Tag: #AltRight

Of Alt-Right and Alt-Retard

Clearly Greg Johnson and I neglected to discuss one particularly minor strain of the Alt-Right, the Alt-Retard.

Vox Day joins Milo in the dumpster for self-promoting morons hijacking the work of others. #TrashDay #WR #altright

When the flea on the tip of the tail thinks it is wagging the dog, that’s the #AltRetard branch of the #AltRight. The Alt-Retards are so ideologically incoherent and inept that to call them incompetent would be giving them too much credit. Setting aside the fact that they clearly fail to understand my position, they appear to genuinely believe that the ALTernative RIGHT can be national SOCIALIST. Yes, because that’s exactly what all the conservatives and libertarians disgusted with the cuckservatism of the Republican establishment concerning immigration are demanding, more socialism, the return of Alsace-Lorraine, and the invasion of Poland.

The #AltRetard aren’t a viable alternative for the obvious reason that they are not even of the political Right.

Their lack of intelligence can be seen in their decision to declare war on Milo… and now they want to draw the baleful eye of the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil upon themselves as well? So be it. That worked out great for the Hugos, after all.

The ridiculous thing about this is that it’s totally unnecessary to John Birch either Milo or me from the Alt-Retard. Neither Milo nor I ever belonged to it, or claimed to belong to it, and we don’t want anything to do with them, their finger-painting, or their swastika panties. The Alt-Retard is the idiot branch of the Alt-White, which unfortunately does make them part of the Alt-Right despite their ideological incoherency, but then, every village needs its idiot.

The amusingly stupid thing isn’t that the Alt-Retard thinks they can own a #hashtag. Many others have made that mistake before them. What is remarkable is that they think they can defend this nonexistent ownership of the hashtag from known #GGers while simultaneously being terrified of cooption. Because, as anyone who has read SJWAL knows, #GamerGate refined the art of taking over enemy #hashtags.

We tried? Darlings, we haven’t even begun to try. We hadn’t even thought about trying until you just couldn’t leave us alone. You’ll know we’ve at least put in a modicum of effort when you’re falling all over yourselves desperately trying to escape the labels we have applied to you. In the meantime, this comment on Gab cracked me up.

Prometheus Bound @Deucalion
@voxday Can you go one month without getting “purged” from something?

Apparently not. Anyhow, VFM on Gab and Twitter, you now know the correct hashtag for these losers. They want to babble about branding, well, they’ve just been branded. A Gab response from /pol/:


ULTRAHARDCORE@ULTRAHARDCORE
While I do still think some concern about co-option of the #AltRight is valid, especially with Milo given his modicum of fame and his connections with Breitbart, I have to say @voxday’s labeling certain elements as #AltRetard is not only funny but apt as well. 

Brainstorm with Greg Johnson

Just a reminder that tonight at 7 PM Eastern we’ll be holding a Brainstorm with Greg Johnson, the editor of Counter Currents, to discuss the current state of the Alt-Right. It promises to be an interesting discussion. This Brainstorm session is open, so anyone is welcome to attend. 300 people are already signed up. Some of the questions that have already been sent in are as follows:

  • Would it be better for movement solidarity if the Alt-White remain a subset of the Alt-Right and what would that mean for the movement?
  • Besides our own countries, what other countries are worth defending, if any?
  • Is there any way develop a coherent definition for the Alt-Right movement to prevent provocateurs like Milo Yiannopoulos from entering? 
  • How does the Alt-White and Alt-Right see the problem of white genocide and low birth/replacement rates? What do both camps see as solutions to these problems?
  • What is the biggest issue right now that the Alt-Right and the Alt-White thinks that our movement should be focusing on?
  • Does the Alt-Right and Alt-White agree on a strategy for either Trump or Hillary winning the US election? Can you discuss both scenarios?

If you’re interested in attending, you can sign up for it here.

In the meantime, another part of the Alt-White has decided to go full retard. The mainstream media couldn’t bring Milo down, Twitter couldn’t bring Milo down, Black Lives Matter couldn’t bring Milo down, but the swastika panties are going to succeed where everyone else has completely failed!

I am hereby declaring a Holy Crusade against Milo Yiannopoulos, who is the single greatest threat our movement has at this time.

He is our arch-nemesis.

We need to stop this kike.

His plan is working. He is taking our brand, our symbols, and turning them against us for a neocon-Jew conservative agenda. He is rewriting our narrative, while taking everything that we have created to use for his own KIKE purposes.

This is the Plan

We are going to be at every single event Milo holds, publicly confront him and put it on YouTube. We are going to show his people that the real Alt-Right exists and that we despise him, that the hoax Alt-Right he’s created doesn’t exist.

I know Milo. Milo is my friend. And I can guarantee you that this is exactly what Milo was hoping someone would do. There is nothing that will clean up his mainstream image like having a handful of Nazis publicly shrieking how much they hate the poor gay Jew. This is the sort of PR not even Milo can buy.

They’re not going to so much as ruffle his glorious hair. They’re going to get him a show on Fox.

Curiosity and cognitive paradigms

As time has passed, I have realized that my ability to easily defeat other intelligent, educated people in debate has considerably less to do with my intelligence and more to do with what appears to be a higher degree of curiosity, which doesn’t actually have much, if anything, to do with intelligence or formal education.

As has often been noted here, Man is a rationalizing animal. And what I have increasingly noted of late is that most people devote most of their intelligence to rationalizing what they already think to be true than they do to figuring out what they think is not true. This desire to rationalize rather than learn is, quite possibly, the intelligent individual’s biggest intellectual weakness.

Now, we all do it to varying degrees. But the more we do it, the more absurd and indefensible and self-contradictory positions we will take. Thus we see the monetarists seriously discussing the outlawing of paper money, evolutionists denying the existence of species, anthropologists presenting literal fiction in the place of history or archeological science, and Christians arguing the virgin birth of a non-divine individual.

But this is only one form of the rationalization process. The other one is to base one’s opinion on conclusions drawn from incomplete information, to argue on the basis of knowing about something rather than genuinely knowing it. Those of us who have graduated from good colleges are particularly susceptible to this, as we have been introduced to a broad range of classics, we have listened to lectures from professors deeply steeped in them so that we recognize them and know a little bit about them, but the truth is that we don’t really know much of anything concerning their details.

Which is why we will so often see someone saying that Marx is wrong without have the least conception of what he might be wrong about, declaring that Fukuyama’s declaration of the end of history is stupid on its face without understanding what Fukuyama meant by “history” – and any would-be intellectual should be humiliated upon the realization that his level of knowledge doesn’t rise to the level of a pop song by Jesus Jones from 26 years ago – and appealing to all things “quantum” without even being able to define “quantum mechanics”.

Complicating this is the common preference for binary thinking, or if you want to sound more philosophical, Abelardian philosophy. “It is so or it is not so” is the binary thinker’s mantra; the concept of necessary, but not sufficient eludes him. Consider two contrary examples from the comments on Huntington’s book, The Clash of Civilizations, yesterday.

“I suspect that it might be easier to start with worship of blood, soil and nature and work up from there.  The popularity of paganism should be no mystery.”

“I would go further, and say not only that Christianity is needed for Western Civilization, I say Christianity IS Western Civilization. You can see from that why the appeal of the Alt-Right, claiming that my racial identity trumps my Church, is an idea not even worth discussing.”

Despite being directly opposed, both statements are equally silly, and both are similarly ignorant. Anyone who has read even part of Huntington’s book will instantly recognize that neither commenter has read it. The first comment violates the recounting of the history of the various civilizations in general and Western civilization in particular. Given that even a sophisticated religion such as Buddhism has proven insufficient to support the development of a major civilization, and even the highest, most noble forms of virtuous Roman paganism failed to compete successfully with Christianity, it is obvious that working up from the sort of pre-civilized animism that the commenter recommends would not be easier than metaphorically taking whips to the temple and reforming the Christian churches. In fact, it is improbable to the point of being a virtual impossibility.

As for the idea that Christianity IS Western Civilization, this is a historical and definitional absurdity. While religion is much more important in defining civilizations than the secular students of liberal democracy would like to admit, a civilization is considerably more than its definitive religion. Thus, both the following statements by Huntington are both true:

  1. People of the same race can be deeply divided by civilization; people of different races may be united by civilization….The crucial distinctions among human groups concern their values, beliefs, institutions, and social structures, not their physical size, head shapes, and skin colors.
  2. A civilization is the broadest cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people. People have levels of identity: a resident of Rome may define himself with varying degrees of intensity as a Roman, an Italian, a Catholic, a Christian, a European, a Westerner. The civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with which he strongly identifies.

First, an individual’s values, beliefs, institutions, and social structures are heavily influenced by his race; race and culture are deeply intertwined. Second, Christianity is not Western civilization, it is merely one of the most important aspects of Western civilization; as the Alt-Right sees it, Christianity is one of the three necessary components. The idea that one’s racial identity trumps one’s religion is not worth discussing because it is irrelevant, both to the Alt-Right and to the civilizational paradigm. Both religion and race are necessary components of a civilization, but are insufficient in themselves. This should be entirely obvious from the start, given that neither religion nor race are recognized synonyms for civilization.

Third, the fact that there are three other major Christian civilizations besides Western civilization, Byzantine, Orthodox, and Latin American, (to say nothing of minor Christian civilizations such as Ethiopean) means that Western civilization cannot be Christianity and Christianity cannot be Western civilization. That is an idea that is not worth discussing, because it is as obviously and mathematically untrue as the statement that 1+3.5=1.

Now, we can argue whether a society of Chinese Christians will be more Sinic than Western or more Western than Sinic. I strongly incline towards the former view myself, though I would not view the matter as completely unworthy of discussion. But regardless, we should all be able to concur that it will not be Japanese or Muslim, or, for that matter, neoliberal.

And furthermore, the civilizational paradigm tends to highlight why Alt-West and Alt-White are not necessarily in competition with each other. Alt-White is less an alternative to Alt-West than a subset of it, as Alt-West is focused on the civilizational level, while Alt-White is focused on the national level. However, it also indicates that the Alt-White is going to have to come to terms with the necessity of Christianity to its own objectives if it is going to find any success going forward.

It can, of course, reject the civilizational paradigm, but that is a suboptimal response given the way it is increasingly clear that the civilizational paradigm is vastly superior in explanatory and predictive terms to either the bipolar superpower paradigm that preceded it or the universalist neoliberal paradigm that was supposed to succeed the superpower model.

Brainstorm: Alt-Right or Alt-White?

I’m pleased to announce that tomorrow night, Greg Johnson, the Alt-Right editor of Counter-Currents, will be joining me to engage in a battle to the death for the exclusive ownership of the soul of the Alt-Right discuss the current state of the Alt-Right, whether there is a meaningful distinction to be made between Alt-White and Alt-West, and if there is any meaning to the term Alt-Right beyond that of white nationalism.

It promises to be an interesting discussion. This Brainstorm session will be held at 7 PM Eastern tomorrow night, September 28th, and it is open, so anyone is welcome to attend although there is only room for 1,000 participants.

You can sign up for it here.

Setting the record straight

Michael Knowles writes an unfortunately inaccurate and misleading Actual Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right:

The white nationalist blogger better known by his pen name Vox Day, who counts as a central tenet of the Alt-Right that “we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children,” which represents one half of the white nationalist, neo-Nazi numerical symbol 1488. (That phrase contains 14 words, while 8 refers to the eighth letter of the alphabet, H, which doubled represents “Heil Hitler.”)

First, while I support white nationalism and see it as a necessary aspect of preserving Western Civilization, I am neither a white nationalist nor am I entirely white. I am an American Indian and I am a red reservationist who sees no reason to believe that whites deserve sovereign nations any less than we Indians do.

Second, why would Mr. Knowles, or anyone else of any race who is not a monster, oppose securing a future for white children? There is a massive difference between the 14 words, which I fully support, and the 88 precepts, most of which I do not.

As for Hitler, he was a cretin, a lunatic, a fool, and almost certainly the worst German leader in history, with the possible exception of Angela Merkel. I am not a 1488er in any sense of the word.

The Alt-Right loves Christendom but rejects Christianity. The Alt-Right admires Christendom primarily for uniting the continent and forging white European identity. As such it also reveres European paganism, much like the Nazis did, and its synthesis within certain aspects of Christianity. But when it comes to faith, many Alt-Right thinkers describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, and lapsed Christians. AlternativeRight.com published a feature on the movement and paganism in which Alt-Right writer Stephen McNallen explains, “I am a pagan because it is the only way I can be true to who, and what, I am. I am a pagan because the best things in our civilization come from pre-Christian Europe.” He goes on to describe his aversion to Christianity because it “lacks any roots in blood or soil” and consequently can “claim the allegiance of all the human race.”

Dark imagery runs rampant, from Yarvin’s philosophy to Vox Day’s preferred title “supreme dark lord.” All reject Christian egalitarianism and universalism. Ironically one of the few Alt-Right thinkers to proclaim his Christian faith, Vox Day, explicitly rejects spiritual equality among the races as a central tenet of Alt-Right philosophy, explaining, “Human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.” [Italics added] But despite rejecting the substance of Christianity, the movement has spawned its own satirical religion around the meme culture that has come to typify the Alt-Right online.

This is simply an exaggeration, presumably meant to appeal to Churchians. While there is a strong pagan strain to the white nationalist elements of the Alt-Right, most of the Alt-Right, even within the Alt-White strain, respect Christianity and cherish Christendom. What the writer fails to grasp is that Christian doctrine rejects egalitarianism and universalism outside of the Church, and rejects egalitarianism even within the Church. Remember, no one ever cites the “all are equal in Christ Jesus verse to claim that there are no differences between men and women or support same-sex parody-marriage.

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.

Well, that’s pretty much correct. American politics merit being burned to the ground, and in fact, are in the process of being radically transformed by the changing societal demographics. However, we are reliably informed by Ben Sanderson that I am “not a thought leader in the alt right”, and I’m sure we all recognize that Ben Sanderson is the definitive voice with regards to this matter. I mean, we’re talking about BEN SANDERSON!

But regardless of who is, or is not, a leader, the relevant point is that we are all very well aware that “America as a proposition nation”, a “melting pot”, and “a nation of immigrants” are 19th century myths pushed  on the public by 20th century immigrants.

And it has to be said that the Knowles article is considerably better than the attempted rebuttal of Jared Taylor by (((Ben Cohen))) in American Thinker, entitled “Mainstream Conservatives and the Alt-Right”, which declares that because Hawaii hasn’t devolved into Haiti yet, whites are unnecessary to American civilization:

Where Taylor goes wrong – very wrong, in fact – is in his unhealthy fixation on race. Taylor is correct that most of what we love about America was created by white people; he is wrong to believe that only white people can sustain American civilization.

Interestingly, Taylor’s hypothesis has already been tested. In 1959, Congress admitted to the union a state that was overwhelmingly non-white. Has that state transformed into a third-world hell hole? A dictatorship? No.

By all measures Hawaii is doing pretty well. Hawaii’s residents enjoy the eighth-highest median income of any state in the Union, according to 2014 figures. Meanwhile, West Virginia which is almost exclusively white has the second lowest median house hold income in the United States. If you believe the key to keeping America great is keeping America white, it’s hard to explain why Hawaii is thriving and West Virginia is not.

Non-Hispanic whites compose roughly 40% of New Mexico’s population, with the rest being a mixture of Hispanics and American Indians. New Mexico isn’t rich, (43rd in median income), but it isn’t a “third-world hell hole.”

A similar argument could be made for California, which has the third-highest median income.

How very conservative. Notice that mainstream conservatism now not only denies America is a specific historical nation, but denies that the very nation who created a state for themselves are necessary for the state or their posterity! Because the “nation” is not a nation, but an idea and only an idea.

If these literally anti-American, anti-Constitution, and anti-white arguments are the best ones that mainstream conservatism can muster against the Alt-Right, conservatism is going to die out faster than I’d ever imagined.

Taxonomy vs marketing

I’m not sure that many in the Alt-White understand the concept of branding very well despite their concerns on that score. More importantly, they’re either projecting or confusing me with others when they express concerns about my interest in subverting anything, let alone their activities. There is a division of opinion in the Alt-White over everything that is not Alt-White but could, reasonably, be described as Alt-Right. I tend to agree with Michael Bell’s opinion, as he wrote:

While we pursue our goal of fully occupying the helm of the Alt Right, we must recognize that those who are not fully on board with all of our principles can nonetheless be considered a part of the Alt Right provided they aid us in our efforts and do not work to contradict us. Many of these types can eventually be turned into full White Nationalists anyway, as their views are only a few inches away from ours. To quote Lawrence Murray, “The big tent is worth preserving to persevere against our common enemies, for our struggle is revolutionary.”

Notice that key phrase: “our goal of fully occupying the helm of the Alt Right”. It’s just a goal. It’s not a reality, an identity, or anything material, it’s an objective. It’s not an unreasonable objective, especially since their efforts are necessary, though not sufficient, to preserve Western civilization. Greg Johnson himself has freely admitted that most of what the Alt Right actually means predates the NPI sense, he is merely attempting to fill what he calls “a vacuum”, but it cannot be a vacuum because there is a long history of the Alternative Right that has been read out of the conservative movement for generations.

Fashy McQueen represents the view opposed to Michael Bell, and the weakness of his position can be readily seen in the way he presents his case:

“Alt-Right” has become an internationally-recognized brand that only fools would carelessly dilute or abandon. Nazi Shitlords™ know the importance of branding, terminology, and propaganda. They use these weapons every day. And the term “Alt-Right” has become their most powerful weapon in attacking the enemy, and recruiting the masses into White Nationalism at an exponential rate….  The name “Alt-Right” has become the most powerful brand of White Nationalism in over 70 years. And it happened almost by accident. The stars aligned. It may never happen again.

This is the same magical thinking that is used to justify calling crippled people “handicapable” and negroes “blacks”, then “Afro-Americans”, then “African-Americans”.  It is the belief that an object or a concept is intrinsically altered by the label. But if Greg Johnson is correct and Alt Right means literally nothing more than “White Nationalist”, then it will soon be as effective and appealing a brand as “White Nationalist” presently is. The underlying essence is not changed one iota by calling X something else, such as Y, so long as it remains fundamentally X.

This small-tent Alt-White is not only caught in the trap of magical thinking, it genuinely can’t distinguish between friend, ally, and enemy. Also from Fashy’s extended comment:

Vox Day is currently attempting his own subversive version of redefining the Alt-Right to include himself, and to purge the Alt-Right’s staunchly White Nationalist core. These hostile attempts to redefine the term “Alt-Right” must be fought mercilessly — not invited.

First, I will again point out that I am not redefining anything. The Alt-White is, by their own admission, attempting to redefine Alt-Right in order to claim it for themselves and themselves alone. Are they really the only Alternative Right? Are they the only genuine alternative to mainstream conservatism? No, obviously not.

So, how are all those alternative right people, who subscribe many or even most of the 16 Points I have laid out, but are not a full-blown “White Nationalist”, or as I would put it, Alt-White, to be described? What do they call themselves? Even Fashy admits they considerably outnumber his “Alt-Right”, after all. It accomplishes nothing to simply pretend that they don’t exist, as much as the Left would like to do so.

Second, the reality is that whatever those people call themselves WILL become the dominant alternative to the mainstream right, because they ARE the strongest alternative to it. The Alt-White is only a subset of that, a vital subset, to be sure, but a subset nonetheless. Is it better for the Alt-White to be part of the Alt-Right, or is it better for the Alt-Right to be part of this nameless alternative to the mainstream Right? But whether we call it the Alt-Right or the Nameless Broad-Spectrum Alternative, that is the primary alternative.

I suspect the Alt-White has a hard time accepting the observable limits to their subset because they are mostly Americans, and are therefore blind to the fact that the vast majority of white European nationalists are not, and will never be, generic white nationalists. I have repeatedly tried to explain this, on both TRS and the Counter-Currents podcast as well as here on VP, and their only response to date has been that they think they can sense a generic white consciousness beginning to come into being.

And it’s true, they surely can… in the USA where generic whites are under attack for being white and where the Republican Party is in the process of being transformed into the White American Party. That is not the case in Europe, and it will not be the case, because the generic aspect is working in precisely the opposite direction here, as Muslims of many diverse nations are lumped together as generic Muslims and are thereby beginning to form a generic “Euro-Muslim” identity. Moreover, Europeans are hostile to pan-Europeanism in a way that most Americans don’t understand due to the egregious, anti-democratic excesses of the European Union. The British people just voted to get out of the European Union, so it should be readily apparent that they’re not even remotely inclined to sign up for generic white pan-nationalism.

In any event, it should be obvious that I am not even remotely hostile to white nationalism nor do I have any intention of subverting it for any purpose, let alone a nefarious one. I am not at all concerned about being excluded from anything; as longtime readers here know, I really don’t go in for joining things as a general rule but prefer to do my own thing. Fortunately, the big-tent branch seems to more or less grasp this, as Bell writes of his Fourth Tier of the Alt-Right

Beneath this caste I would place the people who work to combat the professional and intellectual thuggery of the Social Justice Warriors and very particular Leftist narratives, but who don’t have any kind of overarching pro-White, pro-Western, or anti-Semitic ideology driving it. Author and video-game designer Vox Day goes here. In fact, I would elect him the leader of this caste if such a thing existed. He was an outspoken supporter of Gamergate and organized the Rabid Puppies movement, which at its core sought to diminish the influence of Left-minded authors like George R. R. Martin over the science-fiction Hugo Awards. Rather than giving awards to books about transexual vampires fighting against homophobic dragons, Day and his followers felt that the science fiction community should once again seek to emulate luminaries like J. R. R. Tolkien and Frank Herbert, who were essentially pro-Western and Right-wing in their thought. His book SJWs Always Lie is a must read for every member of the Alt Right. Of course, he is only part-white and does not explicitly push a pro-white or pro-Western agenda (though he comes close.)

Regardless of whether one’s interest is taxonomic or marketing, it is worthwhile to discuss these matters with those who don’t share one’s opinion, which is why I have invited Greg Johnson to appear on a public Brainstorm to discuss Alt-Right, Alt-White, and Alt-Lite, and to present his own perspective on the subject.

Mailvox: the Alt-Right’s big tent

A reader produces a graphic meant to illustrate the full spectrum of the broader Alt-Right. Agree with it or not, I think it is a good first start on beginning to meme the other aspects of the Alt-Right.

Your observations on the intrinsic branches, or roots, of the Alt-Right greatly helped clarify my own understanding of how the “big tent” ideology and its connected sub-identities would best interact each other. I agree with you that a forward-looking, symbiotic mutualism between the distinct Alt-White and Alt-West branches is desirable at this time. The Alt-White Scotsmen busy administering purity tests, “that person is no true Alt-Right…” have obviously missed point #12: The Alt-Right doesn’t care what you think of it. Any branch on the Alt-Right tree that doesn’t shut up and produce desirable fruit will be best ignored until it withers away.

I also concur that the implicit tension between the two current branches of the Alt-Right is actually beneficial. There should be healthy, competitive tendency for each Alt-branch to seek out the most effective tactics for its immediate survival and subsequent growth. Attempts to impose one group’s identity & tactics onto the other, or merge the two would be as effective as giving a marathon runner two right shoes and then tying his legs together.

In reading through the vigorous chiseling of the comments in the “ALTRIGHT: 16 POINTS”, I attempted to make an initial visual depiction of what I could grasp. At that time, I was primarily focused on symbolically distilling out some of the identity politics/tactics of the Alt-Right:

– Opposes the Left
– Opposes the ideas of Equality, Diversity, Tolerance, Progress, Control
– Fights on the identity/culture level
– Accepts any that are willing to fight who subscribe to some/all of its tenets
– Maintains the higher ground (what makes life better?)
– Recognizes the uphill fight requires more energy

It does have flaws, which I can recognize: seems to imply/advocate defensive or reactive tactics, much too wordy, doesn’t delineate between the Alt-branches, etc. Praise kek that it did, indeed, lead to a second, more successful attempt which is in more alignment with the clear, tactical understanding of the Alt-Right:

I. Alt-Right is forward-looking and not defensive.
II. Alt-White and Alt-West are independent and distinct branches.
III. Their success, either individually or together, results in success of the Alt-Right.
IV. Other Alt-branches can be added, as long as they share enough of the same philosophy and direction.
V. Alt-Lite can be considered allies, as long as they are not interfering with the two primary branches.
VI. Fighting between branches or internally within a branch is not constructive.
VII. Each branch can be arranged however they see fit (or add their own sub-branches, e.g. Alt-White:US and Alt-West:German).
VIII. Stronger individual branches and a broad collection of branches is ultimately beneficial to the Alt-Right
IX. No branch is more important than the others nor leads the other branches
X. The head of the Alt-Right is Pepe

This iconography does raise the question of “what other viable Alt-branches are there?” for the Alt-Right. I would not be surprised to see Alt-Masculinity be a potential ally given the success and philosophical direction of Roosh.

I would propose rather than “Alt-Lite groups”, the top six phalanxes represent intellectual strains, from Stormfront to NPI and the Dread Ilk. Or perhaps it would be more effective if six “leaders” were named, beginning with Richard Spencer, and for the lulz, Donald Trump. I leave it to the commenters to hash out which six individuals merit being named, but Jared Taylor and RamZPaul are two obvious candidates. Milo, not so much.

I also think, that for the purposes of Twitter meming, it would be best to have Alt-White on top, Alt-West in the middle, and Alt-Lite on the bottom, leaving out the word “Branch”, which is implied by the three separate groups. No meme should ever have a “fill-in-the blank” aspect to it.

A requested correction

Robert Evans of Cracked gets it all wrong.

One prominent figure in the alt-right is Vox Day. Day doesn’t directly threaten people, but he does regularly advocate for his readers to harass folks for him. Here’s how he advised his readers to treat women like Jessica Valenti, a writer for The Guardian whom he happens to dislike:


Open up your hate and let it pour over them. Don’t think for even one nanosecond that they don’t deserve it every bit of the criticism, of the contempt, of the disdainful dismissal that overwhelms them. They are trying to destroy Western civilization. They are trying to destroy marriage and civil society. They are advocates of child murder. They are advocates of a philosophy that makes National Socialism look merciful and Communism practical and Fascism coherent by comparison. Do not hold back. Speak back twice as hard. Speak back until they fall silent.

First, he left out the previous paragraph, which said:

What they call “harassment” and “abuse” is seldom anything more than free speech answering free speech. They have a right to speak their piece, and we have a right to speak right back. We have a right to speak back with all of the contempt, disdain, and loathing that we feel for their insane and societally suicidal ideas.

Second, and more disturbingly, he unwittingly denigrated the special relationship I have with my most loyal readers. I’m sure you will understand why I emailed him and requested a correction, as follows.

Dear Mr. Evans,


I would like to request a correction to your article of September 20, entitled “5 Things You Learn Being Attacked By The Alt-Right”. I do not direct my readers to harass anyone. While my Vile Faceless Minions have been known to flay my enemies, devour their bodies, and present me with their skulls to use as wine goblets, I can assure you they do so without direction and solely out of love for their Dark Lord.


With regards,


Vox Day
Supreme Dark Lord
Evil Legion of Evil

Should any of the VFM, or the Dread Ilk wish to correct Mr. Evans with regards to this unfortunate misunderstanding of our relationship, I am reliably informed he can be reached at revanswriter@gmail.com.

Of Alt-West and Alt-White

The question is not whether there are at least two distinct branches of the Alt-Right already or not, but whether the Alt-White branch can get its swastika panties sufficiently unbunched to cooperate with the Alt-West and the Alt-Lite in the pursuit of its stated objectives, or if it is more interested in competitive navel-gazing and purity-spiraling.

After a few run-ins with true-believing Stormfronters who have been Alt-Right since the distant dawn of primordial identity politics in 2010, both here and on Twitter, it has become abundantly clear that the combination of a legitimate fear of entryism and an understandable case of spotlight envy, the Alt-White is having some serious trouble dealing with the inevitable problems of success and popularity.

It’s rather like a company that has sales that are rapidly growing. The increase in demand for your products is great, but it is still a real problem. How are you going to get the additional products made? How are you going to pay for them? Are these new customers going to stick around or will they disappear before you can even expand your manufacturing capacity? These are good problems to have, but they are definitely problems that will need to be addressed.

First, is a distinction really necessary? Yes, without question. This should be obvious, since Alt-White, Alt-West, and Alt-Light are all different strains of identity-based thought that are all also observably distinct from mainstream conservatism or libertarianism. In this sense, all three are ALTernatives to the traditional RIGHT. Hence the Spencer-coined term.

Second, should all three be considered Alt-Right? Here I would argue no, that while it is reasonable to describe both Alt-White and Alt-West as Alt-Right, the Alt-Lite should not be. The reason is that while both Alt-White and Alt-West sign on to the greater part of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right I’ve laid out, and which most Alt-Rightists have generally endorsed, the various people who make up the Alt-Lite are all over the place with regards to most of them.

The Alt-Lite, in other words, is the larval form of the Alt-Right, which means that they are not, practically speaking, Alt-Right in any meaningful or functional sense. They are merely those still undergoing the intellectual transition that most Alt-Rightists have made, at one point or another. Alt-Lite is a transitional stage, not an end point.

By contrast, the Alt-White and Alt-West are both destinations. Once one gravitates towards one branch or the other, or as may be the case, is directed there by virtue of one’s identity, one is simply not going to eventually move towards the other one. This leads us to the third question, what are the key differences between the Alt-White and the Alt-West. The following are my observations; I am quite willing to be corrected by someone who can speak more credibly for the Alt-White.

  1. Alt-White is for whites only. Alt-West is pan-racial and pan-national, which should not be confused with being multicultural or equalitarian or pro-diversity in the egalitarian sense.
  2. Alt-White is primarily concerned with white nationalism, and secondarily concerned with European nationalisms. Within the Alt-White, there is already a discussion concerning what the difference between a generic white nationalism and the specific European nationalisms are; I suspect there will eventually be a further distinction between American and European branches of the Alt-White. While the Alt-West supports white nationalism, that is not its sole concern, as it supports all nationalism, European or otherwise.
  3. Alt-White is neutral to hostile on Christianity. Alt-West is strongly pro-Christian, as it believes Christianity to be one of the three pillars of Western Civilization aka the historical Christendom. Pro-Christian includes, but does not require, actually being a Christian.
  4. Alt-White is neutral to hostile on Israel. Alt-West is pro-Israel, as it supports all nationalist homelands.
  5. Alt-White is hostile to very hostile to all Jews everywhere. Alt-West is friendly to Israeli Jews while hostile to globalist Jews and anti-nationalist Jews.
  6. Alt-White has a romantic view of National Socialism. Alt-West regards it as a suicidally stupid but semiotically useful form of German nationalism.
  7. Alt-White is neutral to pro-white imperialism. Alt-West is anti-imperialism, as it regards imperalism as being societally enervating and self-destructive.

As you can see, within the context of both the 16 Points and the grand political spectrum, Alt-White and Alt-West are largely in accord. They generally share a philosophy and a direction, but their priorities and perspectives are different. More importantly, with the possible exception of Christianity in the long term, there is very little reason for conflict between Alt-White and Alt-West, indeed, the distinction between the two eliminates the Alt-White’s primary objection to the Alt-West, which is the possibility of  being sidelined by the media and by the larger potential appeal of the Alt-West.

Some have accused me, and Milo, and several others, of wanting to assume the mantle of leading the Alt-Right. That is the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, one personal benefit of articulating the distinction between the two primary branches of the Alt-Right is that it makes it clear that a) there can be no unitary leader, and b) even if there could be, that unitary leader could not possibly be me due to my identity as an American Indian and member of La Raza.

The more significant benefit is to quell the fears of the Alt-White that they will be sidelined by their more numerous allies. But the Alt-West needs nothing from the Alt-White, and by establishing a separate identity, a much broader spectrum of members are made possible while respecting the rigid borders of the Alt-White. Regardless, the simple fact of the matter is that the Alt-White is not the only alternative to mainstream conservatism.

There are much bigger battles ahead than settling the question of whether Christianity is a necessary component of Western Civilization or not. Because we know the white race is absolutely a necessary component of it, and that is why, whether one is inclined towards the Alt-White or the Alt-West, every member of the Alt-Right who values both whites and the West has immediate and mid-range objectives remain exactly the same.

As before, this is not intended to be a definitive delineation of the differences between the two branches of the Alt-Right, but the starting point for an intelligent discussion. Keep it civil and substantive as those more interested in posturing will be spammed. As for those who will claim that Alt-West, Alt-White, and Alt-Lite are not genuine “things”, keep in mind that as a political taxonomist, I am creating nothing. I am merely describing what observably already exists.

The growth of the Alt-Lite

The power of the Alt-Right message can be seen in those who are rejecting conservatism, classical liberalism, and other pure ideologies in favor of watered-down versions of the Alt-Right that Richard Spencer and others have collectively labeled the Alt-Lite. This is one thoughtful Alt-Lite piece by a self-declared Liberal Christian Nationalist who has, in his own words, embraced identity politics.

I think I am a “Liberal Christian Nationalist,” and, now that Christians arguably have no real influence in this country – just as they, particularly nationalists, have little influence in Europe (first see here ; then here and here) – this shouldn’t scare anyone.[i] I don’t expect to get too many of my fellow Americans to identify with me in this, nor does it mean I expect to see a LCN party arise. I suspect that the list that I have put together below though – explaining what I mean by “Liberal Christian Nationalism”, might be of more use to countries who are young when it comes to their Christian commitment.

Please note that these points deal with issues of “race” in some detail, since that is, I think, always the elephant in the room and demands thoughtful engagement. Further, in full disclosure, I put together this 32 point list in part in response to a list that the “Alt Right” leader, Vox Day (author of The Irrational Atheist), put together.

Before jumping into my list, a key point: in my view, the Leftism of today includes many who would consider themselves on the political right. Their philosophy is ultimately deferential to the language used in the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision of the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” (of course, logic tells us that “private beliefs” will ultimately only be permitted to be translated into action for some persons – others’ actions will inevitably be determined to be “out of bounds” – see below). A person who is conservative, on the other hand – including those who find room to account for the importance of identity in politics – would continue to agree with the words of the late Russel Kirk – or, perhaps, at least want to agree with him: “[conservatives are] all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.” “Conservatives” who say that what Kirk says is “no longer true” or irrelevant are being anything but conservative. After all, if what Kirk says it is no longer true, how was it ever more than an illusion to begin with (given that he speaks of the words “constant” and “enduring” as if these terms mean something)?

My list:

  1. The history of the world teaches us that the separation of religion and politics is ultimately untenable. Ironically, the possibility of conceiving of a “separation of church and state” could have only taken place in a nation that is largely made up of an influenced by Christians (“give to God what is God’s, to Caesar what is Caesar’s”), who justifiably, at their best, have a reputation for both being simple, humble, content, and not apt to glorify strength.
  2. The Bible is the Word of God. Whoever you are, Jesus Christ is your Creator, your God, your King. This is what Christians have always believed and taught. It is only for the sake of conversation and common ground with the world – all of whom we are to love with Christ’s love – that we might start by talking about how the Bible “contains God’s Word”, “contains the Gospel”, how Jesus is “our God,” or how we consider the Bible to be authoritative.
  3. If “true patriotism” means “freedom and equality not only for Americans but for all people on earth,” as Eleanor Roosevelt said, one should consider supporting Christian missionaries who share the Gospel of Jesus Christ – His defeat of sin, death and the devil for us through the (unlikely) victory at the cross vindicated by the resurrection – out of sincere conviction and not with any colonial-esque designs.
  4. Those countries who have attained a high level of political liberty, including freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion – as well as greater effectiveness, mobility, and choice when it comes to economic issues (made possible by increased trust) – are nations that have been greatly influenced by Christianity.
  5. Greco-Roman culture, as well as the Renaissance and Enlightenment which drew from it, forced Western forms of Christianity to become much more reflective and nuanced in their understanding of biblical truths. Christianity also seeks to appreciate what is good, true, and beautiful from all cultures (see Philippians 4:8).
  6. Christians are first and foremost citizens of heaven, not earth. In, but not of the world, their “dual ethnicity” means that they belong first to the kingdom of heaven, and are members of “God’s chosen ethnos” (I Peter 2:9). Though all are one “in Adam,” God has, post-fall, also ordained a diversity of nations (see Acts 17:26), from whom He will obtain worship (Rev. 7:9).
  7. Biblically, earthly nations are inseparable from the concept of “ethnos,” from which we get “ethnicity”. In like fashion “genos”, from where we get “genes,” can be translated as offspring, family, race, nation, kind, or even sex. We see that these terms involve notions of blood and parentage, even if “ethnos” is more closely connected than “genos” with our notions of culture.
  8. Ultimately, the Church is a new Nation that re-unites, by faith in Christ, persons not just from this or that race, tribe, or nation, but from the entire human family – making one Nation, or, more accurately, Kingdom, to whom all the earthly nations will stream in the life to come, “Kingdom come”.
  9. The idea to rather sharply distinguish “church and state” comes from Jesus Christ Himself. He said to “give to God what is God’s and Caesar what is Caesar’s”. It is desirable that the Church and earthly nations support one another even as it is also desirable that each stay out of the other’s core business – the Church forgiving sin and giving eternal life, nations protecting their people while seeking truth and justice.
  10. It may indeed be better to be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian (mis-attributed to the 16th Church Reformer Martin Luther, though it might seem to sum up his thinking well) though even with this consideration (which seems not to be mindful about continuity), the ideal or preferred persons to lead a nation are, in general, Christians with political gifts – not the leaders of the Church, but Christians nonetheless.
  11. In contrast to some, there is nothing in the Christian religion that demands we, in our earthly sojourn, must have Christian rulers or even a certain kind of government. If a beloved Christian chieftain or king were to step down to establish a democracy, even with the caveat that the elected ruler must be Christian (e.g. “firm Nicean”) – or at least persons sympathetic to Christianity – it is reasonable to debate whether or not this would, generally speaking, be a responsible move.
  12. Nevertheless, there is no theological reason, in theory, that a Democratic or Republican (understood classically, not in terms of the American political parties) Liberal Christian Nation should not be desirable – along with the desire to keep it thusly (Ben Franklin: “A Republic – if you can keep it” – see here).
  13. But if this is the case, here, a “balance of powers” is only one part of the puzzle. Collective theological – and hence cultural – formation must be seen as being absolutely critical: in order to have equality under the law, real respect for the dignity and rights of each individual, a wise degree of cultural tolerance, etc., one must, simply, have Christian teaching. “Liberal Christianity” and their progressive allies are, in fact, parasitical here (see here).
  14. As “childless men who had forgotten their childhoods” (Bertand de Jovenel), Hobbes and Locke (largely followed by Leo Strauss, the father of “neo-conservatism”) believed the false philosophy that we are by nature “free and independent,” naturally “ungoverned and even non-relational.” (see here) Hypothesizing “states” (personal and corporate!) that are devoid of nationality, ethnicity, and religion is simply unreasonable, and can’t not result in expressions of social Darwinism, glorifying the powerful and attractive, and impatient with, and dismissive towards (or worse) “losers”.
  15. When it comes to the sexes, the Left has, in essence, rejected fatherhood as a category. Might not the rejection of the notion of “fatherland” by related? (this article is worth pondering) America cannot be “an idea,” however much that statement might force us to consider its seemingly unique qualities.

The list actually consists of 32 points, but you can read the whole thing there. Unlike the intellectually autistic spergs of the Alt-White, I welcome the rapid expansion of the Alt-Lite, as it drives even more nails in the coffin of ineffective ideology politics in general and American conservatism in particular.