Tag: #AltRight

La Derecha Alternativa: 16 Puntos

  1. La Derecha Alternativa pertenece a la derecha política tanto en el sentido europeo como en el americano. Los socialistas no son Derecha Alternativa. Los progresistas no son Derecha Alternativa. Los liberales no son Derecha Alternativa. Los comunistas, los marxistas, los marxistas culturales y los neocons no son Derecha Alternativa.
  2. La Derecha Alternativa es una ALTERNATIVA  al conservadurismo tradicional norteamericano, cuyos principios fueron sintetizados por Russel Kirk en sus 10 principios conservadores, y que en realidad ha terminado por degenerar en progresismo. También es una alternativa al liberalismo. 
  3. La Derecha Alternativa no es una actitud defensiva y rechaza el concepto de la derrota noble y civilizada.  Es, antes bien, una filosofía ambiciosa y a la ofensiva, en todos los sentidos del término. La Derecha Alternativa cree en la victoria a través de la tenacidad y en la necesidad de estar en armonía con la ciencia, la realidad, la tradición cultural y las lecciones de la Historia. 
  4. La Derecha Alternativa cree en la Civilización Occidental como el culmen del logro humano y defiende sus tres pilares fundacionales: el Cristianismo, las naciones europeas y el legado grecorromano. 
  5. La Derecha Alternativa es abierta y reconocidamente nacionalista. Apoya todos los nacionalismos y el derecho de las naciones a existir, conservando su homogeneidad e inadulteradas por invasiones extranjeras y la inmigración. 
  6. La Derecha Alternativa es anti-globalista. Se opone a todos aquellos grupos inspirados por ideales y objetivos globalistas. 
  7. La Derecha Alternativa es anti-igualitaria. Rechaza la idea de la igualdad por la misma razón que rechaza los unicornios o los duendes, a la vista de que la igualdad humana no existe en ninguna forma observable, sea científica, legal, material, intelectual, sexual o espiritual. 
  8. La Derecha Alternativa cree en el método científico. Acepta en principio las conclusiones presentes del método científico, al mismo tiempo que entiende que a), estas conclusiones están sujetas a futuras revisiones, b) que la ciencia no es inmune a la corrupción, y c) que el así llamado consenso científico no está fundamentado en el método científico, sino en la democracia, y es en consecuencia intrínsecamente anti-científico. 
  9. La Derecha Alternativa cree que Identidad > Cultura > política.
  10. La Derecha Alternativa se opone al gobierno o dominación de cualquier grupo étnico sobre otro, particularmente en los territorios soberanos de los pueblos dominados. La Derecha Alternativa se opone a la posibilidad de que cualquier grupo étnico no nativo ejerza una influencia excesiva en una cierta sociedad a través del nepotismo, el tribalismo o cualquier otro medio.
  11. La Derecha Alternativa entiende que diversidad + proximidad = guerra.
  12. A la Derecha Alternativa no le importa lo que pienses de ella.
  13. La Derecha Alternativa rechaza el libre comercio internacional y el libre movimiento de personas que el libre comercio internacional exige. Los beneficios del libre comercio intranacional no constituyen una prueba válida de los beneficios del libre comercio internacional.
  14. La Derecha Alternativa defiende el deber de asegurar la existencia de los pueblos blancos y un futuro para los niños blancos. 
  15. La Derecha Alternativa no cree en la supremacía general de ninguna raza, nación, pueblo o subespecie. Toda raza, nación, pueblo o subespecie humana es única en sus fortalezas y sus debilidades y posee el derecho inalienable a habitar, libre de intromisiones, en aquella cultura nativa de su preferencia.
  16. La Derecha Alternativa es una filosofía que aprecia en gran medida la paz entre las naciones del mundo y rechaza la guerra como herramienta para imponer los valores de una nación a otra, así como cualquier esfuerzo para exterminar naciones individuales a través de la guerra, el genocidio, la inmigración o la asimilación genética.

La Derecha Alternativa es una ideología occidental que cree en la ciencia, la historia y el derecho de una nación genética a existir y gobernarse a sí misma en aras de sus propios intereses.

L’alt-droite: 16 points

  1. L’alt-droite se situe à la droite politique aux sens américain et européen de cette expression. Les socialistes ne sont pas de l’alt-droite. Les progressistes ne sont pas de l’alt-droite. Les libéraux ne sont pas de l’alt-droite. Les communistes, les marxistes, les marxiens, les marxistes culturels et les néo-conservateurs ne sont pas de l’alt-droite.
  2. L’alt-droite est une alternative au conservatisme traditionnel des Etats-Unis décrit en théorie par les dix principes conservateurs de Russel Kirk, mais qui s’est finalement transformé en progressisme. C’est aussi une alternative au libertarianisme.
  3. L’alt-droite n’est pas une attitude défensive et rejette le concept d’une défaite noble et de principe. C’est une philosophie anticipatrice d’attaque, dans tous les sens de ce terme. L’alt-droite croit en la victoire par la persévérance tout en demeurant en harmonie avec la science, la réalité, les traditions culturelles et les enseignements tirés de l’histoire.
  4. L’alt-droite croit que l’Occident est le plus grand accomplissement de l’humanité et supporte ses trois piliers fondateurs: le christianisme, les nations européennes et l’héritage gréco-romain.
  5. L’alt-droite est ouvertement, et de son propre aveu, nationaliste. Elle supporte toutes les formes de nationalisme, ainsi que le droit de toute nation à une existence homogène et sans altération par l’invasion étrangère et l’immigration.
  6. L’alt-droite est anti-mondialiste. Elle s’oppose aux groupes travaillant avec des idéaux et/ou des objectifs mondialistes.
  7. L’alt-droite est anti-égalitariste. Elle rejette le concept d’égalité pour la même raison qu’elle rejette l’existence des licornes et des farfadets, en pointant le fait qu’aucune forme observable scientifique, légale, matérielle, intellectuelle, sexuelle ou spirituelle ne démontre l’existence de l’égalité entres les humains.
  8. L’alt-droite est “scientodifique”. Elle accepte par inférence les présentes conclusions de la méthode scientifique (i.e. “scientodie”) tout en comprenant que: a) ces conclusions sont sujettes à une révision future; b) la “scientisterie” (i.e. la profession de la science) est sensible à la corruption; c) le soit-disant consensus scientifique n’est aucunement basé sur la scientodie, mais plutôt sur la démocratie, ce qui le rend non-scientifique de manière intrinsèque.
  9. L’alt-droite croit que l’identité > la culture > la politique.
  10. L’alt-droite s’oppose à la domination d’un groupe ethnique indigène par un autre groupe ethnique, en particulier sur les terres souveraines des peuples dominés. L’alt-droite s’oppose à l’idée qu’un groupe ethnique étranger puisse obtenir une influence excessive dans n’importe quelle société en employant le népotisme, le tribalisme ou tout autre moyen.
  11. L’alt-droite comprend que la diversité + la proximité = la guerre.
  12. L’alt-droite se fiche de ce que les autres pensent d’elle.
  13. L’alt-droite rejette le libre-échange international, ainsi que la liberté de circulation requise par le libre-échange. Les bénéfices d’un libre-échange intranational n’est pas une évidence qui puisse être utilisée afin de démontrer les bénéfices d’un libre-échange international.
  14. L’alt-droite croit que l’existence des individus blancs et le futur des enfants blancs doivent tout deux être protégés.
  15. L’alt-droite ne croit pas à la supériorité générale d’une race, d’une nation, d’un peuple ou d’une sous-espèce. Chaque race, nation, peuple et sous-espèce a ses forces et faiblesses uniques, et possède le droit souverain d’habiter la culture natale qu’elle préfère sans être maltraitée.
  16. L’alt-droite est une philosophie qui attache une importance à la paix entre les différentes nations du monde. Elle s’oppose aux guerre qui ont pour but d’imposer les valeurs d’une nation sur une autre, ainsi qu’aux mouvements qui cherchent à exterminer les nations individuelles par le génocide, l’immigration, ou l’assimilation génétique.

TL;PL L’alt-droite est une idéologie du monde occidental qui croit en la science, l’histoire, la réalité et au droit d’une nation génétique d’exister et de se gouverner afin de protéger ses propres intérêts.

Alt-Høyre: 16 Punkter

1. Alt-Høyre tilhører den politiske høyresiden i både den Amerikanske og den Europeiske betydningen. Sosialister er ikke Alt-Høyre. Progressiver er ikke Alt-Høyre. Liberale er ikke Alt-Høyre. Kommunister, Marxister, Marxianere, kulturmarxister og neokonservative er ikke Alt-Høyre

2. Alt-Høyre er et alternativ til den alminnelige konservative bevegelsen i USA, forankret i Russel Kirks ti konservative prinsipper, som i virkeligheten har degenerert mot progressivisme. Den er og et alternativ til libertarianisme.

3. Alt-Høyre er ikke en defensiv holdning og avviser tanken om et nobelt og prinsipielt nederlag. Den er en fremovertenkende, offensiv filosofi, i begrepets fulle forstand.  Alt-Høyre tror på seier gjennom vedvarenhet samt å forbli i harmoni med vitenskap, virkelighet, kulturell tradisjon og historiens lærdom.

4. Alt-Høyre mener Vestlig sivilisasjon er toppunktet av menneskelig oppnåelse og støtter dets tre grunnpillarer: Kristendommen, den Europeiske nasjon og den Greko-Romerske arv.

5. Alt-Høyre er åpent og fremstående nasjonalistisk. Den støtter nasjonalisme av alle former og alle nasjoners rett til å eksistere, homogen og uforandret av fremmed invasjon og innvandring.

6. Alt-Høyre er anti-globalistisk. Den stiller seg i opposisjon til alle grupper som arbeider for globalistiske idealer eller globalistiske mål.

7. Alt-Høyre er anti-egalitær. Den avviser ideen om likhet på samme grunnlaget den avviser ideen om bergtroll og påskeharen. Menneskelig likhet eksisterer ikke i noen målbar vitenskapelig, legal, materiell, intelektuell, seksuell eller spirituell form.

8. Alt-Høyre baserer seg på vitenskapelighet. Den aksepterer de nåverende konklusjoner gjort av den vitenskapelige metode, samtidig som den forstår at a) disse konklusjonene er åpne til fremtidig revisjon, b) at vitenskapen er sårbar mot korrupsjon, og c) at den såkalte vitenskapelige oppsluttingen er ikke basert på den vitenskapelige metode, men demokrati, og er derfor, per definisjon,
uvitenskapelig.

9. Alt-Høyre mener Identitet > Kultur > Politikk.

10. Alt-Høyre er mot styring eller dominering av noen tilhørende nativ etnisk gruppe av en annen, spesielt i det suverene hjemlandet til det dominerte folket. Alt-Høyre motstår enhver ikke-nativ etnisk gruppes oppnåelse av overflødig innflytelse i noe som helst samfunn gjennom nepotisme, tribalisme, eller andre metoder.

11. Alt-Høyre forstår at mangfold + nærhet = krig.

12. Alt-Høyre bryr seg ikke om hva du tror om den.

13. Alt-Høyre avviser internasjonal fri-handel, og den frie bevegelsen av mennesker fri-handel krever. Fordelene av intra-nasjonal handel er ikke bevis for fordelene av internasjonal fri-handel.

14. Alt-Høyre mener vi må sikre hvite folks eksistens, og en fremtid for hvite barn.

15. Alt-Høyre tror ikke på noen generell overlegenhet av noen rase, nasjon, folk eller undergruppe. Alle raser, nasjoner, folk og menneskelige undergrupper har sine egne unike styrker og svakheter, og innehar sin egen suverene rett til å bo uantastet i den native kulturen den foretrekker.

16. Alt-Høyre er en filosofi som versetter fred mellom verdens nasjoner og motsetter seg krigføring for å påtvinge en nasjons verdier på en annen, samt forsøk på utrydding av individuelle nasjoner gjennom krig, folkemord, immigrering eller genetisk assimilering.

TL:DR; Alt-Høyre er en Vestlig ideologi som tror på vitenskap, historie, virkeligher og en genetisk nasjons rett til å eksistere og styre seg selv i sin egen interesse.

Αλτ Δεξιά: 16 Θέσεις

Εναλλακτική ή “Αλτ” Δεξιά: 16 Θέσεις

  1. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά, ή “Αλτ” Δεξιά, είναι μέρος της πολιτικής δεξιάς της Αμερικής αλλά και των Ευρωπαϊκών χωρών. Σοσιαλιστές, προοδευτικοί, φιλελεύθεροι, κομμουνιστές, Μαρξιστές, πολιτιστικοί Μαρξιστές και νεοσυντηρητικοί δεν ανήκουν στην Εναλλακτική Δεξιά.
  2. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι μια ΕΝΑΛΛΑΚΤΙΚΗ επιλογή στο επικρατούν συντηρητικό κίνημα των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών το οποίο ονομαστικά συνοψίζεται στις 10 Συντηρητικές Αρχές του Ράσελ Κερκ, όμως στην πραγματικότητα έχει ολισθήσει προς τον προοδευτισμό. Είναι επίσης μια εναλλακτική επιλογή στον φιλελευθερισμό.
  3. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά δεν τηρεί αμυντική στάση και απορρίπτει την ιδέα της ευγενούς και έντιμης ήττας. Είναι μία επιθετική φιλοσοφία με κάθε έννοια της λέξης. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά πιστεύει στη νίκη μέσω επιμονής, όντας ταυτόχρονα σε πλήρη αρμονία με την επιστήμη, την πραγματικότητα, τις παραδόσεις και τα διδάγματα της ιστορίας.
  4. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά πιστεύει ότι ο Δυτικός Πολιτισμός είναι το απόγειο των ανθρώπινων επιτευγμάτων και στηρίζει τις τρεις θεμελιώδεις βάσεις του: τον Χριστιανισμό, τα Ευρωπαϊκά έθνη και την Ελληνο-Ρωμαϊκή κληρονομιά.
  5. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι ανοιχτά και απροκάλυπτα εθνικιστική. Υποστηρίζει όλα τα είδη εθνικισμών και το δικαίωμα όλων των εθνών να υπάρχουν, ομογενή και ανόθευτα από ξένη εισβολή και μετανάστευση.
  6. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι ενάντια στην παγκοσμιοποίηση. Τάσσεται ενάντια σε κάθε οργάνωση που δρα με βάση τέτοια ιδεώδη, ή ακολουθεί στόχους υπέρ της.
  7. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά απορρίπτει την ιδέα της Ισότητας για τον ίδιο λόγο που απορρίπτει την ιδέα των μονόκερων και των καλικάτζαρων, έχοντας διαπιστώσει ότι η ανθρώπινη ισότητα δεν υπάρχει με καμία επιστημονική, νομική, υλική, νοητική, σεξουαλική ή πνευματική μορφή.
  8. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι επιστημονική. Δέχεται τα σύγχρονα συμπεράσματα της επιστημονικής μεθόδου, ενώ κατανοεί ότι α) αυτά τα συμπεράσματα ενδέχεται να αλλάξουν στο μέλλον, β) η επιστημονική κοινότητα είναι ευάλωτη στη διαφθορά, και γ) η λεγόμενη ομοφωνία των επιστημόνων δε βασίζεται στην επιστήμη, αλλά στη δημοκρατία, και συνεπώς είναι θεμελιωδώς μη επιστημονική.
  9. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά πιστέυει πως Ταυτότητα > Κουλτούρα > Πολιτική
  10. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά αντιτίθεται στον έλεγχο ή στην ξένη κυριαρχία ενός γηγενούς πληθυσμού από κάποιον άλλον, ιδιαίτερα στην πατρίδα του γηγενούς αυτού πληθυσμού. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά αντιτίθεται σε οποιοδήποτε μη-γηγενές φύλο να αποκτά υπερβολική επιρροή σε μια κοινωνία μέσω νεποτισμού, φυλετικής αλληλεγγύης, ή άλλου τρόπου.
  11. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά αντιλαμβάνεται ότι Διαφορετικότητα + Εγγύτητα = Σύγκρουση
  12. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά δε νοιάζεται τι πιστεύεις γι’ αυτήν.
  13. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά απορρίπτει το διεθνές ελεύθερο εμπόριο και την ελεύθερη μετακίνηση λαών με την οποία αυτό συνεπάγεται. Τα οφέλη του ελεύθερου εμπορίου στο εσωτερικό μιας χώρας δεν είναι απόδειξη για τα οφέλη του ελεύθερου εμπορίου μεταξύ διαφορετικών χωρών.
  14. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά πιστεύει ότι πρέπει να διαφυλάξουμε την ύπαρξη της λευκής φυλής και ένα μέλλον για τους λευκούς απογόνους της.
  15. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά δεν πιστεύει στη γενική ανωτερότητα καμίας φυλής, έθνους, λαού ή υποείδους. Κάθε φυλή, έθνος, λαός και ανθρώπινο υποείδος έχει τις δικές του μοναδικές δυνάμεις και αδυναμίες, και κατέχει το δικαίωμα να παραμείνει ανόθευτο στην ντόπια κουλτούρα που προτιμά.
  16. Η Εναλλακτική Δεξιά είναι μια φιλοσοφία που εκτιμά την ειρήνη ανάμεσα στα έθνη του κόσμου και αντιτίθεται σε πολέμους που έχουν σκοπό να επιβάλλουν τις αξίες ενός έθνους σε ένα άλλο, καθώς και σε κάθε προσπάθεια αφάνισης ενός έθνους μέσω πολέμου, γενοκτονίας, μετανάστευσης η γενετικής αφομοίωσης.

Direita Alternativa: 16 Pontos

1. A direita alternativa situa-se
ideologicamente à direita. Socialistas não pertencem à direita
alternativa. Progressistas não pertencem à direita alternativa.
Liberais não pertencem à direita alternativa. Comunistas,
marxistas, marxistas culturais e neoconservadores não pertencem à
direita alternativa.
2. A direita alternativa é uma
alternativa ao movimento conservador vigente nos EUA, cujos
princípios se encontram nominalmente encapsulados nos 10
princípios conservadores de Russel Kirk, mas
que acabou por regredir para o progressismo. É também uma
alternativa ao libertarismo.
3. A direita alternativa não é uma
atitude defensiva e rejeita o conceito da derrota nobre e íntegra. É
uma filosofia ofensiva vanguardista, em todas as acepções do termo.
A direita alternativa acredita na vitória através da persistência
e de um estado de harmonia com a ciência, a realidade, a tradição
cultural e as lições da História.
4. A direita alternativa crê que a
civilização ocidental é o auge das conquistas da Humanidade e
apoia os seus três pilares fundamentais: o Cristianismo, as nações
europeias e o legado greco-romano.
5. A direita alternativa é aberta e
declaradamente nacionalista. Apoia todos os nacionalismos e o direito
de todas as nações a existirem de forma homogénea e não
adulterada pela invasão e imigração estrangeiras.
6. A direita alternativa é
anti-globalista. Opõe-se a todos os grupos que pugnam pelos ideais e
objectivos globalistas.
7. A direita alternativa é
anti-igualitária. Rejeita a noção de igualdade pelo mesmo motivo
que rejeita a noção de unicórnios e duendes, ciente de que a
igualdade entre humanos não existe em qualquer forma observável,
seja ela científica, legal, material, intelectual, sexual ou
espiritual.
8. A direita alternativa apoia o
método científico. Aceita as conclusões vigentes do método
científico, mas compreende que a) estas conclusões estão sujeitas
a serem revistas no futuro, b) a ciência é susceptível à
corrupção, e c) o dito consenso científico não é baseado em
ciência, mas em democracia, e que, como tal, é intrinsecamente
não-científico.
9. A direita alternativa acredita que
a política se subordina à cultura, que, por sua vez, se subordina à
identidade.
10. A direita alternativa opõe-se ao
governo ou domínio de qualquer grupo étnico nativo por qualquer
outro, sobretudo na terra natal do povo dominado. A direita
alternativa opõe-se à obtenção de influência excessiva de
qualquer grupo étnico não-nativo numa sociedade, seja através do
nepotismo, do tribalismo ou de qualquer outro método.
11. A direita alternativa compreende
que a diversidade aliada à proximidade leva à guerra.
12. A direita alternativa não quer
saber o que dela pensam.
13. A direita alternativa rejeita o
livre comércio internacional e a liberdade de circulação que o
livre comércio exige. Os benefícios do livre comércio
intranacional não são prova dos benefícios do livre
comércio internacional.
14. A direita alternativa crê que há
que assegurar a existência dos povos de ascendência europeia e um
futuro para as crianças de ascendência europeia.
15. A direita alternativa não crê
na superioridade geral de qualquer raça, nação, povo ou
subespécie. Cada raça, nação, povo e subespécie tem as suas
próprias forças e fraquezas, e detém o direito soberano de viver
em paz na cultura nativa que prefere.
16. A direita alternativa é uma
filosofia que valoriza a paz entre as várias nações do mundo e que
se opõe a guerras que se destinam a impor os valores de uma nação
noutras, bem como tentativas de exterminar nações individuais
através da guerra, do genocídio, da imigração ou assimilação
genética.

Em suma, a direita alternativa é uma
ideologia ocidental que acredita na ciência, na história, na
realidade, o direito das nações genéticas a existirem e a
governarem-se de acordo com os seus próprios interesses.

The Alt-Right is not Freddy Krueger

We don’t go away when you close your eyes and turn your back in a nightmare. But that won’t stop (((Jonah Goldberg))) from trying to ignore the Alt-Right:

My first column of the week was on how conservatives should not contaminate themselves by making room for the alt-right. I discussed the subject at great length with Hugh Hewitt on the air the other day, and I think the conversation is worth listening to. I won’t recycle all of that here, but I do want to clarify something. I do not think that “Trump supporter” and “alt-right” are synonymous terms. In fact, I’ve been very clear that they are not. Contrary to what Trump supporters claim, however, the alt-right is not some made up “bogeyman.” It is a thing. It may be vastly more insignificant than its proponents — and Hillary Clinton — claim, but that should make it easier to draw bright lines around it, particularly when they insist they want nothing to do with us and what we believe.

I see no reason to give an inch to the alt-righters’ effort to create an alt-white consciousness based upon the pigments of their imagination. By their own words, the alt-righters want to destroy and replace classical liberalism and modern conservatism and replace it with some tribal “identitarian” understanding of whiteness as a unifying concept. In this it shares the same modes of thought as the radical racialist Left. Hence, its real goal is to not just turn the alt-right into the Right, pure and simple, but to transform the consciousness of all white Americans — and white people everywhere — into racial jingoists.

That’s not who white Americans are, thank God, and I see no reason to give an inch to the alt-righters’ effort to create an alt-white consciousness based upon the pigments of their imagination. I think the wisest course would be to ignore it utterly, but thanks to the demons the Trump campaign has aroused — and even hired — that hasn’t been possible. I think it will be again, soon enough.

 It’s fascinating to see (((Jonah))) declare “that’s not who white Americans are” instead of “that’s not who we are.” It’s almost as fascinating to see him utilizing Obama’s rhetoric and following Hillary Clinton’s lead in order to claim that the Alt-Right are the real Leftists.

That should prove about as effective as previous cuckservative lines such as “Democrats are the real racists” and “Donald Trump is no true conservative”. Ricky Vaughan nailed it:

Ricky Vaughn ‏@Ricky_Vaughn99
Unoriginal Cuckservative: “the alt-right hurt my feelings”


6 months later


Unoriginal cuckservative: “the alt-right are the REAL SJWs”

However, (((Jonah))) mischaracterizes our position, to the extent that the Alt-Right can even be said to have a single position in this regard. It is not our goal to transform the consciousness of all white Americans into racial jingoists. It is merely our expectation that as an inevitable result of the policies advanced by the Left and supported by the cuckservative Right, “white American” will become the dominant political identity in America.

We are not transformatives, we are, rather, observational realists. We don’t need to destroy classical liberalism and modern conservatism, we have only to distinguish ourselves from them as they complete the process of self-destruction that was always intrinsic to their self-contradictory logics.

And the inherent falsehood in (((Jonah)’s position is revealed in the phrase “the pigments of their imagination”. Who is relying upon Leftist modes of thought now? Skin color exists. DNA exists. Race exists. Nations exist. But the various concepts upon which (((Jonah)))’s conservativism relies, equality, the melting pot, Judeo-Christian values, and a nation of immigrants, do not.

Since (((Jonah))) sees no reason to give an inch to science, history, and reality, it should not be surprising that both his movement and his personal brand are in descent, if not freefall. He asserts it will soon be possible to ignore the Alt-Right.

I don’t think so. In fact, I think that in 10 years time, Vox Popoli will have more readers than National Review.

Straight from the source

The Daily Stormer’s guide to the Alt-Right:

An Accurate History of the Alt-Right

Roughly four years ago, a new type of White nationalist movement began to form on the internet. This was mostly made-up of young people who were formulating ideas with minimal influence from prior White nationalist movements.

It was a situation of different online subcultures (some of which were influenced by older offline movements) coming together. These groups collided, based on their having reached common conclusions, and the result is what is now called the Alt-Right.

I am going to layout here these various factions, and what ultimately led them toward this center-point where we have all met. The campaign of Donald Trump is effectively the nexus of that centerpoint.

Note that there is quite a bit of overlap between these various communities, with many people – myself included – having traveled through more than one. Breaking them down into specific categories just makes it easier to grasp the overall development of the different threads of thought.

While there will no doubt be those who are uncomfortable with the more extreme elements of the Alt-Right, particularly on the part of conservatives and libertarians who would totally join it if only it didn’t involve making common cause with those people, it is absolutely necessary to adopt a variant of the principle of Ronald Reagan, which is no enemies on the Right. A tendency to delicately recoil from anyone willing to articulate, let alone actually fight for, their own people’s interests is one of the fatal flaws of conservatism, which at its core is little more than an aesthetic philosophy of noble defeat.

We are Aristotelians here, after all. A is A, and A cannot be Not-A. So, either guilt-by-association is legitimate and applicable to everyone or it is illegitimate and cannot be applied to anyone. This means that if being Alt-Right makes you a member of the German National Socialist Workers Party and an anti-Semite responsible for the Holocaust by association, then keep in mind that being a Jew, a Christian Zionist, an anti-racist, or a philosemite makes you one of these fine gentlemen by association.

Old Jew: They are animals. The non-Jews are animals. Beasts. It is written.


Reporter: It is not written here.


Old Jew:It is written… ah, you are right. It isn’t written. There is an explanation why they are.


Reporter: Hold on, that is what I want to understand.


Old Jew:It says “you are called human and the non-Jews are not called human”, that is what is written.


Reporter: Not called human?


Old Jew:We don’t call them human.


Reporter: So what do we call them?


Old Jew:Human is in the image of God. Human is something that is different from animals. If a person acts like an animal, so he is like an animal. Each person needs to control himself. The Jews control themselves. If the evil inclination tells them to do something and they don’t do it, so then he is a person, because he has intellect.


Reporter: So someone who is not Jewish, who does what is good, is he a person or is he not a person?


Old Jew:Also, he needs to do normal things.

Reporter: What I don’t understand is, all the non-Jews are, how did you call them?


Old Jew: Beasts. If they have no direction.


Young Jew: The word human refers to the image of God. He is the image of God. That is the meaning of “human”. We changed it, meaning the Jewish people changed it, to acting more humane. You need to act like a human being, but in principle it is based on God, and people are based on God because we are in His image so He called us human. The non-Jews are… God made them so they will….


Old Jew: So they will serve the Jews. All the non-Jews that you see all around the world, the billions, they exist just for the Jew’s benefit. We don’t see it so we don’t know exactly.


Young Jew:  Hold on. Today we are still in exile, so automatically they don’t yet serve us completely. Only partially.


Old Jew: When the Messiah will come each one of us will have… how many?


Young Jew: Thousands. Hundreds.


Old Jew: 2,800 slaves.


Reporter: In the meantime, the Messiah is not here, so how do they serve us now?


Young Jew: They build us cars. We don’t know. Apartments, buildings. They do everything.


Reporter: Who do they build for?


Young Jew: Us. They serve the Jews.


Reporter: There are also Jews who do that work.


Young Jew: Hardly any.

Now, consider the following questions:

  1. Are you a subhuman beast?
  2. Do you accept the assertion that you, your children, or your grandchildren are destined to be one of a Jew’s 2,800 slaves?
  3. Do you exist solely “for the Jew’s benefit”?

Now, if you answered “no” to any of those questions, does that make you a Nazi and an anti-Semite?

What I found particularly interesting is that some sites explicitly claim that the anti-Gentile quotes from the Talmud, including the one about 2,800 slaves, are fake, so either the video is an elaborate hoax or the debunking sites are knowingly attempting to deceive those looking for the truth. The fact that Judaism is a religion of ethnic supremacy should also make it clear that there is nothing “Judeo-Christian” about the America that was founded to recognize “No King but Jesus”. Christians are advised to bless Israel and refrain from cursing it, they are nowhere commanded to serve the Jews as slaves.

Don’t try to play the NAJALT game, especially not if you’ve already claimed that the Alt-Right are all Nazis because Stormfront and Pepe. I do not accept the evil and dishonest principle of “rules for thee but not for me” because A can never be Not-A. As I have repeatedly observed with regards to the Rabid Puppies campaign against the SF-SJWs, the use of a tactic against us automatically legitimates our use of it. The Alt-Right does not believe in noble defeat. The Alt-Right believes in winning. Throw a swastika at us, we’ll throw Le Happy Merchant right back at you without a moment’s hesitation. Or a swastika, for that matter.

Now, where I part company with the Stormfronters is that I don’t believe the Jews are the root of all evil on this planet. I believe that Man’s fallen nature and the Prince of this World are, and that the obnoxious pride of the people represented in that video is merely one of many manifestations of Man’s sinful folly. But regardless, only a suicidal madman or a dedicated virtue-signaler would oppose or restrain any opponent of the dehumanization and literal enslavement of more than 7 billion people on the planet.

If you can’t bring yourself to stand up against your own dehumanization for fear that someone, somewhere, might retroactively blame the Holocaust on you, then perhaps they are right and you are a slave. You certainly wear their chains upon your mind.

Whatever your particular strain of Alt-Right may be, you should have no trouble agreeing with the conclusion of Anglin’s article.

As long as everyone involved keeps doing exactly what they’re doing right now, we can only continue to expand. There is no other option. Our ideas are winning. The only threat of failure is if in trying to go mainstream we decide to compromise. However, because of the nature of this internet-based movement, where the mob has a very real voice and can say it loudly when they disagree with the direction something is going in, there is not any real chance anyone pushing a compromise could be successful.


No matter who you are, no matter what you are, if you are a thinking man or woman, sooner or later you are going to have to make a fundamental decision. Am I going to serve the truth and follow it wherever it leads me, or am I going to give up and accept the lies with which I am bombarded on a daily basis? Never forget, it is the broad and easy way that leads to destruction, not the hard and narrow one.

NRx and AltRight

Although a few people have attempted to shoehorn me into the “Dark Enlightenment” or classify me as a “Neoreactionary”, I’ve never considered myself part of NRx like I do the AltRight. That’s mostly because I don’t think NRx exists in the same material manner that the AltRight clearly does, and also because I find its preference for elevated Akademiesprache to be obscurantist faggotry, to put it in AltRight terms. And frankly, Butch Leghorn’s attempt to delineate the essential differences between the two doesn’t appear to be particularly meaningful, as he attempts to do so primarily on the basis of social class.

NRx is Middle Class

According to Curt’s table, NRx is middle class. Some might take offense and argue that it is upper-middle class. Sure, the leaders of NRx are likely upper-middle class, but the average NRxer is solidly middle class. Software engineering is a middle class profession. People who run teams of middle class professionals are upper-middle class (CTOs, CIOs, CEOs, Directors, etc). The middle class is not a salary range: it is an ability range. The middle class are those who have the ability to engage in the system of production. This is why the middle class seeks liberty: because given freedom to choose their means of production, they will choose and perform, because they can. As an aside, this is why working classes are less interested in liberty, because they simply can’t capitalize on it within the system of production to nearly the level of the middle class. And the lower and under classes have zero interest in liberty, because they are completely unable to capitalize within the system of production; they desire security, not liberty (and that’s what self-interested politicians trade them in return for votes).

We can argue about the parameters of classes, and we should. We should define them. We need to understand their roles and to define the behaviors that makes one a ‘good’ member of any class, because these behaviors and actors do exist in every class. We just need to incentivize them properly, which is why we must define and understand them.

The middle class has certain behaviors which make them middle class. They follow norms of propriety. I was right when I wrote that NRx is Right Brahmin Signalling. From the SJW encyclopedia: “Brahmin is a varna (caste) in Hinduism specialising as priests, teachers (acharya) and protectors of sacred learning across generations”. NRx is a group of teachers and priests, solidly middle class and exhibiting middle class mores and norms, such as the prohibition on ridicule, mockery, libel and slander.

AltRight is Working Class

The working classes do not share the middle class values and prohibitions on ridicule, mockery, libel and slander. I have seen very clearly the revulsion of NRx to the coarse meming of the AltRight. The NRx aspersions about ‘populism’ of the AltRight. This is simply the middle class reaction to working class norms.

The thing is: the middle class needs the working class. They will do the jobs that the middle class just won’t do. Say, for example, openly attack with vitriolic hostility the enemies of Western Civilization using Pepe and Le Happy Merchant memes. Or say, engage in ‘high energy’ physical activities which raise the cost of the status quo on the controlling elite. Once the cost of the status quo is high enough, then that controlling elite will accede to the demands of the Right. Who will formulate these demands? Ultimately, the aristocratic class will, with large input from the scholarly classes. Who will implement these demands at the local levels? Obviously, the people who organize all production, the middle class, under the direction of the upper middle class, with the ‘real’ work being done by the working classes at the direction of the middle class.

This strikes me as a failure to grasp the AltRight, much as various attempts by everyone from NPR to NRO have failed, albeit a considerably more friendly failure. Actually, to be fair, it’s considerably better than NPR managed, as NPR somehow managed to get itself so confused that it declared Milo and Allum to be the joint leaders of the AltRight, which was certainly a surprise to both of them as well as everyone else.

While Butch is correct to observe that AltRight is not beholden to conventional middle class concerns about niceness and etiquette and public approval from the authorities and goodthinkers, he fails to observe that the AltRight is, despite its exuberant vulgarity, every bit as intellectually formidable as NRx. Indeed, even the mainstream media has felt the need to warn the unsuspecting and the uninformed not to underestimate us simply because we utilize frog memes and some of the most appallingly crude forms of rhetoric.

I have nothing against NRx, and indeed, consider them to be more or less allies, but the idea that we need them in order to formulate a moral license to defend our nations or Western civilization is simply not the case. Butch himself says that “NRx will become an integral part in granting this moral license or it will fade into irrelevancy”, which is why I expect that the compatible elements of NRx will eventually be subsumed by the AltRight, while the incompatible elements – and I have no idea which elements are compatible and which are not – will become increasingly irrelevant over time.

The AltRight has high energy, it has enthusiasm, it has talent, it has brains, and most importantly, it has courage. It understands that it has very little, if anything, to lose, because if the West fails, the future is favelas as far as the eye can see. We have no need of delicate middle-class intellectuals to do our thinking for us because they daren’t soil their uncalloused hands with the necessary dirty work.

To paraphrase #GamerGate, stop pontificating, shut up, and meme.

The new William F. Buckley

It’s a bit ironic. Universal Press Syndicate signed me to a syndication contract with the idea that I would gradually come to replace their big syndicate star, William F. Buckley, because they considered me to be the most intellectually formidable of the “young” columnists then on the political scene. Needless to say, that didn’t happen, as they were totally unable to place my column anywhere except, briefly, with the Dallas Morning News.

As it turns out, it’s Jonah Goldberg who has turned out to be the true heir to William F. Buckley, as he is attempting to repeat his predecessor’s example in reading the 160,000-strong John Birch Society out of the conservative movement in a column entitled “Time to John Birch the Alt-Right“.

There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.

If you read the writings of leading alt-righters, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. Some are avowed white supremacists. Some eschew talk of supremacy and instead focus on the need for racial separation to protect “white identity.” But one can’t talk about the alt-right knowledgeably without recognizing their racism.

And yet that is exactly what some conservatives seem intent on doing. For example, my friend Hugh Hewitt, the influential talk-radio host, has been arguing that there is a “narrow” alt-right made up of a “execrable anti-Semitic, white supremacist fringe” but also a “broad alt-right” made up of frustrated tea partiers and others who are simply hostile to the GOP establishment and any form of immigration reform that falls short of mass deportation.

This isn’t just wrong, it’s madness. The alt-righters are a politically insignificant band. Why claim that a group dedicated to overthrowing conservatism for a white-nationalist fantasy is in fact a member of the conservative coalition? Why muddy a distinction the alt-righters are eager to keep clear?

In the 1960s, the fledgling conservative movement was faced with a similar dilemma. The John Birch Society was a paranoid outfit dedicated to the theory that the U.S. government was controlled by communists. It said even Dwight Eisenhower was a Red (to which the conservative political theorist Russell Kirk replied, “Ike’s not a Communist, he’s a golfer”).

William F. Buckley recognized that the Birchers were being used by the liberal media to “anathematize the entire American right wing.” At first, his magazine, National Review (where I often hang my hat), tried to argue that the problem was just a narrow “lunatic fringe” of Birchers, and not the rank and file. But very quickly, the editors recognized that the broader movement needed to be denounced and defenestrated.

Jonah even went on his friend Hugh Hewitt’s show and tried to get him to sign on to a campaign against the Alt-Right, to which Hugh, through either common sense, or, more likely, cowardice and fear of losing part of his audience, was obviously reluctant to endorse:

HH: We have been having a Twitter back and forth, and I actually don’t think we disagree. We just disagree maybe on a statement of the facts. Would you define the alt right?

JG: I know what you’re about to do. And then you’re going to say well, there’s this other version of the alt right. I am willing to defer to the definition of the alt right that the people who created and lead the alt right movement use, which is an, the one thing that unites them, Jared Taylor was on Diane Rehm the other day. Jared Taylor is a leading racist…

HH: Good. Please.

JG: …a member of the white alt right. And he says that there are a lot of different views among the alt right. Some are Christian, some are Odinists. Some are this, some are that. But the one thing they all agree on is what they call racial realism, or racialism, which is just a social science sounding term for racism. They believe that, if you read Richard Host, if you read Richard Spencer at the NPI, who leads an alt right think tank, if you actually read the people who created the term, who have been pushing this stuff, the one thing they all agree on is that we need to organize this society on the assumption that white people are genetically superior, or that white culture is inherently superior, and that we should have either state-imposed or culturally-imposed segregation between the races, no race mixing with the lower brown people. And I take them at their word, that that’s the stuff that they believe. And I think rather than poisoning or blurring that distinction, we should take them at their word and say we want nothing to do with any of that. And I know that you want nothing to do with any of that. I don’t dispute that for a moment. Where I disagree with you is this idea that we should sort of talk about this broader alt right that is just for the wall, or likes Donald Trump. No. What we should say is this is not your group to them, too. These are not disaffected tea partiers. These are people who we have a fundamental, first principle disagreement with. And any movement that has them in it, doesn’t have me in it, and vice versa.

HH: I agree 100% with that. Now does the term alt right get used exclusively in that fashion?

JG: No, which is one of the things that we should be doing, is we should be helping sharpen the distinction, not blur the distinction. I agree with you. There are a lot of people who don’t know what the alt right is. I live in these swamps. I’ve been having these fights for 20 years. I didn’t hear the term alt right until Donald Trump came up. But I know a lot of the people behind the alt right, because I’ve been getting it, they’ve been attacking me and then saying nasty anti-Semitic stuff to me since I started working at National Review. I mean, people are like, the guys at VDARE and these other places, they’ve all coalesced around this idea of the alt right, and it is not a coalitional idea where they want to be part of the conservative movement. It’s that they want to replace the conservative movement.

HH: And they have to be driven out of the Republican Party.

JG: Yes.

HH: I’m speaking as a partisan now. As William F. Buckley led the effort to drive the Birchers out of the party, so must genuine conservatives drive out what you and I agree is the core alt right.

JG: Right.

HH: In the process of doing that, I do not want people who are not familiar with how you and I believe it to be understood by the people who invented the term to think that they are being exiled. That is my fear, because I believe a lot of people, and I’ve seen it everywhere I go, say they are alt right, and they don’t know that Jonah Goldberg would then classify them as supremacist.

JG: Well, I wouldn’t necessarily classify them as supremacists, either. I would classify them as wrong.

HH: Yes.

JG: They’re using the term wrong. And in politics, you know, specifically, you know, I wrote a whole book which you were very kind to about the importance of labels and why they matter, and the importance of ideology and why it matters, and that we shouldn’t fall into this thing that labels don’t matter. Labels matter a great deal. The labels you choose for yourself matter a great deal. And sometimes, people choose their labels incorrectly. And so rather than say, rather than work from the assumption that someone says they’re an alt-righter, and say well, you know, I don’t know that that means you’re a racist, I would say well, what did you, you know, educate them. And people need to be educated about this.

It’s rather like watching monkeys puzzle over a computer and start licking the keyboard and putting the mouse in their mouths in order to figure out how to make it work. It is two long time ideologists trying, and failing, to make sense of identity politics. And speaking of identity, how many of the growing number of people who describe themselves as Alt-Right, who watch Stefan’s videos or read Richard Spencer’s articles or listen to The Right Stuff or Red Ice podcats or look over my 16 Points with approval, do you believe to be so concerned that Jonah Goldberg – Jonah F. Goldberg! – would classify them as supremacists that they will flee from the brand with all due alacrity?

This is AAA Grade cuckservative projection: the belief that the key to all persuasion is to convince the other person that failing to do as you want will lead to someone calling you racist.

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

Jonah isn’t as stupid as he sometimes appears to be. He understands, as he makes clear in the Hewitt interview, that he cannot expect to be as successful in banishing the Alt-Right from the public discourse or the Republican Party as Buckley was in purging the Birchers from the conservative movement. He knows we have no interest in being a part of it; any lingering doubts about the rhetorical effectiveness of “cuckservative” should be put to rest by that glorious moment when Hewitt recoils in horror from the mere mention of it and prissily hisses “Oh, I hate that!”

The cuckservatives fear and hate the Alt-Right for one simple reason. We are not their friends. We are not their allies. We are their replacements. They like to call us Nazis, well, to extend the Nazi analogy a bit further, conservatives are the Hindenburg party, in both senses of the term.

And as Mr. X pointed out on Twitter: “Everyone shouting “Birchers” like getting rid of them was great should remember that they were mostly right about communists in government.”

More (((American))) history

In response to my pointing out the self-serving historical revisionism of certain (((immigrants))), several people claimed that not only were there several Jews involved in the Revolutionary War, but that the war would not have been won without the financing of a Polish Jew by the name of Haym Solomon, who, I was informed, was “the primary financier” of the war.

Several of them cited a theme that I subsequently noticed on Twitter:

Mac ‏@Macdad25
Haym Solomon was instrumental in financing the US in the Revolutionary War. So thank a Jew today

Mordechai Lightstone‏@Motte
@Yair_Rosenberg is @bryanjfischer aware that Jews helped win the Revolutionary War, including Haym Solomon who helped finance it?

 Ina Gilmore ‏@inagilmore
Reading: Forgotten Patriot The Story of Haym Solomon by David Allen Lewis. Financed Revolutionary War with over 40 billion US 2005 dollars

The implied idea that this forgotten patriot merited mention with the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson due to his “instrumental”, and indeed, presumably single-handed financing of the war struck me as highly unlikely, although I supposed that since Messrs. (((Greenspan))), (((Bernanke))) and Ms (((Yellen))) have effectively destroyed 97 percent of the value of the current U.S. dollar, it was not entirely unthinkable that Mr. (((Haym))) might have been involved in whatever led to the phrase “not worth a Continental”. However, this notion was easily determined to be incorrect.

As is my custom once my B.S. detector is triggered, I looked into the documented facts of the matter. I learned the truth is that Haym Solomon was, in fact, a legitimate Revolutionary War hero. He was a spy, he was captured by the British twice, he risked his life for the colonial cause, and as the agent to the French consul as well as the paymaster for the French forces in North America, he was able to broker the sale of bills of exchange from France and Holland and help Robert Morris raise money for the war.

In all, he raised $650,000, a not-insubstantial sum, which amounts to $16,644,272.43 in 2015 dollars. (1913 to 2015 data is the CPI. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is from a historical study by  Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.)

However, it is also worth mentioning that $650,000 was 1/1327th of the total $862,688,500 that the Journal of the American Revolution estimates was spent by the Continental Congress and various other revolutionary parties on the Revolutionary War. To say that Mr. Haym’s contribution to the winning effort is exaggerated by the revisionists is to put it mildly. And note that most of the significant efforts to honor that contribution were made more than 150 years later, well after the revisionists had begun rewriting American history.

  • In 1939, Warner Brothers released Sons of Liberty, a short film starring Claude Rains as Salomon.
  • In 1941, the writer Howard Fast wrote a book Haym Salomon, Son of Liberty.
  • In 1941, the Heald Square Monument, a sculpture designed by Lorado Taft was erected at Wacker Drive and Wabash Avenue in downtown Chicago. Taft began the work but died in 1936. It was completed by his associate, Leonard Crunelle. The monument depicts George Washington flanked by Salomon and Robert Morris and grasping hands with both men.
  • In 1943, the United States liberty ship SS Haym Salomon was named in his honor
  • In 1946, a memorial statue was erected to Salomon at Hollenbeck Park in Los Angeles. The statue was rededicated in 2008 at Pan-Pacific Park in the Fairfax District, where it can be found on the corner of Gardner and Third Street.

In summary, Haym Soloman’s legitimately heroic contributions to the American Revolution have been coopted, exaggerated, and weaponized as rhetoric in order to further the false historical revisionism of the deceitful, self-serving (((proponents))) of “the melting pot”, “the nation of immigrants”, and “Judeo-Christian values”. And those exaggerated contributions are now cited by various opponents of the Alt-Right in a futile effort to obscure the historical fact of America having been founded as a very real White and Christian nation, both material and distinct from the current multi-ethnic imperial state known as the USA.

These revisionist efforts are somewhat ironic, because Solomon’s domestic political efforts tend to support the Alt-Right’s perspective on history, identity politics, and the predictable effects of non-native interference in politics.

  • In 1783, Salomon was among the prominent Jews involved in the successful effort to have the Pennsylvania Council of Censors remove the religious test oath required for office-holding under the State Constitution.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Furthermore, of the 376,000 Continental soldiers and militia members who fought in the Revolutionary War, less than 100 were Jews. It is also interesting to note that only 7,000 blacks fought for the revolutionaries, versus 20,000 blacks who fought for the British.