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 say I belong most comfortably in the “Neo-Alt Right”. I would say the Neo-Alt Right is antisemitic but on more traditional political and racial grounds than the religiously and economically antisemitic Groypers. Less “Zionism” and more “Judeo-Bolshevism”. In this sense the Jewish threat is more of a thing that has already happened than a thing which is actively happening. Also, some members of the HBD crowd are also members of the Neo-Alt-Right I’d say, if belief in the JQ is the qualifying feature. Sean Last, Joseph Bronski, and Ryan Faulk are all examples of HBD “old guard” guys who have dipped their feet in the JQ, mainly analyzing the impact of Jewish elite growth during the mid 20th century in the civil rights movement and the academic blue wave. Although some, like Ryan Faulk, are also Holocaust Revisionists.
Speaking of which, I do think that NJF is sympathetic to the Hitler regime, but Holocaust revisionism obviously serves a political purpose aside from that. The Holocaust is in some ways the *real* myth of the 20th century. In schools we are taught about it over and over, have to read several books about it, have many many movies about it, and the moral of the story always ends up being that racial views and bigoted European culture caused this. Albeit, nowadays the Holocaust is waning in significance and “European Colonialism” is growing in significance. I guess the myth of the 21st century is the terrible blood-curdling ways in which Europeans invented the modern world and taught brown people how to use a spoon and fork.
The second reason is just a general skepticism of “history you learn in school” that comes from being on the right long enough.
HBD is a neutron bomb for the whole post-war liberal order. Unlike various other flavors of fringe rightism, it has the twin virtues of being true and of having extremely high explanatory power.
That said, at least in America, it’s at least 10 and maybe 20 years from anything like mainstream acceptance. It will require the Boomers dying off and the further demographic transformation for casual rightists to accept its tenants.
I appreciated your series of articles and hope to comment more on them in the future. That said, I was hoping there would at least be a mention of what might be called the "Amarnites" which are sort of an extreme racialist offshoot of the BAPsphere that merges with the Neo-Alt Right. They, of course, aren't necessarily homogenous but some of their distinguish characteristics from what I've seen are: 1) embracing being "comically evil" and thus rejecting any sort of optics (they regularly use Nazi symbology, praise Hitler, discuss TND and share pictures of anime girls), 2) hatred of "Third Worldism" in any form meaning they strongly oppose any kind of support for nonwhite countries (excepting Japan) at the expense of white ones such as being pro Palestine or being pro-China, 3) consequent to 2 emphasizing anti-blackness over anti Semitism (though they are almost invariably both), and 4) Nietschzean aristocratic values including a strong misogynistic streak inspired by BAP meaning that they usually are anti-Christian. The best example of this tendency is Sentinel Groyper (whose been banned a few times) and while somewhat removed, Martin (Russian_Cosmist) is another prominent account in these circles.
You are wrong about the effects of Hispanic immigration to Texas. Here is a list of recent presidential election results:
Recent Presidential Elections
2020
46.5% 52.1%
2016
43.2% 52.2%
2012
41.4% 57.2%
2008
43.7% 55.5%
2004
38.2% 61.1%
2000
38.0% 59.3%
The trend is clear. Texas’s saving grace right now is that it has attracted a lot of republican voting transplants from states like California. Even with this red voting influx, the state is still being swamped by blue voting Hispanics, and unless drastic action is taken soon will not be a red state. I don’t think I need to spell out what this would mean for US federal elections.
As for Hanania’s contention that eventually everyone but blacks will become white…I think you and others need to be careful when you read something like that from Hanania, especially as you don’t seem to be American. I personally think Hanania is projecting his need for inclusion into the American mainstream onto a country that he barely seems to understand. Understandable considering he’s first generation and it’s not completely inconceivable that he could be a target if truly hardline immigration restrictionist get their way.
You mention Jews a lot in this segment, so to drive my point home about inclusion and Hanania’s conception of “white” as a civil rights innovation. Are Jews white or not? Are they as interchangeable as Irish or German derived Americans?
California whites voted majority GOP up through Romney, but because they didn’t put up 70/30 numbers they got swamped by Hispanics.
Hanania realized that “invade the world, invite the world” was a necessary bargain he had to made to keep his income stream after being outed as a Nazi. He may even have internalized it since he had to do so anyway.
Where does Ubersoy fit on here? What about the the Third Positionists? Even within the 3p, there are classical fascists (CT, Zoltanous, Italian neo-fash) {often called Third Worldists in a deroggatory manner} and then there are Natsocs ( Adolf Hitler, GLR, Renegade Tribune, Azov Battalion)
Ubersoy would probably be a techno-optimist. His 'right-wing progressivism fits in quite well. Though perhaps he could label himself?
I'm aware of the further divisions but that kind of politics was more popular in the Alt-Right period, which is why I've lumped them all into 'Neo-Alt Right'.
I don’t think you divide things correctly here. White racialist politics has one basic division: eliminationist and non-eliminationist. If your aim is an white ethnostate, then you are an eliminationist, since the only way to achieve your aim is to forcibly remove or eliminate non-white living legally in USA and Europe who do not wish to leave. Eliminationists include the Neo-Nazis, the Counter-Currents crowd, and so forth. If you feel that white interests can and must be protected/advanced within a multiracial society, you’re anti-eliminationist. HBD advocates and most race realists seem to fall into this latter group. Taylor, to his credit or discredit, seeks to welcome both camps under the Amren tent, just as he does with Jews and Anti-Semites. I think it’s a mistake. Eliminationism is an insane and odious idea that tends to drive away decent people. White advocacy will not begin to grow until it is separated from the Nazis/eliminationists.
Ah, I'd not heard those terms before. Then again, I'm not really involved in the race-oriented scene that much, so yeah, maybe that would have been a better way to divide it/include. But this article is finished now so I'm going to keep it the way it is. I'd be interested for you to do your own analysis though.
Thanks for the reply, and for your hard work on this series. Overall, I really enjoy it, particularly your information on the other currents of which I’m much less familiar, as well as British writers I don’t know at all.
Opposition to immigration is basically the same logic* as eliminationist, but obviously not letting someone immigrate is a way easier proposition than mass ethnic cleansing.
*Some view the right to immigrate as demanded by classical liberalism on deontological grounds, others because they think it represents no threat or helps with implementing classical liberalism. Think Bryan Caplan or Richard hanania.
Others think that multi-racial (especially third world) societies are incompatable with classic liberalism or even functional societies. This would include Lee Kuan Yew or Elon Musk posting about The Great Replacement on X.
The fundamental logic is whether demographics are destiny.
Are demographics destiny? That’s the dividing line.
If you believe that you’re going to lean towards anti immigration.
If you don’t the you can be pro immigration.
The obvious impact of Hispanics is that they will make our politics more like Latin America. Elections happen in Latin America. Parties naturally trend towards trying to assemble 51% electoral coalitions. But the state is a lot more dysfunctional. The government tends to promise a lot if can’t pay for and go through periodic crises.
Places like TX are further behind that trend then CA because their whites are very far to the right, but it’s the trend.
Trump has a very LatAm vibe to him.
Charles noted this in The Bell Curve and suggested limiting Hispanic immigration.
The big discovery of the 2016+ era is that legal voting eligible Hispanics are anti-immigrant. The GOPe blamed Romney’s 2012 loss on not supporting amnesty, but the real reason is that Hispanics wanted Obamacare. There really is no tradeoff between winning the Hispanic vote and letting more of them in, you can have your cake and eat it too.
I don’t know. I think there is a continuum on the immigration question among which reasonable people can situate themselves. It’s not a yes or no question in the way that whether or not you support forced evictions is a yes or no question. I support legal immigration but I want it limited and conditional and I want it seen as a privilege or gift, not as a right. Also, some immigrants are better than others, the host country has a right to pick and choose.
I mean the immigration issue today is 99% "should we de facto let millions of brown third world poors in every year." That's the default going on right now. If we can't solve that, it won't much matter whether we want more H1Bs or whatever.
Seems fair, though I no longer share that faction's antisemitism. I wrote about this in my latest piece. I write for Counter-Currents occasionally and am proud to be a part of that, but I disagree with the party line on Israel & Palestine over there.
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.
Julian Waller praised my work on this. Even though he's an 'enemy' I found some of his research interesting as well.
Groyper sounds like a goy who gropes white women on subway trains.
I would say I belong most comfortably in the “Neo-Alt Right”. I would say the Neo-Alt Right is antisemitic but on more traditional political and racial grounds than the religiously and economically antisemitic Groypers. Less “Zionism” and more “Judeo-Bolshevism”. In this sense the Jewish threat is more of a thing that has already happened than a thing which is actively happening. Also, some members of the HBD crowd are also members of the Neo-Alt-Right I’d say, if belief in the JQ is the qualifying feature. Sean Last, Joseph Bronski, and Ryan Faulk are all examples of HBD “old guard” guys who have dipped their feet in the JQ, mainly analyzing the impact of Jewish elite growth during the mid 20th century in the civil rights movement and the academic blue wave. Although some, like Ryan Faulk, are also Holocaust Revisionists.
Speaking of which, I do think that NJF is sympathetic to the Hitler regime, but Holocaust revisionism obviously serves a political purpose aside from that. The Holocaust is in some ways the *real* myth of the 20th century. In schools we are taught about it over and over, have to read several books about it, have many many movies about it, and the moral of the story always ends up being that racial views and bigoted European culture caused this. Albeit, nowadays the Holocaust is waning in significance and “European Colonialism” is growing in significance. I guess the myth of the 21st century is the terrible blood-curdling ways in which Europeans invented the modern world and taught brown people how to use a spoon and fork.
The second reason is just a general skepticism of “history you learn in school” that comes from being on the right long enough.
HBD is a neutron bomb for the whole post-war liberal order. Unlike various other flavors of fringe rightism, it has the twin virtues of being true and of having extremely high explanatory power.
That said, at least in America, it’s at least 10 and maybe 20 years from anything like mainstream acceptance. It will require the Boomers dying off and the further demographic transformation for casual rightists to accept its tenants.
I appreciated your series of articles and hope to comment more on them in the future. That said, I was hoping there would at least be a mention of what might be called the "Amarnites" which are sort of an extreme racialist offshoot of the BAPsphere that merges with the Neo-Alt Right. They, of course, aren't necessarily homogenous but some of their distinguish characteristics from what I've seen are: 1) embracing being "comically evil" and thus rejecting any sort of optics (they regularly use Nazi symbology, praise Hitler, discuss TND and share pictures of anime girls), 2) hatred of "Third Worldism" in any form meaning they strongly oppose any kind of support for nonwhite countries (excepting Japan) at the expense of white ones such as being pro Palestine or being pro-China, 3) consequent to 2 emphasizing anti-blackness over anti Semitism (though they are almost invariably both), and 4) Nietschzean aristocratic values including a strong misogynistic streak inspired by BAP meaning that they usually are anti-Christian. The best example of this tendency is Sentinel Groyper (whose been banned a few times) and while somewhat removed, Martin (Russian_Cosmist) is another prominent account in these circles.
I'd not heard of these guys, thanks for the heads up. Are there any resources about them?
Good article but a couple of points.
You are wrong about the effects of Hispanic immigration to Texas. Here is a list of recent presidential election results:
Recent Presidential Elections
2020
46.5% 52.1%
2016
43.2% 52.2%
2012
41.4% 57.2%
2008
43.7% 55.5%
2004
38.2% 61.1%
2000
38.0% 59.3%
The trend is clear. Texas’s saving grace right now is that it has attracted a lot of republican voting transplants from states like California. Even with this red voting influx, the state is still being swamped by blue voting Hispanics, and unless drastic action is taken soon will not be a red state. I don’t think I need to spell out what this would mean for US federal elections.
As for Hanania’s contention that eventually everyone but blacks will become white…I think you and others need to be careful when you read something like that from Hanania, especially as you don’t seem to be American. I personally think Hanania is projecting his need for inclusion into the American mainstream onto a country that he barely seems to understand. Understandable considering he’s first generation and it’s not completely inconceivable that he could be a target if truly hardline immigration restrictionist get their way.
You mention Jews a lot in this segment, so to drive my point home about inclusion and Hanania’s conception of “white” as a civil rights innovation. Are Jews white or not? Are they as interchangeable as Irish or German derived Americans?
Correct.
California whites voted majority GOP up through Romney, but because they didn’t put up 70/30 numbers they got swamped by Hispanics.
Hanania realized that “invade the world, invite the world” was a necessary bargain he had to made to keep his income stream after being outed as a Nazi. He may even have internalized it since he had to do so anyway.
That's my reading of Hanania as well.
Where does Ubersoy fit on here? What about the the Third Positionists? Even within the 3p, there are classical fascists (CT, Zoltanous, Italian neo-fash) {often called Third Worldists in a deroggatory manner} and then there are Natsocs ( Adolf Hitler, GLR, Renegade Tribune, Azov Battalion)
Ubersoy would probably be a techno-optimist. His 'right-wing progressivism fits in quite well. Though perhaps he could label himself?
I'm aware of the further divisions but that kind of politics was more popular in the Alt-Right period, which is why I've lumped them all into 'Neo-Alt Right'.
The Alt-Right is dead- It merged into the broader DR. And Richard Spencer is sort of a libtard now.
I see
I don’t think you divide things correctly here. White racialist politics has one basic division: eliminationist and non-eliminationist. If your aim is an white ethnostate, then you are an eliminationist, since the only way to achieve your aim is to forcibly remove or eliminate non-white living legally in USA and Europe who do not wish to leave. Eliminationists include the Neo-Nazis, the Counter-Currents crowd, and so forth. If you feel that white interests can and must be protected/advanced within a multiracial society, you’re anti-eliminationist. HBD advocates and most race realists seem to fall into this latter group. Taylor, to his credit or discredit, seeks to welcome both camps under the Amren tent, just as he does with Jews and Anti-Semites. I think it’s a mistake. Eliminationism is an insane and odious idea that tends to drive away decent people. White advocacy will not begin to grow until it is separated from the Nazis/eliminationists.
Ah, I'd not heard those terms before. Then again, I'm not really involved in the race-oriented scene that much, so yeah, maybe that would have been a better way to divide it/include. But this article is finished now so I'm going to keep it the way it is. I'd be interested for you to do your own analysis though.
Thanks for the reply, and for your hard work on this series. Overall, I really enjoy it, particularly your information on the other currents of which I’m much less familiar, as well as British writers I don’t know at all.
You can further divide by immigration.
Opposition to immigration is basically the same logic* as eliminationist, but obviously not letting someone immigrate is a way easier proposition than mass ethnic cleansing.
*Some view the right to immigrate as demanded by classical liberalism on deontological grounds, others because they think it represents no threat or helps with implementing classical liberalism. Think Bryan Caplan or Richard hanania.
Others think that multi-racial (especially third world) societies are incompatable with classic liberalism or even functional societies. This would include Lee Kuan Yew or Elon Musk posting about The Great Replacement on X.
The fundamental logic is whether demographics are destiny.
About group IQ:
Every group with an IQ below yours are barbarians whose presence is incompatible with civilized society.
Every group with an IQ above yours are secretly conspiring to exile you from civilized society.
No shoutout for NRx and Monarchists :(
I did a whole section on it.
Found it in your older article! Good stuff
Are you Jewish?
Are demographics destiny? That’s the dividing line.
If you believe that you’re going to lean towards anti immigration.
If you don’t the you can be pro immigration.
The obvious impact of Hispanics is that they will make our politics more like Latin America. Elections happen in Latin America. Parties naturally trend towards trying to assemble 51% electoral coalitions. But the state is a lot more dysfunctional. The government tends to promise a lot if can’t pay for and go through periodic crises.
Places like TX are further behind that trend then CA because their whites are very far to the right, but it’s the trend.
Trump has a very LatAm vibe to him.
Charles noted this in The Bell Curve and suggested limiting Hispanic immigration.
The big discovery of the 2016+ era is that legal voting eligible Hispanics are anti-immigrant. The GOPe blamed Romney’s 2012 loss on not supporting amnesty, but the real reason is that Hispanics wanted Obamacare. There really is no tradeoff between winning the Hispanic vote and letting more of them in, you can have your cake and eat it too.
I don’t know. I think there is a continuum on the immigration question among which reasonable people can situate themselves. It’s not a yes or no question in the way that whether or not you support forced evictions is a yes or no question. I support legal immigration but I want it limited and conditional and I want it seen as a privilege or gift, not as a right. Also, some immigrants are better than others, the host country has a right to pick and choose.
I mean the immigration issue today is 99% "should we de facto let millions of brown third world poors in every year." That's the default going on right now. If we can't solve that, it won't much matter whether we want more H1Bs or whatever.
How would you classify me, Mr. Arcto?
Aren’t you a classical liberal White Nationalist?
If so, Neo-Alt Right.
Seems fair, though I no longer share that faction's antisemitism. I wrote about this in my latest piece. I write for Counter-Currents occasionally and am proud to be a part of that, but I disagree with the party line on Israel & Palestine over there.
Outstanding. Thank you for laying all of this out, and including your own preferences at the same time. Hugely helpful.
Much appreciating this series. At the risk of seeming naive thought...HBD? Def...