Category: Uncategorized

The new William F. Buckley

It’s a bit ironic. Universal Press Syndicate signed me to a syndication contract with the idea that I would gradually come to replace their big syndicate star, William F. Buckley, because they considered me to be the most intellectually formidable of the “young” columnists then on the political scene. Needless to say, that didn’t happen, as they were totally unable to place my column anywhere except, briefly, with the Dallas Morning News.

As it turns out, it’s Jonah Goldberg who has turned out to be the true heir to William F. Buckley, as he is attempting to repeat his predecessor’s example in reading the 160,000-strong John Birch Society out of the conservative movement in a column entitled “Time to John Birch the Alt-Right“.

There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.

If you read the writings of leading alt-righters, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. Some are avowed white supremacists. Some eschew talk of supremacy and instead focus on the need for racial separation to protect “white identity.” But one can’t talk about the alt-right knowledgeably without recognizing their racism.

And yet that is exactly what some conservatives seem intent on doing. For example, my friend Hugh Hewitt, the influential talk-radio host, has been arguing that there is a “narrow” alt-right made up of a “execrable anti-Semitic, white supremacist fringe” but also a “broad alt-right” made up of frustrated tea partiers and others who are simply hostile to the GOP establishment and any form of immigration reform that falls short of mass deportation.

This isn’t just wrong, it’s madness. The alt-righters are a politically insignificant band. Why claim that a group dedicated to overthrowing conservatism for a white-nationalist fantasy is in fact a member of the conservative coalition? Why muddy a distinction the alt-righters are eager to keep clear?

In the 1960s, the fledgling conservative movement was faced with a similar dilemma. The John Birch Society was a paranoid outfit dedicated to the theory that the U.S. government was controlled by communists. It said even Dwight Eisenhower was a Red (to which the conservative political theorist Russell Kirk replied, “Ike’s not a Communist, he’s a golfer”).

William F. Buckley recognized that the Birchers were being used by the liberal media to “anathematize the entire American right wing.” At first, his magazine, National Review (where I often hang my hat), tried to argue that the problem was just a narrow “lunatic fringe” of Birchers, and not the rank and file. But very quickly, the editors recognized that the broader movement needed to be denounced and defenestrated.

Jonah even went on his friend Hugh Hewitt’s show and tried to get him to sign on to a campaign against the Alt-Right, to which Hugh, through either common sense, or, more likely, cowardice and fear of losing part of his audience, was obviously reluctant to endorse:

HH: We have been having a Twitter back and forth, and I actually don’t think we disagree. We just disagree maybe on a statement of the facts. Would you define the alt right?

JG: I know what you’re about to do. And then you’re going to say well, there’s this other version of the alt right. I am willing to defer to the definition of the alt right that the people who created and lead the alt right movement use, which is an, the one thing that unites them, Jared Taylor was on Diane Rehm the other day. Jared Taylor is a leading racist…

HH: Good. Please.

JG: …a member of the white alt right. And he says that there are a lot of different views among the alt right. Some are Christian, some are Odinists. Some are this, some are that. But the one thing they all agree on is what they call racial realism, or racialism, which is just a social science sounding term for racism. They believe that, if you read Richard Host, if you read Richard Spencer at the NPI, who leads an alt right think tank, if you actually read the people who created the term, who have been pushing this stuff, the one thing they all agree on is that we need to organize this society on the assumption that white people are genetically superior, or that white culture is inherently superior, and that we should have either state-imposed or culturally-imposed segregation between the races, no race mixing with the lower brown people. And I take them at their word, that that’s the stuff that they believe. And I think rather than poisoning or blurring that distinction, we should take them at their word and say we want nothing to do with any of that. And I know that you want nothing to do with any of that. I don’t dispute that for a moment. Where I disagree with you is this idea that we should sort of talk about this broader alt right that is just for the wall, or likes Donald Trump. No. What we should say is this is not your group to them, too. These are not disaffected tea partiers. These are people who we have a fundamental, first principle disagreement with. And any movement that has them in it, doesn’t have me in it, and vice versa.

HH: I agree 100% with that. Now does the term alt right get used exclusively in that fashion?

JG: No, which is one of the things that we should be doing, is we should be helping sharpen the distinction, not blur the distinction. I agree with you. There are a lot of people who don’t know what the alt right is. I live in these swamps. I’ve been having these fights for 20 years. I didn’t hear the term alt right until Donald Trump came up. But I know a lot of the people behind the alt right, because I’ve been getting it, they’ve been attacking me and then saying nasty anti-Semitic stuff to me since I started working at National Review. I mean, people are like, the guys at VDARE and these other places, they’ve all coalesced around this idea of the alt right, and it is not a coalitional idea where they want to be part of the conservative movement. It’s that they want to replace the conservative movement.

HH: And they have to be driven out of the Republican Party.

JG: Yes.

HH: I’m speaking as a partisan now. As William F. Buckley led the effort to drive the Birchers out of the party, so must genuine conservatives drive out what you and I agree is the core alt right.

JG: Right.

HH: In the process of doing that, I do not want people who are not familiar with how you and I believe it to be understood by the people who invented the term to think that they are being exiled. That is my fear, because I believe a lot of people, and I’ve seen it everywhere I go, say they are alt right, and they don’t know that Jonah Goldberg would then classify them as supremacist.

JG: Well, I wouldn’t necessarily classify them as supremacists, either. I would classify them as wrong.

HH: Yes.

JG: They’re using the term wrong. And in politics, you know, specifically, you know, I wrote a whole book which you were very kind to about the importance of labels and why they matter, and the importance of ideology and why it matters, and that we shouldn’t fall into this thing that labels don’t matter. Labels matter a great deal. The labels you choose for yourself matter a great deal. And sometimes, people choose their labels incorrectly. And so rather than say, rather than work from the assumption that someone says they’re an alt-righter, and say well, you know, I don’t know that that means you’re a racist, I would say well, what did you, you know, educate them. And people need to be educated about this.

It’s rather like watching monkeys puzzle over a computer and start licking the keyboard and putting the mouse in their mouths in order to figure out how to make it work. It is two long time ideologists trying, and failing, to make sense of identity politics. And speaking of identity, how many of the growing number of people who describe themselves as Alt-Right, who watch Stefan’s videos or read Richard Spencer’s articles or listen to The Right Stuff or Red Ice podcats or look over my 16 Points with approval, do you believe to be so concerned that Jonah Goldberg – Jonah F. Goldberg! – would classify them as supremacists that they will flee from the brand with all due alacrity?

This is AAA Grade cuckservative projection: the belief that the key to all persuasion is to convince the other person that failing to do as you want will lead to someone calling you racist.

Point 12: The Alt-Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

Jonah isn’t as stupid as he sometimes appears to be. He understands, as he makes clear in the Hewitt interview, that he cannot expect to be as successful in banishing the Alt-Right from the public discourse or the Republican Party as Buckley was in purging the Birchers from the conservative movement. He knows we have no interest in being a part of it; any lingering doubts about the rhetorical effectiveness of “cuckservative” should be put to rest by that glorious moment when Hewitt recoils in horror from the mere mention of it and prissily hisses “Oh, I hate that!”

The cuckservatives fear and hate the Alt-Right for one simple reason. We are not their friends. We are not their allies. We are their replacements. They like to call us Nazis, well, to extend the Nazi analogy a bit further, conservatives are the Hindenburg party, in both senses of the term.

And as Mr. X pointed out on Twitter: “Everyone shouting “Birchers” like getting rid of them was great should remember that they were mostly right about communists in government.”

More (((American))) history

In response to my pointing out the self-serving historical revisionism of certain (((immigrants))), several people claimed that not only were there several Jews involved in the Revolutionary War, but that the war would not have been won without the financing of a Polish Jew by the name of Haym Solomon, who, I was informed, was “the primary financier” of the war.

Several of them cited a theme that I subsequently noticed on Twitter:

Mac ‏@Macdad25
Haym Solomon was instrumental in financing the US in the Revolutionary War. So thank a Jew today

Mordechai Lightstone‏@Motte
@Yair_Rosenberg is @bryanjfischer aware that Jews helped win the Revolutionary War, including Haym Solomon who helped finance it?

 Ina Gilmore ‏@inagilmore
Reading: Forgotten Patriot The Story of Haym Solomon by David Allen Lewis. Financed Revolutionary War with over 40 billion US 2005 dollars

The implied idea that this forgotten patriot merited mention with the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson due to his “instrumental”, and indeed, presumably single-handed financing of the war struck me as highly unlikely, although I supposed that since Messrs. (((Greenspan))), (((Bernanke))) and Ms (((Yellen))) have effectively destroyed 97 percent of the value of the current U.S. dollar, it was not entirely unthinkable that Mr. (((Haym))) might have been involved in whatever led to the phrase “not worth a Continental”. However, this notion was easily determined to be incorrect.

As is my custom once my B.S. detector is triggered, I looked into the documented facts of the matter. I learned the truth is that Haym Solomon was, in fact, a legitimate Revolutionary War hero. He was a spy, he was captured by the British twice, he risked his life for the colonial cause, and as the agent to the French consul as well as the paymaster for the French forces in North America, he was able to broker the sale of bills of exchange from France and Holland and help Robert Morris raise money for the war.

In all, he raised $650,000, a not-insubstantial sum, which amounts to $16,644,272.43 in 2015 dollars. (1913 to 2015 data is the CPI. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is from a historical study by  Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.)

However, it is also worth mentioning that $650,000 was 1/1327th of the total $862,688,500 that the Journal of the American Revolution estimates was spent by the Continental Congress and various other revolutionary parties on the Revolutionary War. To say that Mr. Haym’s contribution to the winning effort is exaggerated by the revisionists is to put it mildly. And note that most of the significant efforts to honor that contribution were made more than 150 years later, well after the revisionists had begun rewriting American history.

  • In 1939, Warner Brothers released Sons of Liberty, a short film starring Claude Rains as Salomon.
  • In 1941, the writer Howard Fast wrote a book Haym Salomon, Son of Liberty.
  • In 1941, the Heald Square Monument, a sculpture designed by Lorado Taft was erected at Wacker Drive and Wabash Avenue in downtown Chicago. Taft began the work but died in 1936. It was completed by his associate, Leonard Crunelle. The monument depicts George Washington flanked by Salomon and Robert Morris and grasping hands with both men.
  • In 1943, the United States liberty ship SS Haym Salomon was named in his honor
  • In 1946, a memorial statue was erected to Salomon at Hollenbeck Park in Los Angeles. The statue was rededicated in 2008 at Pan-Pacific Park in the Fairfax District, where it can be found on the corner of Gardner and Third Street.

In summary, Haym Soloman’s legitimately heroic contributions to the American Revolution have been coopted, exaggerated, and weaponized as rhetoric in order to further the false historical revisionism of the deceitful, self-serving (((proponents))) of “the melting pot”, “the nation of immigrants”, and “Judeo-Christian values”. And those exaggerated contributions are now cited by various opponents of the Alt-Right in a futile effort to obscure the historical fact of America having been founded as a very real White and Christian nation, both material and distinct from the current multi-ethnic imperial state known as the USA.

These revisionist efforts are somewhat ironic, because Solomon’s domestic political efforts tend to support the Alt-Right’s perspective on history, identity politics, and the predictable effects of non-native interference in politics.

  • In 1783, Salomon was among the prominent Jews involved in the successful effort to have the Pennsylvania Council of Censors remove the religious test oath required for office-holding under the State Constitution.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Furthermore, of the 376,000 Continental soldiers and militia members who fought in the Revolutionary War, less than 100 were Jews. It is also interesting to note that only 7,000 blacks fought for the revolutionaries, versus 20,000 blacks who fought for the British.

Homeschool or die, homogamy edition

And this is why every sensible parent is rightfully wary of those super-caring male teachers:

Police continue to investigate sexual abuse allegations by three teenage victims assaulted by a South St. Paul teacher and his “husband”[sic] found dead in Washington last week.

Aric Babbitt, 40, and Matthew Deyo, 36, knew they were being investigated by police when they left town in mid August, according to court documents recently made public. Their bodies were found on a beach on Lopez Island by a kayaker Aug. 25. Police later discovered a suicide note.

One of the victims came forward to the police Aug. 14. Like the others, Babbitt and Deyo were friends with the teen’s parents and acted as mentors to them, the documents said. They would take them on trips, sometimes getting them drunk or high and then have sex with them, the documents said.

Never forget that gay men are 14 times more likely to sexually abuse children than straight men. That doesn’t mean all of them are chickenhawks, but it is something you should probably keep in mind when that super-dedicated drama teacher with the mustache is really, really insistent about how your 13-year-old son would absolutely benefit from taking part in the big weekend trip to the state convention.

And, according to my gay acquaintances, more than a few gay “marriages” would be better described as “conspiracies to commit statutory rape”.

As for male teachers, think about what kind of man is capable of surviving, let alone thriving, in the SJW-converged environment of public school teaching.

“Babbitt’s Youtube channel depicts a highly-involved teacher who cared about his students.”

Highly-involved. You don’t say.

“According to the report, Babbitt became the boy’s mentor after he came out of the closet to his family.”

Mentor. Right.

The first thing we do

Is shoot all the lawyers. Glenn Reynolds draws our attention to an absurd parody of justice and recompense:

In 2013, Yahoo announced that it would begin scanning its users’ e-mail for targeted advertising purposes—just as Google does. As is par for the course, class-action lawsuits were filed. The Silicon Valley media giant, according to one of the lawsuits, was violating the “personal liberties” of non-Yahoo Mail users. That’s because non-Yahoo Mail users, who have sent mail to Yahoo mail users, were having their e-mail scanned without their permission.
…
The suit, which was one of six that were co-mingled as a single class action, demanded that a judge halt the scanning and award each victim “$5,000 or three times actual damages” in addition to “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”


Fast forward three years. The case is now closed. Days ago, a Silicon Valley federal judge signed off (PDF) on a settlement (PDF). The lawyers won, they were awarded $4 million (£3 million), and the public got nothing. What’s more, the settlement allows Yahoo to continue to scan e-mails without non-Yahoo users’ consent.

It’s almost as though class-action suits have become nothing more than shakedown operations for lawyers.

We will, of course, spare Dr. Reynolds as the proverbial exception to the rule and award him his pick of his former colleague’s estates.

It would be in the definite interest of the American people to pass a law that forbids lawyers to collect more than 10 percent of any settlement or court-dictated award. Unfortunately, the lawyers in Congress are very unlikely to ever permit the passage of anything that would restrain the rapacious predation of their colleagues.

Rejecting the Alt-RINOs

Lawrence Murray is alert to the problem of entryism that sank the Tea Party, and provides a useful guide to distinguishing between the genuine Alt-Right and the Alt-Right In Name Onlys:

Civic nationalists

No. NO! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Civic nationalism is magic dirt nationalism. It’s the idea that anyone anywhere can be shoved into the blast furnace of America and made into an American. There’s just something about being here that makes you belong here. I mean after all, we’re a nation of immigrants right (no reference as to where most of them came from before the last few decades)? Please invade us, just make sure you adopt our language and love of voting and mindless consumption. Race and religion don’t real; it’s being a good citizen that matters!

When this country becomes “minority-majority” in the 2040s, as it currently is for children under five, it will not be recognizable as a country founded by British people and then populated by waves of pan-European immigration from 1790-1965. The United States will change radically as a result of the third demographic transition. What could be less conservative or nationalistic than letting your people be bred out of existence by foreigners?

Civic nationalists are most certainly not Alt-Right. Nothing they advocate will end the downward trajectory of the United States from a White majoritarian republic (the historical American nation) to a third world shopping mall (Weimerica). It will just make them feel better about their mystery meat grandchildren since at least they wave the flag and speak some variant of English.

The Alt-Right supports ethno-nationalism, not slow death.

Constitutionalists

These are a kind of civic nationalist, I would argue, except even more into legalism and “muh ideas” than they are about an actual identity. They have a paper fetishism for the Constitution and the US legal system, even when it works against them. For example, the (((Supreme Court))), or the Sanhedrin as I call it, currently has three Jews and five Catholics. Justice Antonin Scalia (pbuh) once suggested that there should be more Protestants on the bench, since America has a lot of Protestants and they are totally unrepresented in one of the most powerful organs of the federal government. Obama’s proposed nominee is (((Merrick Garland))), “a white guy, but he’s a really outstanding jurist.” Thankfully he’s being stonewalled by Cuckgressional Republicans, who are doing something useful for once.

For Constitutionalists, not identity, but legal documents are the source of the nation. Tell me how that works out for you when this happens, because the Constitution has glaringly failed to defend the liberty of our posterity.

Now, The Right Stuff may be less than entirely enthusiastic about me, given my Indian and Aztec ancestry as well as my doubts about the prospects for pan-white nationalism in Europe, and I have no problem with those who observe that my identity as a Red reservationist intrinsically disqualifies me as a leader, or even a member, of the Alt-Right. As my longtime readers know, I have zero interest in leadership or belonging to any group; I may be the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil, and my Vile Faceless Minions may happen to mindlessly obey me, but that is simply the natural order of things and an incidental consequence of my contemplations. Although some might very much like to put themselves forward as “leaders” of the Alt-Right – particularly the Dick Armeys and Dana Loesches of the world – I think the Alt-Right would do very well to learn from GamerGate and adopt the leaderless strategy that proved so effective in denying the mainstream media the opportunity to “behead the snake”.

As to whether I am a legitimate member of the Alt-Right or not, I will merely observe that the movement is already utilizing words and concepts of my coinage, including in this very article.

The only thing I would add to Murray’s article is that while I understand the need to focus on, and underline, the integral white nationalist element of the Alt-Right, even in this very article it implies the larger aspect of the general pro-nationalism that I believe is vital to the ultimate success of the Alt-Right. I don’t say this because I am as eager to call myself Alt-Right as an immigrant is to call himself as American as anyone else, but for strategic reasons.

If Alt-Right is solely synonymous with Alt-White, it will be readily replaced as the other nationalists, potential allies from Zionists to Chinese, Swedish, and Igbo nationalists, reject the brand and the movement in favor of something that has room for their nationalism. That is why I favor the broader Alt-Right perspective, not one that permits Civic Nationalists, Constitutionalists, Free Marketeers, or Israel-First “Americans”, but one that is as willing to say that China belongs to the Han, Israel belongs to the Jews, and Germany belongs to the Germans as it is willing to declare that America belongs to the Posterity of the Founding Fathers. Hence the 16 points that I proposed the other day.

The best rhetoric is always rooted firmly in truth. Nationalism is not only not supremacism, it is more firmly rooted in historical and scientific fact, and it is a considerably more effective ideology with much better prospects for long-term success.

Churchianity and the feminized church

It’s really rather remarkable, that as Christians lament declining attendance in their churches, and particularly, the growing absence of men of any age in them, they continue to double-down on the Churchian doctrine of the Holy Lady Parts. Rollo Tomassi observes that there is a material price to the structural and spiritual violations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, to say nothing of 1 Timothy 2:11–12 and 1 Timothy 3:11.

After almost six years of following the religious aspects of the Red Pill, I think it’s high time men acknowledge that modern Christian culture simply does not have men’s best interests as part of its doctrine anymore. Christianity, in particular, is by women, for women – if not directly executed by women, though even that is changing.

Church culture is now openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable, gender-loathing Betas. The feminist narrative of “toxic masculinity” has entirely replaced any semblance of what traditional masculinity or manhood once was to the church. Any hint of a masculinity not entirely beholden to a now feminine-primary purpose is not only feared, but shamed with feminine-interpreted aspersions of faith.

I recently read a study that our current generation is the least religious in history and I think as far as men are concerned much of that disdain for religion is attributable to a church culture that constantly and openly ridicules and debases any male-specific endeavors or anything characteristic of conventional masculinity. It’s no secret in today’s church franchisement that reaching out to, and retaining the interests of, men is at its most difficult.

Again, this is attributable to a generation of feminized men being raised into a church culture, and eventual church leadership, that has been taught to prioritize and identify with the feminine and reinforced with articles of faith now defined by the Feminine Imperative. The modern church has trouble reaching men because the church no longer has a grasp of what it means to be ‘men’.

To be clear, that’s not an indictment of the genuine faith itself, but rather a fairly measured observation of the way a feminine-primary church culture has shaped that faith. In the future, any man with a marginal capacity for critical thought will avoid the contemporary Christian church and religion for the obvious misandry it espouses; the only religious men you will find will be those raised into a life of religiously motivated Beta servitude – or those dragged to the feminine-directed church by wives who hold authoritative ‘headship’ in their relationships.

And even in what some consider to be pro-masculine or “macho” churches, we still find the Paper Alpha leaders preach from a mindset that defers wholesale to the feminine’s “Godly perfection” as they attempt to AMOG other male member to greater devotion to qualifying for, and identifying with, the feminine influence that pervades their church.

In this, as in so many things, observe that the consequence of following the lie is eventual destruction. This is what Paul means by knowing things by their fruits. If a church can throw out such clear Biblical direction in the interest of remaining in harmony with the current social or political consensus, it is only a matter of time before it will throw out any other instruction that makes anyone feel uncomfortable, and eventually, the Cross and the very concept of sin as well.

One need not be a theologian, or even a Christian, to see how this process has played out over the last 50 years.

Alt-Prawica: 16 punktów

1. Alt-Prawica należy do politycznej prawicy, zarówno w amerykańskim, jak i w europejskim znaczeniu “prawicy”. Socjaliści nie należą do ruchu Alt-Prawica. Progresywiści nie należą do ruchu Alt-Prawica. Liberałowie nie należą do ruchu Alt-Prawica. Wreszcie, komuniści, marksiści, zwolennicy kulturowego marksizmu, neo-konserwatyści również nie należą do ruchu Alt-Prawica.

2. Alt-Prawica stanowi ALTERNATYWĘ wobec główno-nurtowej odmiany konserwatyzmu w USA, której ideologia teoretycznie jest zawarta w 10 Zasadach Konserwatyzmu Russela Kirka, ale w praktyce degeneruje się w stronę progresywizmu. Ruch Alt-Prawica stanowi także alternatywę wobec libertarianizmu.
3. Ruch Alt-Prawica nie opiera się na defensywnej postawie i odrzuca koncepcję szlachetnej porażki w imię utrzymania pryncypiów. Ruch ten jest filozofią ofensywną w każdym znaczeniu tego słowa. Alt-Prawica  wierzy w zwycięstwo poprzez wytrwałość, przy pozostaniu w zgodzie z nauką, rzeczywistością, tradycją kulturową i lekcjami historii.
4. Alt-Prawica uważa, że zachodnia cywilizacja stanowi szczytowe osiągnięcie ludzkości i wspiera jej trzy podstawowe kolumny: chrześcijaństwo, narodowości Europy oraz Greko-Romańskie dziedzictwo.
5. Alt-Prawica jest otwarcie i zaprzysięgle nacjonalistyczna. Wspiera wszelskie nacjonalizmy i prawo wszystkich narodów do istnienia, jednolitych i nie zniszczonych przez obce inwazje i imigrację.
6. Alt-Prawica jest anty-globalistyczna. Sprzeciwia się wszystkim grupom pracujących w imię globalistycznych ideałów lub celów.
7. Alt-Prawica jest anty-egalitarystyczna. Nie wierzy w ideę równości dla tego samego powodu, dla którego nie wierz w jednorożce i krasnoludki, zauważając, że równość między ludźmi nie istnieje w dającej się zauważyć naukowej, prawnej, materialnej, intelektualnej, płciowej czy duchowej formie.
8. Alt-Prawica jest scjentyczna. Domniemuje prawdziwość bieżących ustaleń osiągniętych przy pomocy metody naukowej, rozumiejąc jednak, że a) ustalenia te mogą ulec zmianie w przyszłości b) nauka jest podatna na korupcję c) tak zwany konsensus naukowy nie jest oparty na metodzie naukowej, lecz na demokracji i dlatego też z samej swej natury nie jest naukowy.
9. Alt-Prawica wierzy, że tożsamość > kultura > polityka
10. Alt-Prawica sprzeciwia się rządom lub dominacji jakiejkolwiej rodzimej grupy etnicznej przez inną, zwłaszcza w suwerennych ojczyznach dominowanego ludu. Alt-Prawo sprzeciwia się, by jakakolwiek nie-rodzima grupa etniczna zdobyła nadmierny wpływ w jakiejkolwiej społeczności poprzez nepotyzm, trybalizm czy jakiekolwiek inne środki.
12. Alt-Prawica rozumie, że różnorodność + bliskość = wojna
12. Alt-Prawica nie dba o to, co o niej myślisz.
13. Alt-Prawica sprzeciwia się międzynarowemu wolnemu handlowi i wolnemu przepływowi ludzi, którego taki handel wymaga. Korzyści z handlu wewnątrz państw nie są dowodem
na korzyści handlu międzynarodowego.
14. Alt-Prawica wierzy, że musimy zabezpieczyć istnienie białych oraz przyszłość białych dzieci.
15. Alt-Prawica nie wierzy w wyższość jakiekolwiek rasy, narodu, ludzi czy podgatunku. Każda rasa, naród, lud czy podgatunek ludzki ma swoje własne unikalne siły i słabości i posiada prawo do cieszenia się taką kulturą, jaką sobie ceni, bez groźby zewnętrznej ingerencji.
16. Alt-Prawica jest filozofią ceniącą sobie pokój między narodami świata i sprzeciwia się wojnom mającym na celu narzucenia wartości jednego narodu innemu, jak również sprzeciwia się wysiłkom zmierzającym do wyniszczenia narodów poprzez wojnę, ludobójstwo, imigrację lub genetyczną asymilację.

Get ’em out

I would like to apologize in advance, because you’re going to be singing this amazing song for the rest of the evening, whether you want to or not. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll take your pants off, you’ll listen to it 37 straight times.

 He was the king of the jungle now he’s king of my heart 
And I’m Curious George, when did this all start? 
Well my life fell apart when you killed him. 
Man, Harambe was a real one (I miss you)
Yeah, you can’t stop this shine
Cuz I know he’s watching us from the sky

What is the Alt Right?

Stefan Molyneaux and I consider the question.

Just as Mike Cernovich is killing it on Twitter, Stefan is the king of the YouTube/podcast interview. He mentioned that our last conversation had 250,000 downloads. The Alt-Right may be the mainstream story du jour, but the real story is the way the Alt-Media is beginning to flex its muscle. I turned down five media requests in the last three days, but I’m always happy to make time for Stefan.