Rarely will they point to anything Nixon actually did as president. There’s a reason for that: Tricky Dick didn’t do much as president. His main domestic accomplishments were enlarging the civil rights regime and doubling down on New Deal policies. Both the economy and crime worsened under his tenure. He was a good diplomat, but even his accomplishments in that realm aren’t that relevant to our time.

I explain at length in The American Conservative why I think Nixonmania is misplaced:

On the one hand, Nixonmania is a necessary corrective to the image propagated by the media over the past 50 years. His critics, basing their arguments mostly on hysteria and liberal hand-wringing, largely succeeded in portraying Nixon as one of the worst presidents in American history—a characterization that falls apart before the actual evidence.

But the new Nixon myth also has issues. Nixon had few substantive accomplishments as president, especially on the issues dear to the Online Right. While one of the better presidents when it comes to foreign policy, he had no real domestic achievements, aside from advancing liberal causes and programs. In many ways, the country actually got worse on his watch, with crime spiraling out of control and the economy plummeting. Nixon may not be responsible for these developments, but he certainly didn’t solve them.

What, then, explains the right’s newfound enthusiasm for Nixon? At its core, the hype is driven less by substance and more by the need for a New Right predecessor to Trump.

You can read the rest here.

I would add that “Nixonmaxing” is particularly ridiculous at a time when many right-wingers attack Trump for not doing anything. Nixon is more guilty of that charge than Trump. Trump has least done significant work on the domestic issues right-wingers care about. Yet, many right-wingers pine for a president who did nothing on these issues but made some BASED remarks in private.

Nixon doesn’t deserve the infamy assigned to his presidency, and he was a fascinating man. But he wasn’t a great president.

You can now preorder Scott Greer’s new book, “Whitepill: The Online Right and the Making of Trump’s America,” from this link.

Read more

Read more

It’s a question central to Whitepill, which is now available on Amazon. I argue in the book that the future will continue to be shaped by the “identitarian” forces unleashed by Trump. Immigration will remain a central topic for Republican politicians and conservative commentators. If they want to remain in the good graces of the base, they will want to restrict it rather than give amnesty to illegals. The fact that Lindsey Graham of all people stopped shilling for amnesty in the final years of his life speaks to this transformation.

But there are serious challenges to this “whitepill.” Other forces could disrupt this transformation and take control of the Right. It’s possible that either Insane Clown Populism or old guard conservatism could take over the post-Trump GOP. While both sides will remain influential, neither offers a substantive agenda to meet 21st-century American reality.

Things will be different after Trump; but the Right will still be animated by identitarianism.

I was recently asked by a reporter over the possibility that conspiratorial populism could soon define the Right. He noted how Whitepill details how Trumpism pushed old guard conservatism out of the way and wonders if the ICP could do the same to nationalism.

I don’t think so. Unlike nationalism, there is no real agenda to Insane Clown Populism. The ICP is a popular tendency within the conservative media but it can’t translate into an electoral platform. It’s hard to expect Republicans to be elected on promises to arrest Erika Kirk and fight chemtrails.

Voters want candidates to address issues that actually matter to their daily lives. An identitarian agenda does. Every American experiences immigration, affirmative action, and DEI. They do not experience JFK assassination theories or UFO sightings on their way to work.

Of course, a number of Republican lawmakers do take an interest in these topics and we’ve had our fair share of full-blown ICP candidates. Victor Marx, an archetypal ICPer, is now the Republican nominee for Colorado governor. But these candidates either lose their races or remain marginal figures in the party. They’re not the GOP equivalent to the DSA.

It’s not hard to see why ICP is popular among influencers. While normal pundits drone on about budgets, legislative maneuvering, polling, and other dull aspects of ordinary politics, the Insane Clown Party offers up new soap operas and thrillers every week. This election isn’t just an election–it’s a foreign op! This assassination isn’t the work of a lone freak–it’s the creation of an elaborate international conspiracy and the victim’s wife! Crime isn’t driven by a certain community or culture–it’s the work of literal demons!

The news is way more exciting if you hear how every event is a conspiracy and there are secret forces at work behind your wife divorcing you. Our audience can’t get enough of it.

It would be one thing if this was harmless crankery that helped pump up our own side and strengthened opposition towards leftist policies. But increasingly conspiratorialism undermines the Right. At this moment, the ICP wants to believe that the Left is not responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk or the attempted assassinations of Trump. Instead, it’s the work of the Right. Influencers can’t get enough of blaming TPUSA for Kirk’s death and insisting Trump faked all of his assassination attempts. These particular conspiracies make its believers think the Left is incapable of violence and the Right always bamboozles its followers. These notions encourage believers to support the Left rather than the Right.

It shouldn’t be any surprise that an ICPer like Marjorie Taylor Greene now loves DSA candidates. Her conspiratorialism leads her to the Left.

Nationalism forces the Right to focus on issues that matter to their base and affect the country. The ICP forces the Right to focus on insane frivolities that alienate moderates and encourages the base to vote Democrat. If the ICP took over the Right, it would ensure America becomes a one-party state and the opposition is filled with impotent cranks.

Insane Clown Populism only works as an entertainment model. When translated to actual politics, the results look like Royce White. Republicans will get blown out in embarrassing fashion. In contrast, Trump, Ron DeSantis, and many other Republicans have won races by focusing on immigration and DEI. The identity issues matter to voters; who killed JFK or Michael Jackson does not.

Old guard conservatives present a challenge from an entirely different direction. They want the Right to return back to its pre-Trump self. Mike Pence and others are already on a crusade to make that happen. There will be serious 2028 candidates who promise donors to make this dream a reality.

Unlike the ICP, the old guard has a clear agenda. The problem is that the agenda doesn’t inspire any enthusiasm, especially among the activists. There is no red meat offered by the old guard. Voters aren’t excited about standing for Israel. They don’t want to increase immigration to satisfy corporate labor demands. They don’t care about the debt. And they don’t want to have campaigns entirely dedicated to fiscal conservatism. Abortion, the one safe cultural issue for respectable conservatives, is a proven election loser. Same with entitlement reform, even though it’s an issue America needs to tackle at some point. The problem is that voters hate it, and Mike Pence types are not going to convince them to embrace it.

Old guard conservatism, frankly, bores the base. It also doesn’t inspire the next generation of conservatives. The youth are into the New Right, not the Tea Party. They want a GOP that addresses immigration and other civilizational issues, not dance around with debt clocks.

The old guard still retains institutional support and donor connections. But they have a tough time selling their message. Conservative media itself caters to Online Right sentiments rather than to Paul Ryanism. They know what their audience wants to read about.

In order for the old guard to retake control, they have to somehow convince the base, young activists, and conservative media that they shouldn’t worry so much about immigration. They should worry far more about the debt clock and Hezbollah threatening Israel instead. That’s unlikely to happen.

The issues the Online Right first drew attention to are not going away. Anti-white racism and immigration are still going to impact the country in the future. The Right will have to address these issues head on if it wants to be relevant. Conspiracy slop may please internet audiences and fiscal conservatism may please donors, but neither tackle the biggest challenges America faces.

Only a nationalist agenda does.

That’s why I’m whitepilled about the future of the American Right.

You can now preorder Scott Greer’s new book, “Whitepill: The Online Right and the Making of Trump’s America,” from this link.

Read more

Read more

Liberals attacked him for being a pawn of Donald Trump. Trump honored his friend in typical Trump fashion, announcing the senator’s departure as if his favorite team had just lost a close game. Many conservatives memorialized him as a staunch fighter for their cause. Others denounced him as an odious war hawk.

Everyone acknowledged Graham’s undying obsession with more foreign interventionism. But a number of right-wingers contended he was actually good on domestic issues. They pointed to his fervent support for One Big Beautiful Bill and the SAVE America Act, as well as his steadfast defense of Brett Kavanaugh during his contentious confirmation.

But these actions don’t obscure his chief domestic priority of achieving amnesty.

Over the last 20 years, Graham led congressional efforts to pass this terrible policy. He fortunately failed in his efforts. His enthusiasm only dampened over the last few years. Any retrospective of the man must account for his role in trying to make America’s immigration problem much worse.

While Graham was not in Congress to help usher in the infamous amnesty of 1986, he was around for every attempt to repeat the mistake. In the amnesty push of George W. Bush’s second term, Graham made himself one of the leading GOP voices urging the party to take up the idea. He backed John McCain’s “bipartisan” measure to reward illegal aliens and called opponents of amnesty “bigots”:

Our immigration system is broken and we need to find a way to get people right with the law. Once we try to find that way, we also need to understand that if the law means anything, you have to have a just result…We all let this get out of control and we all need to fix it. We are going to solve this problem. We’re not going to run people down. We’re not going to scapegoat people. We’re going to tell the bigots to shut up and we’re going to get this right.

His cheerleading for amnesty earned Graham the ire of the base, and the sobriquet “Grahamnesty” from Rush Limbaugh. But that didn’t discourage the South Carolinian from his quest. As soon as Barack Obama got into office, Graham looked for ways to do “bipartisan reform” once more. It took until Obama’s reelection victory for this effort to gain steam. In 2013, Graham became one of four Republican Senators to join “Gang of Eight” that drew up a new amnesty bill. He told Republicans that their political future depended on amnesty:

We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is to pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who we run, (in 2016) in my view.

Trump would prove him wrong. It’s forgotten now, but Graham ran for president that year. His bid went nowhere, but he did demonstrate his zealous commitment to mass immigration. He vowed that any immigration bill that came to his desk must offer citizenship to illegals. He denounced Trump’s plans for mass deportations. He proudly embraced the “Grahamnesty” and “Lindsey Gomez” labels from the base. Trump’s proposed Muslim ban made the war hawk apologize to the Muslim world and say it was one of the worst things a politician could do. He made sure to call Trump an “un-American” bigot over his immigration views.

While he later personally warmed up to Trump the man, he did not accept the president’s immigration agenda. He pleaded with Trump to keep Obama’s amnesty for “Dreamers” (illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as minors) in place. He opposed calls by Trump and other Republicans to cut legal immigration, saying it would hurt the economy. In 2018, he once again served as a lead negotiator of a Senate amnesty plan. This effort was less grand than the Gang of Eight; it simply aimed to legalize Dreamers. Conservatives and the White House wanted a limited legalization framework that would provide $25 billion for a border wall and a number of immigration restrictions. Graham advocated for a full pathway to citizenship for nearly two million illegals while providing the wall funding–nothing else. No deal would pass Congress.

But Graham didn’t give up on the dream. Right after the 2020 election, he promised to work with Democrats to pass “immigration reform.” In early 2021, he drew up another Dreamer amnesty with Democrat Dick Durbin. But as the Biden administration’s disastrous open borders policy bore fruit, Graham backed away from amnesty. He realized it was bad politics as millions poured into the country. He chose to rail against illegal immigration instead.

He stuck to this posture under Trump. He disavowed the idea of a new DREAM Act late last year, saying we need to first “deal with the millions of people here illegally.” His apparent change signaled how much the Right has transformed over the last decade, the full story of which is told in my new book, Whitepill. Even Grahamnesty now wants to sound like an immigration hawk.

Graham was a skilled politician. He knew his position had lost badly within the Republican Party. Now Republicans demonstrate their conservative bona fides by calling for restrictions on legal immigration. No one wants to openly avow amnesty anymore.

But it’s not clear whether he would’ve stuck to it. It’s likely he would’ve reverted to form under a Democratic president, especially with the virtual end of new illegal immigration under Trump.

There was one area that Graham was surprisingly good on. He was a staunch critic of birthright citizenship, making his stance known long before Trump came down the escalator. He was calling for ending the practice as early as 2010. He argued in 2015:

I think it’s a bad practice to give citizenship based on birth. We have evidence of people buying tourist visas for the express purpose of coming over here and having a child as birth tourism. I don’t think that’s a good idea.

It should be noted he made these comments in an interview trashing Trump’s immigration proposals.

He was one of the few Republicans who publicly backed Trump’s suggestion of scrapping birthright citizenship in his first term. At the beginning of Trump’s second term, he introduced a bill to end granting citizenship to the children born of illegal immigrants and non-immigrants. After the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship last month, Graham declared he’s “determined more than ever to put an end to this major magnet for illegal immigration and birth tourism.”

Prior to Trump, there weren’t many Republicans eager to challenge birthright citizenship. Graham deserves some credit for taking this stance much earlier than his colleagues.

He also deserves credit for standing by Brett Kavanaugh against false rape allegations. Much of conservative media wanted to abandon the justice to the wolves. But the South Carolinian didn’t, and Kavanaugh’s confirmation was a significant cultural win for the Right. If it weren’t for Graham, Republicans may have caved and made themselves helpless in the face of future dubious accusations.

There are worse Republicans than Graham. He never took the Jeff Flake route of sanctimoniously assailing the Trump GOP and undermining the Right’s agenda to get airtime on CNN. He was a loyal soldier to the party, which made him a valuable asset to Trump. But that virtue gave him influence to push an agenda antithetical to America First.

Graham’s good deeds do not erase his years of amnesty advocacy. Along with his hawkery, immigration will stand as one of his defining issues–and he was on the wrong side of it.

That’s something we shouldn’t forget.

You can now preorder Scott Greer’s new book, “Whitepill: The Online Right and the Making of Trump’s America,” from this link.

Read more

Read more

The latter accusation keeps popping up in media outlets. When the Washington Post republished two of my American Conservative columns last month, liberals (and some conservatives) freaked out that the respectable outlet had elevated a “white nationalist.” Last week, Ezra Klein, one of the biggest liberal commentators today, questioned why Christopher Rufo interviewed me, a person with “white nationalist” associations. Klein pointed to your humble author as evidence of the disturbing “white nationalist” takeover of conservatism. (At least he gave my new book, Whitepill, a shoutout.) The ever-resentful Richard Spencer also recently insisted I’m a white nationalist while curiously leaving out I’m called one for writing for him. It’s unclear if Spencer would consider himself one today. His ideology depends on who he feels particularly aggrieved by at a given moment.

You can’t control what critics say about you, especially when you’re right-wing. But it’s necessary to define what you are and what you’re not. My political evolution is covered at length in Whitepill, but it’s worth clearing the air on what I am.

I’m not a white nationalist. As a concrete thing rather than a liberal epithet, it’s a political dead-end that cannot succeed in modern America.

I’ve always preferred “right-winger” or just nationalist to describe my political beliefs. But with the transformation of the mainstream American Right, I find myself more comfortable with the label “conservative.” Conservatism now largely reflects Dissident Right views and translates those opinions into policy changes and widely shared talking points. If you care about curtailing immigration and anti-white racism, normal politics offers the best way to do so. There’s no reason to marginalize oneself with LARPing.

What exactly is white nationalism? Everyone from Donald Trump to the O.K. hand sign has earned the label. Ezra Klein offered a very broad definition of it that allowed him to include mainstream conservatives within it. According to him:

I think that there is a straightforward view in white nationalism that there is such a thing as a white race. That race is fundamentally European, came here and founded this country. That race has, depending on the variant of white nationalism we’re talking about, genetic advantages or cultural advantages, and that race deserves to have — should have — dominance, particularly over this country.

Essentially, if you acknowledge basic facts–such as that the Founding Fathers were white and race is a real thing–you are a white nationalist. Klein adds “white dominance” to insinuate certain policies, such as immigration restriction and true meritocracy, will somehow establish an order based on racial supremacy. His definition is so broad as to render it meaningless. That’s the point. Klein and other liberals want to maintain it as an epithet to use against those who oppose mass immigration and anti-white racism.“White nationalism” is still specifically banned on Facebook and other platforms. You can still get censored and pushed outside the bounds of normal political discourse with that label.

I offer a much clearer definition of this ideology in Whitepill. White nationalism “envisions a sovereign white nation, whether through territorial separation or political revolution.” It generally believes the present state of America can’t be saved and whites must separate from the nation. It generally views normal politics as a waste of time and advocates for solutions outside the present order. But they rarely take up these solutions, because they lack the real-world presence and commitment to carry them out. Few want to move out to the woods for an all-white community or form a militia with internet randos. The only tangible results of WN activity is getting its followers doxed. (The doxing is often done by WNs themselves against movement rivals.)

Liberals imagine white nationalism as something that could exist within our normal political order. White nationalists disagree. Whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not, WNs see their ideology as inherently opposed to the political order and thus incapable of functioning within it.

This greatly limits its ability to effect real change. Politics is supposed to be the art of the possible. But many people turn to politics to express non-political ends and they don’t care about creating actual change. They want politics to fulfill a fantasy instead of addressing reality.

White nationalists, among other niche ideologies, suffer from this mentality.

The ideology faces two massive obstacles. One is that the present order is remarkably stable. There’s little sign of national disintegration or masses of people turning to racial separatism. We aren’t Yugoslavia, Weimar Germany, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. People feel the system provides them enough security to support themselves. They don’t want to challenge it, especially when they have something to lose. Demands that ordinary whites separate themselves from mainstream society fall on deaf ears.

WNs wish to transform white Americans into something they will likely never be. White Americans are not interested in the identity offered by white nationalists. Very few whites see their racial identity as important. They identify more with America than they do with being white. Even conservatives who oppose mass immigration wince at explicit white identity. There are few indicators of whites “tribing up.” Whites are still very individualistic and shy away from collectivism, especially when offered by strange malcontents. Whites aren’t interested in a Caucasian version of black nationalism, complete with the white equivalents of Kwanzaa and dashikis. Their culture is mainstream Americana. They see no need to invent something out of thin air.

Whether you sympathize with white nationalism or view it as morally repugnant, it can never succeed in America. Under the present circumstances, it can only be a small subculture that attracts headlines but can’t create political change. Rather than waking up the “racial consciousness” of white America, white nationalism usually ends up alienating its adherents from white America.

It’s a free country. People can do what they want. But if you want to make this country a better place, conservatism is a far more viable vehicle than radical LARPing.

While Americans aren’t interested in white nationalism, millions do support the New Right vision offered by Trump and other mainstream figures. They want immigration restricted, law and order upheld, DEI cast aside, affirmative action terminated, and anti-white classroom lessons eliminated. These issues are no longer ignored by Republicans and mainstream conservatives. When they were, it made sense for the Alt Right to exist.

As I discuss in Whitepill, this is how your humble author and many other people found themselves within the Alt Right. Conservatism refused to address the issues that threatened our civilization. They were content to focus on frivolities. The only people who talked about these things were white nationalists, which naturally drew in people who would’ve otherwise never associated with it.

Normal politics in the Obama Era seemed hopeless. It looked like the battle would just be between anti-white liberals and out-of-touch fiscal conservatives. Abandoning ordinary politics was appealing when faced with these options and no clear way to challenge them. But then Donald Trump came down the escalator, and new opportunities followed.

There was a time when I was young and dumb and imagined a few people on the internet could create an ethnostate. But I grew up and adjusted to the reality of the political world created by Trump.

There’s no need to apologize for my past writings. But they don’t reflect what I advocate for today—even though much of what I wrote back in my “wignat” phase is now mainstream conservatism.

The goals of groups posing as radicals are achievable by normal political means. In the past this was less clear. But today it’s obvious that a practical, America First policy can be advanced via boring party politics. And the people who argue against this simply want to cling to a personal fantasy.

The US political system is stable. The American Empire is a fact of life and mostly good for our citizens, especially for the “Heritage Americans.” The goal of right-wing policy is to improve middle American living standards. All this can be accomplished by ordinary politics. The GOP and a conventional conservative platform can now be considered “pro-white.” As readers of Whitepill should learn, white nationalism is now obsolete thanks to the mainstream Right taking up the identity issues.

I support an agenda that keeps America American. I back immigration restriction over open borders, authentic patriotic education over anti-white indoctrination, meritocracy over diversity, capitalism over socialism, and Anglo-Protestant culture over Third Worldism. Contrary to what Klein claims, these aims can be achieved through “colorblind” means rather than through some form of “white dominance.” Simply providing a fair field of play will benefit both ordinary whites and the nation itself. Mainstream conservatism now broadly accepts this agenda as its own.

If we want to make the country we live in a better place, we need to accept the world as it exists rather than the one we imagine it to be. If that makes us conservative, then so be it. We now get to define conservatism, not David French or Jonah Goldberg.

That’s why I’m not a white nationalist. You can call me a conservative, instead.

Read more

People on our side are hungry for knowledge, so it’s imperative to gain some basic knowledge about our past.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list. It’s just books I believe will make the reader understand American history, politics, and society. Most of the works here are academic fare. This is not meant to be a list filled with dissident titles.

Personally, I think it’s better for people to read history rather than polemics or the standard “BASED” literature. A lot of that stuff is out of date and has little relevance to what’s going on today. Much of it is more likely to induce autism than wisdom. People really just need to understand a few basic things, such as knowing diversity and mass immigration are bad. They don’t need to learn about how the West began its decline with the advent of nominalism.

With that in mind, here’s my list of books to help you learn about American history.

Read more

He also answers questions about Supergirl, MAGA think tanks, the 19th Amendment, and much more!

Read more

Winning this demographic allowed these radical candidates to win. These candidates heavily relied on young people to campaign for them and get out the vote. It offset the disadvantage of competing against candidates with more institutional support.

These elections reflect a notable trend in politics. DSA candidates are getting elected thanks in large part to young voters. They were key to Zohran Mamdani’s election last year, and they continue to play a similar role in Democratic primaries around the country. They don’t represent all young people of course. But they represent a significant electoral trend, one that goes against confident predictions that Zoomers would be a right-wing constituency.

That doesn’t mean all is lost with the young. Far from it. We just need to be clear about the effects of youth politics in our country. Young people play a far bigger role in the electoral politics of the Democrats. As we see with James Fishback’s campaign, having a huge advantage with young voters doesn’t mean much in Republican primaries. But young people still make a big impact in conservative politics. As I write about in my new book, Whitepill, young conservatives are the ones who made the Right more nationalistic. They achieved this through “metapolitical” action rather than electoral results.

Youth punch well above their weight on the Right. Just don’t expect them to decide Republican primaries.

This is important to remember when it comes to political action. Often, right-wing commentators wish to mold their audiences–real or imagined–into a coherent constituency that can make or break campaigns. They want this audience to operate like an interest bloc, similar to a labor union or the black community. But audiences don’t quite make interest groups. They have a far more casual connection to influencers and commentators than union members have to the body they belong to. They’re spread out all over the country. They’re much harder to organize. And many of them simply listen to their podcaster or talking head for entertainment. They may vote in a completely different way than their favorite influencer. They may not even vote at all.

Not voting at all is a particular problem for young men. They are “low propensity voters,” after all. Young women, who lean much more to the Left, are far more likely to show up at the polls. So are boomers, who continue to dominate GOP primary contests. This is not a demographic one can depend on.

Youth can make a big impact within Democratic primaries because many of them take place where young voters make up a sizable part of the electorate. Deep red districts don’t exactly boast a deep reservoir of young voters and their primaries are determined by boomers. Rural areas and the suburbs aren’t where college grads congregate. They do find themselves in major cities, where radical candidates can utilize them to defeat establishment incumbents. There are also far more young voters within the Democratic Party. Roughly 65 percent of registered voters under 30 are Democrats.

Some conservatives dismiss the idea that the youth are veering Left. They claim it’s just in Democratic primaries in New York City, which is unreflective of the country as a whole. It is true these contests don’t represent the entire country. But general elections last year were more reflective, and they showed a significant Democratic advantage among the young. Polling continues to show declining support for Trump among the under-30 crowd. The GOP’s youth gains in 2024 likely won’t reappear in the midterms.

Even though older people decide Republican primaries, they don’t have exclusive control over conservative politics. The right-wing debate over Israel emanates from young people. The push for immigration restriction came from young activists. The embrace of Afrikaners, anti-censorship policies, and a host of other issues came from conservative youth. Conservative commentary, outside of Fox and talk radio, is primarily shaped by those under 40. And many of the takes shared on Fox and talk radio originally came from the younger corners of the Right. See the intense focus on Somali fraud.

Young conservatives have changed the Right through “metapolitics,” a term used to describe the ideas, cultural forms, and principles that shape politics. As I explain in my book, Whitepill, the youth-led Online Right was able to transform American politics literally through memes. These were more effective than all the books and policy papers put out by the old dinosaurs of Conservative Inc. These memes came to influence Tucker Carlson and other mainstream commentators, who spread these ideas to the masses. The Great Replacement and other “fringe” ideas were embraced and began to influence voters and politicians alike.

That’s how young people changed politics on the Right. But many aren’t satisfied with that and want to have a direct impact on elections. That’s a completely different task, as it requires real-world organizing and lots of money. Both of those things are hard to come by in the world of Online Right politics. It’s difficult to keep a group chat together in these circles, much less convince hundreds of people to do GOTV work. We also don’t have a big enough constituency within GOP primaries to make the kind of impact many wish to make.

It’s better to focus on the “metapolitical” side rather than the electoral side. The Right is dependent on new media to get its message out to the public. This gives young conservatives disproportionate power over that message. They can shape how the GOP governs and campaigns, so long as these ideas don’t alienate the party’s core voters.

One could argue that young people shape right-wing media and information more than they do on the other side. The establishment media is still a very middle-aged affair with older readers and viewers. There are plenty of young socialist influencers, but they have to compete with the more established elements of liberalism. This explains how left-wing media touts “moderate” ideas like Abundance while their voters pick anti-white socialists.

The youth are changing both parties–but in different ways and with different means. The DSA’s strategy probably wouldn’t work for young nationalists on the Right. The metapolitical approach is what works best.

Scott’s new book, “Whitepill: The Online Right and the Making of Trump’s America,” is now available. Order your copy today.

Read more