Sunday, March 6, 2016

Who and What is the "Alt-Right"?

Have you heard the term "Alt-Right"?  It's short for "Alternative Right," and it includes people and organizations on the right, including this blog, which serve as an alternative to what is publicly known as the political right. Most members of it are not new, but the grouping and terminology is new, and it serves as an assertion that what most of us have been led to believe is the political right is at best a feeble version of what it should be, and at worst, is just a watered-down version of liberalism and acts as a controlled opposition.

The left is quite happy with the phony political right as it is, and wouldn't change a thing. Indeed, the left is quick to "help" the political with advice about how it should behave and what elements of itself should be purged. Right now, it's rather nervous about Trump, and fears that Trump is shifting the Overton Window too much. Its response, for the most part, has been to directly or indirectly advise the political right that their best bet is to support Republicans like Bush or Rubio who can be counted on not to impede the advance of leftist goals and narratives. This advice takes the form of assuring the Republicans that Rubio, or whoever, is the one most likely to defeat Hillary Clinton. An assertion that I very much doubt.

One of the most obvious tactics of the left is to encourage the right to reject its supporters, like David Duke, while completely ignoring the support of such groups as Black Lives Matter and the Communist Party USA for the Democrats.

And here, from The Right Stuff [link] is a discussion of the Alt-Right and how it should conduct itself"

The Fight for the Alt-Right: The Rising Tide of Ideological Autism  Lawrence Murray 

The growth of what is termed the alt-right in recent months has lead to a growth of criticism and some debate over its meaning and scope. (We're also on Wikipedia now). The "Alternative Right" is a 2010s political label with history I am sure most people reading this are familiar with, and if not it is beside the point. What I aim to discuss here is not so much alt-right history or criticisms thereof, but rather a survey of what basic tenets compose it now.
But before that, I would emphasize that by necessity the alt-right is a "big tent" philosophy. Ideally this means that it functions as an intellectual alliance between other philosophies that embrace most or all of its core principles. Therefore it is counter-productive for any of these philosophies attack one another more than they attack outside philosophies. Some people call this no enemies on the right or no enemies to the right, the latter being less inclusive, but what is most important ultimately is to not throw competent people who agree with you on major issues to the wolves. Having clear battle lines is crucial because it ensures we are our own moral authority rather than a third party that is opposed to most or all of our beliefs, which is a major problem if not the problem with the mainstream right.
So what are the tenets of the big tent? I believe they are as follows:
1.) People are different. Human inequality is a fact of life and belief systems that deny this lead to distortion and oppression. Both individuals and populations vary in their characteristics in meaningful ways, such as intelligence and social behavior. One size does not fit all, not comfortably at least.
2.) Our world is tribal. The struggle for survival which has produced all life on earth extends into biological human races, which both exist and matter to their members. Such conflict is neither immoral nor moral, but a condition we must engage with in order to develop any meaningful philosophy or ideology. It can be found on the streets, in the human resources department, at the ballot box, or in the trenches. Even something as trivial as the Oscars is fought over. Though it is currently politically incorrect to acknowledge that races and their national subdivisions exist and compete for resources, land, and influence over one another or over themselves, that does not mean the struggle has stopped. That one side has been cajoled into not struggling does not mean it is left alone.
3.) Our tribe is being suppressed. The new left doctrine of racial struggle in favor of non-Whites only, a product of decolonization and the defeat of nationalists by egalitarians after WWII, must be repudiated and Whites must be allowed to take their own side in their affairs. A value system that says Whites are not allowed to have collective interests while literally every other identity group can do so and ought to do so is unacceptable.
4.) Men are not women and women are not men. Men and women have roles to fulfill for the species to persist in a stable and healthy way. Feminism and the sexual revolution, by destroying the conditions that promoted and sustained heterosexual monogamy, have had disastrous implications for the sexes and relationships between them. (I highly recommend F. Roger Devlin's Sexual Utopia in Power here for those interested in more). No viable society can exist where the long-term union of one man and one woman producing a replacement level of offspring is not the norm. Some Western countries have obscured the impact of sexual degeneracy on birthrates by importing foreigners, but such measures only further the destruction of nations; they do not sustain a people but keep a state's balance sheets in order.
5.) Freedom is a responsibility and not a right. The freedom of too many incompetent people to make too many bad decisions is harmful to society and constrains the freedom of virtuous and responsible people. There are externalities to most actions and when these are harmful to non-actors it is a kind of injustice. These need to campaigned against, or suppressed by force or the threat of force—the basis of the rule of law. A virtuous society is an ordered one that provides freedom from anarcho-tyranny.
6.) If we must be a democratic society, the franchise should be limited. Universal democracy is a bad system. It gives power to the worst and shackles the fittest. It is a degenerative institution in which the weak and unproductive collaborate against the strong and sustainable.
The final alt-right shit-test is whether or not someone agrees with the reality that Jewish elites are opposed to our entire program. It is the third rail for a reason. The hardest redpill to take is a suppository, the Jewish Question. (Here I highly recommend Dr. Kevin MacDonald's site if you don't have the time preference for an entire series of books on the subject). The disproportionate influence of an elite Jewish minority in Western societies has been a net negative. Jews, who have a three thousand year history of regulating their communities to be as insular as possible among the nations whose territory they dwell in, show a consistent pattern of promoting the interests of their own ethnoreligious minority at the expense of the majority nation. It is what they do and when they do it here it is bad news for us. When given the power they have now it results in degeneracy, the losing of one's race. Even in Israel one will find Jews who are firmly dedicated to the destruction of their host's borders and hold in contempt the idea of loyalty to their national kin. Who shrieks loudest at anti-immigration nativism? Who praises their own ethnocentrism as a virtue and shames others for having the same feeling? It is a pattern that crosses time and borders, and there is a war against noticing it. The staunchest social egalitarians, anti-nationalists and "anti-racists" are Jewish, inside and outside of Israel.
There are plenty of ideological directions one could go in from here, and as always there is no silver bullet solution to problems of the magnitude we deal with in Western societies. And people who claim to have the bullet tend to be the most zealous about it. Some proposals are modest, some are LARPy, and some won't be LARPy for long. But if they address our root issues they are worth some consideration. And if after such consideration you find you only disagree about secondary or tertiary issues, there is definitely room to work together. The big tent is worth preserving to persevere against our common enemies, for our struggle is revolutionary. Stay fashy, my friends.
Also published at Atlantic Centurion
Quibcag: Illustration by 'The Icon of Sin.'


  1. Fascism, Nationalism and Hitler scare the bejesus out of the Synagogue of Satan. These arrogant little freaks thought they were unbeatable after they got lucky and murdered the Tsar and his whole family to make the Soviet Dystopia that gave Marxism a bad name, but Hitler beat them at their own game by crucshing them with better Propaganda and media. They are still shell shocked they were beaten verbally. Its their only real skill really. They're actually weak, stupid and lazy, and their parasitic lifestyle reflects their useless and unproductive hives of scum and villainy. Dr. Goebbels is the Grand Master of Propaganda, and he said that in order for propaganda to work it must be true. That's why these things always lose. They lie like a rug, all day. Political Correctness is just goofball stupid and the force necessary to enforce this stupidity ensures revolution and the destruction of these worthless and useless parasitic vermin.

  2. "The disproportionate influence of an elite Jewish minority in Western societies has been a net negative."

    Yeah, sure. But is that the result of being Jewish, or consequent to the fact that Jews have a three-thousand-year history of associating their interests with the (eminently corruptible) "elites" in the societal mainstream in order to leverage such influence against the hostile goyishe majority?

    All identifiable ethnic and religious minority groups tend to concert among their own ranks to secure conditions beneficial (or, at least, less adverse) to their own kind when they settle among foreign populations. Ethnic Chinese throughout southeast Asia and the Pacific, for example, have done so for centuries. Why should the Ashkenazi (eastern European) Jews have been any different, either in the old countries or on this side of the Atlantic?

    It's not so much that antisemitism is politically incorrect but that it's cement-headedly shortsighted.

    The game is three-card monte, and while you're watching the dealer's hands, you've stupidly lost track of the fact that the red queen was never on the table to begin with.