Does the Alt-Right Need to Compromise Its Ideology in Order to Achieve Mainstream Success?

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer

September 16, 2016

We’ve hit the big time. The Alt-Right is now in the news non-stop. Right now, Pepe the frog is a major campaign issue.

We’ve gone mainstream. And with this, there is a feeling of pressure on members of the movement. There is a heavy understanding that we need to make sure this opportunity isn’t wasted. A lot of people have disagreements about the proper way forward.

One of the views being presented is that we need to make fundamental alterations to our ideology if we’re going to really get the masses behind us and form a real political movement.

There is a lot of confusion about why that would be desirable or necessary, coming both from those for and those against, and the discussion itself has gotten overly convoluted, to the point of nearly becoming incoherent. This is largely due to a widespread, fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between a presentation and an ideology.

By clearly separating these two concepts, I think that the overwhelming majority of those involved in the Alt-Right will be able to conclude that there is absolutely no reason to compromise any aspect of our ideology.

What is the Difference Between These Two Concepts?

First, let us define “presentation” and “ideology.”

These are completely separate things. Presentation is an aspect of the strategy used to achieve your goals, while ideology is the source of these goals themselves.

It is the difference between a man and the clothes he is wearing. If a man changes his clothes, he doesn’t become a different person. However, in different situations, a man will indeed wear different clothes, either for practical utility or for the purpose of giving a specific presentation of himself.

For example, when a man goes to the gym, he will wear shorts or sweatpants and a t-shirt or tank-top, because this is practical for the type of behavior he is going to be engaging in while at the gym. That same man, when going to a formal dinner, will wear a tailored suit and an appropriate tie.

He doesn’t become a different person because his clothing has changed.

He uses different clothing to achieve different objectives. His objective at the gym is to stay fit and healthy and look good, while his objective at a formal dinner is to make connections and build relationships which will advance his professional career and/or social life. Both objectives are different, and so are achieved using very different methods, but both serve the same goal of being a well-rounded and successful individual.

We may note that if a man wore a tailored suit to the gym or sweatpants and a tank-top to a formal dinner, people would think there was something wrong with him. He would be looked at as ridiculous and his mental health would be questioned by observers.

Just as a man wears the appropriate clothing to accomplish a personal objective, while working toward the singular goal of personal fulfillment, the followers of a political ideology will use different presentations to work toward singular ideological goals.

For example, if you are running a pro-White propaganda publication intended to appeal to angry young men, it could be practical to use very direct, angry language, racial slurs, Nazi imagery, humor and pop culture references to present your ideology. However, if you are a pro-White activist running for political office, you will probably skip the racial slurs and harsh language and imagery, you will have a more serious tone and you may rely on academic references instead of those of pop culture.

Though you have altered the presentation, the core ideology will remain static. None of the ideas themselves need to change, because the ideas were always separate from the presentation. Just as the same man can wear different clothes for different purposes, the same ideas can be expressed through different presentations.

I am Well Aware

I am well aware that in order for us to ultimately be successful in politics, we will not be using the same presentation as I use here on the Daily Stormer.

Neither I nor anyone else who I am aware of has argued for using swastikas and pictures of Hitler in an Alt-Right political campaign. No one thinks the political representatives of our movement should be skinheads with White Power tattoos on their necks. No one expects someone running for office on an Alt-Right platform to go on TV and shout “gas the kikes – race war now!”

The presentation should be professional. People should wear suits and use normal, formal language. But the message has to remain as it is.

However simple all of this may seem, many people are confusing the concepts of ideology and presentation, in such a way as to leave me utterly baffled (which is why I’ve included an elaborate clothing analogy above – I want to be absolutely certain that we are all 100% clear on this).

Some have told me that “the Anglin method could never work in mainstream politics.” But it is not clear to me if the people saying this are talking about presentation or ideology, and I have come to the conclusion that many of those saying it are not clear on this themselves.

Are people simply stating the obvious fact that a politician who’s running on an Alt-Right platform is not going to go on TV and start talking about “throwing these ratfaced kikes in the oven after their free haircuts and showers,” or are they claiming that the Alt-Right ideology itself is flawed in some way which will make it impossible for it to ever succeed?

I sincerely hope it is the former.

Because if we decide as a movement that it is impossible for the Alt-Right ideology to succeed, then we have already lost.

Not One Single Inch

No ideological compromise needs to be made because a presentation has changed in order to fit a different circumstance and objective.

We need to be 100% committed to giving up not a single inch of our ideology, ever.

The core message is what it is, and it should not be altered in any way.

For example:

We are not simply libertarians who want to be left alone with our freedoms, but revolutionaries who seek to fundamentally alter Western civilization as a whole.

We are against the modern concept of democracy, believing unapologetically in hierarchical authoritarianism.

We do not like Jews and view them as the primary cause of all of our current troubles.

We believe Jews are a distinctive race, separate from the White European race. We do not think Jews can magically become White because “they identify as White.”

We do not like Israel and we have no desire to have “good relations” with the Jews or their state.

We do not believe that Zionism is simply “Israeli nationalism,” but understand that it is the most horrendous and destructive form of globalism imaginable.

We do not believe that the Holocaust happened.

We believe that race-mixing is an existential threat to both our social order and our racial identity, as well as our demographics.

We do not approve of homosexuals. Our opposition to homosexuality is not based on religious grounds, but based on the threat that homosexuals represent to the very core of our society, the bonds between heterosexual men, and to children and young men.

We do not appreciate or understand the concerns of Black Lives Matter. We do not even accept that it as an organic Black racial movement, but instead view it as a media-driven Jewish program to use the Blacks as a battering ram against White America.

We do not believe non-Whites have a right to occupy White nations.

Vietnamese porn stars do not represent us, regardless of how much they may love Hitler.

We do not believe that the superiority of the White race is a “subjective interpretation” (even GOP Congressmen deny this), but an objective reality.

We believe all European nations have a right to a continued existence and to preserve their unique cultural heritage and we do not have a goal of abolishing nation-states or combining all White European nations into some sort of Asimovian super-state.

All of these views can be fully expressed using very nice language, while wearing a suit, without a swastika flag draped behind you.

None of these concepts need to be changed in order appeal to the masses, and in fact, if we do decide to change these core beliefs, we are going to lose our appeal. And I dare say that we will lose our souls as well.

The strategy that we have now is working because it works. Our ideas are popular. Growth of the Alt-Right is exponential, because of the fact we have remained true to our principles, not despite that fact. There is a need to begin incorporating new strategies in the near future, but there is no need to – and no excuse for – compromising our ideology.

I think it’s time that the Alt-Right adopts “not one single inch” as one of its core tenets. And I think it’s time we stopped making excuses for people who violate this rule.

Because if we start cucking-out now, in five years we’re going to be to the left of Paul Ryan.

It’s decision time: are we going to compromise our basic principles based on a completely unsupported assertion that compromising principles leads to increased popularity, or are we going to stand strong on our foundations, to say what we mean, mean what we say and not apologize for who we are?

I know where I stand.

And it’s going to take bullets to move me.

It’s time for everyone else in this movement to make their position clear.