Editor’s Note: I’ve been enjoying this exchange of perspectives and everything I have been writing here lately has been calculated at stimulating the discourse in what was once the “movement” which has been in pretty sorry shape since around the time of Charlottesville. After the debacle at Michigan State, I withdrew from the Alt-Right and went back to the drawing board and spent the next year doing research and creating a 3.0 paradigm. Lately, I’ve been doing alt-punditry and working on an e-book.
“I’d first like to clear the air and say that the demoralized angle may not apply to you or others. Let me be clear in saying this was a generalized statement and in no way directed at anyone in particular. However, if the shoe fits, wear it.”
The Blompf administration has been a demoralizing two years for the Alt-Right. Who isn’t demoralized after voting for Blompf in 2016 in large part because of his “America First” foreign policy and watching that spectacle in Venezuela with John Bolton yesterday?
Granted, I was demoralized or “blackpilled” from about the time of the Blompf inauguration to Michigan State. This is because I was closely following and analyzing the incoming administration and had concluded very early on that Blompf was a fraud and we were going to get screwed. Most people in the Alt-Right were in denial about that until after the 2018 midterms when it became too obvious.
Around the time of all the infighting after Michigan State, I was tired of being angry and demoralized. I was tired of relying on the failed paradigms, discourse, strategy and tactics of the 1.0 and 2.0 movements. I said at the time that I was going to clear my head, rethink everything and construct a new paradigm. That’s exactly what I spent the rest of 2018 and early 2019 doing.
I don’t feel demoralized anymore. I feel like I have grown and that I have been making progress in my project. Initially, I had planned to write a book about morality to create a solid moral foundation for a 3.0 movement, but I later reconsidered that approach and expanded it to include both an economic platform and as well as a philosophy grounded in historicism.
“A big point I wish to address is the perceived notion that I am a “conservative” (a charge leveled at multiple people at Identity Dixie). I am not. I am a traditionalist and, at times, find myself in the Red Shirt camp of the broader Southern Nationalist movement.”
I’m also a traditionalist.
Just browse the depth of my knowledge of Southern history which I have been editing and refurbishing here. I will be writing more here over the summer about the Lutheran faith. I’m also a huge fan of Alasdair MacIntyre who believes that traditions are progressive and whose work was my starting point in this project. I’m also a fan of two of our most successful traditions in Western history which are the progress and application of Western science and technology.
“Another notion that became clear to me upon reading your retort is how both of us view solving the issues at large. Your solution is a top down method, in my opinion. Whereas, my position is one that starts from the bottom up. If you take the time to read my articles, it will become apparent that I advocate reform in communities. This principle comes from the belief that communities are responsible for forming the larger, overarching system. It is merely a different approach, one focused on building better people, better foundations and stronger networks. From there, that very structure can be carried outward when applied to the whole.”
Here’s what I believe: after closely studying Southern history and reflecting for years upon how we got to the point where we are today, I have concluded that the Southerner has been dissolved under late free-market capitalism. The Baby Boomer generation was a break with our tradition. The world sped up in the late 20th century and American mass culture obliterated local cultures all around the world in much the same way that the bulldozer created the Sunbelt.
I don’t believe that Southern Nationalism is going to work in our generation. There are too few Southerners left in our society at least in the sense that I understand it as not being a deracinated conservative. Thus, we have been approaching this the wrong way by trying to rally the masses around the Confederate Battle Flag and their attenuated and stigmatized sense of identity.
In order to fix the South, we have to reconstruct the Southerner, and in order to do that we have to first fix our broken economy, culture and politics which is burdened by the legacy of our history. It follows that this is also a project which will require the cooperation of everyone and especially persuading our elites that we are capable of coming up with better solutions to enduring problems like, say, the poison of racial resentment, toxic and divisive identity politics and intractable poverty.
“Your solution relies on the government to fix our issues. In essence, by destroying itself, our goals will be realized.”
It would be more accurate to say that my solution requires persuading everyone that we need a better paradigm. We need to stop and rethink everything. We need a better and more practical public discourse than the one that is currently on display on social media.
“However, the government is the problem, aside from the nefarious influencers in the background. Consistently, whenever government is utilized as a tool to solve problems, it is either ineffective or outright malicious in solution crafting. So, why would you advocate for government to be the solution? The DMV and VA are completely ineffective; a larger and bloated government administrated by President Yang will be even more disastrous for our people.”
I don’t believe this at all.
This is why I said you were a conservative in my last response. This is a conservative or libertarian way of looking at government. Whereas you see government as the problem, I am kind of a Hegelian populist and nationalist who sees the state as a partner that is capable of doing tremendous things like restraining free-market capitalism to lift millions out of poverty.
Feel free to read through today’s posts on the history of Alabama. It will give you some perspective on why I am so excited about the potential of President Andrew Yang who I think is uniquely capable of realigning our politics by reconstructing the New Deal populist-progressive coalition and becoming a 21st century FDR who harnesses the potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
I don’t see why the “government” is the enemy of local communities. Doesn’t the government already work with local communities to, say, restore our Southern wetlands, recover from natural disasters or to control the flooding of rivers like the Mississippi River?
“My belief is that our people are the solution and NOT the American Empire’s government. Simply hoping the government is going to destroy itself is a fallacy. It will do everything in its power to survive, especially at our own expense. Just ask the people who lived under the Soviet Union (Dekulakization).”
We don’t live in the Confederacy.
It is the year 2019 and we are going to have to deal with the federal government and various state governments to “unf**k the South” because those are the only two governments we have in our world. My belief is that the way we do this is by constructing a better vision of our shared future and electing leaders who can build the consensus necessary to tackle all of our various problems and challenges in the 21st century. We should start engaging the people who disagree with us in a better way.
“A massive oversight in your rebuttal is probably the most critical one of them all – the assumption that a radical leftist government (you thrust into power in your quest to speed up “the happening”) is going to idly stand by and allow you to exist – or any of us, for that matter.”
In addition to a solid moral foundation, an economic platform and a philosophical framework grounded in historicism, I also believe a 3.0 movement needs a better political strategy to depolarize our dysfunctional politics by reconstructing the center of the electorate:
I call working with all the people who are the blue dots and red dots in this map of the 2016 electorate the taking out three birds with one stone centrist strategy: Blompf, the GOP establishment and the Democratic establishment as well as all the fringe leftwing radicals like Antifa.
What’s the 2.0 movement’s strategy? What is their plan to deal with this?
“Repeatedly throughout history it is observed that whenever major shifts in government happen a few things always occur: dissidents are punished and eliminated, the old is washed away and examples are made of the most prominent. We are on that chopping block, my friend. Sure, you may conflate this to be a position of fear, but I want to make clear this is not where this is coming from.”
Is that what happened during the New Deal?
I would say that life got better when “conservatism” was last discredited by the Great Depression when Herbert Hoover was president. There was an enormous jump in our standard of living between 1930 and 1970. In contrast, real wages have stagnated since the 1970s when conservatism was given a new lease on life because of the backlash to the Civil Rights Movement.
“In a past life, I was an intelligence analyst. It was my job to come up with answers to complex problems which often required complex solutions. This, all of this, is merely one potential solution. A logical and analytical deduction, if you will. I want to be clear in stating that it may not be the solution, but it is merely an option.
My thinking comes from that of a strategist. What can we do to increase our odds of success? That is how I am approaching this”
That’s a great background.
Why not apply that to our situation? I’m an INTP so this comes naturally to me as well. I would say we should approach our predicament as problem solvers who are offering practical solutions for everyone rather than as psychopathic nihilistic trolls like some people in the 2.0 movement.
What do I mean by this? In order to accomplish our goals, we need to fix the South economically, fix the South culturally and the fix the South politically. Everyone who is a citizen is a voter and ultimately a blue or red dot. Everyone has a sense of morality. Everyone has to work for a living to survive. Perhaps we can find a universal solution that is satisfactory to all parties?
“The current system is physically incapable of sustaining itself and so is the ship you’ve hitched up with (Yang Gang) in a method to sabotage the whole thing in order to bring it down faster. Note: Bane posting isn’t real or a healthy solution for our people.”
Ideologically speaking, I am a populist and a nationalist and a moderate, which makes me a centrist in our electorate. Aside from the fact that Yang is Taiwanese, we are very similar politically. Why should populism be “tethered” to conservatism rather than the other way around? If we simply reversed the power relationship within the “conservative-populist” coalition, then it would have far greater appeal because populists are in the middle while libertarians and conservatives are on the edge.
“When I say they’ve had a long time to get to this point, I really mean it. It has not been by accident that we find ourselves in the situation we are in. It has only been in the last century that we have seen their ideological goals really accelerate towards completion. The closer the Left get to their goals, the more dysfunctional, broken and disillusioned things become – hence, Clown World.”
If Clown World were a political galaxy, what would it look like?
I would argue that Clown World isn’t merely the Left moving closer to its goal of social liberalism. It is also the Right which is moving closer to its goal of economic liberalism. The populist revolt that is happening worldwide is one that is against a system that is generating ever more liberalism whether it is the GOP winning on economics or Democrats winning on social issues.
“It goes without saying that the only thing the leftist truly believes is what will give them the power to implement their ‘utopia’ of the world. Your solution is to hand them the keys to the kingdom, where they will do everything they’ve said they are going to do and more. “
I would argue that the Right has its own utopia which is Charlie Kirk’s borderless world of deracinated free-market capitalism extending its embrace across the entire world and demolishing local cultures and replacing them with interchangeable consumers of the products created by multinational corporations. My solution isn’t to vote for the Right or the Left, but to vote for someone in the Center.
“And, we need more time in order to further build the cornerstones necessary to bring things back to the way they were.”
I don’t believe the GOP should be given more time.
“Another point you brought up was Trump rekindling the flames of conflict between old rivals and the Empire. I can confidently say, with authority, you are incorrect. My service to the Empire was under Obama.”
Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding here. I was saying that we voted for Trump because of his “America First” foreign policy and what he said about having a new and more positive relationship with Russia. Instead of doing that though, he restored the neocons to power and now they are trying to incite various new wars with Iran and Venezuela to fight “socialism.”
“While we are on the subject of China, let’s talk about them. It seems you have forgotten the Chinese government is still communist. As such, the Chinese government only cares about one thing – itself. China does what is good for China, not anyone else (I can’t blame them). “
Why is that objectionable? Shouldn’t we be doing the same thing?
“China doesn’t give a piss about the Dissident Right, Southern Nationalists or Silicon Valley nerds. China cares about China.”
China is destined to surpass the United States economically and militarily become a regional hegemon in the Western Pacific. Who cares though? Why should China be resented for being smart and successful? We should look at what China is doing and adopt what is working for them.
“Another thing that deserves attention is the notion that playing into the objectives of an enemy is “winning.” I’ve never met such logic that is so disconnected from reality. I’m truly flabbergasted. The Left isn’t having to modify their objectives with your strategy to win, you are.”
I don’t really see it that way.
Maybe conservatives and lolbertarians see Russia and China as their enemies. I don’t see why either of those countries should be our enemies. It is our system and way of doing things which is dysfunctional. That’s due to the ongoing breakdown of the liberal paradigm in the West.
“During your whole piece you made it very clear you are upset with conservatism and I don’t blame you. But, I’m not advocating for “stale conservatism.” In fact, no one at Identity Dixie is calling for compassionate conservatism, lauding the Chamber of Commerce or praising Ronald Reagan. It’s utterly bizarre to make such a suggestion. My personal belief is we need to form a new political party, one for ourselves and to build it from the ground up. There’s a reason we advocate for creation versus destruction.”
Here is my political orientation:
I’m a populist and nationalist swing voter in the middle of the electorate. Perhaps the problem is trying to infiltrate the GOP which is ideologically committed to free-market capitalism? Why shouldn’t we be voting for the Democrats instead? Is that more insane than expecting to be accepted by conservatives? Sure, the Democrats have radicalized, but how much of that is due to decades of Boomer backlash politics and leaving the Democratic Party and turning it over to all those crazy people?
“Now that all of that has been said, I want to thank you for personally lighting a fire under my ass. I bear no ill will towards you, so please don’t take it that way. It’s not the manner in which I wrote it.
Now that all of that has been said, I want to thank you for personally lighting a fire under my ass. I bear no ill will towards you, so please don’t take it that way. It’s not the manner in which I wrote it.”
May the discourse continue to be stimulated.