The left has advanced an overt war on white civilization through the media, universities, and other mediums. Their primary attack is the reshaping of reality through words. "Islamophobic sex crimes propaganda fuels the far right," or "Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racializing crime," or "UK's racist dog whistle politics vilifies British Pakistani Muslims." In all cases the methodology is the same: take a legitimate cause and shackle it to -isms and -phobias that they have programmed us to recoil from.
Some normal people are naturally compelled to oppose the left, but the critical question is how. In the Gamergate era, the anti-left took a "no, but" strategy that denied association to ism-phobias first, to ward off any disreputable politics from sticking to legitimate causes. "No, I'm not sexist. I just think that some ultra-feminist game devs have a twisted view of male/female relations that's producing terrible games."
This strategy is self-defeating because as everyone can subconsciously sense, it concedes part of the opponent's point while trying to argue against it. People with functioning eyes perceive that the ultra-feminist game devs are mostly women, whether they admit it or not. Therefore, to oppose them is to drive women out of the gaming industry. Targeting women, either inadvertently or purposefully, is sexist. To hedge around this obvious logical chain with "some not all" boilerplate or sops to "true equality" or shrines to Jade Raymond appears deceitful and weak, or even worse, shows self-deception: a person who is so delusional that they can't face the consequences of their actions.
As the anti-left has hardened into the online right, more people adopt the "yes, and" response every year, which acknowledges the implications of their position and says, "so what? It's the truth." In the Gamergate issue this would be, "yes, most of these women should leave gaming. It's better off without them. The greatest era of gaming was created by white nerds in baggy shirts." Internal consistency, courage, and accuracy are the power of a real movement.
Many people on the online right see Trump and the American populist movement as belonging to "no, but." He's actually more in the "yes, and" camp. Beyond all his paeans to this and that celebrity or demographic, he is threatening to the left because the character of his movement is a revival of American self-interest, and his strongest base is a revival of white self-interest. The medium is the message. Anyone watching a Trump rally can see it. White conservatives aren't standing there glumly taking their medicine from Mitt Romney, they're celebrating their power, culture, and future. That's why MAGA has spawned countless alt-right spinoffs. Whether or not Trump cucks out on H-1Bs, he has awakened the American consciousness.
Now Britain is at the crossroads, with reports that over a million white British schoolgirls may have been raped by Pakistanis. This is now open reality: the whole country has been raped. Will this be the start of a sea change in the British public where the answers become, "yes, I dislike Muslims, and for good reason," or "yes, there are too many brown immigrants in Britain, and they should go home"? Hopefully it will, because the survival of the nation hangs on that question.
You're completely wrong from a tactical perspective.
When asked a yes-no question by the Left, you need to understand that either answer is designed to implicate you. If you say "no", you're required to acquiesce to their argument to prove your innocence. If you say "yes", you're not only acquiescing to the Leftist narrative, but you are reinforcing it.
This is a problem that the reactionaries have a huge problem with. The Establishment Conservatives are always answering "No, but", and the Reactionary Conservatives are always answer "Yes, and". Both are self-defeating because you are being asked a false-choice question by your enemy.
MAGA hasn't spawned any alt-right Spinoffs. More than anything, the Left has, particularly the Bernie Bros, and what I've just said is why. They still accepted the question, and answered "Yes".
The point is that you are not setting what's called "The Tempo of Battle". In both cases, you're responding instead of taking the initiative and demanding a response from the Left who is on a defensive action.
The reason MAGA is working is because there are specific issues that the right is actively taking the left to task on, and the Leftist response is always to deflect, diminish, and ignore. The Left pleading ignorance on shit they personally know and do is so delegitimizing that it's a win for the right. When MAGA demanded to know why racialization was taking place in public schools, the Left's response was "CRT doesn't exist" from the people who invented CRT. When MAGA demanded to know why 9 month abortions were allowed, the Left deflected and said it was a doctor's decision. When MAGA wanted to know what a woman was, the Left said they weren't biologists. When MAGA wanted to know why porn was being shown to children in math class, the Left pretended that the books didn't exist.
See, the Left knows that you don't answer the question. Even though for their case, if they were honest, they would say "yes and". The reason they don't is because "yes and" is far worse of an answer to the general public.
That is also why you should never be doing it. You need to stop being reactionary, and start being affirmative.
"England is a 1,000 year old Christian Kingdom. It is not England without the English. If foreign guests can't avoid raping children, then we have obligation to remove them for the safety of our children." There's no "yes" or "no". This is your assertion. You're running with that. Now set the tempo of battle:
"Why have you allowed this to happen even once?" You require them to answer, and since we know they are complicit with decades of systemic institutional support for child rape, they will deflect by whatever means available.
Even now, the Left are trying to make this issue about Elon Musk and not rampant child rape. They are trying to characterize his comments as "Anti-UK". Push the assertion, set the tempo. Stop reacting.
A supermajority of the online right started as MAGA, including me.
Chief, all those actions are reactionary.
"When the left indoctrinated public schools, aborted babies, airdropped trannies, showed porn to children, the right reacted..."
Maga was a stepping stone from pure neocuck to fed up and want change to MAGA is actually MIGA and if we want to survive we need to get racist quick.
The online right, the alt-right? They've almost never been MAGA, and that's coming from people like Jared Taylor, who is the one who I first heard mention the support he got from Bernie Bros. The Alt-Right were pissed off enough as it was when Milo tried to co-opt the term back in 2016.
MAGA, fundamentally, is antithetical to the alt-right. The only way you can look at it is as yet another generation iteration of the right-wing populist movements from previous eras:
Hell, the most far right thing that Trump is offering is passing up the Reagan Revolution and pushing William McKinley era tariffs.
None of these movements are associated with the history of White Nationalism, White Supremacy, or American National Socialism. They were smeared with that brush by the Left, but none of them are related, and White Supremacism was often used as a weapon to discredit them. Even going back to Goldwater:
Goldwater was smeared with associations with Nazism and Klansmen, but he'd been a Civil Rights Activists for years prior, working with organizations like the NAACP. Every single Republican who supported him was also hit with the same smear (the books goes into perpetual detail about each of LBJ & MSM's constant hit pieces), but none of them were true. All of them were bullshit from the beginning because White Supremacy, American National Socialism, and American Fascism are not Conservative ideologies appealing to the traditions of the American Liberal state, but a rejection of it.
I do not see any Conservative to White Nationalist pipeline because it is the same Leftist myth repeated ad nauseum. I do see a Progressive to White Racialist pipeline because those ideologies are identical except of "where to white people sit". For people who grew up Conservative, they mostly haven't gone anywhere at all. They're just taking victory laps.
As for your reactionary comment. Yes the right are responding, but it's not just an unhinged emotional response. The point is that they are setting the tempo and establishing an argument to work on. Regarding CRT, instead of saying "No, I don't want you teaching 'real' history in classrooms", and instead of saying "Yes, I don't want you teaching 'real' history in classrooms", they said "Shut up, why are you segregating children?" You have to seize initiative.
How do you feel about the longtime immigration guidelines of "white persons of good character"? It's not a white supremacist policy, but from your viewpoint it probably is.
The alt right had plenty of reasonable, measured people in it like James Allsup and Jared Taylor, but they were driven off with Operation Chokepoint debanking ops and feds like Spencer and Fuentes that intentionally provoked the media.
I feel that from everything I've seen "white" is not the same to the English as it was to the Americans. I've been literally handed quotes from Ben Franklin where he says that the US is probably going to have to be a white country because Catholics and Germans can't be trusted to rule over a Liberal society. Even Enoch Powel made statements about how Britain should remain a white country, and in the very next sentence rebuked Polish migration because it would change the character of the country.
White only means "People of any majority European heritage from the Iberian Peninsula North to the Ural Mountains West" basically in places where Anglos began mixing with other European populations, where as "White" remained predominantly a stand in for "British" in GB.
So on the basis of definitions, I don't think that such a claim makes sense. Not to mention, what we would perceive as non-whites were made citizens of the US (and their respective states) even if they didn't get legally immigrated into the US. Normally it involved some kind of Aglicanization, including Indians, the Spanish, Meztizos, the French, Freed Blacks, and so on and so forth. This is something that the dissenting opinion in Dredd Scott brings up: the decision stripped US citizenship from people who where already citizens, including people who were alleged to be non-white (which varied from state to state). Very famously, after the Civil War, an Asian family was declared White due to their integration into the larger white community of their town in a rather difficult Mississippi Supreme Court decision. They weren't white in California, but they were white in Mississippi, and the court found that their whiteness came from the fact that they were culturally assimilated and integrated. And this was while Mississippi had a One Drop rule.
So, even if we're talking about the definition of "White" it's not being used in the way that the American National Socialists.
But let's actually talk about what White Supremacy actually is for a second. It is an explicit Racialist ideology which requires that "White" populations be given explicit protections and privileges not afforded to other populations, regardless of any other status (including citizenship). You don't actually see this ideology in the early US. Where you see it is only AFTER the Civil War as the Whigs were transferring over to the Democratic Party, and using the pre-cursors to White Nationalism in the form of "White Leagues", "White Unions", and infamously the KKK. Officially, White Supremacy is actually illegal in the US under the Civil Rights amendments. The whole point behind Plessy v. Ferguson was that equal protection was not being maintained with discriminatory segregationist practices, especially since they were obviously inconsistent (Homer Plessy is non-white in Alabama, but not in Mississippi, but he's more white than Fuentes, he's only 1/8th black) Segregation was allowed under the (false) assumption that so long as the races were treated equally under the law, there was no issue.
By the letter of the law, the US wasn't allowed to be a White Supremacist country. The point was that this was obviously violated under a conspiracy of silence during the Democratic (former Whig) seizure of the South. White Supremacism was illegal during Jim Crow, but it was ignored because it protected Democratic control over the South, just as the Democrats would do with other ethnic/racial groups in other areas where the Dems operated out of.
So, White Supremacy in the US only has one period of time where it's actually exists: Reconstruction. And even then, there's a question about the legitimacy of either the military governments or the state governments. White Supremacism, outside of that, is an ideology that is mostly done by conspirators maintaining their own power through political violence. Even variants of the KKK rejected (publicly) White Supremacy and supported a much more toned down version of what you could call: White Affinity Groups. The problem is that these groups were constantly tied to terrorism and actual White Supremacy, which most of the American public found unpalatable.
White Supremacy outside of Reconstruction really only exists within the American Nazi movement. And if you are doing that, you've got to accept that you are calling for a Socialist Revolution in the US to effect Social/National/Racial Justice, and abolishing the constitution... because the constitution is a Liberal document.
That is a very long way to say: no it's not a White Supremacist policy because it's not actually White Supremacism. It's actually a Liberal policy, that doesn't believe that ethnic groups outside of the Anglos, and maybe the Celts, are capable of Liberalism.
The thing is, I think that James' concern that the alt-right is absolutely over-flowing with Feds is correct. If there is a real alt-right, it's not going to do anything because it's controlled opposition. And this was an argument that even Goldwater supporters were bringing up. We know that the FBI was infiltrating not only the Klan, but the Black Panthers and CPUSA. How much was a defensive operation to stop terrorism before it started, and how much of it was controlled opposition is hard to say. Even the John Birch Society got infiltrated, and they were just Conservatives.