The Right Style Guide


Many people are saying Lawrence Murray is one of the best writers on the Alt-Right. I have lots of racist internet friends, and they message me and say, “Lawrence, you’re absolutely right. You know, I agree with everything you’ve said.” And I think lots of people feel that way. I’ve been doing very well and gotten excellent feedback, and I’ve found that the response is excellent. There’s tremendous support from lots of people I’ve met and we’ve got a blog that’s in better shape because of it. So many people have asked me, “How do you do it? How do you do it, Lawrence?” And I say to these people what I think, and I think I put in a tremendous effort to get things done for this organization. It’s a tremendous effort and I think we’re doing very well because of it. The Right Stuff is doing very well.

So anyway, someone actually did suggest I do a style guide of sorts and I do think that would be a good idea. One of the things I can do as a keyboard warrior is try to raise the standard of discourse on the things we’re talking and writing about, simply by increasing the share of content that is mine or inspired by mine—we’ve actually had a number of contributors decide to write articles because of my influence or suggestion and I want to see more of that. So with that in mind I’d like to give a pretty straightforward overview of how I do things and what goes into a good piece, what makes a good writer.

I. Read. Read a lot. Read everything you can. You should always be in the process of reading a book. It doesn’t matter what pace you read at, if you only do 20 pages a week, but if someone were to ask, “What are you reading?” you should have an answer. I’m currently reading Michel Houellebecq’s Submission, which was published in French and translated into English last year. Set in near-future France, the novel describes life under a Muslim Brotherhood-Socialist governing coalition for a nihilistic and debauched college professor. Usually I read history or non-fiction but given the recent spate of events in Europe, it seemed like a good choice. [Actually, I read Houellebecq like a month ago—this draft is just old]. Reading does a number of things for you: it makes you think, it exposes you to new ideas, it improves your vocabulary, and it allows you to experience the writing styles of professionally published writers. On the latter, I should clarify that I am in general against credentialism—but in the case of written word, it’s not well-written works that have difficulty getting published but unmarketable or crimethink ones. So if something is commercially published, it is a good indicator that the author or his editor have probably done a very good job with their prose, regardless of the message. Speaking of which…

II. Be efficient. This doesn’t mean you should keep things very short, but that they shouldn’t be unnecessarily long. There is a distinction. Think of the article as the macro-level and the sentence as the micro-level. At the macro-level, you shouldn’t repeat yourself too much except in a conclusion; anywhere else is probably superfluous. Say as much as you need to say. At the micro-level is where people tend to go wrong. Here you can never be too short, I think. If your sentence is more than four lines long it’s almost certainly garbage. I don’t want to have to read it three times to get it, and no one else does either. You are probably trying to express too many distinct ideas—maybe even breaking them up with punctuation like semi-colons, parentheses, or the em-dash—which have only tenuous connections that might not even make sense to other people who didn’t pen them; you should avoid splicing together things just because the rules of grammar, which are as sterile and mechanical as they come, say you can do so (because it results in shitty sentences like this one). It should have hurt your soul to read that. It should have been tiring. You don’t want your reader to be exhausted by the end, especially not for political writing.

III. Be fluent. If your writing is engorged with jargon it becomes increasingly hermeneutic, and obligatory of the audience to acquire competency in the same disciplines that you are familiar with in order to decipher your corpus of literature. If they have to google every other word or be familiar with Continental philosophy, then your work is likely for a very specialized audience, and for my purposes that’s not what I am trying to do. The purpose of political writing is to convert people and build a frame of reference for an ideological worldview. If you are introducing a very specific word or concept that is important to your overall purpose, explain it briefly and simply, and move on. If people find themselves getting bogged down in the marshes of your mind they are going to make an exit. This doesn’t mean you should write in a totally vernacular format, but conversely that if you write like a graduate student the only people who are going to access it are other graduate students. Obviously, you want your writing to sound intelligent, but more important is that the ideas you are expressing are intelligent. Good political writing doesn’t signal how many words the author knows but leaves the reader with something to both think and feel about.

IV. Lead the reader. I am not a huge fan of the traditional essay format. I think it’s cold, sterile, and a very artificial way of receiving and processing information. What I mean by that is the whole structure of the hamfisted thesis followed by a laundry list of evidence makes for a pretty boring read and encourages laziness on the part of the reader. There are times when the essay format is useful, but I feel that for the kind of politics I am advocating it is less effective. In my articles, I want the reader to be an active participant in reaching my conclusion. I start with the problem or event or idea I am writing about, then I provide a mix of evidence and ideological principles, and finally I propose some solution or position on the issue. In other words, the writing mirrors my own thought process of coming to the conclusion that I hold. My goal is for the reader to feel the same way I do before he even gets to the end, so that the conclusion seems as if it were something he could have thought of himself. Such clever goyim! I think that can be much more inspiring than just reading theses and arguments ad infinitum.

So those are really the key things I do. Without them, anything you write will be lacking something or other and less effective than it could be. What follows are the more tailored things I do for the specific world of Alt-Right blogging and media:

I. Link to other work. I might actually be overdoing this but whatever. I don’t want my past work to become buried, since I did put effort into it and think it is pretty good. You shouldn’t link just for the sake of linking, but to connect thematically related articles you or others have written—this helps build a comprehensive worldview that readers can easily reference. If you have written time-insensitive theoretical pieces, keep them around. When writing about current events, see if there’s a pattern going on that you’ve covered before. Providing links is especially helpful for getting newer people interested in your content, because after reading through one article they think is interesting, they now have the easy opportunity to explore further work, which in turn links to other work, and so forth.Think of it as a Wikipedia approach—a much more organic and engaging way of getting information than digging through an author’s archives. [By the way, there are too many articles linked in the above paragraph. Don’t go ogreboard].

II. Include image(s). One weird trick to get people to click on things is adding a picture to your article. Bonus points if it is a meme or really aesthetic. Nothing should be posted without an image because then the link previews displayed on major social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter will include a lot of blank space or a default picture from the website. And that just looks crappy. Does that mean the writing will be crappy too? There’s no reason to cripple your reach on this—put a picture in there.


III. Throw in some humor. Depending on the topic, it may be appropriate to lighten the mood or belittle the opposition or make some sarcastic observations. In recent years the left has been very successful at combining politics and entertainment, to the point where many millennials consider shows on Comedy Central to be an important source of news. The only thing actually funny about the whole situation is that only comedians who embrace broadly held left-wing attitudes (which are not at all stigmatized among high-status people) are considered to be very funny or insightful. In reality, these people are just snarky hall monitors. I think a lot of Alt-Right writers and Twitter users already have this covered though, as we are blessed by Kek with skillful memes. See also, the TRS Lexicon.

IV. Use history. History makes a good rhetorical and empirical case for a lot of positions one might hold. History is invaluable to identity formation, but also the only test laboratory we have for political beliefs and ideologies in practice. Now in general, people only know enough history to further their agenda, which means the opposition need only know slightly more than they do, which leads to a lot of omission and the development of parallel data sets, so to speak. But there is no avoiding that—no one has ever made a passionate case for anything by being totally indifferent and narrative-less. Often we are told by our enemies that the past we are referencing is either imaginary or mythical, a kind of strawman unless you are arguing with someone who is purely reactionary. But pure reactionaries are so rare to begin with that usually the charge of idealizing an imagined past is irrelevant—since we are truly interested in the future more than the past. It would be a farce to pick an age in history and say that is the exact year we want to go back to, because the past produced the present, which we want to overcome. I think many of us have a more archaeofuturist conception of what we’d want society to be like, that is to say, combining ancient truths with forward-looking methodologies. That means using history. And going back to the “mythical past” trope, the left is completely guilty of that which they charge the right with, especially in trying to redefine European nations and Anglo settler colonies as having always been “diverse.” The presence of Huguenots in early-modern London for example does not justify London being a British-minority city today, nor does having massive European immigration to the United States from 1840-1920 justify having massive immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa from 1960 onward. Know history and use history.

Now go forth and effortpost, goyim.

This entry was posted in Meta and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The Right Style Guide

  1. John Smith says:

    good stuff.

    The best parts of your articles are where you set and define frames. Here’s an exceptional couple of paragraphs in that regard:

    “The Clinton campaign, a church of no salvation which harbors the most rancid congregation of defilers and iconoclasts, charges we who follow the teachings of Esoteric Kekism and embrace the seven principles of the Alt-Right with being so-called supremacists. Much like the term racist, supremacist is used against White people who are insufficiently liberal on identity issues. In other words, if you believe Whites exist as a valid political interest group, a race, or a culture distinct from other groups, you are a racist and a supremacist. If you believe those same things about other groups, such as blacks or mestizos, you are a paragon of civic virtue, a social justice advocate, and a living saint in the congregation of the cucks. If not, you are a heretic of the Diverse faith.

    This is because Clinton and her sycophants follow the false doctrines of third worldism—the belief that people of color and their interests are morally superior to those of Whites. For third worldists, racist and supremacist are markers used to identify diversity heretics, i.e. White skeptics. A supremacist is someone who rejects third worldism. Always keep this in mind and pay attention to who is saying it to whom.”

    Here we have
    – a colourul designation by way of a metaphor that is also an oxymoron in ‘the church of no salvation’
    – ‘Esoteric Kekism’ links your argument to our broader brand and aesthetic.
    – deconstruction of a left wing term – ‘supremacist’ and ‘racist’
    – ‘cuck’
    – the kill shot designation ‘third worldism’. Much better than ‘the pro immigration left wants to import the global south into our homelands’. Weak sauce! It uses their words like ‘pro-immigrant’ and ‘global south’. But short, punchy nomenclatures that compress within them a meaning oriented toward our position are at once reference points, memory hooks, and instant labeling of the enemy for our thede.

    In conclusion, when you combine an argument (logos) with a frame (ethos) you vastly increase the memetic and mesmeric potential.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Bar Tar says:

    I find it difficult to write anything of length unless I’m responding to someone. Any suggestion?


  3. The U.S. State Dept. has been infested with communists since WW1 and Woodrow Wilson, they tried to steal the Russian elections for their comrades in the Russian Communist Party through non-profit n.g.o.s… just like at home in America… But Vladimir Putin beat them, so they launched a fággot jihad against the Russian Orthodox church over the punk rock band and the Olympics (something Bítch Romney stupidly piled onto) Miss neo-kabbalah lesbian Madonna, now rumored to be a Muslim convert, was flown in to agitate while Hillary was on a world-wide gay pride tour.

    When the Iron Curtain came down the Bolsheviks all fled to the other side because they knew what the Russians would do to them after 100 years of communism. The best thing about Russia getting Crimea back… Catherine the Great took it from the Turks… What happened right after Russia retook Crimea? The Russian FSB searched all the Turks living there… Why? Because NATO sponsors Islamist terrorism when it suits them to… The EUSSR needed Libya’s oil, but Muammar Gadaffi decided he wanted gold instead of worthless fiat currency from the EU… What was the first thing NATO did when Gaddafi was deposed besides stealing all of Libya’s gold? Form a new government? NOPE, they formed a new Libyan national bank. Now, why would they do that? Because even if Muammar was deposed, he and his heirs would still be the sole proprietors! While Leon Puñettas was so busy with gay pride celebrations at the Pentagon, three Navy Seals and a U.S. ambassador were murdered, all because everyone was being so fúcking gay.

    Like with the nonsense in Syria, the U.S. State Department armed terrorist rebels to get rid of Gadaffi, the same ones that killed Ambassador Stevens and stole weapons from that secret armory in the basement… It was easy to dispose of the hated Muammar Gaddafi, but Bashar al Assad has friends… Syria and Ukraine are the same scenario as Serbia… NATO, under the direction of Jéws Albright and Clark, bombed Serbia so the IMF Jéws could make loans for rebuilding and get control of Serbian iridium assets… while Saudi non-profit n.g.o.s kept the KLA terrorists well fed and well armed… Albanian Muslims now operate human slaughterhouses in Kosovo where they rip out the organs of Christians to sell to Turkey and Saudi Arabia… How is Hillary Clinton’s “reset button” working out for America, comrades?

    The banksters need a war desperately right now. They’ve tried so hard in Syria and it just hasn’t worked. Now they’ve got crazy Trump actually saying we should stay out of the Middle East and focus on our own problems, and people are listening… What’s a self-respecting globalist financier to do? Without the US military killing people and breaking things, there is no future growth path for them. So they send their puppets like Kasich and Romney out to talk up the fight against “evil” and threaten Russia and China, hoping to fool those dumb white ‘Murkins one more time into sending their sons off to die for God and Country and Goldman Sachs.

    The IMF is in bed with the Turks, Saudis, and NATO, they are worried about a Trump audit of the Federal Reserve… and about Trump and Putin teaming up to destroy them once and for all… Trump is a vote for peace, and peace does not make money for the weapon industry. The pseudo secular media and their globalist masters profit from destabilization. Retaining control of US foreign policy is what drives Hillary’s flying monkeys… along with the millions Goldman Sachs and the Saudis have paid her.


  4. Pat Hannagan says:

    Thanks for the tips, very useful.

    Good point re. adding a picture. I saw the one you put above (did you create that?) on your twitter feed and immediately researched “Australian Shitposting”. I never knew we were renowned for it.

    Top stuff and all power to you and your keyboard!


    • I did make the iceberg picture. Not an Australian though. It’s a forum reference.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Pat Hannagan says:

        Could you ask your comrades at TRS to stop inviting Greg Johnson onto the site please?

        He flaked out when things were dire and now wants to claim credit for the exact things that he opposed!

        He compounds these same errors of associating with the wrong types and dissociating the right types by now teaming up with Vox Day, ffs.

        Please let us not forget the My Nationalist Pony fiasco.


      • I wouldn’t call it “teaming up” with Vox Day. He is coming on his podcast to correct his legion misconceptions about the Alt-Right.


  5. Ranidae Paa says:

    I sense the divine inspiration of the ᛉBatrachian Lordᛉ flow through your writings! It is good. Blessed art thou, disciple of the ᛉFrog Godᛉ ! Praise!


  6. Pat Hannagan says:

    “I wouldn’t call it “teaming up” with Vox Day.” – VD has his audience and there is no need to validate it by associating with him. Associating is “teaming up”.

    “He is coming on his podcast to correct his legion misconceptions about the Alt-Right.”

    Greg Johnson is the last person I’d listen to about what constitutes the alt-right. Well, second last to Vox Day.

    I would say VD and GJ have one very big thing in common: deriving income from selling books. Fine, well and good. They both have interesting things to say, sometimes insightful and sometimes much we, as WNs, can agree with but both have thrown us under a bus during their internet careers.

    Both will have long internet careers doing what they do, but we can only diminish our goals by validating them through association.


    • Counter-Currents does not make a lot of money from the books. Mainly they are just a means of spreading information. And many are quite good. (I would especially recommend Greg Hood’s Waking Up from the American Dream). D’nations are where the money is for pretty much all WN orgs, not sales.

      Anyway Johnson has written some of the most logical arguments for White nationalism in my opinion so I don’t see how it diminishes anything. Vox on the other hand makes a point of identifying as tri-racial and countersignaling the notion that the Alt-Right is a White identity movement.


      • Pat Hannagan says:

        Thanks for replying and giving me a hearing. Lawrence.

        Keep up the great work.


  7. Pat Hannagan says:

    Brainstorm with Greg Johnson

    In the meantime, another part of the Alt-White has decided to go full retard. The mainstream media couldn’t bring Milo down, Twitter couldn’t bring Milo down, Black Lives Matter couldn’t bring Milo down, but the swastika panties are going to succeed where everyone else has completely failed!

    I know Milo. Milo is my friend. And I can guarantee you that this is exactly what Milo was hoping someone would do. There is nothing that will clean up his mainstream image like having a handful of Nazis publicly shrieking how much they hate the poor gay Jew. This is the sort of PR not even Milo can buy.

    They’re not going to so much as ruffle his glorious hair. They’re going to get him a show on Fox.

    Johnson has once again undermined Anglin, this time by legitimating Vox Day. I’d say “unbelievable” but I knew it would happen. Johnson’s duplicity astounds me, the Intellectual-yet-idiot par excellence that destroys rather than creates, but what astounds me more is that prominent sites and people in the movement do not see what a train wreck he is and are lured, it seems, by the opportunity to clothe themselves in some faux intellectual facade.


    • I don’t think talking to someone “legitimizes” them. Vox has his audience and I don’t think he is going to peel anyone away from us by being vague and waffling about White nationalism. Having a White nationalist on his platform I think was probably a good thing, though I have yet to hear the talk. Vox has been on the Daily Shoah as well, many episodes back. No one from TRS was convinced to adopt his positions.


      • Pat Hannagan says:

        Just as we don’t allow Jews into the movement we must not allow fags. Fags will always backdoor, as should be obvious, and as is happening not but once again.

        You have your take and I have mine. If one is into horse racing one knows to follow the form guide. Johnson has form for those who will read the guide. Some people can’t be told, that’s the way it is. Reality wakes them up but often it’s too late and they’ve done all their dough and are stone-broke outside the race course wondering what happened.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s