Nov 1

How to Unite the American Right?


I write this post inspired by another conversation I had in this site with @Lukdnuke. Increasingly many conservatives have started to ask questions and become "racially aware" of our situation. This has also been happening to a number of Libertarians albeit to a lesser degree. While we can agree that any successful Right Wing movement is going to have to address the situation and interests of the White race, there are other factors albeit more trivial but nonetheless important that must be answered in order to create a cohesive and efficient future Right Wing movement in America.


I know there a few National Socialists, Fascists and other authoritarian tended individuals in this site. My question is how would you convince a racially aware Libertarian or other liberty oriented individual to perhaps accept a more authoritarian government if that means the long term survival and prosperity of our race? Could you explicitly guarantee some freedoms would be left untouched (Freedom of speech, gun rights, property rights, etc)? Then goes the question of economics, where many might feel there is nothing wrong per se with the current capitalist system or with the usury based banking system and might oppose nationalization of any sort.

How can a compromise or deal be effectively made between these sides as to properly unite the right?

@Silverknight in terms of immigration we can convince them that a point base system with people who are more likely to hold our values are also more likely to defend others things like individualism and economics that we agree with.

in terms of freedom of speech constitutionalists and the like would not back any form of speech law such as hate speech and even some hate crimes because of the vagueness and the need to get rid of expression. Libertarians have a good argument against terrorist censorship being that the government is the one that decides who's a terrorist so my compromise that would work is any foreign organization or any such group that undermines the nation of US (with a contingent of that being in the US constitution) be illegal. Things like AJ+, the Muslim brotherhood, the Frankfurt school, and other foreign like organizations that are inherently anti-American (although it would need more specific guilds as to avoid future abuse).

Guns right is different since I romanticize about no law being needed but that is a bit different since this more or less depends on where it is. Although I think we can all agree that it needs to be scaled back dramatically. states level we can debate in a different post or on this post on a later date but I think that we need to get rid of every federal gun restriction other than laws that restriction non Americans and unstable criminals. open carry will be a pretty good goal to strive for when trying to have libertarians come with us. Than the states decides what few restrictions they are allowed to have.

property rights in a sense is to mainly remove much of the corruption and make it harder for the government to take from law abiding citizens. although we do need some debate on other such rights since I can’t list them all.

Taxation probably would be a main topic between National Socialists, Fascists and similar ideal led people who might support income taxation (many of which might want to see it implemented in a progressive structure), and Libertarians and similar ideal led people who see income and property taxes as a form of theft and against their values.

@Silverknight in this stand point I think a compromise would be a good idea. although the compromise would either be allowing the states to decide or one group mainly choosing what happens as another group gets control of another thing the right cares about. But if the state thing happens you might want to appease them by going with some flat tax as both limiting the government and also just ignoring taxes at that point as we focus on something else(although this would start other issues I’m not completely against it if I can address other issues and be implemented properly).

economics is a debate because its to complicated to make simple suggestions so everyone here can talk about it. Although we’re not gonna convince libertarians on massive or even ok nationalization on some company’s so we’re gonna need to do something else. But I kinda feel like most of us aren’t for nationalization.

I personally feel the free market is the best system for allocating resources and rewarding each individual's hard work. That being said I wouldn't mind the total or partial nationalization of the main Banks and usury based financial institutions that provide no real value to our society. Perhaps they could be convinced on the moral basis of reciprocity?

@Silverknight I can see some things people allowed as monopoly or corporation try’s o get rid of competition but I don’t see libertarians allowing anything large scale. especially in important social industries like healthcare or food.

Personally I think the only way, and best way, forbthe unite the right is to bring in the constitutionalists, tea party, libertarians, fascist that aren't like Spencer, and Republicans, by ensuring the rights of gun ownership, speech and state/individual economic and personal rights. Most the your more hard right individuals are more than likely, and kinda are, putting a bad name on the right and alienating them

Nov 1Edited: Nov 2

I’m not sure what your definition of “hard right” individuals is especially since you added Fascists to your acceptable group, which is normally where many draw the line. Do you mean National Socialists or some other group on the right? In the case of National Socialists while I disagree on many aspects of their ideology and think their members don’t have the best optics, I still believe they are committed to the best interests of our race and might serve as valuable allies for the movement we are trying to build (Much better allies than the mainstream conservatives who try to ignore race altogether and constantly seek the respect or moral approval of the anti white left). The anti white left already calls and denounces anybody on the opposition as “Fascists“ or “Nazis” so trying to distance ourselves will probably be fruitless anyway.

I'm more talking the National socialist and people like Richard Spencer as the line, "fascist" is broad as it is, So people who are like say Oswald Moseley are cool butt Pelley aren't l, also I'd unite them under a man kinda like trump but with more emphasis on rights and peace, trump already did unite many on the hard side but alienated the moderates a bit.

Nov 2Edited: Nov 2

@Blow I don’t know if a man like Trump could lead the movement. He is well intentioned but lacks focus and a long term vision.

@Silverknight your right trump himself could barely, but a man with trunps intentions with better focus, vision, and self control definitely could

You guys are idiots if you want you unite the right you would literally just be the exact opposite of the democrats a party that is going to hell in a handbasket the thing about it is we need to break up political parties as much as possible You guys legitimately want to become the things you guys Hate the most I know I don't

I'm not sure from your message what exactly you are opposed to. Are you opposed to a group of like minded individuals working together to achieve political goals? Or are you opposed like many I encounter to the use of "Identity Politics"?

Yes I'm against identity politics I personally believe culture matters more than ethnic group Add what I was trying to get across is uniting the right will only lead to radicals taking over Like what is happening now in the Democratic Party Uniting the right is a foolhardy idea We should try and have as many different views as possible as to not allow one to become to dominate

The part you are missing is how race and ethnicity influences culture. With different ethnic groups and race especially, cultural development changes. What I refer to when calling to Unite the Right is to work together on the common goal of defending the white race in America. You can still still have a variety of different views and opinions, which is in part what this post is about.

Nov 2Edited: Nov 2

Also uniting this movement would probably be the best option to counterbalance those radical democrats you complain about rather then the alternative of several weak small movements opposing it.

@Silverknight I think we do need to do something though about niche ideologies within the group ruining the image or taking over the right since some of them don’t necessarily are for compromise and might tank the whole thing.

Another thing I think we need to address is how are we going to portray it and how can we guarantee people that well stay consistent. Depending who's gonna lead this it has to be in a way that we can get disillusioned democrats (moderates) to back us, and depending on who we allow to we choose to be the faces of the right it can either make or break us Since we need someone that can guarantee our survival but keep our values Constantly while not tanking the whole movement.

In short how can we guarantee that we won’t stray from the path. Not sure if you guy know but the constitution party does this thing where you sign a contract as a way of promising that you’ll do as you say in office. I’m not saying we do that but we need to take precautions to make sure what traditionalists and libertarians in this site can agree on.

We need to make sure we are portraying a Defensive movement defending the interests and rights of Whites rather than a "Aggressive" movement focused only on hating other races (this is not to say we can't point out in the appropriate context some of the faults committed by some of these racial groups). Words like "Nigger" or "Spic" may sound funny or edgy in the moment for some, but this only gives bad optics and in my opinion is of bad taste, especially when one of the main goals we are working towards is respect of other races towards our own race. A "Bill of Racial Rights" that people of different political positions can rally behind might help.


I would say a strategy we need to take up is to put a greater focus in teaching against the anti-white history that has been fabricated by the colleges and media. Show the facts and disprove myths and lies such as that "America was built on Genocide and Slavery" etc, especially on college campuses where most of our young white men and women are indoctrinated into hating their own people. This could be done through online resources or perhaps with more confidence in the movement, people could take initiative and do speeches or set up "Change my mind" sort of booths where at the very least the conversation can be started, and these young students can start asking themselves these questions such as "Do I really want to be a minority in the country my ancestors built?", "Why this double standard for racism against whites" , etc.

A "Bill of Racial Rights" might include:


-Any racial group shall have the right of association and disassociation with other racial groups (Communication, business, intermixing, etc).

-Any racial group shall have the right to organize to protect their interests as they fit (Political party, worker union, charity organization, defense militia, etc)


I can't think from the top of my head in concrete words what other rights this bill might entail. (Might add on the post as I find ideas, it is just so you can get an idea to what I had in mind)

This could work but I’m worried about the political parties that allow laws that solely benefits their race or defense militias for only their race. Basically I’m a bit paranoid about the second part of the suggestion where I can see abuse and using it less to aid a group and more to take down other groups and put supremacy onto other groups. If we can think of a way that removes all(a vast majority) of the possible abuses than I can see it as mainly possible. If not than we need to do something that keeps others groups from antagonizing and alienating the majority so that they don’t become to radical.

@Lukdnuke I wrote those two parts in mind of worst case scenario that one Racial group takes control of the government and harasses another racial group (Blacks shaking down White families and their property for their "reparation" taxes) Though I can definitely see what you mean when you say it can be abused. In terms of political organization, I mean more in the context of how Blacks, Hispanics and Asians all have Caucus groups in congress to make sure their interests are met except Whites. Again I think of it merely from defensive standpoint not one of harm towards other groups.

Specific legal language would have to be added to ensure abuse is not committed.

i believe "the right" does't exist. The conservative's are corprate shills and are against any form of identity politics except for israel



5 days ago

When I mean "the Right", I mean the people who understand certain hierarchies and inequalities are natural and in many cases desirable, this in comparison with "the Left" and their obsession with Egalitarianism at any cost. I do believe our mainstream "conservatives" are a complete joke.

5 days ago

I consider myself mostly a Paleoconservative who understands the importance of demographics and race.

New Posts

© 2018 by US of Z & Monsieur Z