1. Alt-Høyre tilhører den politiske høyresiden i både den Amerikanske og den Europeiske betydningen. Sosialister er ikke Alt-Høyre. Progressiver er ikke Alt-Høyre. Liberale er ikke Alt-Høyre. Kommunister, Marxister, Marxianere, kulturmarxister og neokonservative er ikke Alt-Høyre
2. Alt-Høyre er et alternativ til den alminnelige konservative bevegelsen i USA, forankret i Russel Kirks ti konservative prinsipper, som i virkeligheten har degenerert mot progressivisme. Den er og et alternativ til libertarianisme.
3. Alt-Høyre er ikke en defensiv holdning og avviser tanken om et nobelt og prinsipielt nederlag. Den er en fremovertenkende, offensiv filosofi, i begrepets fulle forstand. Alt-Høyre tror på seier gjennom vedvarenhet samt å forbli i harmoni med vitenskap, virkelighet, kulturell tradisjon og historiens lærdom.
4. Alt-Høyre mener Vestlig sivilisasjon er toppunktet av menneskelig oppnåelse og støtter dets tre grunnpillarer: Kristendommen, den Europeiske nasjon og den Greko-Romerske arv.
5. Alt-Høyre er åpent og fremstående nasjonalistisk. Den støtter nasjonalisme av alle former og alle nasjoners rett til å eksistere, homogen og uforandret av fremmed invasjon og innvandring.
6. Alt-Høyre er anti-globalistisk. Den stiller seg i opposisjon til alle grupper som arbeider for globalistiske idealer eller globalistiske mål.
7. Alt-Høyre er anti-egalitær. Den avviser ideen om likhet på samme grunnlaget den avviser ideen om bergtroll og påskeharen. Menneskelig likhet eksisterer ikke i noen målbar vitenskapelig, legal, materiell, intelektuell, seksuell eller spirituell form.
8. Alt-Høyre baserer seg på vitenskapelighet. Den aksepterer de nåverende konklusjoner gjort av den vitenskapelige metode, samtidig som den forstår at a) disse konklusjonene er åpne til fremtidig revisjon, b) at vitenskapen er sårbar mot korrupsjon, og c) at den såkalte vitenskapelige oppsluttingen er ikke basert på den vitenskapelige metode, men demokrati, og er derfor, per definisjon, uvitenskapelig.
9. Alt-Høyre mener Identitet > Kultur > Politikk.
10. Alt-Høyre er mot styring eller dominering av noen tilhørende nativ etnisk gruppe av en annen, spesielt i det suverene hjemlandet til det dominerte folket. Alt-Høyre motstår enhver ikke-nativ etnisk gruppes oppnåelse av overflødig innflytelse i noe som helst samfunn gjennom nepotisme, tribalisme, eller andre metoder.
11. Alt-Høyre forstår at mangfold + nærhet = krig.
12. Alt-Høyre bryr seg ikke om hva du tror om den.
13. Alt-Høyre avviser internasjonal fri-handel, og den frie bevegelsen av mennesker fri-handel krever. Fordelene av intra-nasjonal handel er ikke bevis for fordelene av internasjonal fri-handel.
14. Alt-Høyre mener vi må sikre hvite folks eksistens, og en fremtid for hvite barn.
15. Alt-Høyre tror ikke på noen generell overlegenhet av noen rase, nasjon, folk eller undergruppe. Alle raser, nasjoner, folk og menneskelige undergrupper har sine egne unike styrker og svakheter, og innehar sin egen suverene rett til å bo uantastet i den native kulturen den foretrekker.
16. Alt-Høyre er en filosofi som versetter fred mellom verdens nasjoner og motsetter seg krigføring for å påtvinge en nasjons verdier på en annen, samt forsøk på utrydding av individuelle nasjoner gjennom krig, folkemord, immigrering eller genetisk assimilering.
TL:DR; Alt-Høyre er en Vestlig ideologi som tror på vitenskap, historie, virkeligher og en genetisk nasjons rett til å eksistere og styre seg selv i sin egen interesse.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά, ή “Αλτ” Δεξιά, είναι μέρος της πολιτικής δεξιάς της Αμερικής αλλά και των Ευρωπαϊκών χωρών. Σοσιαλιστές, προοδευτικοί, φιλελεύθεροι, κομμουνιστές, Μαρξιστές, πολιτιστικοί Μαρξιστές και νεοσυντηρητικοί δεν ανήκουν στην Εναλλακτική Δεξιά.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι μια ΕΝΑΛΛΑΚΤΙΚΗ επιλογή στο επικρατούν συντηρητικό κίνημα των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών το οποίο ονομαστικά συνοψίζεται στις 10 Συντηρητικές Αρχές του Ράσελ Κερκ, όμως στην πραγματικότητα έχει ολισθήσει προς τον προοδευτισμό. Είναι επίσης μια εναλλακτική επιλογή στον φιλελευθερισμό.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά δεν τηρεί αμυντική στάση και απορρίπτει την ιδέα της ευγενούς και έντιμης ήττας. Είναι μία επιθετική φιλοσοφία με κάθε έννοια της λέξης. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά πιστεύει στη νίκη μέσω επιμονής, όντας ταυτόχρονα σε πλήρη αρμονία με την επιστήμη, την πραγματικότητα, τις παραδόσεις και τα διδάγματα της ιστορίας.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά πιστεύει ότι ο Δυτικός Πολιτισμός είναι το απόγειο των ανθρώπινων επιτευγμάτων και στηρίζει τις τρεις θεμελιώδεις βάσεις του: τον Χριστιανισμό, τα Ευρωπαϊκά έθνη και την Ελληνο-Ρωμαϊκή κληρονομιά.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι ανοιχτά και απροκάλυπτα εθνικιστική. Υποστηρίζει όλα τα είδη εθνικισμών και το δικαίωμα όλων των εθνών να υπάρχουν, ομογενή και ανόθευτα από ξένη εισβολή και μετανάστευση.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι ενάντια στην παγκοσμιοποίηση. Τάσσεται ενάντια σε κάθε οργάνωση που δρα με βάση τέτοια ιδεώδη, ή ακολουθεί στόχους υπέρ της.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά απορρίπτει την ιδέα της Ισότητας για τον ίδιο λόγο που απορρίπτει την ιδέα των μονόκερων και των καλικάτζαρων, έχοντας διαπιστώσει ότι η ανθρώπινη ισότητα δεν υπάρχει με καμία επιστημονική, νομική, υλική, νοητική, σεξουαλική ή πνευματική μορφή.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι επιστημονική. Δέχεται τα σύγχρονα συμπεράσματα της επιστημονικής μεθόδου, ενώ κατανοεί ότι α) αυτά τα συμπεράσματα ενδέχεται να αλλάξουν στο μέλλον, β) η επιστημονική κοινότητα είναι ευάλωτη στη διαφθορά, και γ) η λεγόμενη ομοφωνία των επιστημόνων δε βασίζεται στην επιστήμη, αλλά στη δημοκρατία, και συνεπώς είναι θεμελιωδώς μη επιστημονική.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά πιστέυει πως Ταυτότητα > Κουλτούρα > Πολιτική
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά αντιτίθεται στον έλεγχο ή στην ξένη κυριαρχία ενός γηγενούς πληθυσμού από κάποιον άλλον, ιδιαίτερα στην πατρίδα του γηγενούς αυτού πληθυσμού. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά αντιτίθεται σε οποιοδήποτε μη-γηγενές φύλο να αποκτά υπερβολική επιρροή σε μια κοινωνία μέσω νεποτισμού, φυλετικής αλληλεγγύης, ή άλλου τρόπου.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά αντιλαμβάνεται ότι Διαφορετικότητα + Εγγύτητα = Σύγκρουση
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά δε νοιάζεται τι πιστεύεις γι’ αυτήν.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά απορρίπτει το διεθνές ελεύθερο εμπόριο και την ελεύθερη μετακίνηση λαών με την οποία αυτό συνεπάγεται. Τα οφέλη του ελεύθερου εμπορίου στο εσωτερικό μιας χώρας δεν είναι απόδειξη για τα οφέλη του ελεύθερου εμπορίου μεταξύ διαφορετικών χωρών.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά πιστεύει ότι πρέπει να διαφυλάξουμε την ύπαρξη της λευκής φυλής και ένα μέλλον για τους λευκούς απογόνους της.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά δεν πιστεύει στη γενική ανωτερότητα καμίας φυλής, έθνους, λαού ή υποείδους. Κάθε φυλή, έθνος, λαός και ανθρώπινο υποείδος έχει τις δικές του μοναδικές δυνάμεις και αδυναμίες, και κατέχει το δικαίωμα να παραμείνει ανόθευτο στην ντόπια κουλτούρα που προτιμά.
Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι μια φιλοσοφία που εκτιμά την ειρήνη ανάμεσα στα έθνη του κόσμου και αντιτίθεται σε πολέμους που έχουν σκοπό να επιβάλλουν τις αξίες ενός έθνους σε ένα άλλο, καθώς και σε κάθε προσπάθεια αφάνισης ενός έθνους μέσω πολέμου, γενοκτονίας, μετανάστευσης η γενετικής αφομοίωσης.
Voting began on Sunday in the German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where polls show the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party making huge gains amid growing discontent with Chancellor Angela Merkel and her open-door refugee policy.
The election, taking place exactly a year after Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees, will be followed by another key vote in Berlin in two weeks and national elections next September.
Voters already punished Merkel in three state elections in March, voting in droves for the AfD and rejecting Merkel’s Christian Democrats.
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is a small coastal state in northeastern Germany with just 1.3 million eligible voters, but losses there would be humiliating for Merkel, who has her own electoral district in the state.
Founded two years after the last election in the state in 2011, the AfD is expected to capture 22 percent of the vote, the same as Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), junior partner in the state’s ruling coalition, according to a poll by broadcaster ZDF.
I’m putting this up just to confirm what the expectations actually were, before the media starts attempting minimize the significance of whatever happens.
I listened to you on Molyneux and was impressed enough to follow your link here. Alas, as so often is the case, a closer inspection disappoints. The format of the site is not engaging, and neither is the tone. There’s an imperiousness, an intemperance about the writing that any traditionalist should find off-putting. The rules regarding commenting strike me as especially heavy-handed and narrow-minded. There appears to be an imperative need to delete everything and anything outside the privileged in-group’s wonted expectations. And the sneering boasts about superior mental attainments sound juvenile and absurd, especially given the gaming provenance of so many of you. If a commenter comes up short in debate (by what criterion we can only guess), why would that necessitate deleting his entire argument? Arguments stand or fall on their own merits and have nothing to do with “regulars.” or cliques. You brag that it’s “not a democracy.” Fine. But does that mean it’s a police-state? Your “finish him” attitude toward the intellectual arena would seem to owe more to Nintendo than Socrates.
I think GJ would do well to spend a little bit more time reading the comments here before reaching any conclusions. What necessitates deleting entire arguments is when they are presented by trolls, some of whom are Soros-paid hasbaras of one sort or another, some of whom are simply people with various psychological issues or an intense personal dislike of me or my politics. There are also those commenters who are intent on spreading a message of defeatism and despair, who may or may not be paid to do it. In none of these cases are they arguing honestly, and long experience has taught me that there is absolutely no benefit to permitting them any leeway at all.
While you may not recognize commenters intent on causing problems, I have been blogging for 13 years and it is very easy for me to recognize the different between someone who is honestly presenting an argument and someone who is not. For example, if you go to Steve Sailer’s or other right-wing blogs, you will see EXACTLY the same comments being copy-pasted into the comment threads there. Those commenters are autokill-on-sight; their comments are deleted and their usernames are spammed.
On the rare occasions that I mistakenly spam an honest commenter, I immediately restore their commenting privileges.
So, yes, one could say that it is a police state if one likes, although I would liken it more to a place that is under a constant state of siege. For example, when we tried allowing the SJW List to be open to editing by everyone, Wikipedia-style, every single page was either poison-pilled or spammed within 24 hours. Once we locked it down, we ceased to have any problems and the SJW List has continued to grow steadily since.
Now, I could simply lock down VP to registered commenters only, but I prefer not to do that since it would dissuade genuine passersby and casual commenters. Instead, I keep it open and crack down hard and fast on griefers. I don’t delete very many comments, there are only 31 trolls on autovanish, and the fact that GJ’s comment was not deleted should suffice to prove that differing opinions are permitted. The fact is that no one who posts a comment or series of comments that is an honest, on-topic argument need fear their comments will be deleted simply because they disagree with me or because it is outside the privileged in-group’s expectations.
As for Socrates, there is nothing Socratic about this blog. If you were more familiar with it, you would know the contempt in which that old dishonest fraud is held here. I prefer to try presenting conclusive and persuasive syllogisms, not play word games that prove nothing. And rest assured, despite being the Leader of #GamerGate, my “start nothing, finish everything” attitude owes nothing to Nintendo or even Mortal Kombat.
Things are as they are for various reasons, many of which have nothing to do with my personal idiosyncracies or preferences. The reason this blog is still around and still growing is because I respond to the actions of the commenters here, both good and bad.
This is an excellent trade for the Vikings, in light of what the options were after Teddy Bridgewater went down. Bradford compares pretty favorably with Bridgewater; he’s not quite as mobile but he has a slightly stronger arm. Like Bridgewater, he doesn’t throw many interceptions, but Bradford had as many 40+ yard passes last year as Bridgewater did in two years. And while he’s not elite – he wouldn’t have been available if he was – he’s pretty solid. He’s accurate, and Pro Football Focus even had him ranked as the 12th best QB in the NFL last year.
That’s not bad, considering that the Vikings had the better team. Obviously, Vikings fans would prefer that Touchdown Teddy was behind center come opening day, but I see no reason not to be confident in Bradford’s ability to take advantage of the opportunities that Adrian Peterson will create for him. Given the talent around him, it would not be even remotely surprising if Bradford had an unexpected career year in 2016, since he no longer needs to feel the pressure to
1. A direita alternativa situa-se ideologicamente à direita. Socialistas não pertencem à direita alternativa. Progressistas não pertencem à direita alternativa. Liberais não pertencem à direita alternativa. Comunistas, marxistas, marxistas culturais e neoconservadores não pertencem à direita alternativa.
2. A direita alternativa é uma alternativa ao movimento conservador vigente nos EUA, cujos princípios se encontram nominalmente encapsulados nos 10 princípios conservadores de Russel Kirk, mas que acabou por regredir para o progressismo. É também uma alternativa ao libertarismo.
3. A direita alternativa não é uma atitude defensiva e rejeita o conceito da derrota nobre e íntegra. É uma filosofia ofensiva vanguardista, em todas as acepções do termo. A direita alternativa acredita na vitória através da persistência e de um estado de harmonia com a ciência, a realidade, a tradição cultural e as lições da História.
4. A direita alternativa crê que a civilização ocidental é o auge das conquistas da Humanidade e apoia os seus três pilares fundamentais: o Cristianismo, as nações europeias e o legado greco-romano.
5. A direita alternativa é aberta e declaradamente nacionalista. Apoia todos os nacionalismos e o direito de todas as nações a existirem de forma homogénea e não adulterada pela invasão e imigração estrangeiras.
6. A direita alternativa é anti-globalista. Opõe-se a todos os grupos que pugnam pelos ideais e objectivos globalistas.
7. A direita alternativa é anti-igualitária. Rejeita a noção de igualdade pelo mesmo motivo que rejeita a noção de unicórnios e duendes, ciente de que a igualdade entre humanos não existe em qualquer forma observável, seja ela científica, legal, material, intelectual, sexual ou espiritual.
8. A direita alternativa apoia o método científico. Aceita as conclusões vigentes do método científico, mas compreende que a) estas conclusões estão sujeitas a serem revistas no futuro, b) a ciência é susceptível à corrupção, e c) o dito consenso científico não é baseado em ciência, mas em democracia, e que, como tal, é intrinsecamente não-científico.
9. A direita alternativa acredita que a política se subordina à cultura, que, por sua vez, se subordina à identidade.
10. A direita alternativa opõe-se ao governo ou domínio de qualquer grupo étnico nativo por qualquer outro, sobretudo na terra natal do povo dominado. A direita alternativa opõe-se à obtenção de influência excessiva de qualquer grupo étnico não-nativo numa sociedade, seja através do nepotismo, do tribalismo ou de qualquer outro método.
11. A direita alternativa compreende que a diversidade aliada à proximidade leva à guerra.
12. A direita alternativa não quer saber o que dela pensam.
13. A direita alternativa rejeita o livre comércio internacional e a liberdade de circulação que o livre comércio exige. Os benefícios do livre comércio intranacional não são prova dos benefícios do livre comércio internacional.
14. A direita alternativa crê que há que assegurar a existência dos povos de ascendência europeia e um futuro para as crianças de ascendência europeia.
15. A direita alternativa não crê na superioridade geral de qualquer raça, nação, povo ou subespécie. Cada raça, nação, povo e subespécie tem as suas próprias forças e fraquezas, e detém o direito soberano de viver em paz na cultura nativa que prefere.
16. A direita alternativa é uma filosofia que valoriza a paz entre as várias nações do mundo e que se opõe a guerras que se destinam a impor os valores de uma nação noutras, bem como tentativas de exterminar nações individuais através da guerra, do genocídio, da imigração ou assimilação genética.
Em suma, a direita alternativa é uma ideologia ocidental que acredita na ciência, na história, na realidade, o direito das nações genéticas a existirem e a governarem-se de acordo com os seus próprios interesses.
This interview with NK Jemisin in The Atlantic is interesting, as it indicates a change in strategy on the part of the Puppykickers:
Just a year ago, the idea of a novel as deliberately outside the science-fiction norm as The Fifth Season winning the Hugo Award seemed unlikely. In 2013, a small group of science-fiction writers and commentators launched the “Sad Puppies” and “Rabid Puppies” campaigns to exploit the Hugo nomination system and place dozens of books and stories of their own choosing up for awards. Those campaigns arose as a reaction to perceived “politicization” of the genre—often code for it becoming more diverse and exploring more themes of social justice, race, and gender—and became a space for some science-fiction and fantasy communities to rail against “heavy handed message fic.” Led by people like the “alt-right” commentator Vox Day, the movements reached fever pitch in the 2015 Hugo Award cycle, and Jemisin herself was often caught up in the intense arguments about the future of the genre.
I spoke to Jemisin about her works, politics, the sad puppies controversy, and about race and gender representation in science-fiction and fantasy the day before The Fifth Season won the Hugo Award. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Newkirk: For you, are those people something that bothers you as you build a profile? Are people louder now that The Fifth Season is getting so much love?
Jemisin: They may be, but I’m not hearing them as much. I seem to have passed some kind of threshold, and maybe it’s something as simple as I now have so many positive messages coming at me that the negatives are sort of drowned out. As a side note, the so-called boogeyman of science-fiction, the white supremacist asshat who started the Rabid Puppies, Vox Day, apparently posted something about me a few days ago and I just didn’t care. There was a whole to-do between me and him a few years back where he ended up getting booted out of SWFA [Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America] because of some stuff he said about me, and I just didn’t care. It was a watershed moment at that point but now it’s just sort of, “Oh, it’s him again. He must be needing to get some new readers or trying to raise his profile again. Or something.” I didn’t look at it. No one bothered to read it and dissect it and send me anything about it. No one cared.
She just didn’t care. She just didn’t care. No one cared.
And then, the next day, they completely revamped the rules of the Hugo Award.
SJWAL. What’s particularly amusing about this is that last year, the Puppykickers went running to the media, pointing-and-shrieking like banshees. That strategy completely failed, so now they’re going with the “oh, we don’t care” line, while simultaneously trying to claim that I am seeking to raise my profile. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Let’s face it, I’m not the one talking to The Atlantic about me. Nor do I have any need to do so. As Mike Cernovich says, we are the Alt Media now.
Notice how the interviewer doesn’t ask her about calling Robert Heinlein and most of SF fandom “racist as *fuck*”. The truth is that having Jemisin replace Scalzi as the public face of Pink SF is about the best possible thing for Blue SF.
We don’t go away when you close your eyes and turn your back in a nightmare. But that won’t stop (((Jonah Goldberg))) from trying to ignore the Alt-Right:
My first column of the week was on how conservatives should not contaminate themselves by making room for the alt-right. I discussed the subject at great length with Hugh Hewitt on the air the other day, and I think the conversation is worth listening to. I won’t recycle all of that here, but I do want to clarify something. I do not think that “Trump supporter” and “alt-right” are synonymous terms. In fact, I’ve been very clear that they are not. Contrary to what Trump supporters claim, however, the alt-right is not some made up “bogeyman.” It is a thing. It may be vastly more insignificant than its proponents — and Hillary Clinton — claim, but that should make it easier to draw bright lines around it, particularly when they insist they want nothing to do with us and what we believe.
I see no reason to give an inch to the alt-righters’ effort to create an alt-white consciousness based upon the pigments of their imagination. By their own words, the alt-righters want to destroy and replace classical liberalism and modern conservatism and replace it with some tribal “identitarian” understanding of whiteness as a unifying concept. In this it shares the same modes of thought as the radical racialist Left. Hence, its real goal is to not just turn the alt-right into the Right, pure and simple, but to transform the consciousness of all white Americans — and white people everywhere — into racial jingoists.
That’s not who white Americans are, thank God, and I see no reason to give an inch to the alt-righters’ effort to create an alt-white consciousness based upon the pigments of their imagination. I think the wisest course would be to ignore it utterly, but thanks to the demons the Trump campaign has aroused — and even hired — that hasn’t been possible. I think it will be again, soon enough.
It’s fascinating to see (((Jonah))) declare “that’s not who white Americans are” instead of “that’s not who we are.” It’s almost as fascinating to see him utilizing Obama’s rhetoric and following Hillary Clinton’s lead in order to claim that the Alt-Right are the real Leftists.
That should prove about as effective as previous cuckservative lines such as “Democrats are the real racists” and “Donald Trump is no true conservative”. Ricky Vaughan nailed it:
Ricky Vaughn @Ricky_Vaughn99 Unoriginal Cuckservative: “the alt-right hurt my feelings”
6 months later
Unoriginal cuckservative: “the alt-right are the REAL SJWs”
However, (((Jonah))) mischaracterizes our position, to the extent that the Alt-Right can even be said to have a single position in this regard. It is not our goal to transform the consciousness of all white Americans into racial jingoists. It is merely our expectation that as an inevitable result of the policies advanced by the Left and supported by the cuckservative Right, “white American” will become the dominant political identity in America.
We are not transformatives, we are, rather, observational realists. We don’t need to destroy classical liberalism and modern conservatism, we have only to distinguish ourselves from them as they complete the process of self-destruction that was always intrinsic to their self-contradictory logics.
And the inherent falsehood in (((Jonah)’s position is revealed in the phrase “the pigments of their imagination”. Who is relying upon Leftist modes of thought now? Skin color exists. DNA exists. Race exists. Nations exist. But the various concepts upon which (((Jonah)))’s conservativism relies, equality, the melting pot, Judeo-Christian values, and a nation of immigrants, do not.
Since (((Jonah))) sees no reason to give an inch to science, history, and reality, it should not be surprising that both his movement and his personal brand are in descent, if not freefall. He asserts it will soon be possible to ignore the Alt-Right.
I don’t think so. In fact, I think that in 10 years time, Vox Popoli will have more readers than National Review.
Roughly four years ago, a new type of White nationalist movement began to form on the internet. This was mostly made-up of young people who were formulating ideas with minimal influence from prior White nationalist movements.
It was a situation of different online subcultures (some of which were influenced by older offline movements) coming together. These groups collided, based on their having reached common conclusions, and the result is what is now called the Alt-Right.
I am going to layout here these various factions, and what ultimately led them toward this center-point where we have all met. The campaign of Donald Trump is effectively the nexus of that centerpoint.
Note that there is quite a bit of overlap between these various communities, with many people – myself included – having traveled through more than one. Breaking them down into specific categories just makes it easier to grasp the overall development of the different threads of thought.
While there will no doubt be those who are uncomfortable with the more extreme elements of the Alt-Right, particularly on the part of conservatives and libertarians who would totally join it if only it didn’t involve making common cause with those people, it is absolutely necessary to adopt a variant of the principle of Ronald Reagan, which is no enemies on the Right. A tendency to delicately recoil from anyone willing to articulate, let alone actually fight for, their own people’s interests is one of the fatal flaws of conservatism, which at its core is little more than an aesthetic philosophy of noble defeat.
We are Aristotelians here, after all. A is A, and A cannot be Not-A. So, either guilt-by-association is legitimate and applicable to everyone or it is illegitimate and cannot be applied to anyone. This means that if being Alt-Right makes you a member of the German National Socialist Workers Party and an anti-Semite responsible for the Holocaust by association, then keep in mind that being a Jew, a Christian Zionist, an anti-racist, or a philosemite makes you one of these fine gentlemen by association.
Old Jew: They are animals. The non-Jews are animals. Beasts. It is written.
Reporter: It is not written here.
Old Jew:It is written… ah, you are right. It isn’t written. There is an explanation why they are.
Reporter: Hold on, that is what I want to understand.
Old Jew:It says “you are called human and the non-Jews are not called human”, that is what is written.
Reporter: Not called human?
Old Jew:We don’t call them human.
Reporter: So what do we call them?
Old Jew:Human is in the image of God. Human is something that is different from animals. If a person acts like an animal, so he is like an animal. Each person needs to control himself. The Jews control themselves. If the evil inclination tells them to do something and they don’t do it, so then he is a person, because he has intellect.
Reporter: So someone who is not Jewish, who does what is good, is he a person or is he not a person?
Old Jew:Also, he needs to do normal things.
Reporter: What I don’t understand is, all the non-Jews are, how did you call them?
Old Jew: Beasts. If they have no direction.
Young Jew: The word human refers to the image of God. He is the image of God. That is the meaning of “human”. We changed it, meaning the Jewish people changed it, to acting more humane. You need to act like a human being, but in principle it is based on God, and people are based on God because we are in His image so He called us human. The non-Jews are… God made them so they will….
Old Jew: So they will serve the Jews. All the non-Jews that you see all around the world, the billions, they exist just for the Jew’s benefit. We don’t see it so we don’t know exactly.
Young Jew: Hold on. Today we are still in exile, so automatically they don’t yet serve us completely. Only partially.
Old Jew: When the Messiah will come each one of us will have… how many?
Young Jew: Thousands. Hundreds.
Old Jew: 2,800 slaves.
Reporter: In the meantime, the Messiah is not here, so how do they serve us now?
Young Jew: They build us cars. We don’t know. Apartments, buildings. They do everything.
Reporter: Who do they build for?
Young Jew: Us. They serve the Jews.
Reporter: There are also Jews who do that work.
Young Jew: Hardly any.
Now, consider the following questions:
Are you a subhuman beast?
Do you accept the assertion that you, your children, or your grandchildren are destined to be one of a Jew’s 2,800 slaves?
Do you exist solely “for the Jew’s benefit”?
Now, if you answered “no” to any of those questions, does that make you a Nazi and an anti-Semite?
What I found particularly interesting is that some sites explicitly claim that the anti-Gentile quotes from the Talmud, including the one about 2,800 slaves, are fake, so either the video is an elaborate hoax or the debunking sites are knowingly attempting to deceive those looking for the truth. The fact that Judaism is a religion of ethnic supremacy should also make it clear that there is nothing “Judeo-Christian” about the America that was founded to recognize “No King but Jesus”. Christians are advised to bless Israel and refrain from cursing it, they are nowhere commanded to serve the Jews as slaves.
Don’t try to play the NAJALT game, especially not if you’ve already claimed that the Alt-Right are all Nazis because Stormfront and Pepe. I do not accept the evil and dishonest principle of “rules for thee but not for me” because A can never be Not-A. As I have repeatedly observed with regards to the Rabid Puppies campaign against the SF-SJWs, the use of a tactic against us automatically legitimates our use of it. The Alt-Right does not believe in noble defeat. The Alt-Right believes in winning. Throw a swastika at us, we’ll throw Le Happy Merchant right back at you without a moment’s hesitation. Or a swastika, for that matter.
Now, where I part company with the Stormfronters is that I don’t believe the Jews are the root of all evil on this planet. I believe that Man’s fallen nature and the Prince of this World are, and that the obnoxious pride of the people represented in that video is merely one of many manifestations of Man’s sinful folly. But regardless, only a suicidal madman or a dedicated virtue-signaler would oppose or restrain any opponent of the dehumanization and literal enslavement of more than 7 billion people on the planet.
If you can’t bring yourself to stand up against your own dehumanization for fear that someone, somewhere, might retroactively blame the Holocaust on you, then perhaps they are right and you are a slave. You certainly wear their chains upon your mind.
Whatever your particular strain of Alt-Right may be, you should have no trouble agreeing with the conclusion of Anglin’s article.
As long as everyone involved keeps doing exactly what they’re doing right now, we can only continue to expand. There is no other option. Our ideas are winning. The only threat of failure is if in trying to go mainstream we decide to compromise. However, because of the nature of this internet-based movement, where the mob has a very real voice and can say it loudly when they disagree with the direction something is going in, there is not any real chance anyone pushing a compromise could be successful.
No matter who you are, no matter what you are, if you are a thinking man or woman, sooner or later you are going to have to make a fundamental decision. Am I going to serve the truth and follow it wherever it leads me, or am I going to give up and accept the lies with which I am bombarded on a daily basis? Never forget, it is the broad and easy way that leads to destruction, not the hard and narrow one.
