship on social media.

The things I’m most worried about currently include:

• a potential end to the dollar as world reserve currency—caused by the geopolitical demise of Pax Americana following a concerted effort by Russia/China/Iran to break up NATO and dominate the World Island—which would severely limit the Federal Reserve’s ability to control the economy while exporting inflation abroad, and likely bring our material standard of living down to a German or Dutch level

• a total fiscal collapse precipitated by a selfish and unfettered gerontocracy that won’t tolerate any cuts to senior benefits like Medicare and Social Security despite a collapsing TFR and soaring interest rates

• the proliferation of high-tech “dopamine traps” like TikTok, VR porn, gambling apps, and bottomless AI-generated content that are so engaging they make everyday responsibilities intolerably boring in comparison, progressively obliterating executive functioning and attention span in each successive generation until everyone is a zombie needing enormous quantities of speed to function in any basic way

• sustained immigration of high IQ and ethnically nepotist immigrants into highly paid tech jobs, blocking the sons of the American middle class from the possibility of upward social advancement and leaving them stranded in five figure wagecuck hell

These aren’t the sort of issues you can easily address with straightforward policy solutions communicable through populist sloganeering. They require complex coalitional politics and long-term transactional arrangements between groups whose rank and file members will be prone to friction and squabbling. This in turn requires marginalizing populists on both the Right and the Left who disrupt such negotiations between more farsighted technocrats.

Obviously this can’t happen anytime soon. Trump has one more election in him and will probably crush Biden, and the Dems will likely have their own populist moment in retaliation. But eventually this chaos will have kicked down all the doors it needed to, and we’ll have to let the adults back in the room to deal with more complex issues.

This needs to happen under a post-Trump framework where White identity politics are just an unglamorous and unexceptional reality of American life in the same way black identity politics have always been. As whites become the minority in more and more states it will increasingly be seen as a Normal Thing for them to vote as wypipo, and not especially dangerous like it was in 2016.

But even as this happens I predict that politics will continue to depolarize around race and repolarize along gender, age, religion, class, and marital status.

Every day in this country more and more Hispanics marry corn-fed blonde midwesterners and produce pale Castizo children who only speak English, consider themselves basically White, and vote like Irish and Italians. Meanwhile college-educated white women are abandoning the GOP in droves and are being replaced by beige-brown Zoomers who like Andrew Tate and dig Trump’s rizz.

As trends like this continue and deepen, I predict the racial triumphalism/paranoia of the 2010s will begin to seem laughable in hindsight. Yes black people will almost certainly continue giving Democrats Saddam margins, but in 20 years I could easily see Hispanics voting 55% GOP while college-educated whites are 55% Democrat.

In that world does the electoral discourse on immigration we’re used to make sense?

To be honest, I doubt it will after this November.

Reason #3 - White people are no longer my most important ingroup

In 2018 I moved from a racially diverse swing state in the Sun Belt to a homogenous red state up in corn country. This decision was largely motivated by politics—I was looking to retreat to an imagined Hyperborea free of crime and degeneracy where my volk had political autonomy.

The next two years were the most miserable of my life. But they were also among the most instructive, and ultimately were what made me leave WN on an emotional level.

To put it bluntly, most of my white neighbors and coworkers basically resembled hobbits. They had no ambition to them, nor any aspirations of greatness. Nor did they think about the world in a dynamic way—the more educated among them certainly stayed informed about the wider world, but they largely took it for granted that their immediate universe was a static place where nothing would ever happen.

And the horrifying thing is that’s how they liked it.

I quickly discovered that Midwesterners had no sense of imperial destiny and “right to rule” like you see in New Yorkers, Texans, or Californians. They had nothing like the feisty Faustian individualism of Floridians or “fuck you” pride of Appalachians. They didn’t even have the air of faded glory and gothic tragedy you see in the Deep South. It was nothing but aggressively bland conformity everywhere you looked.

To be sure, the Midwest met my expectations of being safer, more affordable, and less degenerate than the coastal Sun Belt. But it turns out this was a bad thing for my temperament!

It turns out safety is mostly achieved by cultivating a boring and risk-averse culture optimized to meet the needs of smallminded and gossipy people who get don’t get excited about much other than college sports and weddings. If you’re a contrarian novelty-seeker you will quickly get ostracized in an environment like this because people like you are a genuine threat to the social order. You can make friends with 95th percentile openness people who see you as a curiosity, but when push comes to shove they will never choose you over the Shire.

It turns out affordability also produces a dearth of luxury and vastly less impressive elites. Gas stations and convenience stores in the Midwest are much nicer than where I grew up, but the city centers are equally less glamorous. And the people who rise to the top of the food chain are never quite as inspirational as they are in places where things are actually happening. They stop being sharp or hungry really early on in life—it’s like they universally have “big fish in a small pond” energy. They work hard until they can coast off a sinecure, at which point they become totally unremarkable and function on autopilot for the rest of their life.

It turns out that a cultural ecology where most quality women get married early on in life—either in college or immediately thereafter—is really bad for the dating prospects of a 25 year old man. In practice a society that encourages late marriage is actually much better for more bookish eccentric guys, who tend to be late bloomers in developing their masculinity and ability to seduce women.

Ironically enough, if you are the sort of extremely online neurotic weirdo intellectual who gravitates to “trad” ideology as a young man, you probably aren’t temperamentally suited to dating normie conservative church girls who organically live that way. They much prefer unreflective stoic chudbots with rough hands and smooth brains; to these women any kind of emotional expression is coded as womanly. After you date around for a few years you’ll quickly discover that you are a lot more attractive to the bohemian art hoe daughters of the coastal elite.

Of course this revelation won’t come easy to an inexperienced young buck who’s only been with a handful of women. That hipster chick’s tattoos or stripper past or body count of 17 will likely intimidate you. But once you’re nearing 30 and have come into your own as a man, the same girl will seem an ingenue compared to your own triple digit past, while the churchy trad girls you once idealized as innocent little angels will instead seem like frigid judgmental viragoes who could never understand you.

Still, different people have different preferences, and I won’t resent someone for being more risk-averse or thrifty or chaste than me. Different strokes and all that.

But other faults aren’t so easy to dismiss.

The absolute worst thing about the Midwest was the lack of introspection I encountered there. Even smart Midwesterners aren’t very reflective, and they don’t seem to trust people who are. They have an instinctive disdain for the idea of examining themselves through the lens of history and cultural anthropology. Compared to Southerners or Northeasterners, they *really* don’t like comparing themselves to other people and thinking about why those differences emerged. People there would get very hostile when I tried to start conversations comparing their region with others where I’d lived, regardless of how polite I was about it.

In fact, many of them seemed hostile toward the *very idea* of someone moving around in the first place. When I first arrived a lot of people were genuinely incredulous that someone from another state would ever choose to live there, and thus regarded me with suspicion. Midwesterners seem not to like people who move. Many of my new social circle had never lived outside their immediate area and still were geographically very close to their parents.

This was bizarre to me as someone from the Sun Belt who had moved around a lot as a young man. Both of my parents came from vastly different regions of the country, and had themselves been raised in itinerant families that regularly relocated to where the money was. To me moving all the time is just something that normal responsible middle class people do to achieve prosperity, but in many parts of the agricultural Midwest there appears to be something of a stigma to it.

In my opinion this is a loser mentality. America was conquered by pilgrims and pioneers and hardscrabble immigrants—a good American is supposed to chase opportunity wherever it exists. When we smashed Dixie we were also smashing the feudal lord-peasant fixation on some cheesy loyalty to “the land”.

But these Midwesterners aren’t descended from entrepreneurial adventurers like the rest of us. Their forebears were conflict averse and probably low testosterone German Catholics who fled Bismarck’s kulturkampf to acquire cheap land under the Homestead Act. These people mostly settled areas where aggro Scotch Irish types had driven off the Injun decades ago, so they never had to embrace the risk-tolerant, enterprising, itinerant mindset that had once fueled Manifest Destiny. Instead they produced families that became weirdly attached to their generic little plot of fungible prairie dirt, and as a result we now have huge pockets of the country full of overcivilized and effete Teutons with no conquering spirit who treat outsiders like shit.

These people think of themselves as “Real America”, but they are in fact the least American in their outlook of all the country’s regions. They are the least individualistic, the least ambitious, the most inclined to prioritize comfort and safety over everything else in life. America has left barely any mark on them—in temperament they’re just a bunch of stodgy Rhinelanders.

Anyway, believe it or not the point of this article isn’t to shit on Midwesterners. I’m just trying to emphasize that I had grown up taking certain things for granted about White people because I always lived in the most “Faustian” parts of modern White civilization—the American Sun Belt.

As a young man I was always around the most adventurous and entrepreneurial segments of my race—the people moving to where the action was. I had always dealt with a moderate to high level of diversity, which made whites a bit more tribal and aggressive, as well as more worldly and outward-looking, and typically more conscious of and curious about group differences.

In the Midwest I encountered a different kind of white person that honestly seemed quasi-Asian to me. They had no will to power. They were not Romans. They seemed more like the Chinese of the Ming era, or like modern Europeans. But there wasn’t a Faustian spirit to be found anywhere. Certainly nothing like you’d find in a city like Miami / Austin / San Fran, or even Phoenix / Dallas / Tampa. This realization made me far less of a racial purist and helped me reassess what I really value in life.

Compared to my early 20s self, I am a lot less prone to ingrouping with the kind of white people who deliberately shut themselves off from the world by retreating to the ‘burbs—people who just want to be comfortable and don’t have a burning desire to change the world. I’ve also lost any protective instinct toward people who stay in a shitty area with no opportunities just because they have a sentimental attachment to their podunk hometown. My experiences taught me that these people want nothing to do with my vision for the world and aren’t my volk in any meaningful sense.

They have no destiny except under the caligae.

While I no longer consider white people to be my primary ingroup, race certainly remains a crucial part of my identity. But now it stands alongside many other important factors in determining who I relate to, including nationality, ethnic heritage, culture, language, religion, social class, profession, and so on. These factors intermingle and shape my identarian sentiment in hazy concentric circles—kind of a right wing intersectionality.

For instance, if I were stranded in a sketchy third world airport I would hang out with a black American before I would a Serb, but probably after I would a white Canadian or Australian or Brit (unless they were dressed in a way that strongly coded leftist politics or I knew the black guy voted Republican, in which case I’d probably choose the black dude). Ceteris paribus a black American is about as familiar to me as a white Frenchman or German. Meanwhile, nine times out of ten I will feel more camaraderie towards an assimilated Hispanic or Asian man my age than a white woman I’m not currently trying to date and have never hooked up with.

Of course, this dynamic can change depending on how many people of each race and gender and class background are currently present to shape the implicit power dynamic of the situation. It all depends on the circumstance and is extremely messy

When it comes to politics, I’m most inclined to build coalitions with Americans of a similar background per the criteria above, but there is also a very significant moral and temperamental component:

I am only interested in working with people who exhibit what I call vitality, which I define as the will to live and prosper.

In particular that means the desire to secure resources and political power by engaging in meaningful struggle with a formidable adversary.

The “struggle” part is crucial—it’s what distinguishes my mindset from cynical Machiavellianism. Yes, the end goal is to make guys like me rich and powerful, but not through rent-seeking or sinecures that make us fat and lazy. I want to carefully nurture a societal incentive structure that cultivates virtue and bravery and agency in the individual.

The struggle, the conflict, the story, the quest is an indispensable part of how I define success; wealth and power that isn’t properly earned is built on a flimsy foundation and isn’t worth shit. When you don’t fight for something you don’t properly value it, and will piss it away in some high time preference flight of fancy.

I also subscribe to the old fascist idea that adversity gives life meaning. A comfortable and easy life without struggle or conflict is miserable, and just makes you a slave to the hedonic treadmill. When you live for pleasure, no pleasure is ever enough, and continued success will just leave you so pampered that any task that’s challenging or outside your comfort zone will begin to feel onerous. Long term this absolutely obliterates your sense of agency and executive functioning until just showering and putting on pants feels like a giant pain in the ass.

At scale this phenomenon destroys productivity and ossifies key social institutions, rendering them unable to competently respond to changing circumstances. It is thereby responsible for what people call decadence.

Avoiding this decline is in my mind the primary objective of social policy; society needs to maintain the right combination of cultural / material carrots and sticks to keep people engaged and hungry for further triumphs. Classical Rome is so impressive to us today because they were incredibly successful at this. As they expanded, the Romans were very deliberate about maintaining their virtus and dignitas, and that’s what gave them the staying power Persia and Carthage lacked.

For all that modern trads play up Rome’s collapse into decadence, this happened far slower and with much more social resistance than in any other empire that reached comparable heights. Entropy is a constant and decline is inevitable, but you can slow it down a lot if you actually try. It just takes that Faustian Spirit to not become a low agency fat coomer once you get rich and secure enough.

Anyway, I’m generally against having a fixed stance on object-level issues like immigration, trade policy, marginal tax rates, etc. Society’s needs and priorities can change very quickly, and I think a reasonable body politic will feel the need to pivot pretty frequently on these items. For instance, sometimes you want free trade and open borders to grow the pie, and other times you want protectionism and closed borders to slice it up more evenly.

Policy changes come when it’s gone too far in one direction and enough interest groups coalesce on the opposing side. It is always painful for someone, it will always involve ambiguous tradeoffs, and it will always demand a fight, but I see this as a good thing. Winning the fight is what gives you political legitimacy. In politics, as in any other realm of life, easy come is easy go. The important thing is that the fight is allowed to happen.

And this is why to me metapolitics are a lot more of a priority. I want to encourage free speech and an “iron honing iron” philosophy towards public debate among technocratic elites and the better half of the general public so we can respond to the needs of the day with agility and flexibility. In my opinion this requires the ~60th percentile voting citizen to be reasonably well-informed and engaged, which feels like something we had from roughly 1945-1972, but rapidly lost after Watergate and was basically gone by the Reagan years.

I also want to maximize the impact of people like me in the discourse. Obviously this is mostly selfish; I want to enlarge my own piece of the pie by lowering taxes, restricting H1B immigration from potential competitors to my labor, etc. But the impulse is also prosocial, as I think society needs autistic gadflies / contrarians like me to maintain an honest and self-aware spirit.

One of my biggest issues has always been that society’s communicative norms have become too effeminate for us to function like we used to. As women have achieved greater social parity with men, we have collectively become far too preoccupied with “reading the room” and maintaining harmony. This attitude is probably optimal in the home or the church service or the dinner party, but it’s horribly stultifying in the corporate boardroom or the research lab, and in the realm of politics it massively undermines the common good, eviscerating our ability to share information and resolve disputes over shared resources in an effective way.

Instead of manly and straightforward transactional dealmaking between honorable self-interested parties, you get affluent credentialist white women (by far the most powerful force in liberalism) drowning everyone in soppy slave morality sentimentalism and tedious guilt mongering as a way of gaining power for themselves off the votes of minorities, gays, etc. These women and their soyboy catamites refuse to engage with ideas that make them feel bad, instead responding with spineless shaming phrases like “wow just wow” and “it’s the current year”.

This clogs up the pipes of negotiation and obfuscates underlying conflicts while engendering resentment, solipsism, and cartoonish levels of selfishness and sadism from conservatives. Polarization is ramped into the stratosphere and all debate becomes this ultra high stakes identarian deathmatch way more heated than it would be if it were just all races and classes negotiating in an atmosphere of universally acknowledged and accepted self-interest.

Democrats are actually correct that Republicans just straight-up lie and cheat all the time, but this instinct basically developed as a defense mechanism against the manipulative hysteria of affluent liberal white women. The constant lying of Republicans is a necessary adaptation to a world in which Democrats have spent decades neglecting empirical reality and pushing a perverse and hysterical culture of victim-worship and “speaking your truth”.

This culture has turned everyone into a mushy unserious relativist, whether they’re nihilistic hucksters on the Right or sentimental woke postmodernists on the Left. It’s like a toxic relationship where a BPD woman breaks into tears or stonewalls all the time over stupid shit and the NPD man compensates by constantly gaslighting and bullying her because otherwise she’d turn him into a shallow husk.

In my opinion the only people who can lead us out of this epistemic jungle are mischievous contrarians who love throwing grenades into circlejerks—guys like the Richards Hanania and Spencer, or even Matt Yglesias and Nate Silver.

It is this particular personality type—the high openness, low agreeableness, boundary-pushing intellectual who trades in hot takes and enjoys picking fights with “their side”—that I most identify with and have the greatest loyalty to. I will defend this Type of Guy’s interests over anyone else’s in all situations.

In practice these types are 99% white (or beige in Hanania’s case), and they are invariably attacked by the Left for being white men, so this identarian impulse feels very adjacent to WN. But it’s not the same thing, and ultimately if a black guy came along with this persona (without falling into a grifting Based Black Guy routine where he gets rich and famous telling wypipo what they want to hear), I would without question defend him just as ardently.

Epilogue

There’s always been an annoying asymmetry to writing about your departure from youthful radicalism. When you find out a mainstream 30-something liberal had a Maoist or Tankie phase at 23 it’s considered perfectly unremarkable, and probably even rude / cringe to make a big deal about it. But until very recently, when you found out a mainstream conservative had a Far Right phase it was considered grounds for ostracism, even decades after the fact.

As Delicious Tacos aptly put it, a Far Left phase is treated like a woman eating pussy in college, while a Far Right phase is treated like a man sucking cock.

This meant that in the Before Times a lot of guys falling out of white nationalism felt the need to take drastic action to not have their lives ruined—particularly vulnerable young guys who had mental health issues or substance abuse problems and no real support network. In the 2000s and early 2010s an entire industry emerged of “former white supremacists” from WN 1.0, who would let themselves get paraded around by the SPLC like Sitting Bull at Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, showing crowds of bored teenagers their covered-up swastika tats. It was very sad and embarrassing for everyone involved.

It also didn’t actually help The System “deradicalize” anyone. When you ghettoize a movement and make humiliation a precondition for rejoining polite society, you also sever the institutional “on-ramps” that allow radicals to seamlessly integrate back into the mainstream. Historically the Left maintained these on-ramps through academia and activist groups, but the Right was largely content to abandon its radicals, only letting them reintegrate informally via social connections, church, etc., and *never* giving them a seat at the table when drafting policy.

These days this asymmetry has mostly disappeared. This is partly due to polarization caused by the Alt Right’s metapolitical culture jamming in 2016, as well as normie disgust with the woke excesses of 2020. Partly it’s due to guys with an edgy past no longer being such soft targets—the frightened uneducated junkies of yesteryear have been replaced by sophisticated public intellectuals who know how to punch back.

When Richard Hanania was exposed last year for his youthful edginess he simply released a short article giving context and explaining his trajectory into more mainstream politics. He disavowed the genuinely hateful things he said pseudonymously as a young man, but nowhere in this piece did he kiss the boot of cancel culture or cede any moral authority to the Left. He just ate the punch and remained identical in his content and style.

Hanania didn’t show his belly, and today he is untouchable.

This is a fantastic sign that cancel culture is mostly over. The Left no longer holds any moral authority over the Right on matters of race and identity. We’re at a point where you no longer need to care how liberals feel about your most controversial views. If you don’t alienate the median Breitbart Boomer, you can generally think and say whatever you want.

Given these developments, this felt like the perfect time to write this article.

As stated in the intro, I’m not apologizing or disavowing anything I did or said in the Alt Right years. A lot of it I would probably characterize as childish today, but childishness is the price of youthful exuberance, and it’s precisely that exuberance that let us grow so explosively. You always need to take the bad with the good.

In 2015 I was radicalized by genuine threats to the dignity and material well-being of white people. Because of the efforts of young men like me, the system basically reformed enough to “buy me off” and assuage my concerns. It wasn’t a total victory—it never is—but it was enough to deradicalize me and integrate me back into the mainstream.

Perhaps in the future things will get bad for white people again. Maybe in eight years President Warnock will be trying to send us to the gulags and things will feel like the Before Times. If that happens I will be the first one back in the trenches.

But until that day arises, I implore the fashy goys of 2015 to set the fourteen words aside for now and instead take a serious look at banning TikTok / gambling apps / widespread porn, preserving the global dollar, and reforming Social Security. I know these items aren’t as sexy, but the world has changed a lot since Trump descended his golden escalator and we need to get serious.

Besides, aren’t you in your thirties now? You’re a boring middle aged man. If you’re 120+ IQ you probably have a comfy six figure email job and a big tiddy wife by now. Life is good for you and you’re a respectable member of society.

Put down the tiki torch and come help me politically castrate septuagenarians and save your kids’ dopamine receptors.

Come join the Alt Right 2.0.