"Walt Bismarck," a neoreactionary/alt-right blogger, decided to live by his beliefs and move from the liberal hellhole of Arizona to the midwest:
In 2018 I moved from a racially diverse swing state in the Sun Belt to a homogenous red state up in corn country. This decision was largely motivated by politics—I was looking to retreat to an imagined hyperborea free of crime and degeneracy where my volk had political autonomy.
The particular delight here is the section "Reason #3 - White people are no longer my most important ingroup".
It turns out they don't like him, they don't like his ideas, and the white womenfolk don't take to him. The frauleins prefer "stoic chudbots with rough hands and smooth brains" over his noble mind and physique.
In practice a society that encourages late marriage is actually much better for more bookish eccentric guys, who tend to be late bloomers in developing their masculinity and ability to seduce women.
(meaning: he came on weird at one of the nice church girls he was ogling to the point where one of her large guy friends suggested he take his leave.)
Our guy comes so close to introspection, but successfully evades it and reaches the root cause - these are the wrong kind of white people:
But these Midwesterners aren’t descended from entrepreneurial adventurers like the rest of us. Their forebears were conflict averse and probably low testosterone German Catholics who fled Bismarck’s kulturkampf to acquire cheap land under the Homestead Act. These people mostly settled areas where aggro Scotch Irish types had driven off the Injun decades ago, so they never had to embrace the risk-tolerant, enterprising, itinerant mindset that had once fueled Manifest Destiny. Instead they produced families that became weirdly attached to their generic little plot of fungible prairie dirt, and as a result we now have huge pockets of the country full of overcivilized and effete Teutons with no conquering spirit who treat outsiders like shit.
There is no shortage of genuine and active neo-Nazis out Iowa way. But they would have met Wordy NRx Boy here and flushed his head.
In the comments section, other racists call him out on his insufficient devotion to the cause of white nationalism.
Even our good friends at The Motte took the piss out of him.
The illustrations are, of course, AI-generated.
original post. Found on Bluesky by ratelimitexceeder.
You've got to get in their twisted headspace* to decode it. They mean the former is somewhat acceptable straight behavior, while the latter is "too gay" for stupid reasons.
*not recommended for longer periods of time
Ignore me I feel stupider just trying to explain it idk, but I'm just straight enough that I can see what they mean even if I can't really translate it for a normal person
That right there illustrates what that comment actually means. As a man, I'm assuming you are because of the context of being just straight enough to understand this, traditional society has created this expectation of manliness. That includes having an emotional, and especially a sexual, barrier against other men.
This expectation is not socially present in women. So it's "ok" from a social standpoint to be a woman into women, but it violates manliness protocol for a man to be into men.
What this guy in the original comment is demonstrating is that he is entirely beholden to traditional social protocol, and he's making the comparison, somewhat ironically, that being far right is viewed as a violation of the same social expectations while being far left isn't.
No, you just don't understand. The real punks want to codify existing social and sexual norms into inviolable legally enforced rules backed by state violence.
Just to underscore this, the Bible explicitly condemns male-on-male homosexuality and doesn't even mention female-on-female.
Although a true white chad society like ancient Greece understands that there's nothing more manly than the love between two men.