The Churchian corruption

One reliable metric, when dealing with Christians, to sort out the honest ones from the liars, is to observe how they quote the Bible. Anytime you are dealing with a self-professed Christian who quotes only part of a verse when the full one is contextually relevant, you can safely conclude that he – or in this case, she – is a Churchian who has no interest in the truth. They are merely using the Bible as a cherry-picked weapon to rationalize their pre-existing position.

Consider, for example, these questions from a Churchian at Mark Shea’s site:

Boy, am I afraid to ask, but here goes . . . I am only just learning about the Alt-Right. If they are Christians, what do they think Christ meant when he said to love your neighbor as yourself? To do to others as you would have them do to you? What did he mean by “love your enemies” and the parable of the Good Samaritan? What did Paul mean when he said “there is no longer Jew or Greek (etc.) but all are one in Christ Jesus?” What do they make of all Paul’s exhortations to avoid faction and seek unity in the body of Christ?

  1. Be kind and help people in need with your private resources, regardless of who they are, when you encounter them, insofar as you are personally able to do so.
  2. Do not selfishly ignore the needs, wants and desires of others. Treat them at least as well as you would prefer to be treated.
  3. Don’t be filled with hatred and bitterness. We can be a good neighbor even to those who despise us when they are in need.
  4. There are no nationalities, sexes, or favored nations in the spiritual world. Christians are in the world, but are not of it.
  5. Don’t get too hung up on theological differences and competing Biblical interpretations, because now we do not see sufficiently well to truly understand the Will of God in all things.

But these are not honest questions. Notice that she substituted (etc) for the entirety of Galatians, 3:28: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”

As I pointed out in Cuckservative, the dishonest Churchians who rely on these verses to justify everything from illegal Hispanic workers to mass Islamic invasion do not similarly declare that the verse justifies women marrying women, men playing women’s sports, or enslaving teenage runaways, as their logic dictates.

If we’re going to descend to their level of knowingly deceitful nonsense, we need only point out that the Bible limits itself to denying that there are Jews and Greeks, it says nothing about Mexicans or Arabs, or Africans, or Englishmen, and therefore Christians may legitimately discriminate among them. As it happens, that would actually be less dishonest than the extra-Biblical position they are trying to falsely sell to Christians on the basis of Scriptural authority.

These Churchians are liars, plain and simple. They are deceivers, they are corrupted, and worse, they observably serve the globalist objectives of the prince of this world. We know they are evil by the fruit of their teachings. And once they identify themselves in this way, you can safely dismiss them and everything else they say, because they are the children of their father, the original liar.

Now, obviously everyone makes mistakes. But these deceptions are not mistakes. And no one who intentionally hides the truth can be trusted to know the Truth.


The courage of the cuck

I will resist this Alt Right filth to my dying breath.
Mark Shea
You’re not even a speed bump, cucky. You clearly couldn’t even resist a pizza.

What I find amusing about the cucks is that they’re now rolling out the same X means Y routine against the Alt-Right that has failed so utterly against the Ctrl-Left. It used to be “Democrats are the real racists”. Now its “the Alt-Right are the real socialists” or whatever.

To which, of course, we have an obvious response: Vaihtoehto-oikeistoa ei kiinnosta mitä mieltä siitä ollaan.

It’s kind of nice having all those translations, isn’t it?

UPDATE: Perhaps I am wrong. It seems the Alt-Right is truly shaken. From Twitter:

  • Uh oh! What are we going to do? Mark Shea has vowed to resist us to his dying breath? MARK freaking SHEA!
  • Give up. We’ve lost. No one wins against Mark Shea.
  • I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO THAT IS BUT HIS VERY NAME STRIKES TERROR INTO THE COCKLES OF MY HEART! WOE IS US! THE BATTLE IS FORLORN! FLEE!

Blacklist and block

It’s time for the Alt-Right to take the lead in showing the Right how to block and blacklist the sites of the Left. Not because we fear this, but because they fear it. Remember, they always project. This is the true story of the little boy who grew up to become Ricky Vaughn, Influencer of Elections and Alt-Right troll extraordinaire.


Mr Dreher contemplates the red pill

When even a conservative as hopelessly, haplessly cucky as Rod Dreher is beginning to become indifferent to accusations of racism – although, he still never misses a chance to wag his finger and remind everyone that real racism is very bad – then you know we’re on the verge of a preference cascade. Dreher responds to an email from a reader named Andrew who actually has gone ahead and swallowed it at the American Conservative:

Dear Liberals, Democrats, progressives, leftists: Your use of the word “racist” doesn’t work anymore. We get it. You’re superior. You’re enlightened and we’re not. You care about diversity and we don’t. We only listen to dog whistles. We have given up trying to talk you out of your presumptions, or trying to earn your approval. We no longer consider it worth our while to reassure you that we’re not “that kind” of Republican.


But the fact is, we’re not as stupid as you think we are, and we see right through you. And if there’s one thing Trump has done, he’s given us some backbone to make our voices heard. Of course, that means “expressions of racism” will increase. (OMG!) And every child who behaves like a bully will be blamed on Trump. The fact is, we just won’t care about your freak-outs. Go ahead and caterwaul. You lost, and you deserved to lose.


I cast my vote for Trump reluctantly. Now, I couldn’t be prouder.

Thoughts?

I understand where Andrew is coming from in this e-mail, and I highlight it here to point out that a country in which people do not feel shame over racist thoughts, beliefs, and actions is a morally diminished country. I take Andrew’s point to mean that the left has accused him and people like him of racism for so many things, no matter how trivial, that the accusation doesn’t faze him anymore. I have been saying for some time now that if the alt-right grows in power and influence, it will be because ordinary people get tired of being bullied by these kinds of accusations, and choose to ally with people who might actually be bona fide racists, but who aren’t bothered by the attacks from the left.

I think Trump’s not giving a rip about political correctness was a big factor in his rise. If you’ve been reading me all year, you know that I’ve objected to his vulgarity and coarseness on many occasions. Trump lowers our discourse, and normalizes ways of talking in public that ought not be normalized. Having said that, it is undeniably true that the willingness of many on the left to demonize as bigots (racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes, etc.) white people who don’t live up to strict progressive blasphemy codes has called forth contempt for the (necessary and important) taboo against racism itself.

Think of it like this: Prohibition encouraged contempt for the law. If you pass so many “laws” around normal discourse, saying to transgress them makes you an “outlaw” (= bigot), then you should not be surprised when people go full Uncle Chuckie, and cease caring.

And once people stop caring, it rapidly becomes apparent to everyone that the “necessary and important” taboo against racism is neither necessary or important. Remember, the pendulum never stops on a dime; just as the Left turned the taboo against homosexuality into a pseudo-disease, the rise of the Alt-Right will coincide with the taboo against racism transforming into something widely seen as being considerably more deleterious than “homophobia”.


הימין האלטרנטיבי, מהו

1.
הימין האלטרנטיבי הוא ימני במובן האמריקני והארופאי של המושג.  סוציאליסטים
אינם ימין אלטרנטיבי.  פרוגרסיביים אינם ימין אלטרנטיבי.  ליבראליים אינם
ימין אלטרנטיבי.  קומוניסטים, מרקסיסטים, מרקסיאנים, מרקסיסטים תרבותיים,
ונאו-שמרנים אינם ימין אלטרנטיבי.
2.
הימין
האלטרניבי מהווה אלטרנטיבה לתנועה השמרנית המיינסטרימית שבארה”ב, שלהלכה
מתומצתת בעשרת עקרונות השמרנות של ראסל קירק, אך למעשה סטתה עם הזמן לכיוון
הפרוגרסיביזם.  הוא גם מהווה אלטרנטיבה
לליברטריאניזם.
3.
הימין
האלטרנטיבי אינו גישה הגנתית בעלמא, אלא הוא דוחה על הסף את הרעיון של
תבוסה אצילה ועקרונית.  אדרבא, מדובר בפילוסופיה התקפית במלוא המובן,
הדוגלת במחשבה קדימה.  הימין האלטרנטיבי מאמין בנצחון
באמצעות התמדה, תוך מיזוג דעים עם המדע, המציאות, המסורת התרבותית, ולקחי
ההסטוריה.
4.
הימין
האלטרנטיבי מאמין כי התרבות המערבית היא הישג פסגה לאנושות, ותומך איפא
בשלושת יסודותיה: הנצרות, הלאומים האירופאיים, והמורשת היוונית-רומאית.
5.
הימין
האלטרנטיבי הוא לאומני באופן פומבי ומוצהר.  הוא תומך בכל סוגי הלאומנות
וכן בזכותם של כל עם ועם להתקיים באשר הוא באופן אחיד ובלתי מחולל מפלישה
והגירה של זרים.
6.
הימין האלטרנטיבי הוא אנטי-גלובליזציה.  הוא מתנגד לכל קבוצה הפועלת למען אידאלים ומטרות גלובליסטיים.
7.
הימין
האלטרנטיבי הוא אנטי-שוויונות. הוא דוחה על הסף את רעיון השוויונות מאותה
סיבה שהוא כופר באמונה בחדי קרן ושדונים, והיא שהשוויון הבין-אנושי לא היה
ולא נברא מעולם בשום צורה ואופן, לא מדעית,
לא חוקית, לא גשמית, לא שכלית, לא מינית, ולא רוחנית.
8.
הימין
האלטרנטיבי הוא סיאנטודי.  הוא מניח לעת עתה את נכונותן של מסקנות השוטף
של השיטה המדעית (סיאנטודיה), תוך הבנה כי א) מסקנות אלו עשויים להשתנות
בעתיד, ב) תופעת המדעיזם חשוף לשחיתות, וכי
ג) מה שנקרא הקונצנזוס המדעי כביכול, מבוסס לא על סיאנטודיה, אלא על
דמוקרטיה, ולפיכך היא לא מדעית הלכה למעשה.
9.
הימין האלטרנטיבי מאמין כי זהות > תרבות > פוליטיקה.
10.
הימין
האלטרנטיבי מתנגד לכל שלטון ומשלה של קבוצה אתנית כלשהי בידי קבוצה אחרת,
במיוחד בתוך ארצות המולדת של העמים הנשלטים.  הימין האלטרנטיבי מתנגד לכך
שקבוצה אתנית זרה בארץ תתפוס עמדה של השפעה
יתרה בחברה הילידית באמצעות נפוטיזם, שבטיות, או כל אמצעי אחר.
11.
הימין האלטרנטיבי מבין כי גיוון (תרבותי) + קרבה (פיזית) = מלחמה.
12.
לימין האלטרנטיבי לא אכפת מה אתם חושבים עליו.
13.
הימין
האלטרנטיבי דוחה את הסחר החופשי הבינלאומי ואת התנועה החופשית של בני אדם
הנצרכת לשם הסחר החופשי.  היתרונות של הסחר החופשי הלאומי אינן ראיה
ליתרונות הסחר החופשי הבינלאומי.
14.
הימין האלטרנטיבי מאמין כי יש להבטיח את קיומו של הגזע הלבן ולקיים עתיד לילדים לבנים.
15.
הימין
האלטרנטיבי אינו מאמין בעליונות הכללית של גזע, עם, אומה, או תת-גזע
כלשהו.  לכל גזע, עם, אומה, ותת-גזע אנושי נקודות חוזקה וחולשה משלו, ולו
הזכות הריבונית לשכון לבטח בקרב תרבותו הילידית,
אותה הוא מכיר ומבכר.

16.
הימין
האלטרנטיבי הוא פילוסופיה שמוקירה שלום בין עמי העולם השונים, והוא מתנגד
למלחמות שמטרתן להשליט את הערכים של עם אחד על עם אחר, וכמוהן נסיונות לאבד
עמים מסוימים באמצעות מלחמה, השמדת עם,
הגירה, או התבוללות גנטית.


The racial detente is over

This is an unusually astute article on an important reason that helps explain the rising appeal of the Alt-Right across America from the Federalist.

Privilege theory and the concept of systemic racism dealt the death blow to the détente. In embracing these theories, minorities and progressives broke their essential rule, which was to not run around calling everyone a racist. As these theories took hold, every white person became a racist who must confess that racism and actively make amends. Yet if the white woman who teaches gender studies at Barnard with the Ben Shahn drawings in her office is a racist, what chance do the rest of have?

Within the past few years, as privilege theory took hold, many whites began to think that no matter what they did they would be called racist, because, in fact, that was happening. Previously there were rules. They shifted at times, but if adhered to they largely protected one from the charge of racism. It’s like the Morrissey lyric: “is evil just something you are, or something you do.” Under the détente, racism was something you did; under privilege theory it is something you are.

That shift, from carefully directed accusations of racism for direct actions to more general charges of unconscious racism, took away the carrot for whites. Worse, it led to a defensiveness and feeling of victimization that make today’s whites in many ways much more tribal than they were 30 years ago. White people are constantly told to examine their whiteness, not to think of themselves as racially neutral. That they did, but the result was not introspection that led to reconciliation, it was a decision that white people have just as much right to think of themselves as a special interest group as anyone else….

Furthermore, the ever-present drumbeat from the Left that every conservative victory is the death throes of bad, old white people who are about to be swept away by waves of brown immigration is making many whites dig in. On a certain level, how can you blame them? They are explicitly being told that their values and way of life are under the sword. How do we expect them to react?

Well, they’re all just in the very early stages of finding out. But we will never negotiate with them again. We will never believe them again. The long, stupid, dishonest detente is over. Let a hundred meme-flowers blossom.


It’s not about you

I find it very annoying when someone decides it is an optimal use of my time to ask me to contemplate their personal situation and ascertain a) if their current political position can be characterized as Alt-Right, b) what variant of Alt-Right best describes their current political perspective, c) what the Alt-Right makes of their family situation, which inevitably involves some amount of interracial sex or adoption, d) if the Alt-Right has taken into account their family situation, which inevitably involves some amount of interracial sex or adoption, or e) if the Alt-Right is aware that its political theories violate the individual’s current theological perspective.

Allow me to direct your attention to Point 12 of the 16 Points.

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

Perhaps that needs to be revised. The Alt-Right doesn’t care about you. Or made more succinct: The Alt-Right doesn’t care.

I certainly don’t. These questions are not merely solipsistic and stupid, they are utterly beside the point. They all consist of category errors. This should be totally obvious, but as I am frequently informed that what I consider to be totally obvious is not always, in fact, the case, let me attempt to explain.

Let us say that instead of political philosophy, we are discussing political economy. Let’s say that instead of discussing the Alt-Right, we are discussing Keynesianism, I point out that it is in the interest of the economy that interest rates rise. How, then, would one regard an individual who asked the following questions?

  1. Can my current financial position be characterized as Keynesian?
  2. What variant of Keynesianism best describes my current financial position?
  3. What do Keynesians make of my financial situation, which inevitably involves some amount of debt or investment?
  4. Have Keynesians taken into account my financial situation, which inevitably involves some amount of debt or investment?
  5. Are Keynesians aware that their economic theories contradict my current theological perspective?

Now does the utter irrelevance of these questions make a little more sense? The truth or falsehood of Keynesianism does not depend on the amount one presently owes on ones’s student loan debt or credit card balance. Many people seem to be of the opinion that the legitimacy of the Alt-Right somehow depends upon whether it is good for them or not. This is, in three words, stupid, solipsistic, and erroneous.

Communism is either correct or incorrect. It doesn’t matter if it is bad for you or not. Free Trade theory is either correct or incorrect. It doesn’t matter if it is bad for you or not. And the Alt-Right is either a more correct political philosophy than Communism, Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism or it is not, regardless of whether you and your mudsharking daughter or rice-chasing son or your Filippino ex-wife or your gay Hispanic uncle or your adopted Haitian son or your adopted Korean daughter or your Jewish-Nigerian granddaughter or your Kenyan-Slovakian grandson are United States citizens or alien invaders from Mars.

Seriously, to preen and posture and pretend that your personal situation is even remotely relevant to whether diversity+proximity=war is just embarrassing. The great social forces are as indifferent to individual specimens of humanity as the Deists’ hands-off clockmaker god; as Tolstoy conclusively showed, not even Napoleon’s opinions were directly relevant to the outcome of a single battle. As a general rule, Europeans don’t want to live in Somalia, Beijing, Manila, Nairobi, or Jeddah, and the more your presence forces them to live in some facsimile of one of those places for any reason, the less they want you or anyone to do with you around them.

Now, I think there is a strong argument to be made for the Alt-Right from an individual perspective. As a mixed-race individual, I will benefit greatly from the continued existence of Western civilization. If that means I cannot live in certain Alt-White-governed areas one day, what of it? It is still of massive benefit to me, as the appearance of mobile phones, fertilizer, and modern medicine in the most hopelessly savage areas of Africa should suffice to prove.

The white nations of Europe are, collectively and historically speaking, humanity’s golden geese. It is to the long-term benefit of all Mankind to avoid killing them, or even adulterating them, through immigration, invasion, or assimilation.


Equality

Twitter demonstrates the SJW commitment to one of the five fundamental pillars of their social justice ideology.

I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you!
1:57 AM 9 Nov 2016

Twitter, in response to a complaint about the above tweet:

Thank you for reporting this issue to us. Our goal is to create a safe environment for everyone on Twitter to express themselves freely. We reviewed your report carefully and found that there was no violation of Twitter’s Rules regarding abusive behavior.

I fucking hate black people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Clinton. Fuck you!
4:08 AM 16 Nov 2016

Twitter, in response to a complaint about the above tweet:

We’ve investigated and suspended the account you reported as it was found to be participating in abusive behavior.

Point 7: The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

Equality does not exist and it is very easy to prove that no one who claims equality to be a moral principle actually believes in it. Equality is nothing more than a rhetorical weapon utilized by the Left in order to win the moral level of war. Unless you reject it and refuse to kowtow before it, you are handing the Left power over you.

That is why Martin van Creveld described it as “the impossible quest” in his history of the concept.


Mitä Vaihtoehto-oikeisto on

Tarkoitus on tarjota Vaihtoehto-oikeistolle filosofinen perusta, jota voidaan sitten kehittää.

  1. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto on oikeistoa niin amerikkalaisessa kuin eurooppalaisessakin mielessä.  Sosialistit eivät ole vaihtoehto-oikeistoa.  Suvaitsevaisto ei ole Vaihtoehto-oikeistoa.  Liberaalit eivät ole Vaihtoehto-oikeistoa.  Kommunistit, marxistit, marxilaiset, kulttuurimädättäjät saati kokoomuslaiset eivät ole Vaihtoehto-oikeistoa.
  2. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto on VAIHTOEHTO USA:n valtavirran konservatiiviselle liikkeelle. Se nojaa nimellisesti Russell Kirkin 10 Conservative Principlesiin, mutta on jäänyt ajastaan jälkeen ja rappeutunut lähinnä suvaitsevaiston haaraksi. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto on vaihtoehto myös libertarismille.
  3. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto ei ole luonteeltaan puolustava, vaan hylkää pyrkimyksen jaloon ja periaatteelliseen tappioon.  Se suuntaa eteenpäin ja on filosofiana hyökkäävä sanan kaikissa merkityksissä.  Vaihtoehto-oikeisto uskoo voittoon sinnikkyyden kautta, pysytellen harmoniassa tieteen, todellisuuden, kulttuurisen perinteen ja historian opetusten kanssa.
  4. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto kokee länsimaisen sivilisaation olevan inhimillitsen saavutusten huippu ja tukee sen kolmea perustusta: kristinuskoa, eurooppalaisia kansoja ja kreikkalais-roomalaista perintöä.
  5. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto on avoimesti ja vakaumuksellisesti nationalistinen.  Se kannattaa kaikkea nationalismia ja kaikkien kansojen oikeutta olemassaoloon homogeenisinä, puhtaana maahantulijoiden tai -hyökkääjien vaikutuksesta.
  6. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto vastustaa globalismia.  Se vastustaa kaikkia ryhmittymiä, jotka työskentelevät globalististen ideoiden tai tavoitteiden puolesta.
  7. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto vastustaa tasa-arvoa.  Se hylkää tasa-arvon käsitteen samasta syystä kuin se hylkää yksisarviset ja tontutkin.  Tasa-arvoa ihmisten välillä ei ole olemassa missään havaittavassa tieteellisessä, laillisessa, materiaalisessa, intellektuaalissa, seksuaalisessa tai hengellisessä mielessä.
  8. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto on tieteellisesti suuntautunutta.  Se oletusarvoisesti hyväksyy tieteellisen metodin tuottamat johtopäätökset samaan aikaan ymmärtäen a) että nämä johtopäätökset saanevat tulevaisuudessa korjauksia, ja b) että niin kutsuttu tieteellinen konsensus on altis korruptiolle, ja c) että niin kutsuttu tieteellinen konsensus ei perustu tieteellisyyteen, vaan demokratiaan, ja on siten itsessään epätieteellistä.
  9. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto uskoo, että identiteetti > kulttuuri > politiikka.   
  10. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto vastustaa minkään kansan valtaa alkuperäiskansan yli, erityisesti hallittujen kansojen suvereeneissa kotimaissa. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto vastustaa minkä tahansa vierasperäisen etnisen ryhmän liiallista vaikutusvaltaa missään yhteiskunnassa nepotismin, tribalismin tai muun keinon kautta.
  11. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto ymmärtää, että erilaisuus + läheisyys = sota.
  12. Vaihtoehto-oikeistoa ei kiinnosta mitä mieltä siitä ollaan.
  13. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto vastustaa kansainvälistä vapaakauppaa ja vapaan kaupan edellyttämää ihmisten vapaata liikkuvuutta.  Kansansisäisen vapaakaupan edut eivät todista kansainvälisen vapaakaupan eduista.
  14. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto tunnustaa velvollisuutemme turvata valkoisen kansan olemassaolo ja valkoisten lasten tulevaisuus.
  15. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto ei usko minkään rodun, kansallisuuden, kansan tai alalajin yleispätevään ylemmyyteen.  Kullakin rodulla, kansallisuudella, kansalla ja alalajilla on vahvuutensa ja heikkoutensa, ja niillä on suvereeni oikeus elää häiriöttä luonnollisessa kulttuurissaan.
  16. Vaihtoehto-oikeisto on filosofia, joka arvostaa rauhaa kansojen välillä ja vastustaa sotimista arvojen levittämiseksi. Se vastustaa myös pyrkimyksiä tuhota kansakuntia sodan, kansanmurhan, maahanmuuton tai geneettisen sulauttamisen kautta.

Suomennos on nopeasti tehty eikä ehkä sellaisena kummoinen, mutta bona fide lukemalla kohdat ymmärtänee vaivatta.  Jos joku haluaa korjailla kieliasua lukukelpoisemmaksi, voi parannusehdotuksia postailla kommenttiosioon.


Libertarian vs Alt-Right

Jeffrey Tucker highlights the differences:

To the cheers of alt-righters everywhere, those angry lords of the green frog meme who hurl edgy un-PC insults at everyone to their left, the Democratic nominee has put them on the map at long last. Specifically, she accused Donald Trump of encouraging and giving voice to their dark and dangerous worldview.

Let’s leave aside the question of whether we are talking about an emergent brown-shirted takeover of American political culture, or perhaps merely a few thousand sock-puppet social media accounts adept at mischievous trolling on Twitter. The key issue is that more than a few alt-rightists claim some relationship to libertarianism, at least at their intellectual dawning until they begin to shed their libertarianism later on.

What are the differences in outlook between alt-right ideology and libertarianism?

  1. The Driving Force of History
  2. Harmony vs. Conflict
  3. Designed vs. Spontaneous Order
  4. Trade and Migration
  5. Emancipation and Progress

It’s a pretty good comparison, although not entirely accurate about the Alt-Right and understandably biased towards libertarianism. Regardless, it serves as an effective delineator that suffices to explain why I, once one of the top 25 libertarians on the Internet, can no longer reasonably be described as a libertarian, Christian, nationalist, or otherwise.

It’s not that I am opposed to libertarian ideals. Quite to the contrary, I cherish them as deeply as I ever did. It is merely that events, and a deeper understanding of history, have caused me to conclude that libertarian ideals are as ultimately utopian and irrelevant as communist ideals, progressive ideals, and conservative ideals.

I was always a minarchist libertarian; I embraced libertarianism out of pessimism towards the government. But libertarianism has turned out to be nearly as economically ignorant as Marxism, and nearly as dangerous as Leninism, Nazism, or Maoism. Mass immigration, of the sort considerably more limited than that envisioned by the purist libertarians who correctly subscribe to open borders, has proven to be at least potentially as disastrous as any of those three historically infamous ideologies. Just how bad, we don’t know yet, because the scenario is still in the process of playing itself out.

The key difference between the Alt-Right and libertarianism is that libertarianism insists on the existence of Rational Man. The Alt-Right observes, to the contrary, that Man is an irrational, rationalizing creature. Where you fall on that question alone will logically dictate whether you ultimately side with the libertarians or the Alt-Right, if your ideals incline towards the libertarian.

Tucker writes: This similarity is historically contingent and largely superficial given the vast differences that separate the two worldviews. Does society contain within itself the capacity for self management or not? That is the question. 

To which the Alt-Right responds: Define society.

That being said, one intellectual subset of the Alt-Right could well be described as National Libertarianism, because, after all, once the nation has been sufficiently established and defended, it still has to decide how it will henceforth live.