People don't normally talk about their blog stats publicly, but I want to help this movement grow and I don't care if you see my numbers. The main advice I want to give prospective neoreactionaries is that if you don't promote your blog, nothing will happen.
You absolutely have to promote.
The stats are a little misleading. I never wrote anything in 2010. The only reason the graph goes back to that era is because I like to reclassify low quality posts by changing their publication date to a day in 2010. This moves the post off the main page without generating a broken link. Sometimes though I just delete something that I regret publishing later. Sorry for that.
This blog started in 2011 as "Modern Conservative Philosophy," (yes, the name is awful). Back then I was not a neoreactionary or anything like it. You can dig around in the archives if you want to read some basic bitch conservative stuff. Fair warning, my spelling and grammar were even more atrocious back then. I had not yet discover the spell check button 5 inches above this text in the blogger interface.
Nothing happened for 5 years.
For the first year I averaged 0 hits per month on my website. Then for the next 2 years I averaged about 30 to 50 hits per month. I was really excited about reaching 50 clicks per month at the time.
Then I started to promote my blog on Reddit by submitting links to articles. Reddit has this annoying feature where it says, "you are doing that too much," when you try to post a bunch of links in a row. The highest rated article on this site was submitted to the atheism subreddit. This has nothing to do with atheism itself. That subreddit is simply very very popular. Thus, a link posted there gets more hits than one posted in r/dark enlightenment.
Once I started to promote in December 2015 my numbers exploded.
List of tips;
- Posts with pictures get more hits than those without.
- Posting links to subreddits with lots of members is more efficient than smaller subreddits.
- Don't rely entirely on Reddit. Diversify your links to multiple platforms; Facebook, Twitter, Gab, My Posting Career, YourTube, PewTube, etc.
- Videos will get more views than articles. Consider a video blog over a written blog.
- Photo essays will get more hits than just text.
- Get listed on an NRx aggregator by emailing the webmaster and asking nicely. This would include sites like Unorthodoxy, Alt Right Portal, r/Dark Enlightenment, r/neoreacton, r/nrx offical, r/neoreactionary, r/nrx, the Xenosystems comment section, etc.
- Network with the most popular alt-right websites and ask if you can write for them. Having a byline on one of their sites will help generate clicks. Some of the most popular are;
- Make a generous donation to the Right Stuff.biz. They will mention your name on the air which can give you some clicks.
- If possible, have someone dedicated entirely to promotion and nothing else.
- Solicit articles from other people. To create a popular website you need to post about one article ever hour at least. Your need as many volunteer writers as you can get.
- Cover current events in real time.
Of course I haven't done even half the things on this list, which is why my blog has never gone above 14,026 monthly hits.
Also of note is the subject matter. Articles about new technologies will generate lots of hits. So will "insight" articles that shed some light on a difficult or mysterious topic. You can become the IEEE Spectrum of the alt-right. There is a huge market for identity politics-based and "niche" writing, whether you are talking about the lesbian magazine Autostraddle, the (misogynistic?) A Voice For Men, the racist The Daily Stormer, the anti-white racist , Slate and Salon Magazines, the cuckservative National Review, the grievance-mongering Ebony Magazine, or the libertarian Cato Institute.
Racism sells. There is no getting around that. Whether you are shitting on white men or pissing on minorities any discussion about race will generate clicks, and the more vitriolic the more clicks. I have looked in vain for a limit to this, but with The Daily Stormer being the most popular alt-right website there apparently is no low that is too low to limit your website growth. One explanation is that capitalism is racist, but I find this unconvincing because capitalism just gives people want they want. Part of the reason this website stagnated at 14,000 monthly hits was my unwillingness to pander to racists. Oh yes, I have made racist statements of my own, yes, I don't believe in equality, and yes, I think racism is basically unstoppable, but my racism is more of a passive, "ok so people are not really equal, meh" and not a "gas the kikes race war now!" kind of racism. I have passive racism and not an active desire to hate people. I simply don't have the hate within me to pump out hate-filled article after article that would allow me to monetize this site.
But hate sells, and sells well.
The only limit is moral and practical. If you are as hateful as the Daily Stormer you will be chased all over the earth by censorship and that will obviously interfere with keeping your clicks up. And of course, ya know, conscience or something?
Since I don't run advertising I have no incentive to run this site beyond my own edification.
Humans are genocidal monkeys. Capitalism will sell genocide because it will sell you anything. My conscience requires that the profits for that go to Andrew Anglin instead of me.
The media gets a lot of flak but there is a basic feedback loop with the media that goes like this;
- You give them ratings according to your biases.
- They tailor their content to the ratings you give them, reinforcing those biases.
Whether algorithms or filter bubbles, search engines or ratings, clicks or play time, the media company or even blog has an incentive to cater to your bias. You give more ratings/clicks to a certain set of topics. In turn, the editor or blog author writes more about those subjects.
For example, people watch (give ratings to) news stories about unarmed black men getting shot by the cops. A smart producer at CNN will select stories about black guys getting shot by the cops and not select stories about white or hispanic guys getting shot by the cops. It gets more ratings. A segment of the US population comes to believe that cops are racist. Actually, statistically, these other races are more likely to be shot on a "per interaction basis," (though blacks have more interactions relative to their numbers), but the stereotype of the murdering cop is created anyway because that is what the audience will give ratings to.
Now try convincing a member of that audience that cops are not racist and watch them call you a racist, even though it was they who helped generate a racial obsession.
Is CNN racist against cops? Well yes. Though technically cops are not a race. But they are pursuing ratings. Who is giving them the ratings? Their audience. So who is to blame?
But CNN reinforces that bias with biased coverage. So is the audience to blame or CNN?
Point is, there is a feedback loop between the media and its audience. A bias can "live" in that loop like a living organism, independently of human will. The cognitive bias of anchoring within the minds of the audience will combine with the pursuit of profit by news producers/editors to produce a loop of living bias that transmits down through the generations. A version of this also helps perpetuate progressive morality plays in fiction on TV. While living biases create racism on the internet, other living memes rant against in them our fiction, just like the Star Trek Enterprise episode aptly named "Stormfront."
The meme has a life of its own.
The meme reinforces itself.
The meme transmits itself to new generations.
Of course this isn't to say that racism is just some construct. There are deep biological reasons for it, and racism will always exist for the same reason that power and inequality will always exist: because someone will make sure of it.
There are other biases inherent in media, such as;
Just because you don't live in a dictatorship doesn't mean the media is "morally neutral," or "unbiased." Media companies have all kinds of screwed up incentives. 1. Don't piss off the advertisers even if they are criminals, 2. Cater to the biases of your audience, 3. Generate ratings, 4. Ensure access to politicians by skewing reporting in a way they approve, 5. Hate sells, 6. Upsetting people with bad news sells, 7. Sex sells. 8. The worse society gets the more money you make.
This begs a question: "how much of what you know about reality is real?" How much of reality is even knowable? If ALL reporting is biased then "reading outside your bias," isn't enough. Outside your bias is just someone else's bias. You can't even escape the problem by being open minded. On top of that it's all skewed in a negative direction, because negativity sells.
Joke: "muh read outside your bias."
Woke: THERE IS NO OUTSIDE.