Site Plans

Some may have noticed some performance issues with the site recently, as well as some down time and connectivity issues. There were at least two de-platforming efforts, but most the trouble here has been technology related. Part of the problem is the traffic, which keeps ticking up despite my best efforts. The server this site lives on is just not up to the task so it results in downtime. There’s also the problems that come with using WordPress, which is fine for what it is, but it is not without its problems in terms of reliability.

After many hassles with broken plugins and comments systems not working, I’m now committed to looking at alternatives. I have the move to a bigger, better server ready to go, but I want to do it when I do the site redesign. That way, I can work out issues with the new software before going live with it. Conversions are always full of surprises, so it is best to measure twice, covert once. The domain is not going to change, so the only change for the user will be look and feel, and I hope better performance.

With that in mind, now is the best time to solicit suggestions for features of changes in the new system. Number one on my list is a better comment system. One option I’m considering is a system with an integrated message board. This will mean commenting is for registered users only, but you can use your social media account to register. This means that the character you play on Twitter of Facebook can become your character on this site. It also means more commenting features as well as granular privileges.

Another thing I want to do is make it easier to get around corporate firewalls. What I’m learning is that many companies just block anything running WordPress. I found this out the other day, when I sent a link to a business to someone. I did not notice that the business was using WordPress for their website. My client tried to o`pen the link but his firewall blocked it. Using something like Joomla or Drupal would get around that, but there are other less complex options that may be better and require less work on my part.

Another item on my list is a better way to organize posts. I write a lot so not every post is going to be a winner, but some are clearly better than others. Organizing posts by popularity seems like a good idea. New readers can look at the greatest hits selection and see if they should stay or paddle back over to normieville. The ability sort and search by subject matter could be useful too. I have over 2300 posts now. I’ve written something about almost everything. Organizing by subject matter strikes me as useful.

With that said, the floor is now open. if anyone has suggestions, demands, desires, whatever that they would like to see in the next version, post them up. Obviously, I’m working with a limited amount of resources, so I will not be building a site to rival Facebook, but there is a lot that can be done for very little. Developing a community around the content posted here is certainly possible. Adding the ability to start a premium service, if I ever decide to go full on Dinesh D’Souza is also a possibility.

The Little White Book

Edit: I was working from the draft copy that Greg was kind enough to send me over the summer. He changed the chapter titled “Slow Cleanse” in the final version and made clear that “ethnic cleaning” is used as a leftist slur. The irony here is this was a recommendation  I made after I read the draft. My apologies to Greg and the readers for the error.

What is “white nationalism”? If you ask a Progressive, you will get a list of the other abracadabra phrases they use to label heretics. A white person insufficiently enthusiastic for things like egalitarianism, unlimited immigration or racial quotas is dismissed as a white nationalist. They call President Trump a white nationalist, for example. For normal people, the term conjures images of white separatists, maybe, or perhaps nothing at all. Unlike black nationalism, the phrase white nationalism lacks an agreed upon definition.

Greg Johnson, in his new book The White Nationalist Manifesto, sets out to define white nationalism and also make the case for it. The book is a series of essays, grouped around three major themes. The first section focuses on the state of white people, the forces operating against whites and the need to restore white homelands. The second section covers the basic concepts of white nationalism. The final section addresses the cultural and political movement necessary to make White Nationalism a reality.

The first thing that recommends the book is the structure. In this age of short attention spans, breaking it into a series of essays is more effective. Writers will have to come to terms with the fact that their audience simply lacks the patience to read long complex arguments. In the case of something like white nationalism, the format allows the reader to quarrel with one or two points without having to reject the over all argument. Even people comfortable with white identity politics are going to have their disagreements.

There’s also the fact that most white people remain allergic to thinking sensibly about the issues facing white people. The adherents of Frankfurt School arguments and tactics have been in control of public discourse for generations. They have controlled the school curriculum since the 60’s. As a result, few white people alive today have ever existed outside the poaching liquid of multiculturalism. Short, easy to digest arguments that explain the basics of white identity politics provide a useful antidote to this conditioning.

Perhaps the most important argument in the book is at the beginning, where Johnson lays out the facts of white demographics. To people familiar with white identity politics, none of this will be new. Sadly though, most white people simply have no idea they are members of an endangered species. Even when the facts are presented to them, they will find some way to deny reality. Again, generations of proselytizing by an alien intellectual elite have conditioned whites to avoid facing the reality of their own dispossession.

The other aspect of this is the cause. The public polices that are putting whites in danger are not accidental. He makes the important point that the elites pushing these polices have to know the results of those polices in advance. Otherwise, it means the cultural and political elites are smart enough to craft and implement these policies, but too ignorant of reality to understand the inevitable consequences. In other words the ads on your television that always feature a brown man and a white women are calculated.

That removes the handy excuse whites have used for generations for not rising up against their rulers. For as long as anyone reading this has been alive, the claim has been that all the opposition needs to do is craft the right argument. Once they do that, the ruling class will throw down their weapons and embrace us as brothers. The responsibility is shifted from the people implementing public policy to the victims. By eliminating the excuse that they simply don’t know, the burden shifts back to the elites.

Another highly useful essay is titled Homogeneity, chapter eleven in the book. For American readers this is going to be challenging because the argument in favor of homogeneity contradicts everything they have been taught about diversity. The challenge presented in this chapter is that everything about observable reality makes clear that ethnically homogeneous societies are healthier and happier. More important, up until fifty years ago, everyone understood this, even in America. It’s a big red-pill for normie.

Now, in fairness, the book could do a better job explaining white demography. The empirically minded will hate the fact that Johnson makes a lot of assumptions, without providing studies, graphs and so forth. For American readers, an essay on the history and nature of white American ethnicity would be helpful. For generations, whites have been pitted against one another on ethnic and regional lines, so thinking about white identity is very difficult. White Americans don’t exist, even to themselves.

I’m also firmly in the camp that thinks we have to be careful with the choice of words, when it comes to discussing these topics. White nationalism is going to conjure mostly negative images. The essay titled The Slow Cleanse uses the phrase “ethnic cleansing”, which brings to mind firing squads and death camps.The word “cleanse” reminds people of Hollywood weirdos drinking prune juice for a week. Fair or foul, the bad guys control the language, so using words and phrases that make that hard for them is important.

That said, a big part of this project is the rejection of the prevailing moral orthodoxy. This does not mean the puerile role playing that came to define the alt-right. That’s just juvenile rebellion that accepts the moral supremacy of the Left. The proper way to reject the prevailing orthodoxy is to not be bound by it and not react to it. One way to do that is to return to the clear use of language. Nothing infuriates the people in power more than the indifference of their subjects, so maybe Johnson is on the right path with the language.

Finally, the target audience for the book is not your MAGA hat wearing granny or the Ben Shapiro loving CivNat. The book is best aimed at the type of person who generally knows the reality of race, but maybe thinks “racism” is crude or low-class. What a book like this does is provide language and arguments that the typical white person can use to inoculate their own mind to the prevailing culture. It also supplies the tools to help bring people over to this side of the great divide. It’s the Little Red Book for modern white people.

Lost Boys

A thing you get used to on this side of the great divide is seeing people go through the transformation. It’s like seeing a blind man suddenly given the gift of sight. At secret handshake events, a topic of conversation is “how you got here.” By that it means the book, event or person that finally opened your eyes to the reality of the world. For a lot of people, the absurdity of libertarianism was the gateway. Others found an old book by a banished writer, who used to be in the mainstream of conservative thought.

Not everyone makes the trip. Some people are so immersed in the prevailing morality that they will probably never find their way out. It’s not a matter of intelligence. We have plenty of mediocre minds on this side of the divide. It is the inability to step out of the old morality, the prevailing set of rules about what defines the moral person and what describes the immoral person. It’s not fear either, although that is often a big part of it. There are just some people who see Ben Shapiro as the great barrier after which is nothingness.

This article at PJ Media is a good example. The writer is unknown to me and probably unknown to everyone. The first thing to notice about the article is the caption on the picture is a lie. It is a deliberate lie, as well. That was not “white supremacists” surrounding counter protesters.” Nothing of the sort happened. That was a flash mob the night before Charlottesville. The lie, however, says something. It shows that the people at PJ Media are deep in the weeds of the Progressive moral framework. They accept all of it.

The setup of the post strikes me as contrived, but putting that aside, his response about tribalism is the standard CivNat spasm we see in response to biological reality. He writes, “An America where every group is primarily loyal to its own country of origin or race is an America without a bright future.” No quarrel there, which is exactly why all the sub-groups of the Dissident Right exist. They have come to understand that America is being balkanized by mass immigration, the racial awareness of non-whites and identity politics.

Then there is this. “Are most people inherently tribal? Absolutely. Our natural tendency as humans is to split ourselves off in different ways.” This is true, but there are no multi-racial tribes. In fact, we don’t have multi-ethnic tribes. The various tribes in Italy were bound together by blood, just as the Irish clans were bound together by blood. That’s a perfect example of the obtuseness of people unable to shake themselves free of the prevailing moral order. They will use the most ridiculous reasons to avoid facing basic reality.

Towards the end, we see this obtuseness again when he writes, “I think “civilizational ability” is something that should be chalked up to culture, not race. The most successful nations have been those that have adopted the tenets of Western civilization.” This is right out of the CivNat playbook. It is the most absurd form of circular reasoning, but it allows the timid to avoid noticing. It’s also a basic premise of Progressivism. The West is what it is by sheer dumb luck and that’s the root of white supremacy and all the evils tied to it.

No, the reason Europe began to race ahead of the world five centuries ago is the human capital of Europe was simply better than what populated the rest of the world. Sure, geography, history and chance came together to make the humans of Europe, but that’s true everywhere. That’s called evolution. It is a basic bit of reality that human evolution is copious, recent and local. Europeans can no more be blamed for being white than Africans can be blamed for being African. It’s just a fact of the human condition.

Now to be fair, the writer avoided most of the clownish virtue signalling that defines the people calling themselves conservative these days. The emptiness of conservatism, as well as it is ineffectiveness, leaves little for the conservative writer to do other than virtue signal. This guy at least acknowledged that the swelling ranks to his right are not simply evil, but motivated by facts and reason. He disagrees with those facts, but he has no choice, as to do otherwise means packing up and making the trip to our side.

The point of this is that you can’t save everyone. In fact, if someone from our side were to sit down with John Hawkins and explain the facts of life, he would probably nod along, but then go right back to chanting the old slogans again. Those old slogans and beliefs are comforting and require no risk. Thoreau was wrong. The mass of men do not lead lives of quiet desperation. The mass of men live in mortal fear that they will one day find themselves alone, separated from the pack, facing the dangers of the world alone.

That’s frustrating for many on this side, They wonder how it is that otherwise smart people like a John Hawkins can remain trapped on the other side. The fact is, you can’t save everyone and we don’t have to save everyone. The way these things work is you change the minds that can be changed and eventually, you have enough numbers to offer comfort to those who fear separation from the herd. You offer them a new and better herd in which they can find fellowship and comfort. That’s a how a counter-cultural movement works.

The Great Awakening

Ron Unz has gotten back to writing and he has put out a handful of long columns under the American Pravda category. These are posts where he digs into the official narrative on some subject and his experience with discovering the truth. They are packed with lots of well researched information about the topic, often from obscure sources that have been erased from the official narrative. To his credit, he digs into the credibility of his source material, as to why they have been deliberately forgotten. That’s always useful.

I find them a bit too long, but that may be a matter of taste. There is something about reading from a screen that makes long articles less pleasant for me. People have looked into this and found that shorter is better than longer on-line. It’s one reason the long form essay is going away. Most people consume their content on-line, so they prefer short pithy articles. There’s also the fact that most of this stuff is read at work, where you steal a few minutes to read something before lunch or on a break. But, that’s a small quibble.

Anyway, this entry on post-war Europe was really interesting. The post-liberation reprisals in France and Belgium get some mention in the official narrative, but almost exclusively with regards to women who slept with German soldiers. The gang-like warfare between communists and their enemies is never mentioned. Of course, there is never any mention of what happened to many German soldiers in prisoner of war camps. War is an ugly business and ideological war is the ugliest. so the post-war was no picnic.

In regards to the ideological aspects of it, the blind hatred of the Germans by the American elite is never discussed. That’s why no one learns about the Morgenthau Plan in their history classes. It is another example of how ideological enemies cannot see the humanity in one another. The rage-fueled Progressives of America were no different than their moral predecessors, the abolitionists. They came to see the other side as the pure expression of evil and wanted them exterminated. The Morgenthau Plan was about genocide.

The most interesting part of theses posts is that they fit into the “red pill” experience you hear from many who journey to this side of the divide. Not everyone makes the journey, as they were always here, but did not know there was a “here.” Many do have a moment when the light went on and they either began to question their view of the world or simply changed their mind about some important item. Often, it is a book or article that is the triggering event. In that regard, these posts are a good addition to the catalog.

Of course, none of his posts would be possible without modern technology. When the only store of knowledge was controlled by the people running the official narrative, there was no way to “red pill” anyone or be red-pilled yourself. Unless you found a stash of old books that had been proscribed, you had to accept the official narrative at face value. Whatever happens in these troubled times, the fact that the society that produced the technological revolution could be consumed by it suggests nature in the long run, is self-correcting.

Reading the article on post-war Europe, I was reminded of something that often gets forgotten. That is, it is not enough to undermine the moral legitimacy of the prevailing orthodoxy. That phony narrative sold to us is not just propaganda in support of the current order, it gives Americans a reason to feel patriotic. It makes us proud of who we are as currently defined by the people in charge. Learning that it is a lie is like like learning that you were adopted. It leaves a hole and something must fill it. Something will fill it.

While undermining the moral authority of the people in charge is a big part of our project, we also have to work on a replacement. It’s not enough to get people wise to the hypocrisy of the New York Times, for example, with regards to race. They Sarah Jeong fiasco does red-pill  a lot of people, but that only matters if they have something else to embrace. In the movie from which the term “red-pill” originates, the characters had an alternative vision of their future. Without that, they would have had no reason to take the red pill.

This is the lesson of the Great War. The collapse of the monarchical system left a giant void in Europe. That system had been discredited, but there was not a replacement for the people to embrace. Liberal democracy had yet to evolve the secular morality to justify it, so into the void flowed Marxism and Fascism. The twentieth century was the fight between liberal democracy, fascism and communism, with the result being the neo-liberal order we have today. The lesson is that what comes next is not better by default.

The posts on antisemitism will be of some interest, especially to the JQ’ers. Ron is Jewish, so he comes to the subject from a different angle than the anti-Semites, but he is refreshingly frank about the material. It’s  good reminder that Jews are not the monolith JQ people need to believe. There are a lot of alt-Jews out there. It’s not a majority or even close to one, but it is a substantial minority. Their fight within the Jewish community over Jewish identity is a mirror of what is happening within the Occident.

It’s a good reminder that even if you embrace the fact that human diversity requires separation, it does not mean hostility. In fact, diversity requires cooperation in order for peaceful separation to work. Even though one group may have different interests and a radically different sense of identity than another, they can still cooperate with one another where their interests align. For the JQ people who think they have taken the ultimate red-pill, this understanding about cooperation and diversity is the ultimate red-pill.

I’m fond of pointing out that much of what defines the modern age is that everyone forgot the timeless lessons of the human condition and now we have to rediscover them. This great awakening we see on our side of the great divide is, in many respects, a rediscovery of the past. So much has been hidden from view in order to prop up the current regime, it’s shocking to most people. Like that kid who learns his parents had lied to him and he was adopted, what matters next is what we do with this new knowledge.

Vae Victis

The FTN guys posted a special podcast on the American Revolution and the process that resulted in the Constitution. Instead of reciting the standard mythology about the Founders and their alleged love of liberty, they get into the economic motivations of the men who met in Philadelphia to restructure post-colonial America. They also talk about the men who were excluded, as well as the interests they represented. It’s a well done episode that gets into the forgotten parts of the founding story, as well as the economic motivations.

The basis of their analysis is the historian Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Beard argued that the structure of the Constitution and the process that produced it, was the result of the personal financial interests of the Founders. For example, George Washington had provided significant financing for the revolution, so the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts, worked out pretty well for people like Washington and the other bond holders.

Beard built on earlier Progressive interpretations of American history and can probably be described as a proto-Marxist historian. His analysis of the Founding is that it was first a revolt against the monarchy and then a counter revolution against democracy by the mercantile class located in the cities. It was not just the issue of repaying war debts. The financial class also saw the Articles of Confederation as a hindrance to trade, because there was no central authority to strike trade agreements with foreign governments.

Beard is an interesting guy, who was very popular with the Left into the Cold War, but then fell out of favor in the 1960’s. This seems like an odd thing, given that his reading of American history is based in class conflict. The New Left historians, however, rejected that interpretation in favor of  racial and sexual conflict, which meant abandoning facts and standards in favor of emotion and vengeance. Neo-conservative historians rejected all of that in favor of selling the narrative of Americanism as a vehicle for present policy.

One of Beard’s insights was that the people located in cities not only have a different set of economic interests, but they also have a different relationship with government. In the 19th century, that meant the city dweller was much more receptive to socialism than the citizens in the country. The main reason was that the city dweller gets used to bumping up against government on a daily basis. It feels natural to them. Citizens in the country, particularly in the 19th century, had little contact with the state, so it seemed alien to them.

This suggests something about the nature of socialism, as throughout history urban populations have supported authoritarians, while rural populations have not. In the ancient world, a savvy tyrant like Peisistratus could appeal to the masses of urban poor, to challenge the power of the aristocrats. On the other hand, authoritarian appeals work much better in high density environments. Still, daily familiarity with the power of the state makes people more trusting and comfortable with it. Socialism relies on that trust.

Of course, the defect of class-conflict historiography is that it tries to jam all facts into a model of society. Instead of the theory explaining history, history is used to explain the theory. There’s no question that the men who met in Philadelphia had direct financial interest in the outcome. They were also motivated by all the usual stuff like patriotism, regional loyalty and petty stupidity. That stuff is every bit as interesting as the economics and just as important. In other words, history is both particles and waves.

More important and related to the podcast, is the fact that the people who drive history have personal interests. The men who revolted against the king, did so because they saw an advantage in it. Once they gained control of the country, they were not about to give it away or arrange things to their disadvantage. After all, the whole point of the revolution was to get a better deal. The Articles of Confederation were simply an interregnum, while the new elite figured how they were going to lock in their position after evicting the old elite.

That was the point of the Constitution and the point of all subsequent changes to it, including the Civil War. Similarly, the mythology of the founding, as well as the “second founding” as neoconservative historians call the Civil War, is part of locking in that position via the miracle of propaganda. All of the soupy romanticism of American history is intended to convince the rest of us that the current arrangements are the result of Providence. Political arrangements are not about ideals. they are about power.

This is an important lesson for anyone in dissident politics. The first goal, that which everything bends toward, is to gain power. This is why the New Left has rolled through the culture. They first seized power and then cooked up timeless principles to justify their position. It’s also why the legacy Right’s appeal to principle must be rejected. Limiting your options by self-imposed rules and inviolable principles is a recipe for failure.  The truth of life is that politics is about power. First you seize power and then vae victis.

Happy Homelands

I will be on the Happy Homelands show hosted by RamZPaul and Tiina Wiik. The other guest will be Junes Lokka, a Finnish activist. The show will be in English, not Finnish, in case you were wondering. The show is a censor-friendly operation, which means the language and topics are what you would find on television. The format is current events, with an emphasis on topics related to nationalism and populism. You can post questions in the chat window. It is a one hour show and it is archived for later viewing.

Update: I had a great time. Thank you to Paul and Tiina for having me. It was very interesting hearing Junes talk about politics in Finland and the challenges they are facing with immigration. We tend to think that our issues are peculiar to our situation, but their deluded globalists are just as deluded as our deluded globalists. At the same time, it is invigorating to hear nationalists from other countries say the same stuff we say here in America. I also had my best NPR voice going so if you need help falling asleep…

In the Belly of the Beast

On Friday. I went into the lair of the most vile, racist hate filled monsters to ever crawl this earth. That would be The Daily Shoah. When you get around these people, what’s most disconcerting is that they are genuinely nice and honest. Our rulers put so much energy into demonizing dissenters, it is easy to forget that even the most fringe partisans are just decent people with different ideas about the world. Usually, the ideas that come to shape the future start out on the fringe, so it worth engaging with them.

As far as the show itself, it was fun. Mike and Sven are very nice people and extremely generous with guests they have on their show. Unlike the mass media, they don’t see their guests as furniture they can abuse for the amusement of the braying mules in the audience. My only regret is not having used my podcasting setup to do the show. I used my laptop because I could not get Skype working on the other machine. Skype is crappy software and on my laptop the sound quality is terrible, but it came out good enough.

I got a bunch of responses via e-mail. All of them fall into a number of categories. One group wondered why I would go on a show run by anti-Semites, given that I am not an anti-Semite. My view is antisemitism is just an opinion, with the same moral currency as tastes in ice cream. Here’s how I like to explain it. Imagine you move to a new town and learn that one new neighbor is an anti-Semite. Then you learn that another neighbor is a Methamphetamine cooker. Only a liar or a lunatic cares more about the anti-Semite.

More important, the open exchange of ideas and opinions is a base line requirement for a civilized white society. Like any marketplace, the marketplace of ideas does not always produce optimum results. That’s an argument against democracy, not a reason to suppress heretical opinion. In time, bad ideas fail while good ideas eventually succeed, which is the foundation of popular government. That means engaging all comers, as long as they are honest and willing to debate in good faith. It can also be a lot of fun.

Another category of response was to ask why I don’t do more of these things. One main reason is time. My day job, life, the blog and the podcast fill up the dance card. I’m also not a fan of the “blood sports” model that is most popular. Some are OK, but most degenerate quickly into the typical internet purse fight. They should call these things “bum fights” because it’s usually two poorly trained and equipped debaters desperately trying to land a hay-maker. The Daily Shoah format is more to my liking as it fits the medium.

Of course, there were people wondering if Mike Enoch had red-pilled me on the JQ. I’ve come to hate that expression, to be perfectly honest. It implies a soteriological awareness that is only achieved through devotional study. I know the arguments around the JQ as well as anyone can know them. I’ve read the source material and listened to the proselytizers. I’ve done the math. The facts are what they are and there’s no denying Jews wield an enormous amount of influence, in absolute and relative terms.

Where Enoch and I would disagree is in whether or not Jews can be a part of white identity politics. With some exceptions, anti-Semites say no, Jews have their own group and therefore cannot be part of the white group. On the other hand, I would be thrilled if Jews swung our way. Having six million rich smart guys on our side would turn the fight instantly. We’d have a wall on the border that would make Israel envious. Fifty years of multiculturalism would be reversed in no time. The remaining liberals would be in hiding.

In fairness to the anti-Semites, there is zero evidence of this happening. In fact, the most berserk opponents of our remaining liberties are Jewish organization like the ADL and they get zero push back from their fellow tribesman. It is probable that the arrival of alt-Jew will be permanently delayed. I find that disappointing, but I’m used to it. That does not change the essential message, which is that whites in America must come to terms with the realities of being a minority surrounded by hostile minority populations.

This is another area where Mike and I would disagree. If white people in America come to except that they must put their racial interests ahead of all us, in order to contend with the swelling minority populations, the JQ answers itself. Jews either join White Team or join the dark side. Therefore, instead of expending energy on the JQ, a better use of time is to focus on the HQ – Honky Question. There’s a reasonable debate to be had there, which is why it is important for people on our side to have these debates and discussions.

The Narcotic of Minor Celebrity

Last year I started showing up at Dissident Right events, as well as trying to interact with some of the figures on-line. The main reason was to meet some of the leaders and see them in a social environment. The impression you get of people from television or from their internet activity is always much different than their real life personality. I figured if I was getting quoted and linked to by people in this thing, I should meet them and get to know them. A funny thing that happened is people at these events wanted to meet me.

Now, I’m no rock star so it’s not as if people are chasing me down the street looking for a selfie or autograph. Even so, it is flattering to have someone walk up to you and thank you for your efforts. I was approached at a bagel shop recently by someone who recognized my voice and decided to see if I was the man behind the podcast voice. I’m not very good at handling these encounters. I usually resort to false modesty, as I don’t have a lot of experience with it. I also have no great desire to be famous, but I get the attraction of it.

Now, there are very famous people, who are very good at being famous. They enjoy it and they know how to handling it. I once saw a famous guy do selfies for fans, while carrying on a conversation with a friend. My guess is the truly famous, the people most everyone recognizes, look at celebrity in the same way that most of us look at filling out a time sheet or an expense report. It’s just a part of the job and they treat it as such. Those fans asking for selfies have no impact on their ego, because they are just part of the scenery.

On the other hand, minor celebrities seem to be possessed with a desire to be famous and the fans that approach them or follow them on-line are how they keep score. A guy like Milo is a good example. His glib homosexual routine was a good compliment to his writing at Brietbart, but then he got a little famous. The desire to see himself on TV and internet had him doing increasingly nutty things to get attention. I’ve never been a Milo fan, but people tell me has real talent, but it has come to a sad end for him.

Milo’s story arc is a familiar one, but the proliferation of social media has brought a new version of this, the e-celeb. Mike Cernovich is probably the best example. He has no real talent for anything, as far as anyone knows, but he is good at getting attention on social media. One of the things you can’t help but notice if you pay attention to him is how much he obsesses over his follower count and impressions on twitter. Followers and friends is the coin of the realm, so all of the internet celebrities focus on growing those numbers.

This lust for recognition is certainly at the root of the endless in-fighting we see among the alt-right personalities. An alt-right person gets some traffic to their YouTube channel and before long they are picking fights with everyone they used to call allies. Because the drama results in more traffic, it becomes a feedback loop. The traffic releases endorphins in the brain of the e-celeb. It’s like crystal meth for these guys. Each hit increases their craving for the next hit. Eventually the drama blows up into nasty feuds and vendettas.

Another side of this is the leaders are picked from the pool of people desperate for attention. Some glib or photogenic person pops up on social media and they attract a crowd. Before long, the other e-celebs are inviting them on their platforms to get some second hand traffic. The result is the influential people are being selected for their vanity and lust for celebrity, rather than intelligence or mental stability. That’s why more than a few wackos have streaked across the alt-right sky over the last couple of years.

It’s possible that this is something that benefits the alt-right in the long run. The dominant media has a filtering mechanism to make sure no one with unclean thoughts ever gets access to their platforms. The result is they select for dullness and obtuseness. The breathtaking lack of self-awareness scares off more people than it convinces. The people who survive the e-celeb gauntlet, or avoid it entirely, to establish themselves as trusted voices in the alt-right, could turn out to be much more shrewd and savvy as a result of it.

A guy like Nick Fuentes is a good example. He has a creepy maturity to him that has gained him a lot of attention. He’s like Bill Mitchell in a child’s body. He’s an alt-right version of the movie Big. While he does a fine job on his YouTube shows, he often goes onto social media and posts stupid and childish things. People who talk about their IQ on social media tend to be mentally unstable. On the other hand, Fuentes is a kid so maybe he figures it out and gets better. In ten years he could be the Ted Baxter of the alt-right.

That said, it could be that new media and social media have evolved in a way that allows the people in charge to keep challengers out on the fringe. Instead of smart subversives quietly doing what it takes to weasel into the orthodoxy, they are having purse fights with e-celebs and disqualifying themselves in the process. Since your internet activity is now part of your permanent record, all those youthful mistakes will later be used against you as an adult. In other words, YouTube is a favela for political and cultural dissidents