Why I'm no longer a White Nationalist

How Walt Bismarck put down the tiki torch

If you’ve spent any time in the world of right wing politics you’ve likely observed a guy who used to say edgy things trying to rehabilitate his image by publicizing his departure from extremism.

This article will be somewhat in that vein, but not entirely, so please pay careful attention to what I’m doing here before you call me a sellout cuck.

In this piece I’ll explain why I’ve stopped calling myself a white nationalist (WN). Do not mistake this for a disavowal of my past or some kind of groveling apology. As expressed in my retrospective on the Alt Right, I’m not in the least bit ashamed of anything I did in 2015-2018 while I was active in the movement.

During the early 2010s white Americans were under serious attack as a collective in a way that warranted an organized response. That era combined prohibitive speech norms against white self-advocacy in both liberal and conservative spaces with a bizarre surge of talk shows and clickbait articles openly celebrating the replacement of white Americans in a way no heritage population would or should tolerate without pushback. In this political ecology America needed a fanatical movement of smart and angry young men with a “shock jock” sense of humor to break the status quo and kick down the door for bold new ideas.

I am incredibly proud to have been one of these young men. Years later I still consider my activism during this period the crowning achievement of my life.

But politics is fundamentally about joining the right coalitions to achieve progress on the issues most salient to you individually, and over the past nine years a lot has happened to recalibrate my priorities. I’ve not abandoned White identity politics by any means, but I’m no longer a radical, and feel there are a number of nonracial issues that have since become much more important than the things WNs fixate on. I’ve also stopped identifying “white people” or even “white Americans” as my primary ingroup, and instead see race as only one important piece of the complex tapestry of identities that constitute citizenship and the optimal basis for coalition building.

Regardless of how you feel about the above, hopefully this piece will help you to better understand my journey and see where I am coming from.

---

First some notes on terminology.

In this article I’ll be making a distinction between what I call Hard WN and Soft WN.

Hard WN refers to the explicit desire for a white ethnostate formed through peaceful racial separatism. This was the ideology advocated by Richard Spencer during the Alt Right’s heyday. I subscribed to this view quite fervently from 2016-2018.

Soft WN refers to any political agenda that centers the interests and rights of white people as a collective. In practice this is most associated with a kind of racially conscious conservatism Jared Taylor calls “white advocacy”, which focuses on limiting immigration, securing free speech while spreading a general understanding of HBD and interracial crime rates, rolling back affirmative action, protecting whites from crimes committed by other races, and so on. I subscribed to several distinct variants of this ideology from 2013-2015 and 2019-2022.

In this article I will mostly be describing why I left Soft WN. My reasons for leaving Hard WN in 2018 are pretty straightforward and uninteresting—it was an idealistic and aspirational project meant to orient the Alt Right in a big bold direction, but was obviously not a tenable program for the immediate future. As I entered my late 20s I became a lot more interested in practically achievable goals, and so my mind turned back to what could realistically be achieved over the next decades to secure the safety and political sovereignty of white Americans. I thus reverted to Soft WN.

I became less racially polarized in 2019 as I flirted with #YangGang nihilism, but was reactivated in 2020 during the Summer of Floyd. Then, thankfully, in 2021-2022 I was so bombarded with whitepills that my radicalism was altogether broken.

Let’s go over the reasons why.

---

Reason #1 - Soft WN achieved its most important goals

I write more about how the Alt Right won in my retrospective How the Alt Right Won, so go check that out if you haven’t yet.

My basic thesis here is that while Hard WN obviously lost, Soft WN achieved a pretty sizeable metapolitical victory in that its talking points now constitute a normal part of mainstream discourse.

White people can now openly advocate for our interests in conservative and centrist spaces without facing any kind of censorship or purging. Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh are saying the same things as Jared Taylor, and if Jared had emerged fresh in 2024 without a Wikipedia page written by SPLC goons in the Before Times everyone would regard him as safely ensconced within the Overton Window. A few months ago Vivek spoke about the Great Replacement on national television and didn’t get in trouble. Hanania talks about HBD to normie conservatives and he’s basically untouchable.

This is all huge. From what I can tell, Soft WN has almost entirely fallen within the realm of acceptable discourse in the world of mainstream conservatism. It’s become incredibly normal for white people to simply air their grievances and stand up for themselves. This was always my main objective as a WN, far beyond any particular object-level policy goals.

We’ve also passed Peak Woke, and cancel culture is on its last legs. Elon buying Twitter hasn’t entirely secured free speech (he still won’t give me back my account for some reason), but it’s moved us admirably far in the right direction, and at this point anonymity almost feels unnecessary.

When I became a white nationalist circa 2015 I wasn’t confident I’d ever live in a world where I could freely express my thoughts and pursue my interests in an open and dignified manner. In today’s world I empirically *just can*, and things are getting better by the day. I honestly can’t think of any prowhite ideas I wouldn’t feel comfortable expressing before a mainstream Republican audience, and I’m certain I’ll never lose a job over politics at this point.

In 2015 I was worried that any future children I had would live in a world where their material living standards would suffer strictly for being white. In 2024 I no longer worry about this due to the decline of affirmative action and rapid destigmatization of white identity politics.

But other issues still worry me a great deal, which brings me to my next item…

---

Reason #2 - Nonracial issues have become far more salient while racial polarization is rapidly decreasing

Given the victories noted above, I no longer want to advocate for “white identity” issues at the expense of literally everything else. As a WN—even a Soft WN—it felt like I had to do that. I couldn’t care about, say, income tax rates or fixing Social Security, because issues like that are polarized around nonracial axes and don’t have any long-term impact on America’s racial composition.

This was a problem at the time and it’s a much bigger problem now. Even if you look at the world through an entirely racial lens, boring mundane policy issues like this have a much bigger impact on the average white person than something like immigration policy.

If you actually want to improve things for white people you sometimes need to think about the best way to govern period (this was a big reason Spencer endorsed Biden in 2020). But WNs tend not to like having the dry policy discussions this requires—it instinctively disgusts them and makes them think of portly cuckservative chamber of commerce types who pedantically obsess over tax policy while Rome burns.

I still think and talk about racial issues a lot more than liberals would like me to, and certainly more than would have been acceptable in 2013 (even among conservatives), but I have other priorities now. And the things I find most unsettling today are a lot more nebulous and difficult to combat than liberal censorship on social media.

The things I’m most worried about currently include:

• a potential end to the dollar as world reserve currency—caused by the geopolitical demise of Pax Americana following a concerted effort by Russia/China/Iran to break up NATO and dominate the World Island—which would severely limit the Federal Reserve’s ability to control the economy while exporting inflation abroad, and likely bring our material standard of living down to a German or Dutch level

• a total fiscal collapse precipitated by a selfish and unfettered gerontocracy that won’t tolerate any cuts to senior benefits like Medicare and Social Security despite a collapsing TFR and soaring interest rates

• the proliferation of high-tech “dopamine traps” like TikTok, VR porn, gambling apps, and bottomless AI-generated content that are so engaging they make everyday responsibilities intolerably boring in comparison, progressively obliterating executive functioning and attention span in each successive generation until everyone is a zombie needing enormous quantities of speed to function in any basic way

• sustained immigration of high IQ and ethnically nepotist immigrants into highly paid tech jobs, blocking the sons of the American middle class from the possibility of upward social advancement and leaving them stranded in five figure wagecuck hell

These aren’t the sort of issues you can easily address with straightforward policy solutions communicable through populist sloganeering. They require complex coalitional politics and long-term transactional arrangements between groups whose rank and file members will be prone to friction and squabbling. This in turn requires marginalizing populists on both the Right and the Left who disrupt such negotiations between more farsighted technocrats.

Obviously this can’t happen anytime soon. Trump has one more election in him and will probably crush Biden, and the Dems will likely have their own populist moment in retaliation. But eventually this chaos will have kicked down all the doors it needed to, and we’ll have to let the adults back in the room to deal with more complex issues.

This needs to happen under a post-Trump framework where White identity politics are just an unglamorous and unexceptional reality of American life in the same way black identity politics have always been. As whites become the minority in more and more states it will increasingly be seen as a Normal Thing for them to vote as wypipo, and not especially dangerous like it was in 2016.

But even as this happens I predict that politics will continue to depolarize around race and repolarize along gender, age, religion, class, and marital status.

Every day in this country more and more Hispanics marry corn-fed blonde midwesterners and produce pale Castizo children who only speak English, consider themselves basically White, and vote like Irish and Italians. Meanwhile college-educated white women are abandoning the GOP in droves and are being replaced by beige-brown Zoomers who like Andrew Tate and dig Trump’s rizz.

As trends like this continue and deepen, I predict the racial triumphalism/paranoia of the 2010s will begin to seem laughable in hindsight. Yes black people will almost certainly continue giving Democrats Saddam margins, but in 20 years I could easily see Hispanics voting 55% GOP while college-educated whites are 55% Democrat.

In that world does the electoral discourse on immigration we’re used to make sense?

To be honest, I doubt it will after this November.

---

Reason #3 - White people are no longer my most important ingroup

In 2018 I moved from a racially diverse swing state in the Sun Belt to a homogenous red state up in corn country. This decision was largely motivated by politics—I was looking to retreat to an imagined Hyperborea free of crime and degeneracy where my volk had political autonomy.

The next two years were the most miserable of my life. But they were also among the most instructive, and ultimately were what made me leave WN on an emotional level.

To put it bluntly, most of my white neighbors and coworkers basically resembled hobbits. They had no ambition to them, nor any aspirations of greatness. Nor did they think about the world in a dynamic way—the more educated among them certainly stayed informed about the wider world, but they largely took it for granted that their immediate universe was a static place where nothing would ever happen.

And the horrifying thing is that’s how they liked it.

I quickly discovered that Midwesterners had no sense of imperial destiny and “right to rule” like you see in New Yorkers, Texans, or Californians. They had nothing like the feisty Faustian individualism of Floridians or “fuck you” pride of Appalachians. They didn’t even have the air of faded glory and gothic tragedy you see in the Deep South. It was nothing but aggressively bland conformity everywhere you looked.

To be sure, the Midwest met my expectations of being safer, more affordable, and less degenerate than the coastal Sun Belt. But it turns out this was a bad thing for my temperament!

It turns out safety is mostly achieved by cultivating a boring and risk-averse culture optimized to meet the needs of smallminded and gossipy people who get don’t get excited about much other than college sports and weddings. If you’re a contrarian novelty-seeker you will quickly get ostracized in an environment like this because people like you are a genuine threat to the social order. You can make friends with 95th percentile openness people who see you as a curiosity, but when push comes to shove they will never choose you over the Shire.

It turns out affordability also produces a dearth of luxury and vastly less impressive elites. Gas stations and convenience stores in the Midwest are much nicer than where I grew up, but the city centers are equally less glamorous. And the people who rise to the top of the food chain are never quite as inspirational as they are in places where things are actually happening. They stop being sharp or hungry really early on in life—it’s like they universally have “big fish in a small pond” energy. They work hard until they can coast off a sinecure, at which point they become totally unremarkable and function on autopilot for the rest of their life.

It turns out that a cultural ecology where most quality women get married early on in life—either in college or immediately thereafter—is really bad for the dating prospects of a 25 year old man. In practice a society that encourages late marriage is actually much better for more bookish eccentric guys, who tend to be late bloomers in developing their masculinity and ability to seduce women.

Ironically enough, if you are the sort of extremely online neurotic weirdo intellectual who gravitates to “trad” ideology as a young man, you probably aren’t temperamentally suited to dating normie conservative church girls who organically live that way. They much prefer unreflective stoic chudbots with rough hands and smooth brains; to these women any kind of emotional expression is coded as womanly. After you date around for a few years you’ll quickly discover that you are a lot more attractive to the bohemian art hoe daughters of the coastal elite.

Of course this revelation won’t come easy to an inexperienced young buck who’s only been with a handful of women. That hipster chick’s tattoos or stripper past or body count of 17 will likely intimidate you. But once you’re nearing 30 and have come into your own as a man, the same girl will seem an ingenue compared to your own triple digit past, while the churchy trad girls you once idealized as innocent little angels will instead seem like frigid judgmental viragoes who could never understand you.

Still, different people have different preferences, and I won’t resent someone for being more risk-averse or thrifty or chaste than me. Different strokes and all that.

But other faults aren’t so easy to dismiss.

The absolute worst thing about the Midwest was the lack of introspection I encountered there. Even smart Midwesterners aren’t very reflective, and they don’t seem to trust people who are. They have an instinctive disdain for the idea of examining themselves through the lens of history and cultural anthropology. Compared to Southerners or Northeasterners, they *really* don’t like comparing themselves to other people and thinking about why those differences emerged. People there would get very hostile when I tried to start conversations comparing their region with others where I’d lived, regardless of how polite I was about it.

In fact, many of them seemed hostile toward the *very idea* of someone moving around in the first place. When I first arrived a lot of people were genuinely incredulous that someone from another state would ever choose to live there, and thus regarded me with suspicion. Midwesterners seem not to like people who move. Many of my new social circle had never lived outside their immediate area and still were geographically very close to their parents.

This was bizarre to me as someone from the Sun Belt who had moved around a lot as a young man. Both of my parents came from vastly different regions of the country, and had themselves been raised in itinerant families that regularly relocated to where the money was. To me moving all the time is just something that normal responsible middle class people do to achieve prosperity, but in many parts of the agricultural Midwest there appears to be something of a stigma to it.

In my opinion this is a loser mentality. America was conquered by pilgrims and pioneers and hardscrabble immigrants—a good American is supposed to chase opportunity wherever it exists. When we smashed Dixie we were also smashing the feudal lord-peasant fixation on some cheesy loyalty to “the land”.

But these Midwesterners aren’t descended from entrepreneurial adventurers like the rest of us. Their forebears were conflict averse and probably low testosterone German Catholics who fled Bismarck’s kulturkampf to acquire cheap land under the Homestead Act. These people mostly settled areas where aggro Scotch Irish types had driven off the Injun decades ago, so they never had to embrace the risk-tolerant, enterprising, itinerant mindset that had once fueled Manifest Destiny. Instead they produced families that became weirdly attached to their generic little plot of fungible prairie dirt, and as a result we now have huge pockets of the country full of overcivilized and effete Teutons with no conquering spirit who treat outsiders like shit.

These people think of themselves as “Real America”, but they are in fact the least American in their outlook of all the country’s regions. They are the least individualistic, the least ambitious, the most inclined to prioritize comfort and safety over everything else in life. America has left barely any mark on them—in temperament they’re just a bunch of stodgy Rhinelanders.

Anyway, believe it or not the point of this article isn’t to shit on Midwesterners. I’m just trying to emphasize that I had grown up taking certain things for granted about White people because I always lived in the most “Faustian” parts of modern White civilization—the American Sun Belt.

As a young man I was always around the most adventurous and entrepreneurial segments of my race—the people moving to where the action was. I had always dealt with a moderate to high level of diversity, which made whites a bit more tribal and aggressive, as well as more worldly and outward-looking, and typically more conscious of and curious about group differences.

In the Midwest I encountered a different kind of white person that honestly seemed quasi-Asian to me. They had no will to power. They were not Romans. They seemed more like the Chinese of the Ming era, or like modern Europeans. But there wasn’t a Faustian spirit to be found anywhere. Certainly nothing like you’d find in a city like Miami / Austin / San Fran, or even Phoenix / Dallas / Tampa. This realization made me far less of a racial purist and helped me reassess what I really value in life.

Compared to my early 20s self, I am a lot less prone to ingrouping with the kind of white people who deliberately shut themselves off from the world by retreating to the ‘burbs—people who just want to be comfortable and don’t have a burning desire to change the world. I’ve also lost any protective instinct toward people who stay in a shitty area with no opportunities just because they have a sentimental attachment to their podunk hometown. My experiences taught me that these people want nothing to do with my vision for the world and aren’t my volk in any meaningful sense.

They have no destiny except under the caligae.

While I no longer consider white people to be my primary ingroup, race certainly remains a crucial part of my identity. But now it stands alongside many other important factors in determining who I relate to, including nationality, ethnic heritage, culture, language, religion, social class, profession, and so on. These factors intermingle and shape my identarian sentiment in hazy concentric circles—kind of a right wing intersectionality.

For instance, if I were stranded in a sketchy third world airport I would hang out with a black American before I would a Serb, but probably after I would a white Canadian or Australian or Brit (unless they were dressed in a way that strongly coded leftist politics or I knew the black guy voted Republican, in which case I’d probably choose the black dude). Ceteris paribus a black American is about as familiar to me as a white Frenchman or German. Meanwhile, nine times out of ten I will feel more camaraderie towards an assimilated Hispanic or Asian man my age than a white woman I’m not currently trying to date and have never hooked up with.

Of course, this dynamic can change depending on how many people of each race and gender and class background are currently present to shape the implicit power dynamic of the situation. It all depends on the circumstance and is extremely messy

---

When it comes to politics, I’m most inclined to build coalitions with Americans of a similar background per the criteria above, but there is also a very significant moral and temperamental component:

I am only interested in working with people who exhibit what I call vitality, which I define as the will to live and prosper.

In particular that means the desire to secure resources and political power by engaging in meaningful struggle with a formidable adversary.

The “struggle” part is crucial—it’s what distinguishes my mindset from cynical Machiavellianism. Yes, the end goal is to make guys like me rich and powerful, but not through rent-seeking or sinecures that make us fat and lazy. I want to carefully nurture a societal incentive structure that cultivates virtue and bravery and agency in the individual.

The struggle, the conflict, the story, the quest is an indispensable part of how I define success; wealth and power that isn’t properly earned is built on a flimsy foundation and isn’t worth shit. When you don’t fight for something you don’t properly value it, and will piss it away in some high time preference flight of fancy.

I also subscribe to the old fascist idea that adversity gives life meaning. A comfortable and easy life without struggle or conflict is miserable, and just makes you a slave to the hedonic treadmill. When you live for pleasure, no pleasure is ever enough, and continued success will just leave you so pampered that any task that’s challenging or outside your comfort zone will begin to feel onerous. Long term this absolutely obliterates your sense of agency and executive functioning until just showering and putting on pants feels like a giant pain in the ass.

At scale this phenomenon destroys productivity and ossifies key social institutions, rendering them unable to competently respond to changing circumstances. It is thereby responsible for what people call decadence.

Avoiding this decline is in my mind the primary objective of social policy; society needs to maintain the right combination of cultural / material carrots and sticks to keep people engaged and hungry for further triumphs. Classical Rome is so impressive to us today because they were incredibly successful at this. As they expanded, the Romans were very deliberate about maintaining their virtus and dignitas, and that’s what gave them the staying power Persia and Carthage lacked.

For all that modern trads play up Rome’s collapse into decadence, this happened far slower and with much more social resistance than in any other empire that reached comparable heights. Entropy is a constant and decline is inevitable, but you can slow it down a lot if you actually try. It just takes that Faustian Spirit to not become a low agency fat coomer once you get rich and secure enough.

Anyway, I’m generally against having a fixed stance on object-level issues like immigration, trade policy, marginal tax rates, etc. Society’s needs and priorities can change very quickly, and I think a reasonable body politic will feel the need to pivot pretty frequently on these items. For instance, sometimes you want free trade and open borders to grow the pie, and other times you want protectionism and closed borders to slice it up more evenly.

Policy changes come when it’s gone too far in one direction and enough interest groups coalesce on the opposing side. It is always painful for someone, it will always involve ambiguous tradeoffs, and it will always demand a fight, but I see this as a good thing. Winning the fight is what gives you political legitimacy. In politics, as in any other realm of life, easy come is easy go. The important thing is that the fight is allowed to happen.

And this is why to me metapolitics are a lot more of a priority. I want to encourage free speech and an “iron honing iron” philosophy towards public debate among technocratic elites and the better half of the general public so we can respond to the needs of the day with agility and flexibility. In my opinion this requires the ~60th percentile voting citizen to be reasonably well-informed and engaged, which feels like something we had from roughly 1945-1972, but rapidly lost after Watergate and was basically gone by the Reagan years.

I also want to maximize the impact of people like me in the discourse. Obviously this is mostly selfish; I want to enlarge my own piece of the pie by lowering taxes, restricting H1B immigration from potential competitors to my labor, etc. But the impulse is also prosocial, as I think society needs autistic gadflies / contrarians like me to maintain an honest and self-aware spirit.

One of my biggest issues has always been that society’s communicative norms have become too effeminate for us to function like we used to. As women have achieved greater social parity with men, we have collectively become far too preoccupied with “reading the room” and maintaining harmony. This attitude is probably optimal in the home or the church service or the dinner party, but it’s horribly stultifying in the corporate boardroom or the research lab, and in the realm of politics it massively undermines the common good, eviscerating our ability to share information and resolve disputes over shared resources in an effective way.

Instead of manly and straightforward transactional dealmaking between honorable self-interested parties, you get affluent credentialist white women (by far the most powerful force in liberalism) drowning everyone in soppy slave morality sentimentalism and tedious guilt mongering as a way of gaining power for themselves off the votes of minorities, gays, etc. These women and their soyboy catamites refuse to engage with ideas that make them feel bad, instead responding with spineless shaming phrases like “wow just wow” and “it’s the current year”.

This clogs up the pipes of negotiation and obfuscates underlying conflicts while engendering resentment, solipsism, and cartoonish levels of selfishness and sadism from conservatives. Polarization is ramped into the stratosphere and all debate becomes this ultra high stakes identarian deathmatch way more heated than it would be if it were just all races and classes negotiating in an atmosphere of universally acknowledged and accepted self-interest.

Democrats are actually correct that Republicans just straight-up lie and cheat all the time, but this instinct basically developed as a defense mechanism against the manipulative hysteria of affluent liberal white women. The constant lying of Republicans is a necessary adaptation to a world in which Democrats have spent decades neglecting empirical reality and pushing a perverse and hysterical culture of victim-worship and “speaking your truth”.

This culture has turned everyone into a mushy unserious relativist, whether they’re nihilistic hucksters on the Right or sentimental woke postmodernists on the Left. It’s like a toxic relationship where a BPD woman breaks into tears or stonewalls all the time over stupid shit and the NPD man compensates by constantly gaslighting and bullying her because otherwise she’d turn him into a shallow husk.

In my opinion the only people who can lead us out of this epistemic jungle are mischievous contrarians who love throwing grenades into circlejerks—guys like the Richards Hanania and Spencer, or even Matt Yglesias and Nate Silver.

It is this particular personality type—the high openness, low agreeableness, boundary-pushing intellectual who trades in hot takes and enjoys picking fights with “their side”—that I most identify with and have the greatest loyalty to. I will defend this Type of Guy’s interests over anyone else’s in all situations.

In practice these types are 99% white (or beige in Hanania’s case), and they are invariably attacked by the Left for being white men, so this identarian impulse feels very adjacent to WN. But it’s not the same thing, and ultimately if a black guy came along with this persona (without falling into a grifting Based Black Guy routine where he gets rich and famous telling wypipo what they want to hear), I would without question defend him just as ardently.

---

Epilogue

There’s always been an annoying asymmetry to writing about your departure from youthful radicalism. When you find out a mainstream 30-something liberal had a Maoist or Tankie phase at 23 it’s considered perfectly unremarkable, and probably even rude / cringe to make a big deal about it. But until very recently, when you found out a mainstream conservative had a Far Right phase it was considered grounds for ostracism, even decades after the fact.

As Delicious Tacos aptly put it, a Far Left phase is treated like a woman eating pussy in college, while a Far Right phase is treated like a man sucking cock.

This meant that in the Before Times a lot of guys falling out of white nationalism felt the need to take drastic action to not have their lives ruined—particularly vulnerable young guys who had mental health issues or substance abuse problems and no real support network. In the 2000s and early 2010s an entire industry emerged of “former white supremacists” from WN 1.0, who would let themselves get paraded around by the SPLC like Sitting Bull at Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, showing crowds of bored teenagers their covered-up swastika tats. It was very sad and embarrassing for everyone involved.

It also didn’t actually help The System “deradicalize” anyone. When you ghettoize a movement and make humiliation a precondition for rejoining polite society, you also sever the institutional “on-ramps” that allow radicals to seamlessly integrate back into the mainstream. Historically the Left maintained these on-ramps through academia and activist groups, but the Right was largely content to abandon its radicals, only letting them reintegrate informally via social connections, church, etc., and *never* giving them a seat at the table when drafting policy.

These days this asymmetry has mostly disappeared. This is partly due to polarization caused by the Alt Right’s metapolitical culture jamming in 2016, as well as normie disgust with the woke excesses of 2020. Partly it’s due to guys with an edgy past no longer being such soft targets—the frightened uneducated junkies of yesteryear have been replaced by sophisticated public intellectuals who know how to punch back.

When Richard Hanania was exposed last year for his youthful edginess he simply released a short article giving context and explaining his trajectory into more mainstream politics. He disavowed the genuinely hateful things he said pseudonymously as a young man, but nowhere in this piece did he kiss the boot of cancel culture or cede any moral authority to the Left. He just ate the punch and remained identical in his content and style.

Hanania didn’t show his belly, and today he is untouchable.

This is a fantastic sign that cancel culture is mostly over. The Left no longer holds any moral authority over the Right on matters of race and identity. We’re at a point where you no longer need to care how liberals feel about your most controversial views. If you don’t alienate the median Breitbart Boomer, you can generally think and say whatever you want.

Given these developments, this felt like the perfect time to write this article.

---

As stated in the intro, I’m not apologizing or disavowing anything I did or said in the Alt Right years. A lot of it I would probably characterize as childish today, but childishness is the price of youthful exuberance, and it’s precisely that exuberance that let us grow so explosively. You always need to take the bad with the good.

In 2015 I was radicalized by genuine threats to the dignity and material well-being of white people. Because of the efforts of young men like me, the system basically reformed enough to “buy me off” and assuage my concerns. It wasn’t a total victory—it never is—but it was enough to deradicalize me and integrate me back into the mainstream.

Perhaps in the future things will get bad for white people again. Maybe in eight years President Warnock will be trying to send us to the gulags and things will feel like the Before Times. If that happens I will be the first one back in the trenches.

But until that day arises, I implore the fashy goys of 2015 to set the fourteen words aside for now and instead take a serious look at banning TikTok / gambling apps / widespread porn, preserving the global dollar, and reforming Social Security. I know these items aren’t as sexy, but the world has changed a lot since Trump descended his golden escalator and we need to get serious.

Besides, aren’t you in your thirties now? You’re a boring middle aged man. If you’re 120+ IQ you probably have a comfy six figure email job and a big tiddy wife by now. Life is good for you and you’re a respectable member of society.

Put down the tiki torch and come help me politically castrate septuagenarians and save your kids’ dopamine receptors.

Come join the Alt Right 2.0.