Also I have started to incorporate the inverted red triangle as the symbol for the Avant-garde Right (AGR). Feel free to aslo incorporate it if you wish.
i went through the whole video to realize i'm none of them. i consider myself just a rational normie. but at the last moment, boom, apparently i'm avant garde.
The right is much more spread out ideologically. Because on the one hand we have Dave Rubin who is a basically a homosexual who thinks Biden is stupid, then the other hand we have nick Fuentes who is a homosexual who thinks Biden is playing 4-d chess
@@JohnPaulWalker846 there's video evidence of him and destiny that says to the contrary. Im just saying you dont let another man do that to you if youre not just a bit homosexual
The nrx friend enemy distinction is probably better described as "the good and currently disempowed elites" who would benefit from a more efficient meritocracy, similiar to a company VS "the bad, current elite" who are in power by disintegrating and taking advantage of an incomplete meritocracy
@@indiefansexplode It's interesting that Yarvin calls populists "Hobbits" and considers 1930's Italy and Germany "Hobbits." I'm sure there is no ethnic interest in doing that.
To buy into that you have to believe in merittocracy and the NRx is very aware of the reality of how the powerful favour their own groups. If you believe in meritocracy, you haven't properly embraced the NRx yet.
Some problems: -Libertarians, Nietzscheans, and Ethnonats are too broad of categories. These are ideas that can exist all over the political spectrum. I understand that you're referring to specific spheres, but there really should be better names for these categories. This is especially a problem for Ethnonats, which is a broad enough category that all the issues you raised (abortion, how to win, sexuality) have no consensus in that group. Likewise, there are very populist Ethnonats (Rockwell), very elitist Ethnonats (Dr Pierce), somwhat moderate Ethnonats (Richard Spencer) and very radical Ethnonats (James Mason) -Most Nietzscheans are not Bapists, and I dislike the fact that you used them interchangeably on the map. As somebody who somewhat falls into that category, BAP and his lackeys are absolute clowns. BAPists are a clique, not an ideology -Ethnonats and Groypers generally hate each other -You place too much emphasis on capturing the elite. Yes, doing so is very important. But the dichotomy between being purely focused on the elite and purely focused on the population-at-large is a false one. A good movement should have both broad appeal and intellectual rigor, as the two play off of each other and strengthen each other -Most Ethnonats are not purely Ethnonats, most have some other ideology to go along with it. Franco's government was highly traditional, the reason the "intellectuals started wearing jeans" was because Spain was isolated and didn't have the infrastructure to match the rest of the world's (read: mainly America's) cultural output Good video though Also get a telegram, I want to talk about this without having to worry about TH-cam's all seeing eye watching over me
Thanks for the insightful comment. To your first point, you are totally right, I did have to simplify to bring it under an hour. I know that Bap is not the only nietzschean, but I could not really recall other influential online Nietzscheans (other than Uberboyo). As for the elites, I agree that a movement needs an intellectual wing and a popular wing, but the elite wing is the one that matters most, the curture moves and the crowds follow. I did not really know that the groypers and the ethnats had beef though. And if you want to contact me, do so in twitter since I don't really have telegram.
I’m really sorry man but it is all internet cliques, there is no movement. The sooner you understand this the better off you will be on a personal level. It’s entertainment, it should be fun.
Can you point to any other online right faction which fully aligns with and promotes nietzschean thought other than the bap twittersphere? If not then I think the terminology used in the video is appropriate, despite your distaste for the individual in question, since the author intends to map the actual existing online right and not the ideologies themselves.
As a young traditionalist, I agree that religion is on the decline and that it's a post-modern movement rather than a pre-modern one. I think that was a fair assessment. I will say that I will stand by my beliefs and encourage others, and I think what keeps us alive is that we have faith that God is in control. We think Christianity will never die out, even if it seems that way to agnostics and atheists.
All religions will fie out and new ones will naturally take its place. It's inevitable. The only religion who haven't face sick a thing is Hinduism and few others. Bit even so there has been many changes till then
Traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox populations who actually follow their church's teachings as well as quiverful Baptists, Mormons, and the Amish whose high birthrates far outpass the rate of apostasy will be fine. The others not so much, expect mainline Protestantism and Anglicanism to collapse completely outside of the third world.
What I like about the right-wing of the internet is how honest it can be with itself, because we are not concerned with maintaining power. As seen in this comment section and my comment, constructive criticism is all around to hone each person's ideology. But without an actual way to put it into practice, we will remain football fans shouting about how they would've done things better than the coach of their team. That's where I am a little black pilled like Dutton in how we are witnessing the decline both in the quality of culture and what is within our biology. That's also why I think it is futile in trying to capture the established intelligencia. Their quality has suffered significantly over the past century and it is easier to be left-wing, if you are trying to get status despite not being capable to earn it. But I am not hopeless. Being right-wing is a natural part of being a man IMO. You don't have to read Nietzsche to know, that he touched something true within our nature. It is a sausage party here, but that's not really a bad thing. The younger generations are turning more "conservative" among the men. Yes, this is a bit of a cope, but an eventual change will happen and then it stands the test of history, if a right-wing ideology will be able to meet its demands.
Jesus was not right wing and he was more of a man than you will ever be. But regardless of my personal beliefs, manhood is not defined by either religion or politics and I don't pretend that manliness has any political affiliation. I'm disappointed in how many of my peers as Gen Z men have fallen victim to this propaganda. The culture war was specifically designed to divide and conquer, we should all stop giving a shit about that crap and get a life.
On the online political right? Not really which is a shame given how dissident right content isn't just far more informative than the stuff that rakes in millions but just as (or more) entertaining.@@courtssense
I think it's because we're at the bottom of the rabbit hole right now and the code did its job and found the good stuff. For every interest, there's an ocean of super high quality videos on channels with 500 subs. There's just a lot more middling stuff too. It seems like TH-cam has been getting better at recommending high-quality smaller channels.
@@courtssenseMaybe, but Dave the Distributist, the Prudentialist, and you, managed to reach me, aaaaaaall the way across the ocean, and I'm having a blast reading and listening to like-minded people who are nowhere to be found here, in Belgium. Thanks a lot!
I'd consider myself between trad and neoreactionary. I have this sort of weird relationship with the Nietzchians were I'll engage in their conversations but I'm also a bit aloof since its running a different morality code than mine.
I think bronze-ageists is a good term for the Nitzscheans. To include the neopagans. 32:40 I think we can confidently say that trads are going for the long game approach, believing that once progressives stop breeding then the trads will just naturally win the numbers game since they breed. In this they somewhat share their strategy of distancing themselves from mainstream institutions like the popcons, libertarians and frogists(joneist) who also believe in either secluding themselves or creating parallel institutions.
I'm in that bottom right unlabeled area and you're definitely right about the trads. They're focused on ensuring reproduction and playing the numbers game, along with making traditionalism high aesthetic. Which leans into the ethno nationalism, intellectual stuff, as well as the populism. I think this is a winning combo as it definitely won me over. It's ironic that the video criticizes the libcons for wanting to return to the 90s, when the trad view is quite literally just "Retvrn" and somehow still appealing. I think where they struggle though is that the trad stance can be kinda radical in that some demographics feel it's incompatible with their existence. Such as rw lgbt people, or those of different religious views.
@@Otome_chan311 " I think this is a winning combo as it definitely won me over." It won me over so it will win, isnt a meritorical argument. Ethnonat isnt liked by the average normie, and openly ethnonat organisations can be penalised by the existing state institutions. Without larger appeal you cant change society at large, wihtout organisations you cant direct the sentiment into action. Also ethnonat has the same issue you pointed out with trads "some demographics feel it's incompatible with their existence".
@@stanisawzokiewski3308 yes I tend to be more radical than the general public. I think in practice people will end up taking a more "mainstream" stance than me. Ultimately I think most will end up being won over by some mix of trad aesthetic and economic populism with a liberal foundation. Whatever you'd like to call that. In my comment I wasn't trying to make an argument, but rather just expressed my own experience. I frequently find myself being someone ahead of the curve on things, and that goes for politics as well. I make a more detailed analysis in another comment but honestly it's just about trends. The reality is that theres two ways to "win". Either you just hope for greater reproduction, or you convince people. When it comes to convincing, the people making the move right are people like myself. Ex left populists with utopian ideals burned by modern society. We led people to the left and now we're leading people to the right.
I believe that Fuentes and the Groypers lean more upwards toward elitism. He believes that real institutional change will most likely occur with a small yet intellectual and powerful group of people. In other words, real change is shepherded within a top-down paradigm.
Also Fuentes aspires for the U.S. to become a catholic monarchy, which makes his movement by definition lean towards elitism. This guy admitted that he doesn’t know what they actually believe so he really made himself look uninformed
well, they try to find a balance in that they disavow wignats etc but still do mainly recruit from shock and a wide net. but yeah it is clear that this guy is analysing it on a very surface level due to being too offput by the "shock" while going quite in-depth for the section which he aligns himself, the actual objectives of the groypers are a bit more nuanced (evident by that he wasn't able to grasp it without watching nick fuentes' show) than the ethno nationalists so they probably should have been swapped around. though he is right that the post-irony humor makes it hard to grasp just from observation of activities on twitter etc, but since he specifically characterized it by nick fuentes himself he probably could have easily looked into his show or something.
America First (Groypers) combine ethno nationalism and Christian nationalism. The alt right was ethno nationalist and Nieztschean, which was off-putting to the majority Christian Republican Party.
Groypers seem very much misunderstood. Nick embodies a certain elitism, coupled with ambivalence toward the "common folk." He employs populism as a rhetorical tool to amass followers and propagate his ideology. If you watch his show - you'd see that he expresses the necessity for the nationalist and Catholic right to cultivate a higher echelon of support - big-money donors, high-IQ intellectuals, engineers, et al. The whole movement actually operates within a multi-faceted ecosystem: the common, impressionable, and obsequious adherents who amplify his rhetoric; the politically active cohort engaged in covert infiltration of mainstream organizations like TPUSA and College Republicans; and the higher strata of society, with whom Fuentes seeks to curry favor behind the scenes to secure alignment with his vision.
This video popped up in my feed (I have no idea how), and lets just say as generally left leaning person (social democrat-ish) who is a member of a certain demographic that I feel like everyone on the map probably wants gone from society (interestingly not touched on in the video at all), I found this video genuinely interesting and window to a certain perspective that I haven't really seen before, even if I disagree with some of the points made. Still watched the video to the end, and found it interesting learning about some groups I have never really had any experience with before.
Same here, though I tend to lean more centrist/liberal. I'd assumed this only popped up for me, because my views have a habit of confusing the algorithm. It is absolutely wild hearing someone call a guy like Alex Jones "moderate". Being in that minority as well, I tend to view someone's radicalism based on how much they'd like me to not exist the way I do, purely for pragmatic reasons. I especially find the style fascinating, as it is eerily reminiscent of the academic style typically adopted by Leftist theory, but follows an inverted sense of ethics. That's not something I often see, coming from The Right, which I appreciate that the video touches on.
Having watched to the end I presume your... demographic... was not mentioned primarily because the author fancies himself an intellectual and deems that particular flavor of hatred to be slop for the populist masses to keep them entertained. Not that far from the truth I suppose, though he and I would disagree as to the utility of said slop.
the power of the intellectual is almost entirely because of the power of the United States, in other words, those who control America control the world, at best your alternative to this is eurasian multipolarity. The examples you gave of people like Franco and Salazar are not examples of the indomitable power of the intellectuals, but of the US exerting influence across the world
You are correct, but I still believe that even in a multipolar world the political class will hold power, If you are interested look at my essay "The kantian difference between Nobles and Peasants". Also American culture is the theme of my next essay.
I wouldn’t consider the Trads militaristic. They are more non interventionist and prefer to fix the problems at home more than anything else. John Doyle has said quite a few times that a lot of wars we fought were not really our problem and he is very opposed to war hawk type conservatives. I would consider myself somewhere around that area of the map. Great Video man.
I think you are wrong about religion being on the decline. In the past it has declined significantly and always rebounded. There will be another great awakening within the next few decades that will create a large amount of religious fervor.
Religion is declining (except Islam) = observable fact. There will be another great awakening in the next few decades = belief. Not only that, but it’s a belief about the future, which is also clearly what you would like to happen.
@@jsea56 I don't think a great awakening would be particularly good for established religion. Sure, people would go back to it, but the bulk of great awakenings contributed to new religious movements and not established religion. New churches and the like were established, and those churches had the most fervor. This is not a belief, it's an observable fact based off centuries of cultural and historical understanding. Religion being on the decline doesn't mean it can't or won't rebound. All evidence shown by the past is that periods of non-belief and religious fervor occur every few decades. I'm sure deists in the 18th century would have loved to say religion was on the decline, they probably did. But it wasn't. It's ignorant to say society has moved beyond religion, because that never will be the case. The atheists today are the most feverous Christians tomorrow.
I think you can split the trads into two subgroups, those who want to withdraw from the world and those who see potential converts from the agnostics and atheists. A lot of the trads being former agnostics and atheists certainly gives them an edge. They aren't your grandma's believers who grew up in their faith they can provide a defense for it in a lot of ways and can convince others of it's merits at the very least. The latter group of trads have essentially convinced most of the intellectual conservatives of the merits of belief, and have converted more than a few. Maybe not a new great awakening, but the Catholics especially have shown throughout history they only need a handful of saintly folks to get mass conversions.
"I think you are wrong about religion being on the decline because it will rebound". ???? That makes no sense mate. For something to rebound, it must have declined or be declining.
@@EKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKthe elitism in this vid refers to how informative vs entertaining the content is. I don't think Nick spends all stream going over stats and theory.
True. /pol/ already doesn't like him because of his Mexican heritage. It doesn't matter how white he is; he already lost with that alone. Really, they have a very split opinion with Hispanics and Latinos anyway. Some think they're no better than the rest. Others feel like they're "le hecking based" because of the 2024 election stats. Either way, the white nationalist movement has been attracting many Hispanics and Latinos for the last couple of years. They range from looking practically white (like Fuentes), slightly swarthy/tanned (kind of like meds) or really light skinned middle easterns. I really don't know how this phenomenon will play out. Most white nationalists wouldn't even let Asians off the hook, so I don't see how this new trend is gonna benefit anyone.
I understand your aversion to the Ethnonationalists. As a German, I would say they can indeed be very dangerous to themselves and others. However, it is undeniable that ethnic identities are amongst the strongest identities out there and the left has been exploiting that fact to its fullest extent for a long time. In America, 80-90% of Blacks and a strong majority of Browns vote left. In Europe, the left is busy importing as many Arabs and Africans as possible to replicate American circumstances. Saying "ethnic struggle is really distasteful so we should just ignore it" plays right into the hands of the left. They will never abandon ethnic struggle as an electoral strategy out of its perceived tastelessness. If America still had 1980 demographics Trump would win the same landslide victories Reagan won back in the day. Unless we make explicitely clear that the ethnic composition of a country is important, we are gonna at best end up like South Africa or perhaps even Rhodesia. The beginnings of that development can already be seen in the Banlieus of Paris and Marseilles, Rosengard, Rinkeby, Marxloh etc. The only alternative to ethnic composition control that I see is just a turn away from liberal democracy to suppress the topic of race for both the left and the right a la Singapore. This is only possible though with heavy censorship of the press and academia, possibly an end to democracy altogether.
Firstly I appreciate the comment, And I do agree with the larger point that ethnic identities are very important. As I send the video I am a nationalist for my respective country and I think that is one of the most powerful forces out there when it comes to politics, but my main critique is that just being really patriotic by itself will not be able to give a lasting Victory to the right wing. Without a doubt it will be a very important component, but I think that it must form around a larger philosophical and ideological project Beyond mere tribalism. And you do raise a point that I did not really talk about in the essay which is that this topic is generally distasteful. I think that one can talk about ethnic issues without making a big mess out of it, but the problem with a lot of people on the online right is that their hobby is to talk about race and ethnicity in the most inflammatory language possible to get a big reaction. I think that is quite counterproductive and will bury the more important conversations around group identities.
"The left has been exploiting that fact" At no point do Conservatives ever listen to Leftists. Ever. Just ignore everything we say and put your own words in our mouths. Or you're just showing how little you know by calling Liberals Leftists. That's incorrect.
@@WillyShankspeare It doesn't matter what you people say, we can observe with our own eyes *what you do.* Since your elites are in power, they don't need to be consistent or honest. You can cope or lie however much you like, the fact is *you are anti-White* and pro-non-White. Explicitly even. In America, Europe, everywhere.
the problem with the historical arguments framing Ethnonationalists as "N*zis" is, that from ca. Napoleon up to WW 2 virtually everyone was an Ethnonationalist in the sense that is denigrated today, i.e. almost all the people who fought against N*zis and also the ones who fought the "old empires" (Austrian, Ottomans) or the colonial powers (incl. today's Lefties favorites like Kurds) were ethnonationalists. To frame anyone who is not modern globalhomo as ethnonationalist and thus almost NS and bad is a bit like 1980s US Libcons mixing up Swedish social democracy with Soviet style socialims as "socialism".
@Anton43218she’s been calling out the Jews very loudly since being ousted by The Daily Wire. Also heavily into conspiracies. Would not lump her in with Dave Rubin, she’s definitely considered fairly “radical” these days.
Something I like about the modern right is that at times it seems to know more about leftist theory than leftists themselfs. One example is cultural marxism and just cultural subversion in general. A lot of leftists completely miss the shift that took place in their theory about how to achieve their goals. Nobody is advocating to hang your boss anymore because they already tried that and (outside of Russia) failed, the material conditions of the working class grew way too much for revolutionary ideals to win. The solution is the long march through the institutions and destroying traditional culture. Every time I see a lefty speaking of cultural marxism they think it's just cultural bolshevism because they read the wiki article.
"The long march through the institutions and destroying traditional culture"? Do you by chance mean the critical theory propaganda and gender ideology? Because that didn't work and there is not a lot of other things that fit the definition. Did the left organize something other than confusion?
I love this channel more and more everyday. You're more correct on the issues than anyone I have seen and this breakdown of the online right was perfect. I agree with your solutions here too. I find myself in the middle of NeoReactionaries, Right Wing Historians, Populist Conservatives and Traditionalists. While I fit best into the latter (hence my name), I have major influence from all these groups. I also have minor influence from all the others minus the corners (BAPists, Libertarians and Groypers). So I guess I am quite the centrist even though for mainstream people I am extreme
Great vid. Accurate n super informatibe. It seems ive slipped from a traditional liberal to a conlib and my descent into conservatism finally skidded to a stop in the "libertarian populist" zone, half a step shy of jonesist..... And im ok w that
To be fair none of the examples CS provided can be described as historians but while Call me Ezekiel and Mounsier engage with historical theory with their own subjective lens and are honest about it, Whatifalthist is just pure propaganda
Yeah, I generally don't consider alternate histories (alt history hub and whatifalthist included) as historians. They are here to provide entertainment.
I don’t think your critique on eth.Nat. is fair. 1. Looking at history it was captivating also for intellectuals 2. Since WW2 there is a extreme propaganda campaign against it, but it still exists. 3. Ignoring genetics and Biology is the main reason for the downfall of the west and the pol. right. 4. It’s the answer to a single certain question. You could easily be at the same time NRx and ethNat, or trad and ethNat, or Nietzsche and ethNat. I believe the solution could be overcoming the PSYOP neuroticism towards biology and genetics since it’s a fundamental part of reality and orienting the right again on the ground of this reality.
Your comment definitely made me sit and think a bit, so thanks for that. Here is the ensuing ramble: When will you look at nationalism that has actually captivated the Intelligentsia I think that we are looking at two specific cases that I can think about. The intelligence is since the enlightenment has firmly been on the side of liberalism, but I think that the two points in history where they did support nationalism was in the case of Bonapartism and German romanticism. Maybe there are more examples, but nothing else comes to mind, in the case of Bonapartism I believe that it received so much intellectual love because Napoleon represented the synthesis of the intellectually popular ideas of the French Revolution with French nationalism. But I believe that this intellectual support was more the result of the ideas of the French Revolution and not a French nationalism itself especially since French intellectuals have being disinterested in nationalism ever since, instead preferring socialism. In the case of German (and Italian!) nationalism, I believe that the intellectual Drive was a result of a larger drive towards unification, and they think that we can observe that German nationalism became less intellectually popular once that Germany was United since we can also see that after German unification there are less Wagners and more Brechts. Without a doubt there have been other movements with intellectual support, such as national socialism but in this case it was a minority of the intelligentsia. As for the idea that color blindness is the reason of the problems that we face as a society right now; I am not too sure of that, since I think that it is a symptom not a cause. The fundamental problem with immigration is not immigration, it's that people have not been having children for 50 years. Perhaps this could have been ameliorated with a stronger national identity, but there are more than enough nationalistic countries that also are terribly infertile. Finally I do agree with you and I think that you have a good point when it comes that we have to address the questions of genetics, but I think that we must be very careful with it, because it is a very explosive topic and certainly World War II did not make it better. So far I think that Edward Dutton is one of the people who have done most in this endeavour.
Better understandings of genetics and biology, and the inherent instability that system of ethnic/racial discrimination bring about in educated populations are the reasons that the reasons eugenicist conceptions are out of favor, they are wrong and the societies that structure themselves on it are worse off for it
@@courtssense You seam to have a point of view and understanding of history that is very much effected by US American liberalism. 1. My point is more about ethnic centrisms and less about nationalism. We still live in the age of nation-states so there is no alternative to nationalism so the discussion is pointless. 2. I don’t think your point against NatSoc is correct since very large parts of German, French, Italian etc. even parts of British intelligentsia supported or arranged themselves with the Axis. It’s only after the lost war that US and Soviet narratives proclaimed the intellectuals to be anti-germanic. 3. The main problem on immigration is immigration itself. Not having not enough children leads to economic recession. Uncontrolled immigration without enough children leads to extinction. The Japanese can without immigration easily survive as fewer people for some generation without an end to existing as Japanese. Germany with immigration is going extinct. 4. The topic is explosive because it is the lie that works as the fundament for the entire woke/left narrative. They can not keep existing with this lie questioned.
@@courtssense "As for the idea that color blindness is the reason of the problems that we face as a society right now; I am not too sure of that, since I think that it is a symptom not a cause." The entire cause for leftism rests on the fantasy that HBD does not exist and hence all inequities are caused by discrimination. This topic is like "The Origin of Species" for the meta-religion of liberalism. Ignorance of it is a cornerstone that brings the whole woke ideology to fall, once it is mended. It is therefore naturally opposed with the most resistance. The biggest reason why rightists are such failures, is that this isn't hammered home at every point of every debate against leftists. It is also the distinction (in my view at least) between the genuine right, and people belonging to Conservative Inc (most of your map's left hand side), which is just controlled opposition and doesn't want to conserve anything.
In few words, we need more cold headed and smart intellectuals like Yarvin or Mike Anton and less crazy edgy influencers like Fuentes or Alex Jones (without disbanding all the populist energy).
Yeah, sort of. For the populist side people like crowder do a good enough job. But the real risk, in my opinion, is that the right falls into an edgy circle jerk that will doom the movement to /pol/ instead of becoming an actual counterculture.
@@courtssense Totally disagree. Crowder does nothing really. Crowder can be seen as bread and games. A Fuentes is much smaller but more effectve in getting things changed. The last years shows infiltration and pushing talking points does have an impact. - Now you said yourself you don't know what Groypers stand for, which is far as there are so many layers of irony. And I myself don't particularly like them, but I do see their effectivness.
I really can't understand one thing in all of this. I'm Greek and in my language nation means έθνος(ethnos). So a nation-state is automatically an "ethno-state" in my mind. In other words Greece is the state of the Greeks , France is for the french etc. My question is what is the difference between ethnonationalism and nationalism and the difference between a nation state and an ethno-state you American people keep talking abou
Well it would mean that a multi ethnic state like us would either balkanize and collapse or it would lead to the deaths and/or deportation of tens of millions. Not to mention who we consider the "people" of the nation. I'm truly sorry American ideas are infecting the world and might lead to a fall of nations. We truly frame everything in a WW2 mindset much how people in WW1 framed it in a Napoleonic mindset, even if it's far past what it true
@@fritzkuhne2055 don't know what this means so can you explain it for me please? There's been some time since I've posted this comment and I still don't get it
In American English, "nation" usually just means the same thing as "state", and "nationstate" is kind of an annoying reduplication as far as I can tell. America has no unified ethnic identity but is a nation due to having a singular government whose propaganda proclaims some kind of common identity for everyone born in its borders. So to support America, the geographic location and government and everyone living in it, is to be a nationalist without the ethno. But to support a particular ethnicity within America, and to proclaim them as the "true" Americans who ought to control the government to the exclusion of all other groups, would be to be an ethno-nationalist. Does that make sense?
Wow. This was great. I would love to see a video about the online Left. Especially by someone who understands Socialism as an economic mode, rather than as just the left.
Aristotle offers a simple matrix for regimes: government by the one, the few, or the many with good/bad versions of each (monarchy/aristocracy/republic vs. tyranny/oligarchy/democracy). In this video, the populist v. elitist axis corresponds to Aristotle's many/few/one distinction. However, the video's mainstream v. radical axis does not correspond neatly to Aristotle's good v. bad distinction. The video's distinction is neutral not normative. Moreover, Aristotle was describing regimes (government types); this video describes something else (factions? viewpoints?). This video's model might be generalizable to cover leftist (or centrist) viewpoints but for that purpose the axis labels (especially the X axis) might need to change. If the zero-point on the X axis is the mainstream, and if are we becoming more "radical" as we move either right OR left, then what feature/dimension distinguishes left-radical from right-radical?
I am not so negative over the future of the right. This is a pendulum and it is swinging back. In the 1970's many if not most universities were outright Marxist. That has all but disappeared. I would say that generally universities are still kind of left-leaning, but they are far from radical anymore. Communism in general is all but dead. Left wing parties are in decline in many places. In Israel, in the past there was the Labour Party (Shimon Peres) and Likud was the right wing party and they were typically of roughly the same size. Now the Labour Party has completely collapsed and there are many parties to the right of Likud. Likud has become de facto the most left-wing mainstream party and that is not because the have become left-wing, but because the country has become a lot more right-wing. Netanyahu is not more left wing than Ariel Sharon, on the contrary I would say. And this is just a rather extreme example. In many countries in Europe we see the same kind of pattern. In the US, not so long ago it was predicted that the Republican Party would become irrelevant, now the Democrats are in existential crisis. Morality is getting more conservative too. In my youth there was quite a bit of explicit nakedness on open channel TV. That has completely disappeared, and not because of legislation but simply because it doesn't sell anymore. Also, women sunbathing topless was pretty common. You simply don't see that anymore. There is also a lot of backlash against wokeness in Hollywood. There is the Snowwhite fiasco at Disney and that is just one example. I believe we have already seen peak-woke. Of course it will go on for a while on pure momentum, but the driving force is already disappearing. You can't expect miracles. Abortion won't get forbidden in a week. The Catholic Church won't get all Tridentine overnight. It takes time for the mentality of people to swing the other way but I do believe it is happening right now.
Very good informative and comprehensive video. Congratulations! I recently started writing myself because I wanted to both polish the skill but also gain clarity on what I actually believe. Ironically the topic that first came to mind was increased political divisiveness both within and outside of the left/right dichotomy. Exploring the right (and left for that matter) more closely ties very well into that string of thought. I also agree that quality control is quite necessary. Though as with many things one has to balance such efforts. In particular it's important to offer guidance and feedback otherwise spheres run the risk of becoming too isolated, partly iconoclastic and ultimately become less likely in attracting others.
Fascinating walkthrough of your theory. I don't agree with all of your personal viewpoints or exactly how everything is mapped out, but there is a lot of merit to your overall structure. Definitely going to watch more of your content. Subbed!
Correction: Steve Sailer is not an Ethno-Nationalist he is a Civic-Nationalists. He recognizes the biological differences between groups and wants to prioritize the wellbeing of the citizens curently living within the country.
What I love about this video… is I’m currently doing research on digital safety, I can only reference government and academic sources and it is so obvious that they WANT to understand the online dissidents; but Literally can’t, even with videos like this outright explaining it.
Outstanding video dude. This is the first I have seen of you and this is off the park. I used to lie among the Nrx and Bapists as well as I used to read a lot of Yarvin in like 2017-2018 and read BAP in late 2018. But my true calling is probably something away from this quadrant as I am really passionate about Ecology and Conservation hence I side more with Ted's side (although his ideas on how to get things implemented were pretty dumb and also my views on him have changed over time). Really good video though, I would add that I am surprised that we didnt see a rise of eco-fascism among the online right whatsoever which is where I would say I align with. Great video though subbed and cannot wait to see where you go!
I appreciate it, and I'm not going to lie to you, I also have a little bit of a soft spot in my heart for Good Old Uncle Ted despite the obvious problems in his work I think that he diagnosed many real issues.
The unlabelled space between BAPist, NRx, Trads, and EthNats, is essentially Medieval Europe (or my idea of it at least). Now despite being a bit of an ideological schizophrenic, I would personally characterise that area as the one I'm most sympathetic too. I also think that it's possible to make it appealing to intellectuals since it sees the actual practical implementation of many modern values (such as decentralisation, diversity, inclusivity, etc). We have, of course, already "done" the medieval period, and a straight up return would be infeasible. But it's certainly an inspiring period to study. It even satisfies utopian ideals if you can rehabilitate popular christianity!
@StrykerSips Neo-Medievalism, not quite Feudalism. I highly recommend the channel Pilgrims Pass! I think either his Cyberpunk or Star Trek vs Dune vids talk about this concept.
My main issue with this is the assertion that ethnonationalism - being intrinsically oppositional and therefore immiscible with the Intelligencia. Your primary criticism is Francois Spain eventually falling, there are a variety of factors beyond just “contrarian attitudes of the intelligencia” or “inability to appeal to the aspirational youth”. Clearly things do not happen in a vacuum. Foreign cultural influence subverted Franco’s Spain and weakened its ability to set up sustainable procession of power/ cultural dominance. Additionally it entirely disregards all valid theory and philosophy tied to ethnonationalism - saying that it is powerless without being tied to another ideology. This is patently false. The criticism of the online behavior of Ethnonationalists driving many good people away may be true, but the same could be said for the communists, the neoconservative right-liberals, the neoreactionaries, and the like.
In our time of tribalism, thanks to the internet, will certainly build things like ethno-nationalism. However, I think that it's existence in the conservative movement is miniscule and I believe that when time comes thno-nats will amalgamate for the sake of conservatism. As conservatives, I want to see u win too because so much of what I want u kinda want too in your own way. I'm okay with that
“Quality control” is just another term for “optics” - we’ve had the optics debate for decades, particularly in the last 10 years. You cannot become presentable to people who wish to degrade, humiliate and eradicate you, so the “quality control” debate is meaningless. The Right has been losing for over a century, because Liberalism had infected the spirit of a people, when something this catastrophic occurs it can only be changed when the people who hold these nightmarish ideas are extinguished, which is precisely what Liberalism is, an ideology of slow moving degradation and extermination. Nothing the great HP Lovecraft has written about cults, other worldly, or incomprehensible elder Gods, can rival Liberalism.
Its a propaganda war and the right isn't willing to lie and manipulate as much as the left. Simple as. Doesn't matter how presentable we become, theres still going to be the massive polarisation because its easy to call people racist and make hating people you view as racist or fascist a hobby and virtue. Its 100% a propaganda war. My dads pretty wrapped up in the TM current bad man media narrative crap. He watches videos about trump every single day, even in the bath for like 2 hours. Before the crazy media storm that ramped up in 2020 he was nothing like he is now. Brainwashed. Its exactly like the 5 minutes of hate in 1984.
Hes talking about ideologically capturing the intelligentsia which is near impossible because they benefit from the status quo and are far removed from the peasantry.
The trads best chance of reversing anti-religious trends is that the religious tend to outbreed the non-religious, especially when the economic incentives are for smaller families or even no children.
The thing is that libertarians have intersections with all parts of your map besides maybe the bottom right quadrant. For example I'm an ancap (to be understood as a legal and organizational theory) who's shrugged off the equalitarian assumption in favor of hereditarianism and am quite comfortable with (natural) hierarchy. I do prize beauty, competency, strength, and masculinity, being of the belief that they are being trounced in the modern age, but that doesn't preclude my ability to appreciate some of the genuine beauty we have at our disposal (Across The Spiderverse, Beach House, prog rock, animated math, some gay relationships since I'm gay, WhatIfAltHist, CallMeEzekiel, etc.). But that's not to say everyone needs to get along. Diversity truly is beautiful, but melting pots just water down the genuinely cool customs that various cultures have in favor of the urban monoculture that Malcolm/Simone Collins discuss. Ultimately, I favor a more disjointed society harmonized by markets/trade, impressive elites within each group, and a tolerance to outsiders paired with an expectation that visitors will respect your customs.
Also lots of libertarians are pro-life and very against sexual revolution (like myself). I'm not saying I agee with the video, but to make a map we can't build it 1:1 scale, cause then it would be useless.
31:17 Abortion is a pretty big debate amongst libertarians from my experience. Murder violates the NAP lol. So it's a debate between Libertarians that consider fetuses humans and those that don't. Human rights is the main driving point behind libertarian ideals. If it's a human, it has its right to life; if not, the mother has a right to pursue happiness.
18:14 I wouldn't be sure about that, between the rise of home churches and Islam and the fact only the faithful these days seem to be having children at or above replacement rate, I'd say the non-theists don't have much time left before Europe and North America see repeats of the Battle of Tours and Siege of Vienna.
Great video. Very interesting but I disagree re Franco, who was a success because he prevented Spain from being subjected to Stalinism. What happened in Spain after his death (becoming a democracy, and not reverting to leftwing totalitarianism) shows how much the political context had stabilised because of him. Plenty of other rightwing dictatorships (in Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, Argentina, Chile etc also became democracies after the - internal - Communist threat had receded).
Great video! but I think you should fill the void between nietzsche's followers and the traditionalists with the radical traditionalists; the followers of Julius Evola and Rene Guenon, including followers of other authors like Spengler and Junguer. They have a small but dedicated circle, who often influence other right-wing camps online, especially in memes and esoteric ideas. Anyway, congratulations on the work, it has the potential to become one of the best right-wing channels online.
One thing though in the mainstream elitist corner (Hanaia’s zone) idk what exactly to call it but there’s growing organization of upper-middle to upper class liberal technocrats who’ve lost faith in democratic & free-market institutions and have drifted towards an authoritarian developmentalist model like Singapore but with “Western characteristics”. It’s pretty small and disorganized still, but given a lot of the people in that camp tend to have ties to academia, finance & policy wait 10-20 years and they could potentially be punching above their weight class. Usually don’t watch rightist content but interesting video nonetheless.
I would call that upper left faction "neoliberal technocrats", maybe. Much of top bureaucracy and CEOs believe in that. So they have much power, that is just invisible to us
Not a single ethnonationalist was mentioned lol. Keith woods doesn't even stand to make the cut (basically a groyper). You could have mentioned Robert Rundo (founder of AC), Thomas Rousseau (leader of Patriot Front in the US), Blair Cottrell (NSN), Jacob Hersant (NSN), Thomas Sewell (NSN), Justin Barrett (leader of the nationalist party of Ireland), 2 other honorable mentions/influencers off the top of my head Jared Taylor , Aarvoll. Probably not purposefully omitting actual ethno-nationalists from the list but either way, do a little more research. Other than that, good overview.
@@NovemXI correct. Its always funny seeing people trying to "own" them by pointing out their contradictions. The whole point of being a groyper is reveling in your ability to contradict yourself as often and as quickly as possible
Would be interested in doing so, but I, as of now, do net feel qualified to do so since I do not follow the left enough to get to know them. But one day I will do it.
@@ARM1NIUSno, the left definitely has factions. You would not have them turning on each other to the extent that they do unless they had multiple groups contending for power.
Your analysis is spot-on. As a gen-z ConLib i noticed that supporting conservative liberalism is very rare among young people. It's dominated by a majority of progressives while the zoomer right is mainly populists who are isolationist and somewhat sceptical of capitalism, so this could be the future of the right. We see this with Vivek Ramaswamy, the AfD and National Rally. You are also correct to point out that ethno-nationalism is on the rise.
Tell me about it. I'm right in-between the Gen Z and Millennial generations, and I find it impossible to find people in my social groups who are also conservative liberal.
I used to try really hard to see the right as this complex group with some very diferent ideologies. But now i watch Candace Owens say Hitler didnt do that much wrong every second clip. And i start to wonder if the populist right isnt the christian conservatives i knew as a kid, but more like post modern neo nazis that are just not energetic enough to be violent
A big part of the online right are literal fascists disguising themselves as neocons. Sadly there's probably a lot more people that aren't opposed to it and they have no problem hearing a "libertarian" say we need to jail people for porn.
Disagree with the placing of Cadence Owens. She is quite radical when critiquing a certain clique. She is DEFINITELY not in the same row with Dave Rubin. I would place Shapiro and James Lindsey there. Maybe Tim Pool and Joe Rogan.
My view has always been that the right and left work in tandem- the left is so successful I don’t believe that things will stop trending that way in the broad view of history- and so it is the right’s job to keep this continued march in check. Anyway great video, I’m assuming you’ve got opinions on Red Scare
Small point of feedback is that having the labels on the axis throughout the vid would've been helpful but overall the video was great so this is just a nitpick (:
It would, but the issue is that what happens politically in the US will spread to the rest of the west. Right wing populism, Feminism, Political correctness, migration, the Sexual Revolution; you name it.
Andrew Anglin; the Voldemort of political discussion. On the one hand, no analysis of the right wing is complete without him, but on the other, the mere mention of his name evokes the specter of cancellation.
Id say that traditionalism is where I am closest to, I am very religious and Christian but at the same time I find that the ideas of BAP and others in that field aren’t conflicting with my faith at all, I also support a monarchy and as for liberalism? Complete rejection in favor of an absolute state that can ensure the only freedom that actually matters.
Sounds like you’re sort of a medievalist. Would recommend “The Germanization of Medieval Christianity” by James Russel, for understand warrior ethos of the medieval Christian Aristocracy. Also, “Dream of the Rood” old Anglo Saxon poem.
I agree somewhat. I don't much like Nietzsche very much, but if there was somehow a way to combine Nietzsche and Christianity together, I think that would be fairly successful. Because Nietzsche fundamentally misunderstands Christianity (he believed that Christianity was nihilistic, which... misses the whole point of Christianity lol), his opinion is imperfect but if someone could somehow perfect his opinion, then it would be a great boon to the religious right.
@@coopergates9680 the Holy Roman empire had good. Things and bad things. You can't say it was all bad. And what's so special about society today that it doesn't allow theocracy?
I’m kinda new to this paradigm and I don’t know where I would fall on this category. I identify as a Monarchist, a Distributist, an Orthodox Christian and a traditionalist, I prefer to take intellectual methods and pursuits but I am not opposed to utilizing revolutionary methods. Where would this fall on the map? Also what videos and circles would you recommend?
I disagree with you on many, many policy and philosophy related questions, but this was undoubtedly a very well made, and a fair assessment of the online right. Good job.
I absolutly agree with your idea that we need to provide a stronger vision for the future than the woke left or the status quo will only get worse. We must sell the vision of building community, holding morals and rejecting the pervasiveness of technology. For a healthier and more free existence. Our utopia Simply put: Community, Virtue, Health
Fair and useful map, and excellent video production. My one complaint would be where you place NJF, I see him more in the intersection of ethno and trad. He is (very) funny, but he does have genuine, discernable beliefs, and so he doesn't fit into post-irony.
Groypers being populist is just not the truth as a former one. They just appear as populist but they are far more elitist. Only thing I don’t agree with.
I don’t think groypers understand what elitism actually is. Maybe read Nietzche or Evola. I have never heard Groypers or Fuentes say anything even slightly interesting. Lowest common denominator type shit.
@ I watched nicks stream from 2019 to 2021, he is definitely extremely elitist. The problem is that his movement is so unserious that loops back around to looking populist. If I made this list groypers probably wouldn’t be on here.
I agree with you up to a point (BTW this was super well spoken and produced. I actually liked it!) I watched this out of an interest and a "know your enemy type vibe" as i had no idea you yourself identified on this map. If you're willing to tolerate my presence (I'm a trans marxist leninist) can i ask you a question? I agree with you we are at the precipice of something great. The system or status-quo as it were can't sustain itself. You say this is an oppurtunity to convince the masses of the merits of rightwing ideas. But when faced with modern day problems such as government overreach, cost of living etc etc. Isn't it more likely we will see a dictatorship of the proletariat rise instead of shift further rightwing when society has been so far right for so long? Not trying to attack just interested.
No worries, constructive debate is always good and if not productive at least interesting. I have argued with communists enough time so that I have had time to think about this question and I think that our misunderstanding comes from labels. Curtis Yarvin and said in one of his essays that the right wing is nothing in itself, but it's just the opposite of the left wing. And even though I don't like this definition if you want to see my definitions I made an essay about it here (th-cam.com/video/sJ_EpJEOw6k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9IMAj5s8DpE-sutv), but I do believe that you are operating, as most Communists are, under the definition that anything that is not headed towards socialism is inherently counter-revolutionary and therefore right wing. This would put liberals, Hippies, feudalists, capitalists, and nationalists into the same camp. But I think that this Frame is far too constrained and that although the world is definitely not socialist as of now, that there are many other dimensions to politics than the revolution versus everything else. I think it can be best compared to how many Christians tend to reduce all conflicts as a battle of Christianity versus Satan. (From my point of view the world is very much not right wing, and I'd be glad to talk about that if you are interested, but it's beside the point.) I think that it is very that many countries will seek the solutions to our modern problems in socialism, but I am firmly convinced that the biggest problems of our age are not Material but cultural. In my opinion the biggest factor for the coming crisis is the problem of low birth rates. (Would recommend Kaiserbauch for a more in depth explanation) The issue with this problem is that it can be seen in all sorts of systems all the way from Social Democratic Sweden, to the US to Cuba. I believe that this problem is everywhere and in almost all systems because it is fundamentally a philosophical problem; in my opinion, the majority of people feel without a purpose as a result of the collapse in religion and as a result most of them turn to short-term hedonism. And I do believe that this is the core of the reason many people feel lost and end up not having kids. Maybe socialism will be able to help this problem, but I believe that it is way beyond historical materialism. Anyhow thanks for the comment.
Thank you for being open-minded and inquisitive, we need way more of that along the divide. I'd say we're seeing the rise of both right now. The dictatorship of the proletariat imo is the rising tide of leftists who mostly identify with collectivism, voting and shaping our society into something more closely resembling what the Bolsheviks and others wrote about. The rise of right-wing backlash is actually part and parcel with this, as conservatism was mostly dying out up until very recently. It lost its hold when the moral majority of the 80s and early 90s were pushed out and Christianity was rejected in the public sphere for the most part. The problem many conservatives have with Marxist, leftist etc ideas, isn't the actual "idea" of them per se, it's whether or not that idea will play out successfully. Those on the left tend to believe in a blank slate, Rousseau, utopia being achievable by man on earth, etc. The right tends to believe that man is inherently flawed and has a bad nature that has to be guarded against and accounted for, and that nature cannot be rooted out by man himself, since man himself is the problem. Leftists tend to see this as a sort of giving up on man and the world, not wanting to try, and a clinging to outdated superstitious views of man's place in the cosmos and God etc. In contrast, those on the right tend to work this intrinsic sin nature into their plans as a sort of necessary evil that must be taken into account and factored in realistically. Conservatives also see the dismal failure of historical Marxist projects as evidence of how much worse things can get when you move forward in denial of this intrinsic nature in man. Changing the society without will not change this nature, at least not in my opinion, and not for most on the right. I also see a dictatorship of the proletariat as completely unrealistic in practical terms. The reason, in my opinion, that there's always some dictator strongman that ruins these attempts is because it's reacting to a sort of metaphysical law of power filling a vacuum, as well as a manifestation of sin being wilfully ignored and not taken into account.
I’ll echo the author here The future collapse is going to be birth rates. Collapsing birth rates will mean collapsing civilizations with massive demographic shifts creating power vacuums that will cause similarly massive conflicts. Secular materialism has done a pretty good job at destroying any drive to raise families. Which can be seen to be growing more and more across the globe. Public policy attempts to reverse this has failed; governments giving benefits, support, or straight up money to new families has had negligible impacts on the birth rates in countries. Likewise, it isn’t a question of not having money or financial security; aside from government programs, birth rates are lower the more wealthy a group is, not the other way around. Only real successful indicators in groups are when people distance themselves from technology and are religious. I don’t see how a dictatorship of the proletariat is going to confront the crisis. Communists can righteously list the crimes of capitalism and liberalism, but their promise is to have even more consumer goods, embrace even more technology, and free us from religion to secularism/atheism even more. Things that would only worsen the problem.
You accuse society of being too "right" while the right accuses it of being too "left". The reality is that society is capitalist (right for leftists) and also extremely "woke" or progressive (left for the right). When the collapse comes, people I think will naturally oppose both of those and end up with a right wing economic populist viewpoint, which is currently being shared by trads and ethnats among other rw populists. Any Marxist, communist, etc type ideology is doomed unless you can distance yourself from the current cultural plague that so many find repulsive. It's not your economic ideas at fault. It's your cultural ones. The radical lgbtqia is repulsing the gays. The radical feminism is repulsing women. The critical race theory is repulsing whites. Is it any surprise that someone like Bernie sanders or Andrew yang was popular (being economic populists who didn't focus on cultural issues) while kamala Harris was deeply unpopular (when she was a capitalist who focused on woke stuff)? The fact that "femboy nazis" like myself exist demonstrates an utter failure of communists to actually successfully win people over to your cultural ideology. Your core potential recruits, left wing populists, are all fleeing to the right. Hell, even people like cenk from Tyt is coming to the right. Look into why leftists like Jimmy Dore, tulsi gabbard, rfk, are reaching over the aisle and agreeing with the right and you'll spot the issue in your ideology and movement. The right is quickly learning how to accommodate and include demographics it previously alienated. Once that's successfully complete in rebranding, communism will die unless it similarly rebrands its cultural views.
Because BAP is the most influential Nietzschean today and "Nietzscheans" is too long to put in the quadrant. I know that its not super accurate, but it is what it is.
Anyone with a real political philosophy isn't going to fit on this map at all. This is a map of politicians, entertainers and influencers who, by and large, don't actually believe what they say. Paul Joseph Watson is a great example. He literally worked for Alex Jones. But once he left, he no longer fits on the map anywhere.
Where do I sign for the Avant-garde Right? (No irony)
I would love to make an actual group or even online association when my channel has enough reach. But feel free to call yourself that.
@@courtssenseI’d sign up if you made a group like that. This is an excellent channel and I hope it blows up soon.
Also I have started to incorporate the inverted red triangle as the symbol for the Avant-garde Right (AGR).
Feel free to aslo incorporate it if you wish.
I would sign up as well :)
i went through the whole video to realize i'm none of them. i consider myself just a rational normie. but at the last moment, boom, apparently i'm avant garde.
The right is much more spread out ideologically. Because on the one hand we have Dave Rubin who is a basically a homosexual who thinks Biden is stupid, then the other hand we have nick Fuentes who is a homosexual who thinks Biden is playing 4-d chess
And neither of them are right wing
Atleast one homosexual admits that homosexuality is wrong
Fuentes is not a homosexual nice astroturfed slander
@@JohnPaulWalker846 there's video evidence of him and destiny that says to the contrary. Im just saying you dont let another man do that to you if youre not just a bit homosexual
@JohnPaulWalker846 why you defending him so vehemently? U got a lil crush?
The nrx friend enemy distinction is probably better described as "the good and currently disempowed elites" who would benefit from a more efficient meritocracy, similiar to a company VS "the bad, current elite" who are in power by disintegrating and taking advantage of an incomplete meritocracy
Correct.
Yarvin describes it as "High elves vs Dark Elves" on Gray Mirror
@@indiefansexplode Yup. Ive read most of his major writings and theres alot of repetition so you really dont need to read them all.
@@indiefansexplode It's interesting that Yarvin calls populists "Hobbits" and considers 1930's Italy and Germany "Hobbits." I'm sure there is no ethnic interest in doing that.
To buy into that you have to believe in merittocracy and the NRx is very aware of the reality of how the powerful favour their own groups. If you believe in meritocracy, you haven't properly embraced the NRx yet.
Thanks for the shoutout!
Thanks for the comment, I've been a long-time fan.
This video explains why i stopped watching you lol
@@courtssenseWhat if autist
@@NTJVwhy?
@@NTJVwhy?
Very juicy!
Some problems:
-Libertarians, Nietzscheans, and Ethnonats are too broad of categories. These are ideas that can exist all over the political spectrum. I understand that you're referring to specific spheres, but there really should be better names for these categories. This is especially a problem for Ethnonats, which is a broad enough category that all the issues you raised (abortion, how to win, sexuality) have no consensus in that group. Likewise, there are very populist Ethnonats (Rockwell), very elitist Ethnonats (Dr Pierce), somwhat moderate Ethnonats (Richard Spencer) and very radical Ethnonats (James Mason)
-Most Nietzscheans are not Bapists, and I dislike the fact that you used them interchangeably on the map. As somebody who somewhat falls into that category, BAP and his lackeys are absolute clowns. BAPists are a clique, not an ideology
-Ethnonats and Groypers generally hate each other
-You place too much emphasis on capturing the elite. Yes, doing so is very important. But the dichotomy between being purely focused on the elite and purely focused on the population-at-large is a false one. A good movement should have both broad appeal and intellectual rigor, as the two play off of each other and strengthen each other
-Most Ethnonats are not purely Ethnonats, most have some other ideology to go along with it. Franco's government was highly traditional, the reason the "intellectuals started wearing jeans" was because Spain was isolated and didn't have the infrastructure to match the rest of the world's (read: mainly America's) cultural output
Good video though
Also get a telegram, I want to talk about this without having to worry about TH-cam's all seeing eye watching over me
BAP mentioned!
Thanks for the insightful comment.
To your first point, you are totally right, I did have to simplify to bring it under an hour.
I know that Bap is not the only nietzschean, but I could not really recall other influential online Nietzscheans (other than Uberboyo).
As for the elites, I agree that a movement needs an intellectual wing and a popular wing, but the elite wing is the one that matters most, the curture moves and the crowds follow.
I did not really know that the groypers and the ethnats had beef though.
And if you want to contact me, do so in twitter since I don't really have telegram.
I’m really sorry man but it is all internet cliques, there is no movement. The sooner you understand this the better off you will be on a personal level. It’s entertainment, it should be fun.
@@courtssense Do not worry about having your content be less than an hour! The greater the length, the greater the quality.
Can you point to any other online right faction which fully aligns with and promotes nietzschean thought other than the bap twittersphere?
If not then I think the terminology used in the video is appropriate, despite your distaste for the individual in question, since the author intends to map the actual existing online right and not the ideologies themselves.
I’m a Catholic convert who used to be a libertarian atheist. It’s quite an experience when you start to see the world through a different lens.
Agreed I’m Orthodox and was libertarian atheist too. It really helps understand the problems more effectively.
As a young traditionalist, I agree that religion is on the decline and that it's a post-modern movement rather than a pre-modern one. I think that was a fair assessment. I will say that I will stand by my beliefs and encourage others, and I think what keeps us alive is that we have faith that God is in control. We think Christianity will never die out, even if it seems that way to agnostics and atheists.
All religions will fie out and new ones will naturally take its place. It's inevitable. The only religion who haven't face sick a thing is Hinduism and few others. Bit even so there has been many changes till then
Amen brother
Traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox populations who actually follow their church's teachings as well as quiverful Baptists, Mormons, and the Amish whose high birthrates far outpass the rate of apostasy will be fine. The others not so much, expect mainline Protestantism and Anglicanism to collapse completely outside of the third world.
How can you be a post modernist while believing in the truth of a particular religion?
@@TheLincolnrailsplitt I think he means post-modern as in "rejects modernity" not as the philosophical school.
What I like about the right-wing of the internet is how honest it can be with itself, because we are not concerned with maintaining power. As seen in this comment section and my comment, constructive criticism is all around to hone each person's ideology. But without an actual way to put it into practice, we will remain football fans shouting about how they would've done things better than the coach of their team.
That's where I am a little black pilled like Dutton in how we are witnessing the decline both in the quality of culture and what is within our biology. That's also why I think it is futile in trying to capture the established intelligencia. Their quality has suffered significantly over the past century and it is easier to be left-wing, if you are trying to get status despite not being capable to earn it.
But I am not hopeless. Being right-wing is a natural part of being a man IMO. You don't have to read Nietzsche to know, that he touched something true within our nature. It is a sausage party here, but that's not really a bad thing. The younger generations are turning more "conservative" among the men. Yes, this is a bit of a cope, but an eventual change will happen and then it stands the test of history, if a right-wing ideology will be able to meet its demands.
Jesus was not right wing and he was more of a man than you will ever be. But regardless of my personal beliefs, manhood is not defined by either religion or politics and I don't pretend that manliness has any political affiliation. I'm disappointed in how many of my peers as Gen Z men have fallen victim to this propaganda. The culture war was specifically designed to divide and conquer, we should all stop giving a shit about that crap and get a life.
How on Earth is content like this and channels like The Distributist only in the tens of thousands range
That is the choice; quality vs quantity.
I don't think that I can name many popular channels that still hold their quality high.
Can you?
On the online political right? Not really which is a shame given how dissident right content isn't just far more informative than the stuff that rakes in millions but just as (or more) entertaining.@@courtssense
.............uhhhh probably because not that many people hold the same views as this bozo. lmao "whaaat?! why is everyone racist?1" uhhhhhhhhh cause
I think it's because we're at the bottom of the rabbit hole right now and the code did its job and found the good stuff.
For every interest, there's an ocean of super high quality videos on channels with 500 subs. There's just a lot more middling stuff too.
It seems like TH-cam has been getting better at recommending high-quality smaller channels.
@@courtssenseMaybe, but Dave the Distributist, the Prudentialist, and you, managed to reach me, aaaaaaall the way across the ocean, and I'm having a blast reading and listening to like-minded people who are nowhere to be found here, in Belgium. Thanks a lot!
Great video man!
can make a video about southern europe its demographic catastrophe
it is the demografik man
Hello funny demo man
Can you please make a demographic analysis of my country (Philippines)
Curtis Yarvin said it properly, "You must be the opposite of what the enemy expects you to be".
Curtis Yarvin was gay
@@Mrgaming34241 exactly
@@ninja8flash742 Lmao
what if I expect you to be strong so that you make yourself weak?
Not the “opposite”, just leave the frame completely. You entirely missed the message
Note:
Neo-reactionary,
Nietzchian and Traditionalist are a deadly combo
It's a contradictory combo
Sounds like national socialism to me (historically not a stable combination at all)
@@Marijnium hard to be sure when theres only been one example
I'd consider myself between trad and neoreactionary. I have this sort of weird relationship with the Nietzchians were I'll engage in their conversations but I'm also a bit aloof since its running a different morality code than mine.
@@johnswain4992stop talking
No one is a pacifist on the right . Non-interventionism is not the same thing
I think bronze-ageists is a good term for the Nitzscheans. To include the neopagans.
32:40 I think we can confidently say that trads are going for the long game approach, believing that once progressives stop breeding then the trads will just naturally win the numbers game since they breed.
In this they somewhat share their strategy of distancing themselves from mainstream institutions like the popcons, libertarians and frogists(joneist) who also believe in either secluding themselves or creating parallel institutions.
The perversion is too important to drop
By the time progressives have stopped breeding the US will be full of people from Nicaragua and Europe will be full of people from North Africa
I'm in that bottom right unlabeled area and you're definitely right about the trads. They're focused on ensuring reproduction and playing the numbers game, along with making traditionalism high aesthetic. Which leans into the ethno nationalism, intellectual stuff, as well as the populism. I think this is a winning combo as it definitely won me over. It's ironic that the video criticizes the libcons for wanting to return to the 90s, when the trad view is quite literally just "Retvrn" and somehow still appealing. I think where they struggle though is that the trad stance can be kinda radical in that some demographics feel it's incompatible with their existence. Such as rw lgbt people, or those of different religious views.
@@Otome_chan311
" I think this is a winning combo as it definitely won me over."
It won me over so it will win, isnt a meritorical argument.
Ethnonat isnt liked by the average normie, and openly ethnonat organisations can be penalised by the existing state institutions.
Without larger appeal you cant change society at large, wihtout organisations you cant direct the sentiment into action.
Also ethnonat has the same issue you pointed out with trads "some demographics feel it's incompatible with their existence".
@@stanisawzokiewski3308 yes I tend to be more radical than the general public. I think in practice people will end up taking a more "mainstream" stance than me. Ultimately I think most will end up being won over by some mix of trad aesthetic and economic populism with a liberal foundation. Whatever you'd like to call that. In my comment I wasn't trying to make an argument, but rather just expressed my own experience. I frequently find myself being someone ahead of the curve on things, and that goes for politics as well. I make a more detailed analysis in another comment but honestly it's just about trends. The reality is that theres two ways to "win". Either you just hope for greater reproduction, or you convince people. When it comes to convincing, the people making the move right are people like myself. Ex left populists with utopian ideals burned by modern society. We led people to the left and now we're leading people to the right.
I believe that Fuentes and the Groypers lean more upwards toward elitism. He believes that real institutional change will most likely occur with a small yet intellectual and powerful group of people. In other words, real change is shepherded within a top-down paradigm.
Also Fuentes aspires for the U.S. to become a catholic monarchy, which makes his movement by definition lean towards elitism.
This guy admitted that he doesn’t know what they actually believe so he really made himself look uninformed
well, they try to find a balance in that they disavow wignats etc but still do mainly recruit from shock and a wide net. but yeah it is clear that this guy is analysing it on a very surface level due to being too offput by the "shock" while going quite in-depth for the section which he aligns himself, the actual objectives of the groypers are a bit more nuanced (evident by that he wasn't able to grasp it without watching nick fuentes' show) than the ethno nationalists so they probably should have been swapped around. though he is right that the post-irony humor makes it hard to grasp just from observation of activities on twitter etc, but since he specifically characterized it by nick fuentes himself he probably could have easily looked into his show or something.
@@violenttfashion Maybe the guy is Jewish?
America First (Groypers) combine ethno nationalism and Christian nationalism. The alt right was ethno nationalist and Nieztschean, which was off-putting to the majority Christian Republican Party.
Groypers seem very much misunderstood. Nick embodies a certain elitism, coupled with ambivalence toward the "common folk." He employs populism as a rhetorical tool to amass followers and propagate his ideology. If you watch his show - you'd see that he expresses the necessity for the nationalist and Catholic right to cultivate a higher echelon of support - big-money donors, high-IQ intellectuals, engineers, et al. The whole movement actually operates within a multi-faceted ecosystem: the common, impressionable, and obsequious adherents who amplify his rhetoric; the politically active cohort engaged in covert infiltration of mainstream organizations like TPUSA and College Republicans; and the higher strata of society, with whom Fuentes seeks to curry favor behind the scenes to secure alignment with his vision.
Much better description than what was in the video.
Someone who is pro trad cath theocracy but anti Catholic immigration seems to be sending mixed signals
@@SubOptimalUsername race and ethnicity is still important
Anyone who's anyone has to run damage control for weeks just for meeting him in person. Guy really fucked his own plan up.
@@SubOptimalUsername he isn’t against catholic migration, but all migration
This video popped up in my feed (I have no idea how), and lets just say as generally left leaning person (social democrat-ish) who is a member of a certain demographic that I feel like everyone on the map probably wants gone from society (interestingly not touched on in the video at all), I found this video genuinely interesting and window to a certain perspective that I haven't really seen before, even if I disagree with some of the points made. Still watched the video to the end, and found it interesting learning about some groups I have never really had any experience with before.
Glad you could take some from the essay.
Exactly the same to me, this video showed me a window to a completely different way of ideology
Same here, though I tend to lean more centrist/liberal. I'd assumed this only popped up for me, because my views have a habit of confusing the algorithm. It is absolutely wild hearing someone call a guy like Alex Jones "moderate". Being in that minority as well, I tend to view someone's radicalism based on how much they'd like me to not exist the way I do, purely for pragmatic reasons. I especially find the style fascinating, as it is eerily reminiscent of the academic style typically adopted by Leftist theory, but follows an inverted sense of ethics. That's not something I often see, coming from The Right, which I appreciate that the video touches on.
Having watched to the end I presume your... demographic... was not mentioned primarily because the author fancies himself an intellectual and deems that particular flavor of hatred to be slop for the populist masses to keep them entertained. Not that far from the truth I suppose, though he and I would disagree as to the utility of said slop.
you mean a woman?
the power of the intellectual is almost entirely because of the power of the United States, in other words, those who control America control the world, at best your alternative to this is eurasian multipolarity. The examples you gave of people like Franco and Salazar are not examples of the indomitable power of the intellectuals, but of the US exerting influence across the world
You are correct, but I still believe that even in a multipolar world the political class will hold power, If you are interested look at my essay "The kantian difference between Nobles and Peasants".
Also American culture is the theme of my next essay.
I'd put myself around where you put Sargon on this chart. Might not be a coincidence, given that I've watched him on and off since 2016.
I wouldn’t consider the Trads militaristic. They are more non interventionist and prefer to fix the problems at home more than anything else. John Doyle has said quite a few times that a lot of wars we fought were not really our problem and he is very opposed to war hawk type conservatives. I would consider myself somewhere around that area of the map. Great Video man.
I expected this video was gonna be the most annoying leftist video essay I've ever seen in my life lmao.
I think you are wrong about religion being on the decline. In the past it has declined significantly and always rebounded. There will be another great awakening within the next few decades that will create a large amount of religious fervor.
Religion is declining (except Islam) = observable fact.
There will be another great awakening in the next few decades = belief.
Not only that, but it’s a belief about the future, which is also clearly what you would like to happen.
@@jsea56 I don't think a great awakening would be particularly good for established religion. Sure, people would go back to it, but the bulk of great awakenings contributed to new religious movements and not established religion. New churches and the like were established, and those churches had the most fervor.
This is not a belief, it's an observable fact based off centuries of cultural and historical understanding. Religion being on the decline doesn't mean it can't or won't rebound. All evidence shown by the past is that periods of non-belief and religious fervor occur every few decades.
I'm sure deists in the 18th century would have loved to say religion was on the decline, they probably did. But it wasn't. It's ignorant to say society has moved beyond religion, because that never will be the case. The atheists today are the most feverous Christians tomorrow.
I think you can split the trads into two subgroups, those who want to withdraw from the world and those who see potential converts from the agnostics and atheists. A lot of the trads being former agnostics and atheists certainly gives them an edge. They aren't your grandma's believers who grew up in their faith they can provide a defense for it in a lot of ways and can convince others of it's merits at the very least. The latter group of trads have essentially convinced most of the intellectual conservatives of the merits of belief, and have converted more than a few. Maybe not a new great awakening, but the Catholics especially have shown throughout history they only need a handful of saintly folks to get mass conversions.
"I think you are wrong about religion being on the decline because it will rebound".
????
That makes no sense mate. For something to rebound, it must have declined or be declining.
cope
Issue with putting /pol/ in the gropyers is that most of /pol/ hates him. Though I would say they're similar in their heavy use of irony and racism.
Plus Nick is extremely elitist. All he wants to do is replace the Jewish elite with a Catholic elite that share similar views to him.
@@EKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKthe elitism in this vid refers to how informative vs entertaining the content is. I don't think Nick spends all stream going over stats and theory.
@StrykerSips if it is ranked like that, then that’s a horrible way to determine elitism vs populism.
@StrykerSipsyou don’t have to talk about stats and theory to be elitist, most of what he talks about 95% of the country wouldn’t get
True. /pol/ already doesn't like him because of his Mexican heritage. It doesn't matter how white he is; he already lost with that alone.
Really, they have a very split opinion with Hispanics and Latinos anyway. Some think they're no better than the rest. Others feel like they're "le hecking based" because of the 2024 election stats.
Either way, the white nationalist movement has been attracting many Hispanics and Latinos for the last couple of years. They range from looking practically white (like Fuentes), slightly swarthy/tanned (kind of like meds) or really light skinned middle easterns. I really don't know how this phenomenon will play out. Most white nationalists wouldn't even let Asians off the hook, so I don't see how this new trend is gonna benefit anyone.
I understand your aversion to the Ethnonationalists. As a German, I would say they can indeed be very dangerous to themselves and others. However, it is undeniable that ethnic identities are amongst the strongest identities out there and the left has been exploiting that fact to its fullest extent for a long time. In America, 80-90% of Blacks and a strong majority of Browns vote left. In Europe, the left is busy importing as many Arabs and Africans as possible to replicate American circumstances. Saying "ethnic struggle is really distasteful so we should just ignore it" plays right into the hands of the left. They will never abandon ethnic struggle as an electoral strategy out of its perceived tastelessness. If America still had 1980 demographics Trump would win the same landslide victories Reagan won back in the day.
Unless we make explicitely clear that the ethnic composition of a country is important, we are gonna at best end up like South Africa or perhaps even Rhodesia. The beginnings of that development can already be seen in the Banlieus of Paris and Marseilles, Rosengard, Rinkeby, Marxloh etc.
The only alternative to ethnic composition control that I see is just a turn away from liberal democracy to suppress the topic of race for both the left and the right a la Singapore. This is only possible though with heavy censorship of the press and academia, possibly an end to democracy altogether.
Firstly I appreciate the comment, And I do agree with the larger point that ethnic identities are very important. As I send the video I am a nationalist for my respective country and I think that is one of the most powerful forces out there when it comes to politics, but my main critique is that just being really patriotic by itself will not be able to give a lasting Victory to the right wing.
Without a doubt it will be a very important component, but I think that it must form around a larger philosophical and ideological project Beyond mere tribalism.
And you do raise a point that I did not really talk about in the essay which is that this topic is generally distasteful. I think that one can talk about ethnic issues without making a big mess out of it, but the problem with a lot of people on the online right is that their hobby is to talk about race and ethnicity in the most inflammatory language possible to get a big reaction. I think that is quite counterproductive and will bury the more important conversations around group identities.
@@courtssense fair
"The left has been exploiting that fact"
At no point do Conservatives ever listen to Leftists. Ever. Just ignore everything we say and put your own words in our mouths.
Or you're just showing how little you know by calling Liberals Leftists. That's incorrect.
@@WillyShankspeare It doesn't matter what you people say, we can observe with our own eyes *what you do.*
Since your elites are in power, they don't need to be consistent or honest.
You can cope or lie however much you like, the fact is *you are anti-White* and pro-non-White. Explicitly even. In America, Europe, everywhere.
the problem with the historical arguments framing Ethnonationalists as "N*zis" is, that from ca. Napoleon up to WW 2 virtually everyone was an Ethnonationalist in the sense that is denigrated today, i.e. almost all the people who fought against N*zis and also the ones who fought the "old empires" (Austrian, Ottomans) or the colonial powers (incl. today's Lefties favorites like Kurds) were ethnonationalists.
To frame anyone who is not modern globalhomo as ethnonationalist and thus almost NS and bad is a bit like 1980s US Libcons mixing up Swedish social democracy with Soviet style socialims as "socialism".
6:31 i mean alex jones have been right a lot of times so maybe we need to lower our ego and discern within the insanity what is actually useful
I wouldn't say that intellectuals dislike (ethno-)nationalists, since there are the Dugin types. It's just populist intellectuals that do.
Get whatifalthist out of here. Replace him with zoomerhistorian. Rudyard is a joke, no one takes him seriously
Agree. He’s knowledgeable and has a very unique presentation style but he’s quite literally still a child.
The best video I've seen in a long time. Good work
I appreciate it.
Jews v non-Jews
Because most issues we face today didn't exist since the times of ancient greece and are not inherent to human nature.
Candace Owen’s is gonna need some updating lmao
Didn’t realize this video was 9 months old until she was mentioned lmao
yep lol
What happened? I am clearly out of the loop
@Anton43218she’s been calling out the Jews very loudly since being ousted by The Daily Wire. Also heavily into conspiracies. Would not lump her in with Dave Rubin, she’s definitely considered fairly “radical” these days.
I could peg where exactly you'd put yourself based on how you characterized everyone else. Not good
Something I like about the modern right is that at times it seems to know more about leftist theory than leftists themselfs.
One example is cultural marxism and just cultural subversion in general. A lot of leftists completely miss the shift that took place in their theory about how to achieve their goals. Nobody is advocating to hang your boss anymore because they already tried that and (outside of Russia) failed, the material conditions of the working class grew way too much for revolutionary ideals to win. The solution is the long march through the institutions and destroying traditional culture.
Every time I see a lefty speaking of cultural marxism they think it's just cultural bolshevism because they read the wiki article.
How is the rightist idea of social enforced monogamy not sexual marxism?
leftists have always been liberals
@@skylinefeverwtf are you talking about
"The long march through the institutions and destroying traditional culture"? Do you by chance mean the critical theory propaganda and gender ideology? Because that didn't work and there is not a lot of other things that fit the definition. Did the left organize something other than confusion?
cultural marxism doesnt exist
I love this channel more and more everyday. You're more correct on the issues than anyone I have seen and this breakdown of the online right was perfect. I agree with your solutions here too. I find myself in the middle of NeoReactionaries, Right Wing Historians, Populist Conservatives and Traditionalists. While I fit best into the latter (hence my name), I have major influence from all these groups. I also have minor influence from all the others minus the corners (BAPists, Libertarians and Groypers). So I guess I am quite the centrist even though for mainstream people I am extreme
Great vid. Accurate n super informatibe. It seems ive slipped from a traditional liberal to a conlib and my descent into conservatism finally skidded to a stop in the "libertarian populist" zone, half a step shy of jonesist..... And im ok w that
Mentioning Whatifalthist as a "historian" gave me a good chuckle.
His did
To be fair none of the examples CS provided can be described as historians but while Call me Ezekiel and Mounsier engage with historical theory with their own subjective lens and are honest about it, Whatifalthist is just pure propaganda
Yeah, I generally don't consider alternate histories (alt history hub and whatifalthist included) as historians. They are here to provide entertainment.
You mean you don’t like poor man’s Dan Carlin?
@@Grason20 pop history and edutainment
I don’t think your critique on eth.Nat. is fair.
1. Looking at history it was captivating also for intellectuals
2. Since WW2 there is a extreme propaganda campaign against it, but it still exists.
3. Ignoring genetics and Biology is the main reason for the downfall of the west and the pol. right.
4. It’s the answer to a single certain question. You could easily be at the same time NRx and ethNat, or trad and ethNat, or Nietzsche and ethNat.
I believe the solution could be overcoming the PSYOP neuroticism towards biology and genetics since it’s a fundamental part of reality and orienting the right again on the ground of this reality.
Your comment definitely made me sit and think a bit, so thanks for that. Here is the ensuing ramble:
When will you look at nationalism that has actually captivated the Intelligentsia I think that we are looking at two specific cases that I can think about. The intelligence is since the enlightenment has firmly been on the side of liberalism, but I think that the two points in history where they did support nationalism was in the case of Bonapartism and German romanticism.
Maybe there are more examples, but nothing else comes to mind, in the case of Bonapartism I believe that it received so much intellectual love because Napoleon represented the synthesis of the intellectually popular ideas of the French Revolution with French nationalism.
But I believe that this intellectual support was more the result of the ideas of the French Revolution and not a French nationalism itself especially since French intellectuals have being disinterested in nationalism ever since, instead preferring socialism.
In the case of German (and Italian!) nationalism, I believe that the intellectual Drive was a result of a larger drive towards unification, and they think that we can observe that German nationalism became less intellectually popular once that Germany was United since we can also see that after German unification there are less Wagners and more Brechts.
Without a doubt there have been other movements with intellectual support, such as national socialism but in this case it was a minority of the intelligentsia.
As for the idea that color blindness is the reason of the problems that we face as a society right now; I am not too sure of that, since I think that it is a symptom not a cause.
The fundamental problem with immigration is not immigration, it's that people have not been having children for 50 years. Perhaps this could have been ameliorated with a stronger national identity, but there are more than enough nationalistic countries that also are terribly infertile.
Finally I do agree with you and I think that you have a good point when it comes that we have to address the questions of genetics, but I think that we must be very careful with it, because it is a very explosive topic and certainly World War II did not make it better. So far I think that Edward Dutton is one of the people who have done most in this endeavour.
Better understandings of genetics and biology, and the inherent instability that system of ethnic/racial discrimination bring about in educated populations are the reasons that the reasons eugenicist conceptions are out of favor, they are wrong and the societies that structure themselves on it are worse off for it
@@truelocomax2804
1. Learn grammar
2. Stop being low IQ
@@courtssense
You seam to have a point of view and understanding of history that is very much effected by US American liberalism.
1. My point is more about ethnic centrisms and less about nationalism.
We still live in the age of nation-states so there is no alternative to nationalism so the discussion is pointless.
2. I don’t think your point against NatSoc is correct since very large parts of German, French, Italian etc. even parts of British intelligentsia supported or arranged themselves with the Axis.
It’s only after the lost war that US and Soviet narratives proclaimed the intellectuals to be anti-germanic.
3. The main problem on immigration is immigration itself. Not having not enough children leads to economic recession. Uncontrolled immigration without enough children leads to extinction. The Japanese can without immigration easily survive as fewer people for some generation without an end to existing as Japanese. Germany with immigration is going extinct.
4. The topic is explosive because it is the lie that works as the fundament for the entire woke/left narrative. They can not keep existing with this lie questioned.
@@courtssense "As for the idea that color blindness is the reason of the problems that we face as a society right now; I am not too sure of that, since I think that it is a symptom not a cause."
The entire cause for leftism rests on the fantasy that HBD does not exist and hence all inequities are caused by discrimination. This topic is like "The Origin of Species" for the meta-religion of liberalism. Ignorance of it is a cornerstone that brings the whole woke ideology to fall, once it is mended. It is therefore naturally opposed with the most resistance.
The biggest reason why rightists are such failures, is that this isn't hammered home at every point of every debate against leftists. It is also the distinction (in my view at least) between the genuine right, and people belonging to Conservative Inc (most of your map's left hand side), which is just controlled opposition and doesn't want to conserve anything.
In few words, we need more cold headed and smart intellectuals like Yarvin or Mike Anton and less crazy edgy influencers like Fuentes or Alex Jones (without disbanding all the populist energy).
Yeah, sort of. For the populist side people like crowder do a good enough job.
But the real risk, in my opinion, is that the right falls into an edgy circle jerk that will doom the movement to /pol/ instead of becoming an actual counterculture.
check out The Prudentialist.
Perhaps the Yarvin crowd could be called the cathedral smashers.
@@courtssense Totally disagree. Crowder does nothing really. Crowder can be seen as bread and games. A Fuentes is much smaller but more effectve in getting things changed. The last years shows infiltration and pushing talking points does have an impact. - Now you said yourself you don't know what Groypers stand for, which is far as there are so many layers of irony. And I myself don't particularly like them, but I do see their effectivness.
Anton literally worked for blackrock lmao
I really can't understand one thing in all of this. I'm Greek and in my language nation means έθνος(ethnos). So a nation-state is automatically an "ethno-state" in my mind. In other words Greece is the state of the Greeks , France is for the french etc. My question is what is the difference between ethnonationalism and nationalism and the difference between a nation state and an ethno-state you American people keep talking abou
Well it would mean that a multi ethnic state like us would either balkanize and collapse or it would lead to the deaths and/or deportation of tens of millions. Not to mention who we consider the "people" of the nation. I'm truly sorry American ideas are infecting the world and might lead to a fall of nations. We truly frame everything in a WW2 mindset much how people in WW1 framed it in a Napoleonic mindset, even if it's far past what it true
propositional nation moment...
@@fritzkuhne2055 don't know what this means so can you explain it for me please? There's been some time since I've posted this comment and I still don't get it
In American English, "nation" usually just means the same thing as "state", and "nationstate" is kind of an annoying reduplication as far as I can tell. America has no unified ethnic identity but is a nation due to having a singular government whose propaganda proclaims some kind of common identity for everyone born in its borders. So to support America, the geographic location and government and everyone living in it, is to be a nationalist without the ethno. But to support a particular ethnicity within America, and to proclaim them as the "true" Americans who ought to control the government to the exclusion of all other groups, would be to be an ethno-nationalist. Does that make sense?
@@thegreatdream8427 well said. The TLDR: propositional nations like the US are based on an idea, not an ethnicity. Which is very much not based
I hope people from the movement watch this like Distributist or Sargon. It deserves to be, dare I say it, mainstreamed.
You perfectly explained, why the left vs right debate is way oversimplified.
Wow. This was great. I would love to see a video about the online Left. Especially by someone who understands Socialism as an economic mode, rather than as just the left.
Aristotle offers a simple matrix for regimes: government by the one, the few, or the many with good/bad versions of each (monarchy/aristocracy/republic vs. tyranny/oligarchy/democracy). In this video, the populist v. elitist axis corresponds to Aristotle's many/few/one distinction. However, the video's mainstream v. radical axis does not correspond neatly to Aristotle's good v. bad distinction. The video's distinction is neutral not normative. Moreover, Aristotle was describing regimes (government types); this video describes something else (factions? viewpoints?). This video's model might be generalizable to cover leftist (or centrist) viewpoints but for that purpose the axis labels (especially the X axis) might need to change. If the zero-point on the X axis is the mainstream, and if are we becoming more "radical" as we move either right OR left, then what feature/dimension distinguishes left-radical from right-radical?
There are many days I hate being on the right, because I realize I have to share it with idiots.
Would the more intelligent leftists feel the same?
How smug and elitist of you. No wonder working class populism rules the roost. Who in the world would want to follow nobs.
r/iamverysmart
It is my understanding that sometimes the window to the other side of politics is sometimes simply a mirror that I refuse to believe.
I agree.
Richard Hannia can be best described as "confused"
You misspelled ''grifter''.
or "controlled op"
all of the above
or bvilt for ♠
He’s just an engagement baiter
My placement is same as you. 🙏 Excellent video
I am not so negative over the future of the right. This is a pendulum and it is swinging back. In the 1970's many if not most universities were outright Marxist. That has all but disappeared. I would say that generally universities are still kind of left-leaning, but they are far from radical anymore. Communism in general is all but dead. Left wing parties are in decline in many places. In Israel, in the past there was the Labour Party (Shimon Peres) and Likud was the right wing party and they were typically of roughly the same size. Now the Labour Party has completely collapsed and there are many parties to the right of Likud. Likud has become de facto the most left-wing mainstream party and that is not because the have become left-wing, but because the country has become a lot more right-wing. Netanyahu is not more left wing than Ariel Sharon, on the contrary I would say. And this is just a rather extreme example. In many countries in Europe we see the same kind of pattern. In the US, not so long ago it was predicted that the Republican Party would become irrelevant, now the Democrats are in existential crisis.
Morality is getting more conservative too. In my youth there was quite a bit of explicit nakedness on open channel TV. That has completely disappeared, and not because of legislation but simply because it doesn't sell anymore. Also, women sunbathing topless was pretty common. You simply don't see that anymore.
There is also a lot of backlash against wokeness in Hollywood. There is the Snowwhite fiasco at Disney and that is just one example. I believe we have already seen peak-woke. Of course it will go on for a while on pure momentum, but the driving force is already disappearing.
You can't expect miracles. Abortion won't get forbidden in a week. The Catholic Church won't get all Tridentine overnight. It takes time for the mentality of people to swing the other way but I do believe it is happening right now.
Very good informative and comprehensive video. Congratulations! I recently started writing myself because I wanted to both polish the skill but also gain clarity on what I actually believe. Ironically the topic that first came to mind was increased political divisiveness both within and outside of the left/right dichotomy. Exploring the right (and left for that matter) more closely ties very well into that string of thought. I also agree that quality control is quite necessary. Though as with many things one has to balance such efforts. In particular it's important to offer guidance and feedback otherwise spheres run the risk of becoming too isolated, partly iconoclastic and ultimately become less likely in attracting others.
Fascinating walkthrough of your theory. I don't agree with all of your personal viewpoints or exactly how everything is mapped out, but there is a lot of merit to your overall structure. Definitely going to watch more of your content. Subbed!
Correction: Steve Sailer is not an Ethno-Nationalist he is a Civic-Nationalists. He recognizes the biological differences between groups and wants to prioritize the wellbeing of the citizens curently living within the country.
very interesting but i think you totally misplaced Candace Owens (she's a borderline trad imho)
?
@@lubormrazek5545 Oh she is borderline alright.
This comment aged pretty well
What I love about this video… is I’m currently doing research on digital safety, I can only reference government and academic sources and it is so obvious that they WANT to understand the online dissidents; but Literally can’t, even with videos like this outright explaining it.
Outstanding video dude. This is the first I have seen of you and this is off the park. I used to lie among the Nrx and Bapists as well as I used to read a lot of Yarvin in like 2017-2018 and read BAP in late 2018. But my true calling is probably something away from this quadrant as I am really passionate about Ecology and Conservation hence I side more with Ted's side (although his ideas on how to get things implemented were pretty dumb and also my views on him have changed over time). Really good video though, I would add that I am surprised that we didnt see a rise of eco-fascism among the online right whatsoever which is where I would say I align with. Great video though subbed and cannot wait to see where you go!
I appreciate it, and I'm not going to lie to you, I also have a little bit of a soft spot in my heart for Good Old Uncle Ted despite the obvious problems in his work I think that he diagnosed many real issues.
The unlabelled space between BAPist, NRx, Trads, and EthNats, is essentially Medieval Europe (or my idea of it at least). Now despite being a bit of an ideological schizophrenic, I would personally characterise that area as the one I'm most sympathetic too. I also think that it's possible to make it appealing to intellectuals since it sees the actual practical implementation of many modern values (such as decentralisation, diversity, inclusivity, etc).
We have, of course, already "done" the medieval period, and a straight up return would be infeasible. But it's certainly an inspiring period to study. It even satisfies utopian ideals if you can rehabilitate popular christianity!
Whoa, keen take
Medieval Europe with today's technology would be glorious
Also wouldn't what you're describing be feudalism.
@StrykerSips Neo-Medievalism, not quite Feudalism. I highly recommend the channel Pilgrims Pass! I think either his Cyberpunk or Star Trek vs Dune vids talk about this concept.
Paleo as opposed to Neo Reactionaries. The Old Right, in a pre/anti-enlightenment sense.
It's kinda funny that both left and right say that they're "completely ineffective"
Yes, because leftists, due to their victim philosophy, are incapable of recognising that they're the ones in power.
@@noasterr1151 Interesting
The far left and the far right. The Center left has most of the power and the Center right is becoming more like the center left to gain power
@@TheRealZeke2003 the center left is constantly adopting the policies of the center right, are you blind? Kamala harris run with like bush policies.
My main issue with this is the assertion that ethnonationalism - being intrinsically oppositional and therefore immiscible with the Intelligencia.
Your primary criticism is Francois Spain eventually falling, there are a variety of factors beyond just “contrarian attitudes of the intelligencia” or “inability to appeal to the aspirational youth”.
Clearly things do not happen in a vacuum. Foreign cultural influence subverted Franco’s Spain and weakened its ability to set up sustainable procession of power/ cultural dominance.
Additionally it entirely disregards all valid theory and philosophy tied to ethnonationalism - saying that it is powerless without being tied to another ideology.
This is patently false.
The criticism of the online behavior of Ethnonationalists driving many good people away may be true, but the same could be said for the communists, the neoconservative right-liberals, the neoreactionaries, and the like.
In our time of tribalism, thanks to the internet, will certainly build things like ethno-nationalism. However, I think that it's existence in the conservative movement is miniscule and I believe that when time comes thno-nats will amalgamate for the sake of conservatism. As conservatives, I want to see u win too because so much of what I want u kinda want too in your own way. I'm okay with that
“Quality control” is just another term for “optics” - we’ve had the optics debate for decades, particularly in the last 10 years.
You cannot become presentable to people who wish to degrade, humiliate and eradicate you, so the “quality control” debate is meaningless.
The Right has been losing for over a century, because Liberalism had infected the spirit of a people, when something this catastrophic occurs it can only be changed when the people who hold these nightmarish ideas are extinguished, which is precisely what Liberalism is, an ideology of slow moving degradation and extermination.
Nothing the great HP Lovecraft has written about cults, other worldly, or incomprehensible elder Gods, can rival Liberalism.
Its a propaganda war and the right isn't willing to lie and manipulate as much as the left. Simple as.
Doesn't matter how presentable we become, theres still going to be the massive polarisation because its easy to call people racist and make hating people you view as racist or fascist a hobby and virtue.
Its 100% a propaganda war. My dads pretty wrapped up in the TM current bad man media narrative crap. He watches videos about trump every single day, even in the bath for like 2 hours.
Before the crazy media storm that ramped up in 2020 he was nothing like he is now. Brainwashed.
Its exactly like the 5 minutes of hate in 1984.
Hes talking about ideologically capturing the intelligentsia which is near impossible because they benefit from the status quo and are far removed from the peasantry.
The trads best chance of reversing anti-religious trends is that the religious tend to outbreed the non-religious, especially when the economic incentives are for smaller families or even no children.
Yes, and also being as hard as a rock on what they stand for
The thing is that libertarians have intersections with all parts of your map besides maybe the bottom right quadrant. For example I'm an ancap (to be understood as a legal and organizational theory) who's shrugged off the equalitarian assumption in favor of hereditarianism and am quite comfortable with (natural) hierarchy. I do prize beauty, competency, strength, and masculinity, being of the belief that they are being trounced in the modern age, but that doesn't preclude my ability to appreciate some of the genuine beauty we have at our disposal (Across The Spiderverse, Beach House, prog rock, animated math, some gay relationships since I'm gay, WhatIfAltHist, CallMeEzekiel, etc.). But that's not to say everyone needs to get along. Diversity truly is beautiful, but melting pots just water down the genuinely cool customs that various cultures have in favor of the urban monoculture that Malcolm/Simone Collins discuss. Ultimately, I favor a more disjointed society harmonized by markets/trade, impressive elites within each group, and a tolerance to outsiders paired with an expectation that visitors will respect your customs.
Also lots of libertarians are pro-life and very against sexual revolution (like myself). I'm not saying I agee with the video, but to make a map we can't build it 1:1 scale, cause then it would be useless.
Most ancaps are evictionists
@@DavidLopez-dd1hx Most libertarians are not ancaps
Across the spider verse
@@francoparnetti I see it as people knowing that a government can't make the sexual revolution disappear.
31:17 Abortion is a pretty big debate amongst libertarians from my experience. Murder violates the NAP lol. So it's a debate between Libertarians that consider fetuses humans and those that don't. Human rights is the main driving point behind libertarian ideals. If it's a human, it has its right to life; if not, the mother has a right to pursue happiness.
18:14
I wouldn't be sure about that, between the rise of home churches and Islam and the fact only the faithful these days seem to be having children at or above replacement rate, I'd say the non-theists don't have much time left before Europe and North America see repeats of the Battle of Tours and Siege of Vienna.
The masses have no real power.
I would broadly agree, but such a trend would probably take much longer to metastasize.
Stupid. The left much like homosexuals recruit from their enemies's offspring. Nothing is guaranteed
Problem is that Groypers are way more elitist and they are a Catholic movement
Great video. Very interesting but I disagree re Franco, who was a success because he prevented Spain from being subjected to Stalinism. What happened in Spain after his death (becoming a democracy, and not reverting to leftwing totalitarianism) shows how much the political context had stabilised because of him.
Plenty of other rightwing dictatorships (in Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, Argentina, Chile etc also became democracies after the - internal - Communist threat had receded).
Great video! but I think you should fill the void between nietzsche's followers and the traditionalists with the radical traditionalists; the followers of Julius Evola and Rene Guenon, including followers of other authors like Spengler and Junguer.
They have a small but dedicated circle, who often influence other right-wing camps online, especially in memes and esoteric ideas.
Anyway, congratulations on the work, it has the potential to become one of the best right-wing channels online.
On this map, ironically, I see myself as a centrist ^^
Centrism is hell.
Komm mal zu den Kaffeehausrunden :)
i relate
One thing though in the mainstream elitist corner (Hanaia’s zone) idk what exactly to call it but there’s growing organization of upper-middle to upper class liberal technocrats who’ve lost faith in democratic & free-market institutions and have drifted towards an authoritarian developmentalist model like Singapore but with “Western characteristics”. It’s pretty small and disorganized still, but given a lot of the people in that camp tend to have ties to academia, finance & policy wait 10-20 years and they could potentially be punching above their weight class.
Usually don’t watch rightist content but interesting video nonetheless.
So it's basically 'Singapore but gay'
I would call that upper left faction "neoliberal technocrats", maybe. Much of top bureaucracy and CEOs believe in that. So they have much power, that is just invisible to us
How does this type of content not get more views? This is amazing content!
Would make for a pretty cool political compass quiz
Agree, but my programming skills are sadly lacking.
Please do a video like this but for the left wing. I am on the right, but I would like to see a mapped out version of this video/essay for the left.
Not a single ethnonationalist was mentioned lol. Keith woods doesn't even stand to make the cut (basically a groyper). You could have mentioned Robert Rundo (founder of AC), Thomas Rousseau (leader of Patriot Front in the US), Blair Cottrell (NSN), Jacob Hersant (NSN), Thomas Sewell (NSN), Justin Barrett (leader of the nationalist party of Ireland), 2 other honorable mentions/influencers off the top of my head Jared Taylor , Aarvoll. Probably not purposefully omitting actual ethno-nationalists from the list but either way, do a little more research. Other than that, good overview.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who has no idea what groypers actually believe.
they are political cosplayers who simply want to get as many people upset as possible.
didn’t get past the IQ gate award
Groypers believe whatever Nick tells them to believe, and Nick says whatever gets him the most views and inspires the most controversy.
They like groyping women
@@NovemXI correct. Its always funny seeing people trying to "own" them by pointing out their contradictions. The whole point of being a groyper is reveling in your ability to contradict yourself as often and as quickly as possible
What about Nick Land?
Nick Land views politics as humanist drivel.
Nrx.
Fascinating, will you be doing the same for the left?
Would be interested in doing so, but I, as of now, do net feel qualified to do so since I do not follow the left enough to get to know them.
But one day I will do it.
@@courtssense I see, well thanks for answering my question.
to be a leftist is to simply embrace whatever 'the current thing' is ....to question or opposite that instantly makes you right-wing
@@ARM1NIUS Leftists say the same thing about the right though too....
@@ARM1NIUSno, the left definitely has factions. You would not have them turning on each other to the extent that they do unless they had multiple groups contending for power.
Your analysis is spot-on. As a gen-z ConLib i noticed that supporting conservative liberalism is very rare among young people. It's dominated by a majority of progressives while the zoomer right is mainly populists who are isolationist and somewhat sceptical of capitalism, so this could be the future of the right. We see this with Vivek Ramaswamy, the AfD and National Rally. You are also correct to point out that ethno-nationalism is on the rise.
Tell me about it. I'm right in-between the Gen Z and Millennial generations, and I find it impossible to find people in my social groups who are also conservative liberal.
As a Gen z er im somewhere in between neo reactionary, traditionalism and ethno nationalism
I bet your iq is under 90.
I used to try really hard to see the right as this complex group with some very diferent ideologies. But now i watch Candace Owens say Hitler didnt do that much wrong every second clip. And i start to wonder if the populist right isnt the christian conservatives i knew as a kid, but more like post modern neo nazis that are just not energetic enough to be violent
A big part of the online right are literal fascists disguising themselves as neocons. Sadly there's probably a lot more people that aren't opposed to it and they have no problem hearing a "libertarian" say we need to jail people for porn.
@@МартинРупскиfacism is a distinct ideology it’s not simply using government power to enact right wing ideas. 🙄
This isn’t entirely up to date on individual figures, for example, Richard Spencer is no longer a WN.
Imagine saying WhatIfAltHist is “high quality content”.
Wouldn’t a distinction between Zionists (BAP, NRx) and anti-Zionists (“Groypers”/“WigNats”) be relevant here?
Disagree with the placing of Cadence Owens. She is quite radical when critiquing a certain clique. She is DEFINITELY not in the same row with Dave Rubin. I would place Shapiro and James Lindsey there. Maybe Tim Pool and Joe Rogan.
My view has always been that the right and left work in tandem- the left is so successful I don’t believe that things will stop trending that way in the broad view of history- and so it is the right’s job to keep this continued march in check. Anyway great video, I’m assuming you’ve got opinions on Red Scare
Small point of feedback is that having the labels on the axis throughout the vid would've been helpful but overall the video was great so this is just a nitpick (:
Id love a questionnaire to actually place on this graph, super informative thx man great vid
it would be great to watch the categorisation based on countries other than the US only.
It would, but the issue is that what happens politically in the US will spread to the rest of the west.
Right wing populism, Feminism, Political correctness, migration, the Sexual Revolution; you name it.
Andrew Anglin; the Voldemort of political discussion. On the one hand, no analysis of the right wing is complete without him, but on the other, the mere mention of his name evokes the specter of cancellation.
Id say that traditionalism is where I am closest to, I am very religious and Christian but at the same time I find that the ideas of BAP and others in that field aren’t conflicting with my faith at all, I also support a monarchy and as for liberalism? Complete rejection in favor of an absolute state that can ensure the only freedom that actually matters.
Sounds like you’re sort of a medievalist. Would recommend “The Germanization of Medieval Christianity” by James Russel, for understand warrior ethos of the medieval Christian Aristocracy. Also, “Dream of the Rood” old Anglo Saxon poem.
@ Will read and you’re right I do like Medievalism and Catholic distributism as well
I agree somewhat. I don't much like Nietzsche very much, but if there was somehow a way to combine Nietzsche and Christianity together, I think that would be fairly successful. Because Nietzsche fundamentally misunderstands Christianity (he believed that Christianity was nihilistic, which... misses the whole point of Christianity lol), his opinion is imperfect but if someone could somehow perfect his opinion, then it would be a great boon to the religious right.
Your conclusion is spot on!
There is no room for Atheism in Victory, period.
Christ is king ☦️☦️
Society usually falls if it has no moral fabric/objective standard.
There's no place in civilized society for theocracy, yet we miserably fail to realize that.
@@coopergates9680why not
@@coopergates9680 the Holy Roman empire had good. Things and bad things. You can't say it was all bad. And what's so special about society today that it doesn't allow theocracy?
I’m kinda new to this paradigm and I don’t know where I would fall on this category. I identify as a Monarchist, a Distributist, an Orthodox Christian and a traditionalist, I prefer to take intellectual methods and pursuits but I am not opposed to utilizing revolutionary methods. Where would this fall on the map? Also what videos and circles would you recommend?
I think a better option for right wing historians would be Apostolic Majesty and his sphere
AM is firmly in the NRx sphere. His work is the most historical and least political of them, but he's in there.
Yeah he is good, but I could only to pick a couple of channels.
Agreed. He is a stand out for his leave of detailed analysis.
I disagree with you on many, many policy and philosophy related questions, but this was undoubtedly a very well made, and a fair assessment of the online right. Good job.
I’m a Nietzschean, great video. All the channels you mentioned are my favorite channels 😂. But you missed my absolute favorite, the Ark.
Yeah that was my bad, he is real good.
I absolutly agree with your idea that we need to provide a stronger vision for the future than the woke left or the status quo will only get worse.
We must sell the vision of building community, holding morals and rejecting the pervasiveness of technology. For a healthier and more free existence. Our utopia
Simply put: Community, Virtue, Health
Candace Owens absolutely moved in the Jones direction.
Fair and useful map, and excellent video production. My one complaint would be where you place NJF, I see him more in the intersection of ethno and trad. He is (very) funny, but he does have genuine, discernable beliefs, and so he doesn't fit into post-irony.
Groypers being populist is just not the truth as a former one. They just appear as populist but they are far more elitist. Only thing I don’t agree with.
I don’t think groypers understand what elitism actually is. Maybe read Nietzche or Evola. I have never heard Groypers or Fuentes say anything even slightly interesting. Lowest common denominator type shit.
@ I watched nicks stream from 2019 to 2021, he is definitely extremely elitist. The problem is that his movement is so unserious that loops back around to looking populist. If I made this list groypers probably wouldn’t be on here.
Great video! Loved the humorous bites at the end!
My challenge: Name me one double standard groypers have on race in America.
Excellent analysis!
I agree with you up to a point (BTW this was super well spoken and produced. I actually liked it!) I watched this out of an interest and a "know your enemy type vibe" as i had no idea you yourself identified on this map. If you're willing to tolerate my presence (I'm a trans marxist leninist) can i ask you a question?
I agree with you we are at the precipice of something great. The system or status-quo as it were can't sustain itself. You say this is an oppurtunity to convince the masses of the merits of rightwing ideas. But when faced with modern day problems such as government overreach, cost of living etc etc. Isn't it more likely we will see a dictatorship of the proletariat rise instead of shift further rightwing when society has been so far right for so long?
Not trying to attack just interested.
No worries, constructive debate is always good and if not productive at least interesting.
I have argued with communists enough time so that I have had time to think about this question and I think that our misunderstanding comes from labels.
Curtis Yarvin and said in one of his essays that the right wing is nothing in itself, but it's just the opposite of the left wing. And even though I don't like this definition if you want to see my definitions I made an essay about it here (th-cam.com/video/sJ_EpJEOw6k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9IMAj5s8DpE-sutv), but I do believe that you are operating, as most Communists are, under the definition that anything that is not headed towards socialism is inherently counter-revolutionary and therefore right wing.
This would put liberals, Hippies, feudalists, capitalists, and nationalists into the same camp. But I think that this Frame is far too constrained and that although the world is definitely not socialist as of now, that there are many other dimensions to politics than the revolution versus everything else. I think it can be best compared to how many Christians tend to reduce all conflicts as a battle of Christianity versus Satan.
(From my point of view the world is very much not right wing, and I'd be glad to talk about that if you are interested, but it's beside the point.)
I think that it is very that many countries will seek the solutions to our modern problems in socialism, but I am firmly convinced that the biggest problems of our age are not Material but cultural. In my opinion the biggest factor for the coming crisis is the problem of low birth rates. (Would recommend Kaiserbauch for a more in depth explanation)
The issue with this problem is that it can be seen in all sorts of systems all the way from Social Democratic Sweden, to the US to Cuba.
I believe that this problem is everywhere and in almost all systems because it is fundamentally a philosophical problem; in my opinion, the majority of people feel without a purpose as a result of the collapse in religion and as a result most of them turn to short-term hedonism. And I do believe that this is the core of the reason many people feel lost and end up not having kids.
Maybe socialism will be able to help this problem, but I believe that it is way beyond historical materialism. Anyhow thanks for the comment.
Thank you for being open-minded and inquisitive, we need way more of that along the divide. I'd say we're seeing the rise of both right now. The dictatorship of the proletariat imo is the rising tide of leftists who mostly identify with collectivism, voting and shaping our society into something more closely resembling what the Bolsheviks and others wrote about. The rise of right-wing backlash is actually part and parcel with this, as conservatism was mostly dying out up until very recently. It lost its hold when the moral majority of the 80s and early 90s were pushed out and Christianity was rejected in the public sphere for the most part.
The problem many conservatives have with Marxist, leftist etc ideas, isn't the actual "idea" of them per se, it's whether or not that idea will play out successfully. Those on the left tend to believe in a blank slate, Rousseau, utopia being achievable by man on earth, etc. The right tends to believe that man is inherently flawed and has a bad nature that has to be guarded against and accounted for, and that nature cannot be rooted out by man himself, since man himself is the problem.
Leftists tend to see this as a sort of giving up on man and the world, not wanting to try, and a clinging to outdated superstitious views of man's place in the cosmos and God etc. In contrast, those on the right tend to work this intrinsic sin nature into their plans as a sort of necessary evil that must be taken into account and factored in realistically. Conservatives also see the dismal failure of historical Marxist projects as evidence of how much worse things can get when you move forward in denial of this intrinsic nature in man. Changing the society without will not change this nature, at least not in my opinion, and not for most on the right.
I also see a dictatorship of the proletariat as completely unrealistic in practical terms. The reason, in my opinion, that there's always some dictator strongman that ruins these attempts is because it's reacting to a sort of metaphysical law of power filling a vacuum, as well as a manifestation of sin being wilfully ignored and not taken into account.
I’ll echo the author here
The future collapse is going to be birth rates. Collapsing birth rates will mean collapsing civilizations with massive demographic shifts creating power vacuums that will cause similarly massive conflicts.
Secular materialism has done a pretty good job at destroying any drive to raise families. Which can be seen to be growing more and more across the globe. Public policy attempts to reverse this has failed; governments giving benefits, support, or straight up money to new families has had negligible impacts on the birth rates in countries. Likewise, it isn’t a question of not having money or financial security; aside from government programs, birth rates are lower the more wealthy a group is, not the other way around.
Only real successful indicators in groups are when people distance themselves from technology and are religious.
I don’t see how a dictatorship of the proletariat is going to confront the crisis. Communists can righteously list the crimes of capitalism and liberalism, but their promise is to have even more consumer goods, embrace even more technology, and free us from religion to secularism/atheism even more. Things that would only worsen the problem.
You accuse society of being too "right" while the right accuses it of being too "left". The reality is that society is capitalist (right for leftists) and also extremely "woke" or progressive (left for the right). When the collapse comes, people I think will naturally oppose both of those and end up with a right wing economic populist viewpoint, which is currently being shared by trads and ethnats among other rw populists.
Any Marxist, communist, etc type ideology is doomed unless you can distance yourself from the current cultural plague that so many find repulsive. It's not your economic ideas at fault. It's your cultural ones. The radical lgbtqia is repulsing the gays. The radical feminism is repulsing women. The critical race theory is repulsing whites.
Is it any surprise that someone like Bernie sanders or Andrew yang was popular (being economic populists who didn't focus on cultural issues) while kamala Harris was deeply unpopular (when she was a capitalist who focused on woke stuff)?
The fact that "femboy nazis" like myself exist demonstrates an utter failure of communists to actually successfully win people over to your cultural ideology. Your core potential recruits, left wing populists, are all fleeing to the right. Hell, even people like cenk from Tyt is coming to the right. Look into why leftists like Jimmy Dore, tulsi gabbard, rfk, are reaching over the aisle and agreeing with the right and you'll spot the issue in your ideology and movement.
The right is quickly learning how to accommodate and include demographics it previously alienated. Once that's successfully complete in rebranding, communism will die unless it similarly rebrands its cultural views.
Based on ur subscriptions u r 🧠
Definitely down to see you make a map of the Online Left, with the Mainstream/Radical axis flipped to show Far Left/Moderate Left visually.
This guy is obviously far right so anything he makes will be heavily biased
Why are Nietscheans called BAPists? Did I miss that?
Oh, Bronze Age Pervert.
Because BAP is the most influential Nietzschean today and "Nietzscheans" is too long to put in the quadrant.
I know that its not super accurate, but it is what it is.
@@courtssense Yup. Excellent video! Very thorough!
@@courtssense I think Bronze Age would be a good term since it would naturally include neopagans
I am interested on your thoughts of Hans Herman Hoppe in relation to this graph
Anyone with a real political philosophy isn't going to fit on this map at all. This is a map of politicians, entertainers and influencers who, by and large, don't actually believe what they say. Paul Joseph Watson is a great example. He literally worked for Alex Jones. But once he left, he no longer fits on the map anywhere.
Unless I misunderstood something, I fall into a Traditionalist Monarchist corner. Likely very small and ignored by everybody else on the Right.