The 25 Points of 3.0

Editor’s Note: This is a work in progress. The last version of this article was nothing more than a quick summary of my thinking about what a 3.0 movement should look like which I wrote in the context of like a dozen other posts that day. I will resume working on this in the morning.

White Nationalism 1.0

In my view, the 1.0 movement crystallized in the 1970s and 1980s which was in hindsight a Dark Age for people who are pro-White in the wake of the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement. We went from Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia in which pro-Whites had massive institutional power in the Southern states to a world in which racially conscious White people were branded “extremists” for clinging to their traditional views on race and culture and were cast out to the fringes of society. As a result, the 1.0 movement was very simple and its language was coarse and was based on only a few points.

Here is what we are salvaging from the 1.0 movement:

1.) Race Realism – The “mainstream” has been wrong about the existence of race since the mid-20th century. Racial differences in the human species are real and continue to exist and shape our society whether we like it or not in spite of decades of wishful thinking by progressives.

As the definition of “racism” has been expanded to simply noticing that race exists, the whole issue has been made toxic in public discourse. It has driven the debate underground where skeptics of racial equality have been hounded out of polite society and encouraged to radicalize. Just as Prohibition failed in the 1920s, we don’t think our current utopian racial crusade is working either.

If the definition of “racism” can be so easily inflated, we see no reason why it can’t similarly be deflated. In our view, “racism” is hatred or dislike of other races which is based on a spirit of pure malevolence. It is not the same thing as race realism, which is merely an acknowledgement of an uncomfortable set of facts, or social conservatism which is a natural sensibility for order, hierarchy and homogeneity.

2.) Jewish Privilege – Since the mid-20th century, it has been highly taboo in American society to acknowledge the reality of Jewish wealth, influence and power in our country. In our society, the surest ticket to being labeled a “hater” and marginalized to the fringe is criticizing Jews and questioning whether the current state of affairs is really in the best interest of our country.

This antiquated taboo has become the elephant in the room in the age of Donald Trump and MIGA. In the long run, it simply can no longer be sustained when Jewish donors like Sheldon Adelson are openly buying our foreign policy and making the United States the laughingstock of the world. We believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant and that Jews should no longer be put up on a pedestal where they are exempt from criticism. They should be open to criticism like any other group in our society.

3.) White Identity – We believe in the revolutionary principle that It Is Okay To Be White. There is nothing inherently wrong with White identity. It is healthy and normal to have a positive sense of identity. It is sick and abnormal to demonize White people and punish them for wanting to cultivate a sense of identity. As we hurtle toward White minority status, the current state of affairs is highly unsustainable. We believe it is in the best interests of everyone for this ban on White identity to be dismantled.

Alt-Right 2.0

In my view, the 2.0 movement crystallized in the 2000s and 2010s and is the result of the Boomers of the 1.0 movement mastering the internet to disseminate their message. They succeeded in reaching lots of highly intelligent, talented, alienated and disaffected Gen Xers and Millennials who came into the movement and began to change the nature of its discourse. These people are natives of the internet and gradually they have reshaped the movement in their own image in ways which are both good and bad. The changes made by the 2.0 movement, however, tend to be stylistic and tactical.

Here is what we are salvaging from the 2.0 movement:

4.) Humor – Arguably, the biggest difference between the 1.0 Boomer and the 2.0 Millennial is the sense of humor of the latter, which I find to be best reflected in the Murdoch Murdoch videos. Whereas William Pierce was the epitome of the deadly serious 1.0 Boomer revolutionary, Murdoch Murdoch illustrates the saucy tone of the 2.0 Millennial Alt-Right ironic troll, who honestly doesn’t take himself nearly as seriously and enjoys a good laugh from “triggering” the Left more than anything else.

I think this element of the 2.0 movement was vital to its relative success in reaching a broader audience on the internet. It went through an explosive period of growth in the wake of the cuckservative meme when it was skewering conservatives on social media during Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, the 2.0 movement convinced itself it needed to be serious and accommodate itself to Blompf era conservatism and the electoral success of the Republican Party, and when it did that it ceased to be funny and lost its punch and much of its online following.

The ability to laugh at both yourself and others is a great advantage. It is definitely something that a 3.0 movement needs to preserve and develop in a new way.

5.) Memes and Optics – In hindsight, the interest in meme warfare was an important hinge between the 1.0 Boomers and the 2.0 Millennials. Bob Whitaker’s White Genocide meme stimulated thinking about this subject and the legions of Millennials who are very talented in producing humorous digital art and propaganda has been one of the hallmarks of the 2.0 movement. We believe this is clearly something the 2.0 movement got right and was an advance and ought to continue.

As for the optics debate, we believe the optometrists of the Alt-Right 2.0 movement got it both right and wrong. They were right in the sense that aesthetics and presentation or “optics” is extremely important and that it is very easy to dismiss the message on the basis of the weirdness of the messenger. They were wrong in the sense that “optics” is not an effective strategy. In our view, having “good optics” or being presentable is justifiable on its own grounds, but that is no substitute for having a compelling and persuasive message. Combining good optics with an uncharismatic leader who has a vacuous and banal message is just boring as hell. Presentation by itself isn’t a compelling message.

A 3.0 movement will need high quality funny memes. It will need to present well, but it also needs a better vision, message and discourse than either the 1.0 or 2.0 movements.

6.) Infiltrating Politics – The 1.0 movement was always divided between the “mainstreamer” pole and the “vanguardist” pole on the question of infiltrating politics. It can be characterized as a debate between those who believe the system is incapable of being reformed and those who believe in blending in with conservatives and reforming the Republican Party to win at the ballot box.

As with so much else, the 2.0 movement never really broke out of this way of thinking. Even today, the internal debate within the 2.0 movement is the same “mainstreamers” vs. “vanguardists” debate that has been going on for the last three generations of White Nationalists. In the 2016 election though, the 2.0 movement went all in on backing Donald Trump and the level of White Nationalist engagement in that election cycle was highly unusual while being simultaneously impactful.

Even if Donald Trump turned out to be a total con artist who sold out to the donors, we can’t ignore the fact that two things happened as a result of the election. The 2.0 movement experienced a period of meteoric growth during his campaign. He also succeeded in changing the values and beliefs of the people who are the base of the Republican Party which will be his true legacy.

In my view, the 2016 election resolved this longstanding debate by revealing a third option: even if these election cycles end up changing nothing in Washington, they captivate the interest of the public and we should participate for the sake of growing our own movement and shaping the attitudes and beliefs of the public to make them ever more congenial to our values. This is highly achievable.

7.) Identitarianism – Insofar as the 2.0 movement developed a philosophical framework, it latched on to European identitarianism, which was inspired by the French New Right. This is obviously the result of the search for a philosophical justification for the positive sense of White identity which had originally been developed by the 1.0 movement as well as the need for a critique of liberalism.

While I am not nearly as familiar with this tradition as Greg Johnson, I agree that there is merit to identitarianism. Specifically, the French New Right is highly critical of liberalism and capitalism, and its metapolitical orientation is something that a 3.0 movement must preserve. As Saul Alinsky explained, the definition of a tactic is what you can do with what you have at your disposal.

We have a number of things in abundance: access to the internet, plenty of free time to think and write, the ability to explore ideas outside the institutional restraints of the “mainstream,” the ability to criticize and ridicule our opponents and legions of highly intelligent, talented and disaffected people who are searching for an alternative to the mainstream. We do not have millions of dollars. We do not have either the numbers or the weapons necessary to win an armed struggle.

The 2.0 movement produced identitarian organizations like Patriot Front and Identity Evropa. Unfortunately, I think the catch of this philosophy is that it has led us to a dead end in trying to align ourselves with the “White People’s Party” and conform our movement to mainstream conservatism. I think we all now realize these people are extremely old and will never change their ways. So, while a positive sense of identity is good, it is also true that identity politics can mislead us.

The 3.0 movement will need organizations. It will also need to think tanks to continue to develop the metapolitical struggle against the hegemony of liberalism.

8.) Health and Fitness – The 2.0 movement recognized that millions of White Americans are in bad physical shape due to living various unhealthy lifestyles. I think the Rise Above Movement was on to something here and continuing to develop this emphasis on physical fitness and rejecting drug abuse would be widely accepted as an improvement by almost everyone.

I believe the 3.0 movement should intensely focus on health and fitness because it is positive and cultivates a good mindset and habits that have countless applications elsewhere in life. In spite of what the FBI and DOJ believes, there is nothing objectionable in White people helping other White people to reject drug abuse and pornography and encouraging them to maintain a healthier diet, engage in regular physical exercise and avoid partaking in the sexual degeneracy of mainstream culture.

9.) Networking and Community Building – This sort of White-to-White self help developed by the 2.0 movement over its concern about health and fitness is exactly what we should be doing. I also believe that community service and relief during natural disasters is entirely positive and ought to be encouraged and developed. The League of the South’s relief effort after Hurricane Michael last October in Panama City remains the action of which I have the fondest memories.

Recently, I understand that the 2.0 movement has shifted its focus toward networking and community building, which is the logical next step away from being a purely online movement. I’m aware that this has encouraged the formation of families. I strongly support this effort because we desperately need to get away from poison, atomization and anonymity of the internet which I have long seen as a double edged sword. When you know someone personally in real life, you get a much better sense of that person’s character. It is much harder to survive as a fantasist, a shit stirrer or an agent provocateur in a face to face setting than under the cloak of anonymity on the internet.

In my assessment, these are the things which are either absolutely vital or worked in the 1.0 and 2.0 movements, and any successor to these movements ought to build on these nine points. This is what separating the wheat from the chaff looks like from my perspective.

Radical Centrism 3.0

In my view, the 2.0 movement collapsed underneath the weight of its own flawed paradigm, discourse, strategies and tactics in the aftermath of Charlottesville and has pretty much continued fracturing and losing cohesion down to the present day. The debacle at Michigan State and the immediate aftermath was the turning point for me personally when I realized that it wasn’t working and that fresh thinking was needed. It was at that point that I began to work on the 3.0 project:

“Ok, I’ve seen enough.

This is a send off post. I’m tired of this subject consuming my time and distracting me. Whether it is the lack of a sturdy ideological framework, the lack of cohesion, the total lack of solidarity, the optics spiraling, the hatred of women, the disrespect and whining about our elders, the unseemly snobbery, the inability to handle the slightest setback, the unwillingness to make sacrifices, the absence of traits like loyalty, the Trump personality cult, the dominance of aesthetics over morality, the intersection with weird internet subcultures which have nothing to do with nationalism (are traps gay?) or everything being a nihilistic joke, ironic bantz, troll or retarded meme, I’m sorry but this is going nowhere.” I’m going to tune out, clear my head, get back to work here and move on. See you around for Alt-Right 2.0 or whatever the hell comes after this incarnation of it. …”

It was a bit of a rant.

I was true to my word though. I dropped out of the movement and went back to the drawing board. Instead of relying on the paradigm, discourse, strategies and tactics of the 2.0 movement, which had obviously been tested and found to be flawed through experience, I figured why not analyze the problem and try to come up with a better solution? If I spend all my time analyzing every other aspect of the world, why not analyze why the 1.0 and 2.0 movements had failed to gain traction?

What comes after the 2.0 movement? How was it an improvement on the 1.0 movement? What about it worked? What about it failed? How should we move forward?

Here is our attempt to answer that question:

As for 3.0, I wanted to see five things that I thought the 2.0 movement lacked:

1.) A strong and serious philosophical foundation

2.) An economic platform

3.) A focused cultural critique

4.) A strong moral foundation

5.) A coherent political strategy

— EMPEROR ‘KINGFISH’ WHITEPILL (@CptBlackPill) May 25, 2019

My proposal for a 3.0 movement:

1.) Race realism
2.) JQ realism
3.) White identity

(Salvaged from 1.0)

— EMPEROR ‘KINGFISH’ WHITEPILL (@CptBlackPill) May 24, 2019

This is only a proposal.

It is calculated to stimulate thought about this issue. Obviously, whatever comes next will have to be a collaborative effort, but in light on the recent shooting sprees it is obvious a better vision is sorely needed. As things stand today, the implosion of the 2.0 movement is only getting worse.

In order to rationally proceed, we step outside ourselves and ask some key questions to objectively look at the situation: what were the desired ends of the 1.0 and 2.0 movements? What motivated the people who joined those movements? It is our belief that the motivation was the loss of racial, ethnic and cultural cohesion in the Occident and the end of both movements was restoring it. With the motivation and the goal in mind, we will try our best to improve on what has come before.

joking/not joking Engage!

10.) Historicism – In Tucklypuff’s book Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat To Liberty, we find the first missing piece of the puzzle:

“Here is a prehistory of what we call the alt-right today, which is probably better described as a 21st-century incarnation of what in the 19th century would have been called right-Hegelianism. …

Here we have a lineage of non-Marxist, non-leftist brand of rightist but still totalitarian thinking, developed in fanatical opposition to bourgeois freedom. …

At this point in history, all five pillars of fascist theory (historicist, nationalist, racist, protectionist, statist) were in place. …

With the Nazi forces defeated and the Nuremberg trials underscoring the point, the advance of fascist dogma in all of its brooding, racist, statist, and historicist timbres, came to a screeching halt. Suppression of the ideas therein began in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States, creating the impression that right-Hegelianism was a mere flash in the pan that had been permanently doused by state power. …

If you are feeling tempted toward the Alt-Right, look at your progenitors: do you like what you see? …”

Jeffrey Tucker is lolbertarian critic of the 2.0 movement.

I found some of his criticisms to be useful. I believe that Jeffrey Tucker is right that in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Civil Rights Movement that the 1.0 movement was plunged into a sort of intellectual dark age. There was a break in our tradition caused by the suppression as the triumphant liberalism of the mid-20th century attempted to erase the memory of its rivals.

If we look at the 2.0 movement, we can definitely say that it is nationalist, racist, protectionist and statist. Aside from this website though, could we describe any of the other 2.0 websites as historicist in nature? In our view, the 2.0 movement lacks the intellectual keystone of what Tucklypuff calls “fascist theory” (a pejorative mischaracterization) and this is due to the great forgetting that went on in the 1.0 years when George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party were going around crudely imitating Nazi Germany by dressing up in Nazi-style costumes. Willis Carto made an effort to carry the torch of Francis Parker Yockey in the 1.0 movement, but Yockey’s historicism pretty much died with him.

What is historicism?

“Historicism (also known as Historism) holds that there is an organic succession of developments, and that local conditions and peculiarities influence the results in a decisive way. It can be contrasted with Reductionism or Atomism, which both hold that all developments can be explained by fundamental principles on an ad hoc basis. Historicism recognizes the historical character of all human existence, but views history not as an integrated system but as a scene in which a diversity of human wills express themselves. It holds that all historical knowledge is relative to the standpoint of the historian.”

If historicism is true, then it follows that Tucklypuff is wrong.

Let’s suppose that Tucklypuff is right about a revival of Right-Hegelianism in 21st century America. It wouldn’t resemble Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy in key ways because local conditions and peculiarities are decisive. We live in a different time and place and historicism rejects universals. The organic culture of the United States would produce something else in its rejection of liberalism.

A great example of this is how different the 2.0 movement is from Nazi Germany in its approach to international conflict. It is humanitarian and isolationist in sentiment. It abhors war. Having been chastened by World War I, World War II and the Cold War, the modern day nationalists and populists are different in the sense that they want to cooperate and avoid devastating global and regional wars. It is American neoliberalism which wants to violently impose itself on foreign countries.

Occidental Dissent has always been a historicist website. Everything I write here has a sense of consciousness about the importance of place, time and perspective that is lacking in mainstream discourse. I believe that historicism is the strong and serious philosophical foundation that the 3.0 movement will sorely need and it colors everything that follows.

11.) Morality – As I have said in my debates with Joachim Hoch, I believe the 1.0 and 2.0 movements were fundamentally based on the first three points in this article – race realism, awareness and opposition to Jewish privilege and White identity. This is the glue that holds together both movements while the 2.0 movement made changes largely in style and tactics while in its most sophisticated versions adopted identitarianism from the French New Right and engaged in metapolitics.

It is striking to me that the 1.0 and 2.0 movements lacked a moral vision or prescription for society beyond the common sentiment that “Whites should survive.” While both movements were highly critical and resentful of the political correctness of the liberal mainstream, it seems to me that they largely skirted the issue of morality in much the same way as the lolbertarians.

There was no moral foundation to the 1.0 and 2.0 movements largely because both incarnations of the White Nationalist movement really weren’t that interested in diving into the subject. This is why the movement is all over the map in terms of religion and morality and the common assumption is simply that Jews have ruined our morality and that once they are gone we will all naturally revert to “traditionalism” although what exactly that entails is never spelled out anywhere. The White Nationalist position on morality is characterized more by absence than anything else.

As with lolbertarianism, it is this gaping void that has created the space for morally broken people to find their way into the 1.0 and 2.0 movements – the differences between the Christians and Satanists, for example, are muted, downplayed or ignored in the name of White survival. The guy who chortles about Helter Skelter on his YouTube livestreams is equally your White brother in the cause.

In my view, there are tons of these deracinated young people who are coming out of the “mainstream” and finding their way into the 2.0 movement, which isn’t to blame for their lack of moral education. These people are already very nihilistic when they join the cause. Afterwards, they are immersed in lots of online spaces where a sort of crude, violent and vulgar discourse prevails which exacerbates their worst tendencies and because the movement doesn’t even attempt to articulate a moral perspective it winds up burdened with loads of baggage when some of these people inevitably self destruct.

In fairness to the 1.0 and 2.0 movements, it is absolutely true that the existing organizations and lots of prominent individuals have clamped down tightly on “fedposting.” There really is an ongoing effort to drive away some of the worst people before they damage us. Above all else, it is also true that the fault of this lies with the “mainstream” where the prevailing attitude toward morality is do whatever you feel like aside from breaking the law and violating this laundry list of -isms and -phobias. The reason we are burdened with these morally broken people who self-destruct – a facet of a much larger problem in American society – is because the “mainstream” itself is morally bankrupt.

Seen from our historicist perspective at the top of Mount Olypmus, we can trace the course of the disease of deracination and deculturalization, which seems to have rapidly accelerated after World War II. While it is beyond the scope of this article to trace this entire process, the solution we recommend is simply reconnecting with the Western moral tradition which was jettisoned in the barbaric backlash of the mid-20th century – the Greco-Roman classics, Medieval Christian accounts of morality and tempering both with common sense and the best aspects of the Enlightenment.

We would like to educate these deracinated kids in their own Western heritage. They could be taught how to practice the virtue ethics of Aristotle in their own lives. They could return to the original sources, not to be confused with the garbage that exists today called “Judeo-Christianity,” and become good Catholics or good Protestants. They could find something of merit in the Enlightenment or Romantic traditions. Virtually anything would be an improvement over the cesspool of racial guilt, nihilism and political correctness we are cleaning up now which is labeled “progress” in our society.

I’ve personally mixed Lutheranism with Aristotleanism and Historicism in my own life. It seems to work for me. I am sure there are other solutions and mixtures which will work for other people. The important thing is to at least have an ethic and practicing it to become a better person and as a movement we can find easily find common ground on the biggest issues in the Western moral tradition.

Why not have regular Bible study groups like the Methodists? Why not have groups that cultivate Aristotle’s virtues? Why not have a Protestant Gang group? Why not have Catholic groups? Why not have book clubs that discuss Hegel, Herder, Nietzsche, Plato, etc? Why not create groups like RAM to cultivate a strenuous lifestyle? There are lots of things we could do to start applying ourselves to reverse the advanced state of cultural degeneration and deracination that we are living under today in the modern West and to start forming the character of a better breed of nationalist.

12.) Economics – Seen from the outside, the 1.0 and 2.0 movements mainly talk about three subjects ad nauseum in their discourse – race, Jews and White identity – which are of little interest to the vast majority of our people, and they also tend to do so in a tone that is hateful, coarse, directed toward other groups and which can be extremely irritating to highly educated people. It must strike the outsider with a reflexively low tolerance for that sort of thing as a very limited movement shifting between three gears which really has nothing much to say about the great issues in life.

As we have seen, the 1.0 and 2.0 movements are pretty much silent on one of the greatest questions of life – morality – which aims to answer how we ought to live and interact with others. It also lacks the philosophical foundation it needs to approach that question and others like it. The best answer that the 1.0 and 2.0 movements have come up with is something to the effect of “we don’t really care so long as it guarantees White survival.” The liberal answer to that question is do whatever you feel like so long as 1.) you don’t break the law or 2.) violate the rules of the political correctness. The 1.0 and 2.0 movements deeply resent the political correctness which is steadily wiping out their internet presence, but have failed to prosecute the case against it and articulate a viable alternative.

If the lack of a strong philosophical foundation and moral perspective was bad enough, the absence of any economic perspective and prescription is even more revealing – the 1.0 and 2.0 movements really aren’t interested in morality and economics, which are the subjects which dominate our politics, and cede the field to others to answer those questions. While the movement claims to be concerned with the welfare of White America, it isn’t interested in providing them with either moral guidance or solutions to their economic woes. It would rather just talk about race, Jews and White identity all day.

In attempting to answer this question, we apply the same historicist perspective that has shaped our view of Western cultural degeneration in order to answer the question of why there is so much economic distress in White America. The answer that have come up is that the German Historical School of Economics is superior to the Austrian School of Economics and the Chicago School of Economics because local conditions and peculiarities are again decisive in this area too.

Abstract economic models based on deductive reasoning fail because they are disconnected from reality. Every country in the world has an economy that is embedded in history. It has an economy that is embedded in a bewildering variety of environments. The biology of human populations is embedded in time and varies across continents. The state of science and technology also determines to a large extent the natures of different economies all over the world. All these factors and many others come together to produce the economy of any given place. They can’t be neatly separated and prescribed a universal abstract model that works equally well for peoples at all places at all times.

The economic model that we advocate which is grounded in historicism is developmental capitalism or “humane capitalism” which is tailored to local conditions.

13.) Centrism – The 2.0 movement called itself the Alt-Right because it defined itself against mainstream conservatism. It was always at odds with conservatives and libertarians because it was populist and nationalist. What does political reality look like in the United States?

You’ve probably seen this chart at least 50 times now. I’m a Left-Authoritarian voter whose values and orientation are social cohesion, economic fairness and authoritarianism:

Here are the facts:

• Right-Libertarians are 4 percent of the population.
• Right-Authoritarians are 23 percent of the population
• Left-Authoritarians are 29 percent of the population
• Left-Libertarians are 45 percent of the population

Left-Authoritarians are the center of the electorate. The partisan divide between the Democrats and Republicans runs through this quadrant and divides people who share the same values. The swing voters in the middle of the electorate are authoritarians who believe in economic fairness and social cohesion. There are more Left-Authoritarians alone in this country than the entire Right.

Who in the mainstream is the most liked and well respected figure in the 1.0 and 2.0 movements? It is unquestionably Tucker Carlson.

What are Tucker Carlson’s values?

He is an authoritarian, a social conservative and someone who believes in economic fairness. This is why he resonates with populist and nationalist voters who feel in between the conservatives and progressives. That’s because most people like us are radicalized moderates.

We’re not even on the Right. We’re in the Angry Center. The Angry Center resents the current system because the two-party system is generating ever more social liberty and economic liberty in every election cycle which as you can see above is the opposite of our values.

As Radical Centrists, what should we do? Should we conform to conservatism or should conservatism conform itself to us? There are more of us than them … well, not exactly. The 1.0 and 2.0 movements are comparatively tiny compared to the potential base it is unable to connect with for obvious reasons. Instead of trying to be something we are not, we should be ourselves and target the voters in our neck of the woods with a new paradigm and discourse based on our shared values.

Why have we been radicalized? There is no place for White identity in the middle of the electorate. There is no place for a discussion of such obvious White interests as ending the opioid and suicide epidemic in White America which is a modern day plague. Obesity is another modern day plague. Divorce and the collapse of the family is a plague. Nihilism is one of the biggest modern day plagues. We’re in the center and seeing the social and economic fabric of the country being ripped from both sides. We want something resembling social conservatism and developmental capitalism.

14.) Cultural Critique – The 1.0 and 2.0 movements lacked a focused cultural critique. Their message recognizes a variety of problems afflicting modern American society and scatters like a shotgun at a number of targets rather than using its collective weight to punch at one thing.

The target of the 3.0 movement should be the moral paradigm that is political correctness. The message should be that political correctness is a terrible operating system for our society. It is a cultural virus that divides and inflames the body politic. It pits groups against each other. It is wholly a negative, diabolical force in our society and it is propped up by disciplinary institutions like the SPLC and ADL, SJWs in academia, Antifa at the street level and Journofa in the media with their heretics list.

We should think of ourselves as reformers like, say, Martin Luther or John Calvin or Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuit Order. The problem is political correctness and our message is that we should get rid of it. We can replace it with the finest wines of Western civilization: the virtue ethics of Aristotle and classical Antiquity, the Christian faith which was once the bedrock of our common culture and the values of the Enlightenment such as free speech, tolerance and reason. We should contrast our moderation with the bigotry and fanaticism of the zealots who oppose our message of reform.

These people have mistaken politics for ethics. A common morality reconciles people of different points of view. It is positive as opposed to negative. It stimulates love instead of hatred. I think smart people are beginning to recognize that political correctness has poisoned our discourse. It has made countless issues toxic and nearly impossible for Americans to talk about anymore.

I shouldn’t have to tell you that Pittsburgh and New Zealand is what happens under our current absurd moral system. Catholicism was a better moral system even when it abused indulgences. Protestantism was a better moral system because it eliminated the middle man between the individual and God. Political correctness, however, simply damns the “sinner” to Purgatory in this world until he self detonates in a mass shooting because he sees no other way out of it.

15.) Universal Solutions – By a reasoning our way through our problems and toward our goals, we have arrived at some startling conclusions. We’re in the middle of the electorate, not the fringes. We want to dismantle the political correctness. We want an economy geared more to the working class and middle class. We want an authoritarian government that restores social cohesion. Finally, there are many more people than we realize who share our values and who are persuadable.

Brace yourselves for it: many of the people who share our values and who do not realize it are non-White, in particular, Asian-Americans. In fairness, we have not realized it either because we haven’t been able to see the composition of the 2016 electorate. Now that we are talking about morality and economics, we are talking issues that impact everyone in the country.

Everyone has to make a living and works for the dollar. Everyone needs a moral code to structure their lives. The current system isn’t working. Strangely enough, it is political correctness that is the particular moral code that damns whole groups of people, and it is Greco-Roman philosophy, Christianity and Enlightenment ethics which are universal and anyone can practice.

The inescapable conclusion is that whatever will work for us in those two areas will likely work for everyone. The same is true of health and fitness because the principles of exercise and nutrition basically work for everyone although it is differs by their genetics.

What if it isn’t only the Whites that have been deracinated and stripped of their culture? What if everyone is molded into consumers? What if we look at it a second time through a historicist lens and see how the collapse of work and family is creeping through the White working class?

16.) Post-Americanism – The 1.0 movement made peace with the idea that America was dead and was never coming back in the 1990s. The Trump era was an aberration. Donald Trump sold us on a nostalgic vision that he could take us back to the White America of the 1950s or even the Ronald Reagan era of the 1980s. Unfortunately, Blompf has only made matters worse.

We need to accept the fact that we are living in the 21st century. This means getting beyond nostalgia for a variety of dead regimes whether it is restoring the Confederacy or the Third Reich or 1950s America. It is impossible to resurrect the dead. We can only learn from history and apply its insights to the present and the future. That’s why we need to move beyond identity politics (which is being exploited by conservatism) and instead organize to become America’s largest tribe.

The GOP practices identity politics with political correctness. The White voters who sustain them in office are invisible to them:

WOW.

Joe Biden in 1972:

“I think the two-party system … is good for the South and good for the Negro, good for the black in the South”

This is the Democrat frontrunner—Referring to African-Americans as “the Negro”?

RT so the media can’t ignore!

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 30, 2019

Even if we are no longer dominant, White people are still the largest tribe in America. It is going to be in the interest of everyone that a big space be made in the “mainstream” for White identity and White interest group politics. The two parties should be competing over our support. We shouldn’t simply automatically vote Republican because the Boomers have done so.

I’m going to stay White, Southern and Christian. I am going to be a wild card though in elections. I could really swing either way given how worthless the Republican Party has become. If I could work with the old Trump on social issues, I can work with Yang on economics.

17.) Positive Accelerationism – Now that we have accommodated ourselves to reality and accepted the fact that we live in the United States in 2019 rather than in some other place we fled to after becoming alienated, we’re ready to work together to accomplish our political goals:

I call this the three birds with one stone strategy.

The easiest way to topple Conservatism, Inc. and shake things up would be to leave the Republican Party and join the Democratic Party. We can have a greater disruptive impact by going into the other political party, pulling it back toward the center of the electorate and by cancelling out the votes of all the bigots and fanatics in that party who are our enemies. It’s strange how voting for a better Democratic nominee sees less obvious to most people in the 1.0 and 2.0 movements than violent accelerationism. We don’t want the collapse of civilization so much as the current political alignment. In this way, we can collapse the mainstream Right with minimal effort while having a shot at collecting a $1,000 a month.

At the end of a day, the result of your politics is going to be either a blue dot or a red dot or no dot on a single day. The candidate who gets the most blue dots or red dots to win the electoral college becomes the president. Politics is a team sport and the goal is to assemble the greatest coalition of dots on your side. The race of the people behind the dots really doesn’t matter.

Is this a permanent solution? No, it is merely a temporary solution to the decadent state of the mainstream Right. It is the equivalent of using a plunger to remove Charlie Kirk.

18.) Vision of the Future – So far, we have salvaged the indispensable parts of the 1.0 and 2.0 movements, as well as what worked. We’ve figured out the end of where this is going and diagnosed what was lacking. This was a philosophical foundation (historicism), a moral perspective (the Western moral tradition), an economic prescription (developmental capitalism), a focused cultural critique (political correctness) and a political strategy (Radical Centrism and positive accelerationism).

We’ve built substantially on the 1.0 and 2.0 movements, but so far the end goal is still nowhere in sight, which is restoring a lost sense of racial, ethnic and cultural homogeneity. At best, we have figured out how to rid ourselves of the obstacle of Conservatism, Inc. while developing a more sophisticated and palatable message that can resonate with a broader audience. We’ve even gone out on the limb of realizing that what works for us could work for everyone and this has made us open to a universal solution.

The 1.0 and 2.0 movements have an apocalyptic vision of the future. Both movements assume that current trends continue. Whites are reduced to minority status in Europe and North America. Europeans are dispossessed in their own homelands and share the fate of White South Africans as a beleagured minority under democracy. It could all end in the RAHOWA. It is a dystopian vision of the future.

We now know this dark vision of the future is mistaken in at least one key way. It doesn’t account for the rise of artificial intelligence, automation, robotics and all the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It doesn’t take into account a constant in modern European history – technological change – and that we are on the cusp of the greatest economic transformation in world history. The actual future that is coming into view is one in which we will share the planet with … lots of robots.

This is going to change a number of things.

It seems increasingly unlikely that the future will be a continuation of existing trends because automation is about to abolish “cheap labor” on a global scale. In fact, it is about to eliminate around 30% of the workforce in the United States and China and more than even that in the developing world. We’re moving toward a future where machines will perform ever more of the work and generate ever more of the wealth while creating ever more leisure time for humans.

Andrew Yang’s proposal of $1,000 a month to abolish wage slavery is just a start. As history moves forward and robotics and artificial intelligence displace human workers, the wealth created by scientific and technological progress could be redistributed through a social dividend. The “floor” would then grow higher and higher from one generation to the next and it would enable people to pursue higher order goods like, say, living in a culturally and ethnically homogeneous tribal community.

As Universal Basic Income cranks up over time, people will naturally retribalize, kind of just chill and the social fabric will begin to heal as future generations focus more on cultural pursuits than on providing for their basic economic needs. It is a happy vision of world peace and progress. Andrew Yang is one of the few people who realizes that having more money and redistributing it more broadly will solve most social problems and reconcile countless previously “irreconcilable” -isms.

In a world of abundance as opposed to scarcity, which is the world that is rapidly approaching, there will be a peaceful path to a White ethnostate. It runs through simply redistributing wealth from machine slave laborers more equitably to human beings. Ironically, a world in which human beings coexist alongside artificial intelligence is one in which we will have to maintain human supremacy!

In such a world, it might be best for everyone to go ahead and admit the truth about racial differences, as they will begin to look quite small compared to the massive difference between human beings and artificial intelligence. In fact, it is not the bogeyman of “white supremacy” that we should be worried about but the very real possibility of the world of WALL-E.

19.) Conservation – After watching the WALL-E clip above, it occurs to me that we are already beginning to wrestle with this world of abundance. It is making us idle and obese. The typical Southerner already looks physically different from the Southerner of a century ago.

I think we should adopt conservation as a guiding principle in dealing with these world. By that I mean we ought to take greater care of the environment as well as our bodies, our souls and our culture. We can’t afford to continue with the present anything goes system. In a world in which you can just stuff your face with endless calories, the challenge is what is the right lifestyle among an infinity of choices.

20.) Non-Violent Persuasion – Some people objected to this point, but I think it flows naturally from the logic of the argument above. A tactic is what you can do with what you have at your disposal and some elements of the 1.0 and 2.0 movements have great deal of misplaced confidence in their firearms. This strategy is going to make even less sense in a world of robotic law enforcement officers and soldiers and drones. Humans will increasingly be removed to potentially dangerous situation.

We are nowhere even close to having the numbers to win a shooting war. This is also the strongest point of the defenses of our enemies because lashing out and killing people creates martyrs for multiculturalism which are then easily assimilated into the dominant narrative. Violent accelerationism strengthens that narrative. The people in charge of our countries are not in the least bit afraid of these people, but are delighted to use them as foils in their anti-White propaganda in order to hype up the threat posed by “White Nationalists” out of all proportion to reality.

Notice how the word “pacifism” hasn’t appeared anywhere in this article. Instead, I think reason and calm persuasion is the better tactic. I’m not advocating becoming the Amish. I think the use of violence is legitimate and lawful in cases of self-defense or in the case of just wars. No one has the sovereign right, however, to initiate violence as an individual. Such violence will be perceived as illegitimate and criminal and given the forces arrayed against us will weaken our relative position.

21.) Positive Energy – The negative mood and tone of the 1.0 and 2.0 movements is repulsive and drives away our target audience. In fact, the negative mood of the entire country is problematic. Even if we manage to win elections, nothing changes because of the negativity. I believe one of the things that has to change is that we need a more positive outlook and tone because endless negativity doesn’t attract the sort of people we need or provide us with the solutions to accomplish our goals.

22.) Depolarization – If we are in the middle of the electorate, then increasingly the polarization between the Right and Left will only make things worse. The result will be even more social liberty and economic freedom and an all around more lolbertarian society. Instead of doing that, we should be doing the opposite to try to reconstruct the Center around us to accomplish our goals of tightening up the social fabric while reducing extreme concentrations of wealth and power.

23.) Humanitarianism – In my view, it is the current political correctness which made led to the situation where it is taken for granted that whiteness and humanity are inherently opposed. In the course of my historical research, I was struck by how men like Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson were race realists, but also considered themselves friends of humanity. It occurred to me that a 3.0 movement ought to revive that tradition and temper its race realism with a recognition of our common humanity.

24.) Destructive Criticism – From a strategic and tactical standpoint, I would recommend that a 3.0 movement adopt destructive criticism as opposed to, say, “optics” or violent accelerationism as its primary approach to the “mainstream.” Instead of doing that, I would study what worked in the Reformation and the Enlightenment which was simply a relentless critique and mockery of the intellectual foundations of the dominant social order. Luther and Voltaire had the right approach.

25.) Innovation – This brings us to our last point.

Insofar as a 3.0 movement should encounter any obstacles in its way, it should respond to them by simply innovating new solutions to those problem rather than lashing out or never bothering to learn from our mistakes. I don’t pretend this is the perfect solution, but I do believe that innovation has been sorely lacking in the 1.0 and 2.0 movements. We’re supposed to be highly intelligent Europeans. Why don’t we start using our minds to come up with a better model, a discourse or a way of talking about the issues as well as a better strategy and better tactics?

Path To Victory

In the beginning, we noted that the motivation of 1.0 and 2.0 movements was a perceived loss of homogeneity and end of those movements was to restore it. After thinking in depth about this and trying to come up with a better model, the best answer that I have at the moment is that we need everyone to adopt a better vision of the future, a better paradigm of how to live in the 21st century and then we need to start building the consensus that we need to advance mutual goals. The only way to unscramble our demographic situation is through fixing our broken culture, economy and politics in order to an electoral coalition strong enough to overcome the burden of history.

Note: The purpose of this article is to lay out the main points of a new vision of a 3.0 movement, not to offer specific policy proposals. Everything else can be built upon this vision as a political platform like immigration reform and concerns about gun rights which can be sorted out after depolarizing our politics. The single most important thing that has to change though is that our politics can no longer be polarized between crazy SJW fundamentalists on the Left and angry conservative Boomers on the Right.