A Normie's Guide to the Dissident Right - Introduction
A Normie’s Guide to the Dissident Right
& the Culture War Era
Introduction - Who Am I, What is This, What is Dialectics, What is Dissent, What is the Internet
The Dialectic
The Millennial and Zoomer generations have lived through a time of great change and upheaval. They grew up during the peak of the post-war system, only to see it gradually deteriorate into a new and altogether different sort of system that is in many ways its opposite. The main force of this transformation was technology, in particular the Internet and information technology. However, it also follows the normal ebb and flow of history which has been described as "cyclical" or "dialectical" in nature.
"Dialectical" refers to a certain process of development. In this process, we start with a "thesis," which is the initial state or status quo. Then an "antithesis" emerges that contradicts the thesis, due to problems or contradictions that arise from the thesis. Then, after a period of time in which there is conflict between the thesis and antithesis, eventually a "synthesis" is created which incorporates parts of both the thesis and antithesis. Then this "synthesis" becomes the new "thesis." Here is an example of this process using the conflict between capitalism and communism in the 20th century:
Thesis: Capitalism
Due to the industrial revolution and globalization, capitalism emerged. It emphasized private ownership, free markets, and limited government intervention -- "the free market."
Antithesis: Communism / Socialism
In response to capitalism, socialist ideologies such as communism emerged. The Soviet Union promoted communism as an alternative to capitalism. Communism advocated for state ownership of the means of production, central planning, and the abolition of private property.
Conflict (Cold War Era)
The clash between capitalism and communism led to the Cold War, a period of intense ideological, political, and military rivalry between the United States (representing capitalism) and the Soviet Union (representing communism). This conflict lasted for several decades and was characterized by proxy wars, espionage, and a nuclear arms race.
Synthesis/New Thesis: Mixed Economy (Post-Cold War Era)
The Soviet Union fell and the Eastern Block disintegrated in the late 80s and early 90s. This led to the end of the cold war, and Soviet-style communism with centrally planned economies.
However, in the West, events such as the labor movement and the adoption of Keynesian economic theory in response to the Great Depression also transformed the economies of the "capitalist" states. The government began to closely regulate the economy. Labor unions collectively organized the workers against the capitalist business owners. And so socialist elements such as the minimum wage, the labor unions, the 40 hour work week and, in most countries, a socialized healthcare system were integrated into the capitalist system.
China, the most important remaining communist country, likewise reformed its system to incorporate more elements of capitalism and created a more liberalized market. Like in the "capitalist" countries these markets are nonetheless highly regulated by the government. As a result, China quickly rose in economic and political importance. In the end, both the "capitalist" and "communist" countries adopted a "mixed economy."
These mixed economies feature private ownership and free markets but also include government regulation and social welfare programs to address inequalities and provide a safety net for citizens.
The synthesis of mixed economies has evolved into what can be seen as the contemporary thesis. In this phase, economies around the world are interconnected through international trade, finance, and technology. Governments play a role in regulating markets and addressing social issues, but the emphasis remains on private enterprise and market-driven growth.
The rise of information technology has facilitated the dialectical process of history in ways that would be otherwise impossible as we will explore shortly. Many commentators have noted this, and they seem to attribute the entire disruption of the post-war order to the technology itself. However, it's important to note that the root of the disruption is not an inevitable result of this technological advancement but is a process that will always occur, and that technology simply acts as a medium through which it is taking place. So while the advancement of technology is intimately related to this process, it is not as simple as technology = disruption = what we see now. Nor is the conflict exclusively political in nature. Rather it is a historical conflict that has always and will always take place along numerous domains, including the ideological, political, aesthetic, metaphysical, epistemological, and religious.
Take music, for one example.
The Thesis: rock and roll
The post-war era was dominated by rock and roll. This music is abrasive, primal, and dissonant in form. It is rebellious, virile, liberal and hedonistic in its outlook. It is a synthesis of black and white musical traditions. It is closely associated with the 60s liberal counter-culture. It is closely associated with drugs. It is social in nature -- a small, tight knit "band" of musicians who "tour," like the wandering bards of a medieval romance. "Rockstars" emerge and become rich and famous. Its lyrical content ranges from "party music" to "protest music" that contains liberal and progressive messaging.
The Antithesis: Vaporwave
The antithesis is electronic music, with Vaporwave being an excellent representative of this due to its association with the early "Alt Right" era of the Dissident Right. This form of music is not "primal” or “virile" at all. In fact the human element, rather than being emphasized, is totally removed. Instead, it is created by computers and synthesizers. It is inspired by "easy listening" and "elevator music" or "movie soundtracks" rather than being dissonant in nature. The music is created by a single person, in isolation, perhaps in their bedroom. The audience for the music is mostly white men. It is tonal (like white music) rather than rhythm-based (like black music, such as early rock and roll). The music is created by someone who is, more or less, a composer, rather than a travelling bard. Due to the Internet and decentralized music industry, they usually do not gain fame and fortune and may even be anonymous. It usually does not have any lyrical content whatsoever, but what little message it has is usually based on nostalgia and is directed towards the "glorious past" or "the future that was promised but never was" rather than being progressive or liberal in nature.
It's important to emphasize again that this dialectical process is totally inevitable. It is as close as you can find to a law of gravity or law of conservation of energy in history. Therefore, what has been set in motion by the rise of the Dissident Right cannot be undone. These events that took place on the Internet immediately before, after and within 2016 have changed the course of history in ways that are unalterable, and there is no going back to the time that came before.
All that one has to do is study the events of the counter-culture of the 1960s, which propelled the last dialectical cycle of history and constructed the current thesis, to find their equivalents in the present dialectical cycle. 2016 was the summer of love. The original explosion of the antithesis that was primordial and had yet to take on a definitive form. 4channers, the Alt Right, Groypers, Proud Boys, incels...these are the hippies of our era. Sam Hyde, Stone Toss, Murdoch Murdoch -- these are the artists like Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac, Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, the Grateful Dead, Monty Python were for the Boomers and their counter-culture. Charlottesville was something like the Manson murders perhaps. Taking the redpill is like when Boomers took their first hit of acid.
When you begin to remove yourself from the events as they take fold, and look at them from a bird’s eye view, and see them not in their particular forms but as simply one instance of a more basic, platonic historical idea that has played out over and over again throughout time, it becomes difficult to argue that this is not the way that history is developing.
The influence of the hippies and their counter-culture ideas eventually permeated society and changed it in innumerable ways. Like the 4channers, they were not an exclusively political force. Many hippies were not involved in or interested in politics whatsoever, in fact an important part of their philosophy was "dropping out" of society (notice this pattern repeated again in the phenomenon of the NEET (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET) in the online counter-culture). It took decades for the ethos of the counter-culture to fully transform from a fringe culture to the thesis of American culture, and it was only after this that it became the thesis of American politics. Between their inception and their ascension, they first influenced fashion, music, film, comedy, and various other aspects of American society. In a similar way, /pol/ was only one of the many boards of 4chan. Those of that generation that were interested in politics became involved in politics, and brought the new ideas of their generation with them. They gradually implemented them as they moved along in their careers, until their generation and their attitudes and values eventually dominated politics. The same effect will occur with this generation's counter-culture. Those who grew up with anime, videogames, and memes, as well as with Sam Hyde and the Alt Right, will eventually be in positions of power.
The post-war Boomer generation was a reaction to the older, relatively more Right Wing generation of their parents, who created the relatively conservative culture of the 1950s, and thus brought with them a pendulum swing to the Left, by way of a Left Wing counter-culture. Thus, according to the dialectical laws of history, it is inevitable that their children would react to them and their liberal culture with a pendulum swing to the Right, by way of a Right Wing counter-culture.
Some have argued against this, saying that the majority of the Millennial and Zoomer generations are more liberal than their parents. This is a total misunderstanding of the process. It is not a switch that turns on/right and off/left. It is more like adding a tiny drop of food coloring to a glass of water, which slowly grows diluted while filling the entire glass. Or like a wave that reaches its zenith just as it crashes onto the beach and begins to recede, while another wave behind it has just reached its lowest point and begins to grow larger. It was only a small, fringe minority of Boomers that were hippies, yet eventually it permeated all of society. So it will be that a small fringe minority of the new, Right Wing counter-culture of the Millennials and Zoomers will one day permeate the society in the decades to come.
The Ultimate Conclusion of the Dialectic: Trump or Xi Jinping
There is one scenario in which this does not happen. The state can resist change, as it did in the Roman Republic, which slaughtered an entire generation of reformers such as the Gracchi Brothers. The dialectical process can be postponed in a particular place for a particular amount of time, especially by a wholly tyrannical and absolute government.
Perhaps the best example of this phenomena comes from China's "century of humiliation." When Western explorers reached China, the Chinese proclaimed that the West had nothing to offer them.
"I set no value on objects strange or ingenious and have no use for your country's manufactures. Our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders. Therefore, there is no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce"
— Foreign Policy Research Institute. (2023). China's early encounters with the West: A history in reverse. Foreign Policy Research Institute. (https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/05/chinas-early-encounters-with-the-west-a-history-in-reverse)
The reason that this happened is that China, for thousands of years, had been the most advanced, powerful and influential civilization in East Asia, and regarded all others as barbarians. As a result of their resistance to modernize when faced by the threat of the West, China decayed socially. Its citizens became addicted to opium. Its government became corrupt, enervated and ineffectual, until warlords came to control parts of the country. Then it was colonized, first by the West and then by the Japanese (who took the opposite approach, choosing to learn from the West and rapidly modernizing). It became embroiled in decades of murderous revolutions and civil wars. It fell to the radical ideology of communism. Millions starved to death in famines. Thousands of years of that very Chinese culture that was so highly revered was destroyed through the cultural revolution. It was not until the late 1970s, under Deng Xiaoping, that China finally finished paying for its hubris, and recovered from its disastrously unwise decision.
It is possible that the people of the West could repeat the mistake of China. For roughly 500 years, it is the West that has been the most advanced, powerful and influential civilization. They may decide that it has nothing to learn from the less liberal nations such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the other members of BRICS, that are expanding their global wealth and influence. Instead, they may choose to cling to the liberal post-war thesis as unquestionable dogma that has no room for compromise. If they go down that route, they will see their own century of humiliation, and be left behind by those nations that allow themselves to be more adaptive. In the end, the unstoppable force of the dialectic will continue, and these illiberal nations will surpass them, making the illiberal antithesis ascendant as the liberal nations fall into obscurity.
At the same time, while these nations may present as liberal, allowing for social liberalism such as homosexuality, they will have to be in reality less liberal and more tyrannical in order to stamp out any criticism of the status quo. Elections will be held, but they will be fixed so that only liberal candidates approving of the status quo will be elected. At the same time, they will venerate the importance of elections to greater and greater heights, declaring it a sacred act worthy of ever increasing reverence. Dissident political attitudes will be met with excommunication from society, imprisonment, and perhaps even torture or death. All while proclaiming the importance of free speech, so long as this "free speech" is only along conventional lines.
Hopefully, the West is not foolish enough to go down this route, and oppose the dialectic in vain. After all, it would ultimately be the worst of both worlds. But, if they do choose to make this mistake it would not be an unprecedented choice.
What Makes a Belief Dissident?
The amount of persecution that you receive for holding a belief is proof of how dissident it is. In this particular time, the most dissident beliefs are Right Wing beliefs. That also means that the Right Wing is the only side coming up with innovative new ideas that fundamentally challenge the status quo. Probably the most dissident belief is being labelled a "Nazi" or "white supremacist." In many Western cultures, professing this belief is treated like blasphemy, and it is enough to have a person become treated as less than human, and thrown in jail. Someone does not necessarily even need to be a Nazi or white supremacist. But if their beliefs are Right Wing enough, this label will be affixed to them and they will suffer the consequences.
Some Left Wing beliefs might be dissident to some degree. If you are trans, or if you are a revolutionary communist, perhaps you might be discriminated against in the workforce or receive a negative reaction from people. But nothing approaching what a "Nazi" would face. You will, at a minimum, not be censored from social media. The less you are persecuted, the more your beliefs are by definition acceptable by society and the less they fundamentally threaten the status quo.
It's also important to remember that just because a belief is dissident, that does not mean it is correct. Someone advocating for pedophilia would probably face persecution, but that does not mean that pedophilia is correct. But, you can also not say that being against pedophilia is in any way intellectually interesting or novel.
The Internet and Its Role as the Medium of the 21st Century Dialectic
It is impossible to understand the events of the Trump Era and the history of the Dissident Right without understanding the Internet. They are totally intertwined.
Even more so than the counter-culture of the 1960s, perhaps the period most like our own is the reformation and religious wars in the 16th and 17th centuries, facilitated by the invention of the printing press. Nick Fuentes, The Alternative Hypothesis, Slate Star Codex, Mencius Moldbug, Sargon of Akkad, Keith Woods, Richard Spencer, Andrew Anglin, Alex Jones, Andrew Tate -- these are the modern equivalents of the pamphlet writers of the first days of the printing press. Like the various protestant sects, some are simply reformers, while others are extremists, much like the religious extremists that had to seek refuge in America due to their own persecution by the establishment of Europe.
Prior to the invention of the printing press, information was highly centralized. Books were expensive luxury items that were difficult and time consuming to reproduce. The Bible was also in Latin, a language which the populace did not understand. Thus, they relied on intermediaries to interpret the Bible for them. However, the printing press decentralized access to information, opening up the ability to read and write to the masses and allowing heterodox ideas to proliferate in a way that was almost impossible for a centralized authority to control. This is the same phenomenon we encounter in contemporary times. First, there was a trend of centralization of information in the 20th century, followed by an extreme decentralization via the Internet in the 21st century.
In the 20th century, the world saw the emergence of mass media such as nationally syndicated newspapers, radio, and, greatest of them all, that chief and foremost idol of the Boomers: television. As the idiom goes, "the medium is the message." The medium a message is communicated in has an enormous influence on the content of the message itself. This is an important part of understanding the contrast between the mass media of the 20th century and the Internet of the 21st century.
In the mass media of the 20th century, there is a single "transmitter" such as a radio or tv station, and many "receivers" such as a radio or television set. Therefore, the transmitters act as choke points for information. A small number of people can control these transmitters, and thus a very small number of people hold a monopoly on all information. Basically since its inception, governments have seized on this feature of mass media to control the masses through propaganda. The liberal, communist, and fascist spheres of the world all made extensive use of propaganda via mass media, to extremely great effect. The effect was heightened even more by the fact that the technology was brand new, and the public seemed to have some naïve trust in it, as if society had not developed any resistance to it. They lacked the widespread skepticism of the media that is now commonplace. (Any Millennial or Zoomer who has spoken to a Boomer at length will quickly notice this naivete). The public was also as addicted to mass media, in particular the television set, as we are to smartphones today.
This centralization led to the "monoculture" in which the small number of people that controlled the "transmitters," and thus the public's access to information, could dictate the public's tastes, fashion, beliefs and so forth. This is part of what led to each decade of the 20th century -- the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, the 80s etc. having their own distinct trends. Meanwhile, heterodox ideas were unable to proliferate due to their inability to reach the same audience as mass media such as television, and thus automatically had the majority against them (that is not to say it was impossible for heterodox ideas to proliferate at all, simply that they had the deck stacked against them, and many obstacles could be put in their path to impede their progress).
When you control access to information, you in effect control people's minds. People, after all, can only form ideas of the world based on the information that they have about the world from their 5 senses. This sense data is essentially the raw materials from which their ideas are created.
Then came the Internet, and changed all of this. The Internet is an entirely different medium by nature, and as a result went against the current of the previous 100 years. Contrary to mass media, the Internet is a medium in which every node in the network is both a "receiver" and "transmitter." Any average Joe could suddenly gain just as large of a following on YouTube as a giant media company with billions of dollars, simply from recording videos on his bedroom computer. This instantly removed virtually all of the power from the owners of the "transmitters" and gave it all back to the "receivers." No longer did a small group of people control the tastes and opinions of the masses. Now the masses were in control of the tastes and opinions of the masses. No longer were there obstacles in the way of heterodox ideas. Now these heterodox ideas were right next to the ideas of NBC or The New York Times on an even playing field. There did exist some choke points. The Network Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect) made Facebook and Twitter more important than “Joe's Politics Blog”. There were certain limitations in regards to bandwidth and things of this nature. But as long as the content was user-generated and non-curated, these were minor and trivial.
To amplify this effect, the Internet, due to numerous factors, was almost entirely unregulated. The original character of the Internet was highly libertarian. Even the government seemed to share this sentiment. In the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress protected free speech on the Internet on the basis that it was essential to the interests of democracy.
Congress wanted to encourage Internet users and services to create and find communities. Section 230’s text explains how Congress wanted to protect the Internet’s unique ability to provide “true diversity of political discourse” and “opportunities for cultural development, and… intellectual activity.”
--EFF, “Section 230” (https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230)
However, this was in an era where the Left, while on the cusp of its total domination, was not quite there. Therefore, as all movements do before they achieve absolute power, it still held freedom of speech as a virtue. Much as the Bolsheviks did in 1905. Libertarianism was also well within the Overton Window of acceptable beliefs. So until somewhere around 2014, this was more or less the zeitgeist of Internet culture. It was not until 2014 when the Internet would begin to take an extreme rightward turn. At almost the same time, the Internet grew from a hobbyist medium to one that had as large of an audience as television, and was in the hands of every American at all hours of the day.
In the following chapters, we will see how the Internet changed over time as a result of the political developments that it itself was partially responsible for, and how these changes, which are ongoing as of 2023, have in turn influenced politics, which have then further influenced the Internet.
We will watch the slow formation of Right Wing ideas in the Wild West Era of the Internet, especially on 4chan's "news" and later "politically incorrect" boards. The birth of Pepe the Frog, and the proto-Alt Right. Also the rise of 4chan "ops" such as Habbo Hotel, and “hacktivist” activity by Anonymous and LulzSec. In these days, the online political sphere included the Ron Paul presidential election in 2012 and Occupy Wall Street.
We will watch the culture of the Internet suddenly explode into a far-Right environment in 2014 with GamerGate, leading to the rise of "anti-SJW" content, politically incorrect comedy such as Million Dollar Extreme, and the creation of the "Alt Right." Meanwhile, new advancements in technology lead to the mass adoption of the smartphone and social media, taking 4chan troll culture to critical mass.
We will watch as the Alt Right galvanized in 2015 and 2016 through the Trump presidential campaign. As the Internet flexes its muscles during the "Great Meme War" and trolls the world through the successful election of Donald Trump. Then in the years to follow, the Internet continues to show its potential for anonymous mass organization during "He Will Not Divide Us."
We will then watch the fall of the Alt Right in 2017 in the wake of Charlottesville, as the Dissident Right transforms from ironic politically incorrect trolling to a true dissident movement. Meanwhile, the Internet becomes further and further censored via collusion between Big Tech and the government. Also the Optics Wars and origins of the Alt Right's successors.
Then the rise of the Groypers in 2019, the Covid years of 2020 and 2021, the BLM riots, J6 Capitol Riot, and finally the end of the Censorship Era as Elon Musk buys Twitter and promises a return to free speech on the Internet, opposed at every turn by the forces of the ADL.
Finally, some final thoughts on the return of Trump in 2024 and new developments in politics and Internet culture. The rise of TikTok, and with it a return to a more passive "receiver" Internet experience than the early Internet or even the days of Twitter and Facebook.
Who Am I And Why Did I Write This
I am not really anyone noteworthy. I am simply a Millennial who has spent too long on the Internet.
I have been fascinated by the phenomenon of the online Dissident Right since before it had a name. I became aware of it in roughly 2010. In around 2008 or so I discovered 4chan, the source of most online culture, of which the Dissident Right is one descendant. Since then, I have been somewhat obsessed with it. It is at the intersection of technology, history, philosophy, and politics, and it has led to most of the bizarre and unprecedented events of the last 10 years. What other subject could be more interesting?
The Millennial generation is divided into those who grew up online and those who did not. The Zoomer generation is unaware of the things that happened before them. Boomers are completely clueless. There are many who only grasp bits and pieces of the rise of the online Dissident Right, its history, and connection to Trump.
To those who are unfamiliar with Internet culture, the rise of the Dissident Right and the online events that have bubbled up to the surface, it is inevitable that the Trump Era, which is perhaps the defining aspect of our generation, will be misunderstood. To future generations, these events will likewise be rendered incomprehensible. If the Trump revolution is defeated, and only his enemies write history, it will be even more distorted.
Therefore, I have endeavored to create this text. I intend to explain the history of the Dissident Right and the emergence of Trump from my own perspective as an extremely online person who grew up around it, with an ordinary person who is unfamiliar with it as my intended audience. It is my desire to portray the events in a way that is not explicitly ideological and to understand them simply from the viewpoint of historical analysis.
"Oldfags" (older, experienced Internet users) who are already familiar with Internet culture might cringe, or they might feel nostalgic reliving old times. I am not sure how it will be received by them. Probably with the Internet’s typical hostility. But that is not my target audience. My primary audience is normies, both of the Boomer variety and of posterity.
What is a "normie?"
A "normie" or "normalfag" (adding the suffix -fag to a word to describe a type of person was typical Internet slang during the Wild West era of the Internet) is a person who is unfamiliar with the Internet and its culture. I will delve further into this Internet culture in the rest of this text.
Choice of Words
“Liberal” is often used to mean “Democrat” or “Leftist” but that is not its true meaning. Really it means something more along the lines of what we would call a “classical liberal.” Throughout this text, I will use the word liberal in this true sense.
The word “libtard” is often used by people on the Internet to mean “liberal” in the opposite way. Someone who is neoliberal, Democrat, vaguely Leftist etc. So I may use the word “libtard” in this way.
I do not like the terms “racist,” “misogynist,” “Islamophobic,” “fascist,” “anti-Semite” etc. I feel that these terms are very broad and vague. Instead, I prefer to engage with the specific claim a person is making. However, I still may use these terms throughout the text to describe something that an ordinary person would consider one of these things. I will also offer context and further explanation about the specific view being expressed. When it comes to Left Wing or mainstream views, I might not be as careful or as charitable, because the purpose of this text is to explain a dissident, Right Wing perspective, not a mainstream, Left Wing perspective.
Are You in the "Alt Right"? Are You in Anonymous? Are You The Hacker Known as 4chan? Are You a Nazi? Are You Evil?
It is true that I have been influenced immensely by having interacted with online culture, including politically. I was originally something like a libertarian, and very socially liberal. But now I would consider myself to hold many political opinions that are considered fringe. I do not like the term "Alt Right" for the contemporary Dissident Right and would not use the term to describe myself. It has also become synonymous with white nationalism or some vague sort of neo-Nazism, neither of which I identify with.
I have a deep respect for other cultures. That is part of what attracts me to a more nationalist perspective. I want to preserve the unique character of the many diverse cultures that exist on Earth, and if they are all allowed to mix into one homogenous mass through global mass migration, it will, ironically, eliminate this diversity.
I am partially Jewish. I love my Jewish family. So, I obviously hold no ill will towards the Jewish people. I also do not really think that the rise of nationalism or Right Wing ideologies will result in anything like the holocaust happening to Jews in America. I do not practice the Jewish religion. I am a Christian.
I am a Trump supporter. Although hesitant at first, I would say I had fully jumped on the Trump train by 2017 or 2018. Even if I was still a liberal, I would support Trump due to his anti-establishment status.
I don’t support Hitler or the Nazis in any way. But, I am open-minded towards other leaders considered to be authoritarian such as Lee Kuan Yew, and Nayib Bukele.
I am not really active in politics, in spite of my interest in political events. I am not affiliated with any political organizations of any kind, officially or unofficially. I attended several IRL political events in the 2020s as part of Stop the Steal, and briefly considered becoming active in local politics, but quickly lost interest. For the most part I simply prefer to observe and write about it. I wanted to write a history of the Dissident Right from a more neutral perspective, rather than from the perspective of someone who thinks they are all evil Nazis.
This is not really about me or my personal experience, but I might include bits of that from time to time to add context to the history.
Table of Contents
Introduction : Who Am I, What is This, What is Dialectics, What is Dissent, What is the Internet
Chapter 1 - before 2014 : The Wild West, 4chan, /b/, /new/, Anonymous, Occupy Wall Street
Chapter 2 - 2014 : The Great Awokening and Its Consequences, GamerGate, Anti-SJWs, Million Dollar Extreme, /pol/
Chapter 3 - 2015 & 2016: The Alt Right, Trump, The Great Meme War
Chapter 4 - 2017 & 2018 : CVille, HWNDU, Optics, Big Tech Censorship
Chapter 5 - 2019 & 2020 : Groyper Wars, Covid, BLM, 2020, J6
Chapter 6 - 2021 & 2022 : The GAE strikes back, The Trumpism Without Trump Moment, MDE Never Dies, Kanye The Wignat, Elon the Redditor Saves The Internet
Chapter 7 - 2023 & 2024 : X v ADL, Trump Or Death, TikTok, Migrants take Manhattan, The End of White America, The End of The End
Timeline of the Internet
1991 – 2003 : Early Wild West Era
Birth of Internet - birth of 4chan and Web2.0
2004 – 2016 : Late Wild West Era / 4chan Era
Birth of 4chan and Web2.0 - Big Tech Censorship
2017 - 2021 : Censorship Era
Big Tech Censorship - Elon Musk buying Twitter and establishment of Alt Tech like Rumble
2022 - Present : Modern Era
Relaxation of outright censorship, replaced by “doomscroll” platforms such as TikTok, where content is promoted or hidden silently. Rise of AI and LLMs. The Internet becomes more ethereal as old Internet content, previously archived, increasingly becomes scrubbed from the net.
Timeline of the Dissident Right
Pre-2010 : Offline Era
Pre-Internet groups such as American Renaissance
2010 - 2013 : /pol/ or proto-Alt Right Era
Dissident Right begins to form online
2014 – 2017 : Alt Right Era
Height of the Alt Right
2018 – 2023 : Dissident Right Era
The Alt Right declines in popularity after Charlottesville. New groups such as America First take their place
2024– Present : New Right Era
The Dissident Right’s ideas become increasingly assimilated into the establishment Right in a more palatable form
Well done