Author: VD

Two reviews

In case you happen to be new around these parts, I do occasionally commit the fiction.



Arts of Dark and Light Book 1, A THRONE OF BONES:

I’ll never forget reading The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy one childhood summer. I was hooked on fantasy novels and read many series over the years. Eventually it started to get repetitive and I stopped reading the genre. After a long break, I read AsoIaF and found them interesting in that they were something different in the realm of fantasy stories. Although AsoIaF is a bit meandering and exhausting at times.


I have to say, A Throne of Bones really took it up a notch. The writing style has a nice precision to it, which I found refreshing. The battle scenes are the best I’ve ever read. I felt immersed in the battles from a strategic and tactical point of view. I wouldn’t have thought it until I read it, but Romans, Vikings, and a French monarchy set in a world with magic, elves, orcs, and such works flawlessly. The story has an excellent pace and never meanders.


This is a gem, and now I can’t wait to read A Sea of Skulls.


Thanks for a great book. So when is the mini-series?





Arts of Dark and Light Book 2, A SEA OF SKULLS:

Why did it take me so long to find Vox Day? What a great storyteller this man is, a grand master of multiverse chess.


After Summa Elvetica, I was hooked on this universe that Vox Day graciously shared with us all, the fantasy world of Tolkien creatures, the nobility and callousness of the Roman Republic and the grace and liveliness of the church as it might have been. It is a powerful mix, skillfully woven with terrific battle sequences and complex characters. In another review of his work, I mentioned the breadcrumb trails he leaves us in the past, in the characters and their relationships, in the objects that go from hand to hand and place to place. Day is the Master, with a deep understanding of the details of back stories and future lives of all the inhabitants and the reader is at his mercy, racing through the adventure at break neck speed.


There are no one-dimensional characters here. The prologue features a disturbing attack from the victims point of view and many chapters later, the same attack is remembered from the attackers point of view. We hear and see real human pain, but much later, we watch the orc trying to nurse his burned body back to use through his pain and fear. We see the humanity of a once enslaved dwarf and the inhumanity of ambitious men.


I’ve read some comments about this book that complain that it is nothing but filler material. I completely disagree. There is no great resolution offered in Book 2, but these characters matter more to me now, they have had their story lines filled out and are moving on to their great moment. Civilizations must fall in Book 3, but those Civilizations are fully fleshed now. The pieces are all on the board.


And the Grand Master of this universe will soon show us his great game.

Shutting down government

Ann reiterates… build the bloody wall already!

Fake News’ question of the week: Will Trump risk a government shutdown over the wall? 

The media flip back and forth on who’s to blame for a government shutdown depending on which branch is controlled by Republicans. But the “shutdown” hypothetical in this case is a trick question.

A failure to build the wall IS a government shutdown. 

Of course it would be unfortunate if schoolchildren couldn’t visit national parks and welfare checks didn’t get mailed on time. But arranging White House tours isn’t the primary function of the government.

The government’s No. 1 job is to protect the nation.

This has always been true, but it’s especially important at this moment in history, when we have drugs, gang members, diseases and terrorists pouring across our border. The failure of the government to close our border is the definition of a government shutdown.

This isn’t like other shutdowns. Democrats can’t wail about Republicans cutting Social Security or school lunches. They are willing to shut the government down because they don’t want borders.

Take that to the country!

As commander in chief, Trump doesn’t need Congress to build a wall. The Constitution charges him with defending the nation. Contrary to what you may have heard from various warmongers on TV and in Trump’s Cabinet, that means defending our borders — not Ukraine’s borders.

It’s not that hard.

  1. Build the wall.
  2. Drain the swamp.

If it’s truly necessary to fight a war with North Korea, so be it, but don’t let a little thing like nuclear war get in the way of the primary national interests. And if the swamp is excessively resistant, well, just park the USS Carl Vinson in Chesapeake Bay.

Mailvox: it’s an ECHO CHAMBER

Phat Rephat, whoever that is, complains that excessive moderation is turning VP into “an echo chamber”:

VD, I’ve been following you for quite a while and appreciate your viewpoint and the information shared. Of late, however, it seems you’re shifting to the echo chamber model. I agree with your desire to keeping on-topic and without profanity. But not allowing contradicting views or the calling out of the GE when he appears to be losing focus, is not of value to any of us; concern trolls aside.

Well, obviously I am terrified of VP being called an echo chamber. I mean, what could be worse than an Alt-Right echo chamber? Where else will people be able to find conservative, or liberal, or mainstream media views being expressed?

Clearly we must act! I will take his well-considered advice.

Trolls, defeatists, anklebiters, have at it. Comment as you see fit. Be defeatist. Be despondent. Share your contradicting views. Call out the God-Emperor. Insult your fellow commenters. I’m not going to moderate anything at all. Moderators, stand down and let the commenters comment freely, as they obviously desire.

I will also unspam every spam comment that catches previous trolls.

It’s certainly less work and time-investment on my part. I look forward to seeing precisely how much the comments are going to improve and how much value is going to be added to everyone.

UPDATE: Four hours and 47 minutes later:

Hello VD:

It’s Phat Repat; I get your point.

PS This is a Mea Culpa. 😉

Point? What point could that possibly be? I’m just astounded by all the added value!

Responsible governing means failure

Rush Limbaugh quite reasonably asks why anyone should vote for Republicans if the result is simply more of the same old swamp:

Why is anybody voting Republican, if this is what happens when we win?

We won the House, we won the Senate, we won the White House, and the Democrats thwarted everything we supposedly said we were going to do with our victory. Well, I don’t want to use the word “we,” ’cause I’ve got nothing to do with this. This is another reason why I do not get close to these people. I do not… I would not relish having to have you call here today and make me justify what all happened here, had I been out there promoting and ballyhooing. That’s why I keep my distance from these people, ’cause I don’t have any control over what they’re gonna do or say, what their policies are going to be.

But I think this illustrates a much larger problem that we are going to have to recognize, and it’s the real reason Donald Trump was elected. It’s the real thing that he has got to do, and he’s got to start doing it. And it is not going to happen if he continues to work with Republicans, because it is obvious, for whatever reasons — and we can get into them — the Republican Party has no intention of defunding Planned Parenthood, no intention of defunding sanctuary cities. They don’t want to pay for a wall. Who knows what they really want in Obamacare. But then again, is it really the Republicans? I think there’s something much larger going on.

There’s no reason to keep electing Republicans if this is what we’re gonna get with this budget deal, which pays — continually pays — for sanctuary cities, funds Obamacare, funds the EPA, gives money to Planned Parenthood and no money for the wall. If you’re asking, “What am I voting for Republicans for?” you have a legitimate question. This is one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected. This is the swamp. This is what needs to be drained: The way the budget happens, the way legislation happens, who’s responsible for it. I’ll tell you where I’m going with this. I want to go back and play a sound bite from me on Friday’s program. This is the direction that I’m thinking this has to go…

Where’s Trump on this? For crying out loud, Trump’s elected president! Trump’s got a mandate. This was clearly part of it. Like building the wall, like any number of other things, repealing and place Obamacare was mentioned at every rally, so why doesn’t the president go in there and tell them what-for?

Let me try to explain this as best I can. When I saw this headline, it brought some things into focus for me, because this is gnawing at the edges here of irritation. The impression that I’ve had — you’ve had it, too — that something’s out of whack, something’s not right. We won the election. I’ve described it, I don’t see the glow of victory on Republican faces. I don’t see optimism. I don’t see happiness. I don’t see confidence. I don’t see an attitude that says, “Man, what an opportunity we have.” And as I say it’s just been eating away at me.

It seems to me that this is precisely what the presidential veto is for. Trump needs to be willing to call the bi-factional ruling party’s bluff. Let them shut down government. Let them show the entire country how unnecessary it is.

And build the damn wall. It’s pretty simple. No big beautiful wall, no second term. The wall is Trump’s “no new taxes”. If he doesn’t build it, for any reason, he loses his base. All the other stuff, being presidential and responsible and exhibiting gravitas and sportsmanship is irrelevant.

The God-Emperor should begin each day by looking at his schedule and telling himself two things.

  1. Does this help me build the wall? 
  2. Does this help me drain the swamp?
If anything on his schedule does not fit into those two categories, he should cancel it and replace it with something that does.

Busting Black Bloc

The first of 212 Black Bloc protesters arrested on Inauguration Day has pleaded guilty.

A Florida man with the radical “black bloc” protest network has pleaded guilty to felony rioting and assault for his role in the Inauguration Day chaos in the District. Dane Powell, 31, of Tampa, was the first to enter a guilty plea on felony charges brought against 212 protesters accused of rioting and vandalizing property during the Jan. 20 melee surrounding President Trump’s swearing-in ceremony.

Scheduled to be sentenced July 7, he faces a possible six years in prison for breaking windows and throwing a “brick, large rock or piece of concrete” at officers after joining a mob of masked black bloc protesters who moved en masse across 16 blocks in about 30 minutes, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The God-Emperor should, in his mercy, offer him the option of a nice helicopter ride in lieu of spending so much time in prison.

The authorities, they are no longer uniformly amenable.

Like monkeys studying the space shuttle

I will say this for New York Magazine. They certainly expended no shortage of man-hours and digital ink on a long and detailed piece about the Alt-Right by Simon Van Zuylen-Wood, Noreen Malone, Max Read, Andrew Sullivan, Park Macdougald, Jason Willick, Mark Jacobson, Maureen O’Connor, Gabriel Sherman, Ben Crair, Nick Richardson, and Mark O’connell with Claire Landsbaum, Jordan Larson, Amelia Schonbek, Matt Stieb, Nick Tabor, James D. Walsh:

To understand this new right, it helps to see it not as a fringe movement, but a powerful counterculture.

When did the right wing get so bizarre? Consider: For a brief and confusing moment earlier this year, milk somehow became a charged symbol of both white supremacy and support for Donald Trump. The details are postmodern, absurdist, and ominous — not unlike the forces that brought them about. In January, the actor Shia LaBeouf mounted an art installation designed to protest the president. The next month, neo-Nazis who organized on the message board 4chan crashed the show, where they started chugging from milk jugs — because northern Europeans digest milk well, or because milk is … white. In other words, an innocent dairy beverage as old as time had been conscripted as a Donald Trump surrogate on the internet. It was yet another message-board in-joke — freighted with political meaning — suddenly in the news.

But weirdness, perhaps, is what happens when a movement grows very quickly and without any strong ideological direction — from a disciplined party, from traditional institutions like churches and chambers of Congress, from anything more organized than the insurrectionist internet.

Here in America, in trying to describe our brand of the reactionary wave currently tsunami-ing the entire developed world, we’ve leaned on the term alt-right, which had been coined by white supremacists. Richard Spencer, the most press-hungry of that group, takes credit for it. For much of last year, the term was often used as shorthand for “racists, but … young?” Which is helpful, as far as it goes, but the full reality is much more complicated. The alt-right — or the new right, if you prefer to sound more like Tom Wolfe than Kurt Cobain, or the radical right, to properly acknowledge its break from mainstream conservatism — is a coalition comprised of movements like neo-reaction, certain strands of libertarianism, tech triumphalism, and even the extreme-populist wing of the Republican Party. All share with Spencer’s white-ethno-nativism the ideals of isolationism, protectionism, and nationalism: a closed nation-state. Along the way, the coalition swept up “men’s rights” advocates and anti-Semites and cruel angry teenagers and conspiracy theorists and a few fiendishly clever far-right websites and harassing hashtags and even a U.S. congressman or two. Not to mention the White House.

But to approach the big messy tent of the new retrograde right — the international brigade of nativist-nationalists, tech-savvy anti-globalists, the porn-loving gender traditionalists — as primarily a political movement is to wildly underestimate its scope. Reactionary energy helped deliver all three branches of government to a Republican Party in the grips of an alt-right-curious anti-PC bomb-thrower the faithful called their “god-emperor” (or at least helped him along with last year’s affirmative action for white people, a.k.a. the Electoral College). But at no point during the campaign, even, could you have mistaken the unruly energy on the right for anything so organized as a party or as purposeful as a protest movement. It was — and is — a counterculture. One formed in the spirit of opposition to everything the existing Establishment stood for: globalist, technocratic liberal elitism. The amazing thing is, in November, for the first time in American electoral history, the counterculture won everything.

It’s the usual discredit-diminish-and-disqualify hit piece, of course. And while people have noticed some curious omissions – Guess whose name does not appear in a huge 20-part article on the Alt Right?  Hint: he’s the author of 16 Points of the Alt Right. – the much more serious flaw is the near-complete unwillingness of the 20 or so authors to actually quote anyone who is Alt-Right, or even in the Alt-Right’s orbit, about what it is and what it stands for.

Instead, they all ran out to get quotes from academics and others openly hostile to the Alt-Right, in order to better pontificate to their readers about what it is they think we believe and why we pose such a dire threat to the established political order. It’s rather like the sort of college course that is designed to provide the course taker with the sense that he knows the subject matter without actually teaching him anything about it. The one thing the small army of co-authors did get right, however, is to observe the fact that the Alt-Right is both a broad-based cultural phenomenon and a nationalist political philosophy, not a “branded movement” or a specific ideology.

It’s a pity that no one thought to send any of these indefatigable ideological spelunkers the version of the 16 Points best suited to their ability to understand the Alt-Right. And considering on their bizarre musings about the term cuckservative, you’d think it would have occurred to one of them to at least check Amazon. But the most egregious failure is without question their inexplicable inability to grasp the source of the God-Emperor meme.

Speaking of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right, I should mention that I finally got the Ukrainian translation posted earlier today, as well as the Esperanto and Irish translations. You can find them on the right sidebar as UK, EO, and GA.

Альтернативні праві : 16 тез

Альтернативні праві : 16 тез

1.Альтернативні праві належать до правих політичних течій як в американському, так і в європейському значенні цього терміну. Соціалісти не є альтернативними правими. Прогресивні не є альтернативними правими. Ліберали не є альтернативними правими. Комуністи, марксисти, марксіанці, культуро-марксисти і неоконсерватори теж не є альтернативними правими.

2.Альтернативні праві стали АЛЬТЕРНАТИВОЮ консервативному мейнстріму в США, який номінально виражений «Десятьма консервативними принципами» Рассела Кірка, але в дійсності виродився до прогресизму. Вони також стали альтернативою лібертаріанству.

3. Альтернативні праві не сповідують оборонного світогляду, відкидаючи саму ідею благородної і принципової поразки. Це філософія зорієнтована на рух вперед і наступ, в усіх значеннях цього терміну. Альтернативні праві вірять у перемогу завдяки наполегливості і збереженню гармонії із наукою, реальністю, культурною традицією і уроками історії.

4. Альтернативні праві вважають Західну цивілізацію вершинним здобутком людства і підтримують три її стовпи: християнство, європейські нації і греко-римську спадщину.

5. Альтернативні праві прямо і відкрито націоналістичні. Вони підтримують усі націоналізми і право всіх націй на існування в гомогенному середовищі, не порушеному іноземними вторгненням та імміграцією.

6. Альтернативні праві – проти глобалізму. Вони протистоять усім групам, які працюють на ідеали глобалізму чи його завдання.

7. Альтернативні праві проти егалітаризму. Вони відкидають ідею рівності з тієї ж причини, що й байки про існування єдинорогів чи лепреконів, і відзначають, що людської рівності не існує в жодній зі сфер людської діяльності: чи то юридичній, чи то матеріальній, інтелектуальній, сексуальній чи духовній.

8. Альтернативні праві орієнтуються на науку. Вони зазвичай визнають сучасні наукові результати із застереженнями: в майбутньому їх можна буде переглянути і змінити; наукові кола теж піддатливі до корупції, а так званий науковий консенсус спирається не на науковість, а на демократію. Тож висновки в рамках цього консенсусу – ненаукові.

9. Альтернативні праві вірять, що ідентичність > культура > політика.

10. Альтернативні праві протистоять домінуванню однієї етнічної групи над іншою, особливо на своїй рідній землі. Альтернативні праві перебувають в опозиції до інородців, які прагнуть досягти вагомого впливу на місцевих мешканців шляхом клановості чи іншим способом.

11. Альтернативні праві розуміють, що різноманітність + близькість = війна.

12. Альтернативним правим все одно, що ви про них думаєте.

13. Альтернативні праві відкидають міжнародну вільну торгівлю і вільне переміщення людей, якого вимагає режим вільної торгівлі. Переваги внутрішньої національної вільної торгівлі не гарантують переваг міжнародної вільної торгівлі.

14. Альтернативні праві вважають, що ми маємо забезпечити існування білих людей і майбутнє для білих дітей.

15. Альтернативні праві не вважають, що якась одна раса, нація чи інша спільнота людей має перевагу і першість над іншими. Кожна раса, нація і людська спільнота має свої сильні риси і слабкості, а також – суверенне право жити у спокої в рамках власної національної культури.

16. Альтернативні праві цінують мир між різними націями і протистоять війнам, які є спробами нав’язати цінності однієї нації іншій, а також спробами винищити окремі нації шляхом власне війни, геноциду, імміграції і генетичної асиміляції.

Альтернативні праві – це західна ідеологія, яка вірить у науку, історію, дійсність та право генетичної нації існувати і урядувати у своїх інтересах.

Святий покровитель консерваторів Рассел Кірк писав: «Велика лінія поділу в сучасній політиці, як уже вказував Ерік Воґелін, пролягає не поміж лібералами і
прихильниками тоталітаризму. Ні, на одному боці цієї межі перебувають ті чоловіки і жінки, які приймають існуючий порядок як єдиний можливий, не помічають нічого, окрім своїх матеріальних потреб і вважають, що можуть чинити все, що їм заманеться зі спадщиною людства. На іншому боці межі – ті люди, які розуміють, що світ тримається на тривалому моральному порядку, незмінності людської природи та відчутті високого обов’язку перед духовним і громадянським порядком».

Якщо це й було колись правдою, то тепер усе інакше. Лінія поділу в сучасній політиці пролягла поміж чоловіками і жінками, які вірять, що визначальне значення має їхня нестійка точка зору, і тими, хто вважає, що таке значення має їхня генетична спадщина.  Альтернативні праві розуміють, що перше завжди програє другому, оскільки приречене змінюватися.

An Eite Dheis Mhalartach: Sé Phointe Dhéag

An Eite Dheis Mhalartach: Sé Phointe Dhéag

1. Baineann an eite dheis mhalartach leis an eite dheis, mar a úsáidtear an téarma sin i Meireacá agus san Eoraip. Ní den eite dheis mhalartach na sóisialaigh, na fórásaithe, na liobrálaigh, na cumannaigh, deisceabail Karl Marx, na Marcsaigh, na Marcsaigh chultúrtha, ná na nuachaomhaigh.

2. MALAIRT is ea an eite dheis mhalartach ar an ngnáthghluaiseacht chaomhach i Meireacá, atá in ainm is a bheith ag leanacht deich bprionsabal chaomhacha Russell Kirk, ach arb í fírinne an scéil go bhfuil sí dulta ar meath, ionas go bhfuil cuid de chosúlacht na forásachta tagtha uirthi. Malairt freisin í ar an liobraíochas.

3. Ní cosantach an meon atá ag an eite dheis mhalartach agus ní fiú faic léi díomua uasal prionsabálta. Is cuid dá fealsúnacht an breathnú ar aghaidh, an t-ionsaí, is an oilbhéim. Creideann sí gurb amhlaidh a bhéarfar bua, trí dhianseasmhacht is trí chomhtheacht leis an eolaíocht, le fírinne an domhain, leis an traidisiún, is le ceachtanna na staire.

4. Creideann an eite dheis mhalartach gurb í sibhialtacht an Iarthair an gaisce is mó a rinne an duine agus tacaíonn sí le trí chrann seasta na sibhialtachta sin: an Chríostaíocht, náisiúin na hEorpa, agus oidhreacht na Gréige is na Róimhe.

5. Deir an eite dheis mhalartach go hoscailte go bhfuil sí náisiúnach. Tacaíonn sí le gach náisiúnachas agus le ceart gach náisiún a bheith ina thír féin, gan coimhthígh sa tír sin de dheasca ionraidh ná imirce.

6. Tá an eite dheis mhalartach i gcoinne an domhandachais agus i gcoinne gach grúpa a oibríos ar son idéal nó cuspóirí domhandacha.

7. Tá an eite dheis mhalartach frithchothromaíoch. Séanann sí gurb ann don chothromaíocht, díreach mar a shéanas sí gurb ann d’aonbheannaigh is do leipreacháin, mar tá sé tugtha faoi deara aici nach bhfuil an fear is an bhean cothrom le chéile, ná nach bhfuil daoine cothrom le chéile de réir toisí eolaíochtúla, ná de réir dlí, ná sa mhéid de mhaoin an tsaoil atá acu, ná ó thaobh intleachta, ná go spioradálta.

8. Cleachtann an eite dheis mhalartach modh na heolaíochta. Glacann sí leis na conclúidí a sroicheadh tríd an modh sin, ach tuigeann sí go bhféadfaí na conclúidí sin a athrú amach anseo, go mbíonn baol ann go gcorbfaí na heolaithe, agus nach ar mhodh na heolaíochta atá “comhaontú na heolaíochta” bunaithe ach ar mhodh an daonlathais, rud a fhágas go bhfuil sé neamheolaíoch ó nádúr.

9. Creideann an eite dheis mhalartach é seo: féiniúlacht > cultúr > polaitíocht.

10. Tá an eite dheis mhalartach i gcoinne riail nó forlámhas a bheith ag grúpa eitneach dúchasach amháin ar cheann eile, go háirithe i dtír dhúchais cheannasach an ghrúpa atá faoi chois. Tá sí i gcoinne an iomarca tionchair a bheith ag grúpa eitneach neamhdhúchasach ar bith i sochaí ar bith, trí fhiníochas, trí threibheachas, nó trí mhodh ar bith eile.

11. Tuigeann an eite dheis mhalartach é seo: éagsúlacht + cóngaracht = cogadh.

12. Is cuma leis an eite dheis mhalartach céard is dóigh leat di.

13. Diúltaíonn an eite dheis mhalartach don saorthrádáil idirnáisiúnta agus don saorghluaiseacht phobal a thagas d’éigean aisti. Cé go bhfuil saorthrádáil istigh sa náisiún tairbheach, ní thugann sin fianaise go bhfuil saorthrádáil idirnáisiúnta tairbheach.

14. Creideann an eite dheis mhalartach nach mór dúinn an cine geal a thabhairt slán ó éaglach agus todhchaí shlán a chruthú dá pháistí.

15. Ní chreideann an eite dheis mhalartach go mbeireann cine, náisiún, pobal, nó fospeiceas ar bith barr go huile is go hiomlán ar cheann ar bith eile. Tá a shainbhuanna is a shainlaigí féin ag gach cine, gach náisiún, gach pobal, agus gach fospeiceas daonna, agus tá sé mar cheart ardcheannasach acu cónaí gan cur isteach sa chultúr dúchasach is fearr leo.

16. Leanann an eite dheis mhalartach fealsúnacht ar mór aici síocháin idir náisiúin an domhain, atá i gcoinne cogaidh chun luachanna náisiúin amháin a chur i bhfeidhm ar náisiún eile, agus atá i gcoinne díothú náisiún, trí chogadh, trí chinedhíothú, trí inimirce, nó trí chomhshamhlú géiniteach.

I mbeagán focal: gluaiseacht bunaithe ar idé-eolaíocht Iartharach is ea an eite dheis mhalartach, a chreideas san eolaíocht, sa stair, i bhfírinne an domhain, agus i gceart an náisiúin ghéinitigh a bheith ann agus é féin a rialú ar mhaithe leis féin.

16 punktoj

Dekses punktoj de la Alternativa Dekstro

Celante evoluigi kernan alternativdekstran filozofion kiel bazon por plua ellaborigo.

1. La alternativa dekstro estas parto de la politika dekstro en kaj la usona kaj la eŭropa senco de la esprimo. Socialistoj ne estas alternativdekstraj. Liberaluloj ne estas alternativdekstraj. Komunistoj, marksistoj, marksanoj, kulturaj marksistoj kaj nov-konservativuloj ne estas alternativdekstraj.

2. La alternativa dekstro estas ALTERNATIVO al la ĝenerala konservativa movado en Usono priskribita de Russel Kirk en liaj 10 principoj konservativaj, sed reale malevoluiĝinta al progresivismo. Ĝi estas alternativo ankaŭ al libertarianismo.

3. La alternativa dekstro ne estas defendema atitudo kaj malakceptas la koncepton de malvenko nobla. Ĝi estas antaŭenvidanta filozofio ofensiva, en ĉiu senco de ĉi tiu vorto. La alternativa dekstro kredas je venko per persisti, kaj resti en harmonio kun scienco, realeco, kultura tradicio kaj la lecionoj de historio.

4. La alternativa dekstro kredas ke Okcidenta civilizacio estas la alta pinto de homa atingo kaj subtenas ĝiajn tri fundamentajn pilierojn: kristanismon, la eŭropajn naciojn kaj la heredaĵon grek-romian.

5. La alternativa dekstro estas malferme kaj ĵurinte naciisma. Ĝi subtenas ĉiajn naciismojn kaj la rajton de ĉiuj nacioj ekzisti, homogene kaj ne koruptita de fremda invadado kaj enmigrado.

6. La alternativa dekstro kontraŭas tutmondismon. Ĝi kontraŭas ĉiajn grupojn laborantajn por tutmondismaj ideoj aŭ celoj.

7. La alternativa dekstro kontraŭas egalismon. Ĝi malakceptas la ideon de egaleco samkiel ĝi malakceptas la ideojn de unukornuloj kaj leprekonoj, notante ke homa egaleco ne ekzistas en ia ajn observebla formo, ĉu scienca, leĝa, materiala, intelekta, seksa, aŭ spirita.

8. La alternativa dekstro subtenas la sciencan metodon. Ĝi akceptas la nunajn konkludojn de la scienca metodo, tamen komprenante ke a) ĉi tiuj konkludoj estas eble ŝanĝotaj, b) la sciencistaro ne estas imuna kontraŭ korupteco, kaj c) tiel-nomata scienca konsento ne estas bazita sur la scienca metodo, sed demokratio, kaj ĉi tial estas esence nescienca.

9. La alternativa dekstro kredas ke identeco > kulturo > politikoj.

10. La alternativa dekstro kontraŭas la regadon aŭ dominadon super iu ajn indiĝena etna grupo de alia, speciale en la hejmlandoj de la dominataj popoloj. La alternativa dekstro staras kontraŭ neindiĝenaj grupoj kiu prenas al si troan influon en iu ajn socio per nepotismo, tribismo aŭ iel ajn.

11. La alternativa dekstro komprenas ke diverseco + proksimeco = milito.

12. Ne gravas al la alternativa dekstro, kiel vi opinias pri ĝi.

13. La alternativa dekstro malakceptas internacian liberan komercon kaj la liberan movadon de homoj necesa por libera komerco. La bonaj efikoj de enlanda libera komerco ne evidentigas bonajn efikojn de internacia libera komerco.

14. La alternativa dekstro kredas ke ni devas sekurigi la ekziston de la blanka popolo kaj estontecon por blankaj infanoj.

15. La alternativa dekstro ne kredas je la ĝenerala plejalteco de iu ajn raco, nacio, popolo, aŭ subspecio. Ĉiu raso, nacio, popolo kaj homa subspecio havas proprajn fortojn kaj malfortojn, kaj posedas la suverenan rajton loĝi senĝene en sia preferata gepatra kulturo.

16. La alternativa dekstro estas filozofio kiu deziras pacon inter la diversaj popoloj de la mondo kaj kontraŭas militojn por trudi la valorojn de unu nacio al alia, kaj ankaŭ klopodojn formortigi individuajn naciojn ĉu per milito, gentomurdo, enmigrado, aŭ genetika similigo.

RESUME: La alternativa dekstro estas okcidenta ideologio kiu kredas je scienco, historio, realeco, kaj la rajto de ĉiu genetika nacio ekzisti kaj sin regi laŭ siaj propraj interesoj.

Steve Sailer finally gets his due

For once, the mainstream media pays attention to an actual thought leader who is legitimately influential across the Alt-Right:

Sailer’s brief career at National Review ended in 1997, when William F. Buckley, Jr. eased out the magazine’s then-editor, the immigration hawk John O’Sullivan, in favor of Rich Lowry — part of a larger shift in the conservative world away from paleoconservatives and immigration skeptics near the turn of the millennium. Since then, he has largely been confined to smaller and less mainstream conservative outlets. But after Trump won last November by getting blue-collar, Midwestern whites to vote like a minority bloc, as Sailer had so memorably recommended in 2000, a number of Sailer’s establishment critics, such as Michael Barone, were forced to acknowledge that Sailer had been vindicated.

On foreign policy, too, Sailer has been a pervasive if subtle presence on the right. During the mid-2000s, he popularized the phrase “Invade the World, Invite the World” to parody the apparent bipartisan foreign policy consensus of the last two decades around large-scale military intervention abroad and large-scale immigration at home. It took some time, but by the summer of 2016, the mood of the country had caught up with Sailer. Breitbart began using “Invade the World, Invite the World” to describe the ideology of John McCain and Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump’s stated hostility to elites’ perceived “globalist” overreach proved to be a major asset in his campaign.

As Michael Brendan Dougherty of The Week has observed, Sailer has exerted “a kind of subliminal influence across much of the right … even in the places where his controversial writing on race was decidedly unwelcome.” Sometimes that influence has not even been subliminal — David Brooks has cited Sailer in The New York Times on the correlation between white fertility rates and voting patterns, Times columnist Ross Douthat has referenced Sailer’s analogy between Breitbart-style conservatism and punk rock, and the economist Tyler Cowen has described him as “the most significant neo-reaction thinker today.” Meanwhile, Sailer’s ideas and catchphrases — including “the coalition of the fringes,” to describe the Obama coalition, and “elect a new people,” a paraphrase of Bertolt Brecht describing an alleged liberal plot to re-engineer the country’s demographics — have spread across the right-wing Internet like wildfire.

It’s a hit piece, to be sure. But it is a hit piece with a respectful tone, and one that even admits “he’s not entirely wrong”.