The Look-in-the-Eye Test

We have made previously unimaginable strides in the last year. “Anti-white” and “anti-white-ism” are well on their ways to becoming English vernacular. It’s becoming OK to be white. Even the skeptic community is beginning to come around.

At this point, our legitimacy as a movement is limited only by our anonymity. When most of our creative energy is channeled into venting within our online bubble, the public impression is that we are uncommitted edgelords rather than passionate revolutionaries with legitimate grievances.

The only thing holding us back at his point is our fear of publicly standing by our beliefs. We are held hostage by this fear because we know that, if we flinch, we will be tarred and feathered as straw men – as grist in the mill of the dominant narrative. However, if we adopt the right mindsets and frame our arguments correctly, de-anonymization is not only painless but exhilarating and life-changing.

Here at Rutgers University, where I am on a pre-law track, a professor of mine recently used a turn of phrase that gave flesh to something I’ve been trying to put my finger on for some time – the “look in the eye” test. If you can’t gaze without wincing into the eyes of those who hate you, and whom you fear, then you are not speaking truth to power.

We must vanquish our guilty consciences if we are to pass this look-in-the-eye test. This is how giants are felled, and this is how the heavenly chorus is roused on the behalf of the righteous. This is the way it’s always been, and the way it always will be.

It is a kind of mental slavery that prevents us from passing the look-in-the-eye test. We have been bullied into thinking that we advocate exclusively on behalf of our own interests – the interests of white men – and that we are not equally concerned about the welfare of our non-white brothers and sisters, who are forced to endure a crushing a loss of agency, and an unhealthy grudge, as the result of being reminded constantly of an invisible white finger tipping the scale against their favor. In every way imaginable, the dogma of innate racial sameness stokes human misery and is setting the whole lot of us up for disaster. Internalize this and you will achieve something great.

We must ignore the non-critical and strike solely at the foundation of their edifice. Human biodiversity along racial lines is far more likely to be the reality than not, and the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of race-deniers to justify their anti-white rhetoric and practices. We need not argue the precise contours of racial differences, and we need not challenge anything else. We have only to sew this one seed – and guard it with our lives.

We must not fall into the trap of responding to their evidence with our evidence. If we play fetch the instant race-deniers lift their fingers to throw the bait, we have already ceded the argumentative high ground. The reality is that we are fighting a pitched battle, and our only move is to force them onto terrain where they have no choice but to answer for their collective scapegoating of us.

You might be tempted to accuse me of retreating into respectability politics, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Quite to the contrary, I am saying that that we must no longer tolerate our subjugation, venting on Twitter or YouTube whenever they move the goal posts or tighten the noose.

Enjoining the few percent of ideologically susceptible white males to our side – the only demographic we’ve ever really attracted – is dwarfed by the greater strategic importance of weakening the commitments of the other 95% of society, which includes the iceberg of implicit white identity for whom our angst and zero-sum view of race relations are deal-breakers. If we can weaken their facile commitments to anti-white-ism, based on the unchallenged presumption of white culpability for racial inequality, then we make possible the erosion of the levee holding us back from normalization.

This requires that we make it OK to publicly doubt the dogma of innate racial sameness. The unavoidable necessity of de-anonymization is  a bitter pill to swallow, but it is the only way forward. We must do it in spite of our every inclination to the contrary. This is why we must get our convictions in order, and learn how to lovingly look the hangman in the eye.

Anybody who says the time isn’t right or that their anonymity is strategic is a liar. The SPLC itself has recently begun to change it’s tune with regards to how we are to be repressed on campus, emphasizing the importance of ignoring us rather than confronting us. This is an open invitation for us to start making ourselves harder to ignore.

As soon as the temperature rises above 70°, hit the streets in some form or another and discover just how close we really are to the tipping point. If you’re slack of faith and afraid to go it alone, then find comrades to connect with in real life and begin testing the waters together. Taking the plunge into the pale, icy waters of public scrutiny is never easy, but it’s something we’ll all be forced to reckon with sooner or later, one way or another. You might as well do it under your own free will as an opportunity to manifest your higher self.

Just learn how to look people in the eye when you tell them who you are and what you’ve come for.

Al Stankard
the authorAl Stankard
Al is an author and activist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. He has authored several books and blogs at AcidRight.INFO. Follow him on Twitter: @draknats


  • cheap cialis online Do NOT use Cialis if you are allergic to any ingredient in Cialis you have severe liver problems or certain hereditary degenerative eye problems eg, retinitis pigmentosa you have certain heart problems, low blood pressure, or uncontrolled high blood pressure you have had a heart attack within the past 90 days or a stroke within the past 6 months you are taking nitrates eg, isosorbide, nitroglycerin in any form eg, tablet, capsule, patch, ointment or nitroprusside you use certain recreational drugs called poppers eg, amyl nitrate, butyl nitrate Contact your doctor or health care provider right away if any of these apply to you

  • I’m not sure we need to make an argument for racial difference. To what end? There are people above us and people below us. It also undercuts those who are us but at the left tail.

    The argument is for natural interest as the motive force of human beings. EGI. Is it in your interests to have your child live in a society where… To whom do you owe primary allegiance. It starts with the family (would you give your child’s dinner to someone with a greater need) and ripples out from there.

    If the world works upon this basis, then ideologically ignoring it is going to result in negative social consequences. Harnessing it and using it to motivate all peoples to do well for themselves is the best option.

    • But if blank slate is true, then why should any of that matter. I’m not arguing that we look at racial differences and pass public judgment, per se. If anything, I am arguing resolute agnosticism. Point is, without race realism, whites are implicitly culpable “because slavery, because colonialism”.

    • Not only do we need to push against the anti-white narrative, it needs to become politically incorrect. (IMHO, feel free to push back against what I’m saying)

      • Race realism, or historical realism? As Lyndon LaRouche has pointed out, slavery has been the condition of most of mankind for most of history. It’s what was done to the losers in battles instead of killing them. “Whites” or Europeans have had a big hand in ending slavery, as well as in promoting it. More than a few Europeans have been slaves to non-European masters, e.g. Miguel de Cervantes, a slave of Moors. He is one of millions of such captives of Moors and Turks and their pirate ships, the Corsairs. Socrates and Plato were among the early European opponents of slavery, while Plato’s enemy, Aristotle, insisted that slavery benefited the slave. Looking in the Timaeus we see Socrates recalling what an Egyptian had told him about the origin of the world, giving high praise to the ancient (before Socrates) Greeks, while criticizing Socrates’ contemporaries for their lack of historical memory. It is here where the story of the Atlanteans originates. Socrates spent some years in Cyrenaica (what is now Libya), associated with the Temple of Amon.

        Reviewing the history of Western Civilization, I must conclude that Jesus was right when he said to the rich man, who asked what he must do to be worthy of eternal life, “go, sell everything you have, give to the poor, and follow me,” and “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” I take that to mean that we don’t owe anyone reparations, and we may, with a clear conscience, keep whatever possessions we need in order to do our work, as long as our work contributes in net effect to reducing the poverty of others. That work includes bearing and raising children, because without children, the human species will go extinct and before then old age will impoverish us all.

    • And what you’re arguing sounds like “white people, wake up and start caring about your kind over aliens” this IMO is never going to get beyond a certain SES, and will only appeal to certain types.


    • In Petition for Redress of Grievances served upon the Georgia General Assembly during Session and Governor Zell Miller in the early 90’s with NOTICE in the Fulton County Daily Report, we (Southern Poseur) called for a Constitutional reform to right the historical wrong and Grant Citizenship to the Black race in our great State. Looking back, we should all now agree with General Oglethorpe and our first Governor, “the principle upon which this State is founded is that all of the children born of this State shall be freeborn.” Sadly, most educated folk in our debtor’s Prison nation haven’t a clue what that statement means.

  • I know of several people who have had their lives severely damaged because they spoke out publicly with their real names. Frank Borzellieri lost his job as a teacher at a Catholic school when a vindictive reporter made a stink about some articles he had written years earlier. He was reduced to living in his car. Mild mannered Ramzpaul and edgier Mike Enoch can no longer find work as computer programmers, both are dependent upon donations to their respective web sites. The truth is that the handful of people in the alt right who are public are dependent upon the donations from the great mass of us who are anonymous (and thus still have jobs). We are anonymous not because we have guilty consciences but because we are fully aware of the power and vindictiveness of our opposition.

  • Thank you for contributing. You’ve nailed this, Al. I’ve been thinking about this subject. This collective fear creates a self-fulfilling prophecy — the fear we give them is their power. We want to dissipate that power.

    As a movement IMO A) we need to get more comfortable removing the mask and B) each person should determine what that means for his situation (could be subtle, whatever). The point is that this isn’t Fight Club. The movement will remain limited if anonymity is the only way people discuss these topics for several reasons.

    1. The taboo will remain as long as we let it; it’s a taboo because of fear and they reap the rewards that fear creates. 2. It’s much more difficult to meet others if everyone is hiding. 3. The 95% need to see larger numbers of legit humans holding these views. 4. An anonymous discussion is inherently hollow (although it can often be more truthful).

    That said, there will always be a place for anon-shitlording; I happen to be a terrible shitlord so this is of no consequence for me.

    There are different types of coming out. Doxxing is very different for the average person vs. the media worthy. Additionally, it’s one thing for a media worthy person to self-doxx on live TV and quite another for that person to begin having honest debates in his private life. The former is a binary (e.g, out or in — for the world); the latter is more fluid, ongoing.

    Motive provides yet another context. If one, like most of us, is not well known — the purpose of the discussion will drive the level of transparency and intensity for a given situation. I don’t treat the people I meet equally. Subterfuge serves its purposes. That said, one cannot live a life based on subterfuge. Right?

    Without getting more pedantic, I find the answer at the intersection of A) the right kind of framing, B) knowing your audience and C) motive.

    • For a lot of the comments, people seem fixated on their “livelihood”. This doesn’t bode well for our movement, as it suggests to me that the MSM’s (and progressive socialists’) assessment that the alt-right is the product solely of the stagnant white middle class, in which case it might just take gibs to shut then up.

      I guess half of my point is that people need to get their ideas straight. Talk of ethnic cleansing or white supremacy is utterly moot given our current position.

      The word “doxx” shouldn’t even apply to this discussion. I’m not saying that some 35 year old dad should start boasting that he’s a white nationalist, or whatever. People just need to learn how to express themselves in ways that normie understand them.

      • Yes, after some rambling that is the point I was making — “People just need to learn how to express themselves in ways that normies understand….”

        Several surprises to be had with more openness. One will find likeminded people in the oddest of places — a wonderful thing. They are definitely there.

        Also, one will be surprised at the misconceptions, lack of understanding, and lack of awareness out there with regards to the altright in general. There is absolutely a way to make this part of a normal discussion just by being oneself. I am in the South so granted that probably makes it easier.

        Stagnant middle class is definitely represented. I bet there is a sizable contingent of mid-tier professional service backgrounds (e.g., six figure programmers, etc). You will find people from across the spectrum, I’m sure. I would love to know the demographic of this website.

        The livelihood concern is obviously real but I see that as more of a doxxing issue. This de-platforming has been eye opening for me. Do they really not have a bank account?

        RS mentioned networks to help identitarians recover from doxxing. That is definitely something that needs to be established. Perhaps setup a private group that pools resources to offer assistance. That’s a tangent.

  • Don’t think about your livelihoods, goyim. This isn’t about your fear of getting fired or physically threatened or financially harassed. No, the real reason you won’t de-anonymize yourself is guilt and fear of social disapproval. So cast that off and reveal your identity, goyim. Trust me, I’m not controlled opposition. I’m not about my own interests, I care about YOU.

  • “In every way imaginable, the dogma of innate racial sameness stokes human misery and is setting the whole lot of us up for disaster.”
    You got this wrong. Sure, PC pretends to be egalitarian, but it’s not. It’s about the supremacism of the holy three: Jews, Homos, and Negroes.
    After all, if PC is really about ‘equal rights’ and ‘just representation’, how come there are no complaints about…
    1. Too many Jews in Hollywood, Las Vegas, Wall Street, Silicon Valley?
    2. Jews controlling all plaforms? They own most of them or ADL watches over them. How come no one demands that Youtube or Twitter hire BDS to monitor Zionist hate? Jews are 2% of the population but control all media and platforms, but this Jewish supremacism is not an issue to PC.
    3. Too many blacks in sports? If PC is about equal representation, how come there are no complaints about blacks dominating NFL and NBA? We hear of TOO MANY WHITE QUARTERBACKS but never of TOO MANY BLACK RUNNING BACKS. We hear of HOCKEY IS TOO WHITE but never BASKETBALL IS TOO BLACK. LA Lakers is all black in a city that is majority Mexican. Why doesn’t PC call for Mexican players to be represented in the LA Lakers?
    4. Interracial imbalance? As you may have noticed, interracialism is a sexual colonization by one race over another. Blacks, being more muscular and bigger-donged, colonize white wombs as white women are infected with Jungle fever. And most Eurasians and Blasians are products of white and black fathers and Asian mothers. In other words, whites and blacks are the penis, and Asians are the vaginas. But PC has no problem with this sexual imbalance. PC assumes that black males are superior to white males and black/white males are superior to Asian males.
    5. Zionism over Palestinian rights? In 1948, the Nakba pogroms wiped Palestine off the map… just like Jewish-engineered mass migration of Africans and Muslims is wiping Europe off the map. Given Jews are so rich and powerful and that Palestinians are so poor and powerless, how come PC doesn’t raise a big stink about Zionist-Jewish supremacism over Palestinians? Furthermore, PC has no problem with US support of Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. So much for egalitarianism. Now, if PC is about equality and for the underdog, why is it so silent about the plight of Palestinians? Democratic and Republican politicians are agreed on one issue: “Muh Israel”. Indeed, Jews have been bribing politicians to pass legislation to criminalize BDS.
    6. Homosexual excess? If PC is about equality, why not just let homos do their own thing since they got ‘gay rights’ to be openly homo? But PC is not content with homos having the right to be homo. PC elevates homos to the status of angels and saints. Homos are holy. Homos are the rainbow. Homo fecal penetration is the New Normal and even promoted among straight people without warning them that it increases the chance of butt cancer 17 times. So, we have a quadrupling of anal cancer among millennials who grew up under the neo-religion of homomania. If PC is about equality, why did it elevate homosexuality ABOVE all other orientations? And if ‘same sex marriage’ is a thing, how come there is no push for ‘same family marriage’ for incest-sexuals? Why are homos favored over others?
    So, you see PC is NOT about egalitarianism. It is about the supremacy of the Holy Three. Now, why are Jews, Homos, and blacks favored over all others?
    They have the most ICONIC value. Most groups in the US have no autonomous iconic value.
    What bestows a people with iconic value: A combination of victorhood and victimhood.
    If a people are seen only as victims, they may get sympathy but no respect. Tibetans and Palestinians are ‘victim’ groups, and some feel sympathy for them, but because they are so low in talent and win in nothing, they get no awe.
    If a people are seen only as victors(as whites are according to the Narrative), they might be admired for their achievements, but they get no sympathy. Failing to attract sympathy that acts as moral shield, whites are blamed for everything.
    Now, what was the secret of the power of Christianity? Jesus was both the victim, an object of great sympathy. He was whipped and crucified. But He was resurrected and rose from the dead and reached Heaven. He triumphed over death and demonstrated He is indeed the Son of God. So, as with the Lion in C.S. Lewis tale, Jesus was both great victim and great victor.
    And the PC narrative makes Jews, Homos, and Negroes out to be the three holy victim-victors.
    Jews have victim narrative, but they made so much money, invented the atomic bomb, achieved so much in so many areas, and etc. They are the Holocaust people and Harvard people. The combination of sympathy for their victimhood(esp in Shoah) and their victorhood makes them super-admired.
    Now, consider blacks. Suppose blacks, like brown natives of Mexico, had suffered slavery, violence, & oppression but weren’t talented at anything. Then, blacks would have had sympathy for no admiration. It’s like Mexican browns suffered a lot under the Spanish, but they are short, slow, and boring. So, people might sympathize but they feel no excitement.
    In contrast, blacks beat up the master white race. In the boxing ring, blacks beat up whites and humiliated them. Blacks became champions in so many sports, and in time, even white boys came to worship black men as the real sports heroes, and white girls got jungle fever. And today, white fathers are so honored to have their white girls go with the superior Negro and use white wombs to produce black kids. Negroes also have big strong voice, and white people hear that voice as the voice of god. So, blacks got slavery-victim-narrative that wins them sympathy but also the badass victor iconography that makes whites cuck out to blacks as the demigod race.
    Homos are a stranger case, but they too have the combo of victim-victor narrative. They were in the closet for a long time cuz all societies regarded homos as degenerate. Also, they suffered the AIDS epidemic(though it was self-afflicted, but then, the media spun it to a homocaust). But homos tend to be very talented in areas that captivate many people: fashion, design, makeup, style, entertainment, literature, and etc. So, homos not only get sympathy but win admiration for their creativity. Many Renaissance greats were fruits. So, ironically fruits produced some of the great Christian art.
    Since most groups have no iconic value, they rally around the holy three. White conservatives rally around Israel, Israel, Israel. White Liberals rally around holy homos. And LA Mexicans root for blacks on the LA Lakers, and Muslim-American boys emulate black rappers. And whenever there is a ‘black conservative’, white conservatives get on their knees and kiss his feet and say, “you can f*** my daughter.. and my wife too.”
    Iconic value is that important. Only Jews, homos, and blacks matter because they have iconic value deriving from victim-victor formula.
    So, if Alt Right is to make strides, it must formulate a vision of whiteness that is both tragic and triumphal.

    • Right.
      Assuming that the left actually means anything of what they say is a huge blunder. There are some true believers sure, and even fewer intelligent true believers, but the majority just see the opportunity to gain power and privilege.

      • The falsity of the dognais an open secret. The real shot callers don’t believe we are blank slates; they believe in point particles such that we can be farmed and fed as though we were all the same, and that they just need smart people at the top in order to keep the machine going.

  • The professor basically made the point that if people aren’t willing to speak publicly, their words are probably empty. IMO, this is why we on the alt-right are so quick to spew hate and zero-sum game rhetoric which, in turn, is why are automatically deemed illegitimate haters and thus never get a fair hearing.

  • A powerful essay, thank you for posting.

    But this passage here made me cringe.

    “We have been bullied into thinking that we advocate exclusively on behalf of our own interests – the interests of white men – and that we are not equally concerned about the welfare of our non-white brothers and sisters.”

    Look: I understand that projection is a natural thing in us human beings. Decent people tend to assume that other people are also decent. Conversely, scumbags also tend to think that everybody else is a scumbag too.

    One of the main weakness of White people, specially Northwestern European Whites, is exactly this: to assume that all other human groups will reciprocate any goodwill that nice, well-meaning Whites show them. They won’t. At least not on a collective level. Never.

    Being mixed-race myself and having spent most of my life in a Latin American shithole, my own view is that although WNlists should refrain from engaging in unnecessary public antagonisms against non-whites (for strategic reasons), trying to extend a good-willing hand to these people and calling them “brothers” is a complete waste of time. They won’t reciprocate the kindness, specially because at the end of the day, even the most stupid among them understands that the ultimate goal of this movement is precisely to get the First World rid of them all.

    That’s why I roll my eyes when I see people like RamZPaul or David Duke saying that they support “freedom and nationalism” for all peoples. What a blue-pill, boomerlike thing to say! Blacks, Jews and the brown hordes of Muslims couldn’t care less about “freedom and nationalism” for Whites. Collectively speaking, these people are parasites interested in the resources they all know they could only have access to in White countries, and they must be seen for what they are.

    I know this is a depressing and crude way of seeing things but the Red-Pill itself is depressing.

    I think WNlists should have the self-confidence to advocate exclusively on behalf of their own self-interests because that’s the ballgame all other groups play. OURSELVES ALONE should be our motto. To hell with everybody else.

    • I’m saying that belief in the false dogma of racial sameness is the basis for the pathological altruism which engenders anti-whiteism. By ending the “gibs”, we win and non-whites win. Even if you argue, “Oh, well, they don’t reciprocate so why should we whites even care at all about them,” you’re really just expressing your own reactive attitudes, and are saying nothing that bears any strategic relevance. The argument “Hey, fellow whites, look at those non-whites bleeding us! We should stop letting them bleed us!” is only capable of influencing a mostly impotent demographic of anonymous college-aged incels and then 35 year old dads. These are NOT influential demographics.

      If some biodetermined altruism is the white race’s greatest strength – and its Achilles’ heel – then THIS is where we must apply pressure. This is how we weaken the commitment of the masses – even man non-whites – and this in turn frees up a whole lot more incels and dads to be like, “You know, these alt-right guys may not be biased by their hatred, and maybe I should listen to their race-realist arguments…”

      We just have to make it OK to doubt racial sameness. All else is background noise.


      • Like I said in my previous comment I really enjoyed your essay but after reading your reply I’ll make two points:

        – You tend to come across as acutely passive-aggressive in your replies here on this thread. They’re here for everybody to see and I won’t belabor the point. Weird.

        – You sounded a far more realistic person in your essay. In your reply to my comment you sound more like, say, a starry-eyed Scandinavian liberal who never had to interact with real non white people in your real life.

        You say you’d like to end up gibs for them for example. So I get that your plan is to legally end social security benefits for non whites living in white nations is that right? And supposedly you’d like to do that in a democratic and peaceful way, uh? LOL 🙂

        You also seem to believe that force will play no role in reconquering what’s lost and that this very idea is for losers (“incels”). What’s really necessary is to explain to everybody loud and clear the principles of race realism in a non-anonymous way. If this is so, I wanna must tell you that I’d pay a good sum of money to see you approaching a group of Blacks or Pakistani men and informing them that their racial groups have low IQs and marked criminal tendencies. LOL Come to think of it, your idea suddenly doesn’t sound so swell anymore 🙂

        Thanks for your time anyway. Unironically.

    • As argued in the article, I’m not saying we make random compromises. I’m saying that we should be focusing solely on the linchpin, and think solely in terms of how to dislodge the sameness dogma.

  • “I have no qualms with the United States’ status as a multicultural society nor any of its democratic institutions; nor do I support the creation of any ‘white nation’ that would compromises the territorial integrity of the US.”

    “At the same time, don’t get me wrong: I am absolutely opposed to deliberate eugenics and paternalistic policies.”

    How does someone with these beliefs get published on the premier altright site? Is there such a leadership vacuum that anyone can just saunter in?

    • What is your name, and where do you live? It would be easier for us to discuss ideological strategy face-to-face.

      Er, wait, you prefer to hide in anonymity.

      Flail away, if you like, but I prefer to discuss how to pull the linchpin out of the entire anti-white ideology.

          • That’s cool. Be careful. One of the first things I learned is that our enemies actually are completely unhinged and have no concept of honor. It’s hard to have a good faith argument with someone who is frothing at the mouth and chemically/emotionally addicted to conformity. Maybe I’ll see you around.

          • You’re in the area? HMU up Twitter.

            I actually doxxed myself to journos back at NPI 2016. Antifa was actually going after me in the aftermath of inauguration. (They have short attn spans.)

          • everyone stepping out from the shadows is one strategy but we also risk losing lots of funding as well as putting people’s kids at risk. i would run with it though if we came to a consensus to do it

          • My point is that we should begin experimenting with different frames of mind such that we can work toward being public. I’m not saying anybody announce their desire for ethnic cleansing to their boss. Indeed, that would violate the look in the eye test.

        • I am barely able to afford my 2 bedroom apartment, because I work part-time for 9 dollars p/hour (I’m not telling you where I work, figure that out for yourself if you’re interested). If I were to lose my job, I would probably be forced to move back in with my parents, where I would endure unending bitching from my father. I don’t have the luxury of traveling around the United States, writing poetry and living like a fucking hippy.

          • I live in Knoxville, Tennessee. My name is Stewart Miller, but I doubt that that means anything to anyone.

          • Another question: Why are you living in a 2br apartment? Do you have a wife and kids?

          • No wife, no kids. I share a place with my brother. I don’t have a car, don’t have many friends. I actually like it, but it is a precarious position. I have no health insurance, no college degrees or accreditation of any kind. I don’t make any money as a musician.

            Now what do I have to gain from revealing my name? How can I be of service to the alt-right movement as a real person in ways that I can’t as an anonymous troll? I have donated money through makersupport. What will happen if I lose my job and I have no more money? I am not giving speeches, I am not writing articles, no one is paying me to do any of this.

            I don’t support throwing people into gas chambers or any of that nonsense, but that doesn’t matter; some leftist just has to find out who I work for and tell them that I do, and I’m gone.

          • De-anonymization is not just an end goal unto itself, but also a guidestone that will help you identify reactive attitudes that you have accrued which are unnecessary and perhaps false. If you won’t say it to somebody’s face, then don’t say it online.

            How old are you? I perhaps recommend that you start hopping freight trains because it sounds like real shit you’re in rn, tbh.

      • I have a problem with the United States, specifically the South, being a multicultural society. I am more than willing to let the balkanization of the United States, into numerous, ethnicity and theology based States, take place.

        I support deliberate eugenics and I believe that a solid Patriarchal foundation is the only way to run a civilization.

        My name is Rex and I live in Nashville, TN. If you want to have a face to face conversation about strategy, I will treat you to a cigar and two fingers of scotch.

        Most people here are not afraid of the public.

        • If I were to attend Amren again, I’d take you up on the offer. My point is that what we want, and what we deem to be feasible, is often distorted by our limited perspectives. I’m doubtful that any of the things you express desire for are feasible – at least not at this stage. The interconnectedness of the world is such that the best and the brightest tend to end up leaving their native home, and end up associating with many similarly bright and influential nonwhites. Empathy and universalist inclinations develop, and all the “little people” (regardless of race) begin to look like interchangeable point-particles.

          What I’m saying is that I have serious doubts about the ability of some populist white revolt to win, let alone get off the ground.

          • I do not believe it is a matter of making any of those things happen, rather it is about being there to catch the falling pieces and stack them into that new shape as the current edifice falls apart.

            We do not have to balkanize the US. It will do that on its own. White states, Black states, Christian states, etc will form in keeping with the predominant local cultures.

            Eugenics is something that has mostly been the domain of our women as they choose the “best” mates to sire their offspring. I just want a well informed scientific organization that can help them make those choices. That doesn’t seem too out of the question. Genetic mapping, disease inheritance probability, etc. would be very beneficial. We need to frame the debate. Not everything has to be marching death squads and forced sterilization.

  • President Trump and pundits like Ann Coulter, plus a feed swell of anons, are actually doing more to redpill Whites about anti-White Animus than are fools who obey FBI advice to reveal their identities or engage in violence. Reveal your identity only if you are running for office. That’s commitment. You could call it “The Italian Way.”

    • Bro, YouTube and Twitter are algorithmically ghettoizing the alt-right. The bigger threat is not what you conjure up as an excuse to hide behind an avatar. The bigger threat is talking ourselves to death in the echo chamber.

  • I tend to think that unless you’re extremely self sufficient and don’t mind being left to deal with a shit-storm all on your own, you’re better keeping your anonymity for the time being.

    It may be different over in the United States, both in culture, attitudes and in law – but over here, where you can get picked up, locked up, lose your source of income to take care of your family for being overt – it makes little sense at this time to allow yourself to be isolated and picked out.

    We have had numerous blow-hards who thought it was a good idea to take on the system and they have been locked up. Nobody came to their aid. Nobody could get them off the charges. I doubt many people even remembers their names or what they did to take some kind of stand.

    On that basis, it is quite ridiculous and changes absolutely nothing on the ground. Everything just continues on as it did before. If people are going to make some kind of stand, I think it needs to be at least worthwhile and for something that will last or have good impact.

    Over here, we are are geographically separated, weak, isolated, unsure of who we can count on, who we can confide in. This is why I think community-building and networking must come before grand-standing and taking the enemies on in a direct way. They do not act in direct ways. They are covert, slippery, bobbing and weaving under the radar.

    If communities were being built, if people were already positioned throughout a purposefully targetted society, in all manners of roles within the system, then the community will support them, have their backs, already be in roles to try and lend a hand when things get sketchy for individuals. They don’t even need to announce themselves as they do so, and the process could work quite covertly.

    Everybody should be unafraid to speak their minds, to tacitly or firmly stick to their own positions and be able to defend them, to try and win people over and also win their respect as somebody who is knowledgeable and principled. But there are degrees of this, times and places. Going in like a sledgehammer is great online – anonymously – but doing so in real life to strangers and employers could be a recipe for disaster.

    I still say to choose your battles and your colleagues wisely. There is a lot that can be done in the real world without charging forth on a white steed, all bells and whistles blowing. There’s a lot that ought to be being done first, such as more effective networking of already like minded people in the real world, more effective structures being in place, more effective help and back up protocols, better geographical consolidation.

    Those who have little to lose and want to take the charge over the top of the trenches, that’s great. Much respect to them. Others, I suspect, will want to know just what they are going to be scrambling out of the trenches for – and whether that particular micro-fight is going to be long lasting effective and worth a hill of beans on its own in the grand scheme of things.

    If you have a town full of people all roughly aligned and supportive of each others positions and aims, there’s no reason you cannot take over a school, even set up a school, be involved in all sorts of activities and positions of influence, be employers, use each others businesses, network, – and it will probably mean more than being picked off and chewed up in relative obscurity and isolation.

    • I suppose we’re all largely self-interested, but if anti-whiteism is really as bad as we say it is, then why are we not doing anything? Are we doomed to wither away unless we lose our jobs anyway?

      I try to make the point in this article that if we get our heads straight, we can minimize the amount of animosity we receive for our views. Most of the viewpoints that attract the most ill will are viewpoints that we really need not espouse in order to enact the change that we desire. The linchpin of the entire anti-white ideology is the dogma of racial sameness. Am I not clear about this in the article?

      • the dogma is a lie. it is a waste to think you can get people so perfectly inline that there will be nothing negative to say about us. they compare us to hitler and we havent even started to fight yet

        • We have to make it harder for them to say negative things about us. We need to speak to the ruling elite and force then to change their minds about us

        • You’re right, I can’t get ppl in line. But I can encourage ppl to direct themselves toward more constructive lines of thought such that they night be able to slowly break out of the reactosphere.

      • I could only express why I think your outlook of “coming out” and publicly revealing ourselves to be racial nationalists was misguided – unless the groundwork and direction I explained is put into place first.

        Like yourself in your article, I put quite some thought into what wrote and hoped I would be clear. I believe it to be a better approach. Maybe I have misunderstood your entire article – and maybe you’ve misunderstood mine because you don’t appear to have tackled any of it.

        In terms of losing our jobs, well, that may depend on a lot of things as to whether it is a good idea to jeopardise your income.

        If jobs are plentiful, if you don’t mind switching careers entirely, having to relocate, don’t run the risk of not being hired (via public grandstanding being made), have no family to support, can be self sufficient, etc, then that may be great.

        If you have none of these things, I think it would be extremely foolish to kick up a stink over some micro-issue (that becomes tomorrows chip-paper wrappings in the garbage), have some kind of a show down that you’re not going to win, then severely disable yourself and your future interests by doing so.

        (Particularly so if nothing actually comes out of what has been said or done, and when life and change around us carries on relentlessly and regardless of it).

        At the moment, for example, I am in a slightly above average wage in this country in a job that’s hard to find positions in. With my wages, I fund some websites that people run and I mostly contribute a monthly sum towards a white-nationalist community building enterprise that’s trying to get off the ground here in England.

        I am not in debt, I am not anybody’s financial slave – and as such, at the moment, I can do more and have more choices available to me of how I can go about fighting this cause because I have the financial security to do so.

        In my earlier reply, I explained much more in depth of what a more advantageous set of scenarios would be that would allow more people to be much bolder than they may currently be in the public sphere and with any bigger battles in a locality.

        On the smaller battles and ‘just getting the word out’ to break down some taboos, I have already been cut off / cut out from some family member’s lives because of my viewpoints. I have lost numerous life-long friends over it, during the last decade. But so what? In the end, I have stuck to my guns and waved these people goodbye.

        I do speak with clarity and determination to people who cannot have negative impact on my life, such as when in social surroundings of extended friends and friends of theirs etc. I do not ‘hide’ my views, I just choose more wisely when and to whom I express them – and as to what I actually bring up in conversation.

        In terms of a general approach (when picking up and taking those fights), there is the “Daily Stormer” methodology or the “Jared Taylor” methodology – and again, it really does depend on situation, circumstance and competency as to which routes should be taken and which would be most effective. They both have their merits and rationale.

        But then again, maybe I am still missing the entire point of what you’re trying to advocate.

  • Ok, did the FBI fund the site makeover?

    “My fellow edgelords, we must send all our personal info to the ADL immediately. It’s the only way”

    I also noticed this article was written by a college hipster.

    • Stay in the shadows, you have to admit, is not a good long term strategy.

      My contention is “Get serious? You first.”

      • I haven’t exactly made much headway, but I’m pretty damn public. It’s just hard to get publicity when you’re actually fearless because MSM optics are only keen to report on alt-righters with guilty consciences.

      • Sorry, my “you” was more at the movement leaders generally (serious; as in political plans, not just ideology, see post below).

    • Self-interest rather than belief in a common cause, I suppose. As I’ve heard it said, organizing alt-right activism is like trying to herd cats. IDK.

      As I try to stress in this article, I believe that de-anonymization -> lose all income, family, etc is a false deduction.

      • You must be joking! You are asking people to just destroy themselves? Any large corporation will fire you before you can even ask what happened and issue a public statement disavowing you. There are numerous supporters who have a lot to lose and no means to continue to support the leaders and people who can be public. People need to keep their head down unless they are sure they can weather the financial and legal crises that would ensue.

  • AltRight, you have to teach people the 1-2-3’s of political involvement. Remove the mask, then what?

    I think there is a grass roots apparatus in place that we can work to engage in or parrot. Namely the “neighborhood conventions” of conservatives (and democrats). Get in there, and get your view involved – become a delegate…create our own.

    It’s one thing to say “take off the mask”, have a more constructive pathway than “take the plunge in icy water”, friend. (Al, It was a good article I’m just looking at more practical next steps)

    This site needs to start true political organization, Richard, you understand what that means. There’s ideology and apart from that grass roots organization. What part of this site has practical advice for locale specific grass roots organization tips. Start by state, start by city, by neighborhood. Registrations, signatures, etc.

    Eg. The parties start with their neighborhood conventions. State conventions start at the local level and build up from that to the state level (which of course builds to the national level). Either go to those and change their narrative, or start Alt-Right ones.

    The political advice cant be “go flyer something”, you need a political consultant to help flesh out how movements start. You have the interest, in sales we’d say you “have teh demand” now “get teh point of sale to capture it” – you have to capture it in a real way. Maybe even campus conventions.

    If I run a national ad campaign to buy X, but its not for sale in any stores, ….? Give people local legitimate pathways to get involved. Not all of us are teenage memelords, Richard.

    Spencer talked about weeding out the serious from the non-serious. Then, offer serious political pathways.

    Just a thought, I hope this was constructive.

    • I would add to that, you need “boring” position papers on all manner of “typical and atypical” political subjects – like campaign websites have. Thanks

      • Please check out and let me know what you think needs to be improved. Part of my program, which you seem to disagree with, is that it’s better not to bite off more than we can chew in terms of making grandiose policy proposals. As to what needs to change, I would say that everything that hinges on absolute racial sameness needs to be revised to reflect the uncertainty of the question. The specifics ought not even be mentioned at this stage of normalizing doubt about racial sameness.

    • I think that to exist as a humble signboard for our legitimate grievances is about as powerful an activist statement as one can make. Anything beyond hat is gravy. De-anonymizing is the first step; any “constructive pathway” is beyond the scope of this article.

      Regarding “true political organizing”, I think it needs to be concentrated solely in the university environment, and it is not a matter of politics, per se, but about the culture of belief and what viewpoints require tolerance. As it stands, alt-right viewpoints are regarded as alien and thus undeserving of toleration on campus. If college campuses are the root of the cultural elite – its future generations – then this is where the battle is to take place. I have a small crew at Rutgers in NJ. If you know of more people in the area, like NYC, please send them my way. On that note, I also have this website,, though i haven’t gone too far with it.

      • “De-anonymizing is the first step”

        It depends on what (where) you mean. Conservatives and liberals both hide their identities in chat and comment sections in order to be edgy.

        In the real world, we have business associations on all sides of the political spectrum so even BEING political can have unintended risks regardless of ideology. There is a bit of group think not to realize mere political speech comes with its own problems. Alt-Right, it’s not just you – just maybe by a higher degree of blow-back.

        So, I think if you want people to “come out of the alt right closet” give them legitimate pathways that are accepted if they were mainstream (like I mentioned in the other comment). The rally in MSU is great, if I were around there I’d have gone. But, expecting people to go online and create permanent records of their daily alt-right reactions to stuff..that’s your advice?

        We like to talk in terms of natural inequality, well, not everyone has the same to lose by coming out. For those who have a lot to lose, encourage them to donate. SHAME them into donating! 🙂

        Thank you,

  • Perhaps using our real names is necessary to be wholly true to ourselves and our cause, but let’s not play the irresponsible and mendacious game of telling the young men reading this site that they can do so without massive social cost. True authenticity, like true liberty, comes at a price and is not within the natural reach of most people. The only ones who can de-anonymise with no cost whatsoever are the sort of losers-with-nothing-left-to-lose who end up as Nazi clowns for the media, which is why we cannot afford to go around shaming or hectoring the anonymous if we want this movement to attract good people.

    • Say what you will but those “nazi clowns” actually show up and stand their ground against the enemy. After our views are made acceptable to voice in public and all of the anonymous, optic obsessed counter signalers come out of the closet they will of course take responsibility for the work of others.

      • Which “optic obsessed counter signalers”? Pleas explain, because I can’t make out what you’re referring to.

        • Most of the movement… The TWP/LOS/Occ Dissent faction of the movement has been getting scapegoated for pretty much everything thats been going wrong in the AR since Charlottesville by pretty much everyone and this is who I assume JLawrence is referring to when he says “Nazi Clowns.”

          From the footage I’ve seen they were the ones at the front fighting the hordes of Communists and BLM, keeping everyone behind them safe, and all they’ve gotten for their trouble is shit on by optic cucks and post-irony internet LARPers. It pisses me off tbh.

          • Well, I can’t say I was thinking of anyone in particular. But the fact is that an attitude of unquestioning deference to anyone who is willing to get vocal in public, hurl himself into street brawls, or use imagery that is toxic to normies is a good way to fill a political movement with low-quality lunatics and drive away potential recruits.

            It is also true to say that some radical insurrectionists can get corrupted, and end up just as treasonous as any “cuck”, when they realise they have burned their bridges with society but failed to provoke the deus ex machina “awakening” that was supposed to catapult them to power. These people typically end up ekeing out the only living left to them by playing a sort of Schelling game with the enemy media, trading self-discrediting clown antics for scare publicity that keeps the donations flowing. If you don’t want to hear this from a “post-irony internet LARPer”, but would prefer the word of someone who has won greater glory by LARPing in real life, just go to Harold Covington’s site and check out his writings on the subject.

          • To not shit on our fellow alt-righters like TWP can itself be consistent with optics. “No human is illegal, I will not disavow”.

          • Low T’s who have never labored or been in a fight, or known hardship are amongst our midst.
            You know this Johnny.
            I welcome all white men to join in this great fight, but a fight is what it is & weakness is for women & cowards.
            I don’t doubt that some who bash roughnecks do it from a rational standpoint, which is misguided imo, but A LOT do it from a pussy standpoint, plain & simple.
            We need to remedy this somehow.
            The days of the sterile intellectual leader are through. We must get back to the Warrior, the Rough leader who becomes an intellectual on his own.

    • It’s not an irresponsible game I’m playing. It’s irresponsible for us to sit around and wait for “the day of the rope”. Read the article again and realize what I’m saying. I’m not saying you should make public your support of white ethnonationalism.

      • I did read it quite closely, because I don’t throw out commentary lightly, and got from it much the same impression as everyone else: that you were egging people on to go public with their support for the Alt-Right. Now that I’ve read your site, and grasped that you are a fellow-traveller trying to spark honest public discussions and find common ground between liberals and ourselves, I can put your arguments in context.

        I’m not saying I don’t sympathise with your aims. I’m not even saying that we should choose easy anonymity over hard authenticity. But it behoves the commentators in this movement to treat the decision to de-anonymise with the gravity it deserves, and present a realistic picture of the vindictiveness of the Left and the high social price exacted for even mild dissent. “Framing our arguments correctly” isn’t going to soften the impact when someone like Sargon of Akkad, a classical liberal and vocal critic of the Alt-Right, gets defamed as an “Alt-Right mouthpiece” and assaulted by antifa thugs just for having shown the open-mindedness to debate against us.

        • Believe me, there’s enough fear in people already that I could be much more forceful in my argument to de-anonymize.

          At the end of the day, this is an inevitability. The amount of effort and conniving being put into our online ghettoization – soon enough we could all be talking to AI – that this is something that needs to be planned for and edged into preferably gradually.

          More, what if a civil war is not in the cards, and Trump comes and goes? Then our only option is a collective nonviolent action. If this is the case, then I repeat the importance of de-anonymization and legitimization.

          TBH, I believe that everybody is so piffed by this article because I’m challenging them. The alt-right can and should be more than a club for LARPers and content consumers.

          Lastly, the alt-right is overemployed. Maybe I’m futilely preaching to hopeless slaves to the American economy, but we have A LOT more money than many of us realize, and it is our scarcity mindset that keeps us down. And, indeed, I think this is part of what drives people to the far right – incels and stressed out dads.

        • Yes, not everyone is a university student.

          Not everyone has the same lot to lose.

          In many ways, while there are older allies, this has to be a youth oriented movement. They have time and frankly, less to lose. Supported ($) by those who have to wait until its more friendly to come out.


    • Me too, perhaps the backstory shouldn’t be published. If it worked, we want that tactic to remain unknown.

  • Seeing that the mobile version of the new website has the AR banner on top that doesn’t go away with scrolling, I may be getting de-anonymized any day now.

    • same on desktop. right click->inspect element->right click what’s highlighted in the developer console->delete. it just makes your browser not render that bit of html.

  • With your typical Normie, I just chat about how denaerys targaryan is a tyrant, that it’s vile that she let the barbarians through the gates, like a foreign invader. To my dismay, the mud shark is a character venerated by female youths. The severity of white girl brainwashing is deeper than I had believed. So much so, that I usually get an ideologically loaded reply, with that customary hint of moral signalling – don’t forget that ugly spice of contempt. “You’re a racist.” I don’t hesitate. I stare them in the eye with my masculine glow, then straight to a stolid return of, “You’re anti white and will see the rope.” When that adrenaline rush hits their faces, their eyes become wide and knees buckle. When it hits, I know they immediately recognize who I am and what I stand for. So I smile. Because I know by that shamed, acquiescing look; that we’ve already won.

    • I believe it’s important to see victory as inevitable, but at the same time we must behave as though it were near impossible.

Leave a Reply