Sunday, May 22, 2016

The Names of Things: Alt-Right, Libertarianism, Libertarian Nationalism, Dissident Right, Identarian, etc. etc.

It's just a coincidence, believe it or not, that the last post [link] also dealt with the problem of giving things their right names. But this post isn't so much about getting the names correct as it is about sorting them out into some kind of a useful pattern. Some people are still stuck with the old one-dimensional left-right paradigm, AKA liberal-conservative. The slightly more sophisticated add "libertarian" to the mix, making it more of a two-dimensional concept. But in reality, both ways of looking at political reality are so inadequate as to be misleading. We have to get away from Euclid entirely (three-dimensions aren't enough, either), and move on to Einstein, Riemann and Planck, at least, to even suggest the complexity of it all.

In fact, it's probably futile to try to create a useful analogy with any kind of mathematical system.

I like the analogy referred to in the quibcag, which is expanded on below. It actually reminds me of a metaphor C. S. Lewis used many years ago in Mere Christianity [link], the title of which he meant to signify the overarching Christianity which the denominations have in common. He described it this way:

It [Mere Christianity] is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall, I have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait.

So if we regard "Alternative Right" as the equivalent to "Mere Christianity," as a term that signifies all the "denominations" of the movement, we can use a similar "hallway" analogy to describe the concept, modified a bit here as that of a hotel on the edge of a chaotic city. And the chaotic city reminds me of yet another C. S. Lewis metaphor, that of the "grey town," in The Great Divorce [link]. From a description:

In the opening chapters of the book, we find that Hell is a bleak, dreary gray town, vast and lonely, hovering in a perpetual rainy twilight. Wandering through abandoned streets, the narrator finally stumbles across a bus stop, where a group of people are waiting for the bus. All of them are angry and argumentative, however, seemingly unable to tolerate each other’s presence; they quarrel, assault each other or drop out of the line declaring that they didn’t want to go anyway at the slightest provocation. [link]

You can't beat old C. S. for metaphors. I tend to ramble like this when he comes up, because he's one of those thinkers who influenced me immensely.  But now, to the more mundane world of the resistance to the Zeitgeist,  This is from Alternative Right [link]:


There seems to be some confusion in the media about Neoreaction and how it differs from the alternative right, as well as confusion by neoreactionaries about why this is so. 

Let us tackle these in reverse order. First, the media: they are cartoon makers. They make comics and call it news. They do this to fit the cognitive profile of their audience. Most people are not analytical and, also, are not inclined to spend time researching and understanding political and social issues. As a result, they want bright simple colors and stories of good versus evil. 

That means the media must invent “good” (human interest stories based in pity, irony, and bittersweet eucatastrophe) and “evil” (anything which denies the good feelings of the audience, especially by failing to be egalitarian). 

You can understand any media story in these terms. Your instinct is to believe that the story is about its topic. It is wrong and dangerous to think that. What is actually true: the story is always about the audience, because newspapers are there to sell ads, and have never done anything else. That is their profit model. What readers pay for a newspaper is tiny compared to the revenues from the ads, and they mainly keep you paying for it so you do not realize that it is essentially an advertisement cloaked in the altruistic pretense of being fact-based. 

Breaking story.
As Fred says, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This doubly applies when it comes to the news. They choose what stories to report on, and then, they choose which facts to mention, and what order to mention them in, and how to present them. Hint: any activity, no matter how degenerate, can be made to seem innocent by portraying those involved as victims of some other superior force. People fear superior forces and demonize them. 

Next, we move on to the question of Neoreaction and the Alternative Right: one and the same? 

Perception of political theories is relative, although the theories themselves are not because they are based in method. Someone who is on the far-left will perceive the moderate left to be far-right, but it is still based in the Leftist theory, which is equality, and not the rightist theory, which is replicable results. 

To your average modern citizen, because the West has been growing steadily more Leftist since the Peasant Revolt, anything to the right of a moderate Republican is “far-right,” and that area includes the following philosophies:

  • Neoreaction
  • Reaction
  • Traditionalism
  • White Nationalism
  • Pan-Nationalism
  • Alternative Right
  • New Right
  • Paleoconservative
  • Social Conservative
  • Monarchist
  • Identitarian

You will note that all of these overlap. For example, all favor Nationalism and strong hierarchy. Many favor aristocracy, such as monarchists, reactionaries, and traditionalists. Some are nearly indistinguishable from one another, except for a fundamental idea or two, such as reactionaries and traditionalists. And so on. A complete definition of these is outside the scope of this article. 

What unites them is that they recognize that the “equality” method does not work, and is leading our society into ruin. 

They then take different responses to this. The dissident right — you might use that as an umbrella term for the above, since “far right” implies the mix of neo-Nazi, paleoconservative, libertarian and liberal ideas that comprises white nationalism — differs in degree and method only. Once we realize that Leftism is a dead evolutionary pathway, we must find (1) another way to take and (2) a method of getting there, which is complicated by the fact that Leftism is popular because it is illusion, especially during Leftist eras, and because of the warm bath of their propaganda.

Within this realm, we might see Neoreaction as a response by the middle classes to the degeneration of their countries. The basic idea of Neoreaction is that we should treat government like a business, expect it to act like a business and limit it, and allow the dual forces of capitalism and free association to fix everything else.

This is not far removed from the original American ideas of Thomas Jefferson, or even Jared Taylor’s notion that if we removed anti-discrimination law, this country might have a chance at survival.
These bourgeois roots of Neoreaction place it in the hybrid camp along with libertarianism, which is fitting because Neoreaction is a discussion filter for getting to the next step, not the next step defined, where it can then be attacked by stronger Leftist forces. 
I suggest re-reading that paragraph again, as it is essential to understand Neoreaction. It is a salon, not a revolution. 

There's lot's more to this. Read the rest here:
Late-breaking: Countenance defines Alt-Right for us here:
Quibcag: I'm not sure what the illustration was originally done for. I found it here:


  1. In the opening chapters of the book, we find that Hell is a bleak, dreary gray town, vast and lonely, hovering in a perpetual rainy twilight.

    I never knew Lewis visited Seattle.

    No, the Alt-Right is only defined by what it is against - the Left, SJW totalitarianism.

    Like Churchill, Stalin, and FDR during WW2. I don't know what I fear more, losing or what will emerge from our Yalta.

    We might wish that it is something higher or better, but it is not. Some on the alt-right are against Western Civilization and Christendom. Yet they are our allies for the moment because the enemy is apparently strong and we need everyone to defeat them.

    This is the evil with anarcholibertarianism on the practical level. I don't look to RooshV to reestablish the traditional large nuclear family. I don't see the nastier parts of the "white power" getting along (WASPs? Slavs? Italians and Irish Catholics).

    Yet this comment began in hell and ought to end there because that is our true enemy. We think it is a culture war. This is like trying to say Vichy France had nothing to do with the Nazis. The Devil and his demons are at work. The Culture of Death is like a Screwtape letter - the invisible tempter promises Utopia in egalitarianism (Feminism and LGBTQ - lets be clear), no-fault Divorce, Abortion. Many accept they are improving the world and are fighting. But the culture is the battlefield. "World War" describes something external.

    There are some variants but Here is an audio with Transcript and there are videos, "Kreeft How to Win the Culture War" will return more - it is a Catholic perspective but applies to any Christian.

    It begins thus:
    To win any war, the three most necessary things to know are: (1) that you are at war, (2) who your enemy is, and (3) what weapons or strategies can defeat him.

    You cannot win a war (1) if you simply sew peace banners on a battlefield, (2) if you fight civil wars against your allies, or (3) if you use the wrong weapons.

    The greatest mistake I see is to confuse a cultural battle with a spiritual one. They need different weapons, tactics, and strategy. William S Lind describes the problem using 2nd or even 3rd generation warfare techniques on a 4GW battlefield. They are actually counterproductive.

    If the problem is Men without Chests, then we need to regenerate or transplant the proper passions, or insure they exist in the next generation.

    Instead I see mostly a substitution of different uncontrolled, excessive, or wrong passions. Gamma Rabbit is being fought by Alpha Wolf, not any kind of Man. Leave Man abolished but replace a caricatured feminine matriarchy with a caricatured patriarchy. Frija with Oden, not God the Father. Immoderate feminine virtues with immoderate masculine virtues. Milquetoasts with bullies.

    1. You're wrong before you even started. The Alt. Right is unified in truth and wishes to save Western Civilization. There are anti-Christian segments, no doubt, but the whole is not that.

      Furthermore, spiritual wars were fought physically in years past. And this total war. It is both cultural and spiritual.

  2. (continued)

    We've already seen it. Many conservatives think "24" and Jack Bauer as something wonderful because he ignores rules to get things done. - but those same conservatives reject Trump because he doesn't play by the rules.

    The reaction to 9/11 was the TSA, NSA, GITMO, and Abu Gharib. Torture. CIA black sites. Rendition. Making a deal with the devil to give up our soul to save our body from terrorists.

    This enabled the Devil. Obama is merely holding the reins of the dragon we have ourselves summoned.

    This is the danger to the alt-right. There are those who see the power and strength of the dragon and wish to take the reins. But they are like Frodo's Ring. It only appears the rider is in control. But the Dragon controls the rider, not the other way around.

    After Hitler was defeated, Stalin - who starved over 7 million in the Ukraine before Hitler started any war - controlled Eastern Europe and worked to expand Communism to the world. If the Alt-Right wins, what will be our USSR that we will be in a cold war with.

    Finally, a large threat on the far side is the Caliphate, still in nascent form. I don't think it can be defeated except by a restored Christendom, but that is specifically rejected as a goal of the Alt-Right. The alliance is just as multicultural as anything on the left. If you list the alt-right "leaders", you will find diverse cultures. Cultural Marxism on the left won't be defeated by Cultural Anarchism on the right, and neither can defeat Islam.

    There will either be another Great Awakening, a revival, perhaps a reunification of the body of Christ, and in this sign we will conquer - by taking up the cross.

    Or it will be just another futile secular battle whose victory or loss will be irrelevant in the long run. In heaven our robes will be white. Hell is black. Blue and Red aren't relevant to the spiritual battle.

    1. The Alt. Right is not multicultural. We have shared goals despite different philosophical outlooks.

      Power in and of itself is not evil. This has been proven in history and God himself has granted the power of rightful rule to kings.

  3. Man or Rabbit video - for a treasure trove look up CS Lewis Doodle on YouTube.

    Christianity needs to be debunked. It lays there sleeping in the bed instead of going forth to conquer. Snoozers are losers even if they say they believe. Belief requires action, but the "not saved by works" while true has allowed a tacit, indolent, inactive faith while the devil is loud and active. We might not be saved by works, but our nation and culture will either be saved or lost by them.

    1. Can I interest you in this rather well-made article?

  4. Lest you think I exaggerate or mis-characterize, there is <a href=">a link on the right side</a> of the article excerpted in the post with the tag "Recommended".

    Lewis is apparently a wimp, Even with Aslan. Tolkien is nice, but no one really holds out Frodo or Sam as a Hero, Or even Merry or Pippin. Maybe Gandalf or Aragorn. Does anyone read the bible anymore (if you read anything before 1825 it is loaded with scriptural references)? Does anyone recommend prayer? Fasting? The great works of the Catholic Saints or Protestant Fathers like Wesley and Wilberforce? No, old. Nice, irrelevant, out-of-date classics.

    Spiritually? I think milk might be too strong if not watered down. Meat is regurgitated. The various levels of masculinity - testosterone and muscle, confidence and courage (without any tempering by wisdom), aggressiveness are obvious and lauded. The Devil is having a good laugh because on the spiritual level they are weak and ignorant.

    1. I find it both funny and disgusting. The Alt. Right decides to take a path different from what you would have wanted and is actually succeeding. And now you lie about it and claim that it is doomed to fail?

      No, sir, the Devil is laughing at you. He shivers at the thought of men ready and willing to fight for truth, virtue, and justice. Mentally. Physically. And Spiritually.

      Furthermore, this kind of BS tirade has it's roots in the rather disingenuous that certain groups conducted themselves.

      Have a look:

  5. I just may end up making all that into a guest post. Wow.