The Revolutionary Right
The Right needs to be revolutionary to attract the youth and to attract idealistic people of all ages.
I was recently talking to someone about Mamdani in NYC. I was told about a podcast in which there was discussion about young people supporting socialist candidates. The idea is that there are many young college graduates with huge student debt who cannot find steady work (or any work at all) and who are living downscale in large cities and these are key voters for the Left.
Yes, I know – a considerable fraction of young men voted for Trump in 2024, but the paradigm outlined above is still legitimate. In addition, the perception that Trump is an authentic right-wing populist – although that it is a fraud – still fits into my narrative. After all, are young men flocking to support overt Neocons? No, they support politicians they believe are right-wing populists. But even Trump fails to reach many of the more radicalized youth.
My immediate reaction to what I was told about Mamdani was - why can’t the Right appeal to the youth on issues like student debt, employment, cost of living, and the entire economic structure of society?
There certainly is a niche for Revolutionary Right advocacy on behalf of young people saddled with school debt, particularly those with limited job prospects. One line of attack is to discuss how the ever-growing burden of tuition in higher education is primarily due to the uncontrolled growth of a (highly paid) leftist-progressive managerial class, embodied in academia by administration and staff, including the endless parade of deans, DEI staff, and human resource harridans. These parasites need to be paid and student tuition is the prime source of revenue. The people doing the actual teaching, the faculty, may be primarily leftist as well, but the massive tuition increases (even adjusted to inflation) are not due to faculty, since the faculty:student ratio has remained essentially unchanged over time and, further, increasing proportions of faculty are low-paid adjuncts. No, the issue is one of a hard-left managerial class, made up of precisely the types of people who could be prime targets of a cogent Far Right critique.
Next, we get to the issue of insufficient employment prospects for college graduates. Here, there are two lines of attack. One is to target societal and cultural degeneracy and the plethora of useless majors. The second is to target the Globalist Left and Right for wrecking the American economy and outsourcing jobs while importing H-1Bs and other forms of low cost professional labor.
There is plenty of grist for the mill here, but we get nothing from the Right on this, except the idea that too many people are going to college and more people should just get into trades. That has some legitimacy, but that is not the right approach to attract the youth who are college graduates saddled with debt and who have few prospects. Further, the Right (as usual) goes too far, and asserts that no Whites at all should go to college. And, of course, the Right has, in typical “do nothing” fashion, ceded academia to the Left without a fight, resulting in the growth of the academic managerial class contributing to the economic problems under discussion.
I have discussed this issue in some detail to illustrate the ideological vacuity of the Right on these topics and the right-wing inability to connect with people on personal issues.
The fundamental problem is that there is no authentic right-wing populism in American politics. Trump is a fraud, a Neocon posing as a populist, and I suspect that the young men who voted for him are becoming disenchanted with an administration that bombs Iran on the behest of Israel but does nothing to help ordinary Americans struggling in their daily lives because of the globalist power structure. Further, there is no real Revolutionary Right in America; the “pro-White movement” is composed of grifters, affirmative action incompetents, and reactionaries, and none of these people are willing or able to make arguments that would speak to disaffected young people, or disaffected people of any age, to radicalize them in the correct direction. Instead, we get nonsense like this.
I have a feeling that having some old White guy tell them that the Asians displacing them are their superior in every way is not going to get young Whites on board the “Far Right train.”
So, in the absence of any compelling narrative coming from the Right, of course the young will be attracted to the Left, and even those young White men allegedly “drifting right” will give up if they get nothing back except empty platitudes, neoconservative mainstream politics, mewling cant, and HBD silliness from the so-called Dissident Right.
None of the losers of the Right speak to the disaffected in a language that can be properly understood and that can inspire, so we see the inevitable victory of the Left.
Why are young White people (in the West, or whatever is left of it) typically leftist? One argument is that it is youthful rebellion against parents, who are themselves typically more conservative due to the effects of family formation and increasing responsibility (and general experience with life and the realities of human nature). It is interesting that this scenario always seems to work in one direction – the children of leftist parents never seem to rebel by moving to the Right, if anything they may become even more radically leftist than their parents are. So, it can’t be simple rebellion against parental authority. Is it rebellion against a conservative society? Well, today, the System is so far to the Left and so anti-White, that actual rebellion would mean that young Whites should all become neo-Nazis; “movement” fantasies about “Generation Zyklon” aside, that is not happening. Is it because System propaganda portrays itself as exhibiting “systemic racism” and the youth perceived a Far Left System as being Far Right? Is the rebellion against a perception rather than against a reality?
Or maybe it is not just rebellion – youth are by nature idealistic, and the Left traffics in idealism, as opposed to the stuffy, reactionary Right, which stupidly advertises itself as “standing athwart history yelling stop.” What an inspiring image!
The reactionary Right needs to be displaced by the revolutionary Far Right and an inspiring ideology and worldview needs to be promoted. By the way, “traditionalism” “snug in one’s hobbit hole” is not such a worldview.
Indeed, if we reject a purely reactionary sense of “right-wing” and reject the idea that the Right has to be “right-wing” as per economics, we can state that a significant portion of the Far Right is essentially a nationalist and racialist form of left-wing populism. In other words, nationalist and racialist left-wing populism IS right-wing populism, of a populist strain of Far Right politics.
As regards the balance between populism and hierarchy (“elitism”):
Right vs Left is ultimately about hierarchy not economics, but is hierarchy necessarily opposed to populism? There needs not necessarily be a complete disjunctive distinction between populism and elitism. On a more superficial level, one can view populism as a tool to achieve power that then leads to an elitist hierarchy. On a more complex level, one could have populism and elitism at the same time. Who leads the masses? Who are the populists? Was Huey Long not, in the final analysis, part of an elite – a self-made elite (the best kind)? One question that always has to be answered with respect to elitism is – who are the elites? If “elites” are simply wealthy rent-seeking plutocrats, then that is an elitism we can do without. On the other hand, a question that needs to be answered with respect to populism is – who are the people? If they are your people, your stock, that is good. But if the population is race replaced by aliens, then that is a populism we can do without. We need an enlightened elitism that consists of elites who care about their people and use a prudent populism to appeal to the people against rival elites who espouse destructive doctrines.
I also believe that a proper elite requires some degree of populism to win mass support. Is it practically possible for elites – and here I talk about those who act on behalf of their people’s interests – to completely politically disenfranchise the mass population?
Also see Hamburger’s take. "Elitism" as promoted by Der Movement is not going to attract the disaffected. I believe that an enlightened elite that is concerned with the plight of "average" people may be able to attract the disaffected.
But, as in warfare, defensive tactics cannot lead to victory; at best, they delay defeat. You must go on the offense to won, and “go on the offense” is what the Left does, and the Left has a decades-long record of victory, while the Right has an equally long record of defeat. You need to make history, not try to stop it. You need to be yelling Go to your own forces, not merely yelling Stop to the opposition. And we observe that the conservative ideology of today is precisely what they were yelling Stop against decades ago. The conservatism of today is the liberalism of yesterday. Conservatives yell Stop and then, when no one stops, they adopt the positions of those who have breached the conservative defenses. And no doubt in the future, what conservatives abhor today will be the positions they are defending in the future, as the victorious Left continues to push even more egregious outrages.
But I note that the video misses a key problem with the right-wing aesthetic (as defined there) – its emphasis on the past and its lack of focus on the future. Reactionary traditionalism is a fundamental flaw of the Right and that is why the Futurists were so promising, as was the original Fascist embrace of Futurism before Mussolini collapsed into reactionary authoritarianism.
A Right that fuses its baseline focus on conflict and on a realistic appraisal of human nature with a forward looking utopian vision to inspire self-sacrifice is a Right that has discovered a winning formula.
We must reject the Reactionary Right in favor of the Revolutionary Right, a radical Right that can speak to the disaffected among our people.
I outline how to build a movement appealing to alienated outsiders in this book.
And if you believe that this analysis is just more ranting from the "insane" Ted Sallis, let us take a look at that Zerohedge piece again (some emphasis in the original, other is added):
...the vanguard of his revolution. It’s an element that I would call “lumpenbourgeoisie.”
These are middle-class types who feel thwarted in some way. Some may have decent jobs, but still struggle to pay rent living in NYC or another big city. Others are NEETs (not in employment, education, or training) who live with their parents and have no job at all. They think they will not obtain the level of security as their parents, and they don’t see much of a path to advance. They may have a college degree, but it’s no ticket to the American dream. They’re in a precarious position and are open to radical ideas. They don’t have much to lose, so why not try socialism? It will at least own the chuds they despise...
Gangbangers and hobos don’t seem to be leading socialism today. It’s rather the alienated elements of the bourgeoisie most eager for it...
The elite-wannabes are the lumpenbourgeoisie. This is a social element that continues to grow. The job market for recent college grads is one of the worst on record. If you talk to any white collar worker looking for a job, you will be greeted with a grim tale of sending out a hundred applications with no takers. Young people struggle to buy homes and save for the future. Younger Americans are much less bullish on the American dream. On top of all this, they’re far more atomized. They have fewer friends and are less likely to marry. This is a demographic without roots and without much investment in the system. They’re ripe for radicalization.
Something I regularly harp on is how the Right is primarily composed of people with something to lose. They have jobs, homes, families, and 401ks. They may LARP as revolutionaries online, but they’re not gonna sign up for one. It’s too risky for them. It’s why it’s tough to get right-wingers to do activism in the way the Left does. They’re too busy. Of course, there are more risks with open right-wing agitation versus left-wing activism. But it’s also due to the Right having a different support base. It’s people who want to protect what’s theirs rather than radicals with nothing to lose.
The Left can count on the nothing to lose types to rally to its causes. Most lumpenbourgeoisie aren’t deranged enough to join Antifa. They’re simply young, middle-class Americans who feel the American dream is denied to them.
If any kind of revolution happens in America, they will be its vanguard.
The Right defined once again: "It’s people who want to protect what’s theirs rather than radicals with nothing to lose."
We need both types; indeed, as the situation for Whites worsen the former group will begin to merge with the latter. But you are not going to reach them with Donald Trump or Lindsey Graham and you are not going to reach them with Greg "Kali Yuga Savitri Devi" Johnson or Samuel Jared "Asians are superior to Whites in very way" Taylor. And, truth be told, people who cannot bother to submit even a single AMA question for my podcasts are not the stuff of revolution either.
We need a Revolutionary Radical Right that can speak to the people in the language of understanding and offer hope. We need DO SOMETHING, not DO NOTHING.
Only The Revolutionary Right can achieve our objectives.