Alt-Right: what it is

I was helpfully provided with a translation of the 16 Points for the fat middle of the Bell Curve. I trust this will clarify the more complicated and challenging points that were troubling some English speakers.

1. Alt Right is right-wing. No lefties!
2. Alt Right edge, not lame. Cucks and cons so lame.
3. Alt Right gonna win. Not gonna lose.
4. Europe good, church good, white people good. History good too.
5. Freedom for everybody!
6. Stay home and don’t touch the foreign poop.
7. Equality bad, equality isn’t even.
8. Science good. Made-up shit bad.
9. Everybody votes they boys.
10. Small crew can’t tell big crowd what to do. Not for long, anyhow.
11. MS-13 gonna kill Crips. Bloods gonna kill Latin Kings. Split them up!
12. Alt Right got no fucks to give.
13. Free trade bad. No jobs, no money, no good.
14. White people good.
15. Stay home and leave them Red, Yellow, Brown, and Black people alone.
16. War bad, genocide bad too.

TL;DR: Everyone should be left by they own damn selves

I’m informed that a midwit translation is in the works, but unfortunately, with all the caveats, definitions, and pedantic clarifications, it is already 1,600 pages long. Translators are also working on the sperg edition of the translation, which comes with 800 more footnotes and a 200-page appendix of additional definitions.


Альтернативные правые: 16 тезисов

С
целью заложить основы альтернативной
правой философии, на котором смогут
строить другие.
  1. Альтернативные
    правые являются правым политическим
    течением и в американском, и в европейском
    значении термина «правые». Социалисты
    не могут быть альтернативными правыми.
    Прогрессивисты не могут быть
    альтернативными правыми. Либералы не
    могут быть альтернативно правыми.
    Коммунисты, марксисты, культурные
    марксисты и неоконсерваторы не могут
    быть альтернативно правыми.
  2. Альтернативные
    правые – это альтернатива магистральному
    направлению американского консерватизма,
    выраженному в «10 консервативных
    принципах» Рассела Кирка, которое
    выродилось в сторону прогрессивизма.
    Также это альтернатива либертарианству.
  3. Альтернативные
    правые не оборонительное мировоззрение
    и отвергают понятие благородного
    поражения. Это передовая философия
    наступления, во всех смыслах этого
    слова. Альтернативные правые верят в
    победу через настойчивость и согласие
    с наукой, реальностью, культурными
    традициями и уроками истории.
  4. Альтернативные
    правые считают Западную цивилизацию
    венцом человеческого развития и
    поддерживают три столпа этой цивилизации:
    христианство, европейские народы и
    греко-римское наследие.
  5. Альтернативные
    правые не скрывают своего национализма.
    Они поддерживают все национализмы, а
    также право нации на существование в
    родной среде, незамутненное вторжениями
    или миграциями иностранцев.
  6. Альтернативные
    правые противостоят глобализму. Мы
    противостоим всем, кто выступает за
    идеалы и цели глобализма.
  7. Альтернативные
    правые противостоят эгалитаризму. Мы
    отвергаем идею «равенства» так же, как
    мы отвергаем веру в леших и домовых,
    отмечая, что равенство между людьми не
    существует с научной, юридической,
    материальной, интеллектуальной, половой
    или духовной точек зрения.
  8. Альтернативные
    правые научно ориентированы. Мы признаем
    современные научные достижения, с
    оговорками: что а) в будущем эти положения
    могут быть пересмотрены, б) что научное
    общество также подвержено коррупции,
    и в) так называемый научный консенсус
    основан не на научности, а на демократии,
    следовательно его выводы ненаучны.
  9. Альтернативные
    правые убеждены, что идентичность >
    культура > политика.
  10. Альтернативные
    правые противостоят угнетению любого
    народа на своей родной земле другим
    народом, особенно в случае угнетения
    большинства на своей собственной
    родине. Альтернативные правые противостоят
    попыткам любых инородцев добиться
    исключительного влияния на принимающее
    общество через своячество, клановость
    и любые другие пути.
  11. Альтернативные
    правые понимают, что инородность +
    близость = война.
  12. Альтернативным
    правым безразлично, что вы о них думаете.
  13. Альтернативные
    правые отвергают международную свободную
    торговлю и отвергают свободную миграцию,
    подразумеваемую свободной торговлей.
    Достоинства внутринародной торговли
    никак не подразумевают достоинства
    свободной международной торговли.
  14. Альтернативые
    правые верят, что мы должны обеспечить
    существование белых народов и будущее
    белых детей.
  15. Альтернативные
    правые не признают идею общего
    превосходства какой-либо расы,
    государства, народа или подвида на
    другими. У каждой расы, государства,
    народа и подвида человечества есть
    свои особенные достоинства и недостатки,
    и у всех есть суверенное право на
    спокойную жизнь в рамках своей родной
    культуры.
  16. Философия
    альтернативных правых ценит мир между
    разными нациями в мире и противостоит
    войнами, цель которых навязать ценности
    одного народа другому, а также всем
    попыткам истребить отдельные народы
    через войны, геноцид, миграцию или
    генетическую ассимиляцию.
Кратко:
альтернативные правые есть западная
идеология, согласующаяся с наукой,
историей, реальностью и признающее
право кровных наций на существование
и самоуправление в их собственных
интересах. 


Great Man vs cliodynamics

A plethora of opinions are being expressed about the future of the Alt-Right in light of the God-Emperor-Ascendant’s disavowal. The Left has been emboldened; sensing a chink in the armor, the hasbaresque trolls are already out in force, doing what they always do, proclaiming inevitable victory and the imminent arrival of the worker’s paradise rainbow unitopia while attempting to demoralize their enemies by making absurd statements that push the current media Narrative.

But nothing has changed. Richard Spencer didn’t create the Alt-Right, he merely provided a nickname for an alternative right that has been around since William F. Buckley purged the John Birch Society. Hillary Clinton didn’t speak it into existence. Donald Trump won’t speak it out of existence.

Nothing has changed. Conservatism still hasn’t conserved anything. The wall still has not been built. The melting pot is still a self-serving immigrant myth. The United States is still a white nation founded by and for whites, as even Slate admitted yesterday. The Alt-Right will remain a potent and rising force throughout the West because the ebb and flow of historical patterns, patterns that scientists and historians developing Structural Dynamic Theory have traced back as far as ancient China and Rome, are still observably playing out through events today.

Consider what Yuji Aida wrote in the Chicago Tribune:

Americans are proud of their melting-pot heritage. But as blacks, Hispanics and Asians gradually come to outnumber whites, that ideal will fade. Like the Soviet Union today, the United States will have to deal with contentious ethnic groups demanding greater autonomy and even political independence. That could prove to be industrial America`s undoing. Many Americans, however, feign ignorance of the problem, partly because of the official ideology. The United States sees itself as a pluralistic, multi-ethnic society with a single national identity based on the principles of freedom and democracy. In fact, discrimination is rampant, but the illusion of equality is vital to maintain a sense of unity. Nonetheless, it is only a matter of time before U.S. minority groups espouse self-determination in some form. When that happens, the country may become ungovernable.

That was written not long after I returned from Japan, in 1991. The failure of the official ideology, the fictional nature of a “national identity” based on principles and propositions rather than genetics and language, was already obvious 25 years ago. As for the irrelevance of the individual actors, consider an article that I wrote back in 2004 about Tolstoy, Prechter, and socionomics:

It is easy to mistake Leo Tolstoy’s massive book, “War and Peace,” for a novel. It is not. Instead, it would better be considered the world’s longest satirical polemic, in the vein of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” From beginning to end, Tolstoy’s classic work is intended to illustrate the arrogant incompetence of human understanding and the inability of human reason to explain even the simplest of social phenomena.

With unrelenting precision and distinct overtones of mockery, Tolstoy dissects the notion that men dictate events. In one specific example, he examines, with minute detail, the four specific orders Napoleon gave to his army prior to the battle of Borodino:

These dispositions, which are very obscure and confused if one allows oneself to regard the arrangements without religious awe of his genius, related to Napoleon’s orders to deal with four points – four different orders. Not one of these was, or could be, carried out …

And it was not Napoleon who directed the course of the battle, for none of his orders were executed and during the battle he did not know what was going on before him. So the way in which these people killed one another was not decided by Napoleon’s will but occurred independently of him, in accord with the will of hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the common action. It only seemed to Napoleon that it all took place by his will.

In the second epilogue, Tolstoy goes on to brutally abuse both specific and universal historians, demonstrating how their explanations of various historical events is not only inevitably contradictory, but often constructed on base premises that do not withstand a moment’s reflection. Tolstoy further underlines his case by the choice of the two heroes of the novel within the polemic, Pierre and Kutozov, both of whom achieve their respective dream of inner peace and Russian victory only by submitting their will to the great forces moving around them.

This is not, as one skeptic rather amusingly put it, “a reliance upon the inevitable forces of history and the methods of material production”. (That did make me laugh; though.) Marxism is the groundless and unquantifiable application of incorrect economic theory to the future. Cliodynamics is observing what has already happened and is happening today, then drawing rational conclusions about how the various patterns and cycles observed will play out next. At the moment, I’m reading Ultrasociety, by Peter Turchin. It is an excellent book, and although its primary subject matter is largely tangential to these patterns of history, a passage I read yesterday struck me as entirely apt.

There is a pattern that we see recurring throughout history, when a successful empire expands its borders so far that it becomes the biggest kid on the block. When survival is no longer at stake, selfish elites and other special interest groups capture the political agenda. The spirit that “we are all in the same boat” disappears and is replaced by a “winner take all” mentality. As the elites enrich themselves, the rest of the population is increasingly impoverished. Rampant inequality of wealth further corrodes cooperation. Beyond a certain point a formerly great empire becomes so dysfunctional that smaller, more cohesive neighbors begin tearing it apart. Eventually the capacity for cooperation declines to such a low level that barbarians can strike at the very heart of the empire without encountering significant resistance. But barbarians at the gate are not the real cause of imperial collapse. They are a consequence of the failure to sustain social cooperation.

There is more, considerably more, than this restatement of what John Glubb and Edward Gibbon and Polybius, and other historians have noted would appear to indicate. But the point is, the eventual significance of these events will be determined by how well they flow with the historical patterns, not the opinion of any one individual, not even the God-Emperor Ascendant himself. The fate of the Alt Right does not depend upon one of its media-christened figureheads, but upon its willingness to align itself with the observable patterns of history as they play out.

Because, as we know, our enemies are in the apocryphal position of King Canute, desperately attempting to hold back the waves with their false narratives and outdated theories about the way the world works. But everywhere, their narratives are failing. I just received translations of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right into Mandarin and Romanian last night; the Romanian translator added:

I recently got in contact with the ideas of alt-right. The logic behind it is clear since I am from Romania and I myself seen what happened to my country, even after it entered the European Union. It lost all its industries, even the strategic ones. Also, we lost much of the workforce to other countries. As alt-right correctly points “free trade” requires completely destroying the country. 

Being correct, and providing an operative, accurate predictive model upon which people can rely, will trump monkeys dancing in front of the media every single time.


Media discipline

Andrew Torba of Gab has it.

CNN reached out and was incredibly rude and unprofessional.

We simply let them know that it is our policy to record all phone interviews.

They then backed out and claimed they had to speak with the editor about it, skipped a 2nd call to discuss, and acted very unprofessionally.

As does Tila Tequila :

Msm keeps on contacting me for interviews about my Roman salute. I should tell them all to suck my nuts, faggots!

They are not your friend. They do not want to let you tell their story. They want you to play the part of the sacrificial victim of their pre-established narrative.

Figure out a policy that works for you. Then stick with it. Mine is straightforward enough:

  1. I only do TV/video with Stefan Molyneux. Otherwise, no TV/video.
  2. I only do radio shows with friendly hosts. As a general rule, no podcasts except as the occasional favor to someone on our side.
  3. Written interviews only. No telephone calls or in-person interviews.
Yes, I’ve done other things in the past. I learned what worked and what didn’t work. That’s how I developed this policy. The best way to reach people is to build your own platform, slowly and steadily. Then help others build theirs.

UPDATE: From Twitter: We now have the endgame of that media manipulation @Cernovich was mentioning. Thanks Spencer

President-elect Donald Trump disavowed an alt-right conference in Washington, D.C. over the weekend led by Richard Spencer that celebrated the election of Donald Trump.
Asked directly about the event that was widely covered by the mainstream media, Trump replied, “I condemn them. I disavow, and I condemn.”

Trump denied that he had energized the alt-right, but again disavowed the movement.

“I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group,” Trump said. “It’s not a group I want to energize. And if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why.”

Optics matter. As I said, Richard is on a path to become the next David Duke, trotted out every time the media wants to discredit a Republican.

It makes no difference at all in the grand scheme of things, of course. The reason the Alt-Right is on the rise is not due to approval by maverick politicians, or because corrupt establishment figures denounce it, but as a result of the historical trends identified by Structural Demographic Theory, which is to say, elite overproduction, popular immiseration, immigration, and the fiscal crisis of the state. Both the God-Emperor’s ascendancy and the Alt-Right are what appear to be inevitable consequences of these things; his approval or disapproval of us is as irrelevant as our approval or disapproval of him.

UPDATE: In fairness to Richard, he’s already claimed a Politico scalp:

National editor at Politico Michael Hirsh resigned after publishing the home addresses of alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer Tuesday morning and advocating for serious violence.

Hey, maybe we should adopt a new slogan. How about… Democrats are the REAL Nazis. That should totally work. 


Controlled opposition or media indiscipline?

Like others in and around the Alt-Right, I’ve been approached by numerous media organizations since the election. I was also invited to speak at the recent NPI conference. I declined the opportunity, not because I have any problem with Richard Spencer or anything the Alt-White is pursuing, but because going to conferences and talking to lots of people is really not my thing. I don’t even go to three-quarters of the professional conferences that I really should attend, and I’ve been speaking at game industry conferences since 1995.

But I have to admit, it was somewhat fortuitous that I didn’t go given the manufactured media coverage of a minor incident towards the end, when apparently some idiots in the crowd began throwing Roman salutes on camera, and Richard decided it would be a great idea to throw the media some red meat by shouting “Hail Victory and Hail Trump.” Mike Cernovich put out a widely watched Periscope calling this “utter stupidity” and “controlled opposition”, and thereby sparked a bit of outrage among Richard’s fans.

As a number of people have asked my opinion of this, here it is:

  • No, I don’t think Richard is a federal agent or an actual controlled opposition figure. I think Mike would have been more accurate to say “controllable opposition” or “dancing monkey”. But Mike made it very clear exactly what he meant in his Periscope. Don’t get pedantically hung up on a term. If nothing else, Richard’s hair is too fabulous for him to be a federal agent.
  • There was nothing actually wrong with what Richard said. But we’re dealing with rhetoric here, not dialectic.
  • It wasn’t a big deal. But it was a foolish thing to do. The media is absolutely slavering to be able to have REAL PROOF that the Alt-Right are no-good, very-evil Nazis so that they can use it as a weapon against President-elect Trump, giving them ANYTHING is tactically retarded.
  • It’s not about Richard. It’s about Donald Trump. If Richard is genuinely supportive of Trump, then pulling that sort of stunt was the very last thing he should have done. Making yourself the news story at the expense of the individual you are supposedly supporting and celebrating smacks of being self-serving. As Mike said, dress up like a Nazi, speak bad German and wear a swastika armband if you want, just leave Trump out of it.
  • Richard has failed to learn the lesson of #GamerGate and the principles of 4GW. He wants to be the media-anointed leader of the Alt-Right because he believes, wrongly, that this will help him achieve his objectives. It won’t. As Mike and I have both noted, the media elevates fringe figures to “leadership” specifically in order to attack the movement through them. That’s why they keep trying to call Milo, and Mike, and even occasionally me “an Alt-Right leader” even though we all specifically deny it. Milo and Mike have always denied being Alt-Right, and yet the media keeps trying to claim they are its leaders. Ask yourself, “why is the media doing that when they know it isn’t true?”
  • You don’t play the media, the media plays you. Yes, Trump can play them. Yes, Milo can play them. But I’m not either of those unique talents and neither are you. I learned my lesson the hard way, when a woman from Wired read SJWAL and spent three hours talking about #GamerGate with me just in order to get what she thought was a single kill-quote into her article that was nominally about the Hugo Awards. She was wrong, because she was an American who didn’t realize I was referring to a very real problem that is covered only in the European press, but I learned that they will go very far out of their way in order to get that single soundbite, that single optic, that they can then use as a caricature of you for the next decade in order to discredit and disqualify you. That is why I don’t do TV, I don’t go on radio shows or podcasts that are oppositional, and I require that all interviews with me are written.
  • The media is not the way to “get out your message”. That’s the bait they’ve used to lure in every sucker for 50 years. I can’t count the number of times a reporter has said he “just wants to give me the opportunity to tell my side of the story”. It’s a trap. The way to get out your message is to patiently build your own platform, because he whom the media builds up is he whom the media can take down at will.
  • I am not opposed to Richard or jealous of Richard, nor do I want the attention he is receiving. I rather like him, I simply don’t think he understands that the media intends for him to become a David Duke figure, a weapon available for deployment against any politician or program that he nominally supports.
  • The media always has a narrative it is attempting to sell. Don’t help them sell it!
If the Alt-Right is going to continue to be successful, those to whom the media pays attention are going to have to develop the same media discipline that #GamerGate and the Trump inner circle have exhibited. Don’t take the bait.

Viaje al pensamiento de Alt-right

It’s interesting to see that the Argentine media is considerably more professional than the US media. Instead of running to the likes of (((Ben Shapiro))) and other self-professed enemies of the Alt-Right to explain what it is and what it believes, Gabriela Esquivada took the unusual approach of simply asking Jared Taylor and me for her piece entitled “A Visit to the Thinking of the Alt-Right“:

Viaje al pensamiento de Alt-right: qué es y cómo funciona la nueva derecha de Estados Unidos. 

Estan cansados de la corrección política y el conservadurismo tradicional. Son nacionalistas, antiglobalización y defensores de una América blanca. Su influencia en la victoria de Donald Trump

En los Estados Unidos se ha presentado como un conjunto laxo de personas y organizaciones que van de la derecha a la ultraderecha, y que han ganado espacio en los medios que tratan de encontrar explicaciones a la elección de Donald Trump. Se llama Alternative Right, Alt-Right: derecha alternativa (DA).

“Es una ideología occidental que cree en la ciencia, la historia, la realidad y el derecho de una nación genética a existir y gobernarse en su propio interés”, definió Vox Day, seudónimo de uno de los bloggers más influyentes de este movimiento variopinto que se ha cocido en los Estados Unidos al fuego de la crisis económica y la decepción política de los últimos años.

El autor de Vox Popoli recomendó la lectura de los 16 puntos que él sintetizó como base de una filosofía de la DA, entre los que se destacan la superación del conservadurismo tradicional, la defensa de “los tres pilares de la civilización occidental” (el cristianismo, las naciones europeas y el legado grecorromano), el nacionalismo, la oposición a la globalización y el igualitarismo, la defensa de la política de la identidad y el proteccionismo, entre otros puntos….

El racismo y el sexismo son ideas y ninguna idea es mala, según Vox: “El hecho de que alguien pueda legítimamente tener una creencia no significa que alguien más no pueda creer que está equivocada o despreciarla. Dicho eso, algunas ideas encontradas pueden coexistir. Otras no”.

—Hay creencias que pueden conducir a acciones destructivas.

—¿Y qué? La ciencia lleva a acciones mucho más mortíferas que cualquier creencia —siguió Vox—. ¿Deberíamos matar a todos los científicos para asegurarnos que ninguno podrá construir armas peligrosas? La gente sólo puede ser responsabilizada por sus acciones, no se puede ejercer el poder de policía sobre las creencias sin recurrir a la tiranía total y el control del pensamiento.

“La DA está cansada de la corrección política”, marcó Sabo uno de los ejes de ese ideario. “Porque no es posible prever hasta dónde la llevará la izquierda”. Vox cree que la corrección política “es un cáncer y un intento de controlar el modo en que se le permite pensar y hablar a las personas”. Agregó, enfático: “Es una abominación neo-marxiana”.

It’s a very good article that, wonder of wonders, actually reports rather than editorializes. This should make it clear, as if there was still any doubt remaining, that the Alt-Right is a global phenomenon, of interest to nationalists and their opponents all over the world.


Still not about you

A discussion on Gab:

Vox Day
Even we American Indians have our sovereign reservations. Why shouldn’t white Americans have their own sovereign country?

HorrorQueen
Where on earth would I go? I’m English, Gypsy, Native American and black… are we going to slice me up?

Vox Day
Do you also argue that interest rates should be set according to your personal financial situation? What will happen will happen. It’s not about you.

Sciurus
Being multiracial myself, I don’t understand how people have such a hard time getting this. Immigration policies that were instrumental to my existence have been disastrous for America. That’s nothing personal; it’s just a fact.

A strong, wealthy, free, and predominantly white America is in the interest of everyone in the world. Everyone in the world, even its enemies, are more likely to benefit from a predominantly white America that does not attempt to play global policeman or to enforce American cultural values around the world than one in which America is adulterated and diversitied and vibrantized into a muddy parody passed off under the same name.

The fact that there are hundreds of millions of non-white non-Americans who would prefer to live among white Americans than among their own kind does not alter the truth of the preceding statements in the slightest. Even illiterate savages who defecate in the street often prefer to live among civilized people who don’t, particularly if those who don’t are willing to feed, shelter, clothe, and clean up after them.

But it is not possible for many non-white non-Americans to live among white America without transforming it into non-white not-America. And that is why it is very much in the interest of non-whites and non-Americans to support the return of the USA’s population to the pre-1965 ethnic demographics that were promised to Americans by the advocates of the 1965 Immigration Act. After all, do they really believe all that technology, investment, and foreign aid that is provided by white people is going to continue to flow once white countries are no longer white?

It is readily apparent that the immigration cargo cultists who subscribe to Magic Dirt Theory have never once thought through the obvious consequences of their policies.

Also, if your first response to the discussion of a macro-societal level issue is “well, what about me?”, you are not fit to participate in the discussion. If you don’t care about anyone else’s interests, there is absolutely no reason for anyone else to take yours into account.


Čo je Alt Pravica?

V záujme
vypracovania základov Alt Pravicovej filozofie, na ktorej môžu
stavať aj ostatní.

  1. Alt
    Pravica je politickou pravicou v americkom ako aj v európskom
    zmysle slova. Socialisti nie sú Alt Pravica, Pokrokoví
    (Progresívci)
    nie
    sú Alt Pravica, Liberáli nie sú Alt Pravica. Komunisti, Marxisti,
    Kultúrni Marxisti a neokonzervatívci nie sú Alt Pravica.
  2. Alt
    Pravica je alternatívou k tradičnému pravicovému hnutiu v
    Spojených Štátoch, ktoré je definované 10
    konzervatívnymi princípami

    Russela Kirka, ktoré v skutočnosti zdegenerovalo smerom k
    progresivizmu. Je tiež
    alternatívou k libertarianizmu.
  3. Alt
    Pravica
    nie je obranným postojom a odmieta koncepciu vznešenej a
    principiálnej porážky. Je to do budúcnosti hľadiaca filozofia
    útoku v každom zmysle tohto slova. Alt
    Pravica
    verí vo
    víťazstvo cestou vytrvalosti
    a harmónie
    s vedou, realitou, kultúrnou tradíciou a historickou skúsenosťou.
  4. Alt
    Pravica
    verí, že západná
    civilizácia je vrcholom ľudského úsilia a podporuje tri
    základné piliere: kresťanstvo, európske národy a gréko-románske
    dedičstvo.
  5. Alt
    Pravica
    otvorene deklaruje svoju národnú orientáciu. Podporutje všetky
    národy a ich právo na existenciu, homogénnu a neriedenú
    cudzineckou inváziou a prisťahovalectvom.
  6. Alt
    Pravica
    je antiglobalistická. Je v opozícíi proti skupinám, ktoré
    pracujú v záujme globalistických ideálov a cieľov.
  7. Alt
    Pravica je proti rovnostárstvu. Odmieta myšlienku rovnostárstva z
    rovnakých dôvodov ako odmieta jednorožcov a škriatkov. Ľudské
    rovnostárstvo neexistuje v žiadnej pozorovateľnej vedeckej,
    právnej, materiálnej, intelektuálnej, sexuálnej a duchovnej
    forme.
  8. Alt
    Pravica je vedecká a a priori akceptuje súčasné závery vedeckej
    metódy, avšak je si zároveň vedomá, že a) tieto závery
    podliehajú potenciálnemu budúcemu prehodnoteniu b) veda podlieha
    korupcii a c) takzvaný vedecký konsenzus nie je založený na
    vede, ale na demokracii a je tým pádom nevedecký
  9. Alt
    Pravica verí, že identita ­­> kultúra > politika
  10. Alt
    Pravica je proti podradenosti ktorejkoľvek pôvodnej etnickej
    skupiny inej skupine, najmä v suverénnej krajine dominovaného
    ľudu. Alt Pravica je proti získavaniu nadmerného vplyvu
    nepôvodnej populácie v ktorejkoľvek spoločnosti cestou známostí,
    kmeňových vzťahov alebo akýmkoľvek iným spôsobom.
  11. Alt
    Pravica si je vedomá, že diverzita + blízkosť = vojna
  12. Alt
    Pravici je jedno, čo si o nej myslíte.
  13. Alt
    Pravica odmieta medzinárodný obchod a voľný pohyb pracovníkov s
    ním súvisiaci. Výhody obchodu v rámci národa nie sú potvrdením
    výhod medzinárodného obchodu.
  14. Alt
    Pravica verí, že je nevyhnutné zabezpečiť existenciu bielych
    ľudí a budúcnosť bielych detí.
  15. Alt
    Pravica neverí vo všeobecnú nadradenosť žiadnej rasy, národa,
    ľudu alebo ľudského poddruhu. Každá rasa, národ, ľud alebo
    ľudský poddruh má svoje vlastné silné a slabé stránky a má
    suverénne právo nažívať bez cudzích vplyvov a uchovávať
    vlastnú kultúru, ktorú uprednostňuje.
  16. Alt
    Pravica je filozofia, ktorá si cení mier medzi národmi sveta a
    odmieta násliné šírenie hodnôt jedného národa na druhý
    národ, ako aj úsilie o extermináciu individuálnych národov
    cestou vojny, genocídy, prisťahovalectva alebo genetickej
    asimilácie. 

An enemy of Christendom

None other than the Littlest Chickenhawk, (((Ben Shapiro))), reveals himself to be an enemy of the West, the Alt-Right, and America, as he tells lies about the Alt-Right:

Sean Illing: Are there any concrete political goals on the alt-right, apart from restoring a kind of cultural hegemony?

Ben Shapiro: They want to destroy the Republican Party from within and take it over. They want the constitutional right destroyed. They actually hate the constitutional right more than they hate the left. They don’t actually hate the left. They think the left is wrong about racism but they don’t object to big government that takes care of people; rather, they think you should have special privileges if you’re of European descent. They want what they call “Christendom” protected from foreign bodies.

VP Reader: And with that last line, I knew that Shapiro was not an ally of the West, even though he claims to be one. He is an ally of the “West” that is most beneficial to him and his tribe while keeping Christianity down to a sufficient degree that it does not, once again, become the culturally dominant worldview of the West. But that kind of an ally is no ally at all.

He’s also lying. Four times in six sentences.

  1. We don’t want the constitutional right destroyed. We want them to come to their senses, stop relying on the magic words “muh Constitution”, and start defending the posterity that the Constitution was written to defend.
  2. We don’t actually hate the constitutional right. We think they are misguided, outdated, and naive, but we don’t hate them. We expect them to join us one day.
  3. We hate the Left. We know they will never join us and we look forward to relegating them to the ash heap of history. Therefore, we hate them more than the constitutional right, whom we don’t hate.
  4. We do actually hate the Left.
And while many of us would prefer small government, we recognize that if we do not stop and reverse the invasion, the small government vs large government debate will be rendered moot, because all of the invading foreign bodies prefer large government.
It is all too typical that dishonest “journalists” like Illing prefer to interview enemies of Christendom and the Alt-Right about the Alt-Right rather than speak directly to anyone from me to Richard Spencer to Greg Johnson to Andrew Anglin.


I don’t care if someone immigrates here so long as they’re willing to imbibe the principles of Western civilization. I don’t care what someone’s race happens to be. This is consistent with the founding vision of the country. But the alt-right doesn’t accept that.
– (((Ben Shapiro)))

(((Shapiro)))’s position is not at all consistent with the founding vision of the country. The Alt-Right doesn’t accept that because it is obviously untrue. It is conclusively disproven by the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Naturalization Law of 1790. From Infogalactic:

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”


And if you’re dumb enough to cite a five-word sentence fragment of the Declaration of Independence in a futile attempt to prove that (((Shapiro))) is correct, I have six words for you: READ THE REST OF IT, MORON.