Prepare your anus, you’re about to get a red pill suppository.



“Thanks to God that he gave me stubbornness when I know I am right” - John Adams

Did you know that social media has affected the time preference of its users to the point that the estimated attention span of most individuals is now less than 8 seconds? That means that if you walk up to a fish tank and eye a goldfish, you will lose interest in him before he swims away from you. A goldfish, yes. Kinda puts something like driving into a whole new scary perspective if you haven’t already noticed how many people are still glued to their phones behind the wheel.

If you’re still reading this, congratulations – mostly to me for being able to keep your attention thus far. I’ll try not to disappoint you, but we’re going to delve deeper than just a headline. I decided to start off with this key information for an exploration of the topic of “infighting” amongst the Dissident Right for two reasons: one, doing so requires an honest and thorough examination that isn’t just peruse and pass, and secondly, along with these recent findings, there’s also evidence to show a decline in critical thinking. So, not only are we lacking the attention span required to process and retain information – we may be making assumptions on an unconscious level (at a proliferated rate, no less) without having critically analyzed if these notions turn into beliefs, or even fit within the stratosphere of our other moral codes or cadre of truths.

On a personal note, in deciding to take on this topic, to engage with others about it and even bring it to others’ attention in the first place was something that was equally as appealing to me as it was something I’d rather not touch. However, I care deeply for our people - any and every single person that involves themselves in the discussion and ultimately the fight for the betterment of white well-being and the immediate need for us to establish strong communities, for us, by us. I care about the presence we put forth because I do not want to validate in any documentable means, to them, for us to be what they already say that we are.

We are not angry, hateful extremists - we are definitively the only people willing to risk what comes after standing up for not only the innocent, but also for ourselves (as majority white architects of civilization) in an age of ascendant degeneracy. Our ideas and mores, that perhaps even less than 15-20 years ago were not only common place, but were embedded in the very embodiment of First World civility, have been replaced by people who can only gain validation through gaslighting and virtue signaling against something they are envious of or have never allowed themselves to critique (whether by nature or nurture is futile, with regard to their refusal to contemplate). Most of us know and recognize that we are not only in a period of unrest, but that we are truly on the precipice of a great collapse of tradition and value that generations of our ancestors transcribed for our betterment.

I struggled greatly with how much to make this a personal opinion piece as opposed to a research inquiry. I think I’ve landed on a little bit of both. I’ve attempted to take on this effort, partly in a quasi-journalistic approach by gathering analytics from directly talking with others about this topic through conversations via podcast, Twitter DMs, and through a small survey of people who participated in answering a series of questions.

While I am someone who has a lot of opinions (and questions), and I’m quite open about them in my online life and IRL - and they tend to be well-received in both spheres - I issue a disclaimer: I am not your guru. That is not something I ever want to own, so this is not a self-help style guide of how to behave within /our thing/ and as my personal opinions are peppered in this delve, they will be paired with anecdotes, or I will explicitly call attention to the fact that I am stating my own personal take on the matter at hand.

For example, I don't necessarily think that having “tried and true” values are a mandatory composite for the Dissident Right, yet I do understand when people argue that point. We are without a leader and thus far any manner of a formal manifesto has been tied to tragedy or conspiracy. Whether or not we truly need a credo was a research question for the sake of communal introspection, and I’d say most of us can agree that being lampooned into a verifiable set of boxes to check is something, as people in the Third Position, utterly detest about the optics and operation of the world in which we find ourselves immersed.

There are a lot of contributing factors that prove problematic with regard to the infighting we are seeing on Twitter (I’ve focused on that platform and interaction fairly explicitly here as the source for which we begin discussing the nature of infighting, partly because that is where most of us still operate and partly because that is the largest vessel by which we still attract those that have inquiry and can join our ranks ). However, I see the Twitter platform as one that is dying and in many ways, feel that it must die. There are more cons embedded into the nature of this platform that work against what would otherwise allow for a healthy discourse. It would be best if these things were meted out and corrected, but please bear the following in mind dear, daring, dissidents:

●       Combined with high time preference

●       Limited number of characters to share your thoughts

●       An inability to edit what you have said

●       Overindulgence in irony, lack of seriousness and dishonesty as a result of an anonymous persona

●       And most importantly, the very basic component to any meaningful human interaction, a lack of context – we cannot see a person’s body language, or hear their intonation “the how they say it, not what they are saying” aspect of it all.

Another thing to keep in mind: This platform was created by our enemies. It has accelerated their agenda by broadening the acceptability of a consumer culture and the notion that we can devalue our individuality to the point of being reduced to a commodity, unironically in the name of finally conquering marginalization and oppression through GloboHomo unity. When anyone can be anything they want to be, a veritable tabula rasa of persona, we are essentially throwing out the last vestiges of a heritage that once placed the highest value on creating real and meaningful relationships - not just to one another, but to our engagement within our respective worlds on a micro and macro level.

The goal of subversive propaganda is to always whittle away at the soul to the point where we become naught but human currency, interchangeable cogs in a machine, all while still somehow holding on to this belief that if we are just open to any manner of moral code, we will achieve a limitless personal identity and the risk-reward pay-off that is sure to follow after unending and devoted consuming of product, throwing by the wayside the tradition and values of our forebears.

These are facts that exist in our digital realm that undermine the very essence of the bonds we so fiercely seek to form, and they are largely responsible for some of the simple misunderstandings I see people having. It’s also why, in the conclusion of this article, I will make the appeal to why this needs to be the basis for our drive to strengthen our IRL (in real life) connections.

Criticism V. Critique:

“Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race.” - Bill

Criticism is quick to ultimately delineate and confine reason and healthy discourse in the purview of what it authoritatively sets the standards to adhere to (without considering the constituents of its very body) - it labels in places where judgement should be reserved or left open for interpretation. It is the stereotypical Type-A, toxic “boss,” whereas critique leaves room to prospect and ponder on an objective canvas of shared ideals, always conscious of its audience, and the shared responsibility it wields. This is where the “leaders” reside and their message resonates in applicable ways that any willing followers pick up and carry forward.

Our criticism should then only be reserved for those who wish to undermine us (those who want to be our boss), not for those fighting alongside of us (the unwitting leaders born of struggle). Here’s an excellent summary from William Triumph when he was on the Cocktail Hour Episode #32:

Leaders are born out of struggle; real struggle. While I have an admiration for a great number of people in /ourthing/, none of the people that we on the Dissident Right consider leaders came to us out of real struggle. This doesn't mean that those who are out front and whom I respect greatly won't be our leaders when tougher times come. It is to say that some of them, perhaps many of them, will fall by the wayside when the going gets rough. The people out in front of /ourthing/ are as much excellent self promoters as they are true leaders. So we need to understand infighting with this in mind. Holding these people to high standards when it comes to infighting and drama is as much a mistake on our part as the behavior that we would judge them for is on theirs. With this said, these people are putting EVERYTHING on the line. They've forfeited the ability to ever have a normal life again. For this, I admire each and every one of them, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. At the end of the day, I know whose side I'm on and I know who my enemies are. I will always side with the people in /ourthing/, especially those that will likely never live in peace again because of the sacrifices they have made. These are not faultless people, but they are on my side and therefore have my respect.

To reflect some on the quote from “Kill Bill” and the idea of leaders being born of struggle unwittingly, we can recognize that Superman didn’t label, shame and define the human race as worthless - he instead analyzed it, understood what he needed to do to conform and operate within its bounds without sacrificing what it meant to be Superman and for that matter, human. In fact, he made it his mission to put forth goodwill for the very race for whom he issued his critique, to the point of being its protector.

On its head, the principal question is: We are all looking to shed the toxicity of the conditioning from the lives of our former selves, so why bring that same sort of audit into our new, reborn awakening, or to those who we find in our cohort?

Other questions I grappled with, explored and incorporated into broadening the overall discussion:

Are we, in our newfound dissident selves truly Superman, trying to mask ourselves in a Clark Kent role in real life, whereas, online, we are all Superman, shedding the Clark Kent persona fervently because we have been unshackled by everything that comes with maintaining what we risk losing by speaking truth to power? Where does the novelty of anonymity on Twitter cross over from empowering us to potentially hindering us?

Borzoi did a great job of summarizing the nature and dangers that can lead to disingenuous personas:

“Irony - this is a hard thing to often define, but in this context, what we’re talking about is, basically, you’re not being honest (more or less) in playing everything off as a joke. We’ll say that irony is when you’re not clear about your intentions. Now, irony as humor, relies upon that, but the problem is when you cling to this, you ultimately end up lying to yourself. This is a point that Vonnegut brings up [when he says] ‘you have to be careful what you pretend to be, because we are what we pretend to be’. You will be subsumed by the persona you establish. So what I’m trying to say here is, exaggeration and hyperbole, when we’re making jokes and making our points are fine, but you need to ultimately be honest with people. When you are asked a straight question about what you believe, you should be honest about it. You cannot play everything off with humor. There comes a time and place where you have to put everything in its proper context. You can’t just do the joke thing. There comes a time and point where you need to make things real . . . Ultimately, you cannot lie to yourself. That has to come first and foremost - what are you trying to achieve?  You need to answer that first.”

How many of you reading this right now have tight IRL relationships and connections in which you can openly discuss your Dissident Right beliefs? Can you think and speak openly without having to filter yourself even once in a day? Are you able to talk to your spouse or significant other openly about your Dissident Right convictions? Or, perhaps you’ve engrossed yourself in an online persona and the close relationships you’ve made there - people you have been around long enough that there are certain connections that you have with people in the online space that are long and developed, making it easier to squabble with people or have disagreements on the timeline because you are comfortable doing so? When do we become our own Leviathan? When have we created an atmosphere in which we are in a vacuum where we only engage and interact with those that we know and trust, rather than newcomers trying to make connections? Have we made our own echo chamber when we have blocked or muted so many people with whom we’ve had minor infractions or assumed their meaning based on the result of high time preference and deficiency in pivotal scrutiny?

Largely, I am still a neophyte in this space, but I see that it is dying. The death rattle sounds louder every day - we are witnessing the last breath of easily-accessible, free-form thought. They are coming for our platforms (even our “like” buttons), and they are coming for us because they know that our ideas are popular and infighting is all that they know how to really do well in the space they occupy. They know just how effective it is, and they hope to see the discord sown amongst us, and for us to turn on ourselves in relatively peaceful times while there are sparse unifying fights against the world at large.

We’ve seen so much success in turning the narrative around, to our favor, and they are quickly working to shut us down because they underestimated our ability to prosper in our appeal to our people to wake them up (even in small gains that may seem marginal on the surface, but essentially create the foundation for a clear path to the third position). They have underestimated our resolve to continue the fight when we’re shut down. But most importantly, they have overestimated their own infallibility.

●       I know all too well that it can be very lonely when you're first starting to figure things out. Our lingo, our culture, our interactions can be very hard to begin to engage with. Again, we are without one clear leader but instead an amalgamation of vanguards. I remember first starting off and trying to know who was considered not only relevant and respected, but in a way, “verified.”

We aren’t just in some “thing” and this stuff isn’t just “stuff” - it can seem like that, again because we are meant to consume and to be pawns, downgrade the value of what inherently matters to us to the point that it is just stuff so this is just a thing . . .  but once we see where real relationships naturally form, it has meaning to us that is simultaneously new yet familiar. We own it in our bones - it’s always been there. We invest our time or energy and our emotions in that regard. It’s only after we’ve searched to find that common bond and what unites us, that, after we have had time to think critically and digest even the specific talking points within our movement itself, we find those points of contention.

These things, in my personal opinion, are negligible at this point. Borzoi often reminds us that we are in a marathon run, and that the revolutionary mindset should reflect that of the happy warrior. Perhaps as a result of hastiness (which comes with online interaction), we’ve become domesticated lapdogs of the digital sphere and we don't allot the proper amount of discernment before we respond? At times we may feel orphaned and drawn to adopt one another, seeking to find common bonds that unite us before we have time to really examine where we aren't in full agreement. That's very true of romantic relationships and close friendships. Making it past a period of limerence has become increasingly more uncommon. When you have at your disposal other people to engage with who are essentially "personality batteries," it's all too easy to throw one another out when friction develops.

“Sources Say”:

I set up a short, anonymous interview to gather thoughts from others about the nature and disposition of the far right. Some questions were setup to collect responses in graphs or charts (answers were multiple choice) and other questions were set up as open-ended answers.

If I have highlighted one person's answer to a particular question, that does not mean that I have included all of their answers to every question. Additionally, answers have been randomized so that if someone's answer is the first in one segment, it's not in the same order in subsequent segments.

I had about 20 people respond and share their thoughts:

Is there an agreed upon name that you consider to be the name of the movement that aligns with your current political identity?

●       The most popular answer was “Dissident, or Dissident Right”

●       “Nationalism” was the second most popular answer

●       Several people answered “White Separatists”

What political ideology formed the basis of your current political identity?

●       Some form of conservatism led as the most popular answer

●       Libertarianism was second

●       National Socialism was third

Which generation do you belong to?

●       Millennials were 61% of the survey

●       Gen-X 31%

●       Boomers 8%

If you consider yourself to be a part of the Dissident Right - how long have you been affiliated?

●       54%   2-5 years

●       24%   10+ years

●       16%   5-10 years

●       6%     Less than 1 year

Do you agree that there are “factions” within the Dissident Right?

93% said yes, 7% said “infiltrators”

If so, how many would you say there are, and can you please name them and provide a brief description of each?

This was an open-ended question, so I have selected some answers here (if you are not familiar with the term Wignat, skip ahead to the next section to get a definition):

Respondent #1

●       Traditionalists: seek return to a better time; Nostalgia is the central theme.

●       Futurists: skeptical that there was ever an ideal time to return to, revolutionary themes.

●       Libertarian orientation: views the establishment and preservation of property rights as an end-state; May adopt elements of traditionalism and futurism, central theme always property rights.

Respondent #2

❖      Main differences [in factions] are "optics/aesthetics" and what the end-game [entails]. Those wanting to educate, infiltrate, & persuade (IE/AIM, Patriot Front, Gen Identity, TRS e-celebs) where we may "vote our way out."

❖      Versus those wanting to provoke, accelerate, & fight ("Wignats," open National Socialists, some of our best trolls & provocateurs) realizing that some sort of revolution, violent or not, must come.

Respondent #3

Currently five; where each faction contains the principles of the ones preceding it and accelerates further right.

★      Alt-Lite - Grifting Republicans

★      CivNats - Immigration / MAGA

★      AmNats - Immigration / American White Majority

★      Alt-Right/Identitarian - White Nationalism 3.0 / JQ

★      Wignat - Siege / Turner Diaries

Respondent #4

FBI agents, and CIA, DHS, TSA, and probably more.

Respondent #5

●       Civic Nationalism focuses primarily on the constitution, believing "the melting pot" approach.

●       White Nationalism is pro-white and its supporters envision a white ethnostate.

●       Christian Nationalism mirrors Civic Nationalism in that it allows for/values a multicultural Christian-majority fabric while also adhering to the Constitution.

●       The Constitutionalists want to deconstruct the bloated federal government.

●       Southern Nationalists want a reformed confederacy with vastly white majority.

●       Wignats are basically, as I understand it best, Neo-Nazis.

●       For me, I feel a pull toward Spiritual Nationalism, which isn't really a thing, as far as I know. But for me, so much of what we are fighting is associated with spirituality, especially as it relates to the massive Jewish influence in Western society. No matter what any of us believe, Jews believe they have a divine right to fulfill Biblical prophecy. (I also came upon the term Haxoism. Haxoists believe that, if we can dispel Jews from our society, we could greatly eradicate the degeneracy and correct the century's worth of indoctrination.)

Respondent #6

❖      Pagans, Trad Caths, other religionists—identity is centered first and foremost on religion, though it is viewed as a reflection of race to varying degrees

❖      Third Positionists—some obsessed with recreating the fascist wave of the 30s and 40s, some more open to modernizing

❖      WN 1.0, other white identitarians—less political more advocates

❖      Confederate types, preppers etc

❖      Other splinter groups some more revolutionary than others

Respondent #7

I would say there’s about 3 prominent ones at the moment

★      Wigger Nationalists (Wignats) - people who do not believe in there being a political solution, extremists?

★      American Nationalists (AmNats )- people who still remain hopeful about a political solution, some are still die hard Trump Supporters

★      Separatists- People who believe in a separate place and country for every race and keeping them separate will encourage healthy diversity. whites should have their own land to claim as their own.

Do you find it necessary for anyone else associated with the Dissident Right to be in complete agreement, as a movement?

“Having studied revolutions I don't necessarily believe there needs to be total agreement, but there does need to be an agreement as to the system that would replace in the event there actually is a revolution.”

“Absolutely not. In this phase, it's critical to focus on common enemies above all.”

“Not really, no, but someone should step up and deal with the dramafags. I am not naming names, but most people would know exactly who you mean if you said that. The same people that say to not enable e-girls, are category-5 clingers who exist to orbit these accounts and fan their balls to the point that they will sell other people out, especially if they perceive someone having wronged them. I think they're really fucking dangerous and they don't do much to really push our narrative forward because they're too wrapped up in trying to be paragons of virtue. They aren’t necessarily popular, so much as they are perceived as powerful because people believe they have the power to dox – which is fucking retarded to continue to bow to these morons and try to be their “fren” – they thrive on drama and infighting and move from one target to the next. Maybe they will take care of the Wignats though, that would be good but overall, they do more harm than good and they encourage other people to keep tabs on one another and turn on unsuspecting targets. Do we need a for real Stasi as part of our supposed brother/sisterhood?”

“I do not. This current version of (white) nationalism is basically in its infancy and deserves as many voices as possible. What we lack, at the moment, is a conductor to gather all those voices into some sort of recognizable symphony. I place the blame for the lack of progress in this regard solely on Charlottesville. The incredible momentum we had in 2017 was completely shattered."

"If anyone or everyone had to be in complete agreement, there would never be a movement.”

What do you feel constitutes the difference between infighting and healthy debate?

●       Infighting would be caused by a specific group trying to name someone as a leader for the whole movement.

●       Healthy debate is over when there is only name-calling and (threats of) doxxing are left.

●       Anything goes except IRL involvement and doxxing. I would also consider social media blocks as unacceptable at this point, but I understand why it occurs. It would be healthier for the movement, however, to avoid that altogether.

●       Infighting divides, healthy debate ends with understanding and perhaps changing minds

●       Infighting, for me, is when people resort to name-calling and emotion-based arguments vs. healthy debate is when someone is willing to look at both sides of the argument while still standing firm in their own position. They are also willing to concede good points to their opponent and ultimately, if necessary and good for the larger goals, compromise.

●       Personal attacks, public attacks (unless the idea or issue being addressed is extremely toxic and needs to be public), doxxing, general undermining

●       Trying to work together on points of agreement vs. expulsion over purity test

●       Healthy debate constitutes a disagreement that can be agreed upon to disagree, with both sides supporting their own argument. Infighting constitutes screaming over each other, whether in person or on the keyboard and not listening to your opponent's argument, just being self-centered and thinking you are better than them.

Do you feel any one faction has more influence over the other?

The majority of respondents said no, but I found these specific answers interesting:

●       Futurists, by the very nature of their perspective, will have more powerful influence,even though they will likely be significantly outnumbered by traditionalists and libertarians.

●       Not really, although those on the good optics/aesthetics side have more of a voice, whereas Wignats/Accelerationists - by their very virtue - would be forced from any media outlet.

●       Right now, it feels like the largest sway is to Civic Nationalism. "Normies" on the right are most comfortable with this. However, with my own mutuals, I see more of a draw toward White Nationalism and developing an ethnostate.

If you feel there is a dominant faction, has it always been that way, or has it changed?

●       27% said “Yes, there has always been a dominant faction

●       27% said “No, power has always been fairly evenly distributed”

●       19% said “there has definitely been a change”

●       the remainder commented other, and to some extent said things will always be in flux.

If you answered "changed" to the previous question: Do you feel there was a certain event or series of events that precipitated this change of influence?

●       There were always factions; incipient dissident movement attracts various ideas, personalities.

●       It has changed. I feel from a practical Civic Nationalism (with maybe Alt-Right/White Nationalism undertones) to White Nationalism, etc.

●       The Alt-Right was clearly the dominant faction up until August 12, 2017. Before that point however, the various factions we see today within the Dissident Right were substantially less delineated.

What faction would you consider the following people to be a part of?

(Possible answers: Alt-Right, Alt-Lite, Identitarian, Wignat, Civ-Nat, Am-Nat, Paleo-Con, Neo-Con, RINO, Unspecified) Respondents were able to select more than one faction per person.

Richard Spencer - overwhelmingly Alt-Right with Identitarian as a close second

Nick Fuentes - tied evenly between Alt-Lite and Identitarian

Ram Z Paul - overwhelmingly Identitarian

Donald Trump - Neo-Con with RINO in close second

David Duke - Alt-Right and Identitarian fairly evenly

Scott Greer - evenly split between Am-Nat, Identitarian with Paleo-Con as a close third choice

Mike Enoch - overwhelmingly Alt-Right with Identitarian as the only other pick (about half the rate as AR)

Mike Cernovich - overwhelmingly Alt-lite with RINO and Identitarian in small numbers

Lindsay Graham - Neo-Con hands down

Steve King - evenly split between Civ-Nat, Am-Nat and Paleo-Con

*Richard Spencer and David Duke were the only 2 people that received “votes” for Wignat.

*Identitarian seemed to show up the most amongst people who did not have an overwhelming response or in cases where the responses were very close.

Do you follow people first, or wait until they follow you?

Nearly every respondent said they follow first, or typically follow back

Before you follow someone, do you look at their bio, TL, who they follow, who follows them, etc?

Nearly every respondent said that they do check these things to make sure accounts are trustworthy and/or interesting.

What would cause you to unfollow someone?

●       Doing things to potentially dox themselves or others.

●       Antifa activist, boomercon, MAGAtards, generally people who post brainless or off narrative content.

●       Any mention of QAnon, low-info Trump cheering, or anything pro-semitic.

●       Any mutual that pulls their follow without reason will always lose a follow. Also, any account who leaves my follow back on ‘pending’ for more than a week or two.

●       Someone pretending to be someone they're not, an intruder, a pedophile, someone who wants to divide us, a Qanon retard, an Israel supporter, "Nazi hunters," feminists, haters of the white race.

●       Lewd content, antichristian sentiment.

●       If they turned out to be seriously discompatible (sic).

●       If we continually clash on ideas, and it seems like we won't agree.

●       Attacks on myself or my friends/associates that are unwarranted; anything harmful to the cause

●       Being a cuck.

●       Insults, doxxing, getting wobbly on issues

●       Major disagreement with basic principles.

●       Extremist values or too much activity in Twitter drama or infighting

Do you actively find accounts to block?

●       47% said “No”

●       24% said “Yes”

●       29% they use block lists or will block at the recommendation of friends or accounts that post evidence of people who want to stir the pot.

What is your take on the “big accounts” on Twitter?

●       They have value as to attract attention to what we think.

●       Blue checks are establishment repeater nodes. The big "alt right" and paleo accounts are almost all great.

●       Those really "on our side" are crucial and must be defended. I fear the day we lose Battle Beagle (and we most certainly will).

●       My definition of ‘big accounts’ is likely different than what you may be implying. 90% of my must-follow accounts are in the 500-1500 follower range (likely because of bans) that reliably post excellent content and always push the movement forward. That being said, there’s always must-follow room for the funny, quirky, /ourguy/ accounts that keep us laughing and thinking.

●       That's a hard one, sometimes I don't understand why they're never suspended but then again if you read through their content they don't actively break the ToS. Unless they're blue check mark liberals, then they get a free pass.

●       I don't trust them

●       Not awestruck

●       I don't think I follow many big accounts anymore. I used to follow bigger MAGA accounts and people like James Woods, but I don't anymore. I occasionally see them as RTs and sometimes appreciate them, but I just don't think we're in the same place, for the most part.

●       What colour is the wind?

●       I mostly pay attention to smaller accounts

●       I feel many "big accounts" are very easily approachable. For example, Alt-Skull, he actively encourages people to ask him to follow back and is easy to talk to and ask for a shout out.

When you see prominent voices disagree, what is your reaction?

●       It is a discussion we need to have.

●       I'm interested in seeing how they resolve it. I think it's important that public disagreements are amicably solved. The dissident rw is in the latent phase of an insurgency, and we need to appear bigger, more organized, and more effective than we actually are. This means we need to amplify our signaling and focus our efforts outward, not inward.

●       Ignore the thread. I stay out of this, even when I have an opinion. E.g., I'm pro-balkanization, and there's always fights about "defend all our ground" versus "regroup and concentrate the fight."

●       I read both sides of their debate and use it to better help form/solidify my own. I have a hard rule never to insert myself, or to take sides in, a faction-based argument.

●       Same ol' same ol'.

●       I think it's interesting to see prominent voices disagree, as long as they keep the conversation productive. Just like in my own interaction, I don't want to see people confuse the issues, intentionally derail topics, etc.

●       If it’s a fight, it upsets me

●       I expect it to a fair degree. Sometimes it produces useful discussion, but many times pointless friction.

●       I usually look at both sides of the argument and like to learn about either person a little more. It makes me want to look into them more

What would you change about engagement on Twitter (free speech suppression aside)?

●       Though I understand the fear of doing so, I think we need to reach out more to others to encourage them to continue to do things if they are valuable to our end goal.

●       I would essentially make Twitter a public utility and make all speech other than credible threats and criminal activity permitted.

●       They need a "dislike." As it is now, the number of replies (and getting "ratio'ed") are the only way to see disfavor with a Tweet.

●       Twitter’s algorithms will hide mutuals with whom you haven’t interacted in a while and vice-versa. I’m always annoyingly surprised when I see a lost mutual retweeted and check their timeline to find daily tweets that I’ve missed.

●       Their shadow banning and allowing users to buy followers.

●       Unlimited length for tweets.

●       Edit option, lol! But other than free speech, I'm not tech savvy enough to have a problem with anything else.

●       I wish people would read more. I don’t know if that’s necessarily Twitter specific, but we try to link to good articles etc for educational reasons. Also follow reading recommendations.

●       I would actually prefer Twitter to be destroyed utterly.

●       Honestly we need better security and for Twitter to take reports more seriously. The Alt-Right is full of fine people but on the other side there are shifty characters that need to be banned for possibly being the next NZ shooter

What do you consider cringe posting?

●       Just doing stupid things that could get you doxxed.

●       Cringe posting: personal beefs in public; white knighting for "likes"; boomerposting

●       Hard question, but we all cringe when we see it :) Personally it's any basic, low-info tweets about muh Israel, etc.

●       I’m no prude, but over-the-top thirst and ‘hornt’ posting will always get the scroll-wheel treatment. Some casual flirtation is alright, but some of the interactions I’ve seen are just, ugh, cringeworthy. I get it though. It’s unfortunate that the dating site whitesonly.com was likely a giant fed honeypot; we could definitely use a means of pairing off some of the outstanding single folks haunting our side of Twitter.

●       Women flaunting their abortions

●       Lewd content

●       The president appealing to blacks and Hispanics without acknowledging whites. Tone deaf boomer posts not acknowledging demographics. More and more, anyone who doesn't acknowledge demographics are problematic, and even further, those who get upset for considering the JQ when their presence/influence/dominance is undeniable. Unless that person is in denial or has sold out to Zionism.

●       Cucking usually, but anything sort of tacky or unproductive

The Wignat Question

"Violence does, in truth, recoil upon the violent, and the schemer falls into the pit which he digs for another." —Sherlock Holmes, 'The Speckled Band'

Throughout the survey and in watching different debates and fights unfold online, I noticed that a good deal of infighting was centered around a recent surge in people declaring themselves Wignats. In a matter of a few weeks, many avatars had skull masks and were quoting Siege by James Mason. “Fuck around and Find Out” made its way on the timeline in both bantz and as serious issue for more heated engagement.

I had the opportunity to interview in-depth 2 persons in that faction and they agreed to let me share their thoughts to shed some light on their ideology:

    ANON 1:

I welcome the term Wignat. I think being falsely accused of being a Nazi so much turned me into a literal Nazi. But that doesn’t mean every Wignat is a typical skinhead type. Our Wignat faction ideology is simple. We don’t believe that a political solution exists. We don't care about optics. We want full accelerationism and a system collapse. Then, we can rebuild something. The system cannot be changed. Wignats are not worried about altering anything to make it more "presentable"- just the cold hard truth. We believe there is no point in engaging with the system. Trump proved that by giving us nothing. We are in favor of anything that pushes chaos or instability. We think things are going to collapse . . . it's only a matter of time. What we want to do, are little things, that speed that process up.

If you recall the optics debate, Ricky Vaughn and Weev started attacking people they claimed had "white nationalist 1.0 aesthetics." You know, the cliché Hollywood Nazi look. Vaughn coined the term Wignat meaning "Wigger Nationalist," which was supposed to be a term meaning that we just larp as Nazis (wrong, we are actually fascist, national socialists). Ricky Vaughn is responsible for the infighting with regard to the optics debate. He and his faction decided they were going to go to war over this. They pushed the "infiltrate and takeover the GOP" strategy, which clearly isn’t going to work.

Ricky Vaughn worked for the Nehlen campaign (before Nehlen went a little edgy), and he tried to sell Nehlen a program called Smart Checker, which, I’m not really a tech person, but it is a program that uses facial recognition to essentially find people who might be sympathetic to white nationalists (AKA doxx our guys). So, Vaughn essentially tried to sell Nehlen a list of our guys doxxes, and in doing so, created infighting. That’s why Nehlen doxxed Vaughn [in retaliation]. 

Vaughn also led the charge attacking Heimbach and the TWP. It wasn’t a good faith criticism . . . it was a witch hunt against them and their sympathizers. Fair critiques can be made about anyone, but TWP still put life and limb on the line at C-Ville and that should earn respect.

The idea of a Wignat is we don't care about optics. We don't want to work within the system whatsoever, because it's not a viable option. Infiltrating the GOP will not work. Congress has voted twice to condemn White Nationalism in the last 2 years, the White Nationalist hearings they just had, Steve King disavowing his milquetoast comments essentially saying "Hey, the west isn't that bad." Additionally, if you saw, the Am-Nats (Nick Fuentes, Patrick Casey, and Faith Goldy) couldn't even get into CPAC.

The Am-Nat faction wants to try to appeal to those who could be potentially sympathetic, and work within the system, but when trying to appeal, they will conceal and water down the message of truth, because they think it’s "bad optics" not to do so. For example, they don’t like to mention the Jews too much because it’s unpopular. Maybe they will to a small extent, but not as hard as they should. Their faction also tends to be nasty towards women i.e. "patrolling them" for no reason whatsoever. Can’t have the 14 without white women. The left never disavows their radicals and the right shouldn't either.

The Wignat faction was talking about Trump being a sellout for the last year or two. Am-Nats seem to just now be getting onboard that we were right all along, but they don't give us any credit. Instead, they disavow us and pretend like they weren’t cheerleading forever. Wignats think this is a bad idea because, you get softer people in that end up dragging you down - You don’t want to let in just anyone. We think there needs to be a set of standards, and everyone needs to be all in and conform to those standards - No half ass, confirm or die metaphorically. It's interesting that Hitler brought together a lot of factions, but they all confirmed to him.

   ANON :2

What are your thoughts on the infighting you see on the timeline?

Well it depends on what kind of infighting it is. Some people are just here to latch onto ANY drama and to and amplify it. Some people are willing to clash over ideas. And others are trying to reveal hidden motivations. Anything that challenges (people who are critical of Wignats) into real action, they want to write off as a call to terrorism or Fed-Posting while touting that the way forward is through legitimate politics - which we can’t even get our foot in the door. Calls to action aren't necessarily calls to violence.

They had a white nationalist congressional meeting without a single White Nationalist present. We do almost nothing and even the most milquetoast actions result in doxxing and firing.

So you think a clash would have come eventually? Again, not been around too long, and not looking to pry, but the resentments, were they over the same differences or context? That maybe “Wignat” is just the name for it now, essentially?

Post Charlottesville, there was a debate about optics - Should the Alt-Right adopt a normie facing front to make the message more palatable to normies? Some said yes and blamed a singular photo of a swastika flag as the entire reason the Alt-Right weren't swept into the mainstream.

There was another contingent that was firmly against changing anything merely to look palatable.

This debate went on and on and on. The podcasters pushed this narrative hardest.

Time went on and Paul Nehlen came along and when he red-pilled, he red-pilled hard. He essentially blew his campaign and doxxed Ricky Vaughn . I don't really understand that part.

But it deepened the rift because Ricky Vaughn was ALL about optics. He made up the term Wignats. About this time, Gab came about, and people were going nuts on there posting EVERYTHING they could - out in the open. Ricky was calling all people that were Pro-White that didn't want to be draped in American Flags, Wiggers. They aren't, but that's what they got called. Eventually the term stuck.

Am-Nats, or American Nationalists are typically Pro-White people who seek a political solution through voting, and who are overly concerned about tempering the Pro-White message for the masses and [they still] remain supportive of Trump.

Wignats are Pro-White people who don't believe there is a political solution and would rather accelerate the circumstances that would lead to either armed conflict or social/economic collapse as the corrupt system is the root of our problems. They believe that openly opposing and naming the Jew is necessary, and that you can either get on board, or get left behind.

Having just had these two more in depth conversations and also what I have seen on Twitter, it is clear to see that folks that consider themselves Wignats, are very much on the same page with one another and the set of standards they have developed into a loose credo. The fighting for them, is then against others who oppose those beliefs.

It’s just my opinion, but those who do engage in fighting with the Wignats tend to not have as tightly held beliefs and instead are evolving their thoughts or having conversations that bring different ideas and propositions to light.

The number one thing everyone agrees on, as part of being in the Dissident Right is the JQ:

Counter point:

The Left doesn't disavow its radicals, whereas the so called Right is all too eager to disavow its fringe, in an effort to appease the supposed moral authority of the Left, which of course invariably fails to garner the Right any credit from the Left. All that is achieved is strife between factions of the Right. Therefore we have the injunction, "Don't punch Right." This meme is generally directed at normie/moderates, who are still conditioned to reflexively denounce far right views. As before, this is not actually in their interest or the interest of the Right overall. They should suppress the urge to "punch Right," and if they cannot wholeheartedly endorse the far right view, then for the sake of spiting the Left, they should simply say nothing or else respond to Leftist's demands that they denounce a certain person or point of view.

There are certain "zero sum" conflicts between factions of the Dissident Right. The economic differences between free market Libertarians and National Socialists is one example. The religious differences between believers and non-believers and pagans is another example. They can choose to temporarily put aside their differences until their shared political adversaries are defeated, but eventually these conflicts will come to the fore.

The JQ, by contrast, is not a zero sum conflict. It should therefore be a unifying issue. Some may be more emboldened to broach the question than others, but there is no reason for any faction to put forth any effort to defend against critiques leveled at Jewish power. Or even to criticize another for putting heavy emphasis on the centrality of the JQ. Where it is conceivable someone may be too far over the top, it's better that the would-be infighter say nothing than to object to the critique. Nothing is gained from counter signalling this issue. Nothing is lost by staying silent. All should feel free to offer their own take on the question, if they don't wish to be seen as holding over the top views themselves, but generally speaking, we should never punch Right on the JQ. Of course all of the above applies only to lawful speech. Unlawful speech, including incitement to violence, should be disavowed.

Karma Police : Identity & Value - A House of Cards?

We as a people know and understand that there is value in identity.

Is it that when we adjust our lens to be one that is proficient in recognizing the degenerate complacency outside of our tribe or heritage that we are also bored with that venture and then start to become accustomed to focusing that lens on those next to us - do we make judgments, so that we ourselves can righteously feel secure at all cost? Are we quick to smear others, just to keep ourselves clean? These behaviours are human nature and they leave us vulnerable to creating our own echo chamber by always being watchful purveyors of what is just and true, notably in our movement because it is so dear to our hearts - it must be protected. We unknowingly take the onus of guardian, while also not wanting to be a spectacle.

I call this the ouroboros effect - a never-ending loophole. The snake eating its own tail over and over again, because we still have a Pavlovian response to the stimuli around us. Especially when it excites us and activates our “almonds.”

I see infighting peak and come to a head when we don't want to ask these questions because it makes us confront ourselves and the very foundation of what we say and what we believe in our newly formed selves. Though we do not regard ourselves as mere adolescents on a new journey - we hastily skip ahead to where we want to see ourselves. The permutation that is a dissident mindset is emboldened, much the way kindling starts a fire and we all have a survival instinct that kicks in once the veil comes off. We all have a season of isolation and despair. We all sense the need to rise like a phoenix and set the hearts of our fellow brothers and sisters on fire with discernment, determination and avowal to make the world anew in an age of privation. 

One of my favorite quotes of all time is from a nun - she said with regard to those dispossessed and without certainty of their futures,  “suffering is not useless.” I think the same can be said of infighting. It will be a useful means to the ultimate end we are all working toward. However, just as in war, there are rules of engagement that are wise to follow and we should take care to critique and not criticise evolving ideals nor label and discard any individuals who we deem to have follied.

We should hold ourselves to standards and accountability that can be measured. Without a leader, this is more complicated and requires that we all adhere to a similar notion or set of guidelines - I know this is easier said than done because these “guidelines” are still actually forming and constantly subject to change because of swaying opinions and up votes in a culture of popularity and self-contained validation.

The question remains as it does with anything  - who does the measuring and who determines exactly what the standard constitutes? For now, that question is answered by the collective “us” and we define more clearly our credo in each tweet, podcast and interaction online and IRL.

A fair number of us can agree that the optics of issuing apologies for dissident beliefs is really saying is that the “System” is bigger than the individual - we issue this criticism of politicians quite frequently as we should. But we cannot become too accustomed to ourselves becoming gatekeepers of a system that we (or a select few) agree is the new meld. Let’s not put our people in a position where they will feel the need to apologize. Secondly, let’s not leave ourselves open to assuming the role of the “boss” - as they say, “the bigger they are, the harder they fall” and that is especially true of an online space where favoritism and populist conformity can assume authority - we should instead remain humble, servant leaders.

Regarding our time preference, the amount of our engagement in this “thing” being largely on Twitter, our dopamine receptors crave stimuli - when we aren't engaging in unifying moments, we find divisive points to be unifying amongst our smaller cohorts, or our own thoughts -  we've had so many unifying moments that have made a resounding impact. Look at how we rallied behind Justice Kavanaugh and Covington Catholic’s Nathan Sandmann and kept that trending on Twitter for days. Get to low peak engagement and something like the debate over Yang Bucks collapses our house of cards by appearing to be as rewarding and significant as our other efforts. Our individual reaction to the New Zealand shooter and the optics surrounding white nationalism can very quickly divide us. These instances permeate our realm; not because they are indicative of our individual beliefs, but because of the nature of the online platform. By our reaction to them, they are defined thusly. For those who orbit us, or might be attracted to our cause, when they see us react without cohesion to something like that, it’s not a healthy sign of a strong movement that reflects our history or where we want to shift the Overton Window.

We have to be careful about how we interact with one another when we're disagreeing online because those who are new to the movement or even only looking into it because of whatever news headline is going on are either going to have their suspicions confirmed or they're going to see something different -  so it's up to us to carry ourselves in a way that represents ourselves best, but also furthers our position for what we want for our movement and e people dedicated to doing the same.

One of the things that I love about our movement, and the people within it, and what ultimately helped draw me in is the humility that many of us have. So many of our prominent voices do not ever give themselves enough credit for what they do, and at times they even make fun of themselves. This self-effacement is counter-productive: there is a world of difference between humility and minimizing one’s self and contributions. The same goes for confidence and assertion versus arrogance. Perhaps it is that they do not want to show vulnerability or open themselves up to attack, particularly as this would entail true emotional investment and exposing oneself to the public.

Our white heritage dictates that we by nature will always have the inherent ability to be reactive and do what needs to be done. This is a passive response. Ultimately, where we are now in our struggle and the fight that we face against the deep state, is to be dissidents that are proactive. That is a dynamic approach. We have to work hard and strive everyday to make a real, forward movement in what we want our interests to accomplish. “We have to be reactionary to reinstate societal norms, that reflect a natural order worth conserving.”

Fighting one another and trying to bring one another down will do nothing, nothing to bring us any closer to that goal, which is our ultimate goal. Why can’t we work alongside people with whom we don’t fully agree, still pushing them to move forward to becoming better, active participants, without demanding full-fledged fealty to accelerationism? Why can't we prepare ourselves now, for the best version of ourselves when we will really be recruited by necessity or our own volition to answer the call?

We can’t do it alone as individuals. I truly feel that it is critical right now to move beyond just the online space and into real-world interactions with people who think like us. I myself have spent more time focusing on red-pilling people and waking them up rather than making connections with people who are already on my side and already awake. I had the recent experience of being around a group of 22-24 year-olds, and I can tell you I walked away thinking that they only want to isolate themselves and be around a group of people that won't hold them to a higher accountability or set of standards for a reason. They are fine being passengers, product consumers and fully indoctrinated pacifist pawns. I’m not sure this group will even be able to react, if and when we need them to.

We need ardent leaders to continue to better themselves (while still trying to bring the younger generation into reality). Impassioned vanguards who will create the building blocks for the next phase of progress - returning to the mindset that has served our ancestral legacy so well: building and maintaining accord with like minded individuals who will challenge us and who will accept revolutionary actions that we put forth to the commune of shared identity.

Ultimately, we should never aspire to be the “boss” - not to one another and not in our IRL interactions. Bosses create echo chambers - leaders create springboards. To quote our friend JQP, “We want to be leaders outside of politics.” We have a responsibility not only to one another, but especially to those who are orbiting, because it is our duty to attract them to our cause because it is their cause and as we once were, they are still plugged in to a false sense of reality, denied of their own value and identity.

We are not the Karma Police - not to one another and especially not to those who are “green” I don’t mean just Gen-Z exclusively who are more woke to the broken structural entity of the deep state than most of us were at that point in our development, but we have to also look at Millennials, Gen-X, (I dare even say the rare Boomers) who are just now experiencing their unshaming. Once they venture into our territory, their minds are still malleable and forming in much the same way that ours were at whatever point we began our journey into a Dissident way of life. So we owe it to them to be responsible advocates for our cause and that means issuing critique where it is necessary and refraining from criticism when it is unwarranted.

What is "Anti-Semitism"?

What is "Anti-Semitism"?

The Divine Order

The Divine Order