An Initial Taxonomy Of Dissident Right Factions

Thoughtful.

Not sure that full alignment is needed or possible.

Prefer grand strategic statements of intent.

Sufficient to provide compass-quadrant alignment for implementation/execution subject to local conditions.

Like “unconditional surrender”.

“Feds out”.

Or “All Reds must be killed, regardless of rank, organization, or status.”

Note that SFC Barry and Frank Pinelander have been warning about the Red initiative.

You are being flanked.

15 responses to “An Initial Taxonomy Of Dissident Right Factions

  1. outlawpatriot

    Now that is spot on.

    • are you still alive?

      you won’t be for muchlonger old timer.

      your brown neighbors have your ass zeroed in.

      HA HA sucks to be you. 🙂

  2. Plan K. Ton

    The article is indeed well done. However, the common issue of intense rejection of the left… is that a sufficient condition for tactical alliances? It certainly is a necessary condition.
    I would argue that it in and of itself is sufficient, we can sort out the details later.

  3. SW Richmond

    Goal: reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

    Does anyone disagree with that?

    • Yes I disagree. In my normie conservative days, sure. But now? It’s a quixotic fight. Any reductions would be a drop in the ocean, and would just give the Left all its favorite demagoguery opportunities.

      At this point the far more attractive option is to take the reins of that massive government and start using its power for our own ambitions.

  4. A very excellent article!
    We on the right tend to be free thinkers, which is why it’s like herding cats trying to get us all to agree on something.
    The left, on the other hand are mainly stupid, and would rally around the dimmest of statements, even if it meant their own demise.
    Unfortunately, the stupid is winning, by shear numbers alone.

    • Not to be contrary but the ‘left’ is not stupid – only the useful idiots which there are plenty. The ‘left’ has a long term, well thought out strategie with enough consistent leaders (with money backing) to get to where they are at today. The ‘right’? Not so much and that in the end will be the demise of this country baring a financial or other generated collapse.

    • mister-sigint

      Agreed, well done article

  5. “The Constitutionalists and Christians Nationalists get along pretty well and agree on a lot of things, neither agrees at all with the White Nationalists….A Christian Nationalist would be happy with a Bible-believing black family living next door who went to the same church they did.”

    Nice assessment overall of the factions.

    Keep in mind that Christianity within the USA is also highly factionalized. Protestants and newer non-denominational churches with the coffee bars in the lobbies are typically the ones who are far more accepting of non-Euro-whites as per Jesus’s teaching of Witnessing To All Nations (see Mathew, Mark and Luke).

    There are two commenters here who claim to be Catholic and Orthodox who routinely ignore Jesus’s teachings who are both in the position of seeing during their lifetimes that 1) the Catholic church go brown worldwide and 2) that only the Jews in Israel came to the aid of their Orthodox brothers and sisters in Serbia during the 1990s. If they could get past their syphilitic spiritual poison, they could better embrace the words of Jesus within their souls.

    A common unifier for Christians in FUSA could be their positions on abortion and marriage. That is something conservative Protestant groups, non-denominational suburban megachurches, Pre-V2 Catholics, and the Orthodox often agree on (even when their global corporate governing bodies do not). But, at best we will have separate places of worship under: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. At worst we will all be driven into the catacombs. And I mean ALL of us. I could diverge here regarding FUSA’s future and The Remnant.

    The Constitutionalists (or libertarians or anarchists) would say that any group can have a place of worship on the public square as long as that group doesn’t interfere with the other places of worship or attempt to control all economic/political life on that square. For all Constitutionalists this includes respect for places for Jews (of which there are also different types), Hindus, Muslims (different types), etc. It has been a stretch for them when it comes to belief systems far outside the mainstream, but they still tolerate it. Again, as long as no one interferes with the others, it is allowed. Secular Constitionalists have a very strict view of Constitution as Contract. In all honesty, they are probably the last ones holding this whole thing together right now. Secular Constitutionalists are the majority in the non-appointee bureaucracies of the judicial system, the police and the military when compared to Christian Constitutionalists.

    The Christian Constitutionalist who places his/her Christianity first, will also question and possibly confront laws which are in conflict with their spiritual beliefs. We are also on the cusp of the FUSA possibly creating a separate civil law system for those Sunni Muslims who want Sharia while simultaneously oppressing Christians (just like in the UK/EU). The hypocrisy won’t be lost on Secular Constitutionalists, Christian Constitutionalists and Christian Nationalists alike. The question then becomes how will they react as a combined group (or if that is even possible)?

  6. Amateur ruckhumper

    As the man says: Local, Local, LOCAL.

    I don’t need, in the least, anything close to agreement with neo-Confederates (for example), because they’re 3,000 miles away.

    I only need to get along with people in a 100-mile radius, and that might be stretching it. That doesn’t mean I intend to be blind to what’s happening outside that, but there’s hardly anything a group could do to hold down territory at that distance.

    Even a group with regional personnel.

    Far better to focus on your local AO, and build as many strong ties as we can among them.

  7. ghostsniper

    “I only need to get along with people in a 100-mile radius…”
    =====================

    So if a 100′ tall solid concrete wall was built on that radius with no exits, no one comes in and no one gets out, how long do you think the people in your AO would live?

    How would you get sriracha sauce, tires for your truck, stints for your clogged arteries?

    Admittedly your idea is very attractive but when you start to think through the logistics of the thing it falls apart very quickly.

    • Amateur ruckhumper

      I think you’re missing my point; that a continent-wide organization is unlikely to have a narrow enough focus to keep alliances secured. Narrow that down to say…just the Inland PNW, and we might have a chance.

      At that level, instead of focusing on a national conversation, and the constant drama that follows, you’ve got a regional group where local leaders can actually meet.

      Part of fixing the FUSA means not trying to have a huge empire to run anymore, because there’s just no way to keep it going. You can’t keep everyone happy, of course, but it’s a lot easier to have a good idea of what society needs if you’re worried about a region, instead of a state or country.

      I’m not saying “anarcho-primitives isolationism”, but I am saying that if we aren’t focused on winning the war locally, there’s no winning it at all.

      Local tribes.
      Local alliances.
      Local cooperation.

      Forget the big rallies with big egos.

  8. We’re the Whites and the Reds are already celebrating their win.

    A fundamental problem is defining what folks are fighting for. I’ll be blunt; anything other than the original design reverts back to shit. Particularly a secular gov who’s adherents are only restrained by an opposing level of force (sound familiar?).

    A new secular Republic to satisfy the hedonists? No thanks. Give it 10 years before hand-wringing statists see the harm (“we have to do something!!!”) and demand my paycheck via force. Again.

    Freedom requires natural self-restraint or begs a totalitarian gov. Some atheists are naturally good at this. Atheististic societies are not.

    We have 4,000+ years of human history on the books. The US created the most prosperity/freedom/justice than any other country in history and we all know it. We should follow the original recipe.

    Yes, there are things that we can do better. Example: the slavery issue caused in-fighting that nullified the 10th Amendment. Huge mistake. Should have picked our damn cotton. Should have repatriated slaves and avoided the war. From there was all downhill as a massive FedGov was incorporated against the People.

    What we see this weekend is a lack of leadership and zero articulation on what the future holds for Americans (not these Commie Libs). The country is too big and divided to win back in whole. I believe Trump’s betrayal is rooted in this false belief and it is why he is failing (being in authoritarian in an attempt to keep it all together).

    There is opportunity but folks have to get over the normalcy bias and agree to meet somewhere. The Declaration of Independence wasn’t just our charter document but a unifying statement of our shared intent. Not a bad idea.

  9. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.

  10. If people are not items of property, then you get Buppert-anarchism. If people are slaves and said to be property of something, then you get one of the other forms. Limited government is limited slavery and doesn’t ever stay limited.