A libertarian take on the Alt-Right

The Anarchist Notebook reviews the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:

Aside from free trade and perhaps some elements of nationalism, much of what comprises the Alt. Right ideology is outside of libertarianism; it neither contradicts it nor agrees with it. The goals of the Alt. Right are not mutually exclusive of those in libertarianism.

Whatever the case, I see many similar values between the two movements. The areas of disagreement, in my opinion, are secondary and not fundamental components. There is room for friendly dispute.

It is my sincere hope that both sides can engage in thoughtful conversations and work together when mutually beneficial against common enemies. Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, it has become self-evident that the Alt. Right, whatever its flaws, is trying to preserve the only kind of civilization in which libertarianism can exist at all.

While I tend to consider the Alt-Right political philosophy to be more post-libertarian than alibertarian, I do agree that libertarianism would require an Alt-Right-compatible foundation to even begin to be a practical possibility.

I found it interesting to observe that while he didn’t find my anti-free trade arguments in the Tom Woods-hosted debate with Bob Murphy to be convincing, he did pick up that Murphy – and other libertarians and free traders – have come up with no answers whatsoever to the problems I, and others, particularly Ian Fletcher, have raised.

I was frankly a little mystified to see that a number of people actually concluded that Bob Murphy won that debate, when all he produced was the same free trade boilerplate that we’ve all known for decades. He didn’t even begin to address the substantive differences between theory and practice cited. But I suppose it is difficult for people to relinquish their grasp on defining elements of their intellectual identity, which is why it’s necessary for libertarians to cautiously examine the Alt-Right philosophy before they can seriously consider accepting it.

The core conflict between libertarianism and the Alt-Right is that the Alt-Right is perfectly willing to crush individual liberties if that is necessary to preserve Western civilization and the European nations. And that is something that libertarians are going to have to accept if they are going to remain intellectually relevant in any way, because for all that the nation-state is a necessary evil, it is to be vastly preferred to the multinational state or the global state.

And those are the three options on offer at present.

I expect most libertarians to eventually gravitate to the Alt-Right, simply because the latter is both viable and coherent, while the former is not. I hope you will note that I don’t say that with contempt, but rather, with regret.


Advice to the Alt-Right

The Zman remembers how the promise of Morning in America went badly awry:

That’s the first bit of advice I offer to the alt-right. Trust no one. In the Reagan Revolution, it was impossible to tell the grifters from the committed. Lots of people attached themselves to conservatism, as writers, thinkers and commentators, simply because there was money in it. The term “Conservative Inc.” did not exist in the 80’s, but the idea of it sure did. Just ask Charles Krauthammer. He was a liberal speech writer for Walter Mondale and then he changed teams, because there was more money in being a right-winger.

Related to this is the recent Milo flap, where he was cut down by previous statements he made in one of his “look at me I’m outrageous” performances. He was ever so close to finally getting onto the big stage, making it to the show, but now he has been sent down to the minors and his career is in doubt. The people in charge of the stage have strict rules about who gets on and what they say while on the stage. You either submit to these rules or they toss you from the stage.

Conservatives in the 80’s made this blunder. They truly thought they would be accepted into the club if the public embraced them. The people in charge don’t give a damn about the public’s opinion. They care about controlling the message and the media stage is the platform from which the message is broadcast. If you want onto the stage, it means signing a blood oath to promote the message and there is no room for compromise. There are two sides in this, pick one and live with the choice.

That’s why it is important to no-platform the people in charge. It would glorious if all Trump voters dropped their cable sub this month, but that’s not happening. People like their entertainments. What you can do is build your own media platforms by relentlessly supporting the new ones coming on-line now…. Supporting the media that supports you means looking for a friendly source before going to the mainstream source. It also means the leaders and big shots of the movement need to stay the hell off the mainstream platforms. Milo doing Maher did everything for Maher and nothing for Milo. Anyone who tries to get onto the big stage and mix it up with the mainstream media should be suspect. It is the Golden Rule, the man with the gold makes the rules and in media, it is the man who owns the stage who makes the rules.

The big lesson from the Reagan Revolution is that optimism is easily used as a weapon against the optimistic. All the “Morning in America” bullshit in the 80’s fooled a lot of people into thinking the fight was over and the results were a foregone conclusion. Young people were convinced they had been born into the springtime of a cultural revolution, when in fact they had been born into the early winter of a declining civilization.

We saw this with the Tea Party too. It had no sooner begun to build momentum when all of the Richard Armitrages and Dana Loesches began leaping to the front of the parade and leading it into oblivion. Fortunately, the “Alt-Right is Hitler” tends to prevent most of the grifters from jumping on board the train, although CPAC’s embrace of Bannon, Trump, and near-embrace of Milo may signify that they are going to begin trying to coopt the Alt-Right since demonizing it failed.


Alt-Right: 16 točaka

S ciljem razvoja središnje filozofije Alt Desnice kao temelja na kojem se pravac može dalje razvijati.

1. Alt Desnica je desničarski politički pravac u istom smislu kako se desnica poima u Americi i Europi. Socijalisti nisu Alt Desnica. Progresivci nisu Alt Desnica. Liberali nisu Alt Desnica. Komunisti, marksisti, kulturalni marksisti, i neokonzervativci nisu Alt Desnica.
2. Alt Desnica je ALTERNATIVA konzervativističkom pokretu srednje struje u SAD-u koji je nominalno definiran kroz 10 konzervativnih principa Russela Kirka, ali je u stvarnosti degenerirao u progresivizam. Alt Desnica je alternativa libertarijanizmu.
3. Alt Desnica nije obrambeni stav te odbacuje koncept plemenitog i principijalnog poraza. Ona je ofenzivna filozofija u svakom smislu tog pojma. Alt Desnica vjeruje u pobjedu kroz ustrajnost i upornost te djelovanjem u skladu sa znanošću, stvarnošću, kulturnom tradicijom i lekcijama povijesti.
4. Alt Desnica vjeruje da je zapadna civilizacija vrhunac ljudskog postignuća te podržava njena tri temeljna stupa: Kršćanstvo, europske narode te grčko-rimsku ostavštinu.
5. Alt Desnica otvoreno zagovara nacionalizam. Podupire sve nacionalizme te pravo svih nacija da postoje kao homogene, neiskvarene stranim invazijama i imigracijama.
6. Alt Desnica je protiv globalizma. Suprostavlja se svim grupama koje se zalažu za globalističke ideale i ciljeve.
7. Alt Desnica je protiv ideologije jednakosti. Odbacuje ideju jednakosti iz istog razloga zbog kojeg odbacuje ideje o jednorozima i vilenjacima. Jednakost ljudi ne može se poduprijeti niti jednom znanstvenom činjenicom, a ona ne postoji niti u pravnom, materijalnom, intelektualnom, seksualnom, ili duhovnom smislu.
8. Alt Desnica je scijentodična. Prihvaća trenutne zaključke znanstvene metode (scijentodije), ali shvaća da: a) ti zaključci podlažu budućim revizijama, b) znanstvena profesija je sklona korupciji, c) takozvani znanstveni konsenzus nije temeljen na scijentodiji, već demokraciji, te je kao takav intrinzično neznanstven.
9. Alt Desnica vjeruje da je identitet > kultura > politika.
10. Alt Desnica se protivi vladanju ili dominaciji bilo koje etničke grupe nad drugom, naročito unutar suverenih država naroda koji su podčinjeni. Alt Desnica se protivi tome da bilo koja etnička grupa koja nije domaća ostvari prekomjeran utjecaj u bilo kojem društvu kroz nepotizam, tribalizam, ili pomoću bilo kojih drugih sredstava.
11. Alt Desnica shvaća jednadžbu: različitost + neposredna blizina = rat.
12. Alt Desnicu nije briga što mislite o njoj.
13. Alt Desnica odbacuje međunarodnu slobodnu trgovinu i slobodno kretanje ljudi koje slobodna trgovina podrazumijeva. Prednost slobodne trgovine unutar jednog naroda nije dokaz za prednosti međunarodne slobodne trgovine.
14. Alt Desnica vjeruje da moramo osigurati postojanje bijelaca te da moramo osigurati budućnost za bijelačku djecu.
15. Alt Desnica ne vjeruje u generalnu nadmoć bilo koje rase, nacije, naroda ili ljudske podvrste. Svaka rasa, nacija, narod te ljudske podvrste imaju vlastite jedinstvene jakosti i slabosti, te posjeduju suvereno pravo da žive bez da ih se maltretira unutar vlastitih kultura.
16. Alt Desnica je filozofija koja vrednuje mir između raznih svjetskih nacija i suprostavlja se ratovima koji služe za nametanje vrijednosti jedne nacije prema drugoj, te se suprostavlja svim pokušajima da se pojedine nacije istrijebi kroz rat, genocid, imigraciju ili genetsku asimilaciju.

TL;DR: Alt Desnica je zapadna ideologija koja vjeruje u znanost, povijest, stvarnost i pravo svake nacije na život i vladanje prema vlastitim interesima.


CUCK, CPAC cucked, cuckingly

CPAC conservatives are going to beat the Left by fighting the Alt-Right.

In a hard-hitting speech, the head of a major conservative organization argued that the so-called “alt-right” is actually just a cover for a “hate-filled left-wing fascist group” seeking to undermine conservatism.

Speaking at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference just outside Washington, D.C., American Conservative Union Executive Director Dan Schneider sought to cast the loosely organized movement with ties to white nationalists that played a role in last year’s elections out of the conservative coalition.

“There is a sinister organization that is trying to worm its way into our ranks and we must not be duped,” he told thousands of grassroots conservatives. “Just a few years ago, this hate-filled left-wing fascist group hijacked the very term ‘alt-right.’ That term has been used for a long time in a very good and normal way.”

The speech was the latest salvo in an ongoing war among conservatives about what to do about the alt-right, which was galvanized by President Trump’s populist campaign for the White House. Some members of the American Conservative Union’s board, including President Matt Schlapp, rallied around Trump despite concerns about his breaks from conservative ideology.

Seriously, who listens to these idiots anymore? We’re not trying to worm our way into their ranks. We reject conservativism and we reject conservatives just as we reject noble defeat, futility, and failure. Do you know how to confirm that Milo truly isn’t Alt-Right? Because he agreed to speak at CPAC. I’d no more agree to speak there than to a meeting of Whigs or Popolares.

Conservatism is mortally wounded. It is conceptually cancer-stricken. It clings desperately to its pseudo-ideology in a world of identity. It is an outdated and irrelevant posture, nothing more.

UPDATE: Did a Darkstream on Periscope about the cucks and cons attacking the Alt-Right. Longest, best-attended one yet! The replay is here.


Mailvox: Alt-Right allies

Because of the rise of the Alt-Right around the world, it is not going to be possible for SJWs and cuckservatives to continue to deny the fact that the Alt-Right is neither Neo-Nazi nor White Supremacist, but a broad-spectrum nationalist movement that upholds the rights of Europeans and white Americans to self-determination, freedom of association, and self-defined nationalism.

White nationalism is Alt-Right. Imperialist Teutonic supremacism is not. Anti-globalism is Alt Right. Eine Welt, Ein Reich, Ein Gedanke is not.

Scriba Dei writes of his experience being a black man who is largely in agreement with the Alt-Right, and how he was treated by racist white SJWs as a result.

I wrote for a SJW converged website. Theoretically, the site claims to be politically neutral and welcoming of all perspectives among its writers on one condition: they must be written politely, without purposeful intent to insult or deride any one group or individual.

Failure to heed the rule results in progressive sanctions up to and including a permanent ban.

I am sure you understand how this rule works in practice, for its conservative writers: they constantly walk on eggshells, in a world where only the cuckest of the cucks can seemingly escape unscathed.

And so it came as no surprise that the SJW inner circle was not too happy about my surging popularity by pimping alt-right talking points to their cucky conservative readership. Even for this group, the ideas we peddle proved too seductive, and as it turns out, I have been marked for deletion.

Now, being Black allowed me to get away with far more than the average Straight White Male writer could. But in the end, as one of my last pieces for them made it clear, there is no reasoning with the left. If you break the narrative, you get slashed. I was a thorn in their side, constantly reminding them that nope, these beliefs are not the domain of mindless, hateful, neo-nazi Supremacists and they were the mindless ones for denying them; and in the long run, the heartless ones, too.

No matter how nicely said–how well sourced–my pieces were, they suddenly became offensive in and off themselves, regardless of intent. And so I’ve been thrown out the window.

The last time we spoke, you said something which marked me: it is important for those of us who couldn’t as easily be dismissed as Nazis and supremacists to serve as allies for the Alt-Right.

In my own small way, I’ve decided to do it. I know that the usual suspects will have dismissed my last mail to you as a sham; I’ve made it a little harder for them to do so this time.

Remember, cucky, if you criticize him or what he is saying, you’re raciss! So brave. Thank you for this.


The opposition media is fake news

Mike Cernovich explains how it works when the opposition media wants to create a false narrative:

Years ago I viewed the media as biased. The conclusions were questioned, but the underlying factual basis of the story was taken for granted.

  • Then we had the Rolling Stone rape hoax.
  • Hate crime hoaxes are breathlessly repeated.
  • Russians are falsely accused of hacking a power grid.
  • Anonymous bloggers at PropOrNot are allowed to smear other bloggers (many of them liberal) in the pages of the WaPo.
  • WaPo admits it publishes stories where it “does not itself vouch for the validity” of its sources.

Even if you assume these nine people exist, why isn’t this information disclosed:

  • Did these 9 people work for Obama at the time of the alleged conversation? If so, how many? This bias and conflict-of-interest should be disclosed.
  • Why haven’t these 9 truth tellers resigned in protest? Man or woman up, be a whistle blower!

Since you’re liberal, maybe you don’t know what it’s like to be lied about. In the world of Trump supporters, we distrust the media because they lie about us daily.

On August 31, 2016, I wrote an article: Is Mike Cernovich Part of the Alt-Right? If you don’t want to read it all, note this concluding sentence: “No, Mike Cernovich is not part of the alt-right.”

On December 15, 2016, a WaPo blogger reported: “In an interview with alt-right writer Mike Cernovich, Hyde said the channel had ‘nine months’ to decide the show’s future.”

The blogger of that piece, David Weigel, is obsessed with me. He snarkily name drops my book “Gorilla Mindset,” and reads my Twitter religiously. He knows I am not “alt-right,” and lies about me. WaPo has never issued a retraction.

We saw examples of this last night at the Darkstream. Seven times, a troll tried to call me a “white supremacist”, which is something they picked up from the false narrative established originally by Jeet Heer during #GamerGate. Now, I know better than to bother pointing out to trolls and SJWs that what they’re saying isn’t true, much less argue with them; the object of the troll is to distract and to disrupt so I simply block them.

That is, by the way, evidence that the attempt to conflate the Alt-Right with white supremacism and neo-nazism has failed. Wikipedia now has an Alt-Right page; while it is a Richard Spencer-obsessed hit piece, it least it is no longer a simple redirect to the Neo-Nazi page. The fact that they feel the need to call me something other than Alt-Right, a political identity I readily embrace, suffices to show that their attempt to redefine the term was unsuccessful. If Weigel switches terms in his continued attacks on Cernovich, that will be further evidence in support of the observation.

Unlike SJWs, the media doesn’t always lie. But they regularly lie, they always attempt to push a narrative that may or may not be in reasonable harmony with the truth, and they often invent nonexistent sources. Even those who were previously dubious now agree, after experiencing being in the media spotlight themselves:

I have always been a little sceptical of the right wing’s opinion about ‘fake news’ – the ‘mainstream media’s agenda’. A lot of people in the right wing community completely distrust what the mainstream media report and believe that the companies that are part of it (BBC, CNN, Channel 4 to name a few) are using their left wing agenda to bring down the right. Honestly, despite seeing what they mean after watching a few videos and noticing bias in some areas, I thought that everyone was over reacting a little bit. Because after all, there are plenty of ‘right wing’ news sources now that pride themselves on looking at news from a neutral perspective. I’m now deciding to detract my original thoughts because of my personal experience with Channel 4, a popular UK news outlet.

Note that she made the same mistake that everyone does, of thinking that they’re going to be clever and careful, and that by doing so, they’ll somehow magically avoid the fate of every sacrificial lamb who has gone before them.

I was careful and conscious of the fact that this could all go very wrong. I’d like to mention at this point that I was assured that it was going to be a ‘fair’ piece to ‘get my perspective’.

We arranged to meet to film soon after Christmas. We filmed for about 4 hours and I feel that I spoke very well and managed to share my thoughts on a range of topics. I like to think I’m quite clever and quite the blossoming businesswomen, considering my editor status at BPS so I did catch GH out on a few things she asked and refused to answer. I also made a special effort to not talk about anything I wasn’t completely knowledgeable about, so that it would minimise the chances of being used to make me seem dumb….

I feel compelled to write this to warn others that despite how much precaution you take, how clever you are and how nice the filmmaker is – you will get targeted. I was made to look bad (as were my on screen counterparts). I was told that this would be unbiased, I was told that my words would not be cut and edited and I was told that I would have to sign release papers. Which for the record, I did not. I wasn’t shown the tape beforehand as promised, either.

They always tell you that they just want to tell both sides and want to give you the opportunity to sell your story. They don’t tell you that because you’re so special and smart. They tell that to everyone… because nearly everyone falls for it. Seriously, what part of DON’T TALK TO THE MEDIA is hard to understand? Let me see if I can put this in very simple terms that anyone can grasp: DO. NOT. TALK. TO. THE. FUCKING. MEDIA. EVER.

You’re not smarter than I am. You’re not more articulate than Stefan Molyneux. You don’t have a better handle on the media than Mike Cernovich. But I won’t communicate with the media except in writing, Stefan doesn’t talk to them at all, and Mike only talks to journalists on a extremely strategic and selective basis.

Don’t dance for the media. Don’t talk to the media. They are the enemy. Build your own platforms instead and bypass them entirely.


Identity in action

This account of a former landlord in East Cleveland explains why blacks and other non-whites will never stop chasing down whites and trying to live in white societies until segregation prevents them from doing so:

East Cleveland has its own black-run municipal court. Sitting in that courtroom as the only white person was probably the most unpleasant part of my East Cleveland experience. It was even worse than hearing gun shots; that was over in an instant. But going to court, I always felt like the white outsider—and that everyone assumed I was there to screw over the brothers. You had to sit in a small room—a very small room—with a woman and her family whom you were trying to throw out on the street. I can’t entirely explain why, but I dreaded it beyond belief. The derelict city hall building and courtroom—typical of any black enterprise I have ever known—had a miserable, oppressive atmosphere that added to my misery.

The blacks in court had a strange informality among themselves that made it clear that they were in charge, and that whites were second-class citizens. Once, I was sitting in the courtroom awaiting my case when my tenant walked in as another case was being heard. He yelled out, “How ya doin’, judge?” The judge replied, “Larry, we’ll be with you shortly.” My lawyer looked at me and said, “Prepare to be screwed.”

Another time I heard a person in court for a traffic violation have a lively discussion with the judge about the movie Drum Line. They both thought the band at local Shaw High School compared favorably to the band in the movie.

Our black municipal judge seemed to do anything possible to favor the poor black residents of East Cleveland, and had no apparent respect for the property rights of white landlords. By Ohio law, when a tenant fails to pay rent, the landlord may give the tenant a notice whereby the tenant has three days to pay, after which the landlord may file in court for an eviction. If the tenant has not paid the rent by the appointed court hearing, a move-out date is set, usually ten days after the hearing. The whole process takes about five or six weeks. Once, after going through the trouble and expense of this process to evict a non-paying tenant, I went to the court clerk to arrange a move-out, whereby the landlord and bailiff go to the unit and remove the tenant and his possessions.

The black clerk told me the judge had put a hold on the move-out date because the tenant had filed a “motion to stay.” I asked how this could be; I had never heard of a motion to stay. I had not received any rent for two months and had gone to the trouble and expense of this legal proceeding only to have it ignored. The clerk responded, “Tenants have rights, too,” and explained that in a “motion to stay,” the black judge granted a poor tenant extra time to get her affairs in order; the landlord was never informed of this proceeding. He didn’t explicitly say that this was something the black judge did just for black tenants who owed money to white landlords, but it sure seemed that way.

I lost my temper and yelled, “Look at your city! It’s a dump because of actions like this.” East Cleveland is the only court in Ohio that honors the “motion to stay;” it is something the judge made up and is not based on Ohio law. Other landlords have told me they have had tenants skip rent for another six months because of this scam.

Most of the time, blacks put on a show of solidarity with their brethren, but in private their true feelings sometimes come out: “Please don’t send that black repairman again, he never fixes it right,” or, “If I ever move from here I’m not moving to another black area, I only want to move to a white area.” I also heard, “I’m not going there. It’s too black.”

Once a thriving city of 40,000, East Cleveland now has a population of 17,000 and is in ruins, with street after street of abandoned and decaying homes and buildings. Former mayors and city officials are in prison for corruption. Schools that were once excellent now pass only two or three of 24 state tests, even though they receive more funding per pupil than most suburban schools. The police and fire departments are reduced to skeleton staffs, and many city services have disappeared. The mayor and city council president have recently been recalled, and the city’s only hope of survival is either declaring bankruptcy or merging with Cleveland. At one time, blacks moved to East Cleveland for a better life; now it is a destination of last resort.

Is that what you want for your hometown? Is it really worth the knowledge that no one ever… actually, you know, they’ll call you racist anyhow.


People who lived in East Cleveland as late as the 1970s have told me what a great town it was, and how they loved Shaw High School. Now there are no stores or businesses. Instead of living in an affordable community close to Cleveland’s cultural center, whites choose one-hour commutes and mortgages they can’t afford in order to escape from blacks. East Cleveland today is the result of a black population with black leadership, and until America begins to understand race, there are more East Clevelands in our future.


Fake News cuts deep

CNN’s reaction to Bernie Sanders saying “CNN Fake News” is certainly informative. Combined with Cuomo’s assertion that saying “Fake News” is as insulting as an ethnic slur, it’s clear that this is truly magical meme that badly wounds the opposition media. Meme harder!


A failure to understand identity

John Wright attempts to criticize identity politics and the Alt-Right, and in doing so, demonstrates that he does not correctly grasp what identity is, or how identity politics tend to function in modern multiracial societies:

Some say that the success of identity politics trumped up by the Left proves that a man will always side with his inborn tribal group, grievance group, and identity politics group rather than with any political doctrine or party or nation into which education, experience, or personal decision might lead him.

No, literally no one says that. First, identity is not limited to race. Religion, too, is an identity, and one of the most powerful. Second, while men can, and do, surmount their racial, grievance, and religious identities in favor of other identities and ideologies, the salient point is that the vast majority will not. One habitual weakness of John’s arguments I have observed is that he tends to be inclined towards binary thinking, and binary thinkers are particularly prone to the Ricardian Vice, which Joseph Schumpeter described in the History of Economic Analysis:

He then piled one simplifying assumption upon another until, having really settled everything by these assumptions, he was left with only a few aggregative variables between which, given these assumptions, he set up simple one-way relations so that, in the end, the desired results emerged almost as tautologies…. The habit of applying results of this character to the solution of practical problems we shall call the Ricardian Vice.


John continues with an drive-by implied defense of the fictional concept of the so-called “proposition nation”.

Nations are never built on a proposition that all men are created equal and never have been: they are only build on tribes and clans. So runs the theory.

No, that is not the theory, that is the literal historical definition of “nation”. The concept is defined as: “an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.” 1250-1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt (us) (past participle of nāscī to be born).

The “proposition nation” concept is entirely false. Neither concurring with any proposition nor contradicting one will cause one to be part of the American nation, or cause one to be separated from it. It is simply incorrect to claim that the United States is fundamentally built on the principle of equality or any other idea; one need only read the entire Declaration of Independence to know that Jefferson’s flight of rhetoric was nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. “All men are created equal” is not the founding principle of the United States of America nor the basis for any nation.

The irony, of course, is that one might as just as meaningfully cite the statement as grounds for claiming that anyone can become Chinese or Polish.

Those who believe this say that the way to defeat Leftwing Anti-White identity politics is by adopting Pro-White identity politics. They are seduced into making a simple error. It is an error so simple that even a highly intelligent partisan of that movement might not see it. The identity-grievance politics groups on the Left are all about Leftism and nothing about identity.

The only people who ever side with their tribal group and identity politics group are people who have been indoctrinated by the Left. They are Leftists. Identity politics is their stock in trade. It is the only product remaining on their intellectually bankrupt shelves.

First, it is true that for some, their Leftism is their dominant identity. Second, it is apparent that a number of identity groups have concluded that Leftism is in their tribal interest, which may be a source of the causal confusion. Third, it is absolutely and observably absurd to claim that the only people who ever side with their tribal group have been indoctrinated by the Left. Tribalism and identity long precede Leftism, moreover, it is very, very easy to provide examples of those on the Right who practice identity politics. Identity consistently provides a much more accurate predictive model for one’s positions and behavior than one’s nominal place on the political spectrum. But again, it must be understood that there are multiple kinds of identities; ethnicity merely tends to be the strongest and most powerful form.

Tribalism says that the loyalties one has toward genetically similar groups will eventually overwhelm all other loyalties of religion, culture, language community, political philosophy, and self interest, and that therefore one must abandon loyalty to religion and culture and state but adhere instead to one’s tribe. A more naive reading of history is difficult to imagine: as if civil wars never happened, and nothing but race wars did.

It is strange to see John claim that identity politics and tribalism is a naive reading of history when he is simultaneously denying one of the primary engines of history. Again, he relies on simplistic binary thinking in order to reach a false conclusion. People have multiple loyalties, many of which are not related to their genetic inheritance; the homosexual is loyal to the gay community and hostile to the religious communities for reasons of sexual orientation, the Christian Zionist is loyal to the Jewish community for theological reasons, and so forth. But none of this changes the observable fact that Somalis in Minnesota reliably vote for Somalis, Indians in Quebec reliably vote for Indians, and African-Americans reliably vote for blacks.

John also fails to understand the Alt-Right. Because he seeks compromise and is willing to let the Left live, he implies the Alt-Right it is of the Left. This is a confusion of etiquette with objectives.

The lobbyist of the Right, by way of contrast, is not a religious zealot. He is willing to live and let live, and to compromise when need be. The Right thinks the Left are foolish, but not evil. The Left think the Right are an abomination, literally Hitler, and must be exterminated from the Earth as soon as this is practical.

The Alt-Right thinks the Left is both foolish and evil. The Alt-Right thinks the Left is a collection of rabid, feral, incoherent, irrational barbarians who are observably incapable of participating in any civilized society without destroying it. We’re not religious zealots, we are simply educated observers of the entire history of the Left, from the French Revolution to the Killing Fields of Cambodia, who have reached certain logical conclusions on the basis of those observations.

The Alt-Right is most certainly not willing to compromise with the Left. We have witnessed the conservative Right live and let live, and compromise, to the point that Western civilization itself is at risk. And we are not willing to allow conservatives to meekly permit the destruction of Western civilization simply so they can go down to noble defeat in the sacred names of equality and not being racist.

I note in passing that every time, every single time, the roots of the Democrat Party are mentioned, the Alt-Right goes into a tizzy of sneers and scorn, scoffing that one should never say that Democrats are the real racists. Why one should never say it, they never say.  But it does undermine their whole race-is-politics theory, because the race of the Dems did not change their race before and after Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ programs, but only changed their political tactics. The utility of accusing the Party of Lincoln and Nixon of racism only started then, and so the Democrats only because the advocates of anti-racism then.

This is simply absurd. Again, John is stating something observably false, then using his false statement as the basis of reaching an incorrect conclusion. It’s trivially easy to show that what he’s saying is not true. On this blog, and in Cuckservative, I have explained why one should not bother saying that Democrats are the real racists: it is ineffective and toothless dialectic that has no effect on a group of rhetorical speakers. I have also pointed out that it is ineffective rhetoric for the Right because no one but cucks and cons fears being called racist.

And the race of the Democrats has most certainly changed since LBJ instituted the Great Society. That’s why the Atlantic asks if the Democratic Party even has room for what it calls “less-educated white voters” anymore.

So in asking the Right to accept pro-White tribalism into its political platform, the advocate of race-based politics is attempting to fight a religion with a lobbyist group. This is the same mistake the mainstream Right has been making for decades, if not centuries.

No, we’re not asking. We are predicting it will happen as a natural result of the USA becoming a multiracial, multicultural, multinational state. And it will be easy to determine who is correct. If the Alt-Right is correct, whites will continue to gravitate right across the West. The likes of Jack Murphy, who voted for Obama, will vote for Trump in 2020. And the Democratic Party will continue to move Left, as the various non-white immigrants fill its ranks being depleted by the exiting whites.

We’re not making the same mistake the mainstream Right has made; quite the opposite. And it is the fact that we refuse to continue making their mistake of holding to the sacred, nonsensical symbolism that has led to their defeat that makes them uncomfortable.

Now, all that being said, John is correct to say that federalism is one solution to tribalism. But it is a solution that accepts and utilizes the reality of tribalism and identity politics, not one that rejects them. In any event, read the whole thing there, including the comments.

I close with a pair of quotes, and leave it to you to decide whether it is identity politics or proposition politics that are more firmly rooted in truth and historical reality:

“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
– Lee Kuan Yew


“America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens…. Every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.”
– George W. Bush


The end of dual-citizenship

A man cannot serve two masters. Jesus Christ knew it. So does Marine Le Pen:

French Jews who have dual Israeli nationality will have to give up one of their nationalities if far-right candidate Marine Le Pen is elected. The Front National leader said she would not allow citizens to hold dual citizenship in two non-European countries.
She will, however, not include Russia in the policy, stating she considers it to be part of the ‘Europe of nations’. Speaking on France 2 TV, she said immigrants, and those who hold two passports, would have to surrender one of their passports – but added that this would not mean they would be deported.

Good for France. The USA and every other Western nation should institute a similar policy. Saudis and Israelis and Nigerians are no more Americans than they are Chinese or Martian. “Dual-citizenship” is a nonsensical postmodern concept that is every bit as incoherent as “gay marriage” and “sex as social construct”

After all, it’s not much of a “proposition” if you don’t even have to give up your previous national proposition. But I think it is a mistake to permit ANY dual-citizenship at all.