Tag: philosophy

The Flight 93 election, revisited

Publius Decius Mus is taking a considerable amount of flak from conservatives because he is directly over the target, which is the staunchly pusillanimous way in which they have betrayed America and Americans for at least 50 years, and the way some of them are still trying to do so:

Conservatives have shouted since the beginning of Trump’s improbable rise: He’s not one of us! He is not conservative! And, indeed, in many ways, Trump is downright liberal. You might think that would make him more acceptable to the Left. But no. As “compassionate conservatism” did nothing to blunt leftist hatred of George W. Bush, neither do Trump’s quasi-liberal economic positions. In fact, they hate Trump much more. Trump is not conservative enough for the conservatives but way too conservative for the Left, yet somehow they find common cause. Earlier I posited that the reason is Trump’s position on immigration. Let me add two others.

The first is simply that Trump might win. He is not playing his assigned role of gentlemanly loser the way McCain and Romney did, and may well have tapped into some previously untapped sentiment that he can ride to victory. This is a problem for both the Right and the Left. The professional Right (correctly) fears that a Trump victory will finally make their irrelevance undeniable. The Left knows that so long as Republicans kept playing by the same rules and appealing to the same dwindling base of voters, there was no danger. Even if one of the old breed had won, nothing much would have changed, since their positions on the most decisive issues were effectively the same as the Democrats and because they posed no serious challenge to the administrative state.

Which points to the far more important reason. I urge readers to go back through John Marini’s argument, to which I cannot do anything close to full justice. Suffice to say here, the current governing arrangement of the United States is rule by a transnational managerial class in conjunction with the administrative state. To the extent that the parties are adversarial at the national level, it is merely to determine who gets to run the administrative state for four years. Challenging the administrative state is out of the question. The Democrats are united on this point. The Republicans are at least nominally divided. But those nominally opposed (to the extent that they even understand the problem, which is: not much) are unwilling or unable to actually do anything about it. Are challenges to the administrative state allowed only if they are guaranteed to be ineffectual? If so, the current conservative movement is tailor-made for the task. Meanwhile, the much stronger Ryan wing of the Party actively abets the administrative state and works to further the managerial class agenda.

Trump is the first candidate since Reagan to threaten this arrangement. To again oversimplify Marini (and Aristotle), the question here is: who rules? The many or the few? The people or the oligarchs? Our Constitution says: the people are sovereign, and their rule is mediated through representative institutions, limited by written Constitutional norms. The administrative state says: experts must rule because various advances (the march of history) have made governing too complicated for public deliberation, and besides, the unwise people often lack knowledge of their own best interests even on rudimentary matters. When the people want something that they shouldn’t want or mustn’t have, the administrative state prevents it, no matter what the people vote for. When the people don’t want something that the administrative state sees as salutary or necessary, it is simply imposed by fiat.

Don’t want more immigration? Too bad, we know what’s best. Think bathrooms should be reserved for the two biological sexes? Too bad, we rule. And so on and on.

To all the “conservatives” yammering about my supposed opposition to Constitutional principle (more on that below) and who hate Trump, I say: Trump is mounting the first serious national-political defense of the Constitution in a generation. He may not see himself in those terms. I believe he sees himself as a straightforward patriot who just wants to do what is best for his country and its people. Whatever the case, he is asserting the right of the sovereign people to make their government do what they want it to do, and not do things they don’t want it to do, in the teeth of determined opposition from a managerial class and administrative state that want not merely different policies but above all to perpetuate their own rule.

If the Constitution has any force or meaning, then “We the People” get to decide not merely who gets to run the administrative state—which, whatever the outcome, will always continue on the same path—more fundamentally, we get to decide what policies we want and which we don’t.

Conservatism as we have known it since Reagan is dead. Whether the Alt Right or NeoTrumpism or something else will ascend in its place is presently unknown, but we can be fairly certain that conservatives will never win another national election, thanks to the demographic transformation they supported, and, in many cases, still support.

Shed no tears and spare no pity for them. Like every ideology that stands in opposition to observable reality, their eventual irrelevance is assured, it is merely a question of time.

The importance of rhetoric

A few facts:

  • 78% of Clinton supporters don’t believe that blacks are less intelligent than whites. 
  • 68% of Clinton supporters don’t believe blacks are less law-abiding than whites.
Wow, they’re all pretty stupid, right? No, because intelligence has NOTHING to do with it. Greater intelligence just means that an individual has an enhanced capability for rationalizing his belief in even more ridiculous falsehoods.

After all:

  • 68% of Trump supporters don’t believe that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
  • 53% of Trump supporters don’t believe blacks are less law-abiding than whites.
Let’s throw in a few more facts.
  • Average white American IQ: 103
  • Average black American IQ: 85
  • Average sub-Saharan African IQ: 70
  • The 12% of the male US population that is black provides 37% of the male prison population.
  • Blacks commit violent crimes at 8.5 times the rate that whites do.

In other words, facts are observably incapable of persuading MOST of the US population. Their minds are not changed by the receipt of new information, regardless of how accurate it may be. As much as 80 percent of the population is totally impervious to observation, statistics, eyewitness testimony, genetic science, and documentary evidence. Considering their ability to resist observable reality, how susceptible do you think they are likely to be to logic and abstract reason?

I conclude that less than five percent of the population is even subject to persuasion by logic and less than two percent are reliably capable of being persuaded by it. And if these facts is insufficient to persuade you that dialectic is an intrinsically limited tool that must always be supplimented by rhetoric to be generally effective, well, welcome to the 98 percent.

Of faith and fairy tales

John C. Wright considers the charge that Christianity is nothing more than a fairy tale:

There are those who call Christian faith a fairy tale. I assume such scoffers are not old and wise enough to believe in fairies.

To them, I give the answer of that most excellent marshwiggle and insightful theologian, Puddleglum: Suppose my account is a fairy tale. Your account is not even that.

Let us contrast and compare the Christian fairy tale with the tale told by witches both white and green, both modern and ancient.

One modern account of the world consists of little more than saying “Life is a bitch, and then you die, and in the end nobody lives happily ever after. Entropy triumphs over all, a nightfall of endless darkness and infinite cold.”

Well, says I, if you actually believed your account, the wise thing to do is to swallow cold poison and jump into the sea: so the fact that you are still here hints that at some level you know your account is unsatisfactory: a poorly constructed story, pointless, plotless, and with a weak ending. It is not a tale at all, but a complaint.

Another account, this one with considerably more pedigree, says, “We are all just naked apes or meat machines: our souls are made of atoms blown together by the twelve winds with no more purpose and meaning than the shape of the sand dune: we are helpless and without free will, victims of blind evolutionary forces and blind historical forces. Atop the Holy Mountain no gods dance, and no burning bushes speak. Death is dreamless sleep and soft oblivion. Therefore let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Entropy triumphs over all, a nightfall of endless darkness and infinite cold.”

This is a poor story: a tale of despair, a myth to justify hedonism.

A nobler version of this same account says, “Man is a rational animal, capable of moral reasoning, creativity, productiveness, love. Man is heroic. Therefore let us live rationally working with mind and heart and soul to produce such works of art and science as befits so dignified a creature: let each man to live for himself alone, a paragon of self-reliance  each man in the solitary but invulnerable tower of his self-made soul, never demanding nor making any selfess sacrifice. Nor hopes nor fears of after-lives or nether-worlds need detain us: Therefore let us think, and work, and triumph, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Entropy triumphs over all, a nightfall of endless darkness and infinite cold.”

This is a poor story: vanity, vainglory, and blindness to the pain and misery of life. The pretense that bad things never happen for no reason to good people is a very thin pretense: since the days of Job, we have all known better. This is a tale of vainglory.

He is correct, though, to conclude that there is no better answer than the marshwiggle’s. We choose the fairy tale regardless. And there is nothing in your moralities, nothing in your philosophies, nothing in your sciences that can provide one single legitimate reason to criticize that choice.

“Marital rape” does not, and cannot, exist

Judgy Bitch considers my debate with Louise Mensch on the matter, thinks everything through and concludes that my position is the correct one:

I think we have to clearly distinguish between having a right and exercising that right. Under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, every American has the right to keep and bear arms. Lots of Americans choose not to exercise that right. They still have the right, whether they use it or not. The question under consideration in this particular debate is whether marriage confers consent to sex that cannot be withdrawn except by the dissolution of the marriage.

If you had asked me a few weeks ago, I would have sided with Mensch. If I say no to my husband, I expect him to respect that, although if I’m being honest, I would be very insulted and sulky if he rejected my advances. In the 18 years we’ve been together, I do not recall him ever rejecting me, and I can count the number of times I’ve absolutely refused to have sex with him on one hand.  Pondering the idea more carefully, I have now come to the conclusion that Day is correct – rape cannot exist within a marriage. If marital rape is a thing, then 100% of the sex I have ever had with my husband has been rape.

I have never obtained his consent and he has never obtained mine.

Consent is assumed as a basic function of marriage. Consent to sex is part of what marriage is. Mensch acknowledges the general obligation spouses have to one another to have sex, but refuses blanket consent. I think the most interesting part of the discussion surrounds the use of force and violence. Marriage confers the right to have sex with your spouse, but it does not confer any right to assault your spouse. By what means could a spouse force sex that was not wanted without the use of force?

It’s not an accident that the same ideology that has expressly stated “all sex is rape” is the same one behind the push to create the oxymoronic legal concept of “marital rape”.

If they could, feminists would outlaw both marriage and normal sex. Marital rape is an effective way for them to attack both.

Alt-White and Alt-West

One of the chief pieces of evidence concerning the fact that #GamerGate was a primarily left-wing group is the way in which many of the supporters of the #AltRight are observably ignorant of the basic tenets of the most successful anti-SJW, anti-media action since the cultural war began. Every group and every movement has its tone and purity police, and usually, their activities are totally counterproductive. Consider this observation from the central rallying point of the GamerGate left, KotakuInAction:

I’m finding it hard to believe this needs to be said, but since it appears that Mark Kern (AKA Grummz) got mobbed, from within GG, by tone-policing PC assholes who took umbrage with him referring to Nyberg as “he” instead of “she”, to the point that he decided to quit GG, losing us a valuable ally and supporter, it would seem that this indeed needs to be said: Political correctness and tone-policing have no place in GamerGate.

Now, this doesn’t mean that entryism is not a serious potential problem or that there are those individuals who are best kept at arms-length, or further, for one reason or another. But in general, the tone and purity police are a much bigger problem in the early stages.

Therefore, in the interest of educating those interested in learning the tactics of those who have successfully used them in the past, it may be useful to read this document, which was widely accepted throughout GamerGate and helps explain how we successfully addressed the problem.

All of the following are counterproductive and damage ourselves ONLY:
No objectives, no goals, no demands, no philosophies, no lists.
  • It screws up the framing of the issue by forcing us to focus on specific issues.
  • The corrupt journos will adhere to the letter of the list and not the spirit. They will find a way to weasel around them.
  • The second nobody is looking, they’ll go back to being dishonest.
  • This idea was put forth by a well-meaning PR person, not someone experienced in consumer activity. PR is the journo’s game. Not ours.
  • It divides us into the goals we each specifically want and we don’t all want the same things. What appeases you will not appease another etc.
  • Demands are things that terrorists make. We are a consumer revolt. We are not violent. We are not underhanded. We are not a political movement.
  • Philosophies are for philosophers, not consumer revolts. We don’t need philosophy to obtain the moral high ground, the opposition has already given it to us. We have no benefit in philosophies.
  • Goals are for games, not a consumer revolt.
  • Objectives are for military operations, not a consumer revolt.
  • Lists are for nerds.
  • It is true that it may increase our numbers (in an absolute sense, but we’re still divided over the goals) because people have specific things to champion. However, this will bring us fence-sitters and those of weak will and not people that will do the work of writing emails and investigation of corruption. If they aren’t invested on the merits, they aren’t invested and thus are not helpful.
  • We do not need clear end points. If people are discouraged by a perceived lack of progress, take a break. This is an extended and long-term approach and you must take breaks. If you need specific goals for yourself, participate 2 or 3 days a week. Phrase it in those terms. Creating goals is not necessary.
  • It does not help people get into this. What does help people get into this is a more coherent and concise set of facts that they can evaluate and come to their own conclusions.
  • Numbers are not an argument. Facts create numbers. Numbers don’t necessarily create facts.
  • Phrasing these goals incorrectly will put them as lines in the sand. We cannot change them once they’re satisfied. We cannot move goalposts like they do.
No narrative changing.
  • As we are a consumer revolt and not a political movement, we do not need a narrative.
  • Narratives are for PR. PR is the journo’s game. Not ours.
  • We let the opposition change the narrative for themselves as they’ve done time and again for the last month.
  • We will go as far politically as we must (as we’ve been forced to do so far), but have no inherent desire to do so.
  • If a person is energized by narrative, they are in the wrong place. Narratives change and we would lose them when it changes anyway. Additionally, it’s unlikely that people that aren’t participating on the merits will do the requisite work involved.
  • We are about facts, logic, and reason. A narrative is a way of spinning these. We have no spin. Only truth.
  • We are actually inclusive and this has been demonstrated already. There is no need to push this or any message.
No leaders.
  • This is a 100% shill idea put forward by the opposition to make it easy to play the identity game. This is their bread and butter and they will co-opt or ruin anything that they can get their hands on.
  • We’ve lasted for a month and counting with no real dictators. We should continue this trend.
  • There are currently no weak points to attack.
  • As attacks against individuals intensify (people have lost jobs, been sent mafia-esque messages in the mail, and have been severely harassed for being involved), it’s clear that giving them heads that are more important than others is a bad idea.
  • Even discussing who you would pick implies some kind of extra importance. We do not want this. We’re all in this together.

    This is a section of a longer document, and was conceived as a comprehensive rebuttal to help GamerGaters address a specific type of shill known as The Changer. Other shills to watch out for included The Fear Monger, The Defeatist, The Dismissive, The False Flag, The Politico, The Discreditor, The Misdirector, The Uncertain, The Slider, and The Self-Shiller; the longer document recommended specific responses to deal with each of them. It may strike you as paranoid, but I personally witnessed multiple shills of each of these types, as SJWs repeatedly tried to infiltrate and redirect what, despite outsiders’ best efforts to categorize it as a hate group, a terrorist group, and a Twitter-based charade, remained a consumer revolt focused tightly on the corrupt games media.

    Now, obviously not all of these lessons are applicable to the #AltRight, because the #AltRight is a political movement, not a consumer revolt, it is positive and prescriptive in nature as opposed to being intrinsically defensive like #GamerGate, and it is addressing a very wide range of societal and historical issues instead of being obsessively focused on a single issue and industry at a specific point in time.

    Nevertheless, it is clear that there is an intrinsic tension within the Alt-Right, which is not necessarily a bad thing. On the one side is the Alt-White, which is pure white nationalist and predominantly pagan or atheist. This could be thought of as the NPI or Spencerian Alt-Right. On the other is the Alt-West, which is omni-nationalist and pro-Christian. I suspect Jared Taylor and RamZPaul are more of this persuasion, but I could be wrong. Regardless, it is the branch in which I would place myself. All of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right with which even Richard Spencer himself only has a few quibbles, can reasonably be considered an Alt-West perspective.

    But perhaps rather than thinking of them as branches, it is more helpful to think of them as roots, each being sustained by different pools, supporting the same glorious tree of Western Civilization. Because it is vital to understand that for the Alt-Right to be successful over time, Alt-White and Alt-West must continue to cooperate, refrain from internecine conflict, and continue to stand by each other in the face of the coming media assaults in the same way that GamerGate/KiA and GamerGate/chan did. (And believe me, the conceptual spectrum of the Alt-Right is CONSIDERABLY more narrow than that of GamerGate. Since they were able to coexist and cooperate, we definitely can.) Any claims to be the One True Strain of the Alt-Right are spurious and should be rejected by all sides, as anyone who subscribes to what Lawrence Murray has laid out as the Alt-Right’s big tent is correctly characterized, at the very least, as an ally of the Alt-Right.

    Besides, as we all know, the only true apotheosis of Pepe is Kek.

    It is worse than a waste of time, it is totally counterproductive to shoot at allies. In GamerGate, we had a simple and straightforward response to the shills, tone police, and self-appointed purity police who repeatedly attempted to redirect our efforts away from the primary target of the game journos: SHUT UP AND EMAIL. I suggest that both branches of the Alt-Right, Alt-White and Alt-West, would do very well to adopt a similar policy, especially as various shills do their best to divide and conquer. We would be foolish to do as the Left does, and spend vast quantities of time and effort seeking out and denouncing splittists, reactionaries, and false consciousnesses.

    SHUT UP AND SHOOT LEFT.

    Remember, it’s all very well to get excited about the fact that the media is paying attention to the Alt-Right, but never forget that the reason they are doing so is in order to discredit, disqualify, and destroy it and everyone who is associated with it. Don’t help them do it. The media game is to anoint and behead leaders, and they will always attempt to redefine you in the process, as Betsy Woodruff demonstrates at the Daily Beast:

    So the Alt-Right—helmed by the trio who gathered at The Willard on Friday—is the most extreme example of a shift on the American right: away from a nostalgic conservative focus on restoring the values of the Founders, and towards a forward-focused nationalism that prioritizes drastic limits on immigration and open hostility to globalism.

    But if that forward-focused nationalism sounds good to you, then regardless of whether you are more Alt-White or Alt-West, you are at the very least sympathetic to the Alt-Right.

    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.

    Rejecting the Alt-RINOs

    Lawrence Murray is alert to the problem of entryism that sank the Tea Party, and provides a useful guide to distinguishing between the genuine Alt-Right and the Alt-Right In Name Onlys:

    Civic nationalists

    No. NO! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

    Civic nationalism is magic dirt nationalism. It’s the idea that anyone anywhere can be shoved into the blast furnace of America and made into an American. There’s just something about being here that makes you belong here. I mean after all, we’re a nation of immigrants right (no reference as to where most of them came from before the last few decades)? Please invade us, just make sure you adopt our language and love of voting and mindless consumption. Race and religion don’t real; it’s being a good citizen that matters!

    When this country becomes “minority-majority” in the 2040s, as it currently is for children under five, it will not be recognizable as a country founded by British people and then populated by waves of pan-European immigration from 1790-1965. The United States will change radically as a result of the third demographic transition. What could be less conservative or nationalistic than letting your people be bred out of existence by foreigners?

    Civic nationalists are most certainly not Alt-Right. Nothing they advocate will end the downward trajectory of the United States from a White majoritarian republic (the historical American nation) to a third world shopping mall (Weimerica). It will just make them feel better about their mystery meat grandchildren since at least they wave the flag and speak some variant of English.

    The Alt-Right supports ethno-nationalism, not slow death.

    Constitutionalists

    These are a kind of civic nationalist, I would argue, except even more into legalism and “muh ideas” than they are about an actual identity. They have a paper fetishism for the Constitution and the US legal system, even when it works against them. For example, the (((Supreme Court))), or the Sanhedrin as I call it, currently has three Jews and five Catholics. Justice Antonin Scalia (pbuh) once suggested that there should be more Protestants on the bench, since America has a lot of Protestants and they are totally unrepresented in one of the most powerful organs of the federal government. Obama’s proposed nominee is (((Merrick Garland))), “a white guy, but he’s a really outstanding jurist.” Thankfully he’s being stonewalled by Cuckgressional Republicans, who are doing something useful for once.

    For Constitutionalists, not identity, but legal documents are the source of the nation. Tell me how that works out for you when this happens, because the Constitution has glaringly failed to defend the liberty of our posterity.

    Now, The Right Stuff may be less than entirely enthusiastic about me, given my Indian and Aztec ancestry as well as my doubts about the prospects for pan-white nationalism in Europe, and I have no problem with those who observe that my identity as a Red reservationist intrinsically disqualifies me as a leader, or even a member, of the Alt-Right. As my longtime readers know, I have zero interest in leadership or belonging to any group; I may be the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil, and my Vile Faceless Minions may happen to mindlessly obey me, but that is simply the natural order of things and an incidental consequence of my contemplations. Although some might very much like to put themselves forward as “leaders” of the Alt-Right – particularly the Dick Armeys and Dana Loesches of the world – I think the Alt-Right would do very well to learn from GamerGate and adopt the leaderless strategy that proved so effective in denying the mainstream media the opportunity to “behead the snake”.

    As to whether I am a legitimate member of the Alt-Right or not, I will merely observe that the movement is already utilizing words and concepts of my coinage, including in this very article.

    The only thing I would add to Murray’s article is that while I understand the need to focus on, and underline, the integral white nationalist element of the Alt-Right, even in this very article it implies the larger aspect of the general pro-nationalism that I believe is vital to the ultimate success of the Alt-Right. I don’t say this because I am as eager to call myself Alt-Right as an immigrant is to call himself as American as anyone else, but for strategic reasons.

    If Alt-Right is solely synonymous with Alt-White, it will be readily replaced as the other nationalists, potential allies from Zionists to Chinese, Swedish, and Igbo nationalists, reject the brand and the movement in favor of something that has room for their nationalism. That is why I favor the broader Alt-Right perspective, not one that permits Civic Nationalists, Constitutionalists, Free Marketeers, or Israel-First “Americans”, but one that is as willing to say that China belongs to the Han, Israel belongs to the Jews, and Germany belongs to the Germans as it is willing to declare that America belongs to the Posterity of the Founding Fathers. Hence the 16 points that I proposed the other day.

    The best rhetoric is always rooted firmly in truth. Nationalism is not only not supremacism, it is more firmly rooted in historical and scientific fact, and it is a considerably more effective ideology with much better prospects for long-term success.

    What the Alt Right is

    In the interest of developing a core Alt Right philosophy upon which others can build.

    1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
    2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
    3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
    4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
    5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
    6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
    7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
    8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
    9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
    10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
    11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
    12. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.
    13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
    14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
    15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
    16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
    TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.

    The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: “The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.”

    This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.

    The 16 Points in other languages:

    That’s not how it works

    I frequently – by which I mean several times a week – get emails from people who have a great idea how I can do something. Let me put this as politely and patiently as I can.


    Don’t talk to me about it. Do it yourself.

    I already have far more ideas at hand than I can possibly address in a full lifetime. Moreover, I am considerably more interested in my ideas than in your ideas. I am extraordinarily busy and I usually work until 4 AM, seven days a week. If I did not exercise regularly and have Spacebunny keeping a careful eye on my diet and my general health, I’d probably be in worse physical condition than the average SJW.

    Contacting people like me and Mike Cernovich about “a great idea” is really nothing more than laziness on your part. Do it yourself. If you don’t have the means, then find some allies and acquire them. I’m always happy to look for ways to help out those who are already doing something, but I have zero interest in wasting a single nanosecond listening to do-nothing, pie-in-the-sky idea-makers.

    If you want to work with us, that’s great! We have a constant and growing need for volunteers, as our volunteers tend to eventually branch out and start doing things on their own, which is something we encourage. We need proofreaders. We need assistant editors. We need people who can layout PDFs and covers. We need someone with a great voice, an English accent, and a masochistic mindset to narrate the Selenoth ebooks. I could use a good co-author or three, as well as lead authors for two or three new Castalia series I have in mind. DevGame is always looking for more good game artists.

    What we don’t need is ideas that serve someone else’s agenda, even if it happens to be in sync with ours. But don’t take this the wrong way. I’m not saying those ideas are bad, I’m saying that if you have the idea, then you have, within yourself, the seed of what is required to make it a reality. So, make it happen, don’t rely upon me or anyone else to make it happen.