Tag: #AltRight

GamerGhazi can’t cope

The ride never ends. Nor does the winning:

I’m sure many of you can relate to this, but since the double whammy of Brexit and Trump, I’m feeling extremely lost and upset and having some trouble coping with the new reality. I’ve been a long time lurker here and since this has always seemed like a supportive community, I thought I’d reach out for some advice.

I live in the stereotypical liberal bubble in a left-liberal city. I don’t have any friends or family or work colleagues who would have supported Trump, so I have struggled to understand how this has happened, or how ideas that have been our shared values since WWII have been shed in favour of what appears to me to be a resurgence of ethno-nationalistic fascism. That’s not to say I haven’t read widely on the subject, and at least intellectually now I can at least explain what has happened without believing that America and Britain have both gone through a massive swing towards racism, nativism, misogyny and hate, although I still believe that is part of the answer.

I’m terrified for for the state of the world. I’m afraid that the US will end up like Putin’s Russia, with 85% approval ratings, a watertight internal propaganda system and spiralling human rights abuses. I’m afraid that with America abandoning its (admittedly flawed in practice) ideals of spreading democracy and human rights across the world, that the sum total of human suffering will increase drastically. Already Trump is suspected to drop all talk of human rights from negotiations with China, limit support of NATO allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, and I’m terrified of a return to pre-20th century ‘might makes right’ international relations where the powerful will exploit and abuse the weak.

After the election I went to one of my favourite thinkers, Jonathon Haidt. This recent video of him inspired me to try to reach out to Trump supporters via Twitter and try to genuinely understand and empathise with them, and perhaps in turn have them empathise with me. After a couple of days of that I’ve all but given up, having repeatedly bashed my head against the brick wall of Infowars, international Jewish Globalist conspiracy, and a well that is now permanently poisoned against anything from the liberal intellectual tradition.

Now I’m more lost than ever. I’ve actually become ill from worry and feel like I’m now just compulsively online, trying to understand and explain and maybe find a light at the end of the tunnel. My question to you guys is: what are you doing to cope? Is there a place that people like us can go for mutual support? What’s the best way to stop this awful feeling of powerlessness and loss?

Wouldn’t it be TERRIBLE and THE WORST THING EVER if 85 percent of the American people approved of their leader? These morons don’t even listen to themselves, so why on Earth would they think we will?

This hapless individual has quite clearly learned nothing from “one of his favorite thinkers”. He still thinks that if only he lectures the Alt-Right on a liberal intellectual tradition that we know better than he does, we’ll come around to what can’t rightly be called his way of thinking. Say, rather, his way of parroting left-liberal dogma.

We know the liberal intellectual tradition, both the genuine one and its subsequent substitution. We reject them both.

Vad den alternativa högern är

I syfte att lägga en grund för althögerns filosofi som andra kan bygga vidare på.

1. Den alternativa högern tillhör den politiska högern i såväl amerikansk som europeisk bemärkelse. Socialister är inte althöger. Progressiva är inte althöger. Liberaler är inte althöger. Kommunister, marxister, kulturmarxister och neokonservativa är inte althöger.

2. Althögern är ett ALTERNATIV till den huvudfåra av amerikansk konservatism som nominellt förkroppsligas i Russel Kirks tio konservativa principer, men som i verkligheten har urartat till progressivitet. Det är också ett alternativ till liberalism och libertarianism.

3. Althögern är inte defensiv och förkastar den ädla och principfasta förlustens koncept. Det är en framåtblickande, offensiv filosofi i varje betydelse av den senare termen. Althögern tror på seger genom uthållighet och på att fortsatt harmonisera med vetenskap, verklighet, kulturella traditioner och de läxor man kan dra av historien.

4. Althögern anser att den västerländska civilisationen utgör de mänskliga prestationernas höjdpunkt och stöder dess tre grundläggande pelare: kristendomen, de europeiska nationerna och det grekisk-romerska arvet.

5. Althögern är öppet och uttalat nationalistisk. Den stöder all nationalism och alla nationers rätt att existera, enhetligt och oanfrätt av utländsk invasion eller immigration.

6. Althögern är antiglobalistisk. Den motsätter sig alla grupperingar som arbetar för globala idéer och mål.

7. Althögern är antiegalitär. Den förkastar idén om jämlikhet av samma skäl som den förkastar idéer om enhörningar, tomtar och troll; mänsklig jämlikhet existerar inte i någon vetenskaplig, legal, materiell, sexuell eller spirituell bemärkelse.

8. Althögern förlitar sig på den vetenskapliga metoden. Den accepterar nuvarande slutsatser som följer av tillämpningen av denna metod, men förstår att a) dessa slutsatser kan komma att förändras i framtiden, b) att vad som kallas vetenskapligt belagt kan vara korrupt och c) att så kallad vetenskaplig konsensus inte baserar sig på den vetenskapliga metoden utan på demokrati och följaktligen är ovetenskaplig.

9. Althögern anser att identitet > kultur > politik.

10. Althögern motsätter sig styre över eller dominans av någon ursprunglig etnisk grupp av någon annan, i all synnerhet i den dominerade folkgruppens eget hemland. Althögern motsätter sig oproportionerligt inflytande för varje icke inhemsk etnisk grupp, oavsett om det beror på nepotism, stamlojaliteter eller något annat medel.

11. Althögern förstår att mångfald + närhet = krig.

12. Althögern bryr sig inte om vad du tycker om den.

13. Althögern förkastar såväl internationell frihandel som den fria rörlighet av folk som den internationella frihandeln kräver. Inhemsk frihandels fördelar är inget bevis på internationell frihandels motsvarighet.

14. Althögern anser att vi måste säkra de vita folkens existens och en framtid för vita barn.

15. Althögern tror inte på någon allmän överlägsenhet för någon ras, någon nation, något folk eller någon folkgrupp. Varje ras, nation, folk eller folkgrupp har sina egna styrkor och svagheter och åtnjuter den oinskränkta rätten att leva i enlighet med den egna kultur den föredrar.

16. Althögern är en filosofi som värdesätter fred mellan de olika folken i världen och motsätter sig krig i syfte att påtvinga något folk främmande värderingar samt varje försök att utrota enskilda folk genom krig, folkmord, immigration eller genetisk assimilation.
TL;DR: Althögern är en västerländsk ideologi som förfäktar vetenskap, historia, verklighet och varje genetisk nations inneboende rätt att existera och styra sig själv i enlighet med sina egna intressen.

Mailvox: but what about MEEEEE?

One thing that I’ve found interesting is the intrinsic solipsism possessed by many stranieri resident in the USA, some of whom actually think that pointing out the fact that their lack of an American heritage, or their children’s lack of an American heritage, comprises a coherent argument against my various observations and expectations for the future rather than underlining it. This email from an Englishman married to a Filippino is fairly par for the course.

I’m English and I moved to the States more than 20 years ago, as a young man. I’m a naturalized citizen. I voted for Obama twice and, this time around, I voted for Clinton, but I can understand why people recoil from the worst parts of her candidacy. Regardless, to me, as a European liberal, she was going to protect things that believe in. Not as much as Bernie might have, and I voted for him in the primaries. Anyway, this is all incidental and background. I wanted to ask you about the language of race ebing used by the alt-right and by Trump both during the election and afterward. And whether it makes you feel at all queasy.

As an empathetic person I’m always trying to understand both sides: I can see why someone in Virginia, or Pennsylvania, or Florida, or wherever, is upset that illegal immigrants have taken their jobs. And I understand, and have been outspoken in my way, about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism here, and everywhere. I understand it all. These are real threats, not imagined. But here’s my problem: how do we become unified as a country if some groups have been singled out to be treated differently? My wife was born here in the States, but her family is Filipino. Both her parents are doctors who came to the States in the 1970s. They have lived the American dream. They worked like dogs for years and now they own a big house in the middle of the country, and a house in California, and a house in the Philippines. They have their Audis and there Mercedes and their Porsches. Clearly, they deserve what they have worked for. We disagree politically. They voted for Trump, I think.

My wife is American. Speaks like an American. Went to school and got a master’s degree in America. Highly educated. And we’re waiting for the moment that someone who doesn’t know her walks up to her in a grocery store and tells her to go home. Where is home? She doesn’t speak Tagalog. She can’t go to the Philippines. And why should she. She’s American. Our children, we have three boys. I’m waiting for them to come home from school to tell me a classmate told them they’re different, not American enough, not good enough. That they are what’s wrong with America.

So I’m wondering, does the alt-right have any reservations at all about framing the discussion in this way. Identity politics is only okay if you can know for certain you’re getting the identities right. Isn’t diversity good? Right now, we’re wondering if we should take our American kids and try to get jobs in my native England instead. I’m not being egotistical but I think we have so much to offer America. We can’t do it if people look at my brown children and assume they have no place in shaping it. Do you have any concerns that demonizing the groups that people belong to instead of the bad actors within them will have negative results?

Taken to its logical conclusion: if Trump’s candidacy ignites a race war, would you be happy, or sad, or indifferent?

In answer to the questions:

  1. No, “the language of race” being used by the Alt-Right and by Trump doesn’t make me at all queasy. I think it has been remarkably restrained, considering the seriousness of the situation.
  2. Why would the Englishman be concerned about “the rise of Islamic fundamentalism” here and in England but reject the obvious American concerns about the invasion by people like him and his wife? Don’t Muslims have the same right to invade other countries and settle in them en masse that Englishmen and Filippinos do?
  3. The man’s wife and her parents should consider going home. Because it is home. They even have a home there! They’re not American. They are Filippino. That’s why they’re waiting for someone to tell her to go home. She knows she’s not at home in America and he knows it as well. It is no one else’s fault that she didn’t learn her native language and it is no one else’s problem either. His kids are not part of what is wrong with America because they are not American. They are invaders and settlers, just as the second-generation Muslims who have driven the native English out of Bradford are invaders and settlers.
  4. The Alt-Right has no reservations at all about framing the discussion this way. The Alt-Right does not hide from reality, whether we like it or not.
  5. Identity politics do not need to be “okay” any more than gravity or sunlight do. Identity politics are normal, historical human behavior that always dominate multiracial societies. And history shows that an angry invaded people fighting displacement in their own homeland tend not to be very careful about identities; the lines usually end up being drawn in a rather crude and binary fashion.
  6. No, diversity is not good. Diversity is very, very bad. Diversity destroys community. Diversity + Proximity = War.
  7. America neither wants nor needs what the Englishman is offering. Tens of millions of Americans would probably like to deport him on the basis of him being a foreigner who voted for Obama and Clinton alone. He and his children would have even more to offer the less-developed Philippines, but the truth is that he doesn’t give a damn about Americans, what they want, or what they need, he’s merely intent on living wherever he thinks it would be most beneficial to his family. He’s concerned now because he’s beginning to sense that the ground is shifting underneath his feet and it may not prove to be the most beneficial place in the future.
  8. Why should his brown children have any place in shaping America to their liking? They are not American and what they want is not what native Americans want. Geographic location is not nationality. I didn’t become Japanese because I lived in Tokyo, and I’m not Italian just because I reside in Italy and speak Italian. Nationality is not a difficult concept, it is not an abstract concept, and it consists of considerably more than official government paperwork.
  9. No one is “demonizing” anyone. To observe that the man, his wife, her parents, or his children have zero American heritage between them is not demonization, it is accurate observation. We can also observe that their behavior is very much in line with the Alt-Right’s predictive model for it. He’s not concerned that the Alt-Right is wrong, or evil, he’s concerned that we are correct.
  10. It is not Trump, his candidacy, his presidency, or the Alt-Right that will ignite a race war. What will ignite ethnic conflict in the USA is the same thing that has always ignited it everywhere around the world since the dawn of Man; the presence of different ethnicities in the same geographical location. This outcome has been the most likely one since 1965, and no amount of solipsism, handwringing, appeals to emotion, and searching for a Nazi bad guy is going to avert it.

BN has a rather different perspective:

Read your article today. On the train I dug out The Fate of Empires by John Glubb as it reminded me of what you were saying. It still amazes me the reaction one gets when it is shared with liberals. If they can move beyond coarsely dismissing the author they sputter and say “America is different. We are different.” Is there any scenario you see the identity politics and brewing ethnic tensions in the US de-escalates? I think if Trump utterly fails as president maybe it defers it. But just do not see him failing.

The fact is that only Donald Trump can significantly delay the inevitable strife, and he can only do so by accepting a lot more of it than most Americans are presently willing to accept. If Trump somehow managed to return the US demographics to 80-85 percent white in the next eight years through immigration restrictions and repatriations, that would buy the USA at least another generation, and possibly two, of relative domestic tranquility.

Even a return to the pre-1986 amnesty demographic balance would be a de-escalation scenario. But I find it very hard to believe that the God-Emperor Ascendant has the vision, or the nerve, to push that far ahead of the conceptual curve. The best we can probably hope for is that he will keep the situation from actually getting worse, and thereby stave off serious domestic conflict until an eventual financial collapse, which I anticipate in the early 2030s.

And finally, a reader from Bradford adds a somber note:

The community of my street doesn’t exist anymore. The social organizations don’t exist any more. It’s all been erased except that the stone, brick and mortar still stands.

Devastating. That is what the Englishman and his family have to offer America. Social destruction. And that is why all sane Americans should want them to go home, whether that is Manila or Bradford. It’s not about the quality of the immigrants, the scale of the mass migration has rendered that irrelevant now. It’s a simple and straightforward matter of quantity.

That is what the Alt-Right is standing against. That is why the Alt-Right exists.

WANTS to burn it down?

What do they think happened on November 8th? I would say that we are well on the way toward burning American politics as we knew it to the ground, as the ongoing conservative freak-out over the Alt-Right’s rise, as most recently signified by Steve Bannon’s assignation as Chief White House Strategist.

The Alt-Right wants to burn American politics to the ground.

The Alt-Right most immediately opposes conservatism, as Youth for Western Civilization founder Kevin Deanna explained in his Taki’s Magazine and AlternativeRight.com piece titled “The Impossibility of Conservatism.” The Alt-Right contains a who’s-who of right-wing voices that have been “purged” from the conservative movement by William F. Buckley and National Review, like Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire, and Alt-Right leaders like Vox Day described the movement in an interview as “the heirs to those like the John Birch Society who were read out of the conservative movement.” Steve Bannon, who refashioned the website of conservative icon Andrew Breitbart into “the platform for the Alt-Right,” has encouraged activists to “turn on the hate” and “burn this bitch down.”

But while conservatism is its most immediate target, the Alt-Right seeks to destroy a far older, more central American idea referenced frequently by Ronald Reagan and dating back beyond Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy In America to John Winthrop’s “City On A Hill” sermon: America as a proposition nation.

As John Red Eagle and I chronicled in detail in Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, conservatism has not only failed, it was always doomed to eventual failure by virtue of its very nature. It was an attitude and a defensive posture, not a coherent ideology or an identity, and it lacked positive objectives, so it never had any hope of resisting the relentless ideological onslaught of the Left.

And the concept of America as a proposition nation is not only historically false, it is logically and empirically untrue. It’s trivially easy to demonstrate with a number of different logical syllogisms. For example:

  1. X agrees with, and subscribes to, the proposition that defines America.
  2. X is not an American citizen.
  3. Therefore, X’s American citizenship does not rely upon the proposition.
  4. Y disagrees with, and rejects, the proposition that defines America.
  5. Y is an American citizen.
  6. Therefore, Y’s American citizenship does not rely upon the proposition.
  7. Neither an American’s citizenship, nor a non-citizen’s lack of citizenship depends upon his acceptance, or rejection, of the proposition.
  8. Therefore America is not a proposition nation.

Notice that this all-important proposition is never actually defined. The proposition is hinted at, alluded to, and various names are dropped, but the proposition itself remains nebulous. It’s not a coincidence that this lack of definition is precisely the same as the way the Left fails to define what is, and what is not, politically correct, or morally right, because in all three cases, there is a void at the center that allows the non-definer to play the role as subjective judge rather than permit any objective observer to do so on the basis of a specific, identifiable definition.

There is no proposition. There is no such thing as a nation based on a proposition. And there is no such thing as a nation based on a nonexistent proposition. All the concept of “the proposition nation” was intended to do was to destroy the actual, material, cultural, Christian, ethnic American nation on behalf of the second-wave immigrants to the United States, who did not belong to the nation, but wanted to be able to claim that they did.

On a tangential note, the author of The Nine Laws, Ivan Throne, did an interview entitled Your Future Under the God-Emperor with Troublesome Radio.

Past and future identity politics

The SJW Narratives on race and society, as well as the Democrats’ Rainbow Coalition, are ultimately doomed to failure because they are all predicated on a nonexistent People of Color vs Whites scenario that does not, and has never, existed:

Decades before Brown v. Board of Education ― the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case that found “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” ― a Chinese family from rural Mississippi brought its own legal challenge to Southern school segregation before the Supreme Court.

In 1924, grade school students Martha and Berda Lum were barred from attending their local, all-white school because of their status as people of color. The family sued the school in an unprecedented but little-known lawsuit that made its way to the nation’s highest court.

A new book, Water Tossing Boulders: How a Family of Chinese Immigrants Led the First Fight to Desegregate Schools in the Jim Crow South, documents the family’s struggle for educational equality.

Although the Lums sought to fight racism against Asian-Americans and provide their daughters with access to a quality education, their lawsuit was itself rooted in pronounced anti-black racism. The Lum family brought the challenge because they didn’t want society to see their daughters as being in the same category as black students, or force them to attend the same institutions as black children.

The girls’ mother, Katherine, “knew that such a classification would have instantly disenfranchised her family,” the book says. “For Katherine to send her children to the colored school would be to yield to the trustees, to agree with them that her daughters were not worthy of the privileges afforded to whites.”

However, there is also an important lesson for the more cuckish conservatives here. Neither the various Asian identity groups nor Jews are actually on the side of Whites. They may have more characteristics in common with Whites than other identity groups, but they also have their own identities and their own tribal interests, which contradict White interests every bit as dramatically as other identity groups, and as the Lum case demonstrates, they will never hesitate to cast aside White interests in pursuit of their own.

Ironically, the Alt-White’s fixation on Jews is not only somewhat misplaced, it actually understates the extent of the challenge facing Whites. The historical fact is that the Jews are not, and were never, unique in being an identity group capable of nepotistically exploiting a high-trust, high-altruism majority for their own benefit, they just happened to be the only group present in Western societies in sufficient numbers to do so. White Americans, and to a lesser extent, several European nations, as well as the Jews themselves, are currently in the process of discovering that various Asian identity groups, particularly the Han Chinese, are not only every bit as accomplished in this regard, but are considerably more numerous, and quite possibly more ruthless.

Various Asian groups are already driving out Jews from the elite universities originally created by and for whites, and the Chinese are now invading the Jewish power center of Hollywood in force. This is not an accident nor is it the usual corporate train wreck. The next step will be for Asians to begin replacing Jews in the media and in the Democratic Party elite; the Chinese-Hispanic political alliance is likely to be even more formidable than the historic Jewish-Black alliance.

This is why the Alt-Right is not going to fade away, but will gradually become more influential in the White Party, which is now the proper name for the Republican Party. The Alt-Right’s conceptual models, which are based on identity rather than ideology, not only describe past and current events much more accurately than the mainstream alternatives, but also provide much more accurate predictive models.

#IOVOTONO

On December 4th, Italians have a beautiful chance to sink another knife into the bleeding, wriggling corpse-to-be of the European Union:

Italy referendum result could send shockwaves through markets and DESTROY Europe

THE EU’s days might be numbered with Italy about to vote on a referendum which could send shockwaves across the continent. Analysts believe the outcome of the ballot on constitutional reform could have massive global implications. With many European leaders already coming under severe pressure from anti-EU parties ahead of elections next year the significance of the Italian result is huge.

Defeat for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi could lead to even deeper social turmoil in countries already struggling with austerity, immigration problems and a growing contempt for Brussels.

Ana Thaker, a market economist at PhillipCapital said the Italian result could be as “significant as Brexit”.
She said: “Britain’s decision to leave the European Union was the first sign of trouble in the European Union. If Italy decides to leave, it is confirmation that the union is in trouble and could spark a long-term market rout which European equities would suffer from the most.”

This is the next major political front against globalism. Show your support for Italy, for Matteo Salvini, and for the Lega Nord. The hashtag is #IOVOTONO

“The Alt-Right Hails its God-Emperor”

Like the rest of the mainstream media, Andrew Marantz of the New Yorker is trying to figure out what on Earth is going on in the aftermath of the God-Emperor’s ascension:

The alt-right is united less by ideology than by sensibility; a hallmark of that sensibility is a careful attunement to social norms, and a perverse delight in desecrating them. This is easy to do on the Internet, where anyone can say anything. Mike Cernovich, whom I profiled last month, became a prominent vessel of pro-Trump populism by saying unconscionable things on Twitter. “This election was a contest between P.C. culture and free-speech culture,” he told me the day after Trump’s victory. “Most people know what it’s like for some smug, élite asshole to tell them, ‘You can’t say that, it’s racist, it’s bad.’ Well, a vote for Trump meant, ‘Fuck you, you don’t get to tell me what to say.’ ” Cernovich, who grew up working-class in rural Illinois, visited his home town in February. He said, “My parents voted for Obama, but they told me, ‘If it’s Trump versus Hillary, we’ll go with him. He gets us. He talks like us.’ Since then, I never doubted that he’d be President.”

The morning after the election, an influential alt-right blogger who goes by Vox Day wrote, “Donald Trump has a lot to do . . . It is the Alt-Right’s job to move the Overton Window and give him conceptual room to work.” Day and his peers have been doing this job for months. They have flooded the Internet with offensive images and words—cartoon frogs emblazoned with swastikas, theories of racial hierarchy—and then ridiculed anyone who had the temerity to be offended. “Racism and sexism are a) human beliefs, and, b) as legitimately held as any other belief,” Day told me in a recent e-mail. No picture is shocking. No idea is bad. Who gets to define bad, anyway? “Remember that rhetoric is the art of emotional manipulation,” Day added. Last week, on his blog, Day wrote, “There is no more Republican vs. Democrat. It is now whites vs. non-whites and white quislings.”

It’s rather amusing to see a political reporter utilizing rhetoric – and less crudely and ineptly than the average journalist – in order to denounce the use of rhetoric in a political campaign. (It’s even funnier to see a presumably secular left-liberal affecting horror over postmodern relativist norms.) You’ll notice that because he didn’t get anything sufficiently strong enough to provoke the desired emotional reaction from his exchange of emails with me, he had to resort to digging up something from Twitter that would serve his rhetorical purpose.

That’s legitimate, of course. I’m certainly not complaining about it, and indeed, I only spoke to him because Mike and I both observed that he gave Mike a reasonably fair shake in the bio-piece he’d written about Mike. And what a fantastic title; it’s truly better than I would ever have imagined. But then, consider what he chose to use from what I gave him, and then think about how he chose to present it. It should be illuminating for those of you who have read SJWAL. As I did not ask for permission to quote his emails, you’ll have to make do with my end of the exchange.


EMAIL ONE

The Alt-Right has a not-insignificant element with #GamerGate experience. While there were more left-wingers in #GamerGate than right-wingers, we all learned how to rapidly blunt the effect of even mass media attacks by dozens of journalists operating in collusion. So, once we saw the mainstream media utilizing the same tactics to attempt to disqualify and discredit Donald Trump that we had seen used against us, we knew that our conceptual shock tactics would be effective against them too. I would say most of the memelords set to work after Super Tuesday, when it became apparent that Trump could win, not only the Republican primary, but the election.


I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would say that we knew people were responding positively to concepts previously ruled out of bounds by the mainstream media by March 2016.


I don’t think the election was about expression at all. I think it represented a significant portion of the white majority shifting from the ideology politics it has historically practiced to the identity politics that the various minorities have been practicing for decades. That’s why policies and ideologies, from abortion to expression to war with Russia, all proved largely irrelevant to both sides.


The next move is to defeat the counterproductive attempt by the cuckservatives and moderates to ease up on the rhetoric. But really, we don’t have to do anything, since the angry, riotous reaction by disappointed Hillary supporters will see to that.

EMAIL TWO

1. Chiefly, agreeing with and amplifying their accusations while demonstrating their collusion, ineffectiveness, and dishonesty.


2. When readers stopped responding emotionally to the accusations.


3. They rendered the various accusations toothless.


4. I doubt they’ll need to change much. What worked with the game journos worked even better with the mainstream media. The media seldom does anything beyond double down, again and again. We openly mock that. I mean, look at how they’re still all screaming RACIST SEXIST blah blah blah. It’s like the Robin Williams sketch. “Stop! Or I shall say ‘stop’ again!”


At this point, who doesn’t know that everyone at the NYT, the WaPo, and ABCNNBCBS believes Trump is an evil racist sexist Nazi badthinker? But if they change their tactics, we’ll adjust.


5. I’m not a memelord. While I’ve been known to meme from time to time, I’m not that dank. I would say “organic harmony” is a more accurate description than “open collaboration”. We don’t do organization or hierarchy. No one is in charge. If someone lands on something that works, or that everyone thinks is funny, others pick it up.

EMAIL THREE

Racism and sexism are a) human beliefs, and, b) as legitimately held as any other belief. Regardless of whether they are wrong or not, regardless of whether they are justified or not, it is no one else’s business what you happen to believe. Given that the definitions of both racism and sexism are in constant flux, that isn’t a question that can be meaningfully answered.


I believe racism is the belief in the intrinsic inferiority of other races. Perhaps your definition is more expansive, more relative, or more nebulous. Hence the difficulty in saying what “actual racism” or “actual sexism” looks like.


But regardless of how you or I would define the terms, no word, image, or meme can be racist or sexist in itself, because an inanimate symbol is not a belief, and furthermore, is an unreliable indicator of any individual’s actual belief, including the original creator’s.


For example, I am an American Indian, but I can certainly create a funny anti-Indian meme about redskins if it happens to suit my purpose. To insist that because X has created, let alone posted, meme Y, you can accurately ascertain X’s genuine beliefs, is to commit a basic category error. Remember that rhetoric is the art of emotional manipulation, and that nothing manipulates the emotions of the US left like racist themes.

What Marantz presented was a fair, but very limited snapshot of an intrinsically complicated subject. And he presented it in a rhetorical manner meant to emotionally manipulate the reader towards disapproval of Trump supporters, the Alt-Right, Chuck Johnson, Mike Cernovich, and me. That’s fine, that’s in line with his publication’s objectives and his responsibilities, and neither Mike nor I was unaware of it. He certainly appears to have remembered the second half of my last sentence, the half he did not quote.

Anyhow, I suspect it will be useful for some of you to see how the media process plays out when seen from the other side of the story.

Two paths for the Alt-Right

Wired predicts in-fighting and failure for the Alt-Right:

The movement may soon find itself with a messaging problem. “Their whole attraction is they’re fighting to regain power,” says Gerstenfeld. “I don’t think they’ll do a good job spreading that message when they are in power and there’s nothing to fight against.” Gerstenfeld points out that the extremist militia groups that were common during Bill Clinton’s presidency all but disappeared during the George Bush years that followed. With Trump in the White House, it’ll be hard for the alt-right to argue that the American white male is disenfranchised. “People will stop caring,” Gerstenfeld says.

And though Taylor and David Duke and Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos are exuberant about President Trump now, they might not always feel that way. “There’s a gaping hole between most Americans and the alt-right. He’s going to have to backtrack to govern all of us,” Painter says. “Is that going to inspire a Bundy brothers insurgency against him? I wouldn’t be surprised.” The Trump administration is not the early days of an alt-right America. It’s the beginning of a fringe group’s fall.

This indicates an almost complete failure to even begin to grasp what the Alt-Right is, what it seeks to accomplish, or why it exists in the first place. Do they really believe that the Ascension of the God-Emperor to the Cherry Blossom Throne is going to instantly reverse the current demographic trends across the West? I certainly wish we could believe that, but a single national election is but a single small step in the process.

Richard Spencer’s article, We the Vanguard Now, would appear to be considerably more relevant to life as we observe it on this particular planet at this particular point in time.

The Alt Right is deeply connected to Trumpian populism in intellectual, spiritual, and visceral ways—for, as everyone agrees, Trump’s victory was, at its root, a victory of identity politics. And it was a campaign that ultimately dispensed with “conservatism” as we knew it. Because of this fact, Trump was opposed by most all components of the mainstream Right—from the neocons to establishment operatives to goofballs like Glenn Beck. And these forces opposed him with such vehemence that they simply cannot share in his victory.

In this way, the Alt Right, far more plausibly than the “conservative movement,” can lay claim to being the new Trumpian vanguard.

Before Trump, the Alt Right could be criticized for being a “head without a body”; it was engaged in meta-political and scientific discussion, but lacked a real connection with practical politics and the hopes and dreams of average Americans. In turn, Trump’s populism—with its half-baked policy ideas and sketchy vision of the future—could be criticized as a “body without a head.”

Now we are the whole man. The Alt Right and Trumpian populism are now aligned much in the way the Left is aligned with Democratic politicians like Obama and Hillary. The American Right always lacked a true vanguard. In the form of “conservatives,” it had only a “rearguard” or “muffle” or “hall monitor.” We—and only we—can say the things Trump can’t say . . . can criticize him in the right way . . . and can envision a new world that he can’t quite grasp.

This is why Richard is so important to the Alt-Right. He has a long-term strategic vision, the accuracy of which is capable of balancing any number of tactical missteps. While I don’t share his tactical objectives – I have no interest in think tanks, journals, speaking tours, conferences, or the various institutions of Greater Academia – I support them nevertheless, just as I support the various and divergent tactical objectives of other Alt-Right allies such as Milo, Mike, Stefan, Andrew, Greg, and others.

What the Left does not understand, indeed, what it may be incapable of understanding, is that most of us in the Alt-Right are not power-hungry or fame whores. (I said most, not all.) Most of us have been driven to the point of action, driven to the point of standing up and speaking out publicly, by a Left that would simply not leave us alone to live in peace and freedom. We are rising up and we are speaking out because we have no other choice, because our only other option is surrender and submission to intellectual slavery.

And if, in order to be left alone to live as we see fit, we have to band together, put on our armored battlesuits, and march in the name of the God-Emperor to eradicate every remnant of SJW that survives anywhere in the world with all the fanaticism of the Spanish Inquisition unrestrained by Pope, King, or Queen, then that is precisely what we will do. We are the vanguard now. We are the God-Emperor’s shock troops. We are Les Deplorables and WE. DON’T. CARE.

All they had to do was leave us alone. They wouldn’t do that. So, the Alt-Right will not leave them alone.

More than one way to MAGA

The purpose of democracy is to avoid violence in the transition of power. But if the Left doesn’t wish to play by those rules anymore, the Alt-Right is more than ready to meet them on the field of politics by other means.

Understand that healing and unity are not in the cards. This is not an ideological struggle between one people. The mask has been removed and the veil has been withdrawn. What cleaves the USA is an identity conflict between rival nations competing for power over each other. Read Huntington. Read Fukuyama. Read Gibbon. Peaceful unity is no longer a possibility and the best that can be hoped for now is a wary, short-term cessation of hostilities that will inevitably flare up again.

Don’t back down. Always hit back harder. Meet rhetoric with rhetoric. Show them no mercy, because they don’t even know what it is. Be ruthless, relentless, and remorseless. Start nothing, finish everything.

Whether you know it yet or not, whether you accept it yet or not, you are part of the Alt-Right Revolution.

The reality of identity

This is only the beginning. Identity>Culture>Politics. There is no more “Republican” vs “Democrat”. It is now whites vs non-whites and white quislings. All long-term strategies now need to revolve around demographics, not ideological policies.

Note that the majority of white women voted for Trump. Less than one-third of non-white women did. This indicates that feminism and female suffrage, for all that they are a serious problem, are actually less dyscivic than diversity.