In my experience reading and debating for the Alt-Right (or “White right”, whatever), I have made some observations about the nature of our digital struggle that others have doubtless noticed, but perhaps not articulated or addressed directly. Specifically, I believe that there are some common inefficiencies that, if mitigated, could greatly increase the effectiveness of our individual efforts.
- Large social media websites like reddit, voat, and others are probably most critical to reaching and red-pilling the masses at this time. Unfortunately, the war of information is harder for us to wage on these sites since we must take the fight to hordes of more numerous leftists on hostile corporate-owned internet platforms. This disadvantage leads to our positions being attacked more often and more aggressively, demanding that our arguments be particularly robust and well-sourced. Such comments take significant time to research and support, and strain our already limited resources.
- Popular outlets for casual research on race-related topics, like Wikipedia, are often muddled with confusing verbiage or worded intentionally to disguise the consensus on inconvenient facts. Whether to avoid public controversy, or part of an intentional social agenda, this slant ultimately serves to mislead and misinform casual readers, giving impressions of a false conclusions or non-consensus on critical issues. At present, the institutions providing these services have no incentive to correct biased revisionism. As long as leftist egalitarianism is the popular cult, and there is no significant economic disruption, we cannot expect a free market solution for free and unbiased mass-media information platforms to develop.
- The best open “databases” or equivalent that we have at our disposal have bad references or broken URLs (“Library of Hate”, for instance), are too obviously biased (Conservapedia, etc), or are inconsistent with the validity of their sources. They are also not always designed to be queried or indexed by topic, and are not easy to quickly reference during online debate (Metapedia). URLs from many archives also link to indirect sources (blogs, etc.). Poor references lead us open to criticism and detract from the overall message, and should be mitigated.
- Not all of our foot soldiers have the means to assess the validity of sources, or to analyze claims for accuracy. While we should strive to utilize all our supporters, misrepresentations of facts and references to poor sources leave us open to attack and discredit our movement. Even the many who are savvy with relevant literature and objective analysis don’t have the time to commit to searching for, analyzing, and compiling a large list of useful sources. Worse, most work done by individuals to analyze and consolidate supporting literature is often replicated many times over, resulting in wasted effort that could have been put to use elsewhere.
I believe one solution could help mitigate all of these problems, and I call it “AltBase”
“AltBase” will be a query-able database of claims and validated Alt-Right sources, that allow for tags by topic (#). Simply search AltBase for a #topic (or #multiple #topics, e.g. “#Islam, #inbreeding”), and boom: A list of validated claims and their associated (linked) sources, in a ready-to-reference reddit/voat format, with the ability to download referenced PDFs. This does not have to be limited to articles and scientific papers, this could also be applied to things like video links and other media. Any user could also submit their own sources, claims, and #tags, which, when approved, would be added to the AltBase Archive – making AltBase a truly open-source, collaborative, AltRight project.
This website serves as a gateway for people to learn about this project, and a place to reach potential collaborators.