Last month I recorded a podcast episode with Dave Greene 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.
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 Richard Hanania and Jeff Giesea 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 Jared Taylor, 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 Daniella Pentsak, 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 Regan Arntz-Gray. 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:
“Politics are transactional and coalitional.“
- Walter Bismarck
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 Bentham's Bulldog, 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 John Arcto 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 Dave Greene 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:
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
Make a real play for young men through a serious commitment to mentorship and a full-throated embrace of “Barstool Conservative” attitudes on sexuality
Use Gaza as a wedge to persuade Jews into abandoning anti-whiteness and instead dedicating their considerable resources / talents to right wing initiatives
Resolve the Brahmin Question before Indian Americans become a hostile elite
Embrace a prowhite racial pluralism—or “Castizo Futurism”—as a compromise between implicit white nationalism and tepid colorblind civic nationalism
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)
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 Kryptogal (Kate, if you like) 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:
These ideas are slowly starting to penetrate the discourse, and my medium-term goal is to lobby Louise Perry or Mary Harrington 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 Raising Dragon Slayers, 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 TracingWoodgrains or Rajeev Ram or Emmett Flynn 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 Ancient Problemz, 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 (Rajeev Ram and Emmett Flynn) as well as a Marathi Brahmin immigrant (Sai). 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 Rajeev Ram, 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 Raising Dragon Slayers 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 Raising Dragon Slayers 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 Dave Greene and TracingWoodgrains 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 sunshine moonlight 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:
“I love you, but I fuckin’ hate you at the same time!”
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 ringleader, 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 sunshine moonlight 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 Dave Greene 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:
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
Excellent guidebook and glad to see you also embrace the ban hammer against low IQ and callow accounts
Point of clarification: I think you can bleach people in my demographic but just not en masse. Most Asians will be racially (though not ethnically) endogamous, a chunk will intermarry with other nonwhites, and a chunk with whites. Among those who intermarry with whites, a chunk of the kids will marry Asians, a chunk other non-whites, and a chunk whites. Therefore, only a fraction of the third gen will be bleached, which is insufficient for the idea to work. Bleaching takes one gen with MENAs and Hispanics (and maybe Desis) but two with black people and Asians. Happy to see you consider my input and that you're respectful enough to accept the harmless subculture
Really sorry, Walt, that I haven't been more pro-active about writing and publishing on the 'second/third generation case for severely limiting immigration'. Sai and I have been having a lot of discussions behind the scenes on how to frame this in a way that is unabashedly pro-American/pro-West, but that doesn't unnecessarily threaten/offend the high-IQ people we care about and the less open folks in the circles we run among. In the meantime, I hope a lot of folks listen to our latest episode on Castizo Futurism – probably our best one yet.