Illiberals Hide Their Power Level—Exploit It
power level hiding, sometimes formally called "crypto-fascism," refers to the practice of concealing or downplaying one's true ideological beliefs to avoid backlash or to slowly introduce radical ideas into mainstream discourse. individuals using this tactic often blend in with more moderate or widely accepted viewpoints while subtly advancing more extreme agendas. this strategic ambiguity allows them to gain influence and legitimacy without immediate opposition, effectively smuggling radical ideas into public conversations under a veneer of acceptability. this tactic, however, can be exploited by opponents who press for clarity and transparency, thereby exposing and challenging the concealed beliefs and causing internal strife within the movement.
my personal encounter with power level obscuring
my interaction with nate hochman (@njhochman), a rising figure in the national conservative movement, provides a stark example of someone "hiding their power level" in political discourse. hochman uses this technique to subtly challenge mainstream conservative values without directly opposing them, creating ambiguity around his actual beliefs. this method of engagement is evident in his tweets where he links illiberal movements to issues concerning government, free markets, and economic freedom, suggesting a shift away from traditional conservative ideals.
on x, hochman featured a tweet in which he described corporations adopting pride month themed advertising as "[challenging] some of the Rights most basic ideas about government, free markets, and economic freedom". i pressed hochman to elaborate on how exactly these movements challenge the right's basic ideals. however, he consistently evaded providing a clear response, opting instead for vague statements that hint at a deeper, more radical agenda. this strategy of evasion is a classic example of someone hiding their power level, where hochman attempts to smuggle in his negative association with liberal values while avoiding explicit confirmation of his stance.
conflict over radicalism in the groyper movement
as the groyper movement gains traction, internal rifts are becoming more apparent, figures like john doyle (@ComradeDoyIe) of american virtue and pinesap (@Pinesap3wasc), an ardent nick fuentes (@NickJFuentes) supporter, exemplify the different camps vying to steer the strategy of the nationalist movement. Even though their ranks have swelled, they are at a crossroads. doyle's approach suggests a strategic, moderated public discourse aimed at subtly weaving radical ideas into mainstream political conversations. this method, as doyle argues, involves achieving political victories "without naming them," a tactic that allows for ideological infiltration without the backlash that typically accompanies overt radicalism.
however, this strategy is not without its detractors within the movement. pinesap represents a faction that criticizes doyle's cautious tactics as overly dilutive of the movement's core ideologies. in a heated exchange, pinesap challenges doyle on the avoidance of direct mentions of controversial issues, questioning, "at what point do we have a problem mentioning these issues?" this dialogue highlights a significant ideological split within the group, with pinesap pushing for a more explicit acknowledgment of the movement's radical roots, particularly around topics like race and the so-called "jewish question."
the discussion between doyle and pinesap also touches on the role of public figures like tucker carlson, who discusses topics like the great replacement while insisting "it's not about race," a stance that doyle claims gives people permission to avoid accusations of racism, thus maintaining a palatable public persona. pinesap counters this by arguing for less gatekeeping of the narrative, suggesting a shift towards more openly right-wing rhetoric, albeit still shying away from the most extreme topics.
this purity testing and debate over strategy underscore a deep rift within the movement, between those who seek to mainstream their views through a pragmatic presentation and those who believe such tactics betray the movement's foundational principles. according to doyle, is how politics works and is necessary for broader acceptance.
you can watch the full discussion between these two here.
second-order consequences of concealing radicalism
the implications of hiding one's power level are profound, leading to confusion and inconsistency within movements like the groypers. disagreements over core issues, such as views on american values and white nationalism, frequently surface, revealing a lack of coherence and unity. these internal conflicts, driven by a facade of moderation, challenge the movement's credibility and effectiveness, as members struggle to reconcile public personas with private beliefs.
groypers are easily baited into revealing just how deep the fracture lines go. this results in them having major disagreements, some of which they aren't even aware of until that very moment.
in a public discussion, nick fuentes described americanism as a "heresy," sparking a wide range of reactions among groypers. some see this statement as a bold truth, while others are incredulous of the statement ever being made at all, highlighting the internal conflict within the group.
Jake shields (@jakeshieldsajj), another figure within the movement, expressed frustration over being labeled a "white nationalist". this led to a backlash from groypers who openly identify as white nationalists, indicating a split within the group about how openly they should embrace such labels. these interactions underline the challenges the groyper movement faces as it tries to navigate the public sphere while maintaining a coherent collective identity.
the liberal strategy for exploiting ideological rifts
liberals can strategically exploit the ideological rifts within groups like the groypers by pressing them to explicitly "own their beliefs." this tactic forces members of the movement to publicly articulate and defend their often radical positions, which can amplify existing tensions and provoke internal disputes. when illiberals are pressured to outline their stances clearly, they inevitably face purity tests from within their own ranks.
we observe this kind of purity testing with pinesaps confrontation of doyle. groypers aren't interested in pragmatic victories that "appeal to boomers" in pinesap's words. they want the core of their ideology to be about addressing what they see as core issues, notably the "jewish question".
we got to see a great example of liberals pushing illiberal right wingers to own their beliefs in a space on X that included nick fuentes, andrew tate, and sneako. opposed to them on the call was liberal streamer and personality steven "destiny" bonnell. with a majority of the guests on the show being muslim, destiny took the opprotunity to push nick and getting him to own the fact that he would never allow muslims to hold public office in his ideal society. this greatly annoyed nick, who characterized this line of questioning as an "interrogation", indicating how uncomfortable he is plainly stating his beliefs.
historically, when illiberal groups gain power, one of their first actions often involves purging those deemed insufficiently aligned with the core ideology. by encouraging illiberals to engage in this kind of ideological gatekeeping early on, liberals can catalyze discord and fragmentation among groypers, who may not fully realize the extent of their disagreements until forced to confront them in the public arena.
this approach not only sows division but also undermines the collective efficacy of such movements. as they become embroiled in internal conflicts over ideological purity, their capacity to project a unified front and attract broader support diminishes. ultimately, forcing illiberals to confront and purity test one another can weaken their political movements, making them less coherent and less capable of sustaining long-term influence.