How to Win

https://twitter.com/bronzeagemantis/status/896611724748574721

Is this guy ever wrong?

That said, no enemies to the right.

[…] How to Win […]

At the risk of being tarred, I will have to disagree. I know it's unpopular, but realism on the alt-right needs advocates. First, any public gathering of /your guys/ is a "cartoonish rally," so avoiding that is essentially avoiding personal contact and organization efforts. The internet makes up for this, but it is not a panacea. Secondly, you can't have an NGO because that status will not be given to any alt-right organization. You can have an alt-lite-ish conservative NGO and staff it will mostly cucks and a few sympathetic deep-cover alt-right, but those already exist and do the bidding of the establishment. Third, gyms, farms, and other cooperative efforts are fine and dandy. Your grass roots are important, but they are not mutually exclusive with political action. Retreating to your clubhouse and cleaning up some addicts will build you good will with people, but you will still need to organize and fund these things and if you are being hemmed in on all sides as cartoonish racists who shouldn't be allowed to exist, you won't get far with that either. In sum, a parallel society for whites is explicitly against the federal and most state government's laws, in spirit if not in letter. You won't have any luck building those institutions if you don't have the stomach for negative publicity surrounding public gatherings. Accusing people who want to be activist of LARPing should be grounds for dismissing any subsequent opinions as agitprop. These are the views of a submissive cuckold one step removed from cuckservatism's standard fare.

I'm open to discussion. What exactly did this rally achieve? I guess it drew attention. What's the idea, that the attention will increase numbers? Any evidence that thats how it's working? Because one could just as well argue that the rally caused bad publicity which drew more people to the cucks and away from the altright.

Is it too much to ask to have nationalist rallies without skin-heads / KKK / natsocs and all those loser movements who have kept the right a laughing stock for so many decades ? Can we not have decently dressed people marching calmly and peacefully with American flags ? I hear 'no ennemies to the right', but with friends like that ...

Yes, it's too much to ask. You can't physically stop them and they're very motivated to join the party. So odds are they are going to be there. If you do a public rally, that is.

A lot of the guys in CVille WERE decently dressed, in shape, peacefully marching. Those just weren't the ones that the MSM chose to portray. No surprise there. In the long run, all publicity is good publicity. Because the Alt Right WILL win the argument with young white men, period. No question about it. It really doesn't even matter how badly the Alt Right figureheads do anything that they do. Because the Alt Right is telling young white men that they are valuable & important. And the other side is telling young white men that they are evil & disposable. There's no contest. So every time that a young white guy hears the words "white genocide" or "anti-white bias" or "replace whites" it plants a seed. Even if those words are being said in a condemnatory, sneering, mocking or dismissive manner. Because those are the things that ARE happening, and tamping down that knowledge with social status diminishment threats won't last forever. There's really no bad outcome for us with young white men. Being violently repressed is good for us because it proves our point that there is an anti-white, anti-male bias. Having a peaceful productive meeting like AmRem is good for us because it shows that we are intelligent, thoughtful & decent. Being denounced is good for us because it raises awareness & makes people aware of our talking points. Being ignored is good for us because it lets us do our work in peace. America's young white men are going AltRight no matter what. The larger issue is whether there are still enough of them left.

It's a demonstration of the double standard. A standard cucks are ok with. Organization means nothing if the bulk of the right believes they can overcome non-person status with no frictive encounters.

Depends on how long we have. If we're counting down 20 years to South Africa, RaHoWa can't come fast enough. If we're looking at a decline into 1990's post-Soviet America stretched over two generations, we want parallel institutions to usurp the state once it loses its will and capability.

You will not be permitted to create this alternate culture. The enemy does not want you to form any kind of parallel institutions or advocacy. They want you dead, your children defiled and your history erased.

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

Spandrell, can you talk about historical examples of the right winning fully against the left? I don't think they're very common, but some that come to mind: - Franco winning the Spanish Civil War (although it went left again after his death) - El Sisi taking over in Egypt (but he's in a very precarious position) - Sulla winning in Rome (overturned within 10 years of his death) - Caesar and then Augustus winning in Rome - Would you say China turning full capitalist in recent decades? - Russia reestablishing sovereignty after disastrous perestroika. Perhaps we can look at these historical examples to see what can be done. Military coup seems unlikely from the right as the military highbrass are all career Democrats...

I don't think Caesar was a rightist in any way... he allied with the populares, fought to usurp the aristocracy's control of the government, and proposed land reforms. He also ignored many laws and political traditions that would have limited his power. Much of what he did was arguably beneficial, but it was very anti-traditional.

There's a difference between open wars between self-declared left and right, like Sulla vs. Marius or Franco vs. the Popular Front; rightish coups during times of chaos, like Augustus, Sisi or Napoleon, and slow evolution away from leftist policies, like in China or post-Soviet Russia. China had Yuan Shikai recover control from the 1912 republic for a while, and he even tried to restore the monarchy, but it didn't work out. And Meiji Japan also had the revolutionary government stop its radical elements after the Southwest War and the "Freedom and Rights movement". If you look at a long enough timespan, the right tautologically wins, because the left will always spiral into complete chaos. The question is at what point the right reacts; if the right fights early on, the left may still be quite organized and so outright war is needed; if the right fights at the very end; leftism has already wrecked most of the previous society. At this point in US history we're probably beyond Sulla but before Augustus.

>Those just weren’t the ones that the MSM chose to portray. No surprise there. This is a fair point. In some ways it points to a stronger corollary of BAP's point... if you're gonna organize a rally that is bound to attract those elements, you might as well embrace the LARP yourself and deliberately choreograph the most bizarre, offensive, clickbait-worthy cadres you can think of. If you show up in public the Cathedral *will* get its symbolic white debbil, so the debbil they get might as well be you.

Leadership is needed. You have to tell the troops what to do and then they'll do it.

Trouble is the right has no long game here. They'll be wildly outnumbered in a generation and most likely purged from any meaningful societal role long before that. It's happening already.

There is always a lot of hot air out of much of nrx about how the altright is wrong for pursuing these things, but I think the blame falls squarely on them. If a group fancies itself the intellectuals of the right, it should take into consideration the need to funnel the energy and efforts of the types of men that are attracted to the altright. Anyone can tweet and blog about how others are taking the wrong path, that is easy. The challenge is to channel the energy somewhere productive. nrx has a reputation among the rest of the right, well earned I think, for doing nothing. Obviously many are doing vital work, but they fail miserably when it comes to relating and utilizing the youth and energy of the rest of the right. It is true that civilization will not be saved with marches and speeches, but it is equally true that it will not be saved by writing about how marches are pointless. I am filled with frustration on this topic. We have the ideas, we have the people and the energy, but we lack anyone capable of connecting them.

Anyone seriously contemplating nationalism is deluded and insane. "Bronze Age Pervert" is so far left as to be virtually undifferentiated from SJWs. When you say "no enemies to the right" in connection to "Bronze Age Pervert", what you're saying is either that you're more deluded and insane than this fellow, or that "no enemies to the right" really means "no enemies to this arbitrary line of kind-of-but-not-full-on-left-left".

"I am filled with frustration on this topic. We have the ideas, we have the people and the energy, but we lack anyone capable of connecting them." You are filled with frustration because you are thinking magically. If you cannot at least plausibly stage a military coup, you do not have the ideas, people, or energy. If you cannot stage a military coup, you cannot achieve a "right-wing" "restoration".

Numbers are irrelevant unless all people are created equal. "In 1978, there were 270,000 Rhodesians of European descent and more than six million Africans.[84]" “Rhodesian white people had enjoyed a very high standard of living. The Land Tenure Act had reserved 30% of agricultural land for white ownership and black labour costs were low (around US$40 per month in 1975), but included free housing, food and clothing. Nurses earned US$120 per month in 1975, which had a large effect in the context of an agricultural economy.[25] Public spending on education, healthcare and other social services was heavily weighted towards provision for white people. Most of the better paid jobs in public service were reserved for white people.[26] White people in skilled manual occupations enjoyed employment protection against black competition.[27] In 1975, the average annual income per head for Rhodesian white people was around US$8,000 (with income tax at a marginal rate of 5%) – making them one of the richest communities in the world.[25]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia How are both of these statements true?