If Ronald Reagan were alive today, I wonder if he would still be a conservative.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Ronald Reagan address to the annual meeting of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce Mar. 30, 1967
We’re already at that point. At this point, our children already don’t know what it is like to live in a white country, and our grandchildren are likely to learn what it is like to have to fight a civil war.
That being said, Ronald Reagan is one of the individuals responsible for the USA’s current predicament due to a) signing the California no-fault divorce law and b) the 1986 Immigration Amnesty. As conservatives are wont to do, he stood up to the external enemy and surrendered to the internal enemy. As internal enemies are always more dangerous, he failed to fight when it counted most.
So, yes, upon further reflection, he probably would still be a conservative, attacking the Alt-Right for seeking to do what he wouldn’t.
For the first time in its history, the National Press Club has prohibited a peaceful organization from holding an event in the ironically titled Free Speech Lounge.
NPC, which has defended revenge porn sites like Gawker, agreed to allow Richard B. Spencer of the National Policy Institute to hold an event called, “What is the Alt-Right?”
On August 24, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton dedicated a major campaign speech to the “emerging” ideology known as the Alt Right.
So what is the Alt Right? Who makes up the Alt Right, and what are its central ideas?
On Friday, September 9, The National Policy Institute will host a conference—free and open to the public and press—in which Alt-Right leaders discuss their movement.
When I called NPC’s reservation office to ask if NPI’s alt-right event had been cancelled, the polite Michelle said that it sounds like an Internet rumor, as it’s not the policy of NPC to censor speakers.
Given that Richard Spencer has a signed contract, it’s looking pretty troubling for the outfit that has been complaining publicly about Donald Trump’s media blacklist.
If true, this is exactly why the Alt-Right exists in the first place. We are done with listening to the heartfelt appeals to equality and fairness, which are been abandoned as soon as those who make such appeals feel they are in a position of power.
We’re now living in a post-ideological age of identity politics. Be aware of that, as even the so-called, self-appointed champions of free speech don’t hesitate to shut down speech they don’t like.
I would emphasize that by necessity the alt-right is a “big tent” philosophy. Ideally this means that it functions as an intellectual alliance between other philosophies that embrace most or all of its core principles. Therefore it is counter-productive for any of these philosophies attack one another more than they attack outside philosophies. Some people call this no enemies on the right or no enemies to the right, the latter being less inclusive, but what is most important ultimately is to not throw competent people who agree with you on major issues to the wolves. Having clear battle lines is crucial because it ensures we are our own moral authority rather than a third party that is opposed to most or all of our beliefs, which is a major problem if not the problem with the mainstream right.
1) People are different. Human inequality is a fact of life and belief systems that deny this lead to distortion and oppression. Both individuals and populations vary in their characteristics in meaningful ways, such as intelligence and social behavior. One size does not fit all, not comfortably at least.
2) Our world is tribal. The struggle for survival which has produced all life on earth extends into biological human races, which both exist and matter to their members. Such conflict is neither immoral nor moral, but a condition we must engage with in order to develop any meaningful philosophy or ideology. It can be found on the streets, in the human resources department, at the ballot box, or in the trenches. Even something as trivial as the Oscars is fought over. Though it is currently politically incorrect to acknowledge that races and their national subdivisions exist and compete for resources, land, and influence over one another or over themselves, that does not mean the struggle has stopped. That one side has been cajoled into not struggling does not mean it is left alone.
3) Our tribe is being suppressed. The new left doctrine of racial struggle in favor of non-whites only, a product of decolonization and the defeat of nationalists by egalitarians after WWII, must be repudiated and Whites must be allowed to take their own side in their affairs.A value system that says Whites are not allowed to have collective interests and literally every other identity group can do so and ought to do so is unacceptable.
The key observation is the seventh one. There is a vast range of opinions across the Alt-Right with regards to the Jewish Question. The hardcore 1488ers would just as soon complete the Final Solution, while on the other end of the spectrum, there are Alt-Right Jews who enthusiastically sign on to all of my 16 Points. As per Point 5, I think Jewish nationalism is every bit as valid and meritorious as that of the sovereign American Indian tribes or White nationalism, and therefore am an open supporter of Israel as the ancestral homeland of the Jewish nation.
But regardless, the entire Alt-Right, from Ultra 1488er to ethno-religious Israeli, can, in clean conscience, readily agree to Murray’s seventh point of concurrence: “Jewish elites are opposed to our entire program.”
The most certain sign that the Alt-Right will be relevant in the future is that a number of (((entryists)))) are already clamoring to be a part of it. My perspective is that if you feel the need to ask, the answer is no. If you’re looking for inclusivity and permission and goodfeelz, or sperging out about pedantics and structure, you’ll do better with the SJWs. They’ll be happy to tell you exactly what to do, think, and say. Regardless, I’m neither the Alt-Right Police nor a political taxonomist, so don’t ask me who is or is not what. I am happy to support anyone whose actions are generally in line with the 16 Points I laid out.
I don’t know who “Publius Decius Mus” is, except in the Samnite War sense, but this is the best article I have ever read at the Claremont Institute. It very clearly makes the case for the need for the Alt-Right, if not for the Alt-Right per se. And in doing so, it also underlines the petty narcissism of the dwindling #NeverTrump crowd:
If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.
But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative—indeed, almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the “condition of America” and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of “conservative” “solutions,” with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, “civic renewal,” and—of course!—Burke. Which is to say, conservatism’s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction, immorality, and corruption? “Civic renewal” would do a lot of course, but that’s like saying health will save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to achieve “civic renewal”? Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy.
Continetti trips over a more promising approach when he writes of “stress[ing] the ‘national interest abroad and national solidarity at home’ through foreign-policy retrenchment, ‘support to workers buffeted by globalization,’ and setting ‘tax rates and immigration levels’ to foster social cohesion.” That sounds a lot like Trumpism. But the phrases that Continetti quotes are taken from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, both of whom, like Continetti, are vociferously—one might even say fanatically—anti-Trump. At least they, unlike Kesler, give Trump credit for having identified the right stance on today’s most salient issues. Yet, paradoxically, they won’t vote for Trump whereas Kesler hints that he will. It’s reasonable, then, to read into Kesler’s esoteric endorsement of Trump an implicit acknowledgment that the crisis is, indeed, pretty dire. I expect a Claremont scholar to be wiser than most other conservative intellectuals, and I am relieved not to be disappointed in this instance.
Yet we may also reasonably ask: What explains the Pollyanna-ish declinism of so many others? That is, the stance that Things-Are-Really-Bad—But-Not-So-Bad-that-We-Have-to-Consider-Anything-Really-Different! The obvious answer is that they don’t really believe the first half of that formulation. If so, like Chicken Little, they should stick a sock in it. Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this explanation until we have disproved all the others.
Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.
Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.
One thing that I expect has become clear to most readers here, whether of the Alt-Right or the conservative persuasion, is that conservatism is utterly unequipped to deal with the current situation. Even if conservatism were a coherent ideology – it isn’t, read Cuckservative – or if it were not partially culpable for the current situation – and it is – conservatives are both intellectually unarmed and emotionally unprepared to deal with the ongoing transition from ideology politics to identity politics.
A favorite phrase of mine is, “let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.” Conservatives correctly point out the ways in which American liberalism, Leftism, and progressivism all fail the test of experience. However, conservatives completely fail to recognize their own pie-in-the-sky thinking when they appeal to Magic Dirt, Magic Words, and the Zeroth Amendment. They do not understand the significance of the Supreme Court’s version of the US Constitution not being the same as the original written version of the Constitution, they are unaware that most immigrants, children of immigrants, and grandchildren of immigrants neither know nor care what any version of “the Constitution” is, says, or represents, and they ignore the very purpose of the Constitution as laid out in the Preamble.
Most importantly, they elevate a single phrase from the Declaration of Independence, a meaninglessly utopian piece of rhetoric which is not only contradicted by the Preamble, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the acts of the First Congress, but by subsequent phrases in the Declaration itself, and proclaim it to be the foundational core of both state and nation. To conservatives, “all men are created equal” is a Magic Spell of unlimited potency that is not only, contra literally ALL the evidence, historically definitional, but can even be invoked to instantly transform any individual, tribe, people, or nation into Americans.
However, neither the Magic Spell nor the Magic Words prevented the Civil War, or if you prefer, the Second War for Independence. And the Magic Words will not prevent Round Two, or if you prefer, the Third War for Independence, or what is considerably more likely to be the free-for-all that follows the general collapse of the US central state. Very few saw the Soviet collapse coming, and I expect even fewer genuinely see the US collapse coming, despite the profiteering of opportunistic media doomsayers who have never seen an Apocalypse, a Ragnarok, or a Rapture they didn’t like.
Where conservatism has proven intrinsically fragile and self-contradictory, the Alt-Right is anti-fragile and intellectually consistent. A nation has considerably more ruin in it than a state; the state cannot survive long without a single dominant nation but as the Jews, the Kurds, and many other peoples have proved, a nation can survive indefinitely without a state. The architects of 4GW theory and the globalists alike have chronicled the way in which we are coming to the end of the Westphalian period where the state held a monopoly on violence. Therefore, it should surprise no one that as the international state system is in the process of coming to an end, the ideology politics that arose within it and subsequently dominated it should also be in decline.
So, conservatism is not merely incoherent, it is now as entirely irrelevant as a biplane during the Battle of Britain. Neither a Balanced Budget Amendment nor pledging undying loyalty to AIPAC nor deciding to “rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty for which generations of Americans fought and died” are going to even begin to address the implications of the post-Westphalian shift to identity politics, much less prevent the collapse of the USA.
In which (((Jeff Goldstein))), aka Protein Wisdom, considers the Alt-Right via the 16-points I laid out and concludes that Democrats are the Real Racists the Alt-Right are the Real Leftists in The Federalist.
The Alt-Right Is The Mirror Image Of The New Left
Our system was designed for assimilation and naturalization. The complete corruption of that system and the usurpation of its intent by those who redefine it in the terms of transnational progressivism are largely responsible for the resurgence of the white nationalism at the heart of the alt-right’s identitarian “philosophy.”
Concerns over a loss of sovereignty or the overdetermined influence granted preferred minority groups are legitimate, despite the putative conservatives who pretend they are not, or parrot an establishment apologia that waxes poetic about “inclusivity” and “economic growth” while Americans are increasingly self-segregating and an entire generation of young people will struggle to find a way into the workforce. I can read crime statistics, and have watched states turn blue as the result not of good Democratic Party governance but entitlement promises and the logistical changes that inevitably follow. Libertarian economist Milton Friedman knew well that you can’t have an open borders-type immigration system tied to a welfare state. That’s precisely what we now have.
Still, there are fixes to our national maladies that reside in the constitutional system of government we each inherited as our birthright as American citizens. American exceptionalism, which neither Barack Obama nor Donald Trump understand or can articulate, was born of our founding. This exceptionalism is found not in its genetic makeup (after all, we fought other white Europeans for our independence) but in a collage of Enlightenment ideas our Founders pulled together to create what became our national portrait.
To reclaim our birthright, we need only reclaim the Constitution. We need to re-embrace American exceptionalism and reject the kind of toxic identitarianism the Left uses to divide us, manage us, and place us into needy voter blocs they then collect to win elections, and through which an institutionalized progressive cancer spreads to eat away its bones.
Identity Politics On the Right
But we need recognize this cancer is not necessarily isolated within a given political party. It is opportunistic: in the ’60s, it infiltrated the “bourgeois” Democratic Party the cultural Marxists despised to become the New Left that today controls many of our institutions. As it did so, this long march created a counter-trend we now see bubbling up through cracks in our national foundation.
This counter-trend, make no mistake, is every bit as identitarian as anything Edward Said ever wrote, and just as toxic. Said enormously influenced Western academics. His Orientalism laid out the case for identity politics, declaring who controls particular group narratives and how, and who and what comes to count as “authentic” and thus permitted to represent a given identity group and its (collectivist) narrative. Identity politics necessarily brackets and minimizes individualism. As with much the Left does, it remains policed by a kind of mob shaming and an enforced intellectual correctness that is linguistically incoherent.
Unfortunately, this same set of core beliefs is now ascendant on a vocal part of the self-described “Right.” In his “What the Alt Right is,” Vox Day, one of the leaders of the alt-right “movement,” details what he calls “a core Alt Right philosophy upon which others can build,” then provides a list of 16 items one can imagine he sees himself virtually nailing to the doors of Benetton stores like a modern-day Martin Luther.
Read the whole thing. It is more than a little illuminating with regards to how the conservatives think, although there is nothing that is likely to surprise any regular reader of this blog. I will respond to it in detail later this week, but feel free to share your own thoughts in the meantime.
Just stop already. Why is she doing this to herself? This is insane. At this rate, Hillary Clinton is going to collapse during the first debate before Trump even finishes his initial statement. And blaming it on allergies? Allergies make you sneeze. They don’t make you cough.
Oh, wait, I see the problem. She really shouldn’t have declared war on the #AltRight.
The first two are pretty good too, as are the REGRESSIVE LEFT series, which features The Magazine For People Terrified of Being Racist Islamophobes. You can find them in Satiria’s account. The funniest thing is that I have absolutely no doubt that SJWS are going to be frantically searching for the full text of my article, “Why Women Should Not Be Allowed to Think”.
It’s a good article, though, and frankly, I think I really presented a conclusive case.
Being anti-facist, anti-racist, and pro-diversity won’t save you if you’re white, as a French writer discovered last weekend.
Writer Ghislain Gilberti and his son were savagely attacked on Saturday by a group of men shouting “filthy white”, seemingly Islamists enraged by one of his novels, police in France have heard.
Mr Gilbert and his 12-year-old son were attacked in Belfort, France on Saturday following harassment and attempted break-ins. Though an active antifascist, the writer and his family have received death threats from Salafists displeased that the prologue title of the novelist’s bestseller is “jihad”.
Police are investigating after Mr Gilberti was taken to hospital with a broken arm by firemen, following a reported street attack by Salafist Muslims. Mr Gilberti said he received blows to his back before being called a “filthy white” by four men aged between 20 and 30 years, who held him down while attacking.
The author reported the men also kicked his 12-year-old son in the head and stomach, shouting “it’s the same price for you” and “we don’t forgive, we don’t forget” at his 11-year-old daughter who was also present.
The thriller novelist lost consciousness during the beating and, following the attack, will again request full police protection, Mr Gilberti’s publisher broadcast on Facebook.
It appears even their strategy of being eaten last by the crocodile is a failure. Remember, identity > culture > politics.
If the New French are willing to attack a 12-year-old boy, don’t think they won’t attack you.
Tom Teicholz rebukes Dennis Prager’s appeal to conservatism and explains why Jews will always be self-appointed enemies to the Alt-Right, to conservatives, and to and the interests of America and the European nations in the Jewish Journal:
Jews will always believe Black Lives matter because Jews do not think of themselves as “White People.” You have but to walk down a street in Tel Aviv to see the multiplicity of Jewish skin colors. You have but to live as a Jew in any time in history, in any country including the United States, to recognize we are not the White People – we were not the White People allowed into certain clubs, schools, neighborhoods for most of American history. We are not the people rallying for “white people’s rights.” As Ta-Nehisi Coates has written more eloquently that I ever will, “Our notion of what constitutes “white” and what constitutes “black” is a product of social context.”
Dennis Prager makes much of how the Left has often betrayed Jews. He is not wrong about that. But he is wrong in thinking that means Jews should stop supporting the causes of the Left. Consider the alternative: How have Jews fared under the right? Far worse. In Egypt, or under the Greeks and Romans, in Spain and Portugal under the Inquisition, in Europe during the Reformation, in France at the time of Dreyfus, or in Hitler’s Germany or his Reichlands. Consider the fate of Jewish lives under right wing governments in Hungary or Poland – are they better off than they were under Leftist regimes? One can even ask, as members of the Israeli Knesset have, whether more Israelis have died as a result of the policies of the current right-wing Likud government than in those years when Labor was in power (they have).
Leonard Bernstein was ridiculed for hosting a party for the Black Panthers. But Bernstein’s compassion and sense of Justice led him to lead the Palestine Symphony Orchestra in 1947 and as it became the Israel Philharmonic in Beersheba in November 1948 and almost every year of his life. His heart was large, his passion great and he was not wrong to support the cause of Black Pride and African American self-empowerment, even if its leaders had not so great a heart as his.
Jews will always agitate for and support causes of the Left, because we are commanded to be a beacon unto others and to see social activism and seeking Justice, Tikkun Olam and Tzedaka, as part of the Jewish DNA.
The next time someone claims that the Right, whether Alt-Right or some other variety, is antisemitic and Holocaust, it should prove useful to observe that, in their own words:
“All the non-Jews that you see all around the world, the billions, they exist just for the Jew’s benefit.”
“Jews will always agitate for and support causes of the Left.”
Now, which of those statements do you not oppose? Are you down with both of them?
Before anyone produces the expected NAJALT argument, I should first be very interested to learn why you are intent on playing defense attorney HERE on behalf of those with whom you supposedly disagree rather than actively opposing those making such statements THERE.
And furthermore, as I pointed out to one Jewish gentleman on Twitter, one can expect the Alt-Right to stop quoting living Jews concerning their beliefs and objectives at about the same time that the opponents of the Alt-Right stop calling us Nazis, racists, and anti-semites. We are not conservatives. We do not hesitate to use the other side’s tactics. See: Point 12.
Some say that makes us SJWs. Does it make us Jews as well?
As he responded, “I can’t fault the alt-right for lumping all Jews in with our worst crazies when so many Jews do the same to Whites.”
Action: It is our duty to preserve our nations for our children.
(((Reaction))): redefine “preserve”, “nation” and “children”.
What most Americans don’t realize is that (((globalist propagandists))) are now pushing the same deceitful game of redefinition in their attack on the nations of Europe that they successfully pushed in the United States in the 20th century.
But even the dumbest, most maleducated and historically ignorant American, who blithely accepts the idea that George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin believed their posterity to consist of Bantu tribesmen, cannibals from Papua New Guinea, and Chinamen in founding “a nation of immigrants”, will tend to raise his eyebrows in befuddlement at new and outlandish claims about “Britain is a nation of immigrants”, “the Judeo-Christian identity of the Swedish nation” and “all nations are nations of immigrants”.
I cannot stress this enough. All four of the following phrases are ahistorical lies, and moreover, they are lies that are now being recycled to attack Europe in the same way they were used to destroy the genuine historical concept of the American nation.
The melting pot
A proposition nation
A nation of immigrants
Judeo-Christian values
“all men are created equal” means “everyone is an American”
And the European nationalists all know it too.
“If we could just get our definitions straight I’m sure we’d find we actually AGREE on the important points” – Saint Cuck the First
