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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- We need some domain names. Reddit and blogs are good platforms, but we need some domain names – “whatisthealtright.com” or something like that.