Walt Bismark finally posted an outline of his ideas in full. As such, I am going to assume that these propositions are serious and proper objects for critique, not just provocative performance art. Here, I intend to provide push-back.

I do appreciate the author for putting the essay together, but I think there are a lot of problems with the author’s political plan.

First, it's full of contradictions.

Most notably, you can see this in Walt's idea to "Win Back White Women" while "Running up the score with young white guys" which involves simultaneously giving young men license to "break social norms" while providing their female counterparts with avenues to financially devastate them with alimony settlements for situationships. This is a glaring contradiction that will require a mass propaganda campaign to cover up, and even that probably wouldn't work. Otherwise, the net effect would be alienating both parties when they realize that you are lying to them.

I should also note here that Walt’s proposed trade-off of emotional support for male promiscuity combined with legal wealth transfers for women to offset its consequence is the OPPOSITE of what a good sexual compromise would look like, which should involve EMOTIONAL support to women while transferring more FINANCIAL resources to men to make them better marriage prospects.

Second, a lot of Walt's ideas are notably unoriginal. Most of the propositions he lists in his essay are slight variations on the old neo-con talking points that I remember seeing in the California Republican party in the early 2000s, and which famously ended in disaster.

Some examples here would be Walt's presumption that, because Brahmin families tend to be socially conservative, therefore Indians are somehow a getable voting block for the right. This is IDENTICAL to the mistake California Republicans made with Hispanics. Admittedly, the proposition does have a kind of logic to it, but it doesn't work because of how real human social dynamics operate at a group level.

Individually, elite members of socially conservative minority groups go through the same progressive education that we all do to get ahead. And they are always INDIVIDUALLY benefited by playing along with the regime's anti-whiteness ideology rather than taking a risk to stand against it. Furthermore, on a collective level, the overall group interests will always be against the native population for as long as mass immigration increases their overall share of the voting population.

I am notably someone who doesn't care about race when building individual alliances. But I recognize history, and this strategy does not work at scale.

Sorry.

Similarly, Walt’s idea that conservatives can win Jewish support by… uh… flattering Jewish people and supporting Israel harder has a lot of problems. Do I even need to explain to readers that this has been done before? Good grief, I don't think I have ever seen a political party more deeply fellate a constituency that consistently VOTED AGAINST THEM. It might be unique in human history.

So how is Walt’s deal going to suddenly start working now? It’s unclear. The deal certainly can’t be getting Jewish votes and dollars in exchange for flattery and financial support for Israel. The deal can’t even be getting reciprocated praise for gentile whites. Otherwise, these things ALREADY would have happened sometime in the last 40 years.

Still, a worse idea is Walt's notion that paying trillions of dollars of Slavery Reparations to Blacks will be a "poison pill" for the regime’s reigning racial ideology. Could we pay reparations and in exchange undo Affirmative action, eliminate DEI, and wake white people out of their individualist complacency?

Probably not.

Once more we have to begin by recognizing that this is not a new or radical idea, this is a David Brook's article from 5 years ago, and I think I've seen similar think-pieces from conservative-leaning Atlantic writers in the early 2000s. Still despite how many people suggest this idea, it will never work. The exchange Walt imagines will never be honored

The critical distinction we need to be aware of Is between the things our government WILL DO and things that our government WILL NEVER DO.

Things our government WILL DO:

1. Payout mass entitlements to client groups on the order of trillions

2. Print money to obscure the connection between said payouts and the middle-class tax burden

3. Funnel entitlements paid to individuals BACK into activist groups to lobby for MORE entitlements

Things our government WILL NEVER DO:

1. End Affirmative Action

2. Purge DEI bureaucrats either at the state or corporate level

3. Stop teaching progressive ideology that supports DEI principles to all prospective professionals in college

How do I know this? Well because for the last 60 years, the government HAS been doing the former despite repeated popular opposition, and HAS NOT been doing the latter despite repeated popular support. A deal where your enemies get realizable promises and you get fake promises is a bad deal by definition.

And there are similar problems with the idea that operations will change the cultural dynamic. Walt understands, from the history of racialized entitlements, that reparations will not satisfy the Black community. But he does not seem to understand from the same history, that reparations will not outrage the White community.

As 80 years of debt-based government waste shows us, middle-class people aren’t outraged by line items on a budget, regardless of the digits behind them. As for the symbolism, White Americans don’t object to racialized humiliation as long as they have been educated to accept it by people that they perceive as high status. Never forget that the explicitly genocidal anti-white EFF party in South Africa still has some white supporters. You can’t outrage people out of these habits.

All this is not to say that I don’t like Walt. He is a good guy, and I am a big fan of his old Disney parodies. However, I think he makes a bunch of fundamental mistakes in thinking about politics.

First, he doesn’t respect or learn from past failed efforts by the conservative movement. He proposes things, that while technically possible, rely on everything working perfectly with none of the complexities that have sunk previous efforts in the same direction.

To complicate this, I also notice that Walt relies on a level of secrecy and privacy that the very existence of his articles undermines. This is most obvious in his contradictory approach to sexual norms, which MIGHT be reconciled if kept absolutely private, but which will NEVER work once they are loudly proclaimed on social media.

A similar problem exists with the handling of Walt’s pro-life issue. I have been a pro-life skeptic of the strategy of focusing on Roe-v Wade for years. However, if we follow Walt’s lead and PUBLICALLY disparage pro-lifers for being pro-life all while effusively flattering long-time enemies, we can kiss the hopes of an anti-progressive movement goodbye. No one is going to join a coalition that rhetorically throws its loyal soldiers under the bus the minute it becomes convenient to do so, progressives never do this.

Lastly, I think Walt suffers from a bit of “main-character syndrome” as he frequently assures his audience that he and his friends will be able to succeed in the brinksmanship when many many many others have failed before. I guess the idea is that everyone else who tried this previously was a low-IQ redneck Chud who couldn't get shit done? But I know this isn’t the case witnessing the California Republican party led by very competent people.

Walt is always ready to remind readers of his elite status. And I do appreciate the success he has had making parody videos and job-stacking (though his bragging about sexual exploits is cringe and low-class). However, does Walt Bismark’s brilliance somehow outshine the previous Californian Republican leaders who I have known in the past: all Ivy-League graduates, college football stars, Corporate Executives, and successful Start-up founders?

Hardly.

I guess I will end my critique here. I know Bismark has asked for debate, and I may in the future. as my schedule permits. However, I hope that these initial critiques serve to sober up the conversation and remove the chaff from the arguments so we don’t end up repeatedly listing the same talking points.