Hot-Spotting

Hot-spotting is the practice of repeatedly targeting a location (which could be anything from a website to a university campus) with our propaganda as a means of turning it into a “hot spot.” A hot-spot is any place where alt-right ideas freely circulate for a time before the spot is forcibly “cooled” by outside interference (e.g. people taking down fliers or banning speakers). Two things: what is the purpose of hot-spotting, and what is the best way to do it?

The purpose of hot spotting is twofold. First and foremost, it creates a spectacle that can draw media attention and get people talking. Second, propaganda is more effective when it comes from multiple sourcse; if we hot-spot a large website at the same time as a university campus, for example, and a student at that campus goes to that website, we make a stronger impression on that student than if only one or the other had occurred. Influences don’t add, but multiply.

As to how hot-spotting works, we follow the amplification rule: always increase the intensity of propaganda where it is already present. Here’s an analogy: there are certain species of hornet, the venom of which has a scent that attracts other hornets to sting the victim. When you see, for example, alt-right fliers posted somewhere, you should react the way those hornets do when they smell the scent of their venom. If there are already fliers in one building in your town, post some more elsewhere. This also extends to other situations, including alt-right content on the internet. If someone with alt-right views is scheduled to speak at a nearby campus in a few weeks, post some fliers around that campus. And if other people follow the amplification rule, that campus will soon be flooded with fliers. Notice that hot-spotting eliminates the need to organize large operations, or indeed organize anything. This way, it happens organically.

Inner Self

Nothing touches the God within.

Not a rock against which the sword breaks, but air which remains the same when the sword passes through it. You don’t stand strong against the wind or even bend with it, but allow it to pass through you.

You don’t capitulate. Neither do you fight the internal battle directly. Rather, you watch it happen, and every time it tries to devour you, you watch it trying to devour you – and, in doing so, move out of its way. Every time it opens its jaws, they snap shut empty, because you’re no longer there.

Nothing touches the God within.

Meatspace Is Next

This will be brief. My previous entry was on forming real-life alt-right groups. This is important, for a both a negative reason and a positive one. “Negative” here means “negative motivation” i.e. by means of a bad result for inaction, while “positive” means just the opposite (good result for action).

The negative reason is that the alt-right is at a stage where it cannot succeed without rapid growth. This is the critical stage we’ve been waiting for. We’ve been an internet movement for some time now, and remaining an internet movement will destroy us. They will close in, the internet wing of the burgeoning alt-right will die, and all will be lost.

The positive reason is that if we press the attack into real-world arenas, we cannot lose! Let that sink in. If we establish a beachhead in meatspace, then two things happen. One, our various enemies, both organizations and individual ideologues, will be forced to divide their efforts between attempting to squelch an online community and attempting to stop it from growing further into the material plane, which will only become more and more difficult as our numbers increase. The second effect is a reciprocal one; those who join the alt-right as a result of real-world actions will participate in the online community and vice versa. Note that the first and second events here show us an even larger feedback loop.

No compromise.

Introductory Alt-Right Material

altright

The above graph is a Google Trends screenshot showing interest in the search term, “alt-right” over the past 12 months. The spike near the right side happened when Hillary Clinton attempted to smear Donald Trump by connecting him to the alt-right during her campaign. The climb on the far-right side, nearly double the height of the spike, is the current level of interest. It is evident that the time has come to begin mass recruitment. The question is, how can we make that work? Some things to keep in mind:

  1. The line is thinner than it used to be, but still there. Outright right-wing sentiment is much more acceptable than it was even six months ago, and our job is to keep pushing that. Rather than use infiltration and subterfuge, now is the time to attack directly. However, we can’t dump hard-right ideas on people and expect them to fall in line. We still have to be somewhat coy, although it is no longer necessary to pretend to be a liberal.
  2. Left-leaning thought is held in place by social consensus. This leads to a domino effect on beliefs. Any given belief (e.g. in the nonexistence of race or gender) has the potential to, if dislodged, result in the wholesale destruction of a person’s Leftist inclinations. For example, if you manage to convince someone that race is real and that there are genetic differences in intelligence among races, there is a possibility (though not a certainty) that many other Leftist illusions will fall apart as well. This is because the only thing holding the whole system in place is a tendency to believe things based on social acceptability.
    This requires a somewhat deeper exposition. If one socially-acceptable belief falls, then social acceptability becomes a weaker criterion belief. Suppose you believe that amnesty for immigrants is a good idea because it is socially acceptable to do so, and you believe that race is a social construct for the same reason. If you stop believing that race is a social construct, then it becomes harder to believe in amnesty for immigrants; if you’re willing to believe one thing that’s socially unacceptable, then it becomes easier to believe other things that are socially unacceptable.
    The hole in this, and the reason that destroying one Leftist belief does not automatically destroy the others, is that some beliefs are more socially unacceptable than others. It’s one thing to say that you don’t like immigration because it’s bad for the economy; it’s quite another to say that you think black people are, statistically speaking, less intelligent than Asians. Dropping your belief in the second may lead to dropping the first, but it is uncertain that the first leads to the second.
    The primary tactic suggests itself here: we need to focus on attacking key beliefs that are strongly socially censured, because right now we have a window of opportunity (see point 1) where previously unassailable points are now vulnerable.
  3. A valuable tactic is indirect attack by means of allowing people to draw their own conclusions from data that would normally be filtered out and ignored by cognitive bias. For example, instead of arguing outright for identitarianism or ethnic nationalism, we should instead shotgun some statistics at people bundled with a basic premise. Imagine an alt-right website that lists one of its tenets as “Race is real and not a social construct.” This would come bundled with links to sites such as those listed here. A year ago, if the average person had seen a link to a study showing, for example, that the intelligence gap between blacks and whites is more owed to nature than nurture, they would have just shut it out without looking and tried to forget about it (PC culture inculcates this kind of reaction). But now, many people who would have previously had that reaction will instead look at some of the links and try to understand them. And even if they don’t, they will still remember seeing links to “real scientific studies” showing that there are racial differences in intelligence. This will have a ripple effect on the attitudes of the people who see that material and those around them.
  4. We need some popular literature that is just slightly beyond the pale in terms of social acceptability. We need to find exactly where the current line of social acceptability is and stand far enough to the right of it to signal that these are not mainstream views. Five years ago, that would have meant a gentle suggestion that increased immigration is not a good idea because the relevant economic statistics don’t support it. Now, it means saying that immigration from Mexico is not a good idea because Mexicans have a statistically lower IQ than Americans, and that this is most likely due to genetics.
  5. We need some domain names. Reddit and blogs are good platforms, but we need some domain names – “whatisthealtright.com” or something like that.

The Future of the Left

With recent events (Trump’s election in particular), the Left has finally reached a point, it seems to me, where it has become clear to some (though not all) of them that the toxic discourse of identity politics is turning people against them. They are slowly coming to grips with identity politics as an issue that points to a deep fracture within their movement. The Left is, of course, an inherently fractured movement owing to its essentially dissolutive and entropic metaphysical nature; cancers of that sort only eat their host if they fail to eat themselves.

We have to look at the Left qua the ressentiment-driven movement that uses egalitarianism as a rhetorical tactic to exact its revenge. This, of course, is not the fundamental problem; anyone familiar with Stevensian thought can connect the dots between the toxicity of the human ego and the present manifestation of it (the Left), and this fundamental understanding is key to building a better society. However, in terms of diagnosing and treating the current problem, it is necessary to look at the particular psychological vector that allows Leftism to take shape, and make strategic decisions based on that. Thus, our analytic modality at present takes ressentiment-via-equality as a given, while studiously avoiding the mistake of viewing it as the fundamental problem. The method that pursues revenge for ressentiment via equality-as-rhetorical-weapon  I will simply call egalitarianism. The reader ought to bear in mind that this use of the word is technical.

The basic fracture in the Left divides the movement into two halves. One the one hand, we have the “SJW” Left, which sees the world through a racial, sexual, and gendered lens. We’ll call this part of the Left IDpol (identity politics). For IDpol, non-economic identities are, at best, partially contingent on economic ones. On the other hand, we have what I will call the Old Guard, consisting of relatively orthodox Marxist and Anarchist theorists who take class as the fundamental determinant for all other identities. The Marxist perspective that sees class as the primary division between sections of society rings especially true for the Old Guard. Both halves, of course, are well-characterized by their basic method of pursuing their misplaced sense of revenge by means of equality – and this is where the trouble begins.
(Bear in mind, however, that all of these supposedly ideological motivations are rationalizations for more unsavory affective motivations.)

Egalitarianism only works under the following conditions:

  1. There exists a clearly visible enemy whom all parties loathe more than one another.
  2. That enemy can be constantly attacked in a manner that produces emotional satisfaction in the short term (remember that IDpol, in particular, is composed of people with high time preference) with impunity.
  3. That enemy constitutes the most convenient target, i.e. there are no easier pickings elsewhere.

If any of these conditions do not obtain, the result is splintering.

At present, the Left is splintering because criteria 1 and 3 are no longer present, and 2 is fading fast. Each of the myriad identities in IDpol refuses to define their main enemy as the rich or the the bourgeoisie because they have realized that the ultra-wealthy members of present societies are largely immune to any institutional attack whatsoever. That is the say, the ultra-wealthy are not a convenient target, so IDpol changes its definition of its enemy to “all privileged groups” in order to find an easier target, and then rationalizes this change of definition by means of the arcane and labyrinthine theory currently peddled in the humanities and social sciences. Emotionally-fulled movements (e.g. Occupy Wall Street) fulfilled criterion 2 by means of catharsis via dramatic street demonstrations, but quickly lost steam when it became all too apparent that these demonstrations had no effect on their intended target. If you only hate the haute bourgeoise, and they are beyond your grasp, then your ressentiment must eat its fill elsewhere. Enter contemporary IDpol rhetoric, aptly summarized in phrases like “check your privilege,” “die cis scum,” and so on. Because IDpol recognizes the near-invulnerability of the ruling class to their preferred means of attack, they are searching for easier pickings elsewhere, and they find those easier pickings mostly (though not entirely) in middle-class straight white males.

The Old Guard has the opposite problem. Unwilling to part with the old fantasy of a proletarian revolution, so many times failed, they insist on pursuing the original Marxist project of attacking the ruling class. However, what we can expect to see over the next decade or so is the slow, creeping realization by the Old Guard that a proletarian revolution is no longer an immediate possibility. Of course, such a thing is improbable even as a far-flung goal, but the Old Guard would rather die than accept that. Instead, we can expect to see them defer the proletarian revolution to what they imagine to be the near future, taking their short term goal as the subordination and re-absorption of IDpol into a cohesive Left. This will be justified as a necessary step toward The Revolution (TM), but within it carries the seed of what, from a Rightward perspective, is best described as a perfect storm.

Once the Old Guard goes through the stages described above and begins attacking IDpol in earnest, there is a distinct possibility that both halves of the Left will find that all three criteria are present once again – but in both cases, the clearly-defined enemy who can be easily attacked and constitutes the most convenient target is the other half of the Left! Meanwhile, the Right is continuously unifying…

 

Forming Real-Life Alt-Right Groups

The time has come for the Alt-Right to begin manifesting more in day-to-day life, outside of the Internet. I offer a simple method for doing this.

  1. Meet people and form a small group. Fewer than ten people, preferably fewer than five.
  2. At least one person should naturally take a leading role. Don’t draw straws or vote for that person. Just follow the direction of whichever person has natural leadership skills. It should be obvious.
  3. If two people are competing to be leaders, go ahead and split up the group. If nobody is a good leader, find one.

Don’t be shy about splitting the group. The alt-right is decentralized and works in synchrony without formal organization, so we don’t need huge organizations. We don’t elect people democratically or pick at random, but defer to whoever has the best argument and the best skill set for the task. Remember, ten groups of four people, each one acting cohesively, is a better arrangement than one group of forty people fraught with endless bickering.

(Astute readers will already notice how the smaller alt-right groups reflect our social ideology in miniature)

Some ideas for activism:

  1. Putting fliers everywhere. We need an online compendium of these, or several compendia.
  2. Reporting crimes, especially politically-motivated ones.
  3. Over the next year or so (possibly sooner), we will begin to see anti-fascist activism, and a general increase in leftist violence. We’re not the police, but we have certain rights as citizens that allow us to protect people from violent protests. 10 hours of argument with a normie does less to redpill him than one instance of defending his livelihood (e.g. in the case of antifa attacking small businesses for alleged “racism”).
  4. Stumping for candidates favorable to alt-right ideas, esp. in terms of convincing cuckservatives to vote for them. If the Republican party begins losing local election to independents who are farther right than is currently tasteful, they’ll see the writing on the wall.
  5. Orchestrating movements normies and alt-righters alike to put pressure on the current Republican monopoly to enact sensible policies.

No Compromise

This is the imperative: no compromise!

The Left has been struck a grievous blow, so they’ll do what they always do in this situation. They’ll simper and whine and sue for peace and reconciliation. They’ll be smarmy and unctuous and obsequious. They’ll do anything they can to get us to compromise. Don’t do that. No compromise.

To break this down a little bit, there are three stages of Leftist argument:

  1. Subtle intimidation. They will subtly imply that you are racist or sexist or evil or whatever, without saying it outright. They will vaguely hint that you will become unpopular for disagreeing with them.
  2. Overt intimidation. This is the renowned “SJW freakout.” This is where they fly into a hysterical rage and call you all sorts of nasty names.
  3. False reconciliation. This is where they give ground, while attempting to poison your position in some way so they can reclaim it later. They will make concessions to placate you.

Breaking through number 3 is a difficult step. Most of us have a natural tendency to be forgiving and kind. We don’t want to be cruel. But sometimes, not being cruel is the cruelest thing of all. Don’t be magnanimous to the left when they begin making concessions. Don’t do that. No compromise.

We are now negotiating from a position of strength, and our first instinct is to be fair. Our recent victory also makes us complacent. But we can’t afford to relax, and we can’t afford to be fair to the left, because they will always always always take advantage of our generosity. Do not be generous, and do not settle for anything that does not guarantee an unambiguously rightward trajectory.

Suppose that, despite your best efforts, you have to back down in a social situation. Fine. But do so without apologizing. Assume the dominant stance and make it clear that you’re right, that you know you’re right, and that your opponent is not. Your instinct will be to give them room to breathe. Do not do that. No compromise.

No compromise.

No fucking compromise.