Factions of the Rightosphere - The Racialist Right
Race Realists, Groypers, and the Neo-Alt Right.
So, this will be by far the most controversial of all the groupings I have discussed. In 2020s Anglosphere society, the ultimate taboo is race. Whilst you can criticise the Woke regime from a variety of angles: atomised individualism, Elite Theory, technological centralisation, etc., and, whilst ostracised elite circles, still avoid ‘most’ censorship and still have a functional life, the moment you breach the taboo on race you will be immediately banished from polite society, with your record being stained forever, even if you may change your views (Richard Hanania).
Whilst I am not somebody who is race-oriented to the same degree, I have respect for people with these views, for the simple reason that it will have cost them everything to publicly express them. No matter how much the Woke left ‘civil rights groups’ romanticise their supposedly uphill struggle against the odds, the truth of the matter is that they have been slavishly indulged by the establishment every step of the way, given constant affirmation that they are on the ‘right side of history’. If you want to see real bravery, courage, and commitment to one’s principles, you should look at those they deem ‘fascists’. No other group deserves more commendation for sticking to a cause they have constantly been told is hopeless, and gleefully mocked and humiliated as ‘losers’. We can all learn from their conviction.
It’s also important to remember that Woke censorship always begins with these guys, the people who are most unacceptable to polite opinion. Initially, the post-2016 online censorship was justified only on the basis of de-platforming promoters of ‘far-right terrorism’. However, barely a year passed before they were banning accounts for criticising the mutilation of children at the hands of transgender extremists. This slippery slope was what turned Reddit from an oasis of online free speech to one of the internet’s most censored platforms.
When the Racialist Right is attacked by the Woke left, they are ultimately attacking all people opposed to the Woke regime, and all straight White men. It is important never to be accomplices in their doxing, ostracism, and censorship, holding to Charles Haywood’s ‘No Enemies to the Right’ frame.
One does not have to agree with their opinions to know that when these lot are attacked and prosecuted, it gives the Woke their power of censorship, which will always be used against us. The anti-Nazi poem by Martin Neimoller: ‘First They Came…’, can easily be adapted to the post-2016 online censorship regime with ‘first they came for the Neo-Nazi’s.’
Yes, Neo-Nazi’s (the most extreme of this grouping I will discuss) say things I find personally abhorrent, and when they advocate and engage in terrorism, are the perfect justification for repression of the anti-Woke movement (in fact, being so convenient for the Woke that it’s entirely understandable that many believe most Neo-Nazi’s are government agents.) But we should never feed non-violent racial nationalists to the Woke left. They are the most marginalised political faction in the West and are nowhere near power, and will never get into power. Stalinists being able to advocate their views completely freely, despite the similar death toll of their ideology, shows the blatant double-standard. It is true that ‘to know who holds power over you, know who you aren’t allowed to criticise’, and the fact the Racialist Right is so brutally repressed makes it easy to see them as the underdogs.
Here in Britain, the level of repression is staggering. The British National Party (BNP) was basically beaten down by state-supported ‘anti-fascist thugs’, who doxed, witch-hunted, and reputationally ruined BNP members with such disgusting, odious glee. Britain is still suffering the consequences of this with the lack of a truly right-wing movement of any substance. Sam Melia was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence this year for simply saying ‘Reject White Guilt’, and Mark Meechan in 2018 was fined £800 for simply having a pug do a Hitler salute as a joke, despite resolutely not being a racialist.
The ‘anti-fascists’ are in no way the underdogs; they are the aggressors, the establishment, and the bullies. If Karl Popper’s ‘Paradox of Tolerance’ was truly applied, it would be those who call themselves ‘anti-fascists’ whilst disrupting peaceful marches and gloating about how they make those they deem ‘fascists’ beaten into silence, that would be made illegal.
Every time a ‘Fascist’ is removed from public life, it is the Woke that wins, and the Overton Window narrows in their favour. If anything, it is good to have these tendencies in the public space to be able to present yourself as comparatively moderate, something that Nick Fuentes has done. If you have to eject a member of the Racialist Right, maintain it is only for tactical reasons, and must be dealt with as discreetly and as privately as possible. Never throw them to the wolves like Rod Dreher did with Thomas Achord. Things like Holocaust Denial, whilst wrong, is no particular evil, no different from denying the Armenian Genocide (which basically the entire nation of Turkey does) or saying the Moon Landings were fake. The people who actively support the mutilation of mentally ill and damaged children are far more evil than those that merely incorrectly deny a historical event.
I will avoid mentioning any non-anons that may put them at risk, only mentioning those who are already known by Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and other anti-free speech, pro-censorship, repugnant ‘anti-fascist’ and anti-pluralism groups.
As I mentioned in the previous article, post-Charlottesville the Racialist Right dropped the ‘Alt-Right’ label and started calling themselves ‘Dissident Right’, even though they are a very separate movement from the Elite Theory-focused, NRx adjacent ‘Dissident Right’ we talked about in the last entry. So, for simplicities sake, I will use the term ‘Racialist Right’.
Walt Bismarck did an article called ‘How the Alt-Right Won’ which suggests that in many ways, despite the movement’s brutal censorship, they did gradually change the discourse within conservative circles so that it is now more socially acceptable to explore themes relating to Race Realism and Human Biodiversity (HBD) than it was in the early 2010s. And it is true. Ironically, today it is probably more socially unacceptable to be openly opposed to gay marriage than to acknowledge a link between racial disparities and average racial IQ, even though explicit White Nationalism is beyond the pale.
This grouping is broad. The moderate ‘Race Realist’ faction(s) have been absorbed into mainstream discourse, particularly in the past few years. I will not talk about the ‘Alt-Right’, which is a dead movement. However, the Neo-Alt Right and the Groypers remain Neo-Nazi adjacent, some in the former category even explicitly so, which make them toxic to virtually all other factions.
Probably even for defending them in this way, I am putting myself at risk, and would never say these things if I was not anonymous (‘John Arcto’ is not my real name.) But I am not going to limit the Overton Window and gatekeep an important and influential faction of the Rightosphere. People deserve to be exposed to the movements and arguments, many of whom have interesting things to say.
Race Realists
So when I made the symbols, which I think were in large part responsible for the overwhelming success of this series, I don’t think I distinguished enough between the ‘Race Realists’, and therefore this faction is overly broad.
There are really two factions here. One believes in ‘Human Biodiversity’ (HBD) as an alternative explanation to consistent unequal group outcomes, other than the Woke mantra of ‘it’s structural racism’. Using high quality empirical data to justify their theories, they are not explicitly White Identarian or even White Advocates, emphasising the fact that Asians and Jews outperform Whites on a group-level, and they support colourblind meritocracy and individualism. But they are willing to defend meritocratic liberalism from charges of structural racism for unequal group outcomes by offering an alternative explanation.
The other faction is much more openly White Identitarian, and sees itself as advocating for Whites in a similar way to how organisations like the NAACP would advocate for Blacks. They will utilise the scientific studies of the previous faction, but are far more concerned with the interests of Whites as a group, and do not disguise their viewpoints in the language of ‘colour-blindness’, which they see as impossible.
Neither of these sub-factions are ‘White Nationalists’ as they don’t desire an ethno-state. They are also not antisemitic, seeing that as a reverse version of Critical Race Theory, which is a major division between these two groups and the others, and why I put them in a similar category. Both believe in HBD, but take different political conclusions from this; one is mostly classical liberal, and the other is White Identitarian. The ‘column’ symbol represents both Aporia and American Renaissance, representing the ‘classical liberal HBD’ and ‘White Advocacy’ groups respectively, hence why I chose it.
Classical Liberal HBD
So this is the most normie-friendly race focused faction, and has already done some great work in making these ideas respectable. The term ‘Human Biodiversity’ (HBD) was first termed by Steve Sailer, who belongs to this faction and is a very influential and significant figure.
Their distance from the Alt-Right and high attention to scientific detail and empirical methods has helped them get credibility. Nathan Cofnas is still (just barely) a researcher at Cambridge University, and the student activist thugs haven’t managed to get him fired yet, though judging by the trajectory of the once great university I would recommend he start making contingency plans.
Whilst the term (HBD) was first used by Sailer in the 1990s, the components of the theory in their modern form came to public relevance with the publishing of Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s bestselling 1994 book ‘The Bell Curve’, which used an empirical, scientific approach to inherited factors determining average group outcomes. The book was very successful when it was released, even though it was highly controversial due to it suggesting a correlation between race and average IQ. However, it hangs on a thread of ‘just about respectable’ due to the highly sophisticated quantitative analysis, and the fact that liberals like Andrew Sullivan (who I have often been scathing of) did defend it.
The Bell Curve was harshly criticised due to it ‘not being peer reviewed’, but anybody remotely familiar with the modern scientific process, and its absolute inability to replicate key findings, show that this is meaningless. The peer review process is immensely biased towards special interests and activist groups, and it is brought up only to weaponize credentialism. It was also criticised because some of the sources it used ‘came from sources associated with white supremacy’ like the Pioneers Fund. However, the ‘White Supremacist’ organisations they named were simply taking an apolitical look at human populations, and it was a smear to discredit it.
Still, the fact that the book is named as ‘controversial’ on Wikipedia and not simply as a ‘white supremacist book’, suggests the quality was so good, and quietly persuaded a great many readers, that it could not be immediately shut down.
Despite the valiant efforts of ‘The Bell Curve’, the intensification of Critical Race Theory (CRT) since the 1990s has proven that the book was not sufficient to change academic opinion or the trajectory of the academy.
The scientists who suffered for their commitment to the truth are modern day Galileo’s, and should be held in high esteem.
Nobody is safe from cancellation. James Watson, the person who literally ‘discovered DNA’ was cancelled from scientific establishments due to holding empirical scientific standards about a link between race and IQ. But it seems no matter how much you have contributed to humanity, they will still maul you with charges of racism. Indeed, the absolute taboo of Race Realism, where activists made the argument in response to these studies that it was ‘motivated by oppression and shows science can’t be neutral’, can be seen as a gateway to all kind of Woke subversion of the hard sciences. It started the placing of politically correct subjective idealism above empiricism, of which the most terrifying example is seen in biology with transgenderism. What we would now call HBD was the first casualty in the Woke takeover of science. Other examples of cancelled scientists include Nicolas Wade and his book ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’, as well as Richard Lynn from the Pioneers Fund, both of whom have fallen off the thin tightrope that Charles Murray walked, and the mainstream media (echoed by Wikipedia) describes as ‘White Supremacists’.
Despite the original research fading into obscurity, in recent years you have seen figures like Bo Winegard from Aporia Journal, a psychologist who was thrown out of higher education for his non-political research into human populations, revive them. Nathan Cofnas’ ‘We Need to Talk About the Right’s Stupidity Problem’ I consider to be key reading, making the case that the theories of Wokeism presented by Chris Rufo and Richard Hanania are incomplete unless an alternative explanation for unequal group outcomes is offered. In the second part of my two-part ‘New Fusionism’ series, I called for the need for a ‘Rufo-Hanania-Cofnas’ Synthesis to provide a roadmap to smash Wokeism.
Some of the older HBD/Race Realists have criticised Cofnas for presenting ‘persuading the elite’ as easy, as they have sacrificed their entire lives trying to present this case and have been shunned and blacklisted from academia because of it. However, given the intensification of Wokeness and the relative mainstreaming of some Race Realist and pro-White ideas within the GOP, I would not completely discount the possibility of this time being different, given Wokeness has radicalised so many on the right, even if unfortunately not the general population who remain indoctrinated by it. But they are correct that the older figures, that got so much abuse for their work, absolutely deserve credit and recognition.
Whilst I separated the two uses of the word ‘Dissident Right’ in the last article, this ‘Classical Liberal HBD’ analysis would be accepted by virtually all on the Elite Theory Dissident Right, and even many in the ‘Third New Right’, despite not being classical liberals. They understand that unequal group outcomes give the Woke a constant rationale to continue their fight against ‘racist microaggressions’. Curtis Yarvin notably embraced this style of Race Realism, which was hugely controversial in the late 2000s, but is less controversial now. These days, an analysis like this is becoming more and more acceptable to the mainstream discourse, with people like Richard Hanania influential figures, and Chris Rufo accepting many of the premises of his work, saying ‘the cards will fall where the cards will fall’.
But what distinguishes this group from others in this grouping is that they are not explicitly White advocates. They will justify this by saying that Asians and Jews are on average more intelligent than Whites, and therefore believe that such overrepresentation is justified and morally right. When they do talk about anti-White racism, they will usually include ‘anti-Asian and anti-Jewish racism’ as well, which to be fair, does not mean that they say the DEI policies are NOT anti-White, just that they recognise that focusing on overachieving minorities is necessary to get a more sympathetic ear (and unfortunately, they’re probably right here).
The Classical Liberal HBDs really are ‘colourblind meritocrats’. They take the ideals of their worldview to a consistent conclusion, judging every person as an individual as opposed to membership of a specific group. It is an essential defence of colourblind meritocracy against CRT, which will always point to unequal group outcomes as proof of racism, and so cannot be ignored if we want to move past Wokeness.
However, it has been criticised for not taking into account the inevitability of racial conflict, and thinking that just understanding genetic differences would result in racial harmony. In fact, as Hanania and Keith Woods have argued, coming from different angles, that this would not change the impulses that motivate Wokeness, a commitment to egalitarianism and racial self-interest, where even if Race Realism was accepted, wouldn’t change these core sentiments, which would simply be justified in a different way.
White Advocacy
This faction is personified by Jared Taylor and ‘American Renaissance’, as well as the ‘New Century Foundation’ of which Taylor is also President. American Renaissance is described by Polcompball as ‘Boomer Alt-Right’, and that’s probably true. It is of an earlier era, being founded in the 1990s. Other examples might be Occidental Quarterly (Charles Martel Society), Mankind Quarterly, and VDARE.
Jared Taylor is an exceptional figure. Having grown up in Japan and speaking fluent Japanese, he is a cosmopolitan with a deep respect for other cultures, always cordial, civilised, polite, and speaking in a transatlantic accent like a New England WASP gentleman from a more civilised age. He could’ve been a very successful figure, but his commitment to his principles cost him everything. He sacrificed his ‘high status’ to his ideals, and that deserves our utmost respect, even if you don’t agree with him (1).
It is revealing that Jared Taylor, at the time of writing, remains banned on X, even under Elon Musk, whilst Alex Jones has been allowed back on. A moronic caricature of the opposition, which Alex Jones is, is always less of a threat than an erudite, intelligent enemy who really could persuade intelligent, well educated people (Elite Human Capital). And because of his intellectual sophistication, the Woke regime consider Taylor to be one of the most serious threats to their hegemony. This is why his Wikipedia page is nothing but smears, using ADL and SPLC as ‘reliable sources’, as they have to completely misrepresent Taylor to stop his ideas reaching people. ‘Anti-racist’ activists even say ‘he’s so dangerous because he seems reasonable’.
Pat Buchanan said ‘the ideas made it, but I didn’t’, and I think that is very true to describe Taylor, even more so than Buchanan. Today, with the GOP explicitly talking about anti-White racism and being far less apologetic in advocating for White interests, Taylor’s ideas have been mainstreamed. But like all dissidents, he remains a pariah, never getting credit for breaking the Overton Window with his bare fists, as more mainstream figures take all the credit. We must not forget Jared Taylor and the sacrifices he made to the truth, and we must work to clear his name.
Jared Taylor, like the Classical Liberal HBD category, explains unequal group outcomes with a HBD/Race Realist analysis. He attributes differences in achievements to biological differences, of which East Asians and Jews are on average more intelligent than Whites, and Whites on average more intelligent than Blacks, though he acknowledges Blacks have areas where they are superior, like sports and music. He is an adherent of the cold-climate-hypothesis, which is the view that humans that evolved in colder climates have on average higher IQs, which of course will not be accepted by Woke academic institutions, who will say it is ‘discredited’ based on their preconceived ideological assumptions, but is an interesting theory.
Where he differs from the Classical Liberal HBD’s is that he describes himself as a ‘White Advocate’, and this is an accurate description. His time in Japan, with its safe, clean streets and social cohesion, inspired him to advocate for racially homogenous communities. It is revealing why the GAE is so intent for Japan to embrace immigration and Wokeism; for as long as it stays the way it is, it will prove to Westerners that there is an alternative to globohomo and multiculturalism. I hope Japan resists, and am impressed for how long they have managed to hold out; let us hope they continue to do so. In many ways Jared Taylor echoes the Nouvelle Droite and the idea of Ethno-Pluralism; indeed he was responsible for bringing various European New Right ideas into the US, specifically the works of Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye.
Taylor opposed mass immigration into the United States before it was fashionable, when the GOP generally wouldn’t touch the issue. He opposes the 1965 Immigration Act for changing the ethnic composition of the United States, despite promises at the time from its advocates that it would do no such thing.
He condemns Jim Crow and agrees that interracial marriage should be legal. Jared Taylor simply wants to advocate for the interests of Whites, to be able to have free association and voluntary racial segregation, in the same way that other groups can have their own spaces and communities, and which was seen as entirely in-keeping with classical liberalism pre-1964.
Far from being anti-Black, he has claimed that he ‘wants Black people to create Wakanda’, emphasising that his advocacy for Whites does not mean hatred for other races. Taylor also considers East Asians a superior race to Whites, although he advocates for Whites because that is the group to which he belongs. In his book ‘Paved With Good Intentions’ (1992), he echoes similar points to Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Thomas Sowell, and is only so taboo because of his race and unapologetic White advocacy.
Taylor does not indulge in the antisemitism of many on the Right, and in fact praises the Jews for their disproportionate achievement. With Jews increasingly alienated from the Woke mainstream due to antisemitism and obsession with Palestine, Jared Taylor’s brand of white advocacy may be attractive and will finally have its moment in the sun. However, the parallel rise of right-wing antisemitism may mean that this opportunity is squandered.
Jared Taylor’s views are entirely reasonable, which is why the Woke establishment consider him so dangerous, and have done everything they can do smear him and call him a ‘White Supremacist’ when he has clearly said that he isn’t, and believes all races should have the right to be proud about who they are.
I would disagree with Taylor on a few major points however. As Richard Hanania and Walt Bismark have stated, the declining White population of the USA (as long as Hispanics are defined as non-White) has not led to the permanent Democratic majority as many feared, and Trump got a larger percentage of the Hispanic vote than previous Presidents. Places like Texas have become plurality Hispanic whilst still staunchly Republican.
The classification of Hispanics as ‘non-White’ is also very dubious. Non-Black Hispanics aren’t different in any meaningful sense from previous waves of White immigrants to America like the Irish, Germans, and Italians. As Hanania points out in ‘The Origins of Woke’ (2023), the fact Hispanics are seen as non-White is purely down to the statistical classification of the Civil Rights era, and was created almost as an accident. WASPs have been a minority in the US for quite some time, but other White groups became White, and grew to identify with American history and culture. Indeed, I would argue that Whiteness is mostly a social construct, but a positive one, identifying with the greatness of European civilisation.
If you look vaguely White (Southern Italians are like Hispanics in their skin tones), are not of a non-Christian religion, and identify as White, to me you are White. Instead of emphasising difference, I believe there should be an attempt to expand the definition of Whiteness, as the Critical Race Theorists are correct that Whiteness is a mindset and identity. The problem in the US with immigration is purely economic and material, and a sense that the law is not being followed. Compared to Europeans getting Muslim immigrants, American’s are very lucky to only have to deal with White Catholics. Asians also, despite being non-White, are also perfectly able to assimilate into American culture. It is really only a White vs Black divide, as Richard Hanania has pointed out, who would promote a healthier American racial classification by simply asking citizens ‘are you the descendent of slaves?’ and ‘are you Native American?’
Despite my disagreements however, Jared Taylor is definitely a heroic figure, a highly intelligent man of conviction, who has sacrificed a comfortable life for what he believes to be morally right. It is people like Jared Taylor, not Woke movements, that should be commended for their bravery. Whilst disagreeing with him on a few points, one can in no way describe him as ‘far-right’ or a ‘White supremacist’. His views and analysis deserve a place in public discourse.
Just remember you’ll be called racist anyway. Wikipedia believes that exposing the mutilation of children is ‘anti-LGBT hate’ and the Great Barrington Declaration, and any other epidemiologists who opposed draconian Covid lockdown mandates, was ‘discredited’. Whilst I’m less conspiracist than many on the Right, it is clear that there is an agenda to silence legitimate research on the basis of it being ‘far right’, and ‘White supremacist’ which have become slur words. Jared Taylor’s Wikipedia article is a smear and should not be believed, as ADL and SPLC are not neutral, reliable sources. Read his work to see what his actual views are.
Conclusion
I am well disposed towards Race Realism, and one could even say I am a Race Realist. The empirical data is conclusive, and were it not for political censorship and repression, HBD would be considered settled science. It shows the rottenness of our institutions that ‘transgender medicine’ (mutilation) is more respectable than acknowledging biological differences between groups.
It is also the lethal weapon of the Woke agenda, which would fall like a house of cards if Race Realism gained popularity, as they could no longer take for granted the assumptions that allow their beliefs to have credibility, i.e., absolute human equality, environmental factors being the key determinant life outcomes, and race as a social construct. Civil Rights liberalism facilitates Critical Race Theory due to rejecting Race Realist assumptions, and the puzzle of consistent unequal group outcomes. Nathan Cofnas should be added to a ‘pantheon’ of anti-Woke intellectuals, along with Rufo and Hanania, that we can utilise to smash their grip on power.
The Race Realists are very far away from the other groups I will mention, but they are tarred with the same brush. Some, like Charles Murray, are able to just about, barely, with great difficulty, remain in polite society, whereas Jared Taylor cannot. Their analysis is useful, and there is a reason why all on the ‘serious right’, including all of the Elite-Theory Dissident Right, believe in the facts of HBD, although the ‘White Identitarianism’ of Jared Taylor is more controversial.
A major divide between these groups (it’s really two) and others I will mention, is around Jews. Most in this faction apply their Race Realism consistently, and argue that Jewish overrepresentation in elite positions is due to higher than average intelligence. According to this view, antisemites are functionally no different from Black Critical Race Theorists, envious of another group’s success. However, other groups see this as heresy, with their entire worldview built around antisemitism and a strong conviction that Jews are behind Wokeism. Whilst Jews are an overrepresented group in the elites and those pushing Wokeness, the presence of many non-Jews (indeed, WASPs were instrumental in mainstreaming it), does not indicate that the majority of Jews are guilty. The antisemitic worldview is therefore very conspiratorial and not based on evidence.
Groypers
So the Groypers kind of replaced the Alt-Right in terms of their reach and visibility. Nick Fuentes is of a different generation compared to the Millennial Alt-Right leadership, and gives a distinctly Zoomer feel to it.
Basically, the big divide in what remained of the Alt-Right post-Charlottesville was known as the ‘Optics War’. The optics of Charlottesville, with the explicit Nazi imagery, was disastrous to the movement’s mainstream credibility. Some, like ‘The Right Stuff’ who I will talk about later, thought there was essentially no problem, but wanted to distance themselves from mainstream conservatism, as they saw Charlottesville as a betrayal from them. However, another faction, seeing how the CRT crowd were accusing traditional Americana iconography of being ‘white supremacist’, wanted to move away from the Nazi vibes towards a more Old School Americana, America First aesthetic, that would connect better with mainstream conservative circles and MAGA.
This is where Fuentes came in. Fuentes was, whatever you think of his opinions, a very skilled communicator. He retained the most effective parts of the Alt-Right movement. For instance, the usage of ‘Pepe the Frog’ (creating their own deviation in ‘Groyper’), as well as the heavy use of humour, irony, counter-cultural rebelliousness, and ‘fun’. However, they swapped out the ‘Sieg Heil’s’ for ‘America First’, with the aesthetics of the Groypers intentionally becoming merged with those of MAGA. If you want to hear Fuentes completely serious, explaining his tactics, watch this interview.
When he first started out, Fuentes was more moderate, more focused on demographics and less on Jews, which allowed him to get a wider reach amongst conservatives. The key moment when the Groypers emerged triumphant from the ‘Optics War’ was at Turning Point USA in 2019, when hecklers aligned with Fuentes publicly accused Charlie Kirk of selling out to Israel and ‘LGBT Conservatives’, as well as calling out fake conservatives like Rob Smith.
Whilst the Groypers are still marginalised at places like CPAC (Fuentes creating his own AFPAC, with Marjorie Taylor Greene attending), it’s clear that the narrative has shifted, something that is down to the communication and tactical skill of Fuentes. Turning Point USA has gone from a bland, ‘Beltway Libertarian’, ‘DEI Conservative’ containment organisation to Charlie Kirk criticising Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, clearly knowing where the movement is heading, and the gatekeeping role people like Kirk originally had disappearing. Fuentes himself has said that Kirk sounds like him a few years ago.
But what are Fuentes’ actual opinions? Basically, a forced synthesis of every online right-wing movement, and an unhealthy, pathological obsession with Jews. Fuentes represents what Walt Bismarck has referred to as the ‘dumbing down of the Alt-Right’, with it having none of the intellectual high-brow of earlier movements and people like Jared Taylor. It indulges in all of the conspiratorial elements of MAGA, explicitly identifies as an incel (his interview with Sydney Watson was painful), and is anti-vax. It is also hardline Christian, which sharply distinguishes it from the secular Alt-Right. In the interview, Fuentes mentions that he had his movement be more Christian focused, as means to blur the line between himself and mainstream conservatives, which the Alt-Right failed to do.
It’s hard to know when Fuentes is merely joking, and when he is being serious, which is a deliberate strategy. However, it’s clear to me that he essentially holds Neo-Nazi views, saying the Holocaust didn’t happen but it should’ve/should happen (probably partially joking in this regard). The weird synthesis of ‘Positive Christianity’ is reincarnated with Fuentes, except draped in an American flag rather than a swastika. I guess the difference would be that Fuentes frames his antisemitism in Christian terms (Christ killers) rather than racial terms like the Nazi’s did, but the fact he explicitly denies the Holocaust, which would be pointless to do unless to defend the record of the Nazi regime, makes it clear he at the very least sympathises with them.
Fuentes also supports Palestine over Israel, due to him and his movement’s pathological hatred of Jews and viewing them as the cause of Western decline. I think this is counter-productive, as it alienates people who might otherwise be sympathetic. But for Fuentes, hatred of Jews IS the point, and everything leads back to the Jews. It can be kind of funny, but more to laugh ‘at’. I wish he had ‘LGBT Conservatives’ as the consistent punchline, that he did far more in his early days, as they are a far more toxic presence within the right’.
I’ll never forget a hilarious line when Elon Musk asked who should be unbanned next after Alex Jones, and Groypers flooded in with ‘WE WANT NICK! WE WANT NICK!’ , pictures and gifs of him, and ‘We will NEVER stop fighting for Nick!’ These requests were of course not granted, and X banned Fuentes’ shadow account ‘Autumn Groyper’. Still, it’s things like this which reveal a kind of fun, pop star concert vibe around Fuentes. If there is one figure with a similar kind of following to Trump in 2016, it would be Nick Fuentes.
So, I admire Fuentes’ political skill, and like Trump, he clearly understands his base. If he had kept the discussion about demographics and opposing the LGBT infiltration of the conservative movement, he would basically be unstoppable. Even when going further to the right than me, the presence of the Groypers is of utility as it expands the Overton Window of acceptable discourse.
However, his unhealthy obsession with Jews holds him back, as does his Alex Jones-adjacent conspiracism. It would’ve been better if he’d continued to focus on pushing out ‘LGBT Conservatives’ from the movement (which has recently borne fruit with Rob Smith). However, the actual views of Fuentes himself are pretty gross and malevolent, as well as conspiratorial and destructive.
Neo-Alt Right
Finally, I will talk about the remnants of the ‘Alt-Right’, that I will term the ‘Neo-Alt Right.’ These were the groups on the other side of the ‘Optics War’, who largely lost out to Fuentes’ Groypers. They maintain consistency with the previous Alt-Right aesthetic, being Pagan rather than Christian, and increasingly distancing themselves from mainstream conservatism.
This group is diverse, it can range from erudite intellectuals to Neo-Nazi skinheads. However, the difference between the Neo-Alt Right and the White Advocacy of Jared Taylor is that they tend to both be explicitly White Nationalist, i.e., they want the creation of a state whereby no non-Whites can live, and also far more antisemitic. People like Kevin MacDonald would be the ‘high brow’ of this faction, even though he predates the Neo-Alt Right and even the Alt-Right.
Other examples of the high-brow faction, which I do really like, include Arktos Journal, that is more based around the European New Right, Nouvelle Droite, and ideas of Alexander Dugin, which has a large Substack presence, and Imperium Press, which writes some very interesting essays critiquing other factions and individuals like Hanania and Cofnas, and is also instrumental at popularising the writings of Jonathan Bowden, who I have previously referred to as a ‘British Sam Francis’, with it also very inspired by Nouvelle Droite.
I have recommended some Arktos articles, such as the ‘White Advocacy as a Political Paradigm’ essay, on my ‘Beginners Guide to the Dissident Right’ link article, as it did help shift my opinion to a more race-based angle, even though I still am less race centric than them.
It is indeed true that the entire Woke regime is underpinned by a hatred of Whites, and on this issue the Imperium Press and Arktos are no different from American Renaissance and Jared Taylor. In style, it is much more similar to the Race Realist material, but their critique of Christianity is what distinguishes them, and is something I am personally sympathetic to.
Counter-Currents is a remnant of the Alt-Right era that is still around, with it being somewhere between the highbrow, intellectualism of the previous two and the obsessive antisemitism of other groups, them all supporting Palestine out of Jew hate. However, it is a good authority on analysing internal disputes in the Racialist Right, like New Right Poast is for the Elite-Theory Dissident Right. More explicitly Neo-Nazi is ‘The Right Stuff’, who were bitter enemies of the Groypers post-Charlottesville.
The more low-brow Neo-Alt Righters continue with the optical disaster of the Swastikas, whereas some have attempted to combine traditional fascist imagery with Americana aesthetic, like Thomas Rousseau’s Patriot Front, whilst still sufficiently distancing themselves from mainstream conservatism and seeing themselves as a street movement.
The low-brow all buy into, to a greater or lesser extent, the idea that Jews are a hostile force in Western society and are undermining White interests. Whereas the Groypers (might, I don’t know) come at this from a religious angle, the low-brow factions of the Neo-Alt Right tend to come at it from a racial angle. They also almost always deny the Holocaust.
Most of these tendencies remain banned, even with the relative loosening of censorship with Elon’s takeover of Twitter and Substack. There is less interest in their esoteric, Pagan view of White identity, popular in the early to mid 2010s, which shuns Americana imagery to replace it with a more European, classical aesthetic. Most of the Racialist Right now very much drape themselves in the American flag. Even Richard Spencer has attempted to make a comeback, having been unbanned from Twitter/X and now having a Substack, where he now is mostly a contrarian with left-coded opinions on most issues, and even supports Joe Biden.
However, other groups, more low-brow, meme-based, and openly antisemitic, that utilise Nazi imagery and obsessively talk about Jews and conspiracy theories, without even the redeeming humour quality of the Groypers, are just a waste of space and toxic. There are so many groups like this, Stormfront being an obvious one, basically just the classic skinhead scene that has been around for decades that is also so obviously a Fed honeypot. /pol/ these days is virtually indistinguishable from Stormfront.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this grouping is a mixed bag. The Race Realists and certain parts of the Neo-Alt Right create very well argued, insightful commentary that cannot be ignored if we are to defeat Wokeism. The Groypers are impressive from a purely praxis perspective.
But many individuals in the latter two groups are just nasty people. An article in Counter-Currents pointed this out; movements which will cost one everything if ever discovered to be a part of, is going to be overwhelmingly people with nothing to lose.
However, one must remember that big tech censorship aways starts with banning them, so never feed these people to the left and defend the against bans, as the post-2017 media landscape starts with the most indefensible, odious pro-Nazi content being censored, and then eventually it bans groups criticising the mutilation of children. This was how Reddit, and the internet in general, went from a free-speech oasis to a censorship hell in the late 2010s.
The Racialist Right, whilst not as strong online as it was a decade ago, is still a force to be reckoned with. Take the good, the Race Realism and the Pagan/Nietzschean critique of Christianity, and ignore the bad, the deranged rants about a global Jewish conspiracy and advocacy of terrorism, but don’t dismiss them out of hand.
Bibliography
Nieli, Russell. "Jared Taylor and White Identity." Key Thinkers of the Radical Right (2019): 137-154.
This series has been awesome. Really stellar work. This is the kind of ethnographic political science study of the Right that I've seen some "extremism studies" academics wish they had the comprehension to put together. But of course, they just don't get it from the outside looking in.
>I would disagree with Taylor on a few major points however. As Richard Hanania and Walt Bismark have stated, the declining White population of the USA (as long as Hispanics are defined as non-White) has not led to the permanent Democratic majority as many feared, and Trump got a larger percentage of the Hispanic vote than previous Presidents. Places like Texas have become plurality Hispanic whilst still staunchly Republican.
Hmm, is this because Hispanics have changed? Or is it because the Republican Party has changed? I don’t really think Hispanics are converting to the GOP for good reasons, it’s because the GOP is becoming the party of the lower class. Not to mention, the Overton window has shifted to the left. Albeit, it seems to have moved right on immigration, and yet Hispanics still support it, but this could change if limiting legal immigration were to become the party consensus. The Hispanic wave of 2020 could also be a result of 2020 being an unusual election. The main issues in 2020 will never be main issues again.
>The classification of Hispanics as ‘non-White’ is also very dubious. Non-Black Hispanics aren’t different in any meaningful sense from previous waves of White immigrants to America like the Irish, Germans, and Italians. As Hanania points out in ‘The Origins of Woke’ (2023), the fact Hispanics are seen as non-White is purely down to the statistical classification of the Civil Rights era, and was created almost as an accident. WASPs have been a minority in the US for quite some time, but other White groups became White, and grew to identify with American history and culture. Indeed, I would argue that Whiteness is mostly a social construct, but a positive one, identifying with the greatness of European civilisation.
The classification of Hispanics as nonwhite is dubious, because Hispanics aren’t a race. There are White hispanics and Black Hispanics. But Americans always knew that most Hispanics were not actually white. The reason Mexicans were traditionally given the benefit of the doubt has to do with A) the conditions of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and B) the historical lack of immigration from south of the border relative to European making distinguishing whites and mestizos not worth the time, money, and effort. It’s clear that mestizos were not actually believed to be White as the government did not consider people of 1/2 or 1/4 Native American ancestry to be White.
And no, Hispanics are not the same as Italians, Germans, and Irish, and we can see this by comparing the English fluency and violent crime rates of Hispanic immigrants in the early 20th century with those of their European immigrant peers. There was always a gap. Hispanics today, again, aren’t a race, and so their average IQ is not very meaningful. But we know that Central America and the Caribbean have pretty abysmal IQ scores. Mexico may not be so bad, 85-90, but Central America is now the main source of immigration from the south. Also, it’s worth noting that immigrants of the past were heavily selected. Large swathes of European immigrants, usually the less skilled or successful ones, returned home. Hispanics don’t have this pressure as we have a very generous welfare state.
>If you look vaguely White (Southern Italians are like Hispanics in their skin tones), are not of a non-Christian religion, and identify as White, to me you are White. Instead of emphasising difference, I believe there should be an attempt to expand the definition of Whiteness, as the Critical Race Theorists are correct that Whiteness is a mindset and identity. The problem in the US with immigration is purely economic and material, and a sense that the law is not being followed. Compared to Europeans getting Muslim immigrants, American’s are very lucky to only have to deal with White Catholics. Asians also, despite being non-White, are also perfectly able to assimilate into American culture. It is really only a White vs Black divide, as Richard Hanania has pointed out, who would promote a healthier American racial classification by simply asking citizens ‘are you the descendent of slaves?’ and ‘are you Native American?’
Uhh, yeah, I don’t know what Southern Italians and Hispanics you’re talking to, but I can’t relate. Southern Italians look, to me, similar to Spaniards and Portuguese. Hispanics are that, plus brown people. Don’t take my word for it though, just look at the origin of the term White. It was Spaniards (who are already of swarthy complexion) calling themselves White in contrast to Indios, Mestizos, and Negros (blacks). I have a short post on why the definition of Whiteness hasn’t changed as much as people think: https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/p/white-ethnics-have-always-been-white?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
I think you’re entitled to think what you want to think, but I don’t think Asians should be becoming White any more than Whites should be becoming Asian. Taylor probably doesn’t want everyone to become white because, like you said, he is a cosmopolitan. He grew up in Japan. He admires foreign cultures and finds beauty in the diversity of the world. I agree with this, and furthermore I think Asian civilization is constructed privy to the Asian mind. Yes, Asians are very intelligent, but they have other differences from White people. They’re more collectivistic, for example. If you’re really gonna believe in the whole “psychology” business (like, the theory stuff, not the psychometrics) then you can probably extend racial mental differences even more, like Jung was doing with “collective unconscious”