Direita Alternativa: 16 Pontos

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.

Their indifference is palpable

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.


The Alt-Right is not Freddy Krueger

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.


Straight from the source

The Daily Stormer’s guide to the Alt-Right:

An Accurate History of the Alt-Right

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:

  1. Are you a subhuman beast?
  2. Do you accept the assertion that you, your children, or your grandchildren are destined to be one of a Jew’s 2,800 slaves?
  3. 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.


What Men Read

A best-selling author explains.

What Men Read

I was doing an interview a few weeks ago for Women of Bad Assery when I started to wonder if it was actually true that men – and young boys – refuse to read books written by women or starring women.  It wasn’t actually hard to disprove it – JK Rowling may have used her initials to hide her gender, or so I have been told, but I read quite a few other books by women when I was a child.  The gender of the writer alone had no influence on me.  Nor too did I automatically dismiss a book starring a girl.

What did have an influence was school.  The vast majority of the books I was forced to read at school were boring.  Teachers – both male and female – would select books that bored me to tears.  Thankfully, by then I already had the reading bug.  Boys who didn’t, who only knew reading as a chore, didn’t read when they didn’t have to read.  They found it a tedious process – and preferred watching television instead.

So … what did all the books I liked have in common?

Most of them featured adventure.  The characters would be pitted against a remorseless enemy or given a task to do.  It didn’t really matter if the task was large or small, a thinking enemy or a force of nature; all that mattered was the challenge, the urge to overcome and triumph over one’s circumstances.  The characters didn’t simply exist, the characters had something to do.

Harry Potter works, at least for the first five books, because it fits neatly into this pattern.  Harry escapes the mundane world and flies straight into a world of magic, but gets pitted against a string of deadly foes.  All of his books feature Harry being challenged – Goblet of Fire being the most dramatic example – and overcoming his challenges.  Everyone who wants to argue that Dumbledore is a poor headmaster because Harry has to deal with the problem-of-the-book is missing the point.  The series works because Harry is the one who deals with the problem.

This is true for a lot of my childhood favourites.  The Famous Five and The Secret Seven all feature mysteries that have to be solved.  Hood’s Army and The Demon Headmaster all feature battles against deadly enemies.  And all of them are exciting reflections of the way young boys think.  They want adventure.

Good children’s books also avoid gender politics.  Both Danny the Champion of the World and Matilda are popular with children of both genders, even though one features a male hero and the other a female.  Both books work for male readers because they fit into the pattern I detailed above – Matilda is pitted against her family, who try their hardest to drag her down, and her sadistic headmistress.  Danny is pitted against his schoolteacher and the aristocratic moron who owns the nearby woods.  To add to this, Danny and his father are effectively rebelling against unwanted restraints.

Matilda is, in some cases, an interesting example.  Although Matilda herself is very definitely a young girl, women are not portrayed any more or less positively than men.  There is no sense that Matilda is waging war on the patriarchy, but on people who want to crush her soul (her parents) or physically harm her (the headmistress).  Indeed, the first person we are shown to get the better of the headmistress is a young boy.  And, as gross as that scene is to an adult, it is precisely the sort of thing a young boy would find hilarious.

The closest thing Matilda comes to any form of sexism is Matilda’s mother remarking to her that men are rarely as clever as they think they are.  But it’s hard to argue the point when she’s talking about her immensely stupid and crooked husband.

Good children’s books are also free of romance and sex.  You’d think this was obvious, but still … Most young boys are significantly put off by any hint of romance – they don’t understand the facts of life, let alone how they relate to their own life.  They certainly don’t want to consider the differences between males and females.  Romance was never a big part of Harry Potter because young boys don’t want to read about it.

Successful female characters – characters who appeal to young boys – are often very similar to men.  They take on challenges and overcome them; they have problems, but they overcome them on their own.  Even when they are not tomboys – George of The Famous Five, for example – they are rarely completely feminine.  They balance their strengths with weaknesses.  Dinah Glass of The Demon Headmaster is incredibly intelligent, but she’s also the only one of the good guys vulnerable to the Headmaster’s power.  That doesn’t stop her from playing a major role in his defeats.

This leads to another problem.  It is much easier for a young boy to imagine being Harry Potter than it is to imagine being Hermione Granger.

These patterns do not change as young boys turn into men.  The lust for adventure, for a meaningful life, is still there.  Romance – even as readers become more aware of gender and sex – is still a secondary concern.  Successful books always have the main character taking on a challenge and solving it.  If there is a love interest in the book, the romance is still secondary to the overall story.

Books that do feature romance heavily tend to do poorly with young men.  Twilight, for example, isn’t particularly popular with male readers, if only because they find it hard to identify with Bella and loathe Edward.  Books that focus on the main character worrying over stereotypical feminine concerns are rarely interesting to young men.  Indeed, books that concentrate on feminine issues often make men uncomfortable. Marketing them to young men is a waste of time.

Indeed, I’ve noticed a pattern in books written for teenagers and young adults.  The majority of male writers concentrate on adventure, the majority of female writers concentrate on romance.  Obviously, there are exceptions, but I think it’s largely true.

I think the most successful books – at least, the ones that attract young male readers – are the books that speak to our imaginations.  We want to be free and independent, we want to pit ourselves against the world, we want to do great deeds and soar high.  And we want to solve our own problems, to pick ourselves up after getting knocked down and carry on.  In a sense, we all want to be ‘special snowflakes’ – but we want to earn it, not have it handed to us on a plate.

Books that are not successful tend to focus on characters who do not appeal to young male readers.  A main character who is an idle layabout, a bully, a sneak, a coward, a whiner … they rarely appeal.  And even if they do, what lessons are they teaching?  Books that put men down, that make us out to be stupid or animals or just plain obnoxious … they appeal to us about as much as misogynist books appeal to women.

If you happen to be a teacher, or a parent, remember the golden rule.  Reading should never be a chore.  Indeed, reading is a learned skill.  And the more young boys enjoy reading, the more they will read.


Mailvox: so much worse

Castalia House exists because it is needed. Badly needed, it appears. A reader writes:

So I just read two stories from the latest issue of Analog magazine. I must tell you about them.

Story #1 is about a multi-racial research female scientist working for a white male research director. Her role model is a deceased multi-racial scientist who died in an experiment, famous, but whose death led to the current research director getting his job. She recreates the experiment and learns that the current research director rigged it to kill the heroic female multi-racial scientist so he could take her job.

Story #2 is about the CEO of a company who is married to his Chief Science Officer, who is a beautiful dark-skinned girl who beat up his bully in high school. He has IQ 140 but she has IQ 170. They develop brain-and-body augmentation technology and she becomes the first transhuman, better at everything than him in every way but she still loves him. But Christian extremists are outraged and terrorism ensues and they kill her, even though she is wonderful in all ways and a believer in non-violence. He has his own brain implanted in her cyborg body so they won’t know they won, and then goes on a killing spree against the Christian leaders who urged on the violence. Yay for transhuman transgender women ending Christian violence.

All I can say is, it’s so much worse than I thought.

This is exactly why Castalia exists. Consider these excerpts from the five most recent reviews of our latest novel, SWAN KNIGHT’S SON:

  • An excellent medieval fairy tale in the modern age.
  • Outstanding. I’m truly amazed.
  • Coming of age story written by of one of the greatest wordsmiths of our times. It is a story of a young man who doesn’t fit into society because he is too morally upright for the decadence that infests modern society.
  • A masterpiece
  • A true knight battling the forces of evil, while discovering who he is on multiple levels

 Remember culture > politics. What we are fighting here is a cultural war for the soul of the West.


Front National: stop immigration!

Chute du nombre d’expulsions de clandestins : un signal catastrophique


While France is facing an unprecedented influx of migrants, we learned this morning that the number of illegal evictions fell 20% during the first six months of 2016, 2,000 fewer expulsions. While deportation cannot be the only response to illegal immigration, since we must first put all the possible means in place to stop the flow of arrivals upstream, this decline is still catastrophic. It will necessarily be heard by the smugglers and the mafias which carry migrants to France as a terrible signal of laxity, a call to come to France, with incalculable consequences.


The National Front demands the expulsion of all illegal immigrants unlawfully present in France, and the dismantling of mafia networks of illegal immigration. It will not skimp on the means to achieve this objective, which is the only acceptable one in a republic worthy of the name. This policy is effective if it is accompanied by a full and final restoration of our national borders and a clearly stated policy choice: stop immigration.


One can almost hear the tumbrils beginning to roll again in France.


When the lies fail

It appears (((Ben Shapiro))) has given up on his mythical propositional “America”:

We’re watching the end of America in real time.

That doesn’t mean that the country’s on the verge of actual implosion. But the idea of America required a common definition of being American: a love of country on the basis of its founding philosophy. That has now been undermined by the left.

Love of country doesn’t mean that you have to love everything about America, or that you can’t criticize America. But loving America means understanding that the country was founded on a unique basis -a uniquely good basis. That’s what the flag stands for. Not ethnic superiority or racial solidarity or police brutality but the notion of individual liberty and equal rights before God. But with the destruction of that central principle, the ties that bind us together are fraying. And the left loves that.

In fact, the two defining philosophical iterations of the modern left both make war with the ties that bind us together. In President Obama’s landmark second inaugural address, he openly said, “Being true to our founding documents…does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.” This is the kind of definition worshipped by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has single-handedly redefined the Constitution. He said, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

But this means that liberty has no real definition outside of “stuff I want to do.” And we all want to do different stuff, sometimes at the expense of other people’s liberty. Subjective definitions of liberty, rather than a common definition, means a conflict of all against all, or at least a conflict of a government controlled by some who are targeting everyone else. It means that our flag is no longer a common symbol for our shared definition of liberty. It’s just a rag that means different things to different people based on their subjective experiences and definitions of reality.

And that means we have nothing holding us together.

The only way to restore the ties that bind us is to rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty for which generations of Americans fought and died. But that won’t happen so long as the left insists that their feelings are more important than your rights.

It’s difficult for a revisionist lie to hold people together in lieu of the genetic, linguistic, religious, and cultural kinship upon which successful nations have historically rested. And if “only way to restore the ties that bind us is to rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty”, well, to paraphrase Stefan Molyneux, that is not a strategy.

It’s just gaseous cuckservative rhetoric.

It’s also a bit ironic that (((Shapiro))) should complain about President Obama redefining liberty and Justice Kennedy redefining the U.S. Constitution, considering that he and his (((co-religionists))) have shamelessly attempted to redefine both “America” and “Christian values” for over 100 years.

This is why the eventual triumph of the Alt-Right over conservatism and its panoply of ahistorical myths is inevitable. Our beliefs are rooted in well-documented history and are entirely in line with both reality and current events. Theirs are rooted in revisionist lies and romantic bathos, and are hopelessly out of sync with what can be readily observed by anyone.


The Balkanization of SF/F

In the course of his long, deep dive into historical science fiction and fantasy, Castalia’s Jeffro Johnson has noticed a few trends:

We’ve spent a lot of time here delving into the ups and downs of several movements within science fiction and fantasy– the Campbellian Revolution, the New Wave, the tremendous changes that occurred in publishing in the late seventies, etc. We’ve broken stories here uncovering how both fandom and publishing are pretty well divorced from the pulp era today. Most things the casual reader has heard about the pulps are flat out wrong. Even just the news that fans in the seventies would have been familiar with a good seven decade’s worth of fantasy and science fiction classics generally comes as a shock to people.

As we’ve delved into the history of the field, the year 1980 seems to keep coming up as a major turning point. It’s a running theme, really. Just as one example of that: I have repeatedly hammered the point of how ideologically diverse fantasy and science fiction was in the seventies. Orson Scott Card says that all changed in the eighties. Here’s another: people writing negative reviews about books they used to love when they were kids? It’s almost like whole swaths of people have been actively conditioned to despise anything written before 1980!

Now, there really is something to this. It is very difficult to talk about this in mixed company, too. For one thing, there’s always people like Sheila Williams around that are quick to point out that times change. If she has a sufficiently large Greek Chorus on hand, every single observation about what’s happening gets dismissed to the point where nothing ever seems to have happened and there are practically no trends whatsoever. The subtext is always, “nothing to see here.”

I have to say, though, “times change” and “there are no trends” do not add up.

So where does that leave us? It means that something happened and it’s danged hard to talk about it. Let’s say we get all the boring people out of the room, pour a couple of beers, and take a stab at figuring this out. We still won’t get anywhere. Why not? Because the one thing you can’t do in these conversations is indicate that maybe someone somewhere maybe had a hand in bringing this about.

What happens if you veer into that territory? People get very uncomfortable very quickly. You’re not, uh, some kind of conspiracy theorist, are you?! It’s weird, too. The more documented evidence you have to back up your observations, the crazier you look. You might as well not even try. The conversation will not recover from otherwise intelligent people bending over backwards to make sure you know that they want nothing to do with this. Also, they will laugh at you!

Brad Torgersen cites MC Hogarth’s comments on her con experiences, and notes that intolerance has become the chief hallmark of the Tolerant Equalitarian Progressive Inclusive and Diverse SF-SJWs.

I attended a con once where the toastmaster said that they wanted all conservatives to “hurry up and die and leave the planet to the rest of us. No wait, they can stay as long as we can have their money.” And people applauded. That person wasn’t kicked out of the convention. They were feted and congratulated while I sat in the audience, pale and trembling, listening to the people around me cheer my demise. I have never, ever forgotten that moment. Or all the threatening ones after, both generalized or intimate, like the man who leaned into my face and told me the world would be better off without me and people like me. No one stepped in to tell him that he shouldn’t say such things. The people standing around us just nodded or smiled. One of them even said before leaving, “Your time is over. We don’t need you anymore, [expletive here].”

The mandarins of SF/F expend a lot of energy wrapping themselves in the flag of tolerance. But as any conservative can tell you, that tolerance runs pretty much one-way. A tolerance conversation (liberal to conservative) in SF/F often goes like this, “Hello, I am a tolerant caring compassionate liberal, and you’re not. You will sit there and politely listen to all of my ideas and theories, and not say a word. I will sit here and listen to all of your ideas and theories, and then I will explain to you why you’re a dirty bigot and a hater and an evil human being. We will both agree I am right, and you will apologize for being bad.”

That, dear friends, is how “tolerance” works in SF/F at this time.

I’ve discussed this at length with Orson Scott Card — he being well acquainted with the tolerance charade — and he says it didn’t used to be like this before 1980. Oh, to be sure, there were plenty of fans, authors, and editors on the left-wing side of the aisle. But it wasn’t so vindictive, nor so personal. You could sit at a table with conservatives, liberals, anarchists, libertarians, and have a rousing verbal melee of competing ideas, but at the end of it, you’d still be able to shake hands, and walk away comrades in the field. That began to change (perhaps not coincidentally) about the time Ronald Reagan took his seat in the Oval Office. Gradually, in dribs and drabs, the dominant left-wing culture of SF/F has traded in true tolerance, for a kind of totalitarian double-think 1984 version of tolerance — people and ideas labeled ‘intolerant’ don’t have to be tolerated. In 2016, with tender snowflakes floating around in SF/F like it’s a mild blizzard, anyone can be labeled ‘intolerant’ for any reason, logical or not.

It’s a little strange that the SF-SJWs still don’t understand that the trends that once so favored them are increasingly weighted against them. They’ve poisoned at least one-third, and possibly as much as two-thirds of their former audience against them, and while they’re mocking million-selling self-published authors as “vanity authors” and growing publishing houses such as Castalia as “vanity presses”, the gates they’ve been keeping with such vigilance are protecting towers of increasingly negative worth, as mainstream publishers are suing even very successful authors to take their advances back.

Meanwhile, Castalia House is already selling more books than any but the very biggest authors in science fiction. We passed 50 books in our catalog last month, and we are now receiving an increasing number of submissions from familiar names and even SFWA members. We’ve just begun to make foreign rights deals and develop our relationships with traditional foreign publishers, and perhaps most surprisingly of all, in August, 24 percent of our sales were in print.

SF/F has already been balkanized. They stopped reading our stuff in the mid-1980s and we began to stop reading theirs in the mid-2000s. Since our side is bigger than theirs, our authors are already bigger than theirs, they just don’t realize that Vaughn Heppner, BV Larson, and David VanDyke sell millions of books to their hundreds of thousands. Do you know who was the #1 SF author on Amazon in 2011? Castalia House’s own Nick Cole.

And as more moderate readers give up on Pink SF and stop buying from SJW-converged publishers like Tor Books, we’ll continue to grow and they’ll continue to shrink. As evidence, consider this comment from Brad Torgersen’s site:

I feel the call to give my testimony re Balkanization … I’m already gone. I’m a reader and a fan, not a writer. Not a TrueFan, but a fan on my own terms. I cannot remember the last time I bought a SFF novel that was published by any ancien regime publisher other than Baen. I’ve been a voter in the Hugos a couple times – what I read in those packets was largely ho-hum wastes of time. Some of the Sad noms were interesting, but not all. When I saw the title Space Raptor on this year’s list, I turned away for the final time – clearly, VD has taken the field and a little part of me hopes he burns it and salts it for a thousand years, but I have no interest in being part of that movement.

Ah, yes. It’s like hearing angels sing.


Brainstorm: who is next?

It’s about time to do another literary Open Brainstorm session, so with which Castalia House author would you most like to discuss his works? I don’t count, so leave me out of it. We’ll save John C. Wright for after his next two books come out too, so don’t select him either. One thing we’re going to do differently than before is to allow people to submit their questions for the author ahead of time, which should help keep things rolling and allow us to address more topics in more detail.

Go ahead and suggest away, and whoever is most in demand at the moment will be invited first. If they can’t do it for one reason or another, we’ll work our way down the list. Remember, this isn’t about your favorite Castalia author, or who you think is the best Castalia author, only the author for whom you’ve got the most burning questions.

Brainstorm members, the transcript for the Richard Spencer session is being prepared and will be going out to you this weekend. It will not be made generally available.

UPDATE: David the Good it is, assuming he’s not too busy with his new hobby of extreme body-modification.