Tag: #AltRight

Chinese for “SJW”

BAIZUO is the Chinese term for SJW. Good to know in case we decide to publish Chinese editions of SJWAL and the forthcoming SJWADD.

If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it’s impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo, or literally, the ‘white left’. It first emerged about two years ago, and yet has quickly become one of the most popular derogatory descriptions for Chinese netizens to discredit their opponents in online debates.

So what does ‘white left’ mean in the Chinese context, and what’s behind the rise of its (negative) popularity? It might not be an easy task to define the term, for as a social media buzzword and very often an instrument for ad hominem attack, it could mean different things for different people. A thread on “why well-educated elites in the west are seen as naïve “white left” in China” on Zhihu, a question-and-answer website said to have a high percentage of active users who are professionals and intellectuals, might serve as a starting point.

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the ‘white left’. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.  

Apart from some anti-hegemonic sentiments, the connotations of ‘white left’ in the Chinese context clearly resemble terms such as ‘regressive liberals’ or ‘libtards’ in the United States. In a way the demonization of the ‘white left’ in Chinese social media may also reflect the resurgence of right-wing populism globally.

I suspect that the demonization of SJWs in Chinese social media is a reflection of the global growth of the Alt-Right. Asians in general, and the Chinese in particular, are far more intensely nationalistic than Westerners these days, as, unlike the West, they have cast off most of the cultural Marxism that Mao inflicted upon them. Since that experience of Cultural Revolution cost over 50 million Chinese lives, it is no wonder that they are not eager for more imposed cultural change.

Although there are no shortage of Chinese SJWs in the West, who are trying to use the SJW Narrative to their immediate benefit in a foreign land, the smarter Chinese are aware of how that ever-mutating Narrative will be used against them, as indeed it already is in cases such as justifying anti-Asian discrimination in the Ivy League. Being a low-trust people themselves, they will use the Narrative when it benefits them and oppose it when it doesn’t. But in neither case will they actually take it seriously, or genuinely subscribe to social justice ideals. They know SJWs for a true enemy.

Being an astute and self-conscious people, the Chinese are perfectly aware of why the West is in decline and the various parties who are responsible for that decline. It should be no surprise that they have absolutely no intention of following the West’s failed path of equalitarianism and multiculturalism, for all that the Chinese leadership presently gives lip service to globalism and free trade.

Seen from the perspective of international relations, the anti-baizuo discourse can be understood as part of what William A. Callahan calls ‘negative soft power’, that is, constructing the Chinese self through ‘the deliberate creation and then exclusion’ of Others as ‘barbarians’ or otherwise inferior. Criticisms of the ‘white left’ against the background of the European refugee crisis fit especially well with the ‘rising China’ versus ‘Europe in decline’ narrative. According to Baidu Trends, one of the most related keywords to baizuo was huimie: “to destroy”. Articles with titles such as ‘the white left are destroying Europe’ were widely circulated. 

The Chinese Alt-Right has the potential to be an extraordinarily powerful force, and if it can keep China’s historical imperialist tendencies in check, it may prove to be a vital ally to the Alt-Right in the West in the long term.

Happy Mother’s Day

Best wishes, heartfelt gratitude, and a Happy Mother’s Day to Spacebunny and all the dedicated mothers raising the next generation of the West. These brave women fight a daily war with those who would tear them down and destroy both them and their families that is too little recognized, and they often do so with very little emotional support from anyone. The home front is the first and most important front.

One thing the Alt-Right must never forget is that the restoration of Western Civilization depends upon convincing the mothers of the European nations to cast their lot in with us rather than with the barbarians and destroyers. It is essential not to get too caught up in bitterness over feminism or negative personal experiences, but rather, to focus on the long-term objectives. The dyscivilizationists won many women over to their side, and it is up to the eucivilizationists to win them back.

Even the rabbits of Watership Down understood that a society without mothers will not survive.

RIP Pepe

Pepe the Frog has been murdered by his creator:

The creator of Pepe the Frog has symbolically killed off the cartoon frog, effectively surrendering control of the character to the far right.

Matt Furie, an artist and children’s book author, created the now-infamous frog as part of his “Boy’s Club” series on MySpace in 2005. Pepe took on a life of its own online as a meme, before being eventually adopted as a symbol by the “alt-right” in the lead-up to last year’s US election.

In September, Hillary Clinton identified Pepe the Frog as a racist hate symbol, and Pepe was added to the Anti-Defamation League’s database of hate symbols.

Furie launched a campaign to “Save Pepe”, flooding the internet with “peaceful or nice” depictions of the character in a bid to shake its association with white supremacy and antisemitism.

But he now seems to have conceded defeat, killing the character off in a one-page strip for the independent publisher Fantagraphics’ Free Comic Book Day. It showed Pepe laid to rest in an open casket, being mourned by his fellow characters from Boy’s Club.

Furie had been attempting to wrench back his “peaceful frog-dude” – whom he has often said he imagined as an extension of his personality – for more than six months. Pepe’s passing has been interpreted of his ceding control of the character.

Yeah, so, about that….

I cannot believe he didn’t see that coming. The Left has even begun to admit, reluctantly, that all their memes are belong to us.

Angela Nagle, a writer and academic whose book on the culture of the alt-right will be published at the end of next month, told the Guardian Furie’s campaign to reclaim his creation, while understandable, had been misguided.

“I can see why he must be dismayed that his own creation is being used in this way, so I don’t blame him for trying. In general though, I think it’s a dead end, yes.”“Critics of the alt-right have a tendency to try to outdo them at their own game by ‘trolling the trolls’. This should be rejected in its entirety and not ‘reclaimed’ in any way … There are many wonderful ideals for us to reclaim like beauty, utopianism, internationalism. Let them have their tedious nihilistic juvenile symbols.”

The end of libertarianism

Is clueless liberal multiculturalism, as the Z-man observes:

The reader who still cling to libertarianism have given me hell over my screed against their faith. I’m not without some sympathy for them. The core libertarian impulse to leave people alone in order to be left alone is admirable. If you are a libertarian, trying hard to live the non-aggression principle, it probably seems unfair that a hate thinker from the extreme Right is mocking your thing. I get that and I respect it to a point. That point is when I see something like this from the Pope of Modern Libertarianism.

France is becoming a Third World country because of economic policies instituted by the graduates of its finest schools, not Arabs.
– Nick Gillespie

It should be impossible to be this stupid. I suspect for most of human existence, idiots who said moronic things like this tried to hand feed bears or cuddle with large reptiles, thus eliminating themselves from the the system. There’s no other way to read this than Nick Gillespie believes some minor alterations to the French tax code will ameliorate this.

Now, does Nick Gillespie really think altering tax policy will magically transform low-IQ, inbred Muslims from the Maghreb into patriotic French republicans who work at Parisian software shops? It’s tempting to say it is just another pose, but the evidence is piling up in favor of the argument that Nick Gillespie is a stupid person. Anyone who truly believes altering tax policy will reverse a thousand generations of evolution is an idiot.

That’s the fundamental problem with modern libertarians. They believe this or they simply are incapable of mastering ground floor level biology. The reason the country of Niger is a basket case is that’s the way the people of Niger want it. It is full of Hausa. The reason Paris was Paris was that, up until recently, it was full of Parisians! Now that Paris is filling up with North Africans and Arabs, it is looking like Algeria with better plumbing.

Apparently Mr. Gillespie hasn’t actually been to Paris recently to see what those graduates of its finest schools have made of it. We see this ridiculous line from civic nationalists and even the Alt-Lite from time to time. Detroit isn’t Detroit because of its predominantly black population, but because of those damned Democratic policies! Which, of course, explains why very liberal Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are similarly crime-ridden hellholes.

Why, given the conservativism of Somali Muslims, we can expect no end of improvement in Minneapolis in no time!

This really isn’t that hard. Different people have different standards of behavior that they a) prefer and b) are willing to tolerate. Keep the apart and everyone will be fine. Force them together and you ensure conflict.

Look, I understand the appeal of libertarian ideals. I still hold them in much the same way a Marxian economist still holds to his communist ideals even though he knows the Labor Theory of Value is false and that the Workers’ Paradise will never arrive. But I understand the difference between an unattainable, utopian ideal and a functional, coherent, basis for real world policy. And only the latter is relevant to serious policy discussions.

Civic nationalism barely worked in the best of all possible circumstances and it is entirely dead in the USA now. Libertarianism was a complete non-starter. Conservatism was always designed to go down to noble defeat. It’s time to accept these things and grow up intellectually; the fate of Western civilization depends upon you doing just that.

Ensafening the streets

Ivan Throne and DARK TRIAD MAN® are pleased and proud to announce that the Safe Streets Project has gone live with the VIOLENT.SOLUTIONS technology engine! The application is available for you to register and submit reports at this link.


Antifa and Black Bloc terrorists are planning public demonstrations and gatherings around the United States. Be aware, be vigilant, be careful, and be sure you’re equipped with new app from the Safe Streets Project.


Help track and identify Antifa and Black Bloc without them even realizing you’re in the game. They can run and they can hide, but we’ll know exactly who they are and where they are.

How bad must it get?

Two National Review cucks admit some sympathy for the “reactionaries”:

Andrew Sullivan: And is it any wonder that reactionaries are gaining strength? Within the space of 50 years, America has gone from segregation to dizzying multiculturalism; from traditional family structures to widespread divorce, cohabitation, and sexual liberty; from a few respected sources of information to an endless stream of peer-to-peer media; from careers in one company for life to an ever-accelerating need to retrain and regroup; from a patriarchy to (incomplete) gender equality; from homosexuality as a sin to homophobia as a taboo; from Christianity being the common culture to a secularism no society has ever sustained before ours.

Rod Dreher: I give Sullivan a lot of credit here. It hardly needs to be pointed out that he, as a gay man, has been one of the great beneficiaries of these changes. Yet he recognizes the staggering revolutionary nature of these changes — and, because he doesn’t believe that his homosexuality is the only relevant part of his identity, he also feels the loss of the old world, to a certain extent. He grasps the self-serving delusion embraced by so many Westerners today: that progress is not only inevitable, but always a good thing. Indeed, that’s why they call it “progress.”

But what if the changes are not progress at all, but rather regress? To call it “progress” is to have a fixed goal in mind, and to believe that we are steadily moving in that inevitable direction. The British political philosopher John Gray has powerfully criticized the modern view of progress, calling it (rightly) a secularization of the Christian belief that history is headed toward a fixed conclusion. Marxism adopted this worldview, and reframed the End of History as the realization of Full Communism, and the withering of the State. Progressives today, both of the liberal and conservative variety, accept unthinkingly that history is moving towards a global paradise of free markets and free individuals all exercising maximal Choice. In this sense, there is less difference between Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton than between Ronald Reagan and a contemporary reactionary.

Sully is not, however, a neoreactionary:

Sullivan: This, of course, is not to defend the neo-reactionary response. Their veiled racism is disturbing, and their pessimism a solipsistic pathology. When Anton finds nothing in modernity to celebrate but, as he put it to me, “nice restaurants, good wine, a high standard of living,” it comes off as a kind of pose, deliberately blind to all the constant renewals of life and culture around us. When Houellebecq has one of his characters sigh, “For a man to bring a child into the world now is meaningless,” I chortle. When Dreher hyperventilates that today’s youngsters “could be one of the last generations of this thing called Western civilization” and that American Christians today must “live lives prepared to suffer severe hardship, even death, for our faith,” I take my dogs for a walk. When Yarvin insists that “if the 20th century does not go down in history as the golden age of awful government, it is only because the future holds some fresher hell for us,” I check my Instagram account. There is something hysterical here, too manically certain, bleaker than any human being can bear for long.

Well, to be clear, I don’t at all agree with Yarvin or Houellebecq, and I don’t think I agree with Anton either. Only a few years before I was born, in my Southern town apartheid was legal, and black citizens lived under a reign of terror. I’m serious: read this 1964 magazine article describing events in my own town.  A few years back, I met three Freedom Riders who had been part of those events. It really happened. Thank God those days are over.

Yet we cannot easily dismiss the words that a melancholy older black man, a taxi driver, said to me in 1993 as he drove me down a decimated avenue of Washington, DC, which was then at the peak of its murder epidemic. He told me about what it was like for him growing up in segregated DC. He pointed to storefronts and buildings that were now vacant and decaying. “That was a bakery, and that was a drugstore,” he said. “Black-owned. We had something back then.” On and on he went, describing the way this blasted-out part of town looked in his youth, and cursing the young black men who do nothing but sell drugs and shoot each other. I squirmed in the back seat listening to this older black man tell these stories to me, a young white man, but he didn’t hold back. I got the feeling that he wasn’t even paying attention to me, but was rather just musing aloud. He ended by telling me that he wasn’t sure at all that there had been progress. Yes, segregation was gone, but look around you, son, at what we black folks in DC have lost in the last thirty years.

That is a reactionary sentiment. And it’s important. I did not experience that old black taxi driver calling for the return of segregation, or lamenting its passing. I experienced him as a man aware of  human tragedy. The progressive narrative requires that the old man’s views be suppressed. But he knew what he saw all around him.

It’s really rather remarkable what these self-styled conservatives are willing to give up so that no one will call them, or their society, racist. Is the complete economic collapse of that block in Washington DC really a price worth paying to end segregation? Is the decline of Black America into a dependent feral state really worth the superficial integration and pretend equality it now enjoys?

One has to ask the question, at what point is the price of this social progress too high? Do we really have to wait until Africans are raping infants and butchering people on the street in order to practice mutu before we decide that perhaps they should not be permitted to live amongst us? Do we really have to wait until Jews own 100 percent of all the corporations and real estate before we decide that perhaps they should not be permitted to engage in usury? Do we really have to wait before Muslims impose sharia across the entire West before we decide that Charles Martel and the Spanish reconquistadors had the right idea? Do we really need to permit the Chinese to take 100 percent of the college enrollment before we decide that submitting to the rule of a Chinese provincial elite is not in our best interests?

Obviously, all of these things cannot happen; each one tends to preclude the others. But the point remains: how far is too far? The reactionary says: things have gone too far. The cuckservative says: things haven’t gone so far that it is worth risking the possibility that someone will call me racist.

Of course, the fact that Rod Dreher and Andrew Sullivan are beginning to openly admit that there is a point to “neoreaction” is an early indicator that even the cuckservatives are beginning to crack. It is already clear to everyone that the liberal democratic order has failed. Sooner, rather than later, even the cuckiest of cucks will be forced to acknowledge that what they once considered enlightened moral and social progress is, in fact, dyscivilizational regress.

Soon we will all be Alt-Right.

Like monkeys studying the space shuttle

I will say this for New York Magazine. They certainly expended no shortage of man-hours and digital ink on a long and detailed piece about the Alt-Right by Simon Van Zuylen-Wood, Noreen Malone, Max Read, Andrew Sullivan, Park Macdougald, Jason Willick, Mark Jacobson, Maureen O’Connor, Gabriel Sherman, Ben Crair, Nick Richardson, and Mark O’connell with Claire Landsbaum, Jordan Larson, Amelia Schonbek, Matt Stieb, Nick Tabor, James D. Walsh:

To understand this new right, it helps to see it not as a fringe movement, but a powerful counterculture.

When did the right wing get so bizarre? Consider: For a brief and confusing moment earlier this year, milk somehow became a charged symbol of both white supremacy and support for Donald Trump. The details are postmodern, absurdist, and ominous — not unlike the forces that brought them about. In January, the actor Shia LaBeouf mounted an art installation designed to protest the president. The next month, neo-Nazis who organized on the message board 4chan crashed the show, where they started chugging from milk jugs — because northern Europeans digest milk well, or because milk is … white. In other words, an innocent dairy beverage as old as time had been conscripted as a Donald Trump surrogate on the internet. It was yet another message-board in-joke — freighted with political meaning — suddenly in the news.

But weirdness, perhaps, is what happens when a movement grows very quickly and without any strong ideological direction — from a disciplined party, from traditional institutions like churches and chambers of Congress, from anything more organized than the insurrectionist internet.

Here in America, in trying to describe our brand of the reactionary wave currently tsunami-ing the entire developed world, we’ve leaned on the term alt-right, which had been coined by white supremacists. Richard Spencer, the most press-hungry of that group, takes credit for it. For much of last year, the term was often used as shorthand for “racists, but … young?” Which is helpful, as far as it goes, but the full reality is much more complicated. The alt-right — or the new right, if you prefer to sound more like Tom Wolfe than Kurt Cobain, or the radical right, to properly acknowledge its break from mainstream conservatism — is a coalition comprised of movements like neo-reaction, certain strands of libertarianism, tech triumphalism, and even the extreme-populist wing of the Republican Party. All share with Spencer’s white-ethno-nativism the ideals of isolationism, protectionism, and nationalism: a closed nation-state. Along the way, the coalition swept up “men’s rights” advocates and anti-Semites and cruel angry teenagers and conspiracy theorists and a few fiendishly clever far-right websites and harassing hashtags and even a U.S. congressman or two. Not to mention the White House.

But to approach the big messy tent of the new retrograde right — the international brigade of nativist-nationalists, tech-savvy anti-globalists, the porn-loving gender traditionalists — as primarily a political movement is to wildly underestimate its scope. Reactionary energy helped deliver all three branches of government to a Republican Party in the grips of an alt-right-curious anti-PC bomb-thrower the faithful called their “god-emperor” (or at least helped him along with last year’s affirmative action for white people, a.k.a. the Electoral College). But at no point during the campaign, even, could you have mistaken the unruly energy on the right for anything so organized as a party or as purposeful as a protest movement. It was — and is — a counterculture. One formed in the spirit of opposition to everything the existing Establishment stood for: globalist, technocratic liberal elitism. The amazing thing is, in November, for the first time in American electoral history, the counterculture won everything.

It’s the usual discredit-diminish-and-disqualify hit piece, of course. And while people have noticed some curious omissions – Guess whose name does not appear in a huge 20-part article on the Alt Right?  Hint: he’s the author of 16 Points of the Alt Right. – the much more serious flaw is the near-complete unwillingness of the 20 or so authors to actually quote anyone who is Alt-Right, or even in the Alt-Right’s orbit, about what it is and what it stands for.

Instead, they all ran out to get quotes from academics and others openly hostile to the Alt-Right, in order to better pontificate to their readers about what it is they think we believe and why we pose such a dire threat to the established political order. It’s rather like the sort of college course that is designed to provide the course taker with the sense that he knows the subject matter without actually teaching him anything about it. The one thing the small army of co-authors did get right, however, is to observe the fact that the Alt-Right is both a broad-based cultural phenomenon and a nationalist political philosophy, not a “branded movement” or a specific ideology.

It’s a pity that no one thought to send any of these indefatigable ideological spelunkers the version of the 16 Points best suited to their ability to understand the Alt-Right. And considering on their bizarre musings about the term cuckservative, you’d think it would have occurred to one of them to at least check Amazon. But the most egregious failure is without question their inexplicable inability to grasp the source of the God-Emperor meme.

Speaking of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right, I should mention that I finally got the Ukrainian translation posted earlier today, as well as the Esperanto and Irish translations. You can find them on the right sidebar as UK, EO, and GA.

Альтернативні праві : 16 тез

Альтернативні праві : 16 тез

1.Альтернативні праві належать до правих політичних течій як в американському, так і в європейському значенні цього терміну. Соціалісти не є альтернативними правими. Прогресивні не є альтернативними правими. Ліберали не є альтернативними правими. Комуністи, марксисти, марксіанці, культуро-марксисти і неоконсерватори теж не є альтернативними правими.

2.Альтернативні праві стали АЛЬТЕРНАТИВОЮ консервативному мейнстріму в США, який номінально виражений «Десятьма консервативними принципами» Рассела Кірка, але в дійсності виродився до прогресизму. Вони також стали альтернативою лібертаріанству.

3. Альтернативні праві не сповідують оборонного світогляду, відкидаючи саму ідею благородної і принципової поразки. Це філософія зорієнтована на рух вперед і наступ, в усіх значеннях цього терміну. Альтернативні праві вірять у перемогу завдяки наполегливості і збереженню гармонії із наукою, реальністю, культурною традицією і уроками історії.

4. Альтернативні праві вважають Західну цивілізацію вершинним здобутком людства і підтримують три її стовпи: християнство, європейські нації і греко-римську спадщину.

5. Альтернативні праві прямо і відкрито націоналістичні. Вони підтримують усі націоналізми і право всіх націй на існування в гомогенному середовищі, не порушеному іноземними вторгненням та імміграцією.

6. Альтернативні праві – проти глобалізму. Вони протистоять усім групам, які працюють на ідеали глобалізму чи його завдання.

7. Альтернативні праві проти егалітаризму. Вони відкидають ідею рівності з тієї ж причини, що й байки про існування єдинорогів чи лепреконів, і відзначають, що людської рівності не існує в жодній зі сфер людської діяльності: чи то юридичній, чи то матеріальній, інтелектуальній, сексуальній чи духовній.

8. Альтернативні праві орієнтуються на науку. Вони зазвичай визнають сучасні наукові результати із застереженнями: в майбутньому їх можна буде переглянути і змінити; наукові кола теж піддатливі до корупції, а так званий науковий консенсус спирається не на науковість, а на демократію. Тож висновки в рамках цього консенсусу – ненаукові.

9. Альтернативні праві вірять, що ідентичність > культура > політика.

10. Альтернативні праві протистоять домінуванню однієї етнічної групи над іншою, особливо на своїй рідній землі. Альтернативні праві перебувають в опозиції до інородців, які прагнуть досягти вагомого впливу на місцевих мешканців шляхом клановості чи іншим способом.

11. Альтернативні праві розуміють, що різноманітність + близькість = війна.

12. Альтернативним правим все одно, що ви про них думаєте.

13. Альтернативні праві відкидають міжнародну вільну торгівлю і вільне переміщення людей, якого вимагає режим вільної торгівлі. Переваги внутрішньої національної вільної торгівлі не гарантують переваг міжнародної вільної торгівлі.

14. Альтернативні праві вважають, що ми маємо забезпечити існування білих людей і майбутнє для білих дітей.

15. Альтернативні праві не вважають, що якась одна раса, нація чи інша спільнота людей має перевагу і першість над іншими. Кожна раса, нація і людська спільнота має свої сильні риси і слабкості, а також – суверенне право жити у спокої в рамках власної національної культури.

16. Альтернативні праві цінують мир між різними націями і протистоять війнам, які є спробами нав’язати цінності однієї нації іншій, а також спробами винищити окремі нації шляхом власне війни, геноциду, імміграції і генетичної асиміляції.

Альтернативні праві – це західна ідеологія, яка вірить у науку, історію, дійсність та право генетичної нації існувати і урядувати у своїх інтересах.

Святий покровитель консерваторів Рассел Кірк писав: «Велика лінія поділу в сучасній політиці, як уже вказував Ерік Воґелін, пролягає не поміж лібералами і
прихильниками тоталітаризму. Ні, на одному боці цієї межі перебувають ті чоловіки і жінки, які приймають існуючий порядок як єдиний можливий, не помічають нічого, окрім своїх матеріальних потреб і вважають, що можуть чинити все, що їм заманеться зі спадщиною людства. На іншому боці межі – ті люди, які розуміють, що світ тримається на тривалому моральному порядку, незмінності людської природи та відчутті високого обов’язку перед духовним і громадянським порядком».

Якщо це й було колись правдою, то тепер усе інакше. Лінія поділу в сучасній політиці пролягла поміж чоловіками і жінками, які вірять, що визначальне значення має їхня нестійка точка зору, і тими, хто вважає, що таке значення має їхня генетична спадщина.  Альтернативні праві розуміють, що перше завжди програє другому, оскільки приречене змінюватися.

An Eite Dheis Mhalartach: Sé Phointe Dhéag

An Eite Dheis Mhalartach: Sé Phointe Dhéag

1. Baineann an eite dheis mhalartach leis an eite dheis, mar a úsáidtear an téarma sin i Meireacá agus san Eoraip. Ní den eite dheis mhalartach na sóisialaigh, na fórásaithe, na liobrálaigh, na cumannaigh, deisceabail Karl Marx, na Marcsaigh, na Marcsaigh chultúrtha, ná na nuachaomhaigh.

2. MALAIRT is ea an eite dheis mhalartach ar an ngnáthghluaiseacht chaomhach i Meireacá, atá in ainm is a bheith ag leanacht deich bprionsabal chaomhacha Russell Kirk, ach arb í fírinne an scéil go bhfuil sí dulta ar meath, ionas go bhfuil cuid de chosúlacht na forásachta tagtha uirthi. Malairt freisin í ar an liobraíochas.

3. Ní cosantach an meon atá ag an eite dheis mhalartach agus ní fiú faic léi díomua uasal prionsabálta. Is cuid dá fealsúnacht an breathnú ar aghaidh, an t-ionsaí, is an oilbhéim. Creideann sí gurb amhlaidh a bhéarfar bua, trí dhianseasmhacht is trí chomhtheacht leis an eolaíocht, le fírinne an domhain, leis an traidisiún, is le ceachtanna na staire.

4. Creideann an eite dheis mhalartach gurb í sibhialtacht an Iarthair an gaisce is mó a rinne an duine agus tacaíonn sí le trí chrann seasta na sibhialtachta sin: an Chríostaíocht, náisiúin na hEorpa, agus oidhreacht na Gréige is na Róimhe.

5. Deir an eite dheis mhalartach go hoscailte go bhfuil sí náisiúnach. Tacaíonn sí le gach náisiúnachas agus le ceart gach náisiún a bheith ina thír féin, gan coimhthígh sa tír sin de dheasca ionraidh ná imirce.

6. Tá an eite dheis mhalartach i gcoinne an domhandachais agus i gcoinne gach grúpa a oibríos ar son idéal nó cuspóirí domhandacha.

7. Tá an eite dheis mhalartach frithchothromaíoch. Séanann sí gurb ann don chothromaíocht, díreach mar a shéanas sí gurb ann d’aonbheannaigh is do leipreacháin, mar tá sé tugtha faoi deara aici nach bhfuil an fear is an bhean cothrom le chéile, ná nach bhfuil daoine cothrom le chéile de réir toisí eolaíochtúla, ná de réir dlí, ná sa mhéid de mhaoin an tsaoil atá acu, ná ó thaobh intleachta, ná go spioradálta.

8. Cleachtann an eite dheis mhalartach modh na heolaíochta. Glacann sí leis na conclúidí a sroicheadh tríd an modh sin, ach tuigeann sí go bhféadfaí na conclúidí sin a athrú amach anseo, go mbíonn baol ann go gcorbfaí na heolaithe, agus nach ar mhodh na heolaíochta atá “comhaontú na heolaíochta” bunaithe ach ar mhodh an daonlathais, rud a fhágas go bhfuil sé neamheolaíoch ó nádúr.

9. Creideann an eite dheis mhalartach é seo: féiniúlacht > cultúr > polaitíocht.

10. Tá an eite dheis mhalartach i gcoinne riail nó forlámhas a bheith ag grúpa eitneach dúchasach amháin ar cheann eile, go háirithe i dtír dhúchais cheannasach an ghrúpa atá faoi chois. Tá sí i gcoinne an iomarca tionchair a bheith ag grúpa eitneach neamhdhúchasach ar bith i sochaí ar bith, trí fhiníochas, trí threibheachas, nó trí mhodh ar bith eile.

11. Tuigeann an eite dheis mhalartach é seo: éagsúlacht + cóngaracht = cogadh.

12. Is cuma leis an eite dheis mhalartach céard is dóigh leat di.

13. Diúltaíonn an eite dheis mhalartach don saorthrádáil idirnáisiúnta agus don saorghluaiseacht phobal a thagas d’éigean aisti. Cé go bhfuil saorthrádáil istigh sa náisiún tairbheach, ní thugann sin fianaise go bhfuil saorthrádáil idirnáisiúnta tairbheach.

14. Creideann an eite dheis mhalartach nach mór dúinn an cine geal a thabhairt slán ó éaglach agus todhchaí shlán a chruthú dá pháistí.

15. Ní chreideann an eite dheis mhalartach go mbeireann cine, náisiún, pobal, nó fospeiceas ar bith barr go huile is go hiomlán ar cheann ar bith eile. Tá a shainbhuanna is a shainlaigí féin ag gach cine, gach náisiún, gach pobal, agus gach fospeiceas daonna, agus tá sé mar cheart ardcheannasach acu cónaí gan cur isteach sa chultúr dúchasach is fearr leo.

16. Leanann an eite dheis mhalartach fealsúnacht ar mór aici síocháin idir náisiúin an domhain, atá i gcoinne cogaidh chun luachanna náisiúin amháin a chur i bhfeidhm ar náisiún eile, agus atá i gcoinne díothú náisiún, trí chogadh, trí chinedhíothú, trí inimirce, nó trí chomhshamhlú géiniteach.

I mbeagán focal: gluaiseacht bunaithe ar idé-eolaíocht Iartharach is ea an eite dheis mhalartach, a chreideas san eolaíocht, sa stair, i bhfírinne an domhain, agus i gceart an náisiúin ghéinitigh a bheith ann agus é féin a rialú ar mhaithe leis féin.

16 punktoj

Dekses punktoj de la Alternativa Dekstro

Celante evoluigi kernan alternativdekstran filozofion kiel bazon por plua ellaborigo.

1. La alternativa dekstro estas parto de la politika dekstro en kaj la usona kaj la eŭropa senco de la esprimo. Socialistoj ne estas alternativdekstraj. Liberaluloj ne estas alternativdekstraj. Komunistoj, marksistoj, marksanoj, kulturaj marksistoj kaj nov-konservativuloj ne estas alternativdekstraj.

2. La alternativa dekstro estas ALTERNATIVO al la ĝenerala konservativa movado en Usono priskribita de Russel Kirk en liaj 10 principoj konservativaj, sed reale malevoluiĝinta al progresivismo. Ĝi estas alternativo ankaŭ al libertarianismo.

3. La alternativa dekstro ne estas defendema atitudo kaj malakceptas la koncepton de malvenko nobla. Ĝi estas antaŭenvidanta filozofio ofensiva, en ĉiu senco de ĉi tiu vorto. La alternativa dekstro kredas je venko per persisti, kaj resti en harmonio kun scienco, realeco, kultura tradicio kaj la lecionoj de historio.

4. La alternativa dekstro kredas ke Okcidenta civilizacio estas la alta pinto de homa atingo kaj subtenas ĝiajn tri fundamentajn pilierojn: kristanismon, la eŭropajn naciojn kaj la heredaĵon grek-romian.

5. La alternativa dekstro estas malferme kaj ĵurinte naciisma. Ĝi subtenas ĉiajn naciismojn kaj la rajton de ĉiuj nacioj ekzisti, homogene kaj ne koruptita de fremda invadado kaj enmigrado.

6. La alternativa dekstro kontraŭas tutmondismon. Ĝi kontraŭas ĉiajn grupojn laborantajn por tutmondismaj ideoj aŭ celoj.

7. La alternativa dekstro kontraŭas egalismon. Ĝi malakceptas la ideon de egaleco samkiel ĝi malakceptas la ideojn de unukornuloj kaj leprekonoj, notante ke homa egaleco ne ekzistas en ia ajn observebla formo, ĉu scienca, leĝa, materiala, intelekta, seksa, aŭ spirita.

8. La alternativa dekstro subtenas la sciencan metodon. Ĝi akceptas la nunajn konkludojn de la scienca metodo, tamen komprenante ke a) ĉi tiuj konkludoj estas eble ŝanĝotaj, b) la sciencistaro ne estas imuna kontraŭ korupteco, kaj c) tiel-nomata scienca konsento ne estas bazita sur la scienca metodo, sed demokratio, kaj ĉi tial estas esence nescienca.

9. La alternativa dekstro kredas ke identeco > kulturo > politikoj.

10. La alternativa dekstro kontraŭas la regadon aŭ dominadon super iu ajn indiĝena etna grupo de alia, speciale en la hejmlandoj de la dominataj popoloj. La alternativa dekstro staras kontraŭ neindiĝenaj grupoj kiu prenas al si troan influon en iu ajn socio per nepotismo, tribismo aŭ iel ajn.

11. La alternativa dekstro komprenas ke diverseco + proksimeco = milito.

12. Ne gravas al la alternativa dekstro, kiel vi opinias pri ĝi.

13. La alternativa dekstro malakceptas internacian liberan komercon kaj la liberan movadon de homoj necesa por libera komerco. La bonaj efikoj de enlanda libera komerco ne evidentigas bonajn efikojn de internacia libera komerco.

14. La alternativa dekstro kredas ke ni devas sekurigi la ekziston de la blanka popolo kaj estontecon por blankaj infanoj.

15. La alternativa dekstro ne kredas je la ĝenerala plejalteco de iu ajn raco, nacio, popolo, aŭ subspecio. Ĉiu raso, nacio, popolo kaj homa subspecio havas proprajn fortojn kaj malfortojn, kaj posedas la suverenan rajton loĝi senĝene en sia preferata gepatra kulturo.

16. La alternativa dekstro estas filozofio kiu deziras pacon inter la diversaj popoloj de la mondo kaj kontraŭas militojn por trudi la valorojn de unu nacio al alia, kaj ankaŭ klopodojn formortigi individuajn naciojn ĉu per milito, gentomurdo, enmigrado, aŭ genetika similigo.

RESUME: La alternativa dekstro estas okcidenta ideologio kiu kredas je scienco, historio, realeco, kaj la rajto de ĉiu genetika nacio ekzisti kaj sin regi laŭ siaj propraj interesoj.