The root of cuck is that you see something that you should care about, and notice that it is being savaged, and do nothing about it. You humiliate and abase yourself to avoid noticing what is wrong because noticing things that are wrong will interrupt your personal individualism, or desire to put yourself before all else.
Individualism ties inevitably with convenience, or the process of taking the path of least resistance. Acting toward personal pleasure, wealth and social status is always convenient, but asserting and acting toward goals higher than the individual never is.
This leads us to the origin of “cuck” or embracing known evils in order to advance oneself socially, in a career, or in politics. In a dying civilization, most people cuck because the other option is to admit that something really big is wrong. That is a scary, ambiguous and dangerous path and most flee from it.
By the time an empire falls, it has rotted from within; what rots it from within is an inherent human tendency toward solipsism, which in groups becomes “collectivized individualism” or Crowdism. This individualism originates in the desire to be “cool,” or do what is convenient.
One view of history is that humanity has faced many different crises in the past. However, most of these appear to be internal or related to difficulty in maintaining organization. Applying Occam’s Razor, that suggests that common human pathologies are most likely the culprit, such as individualism.
We know that in groups, humans tend to band together on the idea of equality (which translates into no hierarchy of ability, equal acceptance) and then seize power, erasing the past knowledge as they do so. This pattern repeats as a cycle: civilization rises, population grows, neurotics assemble, equality appears and the decline begins.
My theory, which is Spenglerian/Platonic, is that most of what we see now is the result of many thousands of cycles of smaller civilization-deaths. Local areas and regional governments succumb most frequently, but whole empires eventually catch the disease and fall apart.
In each case, those create a bottleneck that pushes a population out and away from the failed areas. The majority of the population however continue focus on being “cool,” and so when the ruins fall in dust, what is left is a highly social population that is very verbally adept, good at art and dancing, and generally excellent at socializing.
Since the West is in the middle of this process, we see mostly the “cool” that comes of never dedicating oneself to anything larger than the individual. This manifests as “cuck” because people are unwilling to reject the cool and strive for what is less socially successful but more accurate.
A backlash against cool, by seeing it as the province of the inept, may begin by seeing “cool” as a compensatory behavior similar to the “sour grapes” of fairy tale lore: those who cannot make anything of themselves focus on being big cheeses in the social scene instead of achieving something in reality.
Our media, cultural and arts industries have driven themselves insane pursuing the “cool” because it ultimately has no aesthetic except narcissism. Similarly, as politicians try to be more popular, they are forced to reduce their positions to pitching convenience to an apathetic public.
When those in authority try to bow to “cool,” they create a tyranny of the rebellious attitude that tears down any meaning larger than that of the individual. Instead of being current, or staying in touch with youth, this should be viewed as what it is: concession to decay.
One of these Friday nights, you will find yourself in the Texas hill country, looking up at a vast black sky speckled with stars. At that moment, you will understand the essence of the human condition: total, complete and all-encompassing isolation.
You are alone on this journey. When you duck back into that dive bar and talk to Dave about his band and Phil about his media company, you are sharing in an illusion that any of that is anything more than a means to spend time and derive sustenance. It has no greater importance. At the end of the night, Dave and Phil (like you) go home to wait for death, and to hope that the time they are spending has somehow offset the inexorable onrushing emptiness.
No matter how many symbols or activities we invent, we are alone with our nihilism at some point. The big questions — eternity, meaning, purpose, value — strike us from out of invisible corners where they hid. The fears and doubts rise with nothing to blot them out or distract us. We are alone, as we were born, and as we shall die.
The complexity arises because there is overlap between the false social world and this cosmos of nothingness. We need something to do to keep the bucks flowing, and some activities to pleasantly spend or time or even better to derive meaning from. The social world is just the appearance of these, based on the illusion that if a whole group of people are doing something, it is more eternal than the eternal, which is both void and mystery.
Our social groups are empty, our governments and awards transient. Celebrity is isolation even now, because the celebrity is the most recognized and least known person on earth. Fame and notoriety are equally hollow. There is nothing here, nothing that lasts, except what you discover in union with the cosmos.
Even truth is a lie. There are universal aspects to reality, but no universal truth, because truth requires a perceiver — and unless that perceiver is intelligent, moral enough to be diligently honest, and fascinated by the world in which he finds himself, he will hover around the lower levels of perception. What he finds cannot be communicated, only experienced, and then enforced on others by the sword and axe (or FN FAL for you sticklers).
Embrace the nihilism. Total emptiness. Total nothingness. Except for you, your mind, and whatever reality you can discern. This gives rise to the question of how to give your life meaning, as you will be gifting yourself with significance to existence by making choices. None are inherent; all are optional, entirely preferential, on the level of aesthetics more than morality.
Are you a great warrior? A thinker, an artist, a steward, a king? You must shape yourself through self-discipline and the choices you make. You will be a creator, not a consumer. As part of that, you will want to adapt to your environment and then, being consistent with the principles of that adaptation, gradually improve your lot.
This necessarily includes civilization. Humans evolved by tribe and tool, and are dependent on a civilization for their ideas to take root. You can communicate or improve things, or even point civilization in an ascendant direction rather than its default of decay. In this, you have the power to use creative energies to not only leave a legacy, but to feel the significance of sacrifice and excellence.
Civilization is not complex. The way to do it right is well known, as over 6,000 years of recorded history only one approach has made civilizations that not only survive but thrive. However the basics are easy. Life rewards in degrees, not binaries, and so mediocrity alone guarantees survival.
This points you to a fascinating study. If mediocrity is enough, why do civilizations fail? Look to a biological metaphor: parasites draw away energy and resources and this then conveys the civilization into senescence. The question of life is not one of positivity, but of negativity: those who thrive are the ones who suppress the negative, leave the mediocre, and celebrate the excellent so more of it arrives.
In your life, you can see the same thing. Mediocre behaviors waste time and foreclose possibilities, but negative behaviors sabotage prospects. It is the same in civilization. There are normal people, some excellent and most mediocre, and then those who engage in behaviors that sap the vitality of civilization. To succeed, a society must oppress and exile those people in imitation of Darwinian natural selection.
This seems unduly grim. An empty universe, a humanity of failures, a seemingly impossible task. And yet, this is the only canvas on which many great people have found it stimulating enough to paint. It is a backdrop for the greatness of the human mind, harnessed by self-discipline and realism, and it will not abolish the emptiness but will make life a bright enough light that the darkness is kept in balance.
Smart and SeXy
by Roderick Kaine
244 pages, Arktos, 2016
Some books open vistas of thought. Smart and SeXy may challenge all of your conceptions of gender, but it will not do so in the trivial way that mainstream media does, but instead will encourage you to look inside the theory to see what resonates.
Half science paper and half policy paper, this book lines up theories of genetic sex differences and draws connections between them in a way that opens possibilities for further exploration. Fortunately, the author chose to avoid two extremes of style — dry science and popular science-ish writing — that could impede the communication, and so it is written in an erudite but practical style which flows easily across the page.
For many of us, Smart and SeXy goes right on the shelf as a reference because it consolidates over 300 citations to peer-reviewed science journals describing the most recent research in genetics, sociology and human behavior. These links are invaluable, as are the factual data compiled using them; Kaine frequently cites a dozen studies on a page, and ties together the different statistics and facts to show a more complete picture of the issue than is offered anywhere else.
This has the effect of elevating data to theory by using multiple contrasts and critical analysis of the old school to deduce meaning, and from that, to construct general knowledge that eventually approximates a thesis for the book. By building up from a broad base of data, and including seemingly contrary data and explaining it, Smart and SeXy avoids the cherry-picking common to many science-oriented publications.
In 2011, there were almost 100,000 more girls than boys that took the SAT, a difference of 6%. Girls also seem to perform better academically than boys. In the SAT population, there were 127 girls in the top ten percent of their academic class, based on GPA, for every 100 boys. This gap narrowed but remained for students between the top 10 and 20%. There were 144 female test takers with an A+ (4.0) GPA to every 100 boys, while the average GPA of girls was 3.4 compared to 3.27 for boys. Girls also had more years of coursework in subject areas surveyed, which notably includes mathematics and science, and they had taken more AP courses, again including mathematics and science.
These figures have to be taken with something of a grain of salt because the academic advantage of girls is partially a reward teachers give for more docile behavior unrelated to cognitive ability and which is a strong factor in grading at the elementary level.* Some studies have also demonstrated that female teachers tend to grade males more harshly than intellectually equivalent females. Since in most western schools the teacher population is often 75% female or more, this could also partially explain current male underperformance.* In addition to more submissiveness to authority figures, the gender gap in academic performance is likely also partially attributable to non-cognitive skills more common in girls such as organization, dependability, and self-discipline with respect to completing school assignments.** These traits are probably helpful for the timely completion of questionably useful busy work. (98-99)
In addition to being wryly humorous, the above passage tackles a difficult quandary: the thesis of the book is that males, who have only one copy of the X chromosome, experience greater cognitive benefits as a result of the intelligence-related genes that are not suppressed by a second X chromosome which has conflicting traits which can pre-empt intelligence-related genes. If males are more humorous, why is their scholastic performance lacking?
Kaine tackles this question above by first comparing SAT and grade data, which taken alongside an earlier chapter explaining the rough IQ equivalency of SAT scores, shows that grades diverge from intelligence. He then explores this by looking for reasons why grades do not measure intelligence, and in the process uncovers some convincing data about the non-essentiality of school and grades.
Everywhere you see an asterisk, he cites a peer-reviewed study, and this is in addition to the SAT data whose citations are given earlier, which builds the case for his argument using different studies and data points as rungs in a ladder. The effect is quite convincing, and written with a similar mixture of policy, analysis and science.
Smart and SeXy takes an interesting approach because it does not have a single thesis, since its fundamental assumption about X-linked intelligence genes is borne out by the data, but it ends in a conclusion that is more like a thesis. This conclusion unites the policy and science halves of the book, and points out a grim reality that most people do not want to acknowledge: biology is destiny, and feminist/egalitarian sex roles and policies have a dysgenic effect by discouraging reproduction among those who adopt them.
Humanity as a whole will return to traditional gender roles because the groups where women prioritize motherhood will displace the groups that don’t through demographic increase, displacement and eventual subjugation. This is true for both intra-ethnic competition (conservatives and reactionaries out-breed liberals) and inter-ethnic competition.
The real question is whether or not the West will have a place in the future. The West can either accept that harsh biological reality has allotted motherhood as the primary raison d’etre of women, or it can be displaced by less advanced and less benevolent cultures who haven’t forgotten that reality. (208)
This conclusion is more like a thesis because it shows the importance of what is discussed in the book, which forms a ladder of the following parts: males tend to be more intelligent, but those genes must be passed through women, so having smart women to breed with is essential or these genes are exterminated; female equality creates a wave of incompetence in society, driving men away and causing intelligent women to fail to reproduce; deleterious traits pile up at the same time important traits decrease, and this creates a chain reaction where the smarter and better people refuse to breed. Plug that into the thesis-conclusion and the end result is civilization death caused by the pursuit of sexual equality.
What makes this book powerful is that, while it is clearly well-versed in the science, it is not exclusively science and extends its domain to what was once called critical thinking or logical analysis, which is an ability to deduce from contrasts and conflicts what is possibly true. Most scientists cannot analyze their way out of a paper bag, hence their tendency to grab a few detailed studies and make broad, unrealistic generalizations; all of the thinking here is tiered in steps to a conclusion, and Kaine compiles some of the more interesting theories he has found in his reading and incorporates them into his own thinking, choosing the best option for each step of the ladder.
In doing so, he often translates less articulated ideas into fully-coherent explanations of the data as presented. For example, here he tackles the concept of sexual gatekeeper unions, a concept exogenous to his writing but neatly woven into the background of data and analysis:
The benefits accrued to women by enforced scarcity of sex explain why the phenomenon of “slut shaming” as well as the dislike of pornography and sex workers is almost entirely female driven. In addition, drug use could also be expected to increase female promiscuity and reduce the cost of sex, which, in connection with the sexual trade union instinct, explains why most temperance and prohibition movements have been largely female driven as well. Although many leadership roles in temperance movements were occupied by men, the base supporters were overwhelmingly female.
Women are able to get more resources for sexual favors if access to sex is limited and they understand this at an instinctual level, though maybe not at a conscious level. A sexual trade union instinct is not necessary to begin the process of developing hypergamic instincts, but it is understandable why it would begin to develop in parallel once hypergamy became sufficiently widespread in a population. (140)
These explanations tie together common sense observations with logical deduction only where supported by fact, and bring out one facet of the reality we face regarding sex roles in society. As is the nature of any book which advances a strong thesis, this book argues persuasively from its thesis as the root of many social conditions; this will not be convincing to all, but that is not from rejection, but the state of being partially convinced. We can for example think of many reasons why women are the largest base of support for temperance movements, and while this may be one possibility, other possibilities also exist and some strike us as more likely.
That does not erode the point being made here, which is that a certain type of thinking leads to a certain result, so that in addition to those other factors, hypergamy also leads to certain political results. Kaine does not argue this as a means of discrediting hypergamy, but of strengthening the front side of his argument where he asserts that hypergamy is pervasive; when we see its connections to politics, society and so on, this gives context to and strengthens the foundations of his argument. This may seem like a trivial distinction but it is important when reading books like this which, at first glance, seem to explain all social ills through their own thesis alone, and that is not what is happening here.
As befits a book whose thesis rests mostly on genetics and breeding patterns, Smart and SeXy begins with a review of human genetics and an explanation of gene expression, especially of intelligence-based genes. It then progresses to explain how duplicate genes can pre-empt one another, and how this can lead to fewer beneficial traits; at that point, it moves into assessments of male intelligence and explanation for differences in behavior between the sexes in addition to intelligence and personality differences. From there, it launches into the political theory half of the book, which starts by exploring the nature of feminism, the institutions that support it, and the effects it has. After that, Kane races toward his thesis: feminism is literally killing us off by destroying natural and healthy breeding patterns that favor intelligence, leading to a death spiral and crash as Idiocracy paves the way for ethnic replacement.
I found the majority of arguments in this book to be convincing, especially if one views them as contributing factors and not singular factors. The carefully balanced arguments, and Kaine’s habit of internally testing his thesis by incorporating and explaining contrary data, ensure that for any idea he offers, the precepts lead to the conclusion but are not identical to it as is the case in propaganda writing. Instead, the book takes us on a lively journey through genetics and sex, making a solid case for the advancement of male intelligence through traditional mating and reproductive patterns.
Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilisation is precious. This is the Alt-Right.
Back in the 1980s, the heavy metal band Slayer wrote perhaps some of the most profound lyrics about the feeling of the time with “Hardening Of The Arteries” from Hell Awaits (1985):
Fear runs wild in the veins of the world
The hate turns the skies jet black
Death is assured in future plans
Why live if there’s nothing there
Spectors of doom await the moment
The mallet is sure and precise
Cover the crypts of all mankind
With cloven hoove begone
Delay the death
Of twisted life
The crippled youth try in dismay
To sabotage the carcass Earth
All new life must perish below
Existence now is futile
Decrepit breath, vile in its stench
A world in decay
Transgressor is as one
[Lead – King, Hanneman]
Convulsions take the world in hand
Nobody’s out there to save us
Brutal seizure now we die
The point of posting this is not simply that Slayer rules (they do) but that this band nailed a metaphor that most could not express: there was no hope for the future because civilization was obviously moribund.
In 1968, the hippies took over, but in 1965, our immigration laws were changed to favor people from non-European countries. Then again, in the 1930s we had creeping socialism in government, and in the 1920s, an explosion of jazz-fueled flapper vapidity.
The roots of this problem then go very deep, showing us that shortly after the turn of the century, things started to go very wrong down America way. The old America was becoming Amerika, or the new third-world style state.
To find out why, we have to look at the end result: in 1968, the hippies ousted the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) ruling class and replaced it with a new, egalitarian, Leftist one. It took a century for this to happen, and it was most likely the result of the most profound demographic change ever: the 1820s-1880s immigrant wave of non-WASP new citizens.
America was founded by WASPs — WASP is a shorthand for Western Europeans, as they are German-descended for the most part and tend to be Protestant or at least fake it — of the types Scandinavian, Dutch, English, German and Scots. A smattering of others were present but most looked Western European and behaved like them.
Starting with the Irish, new citizens came in droves. They were a cheaper variety of labor for the existing citizens, and as soon as one group got established, it brought over another group to work cheaply for it. The new citizens were of Irish, Slavic, Italian, Greek, and Jewish heritage.
These new citizens experienced the first diversity clash: having left their home countries and come to a new one, they felt like failures, because they had to leave home for a reason and they were now of lower rank. They channeled this feeling into a scapegoating of the majority, who they saw as discriminating against them, and couched this revenge sentiment as class warfare when in fact it was a diversity conflict.
As soon as they gained political power, they began re-making society in the image of their origin nations because they had to keep up the fiction that asserted the opposite of reality: it was not that the old countries failed them, but that the old countries were better, and this new country needed enlightenment.
This is the same formula that non-white populations use today, because psychologically, it is the only game they can play. They either have to repudiate their origins, or must find a reason that the new country is bad. If you wonder why diversity is fatal no matter how nice or smart the groups are, here is the reason.
The governments and institutions created by these new groups were overwhelmingly Leftist because that was the type of order familiar to them from their home countries: strong warlords, class warfare, individualist philosophy and anarchic social order.
In the race for civilization attainment that is history, these Eastern/Southern/Mediterranean Europeans came from the loser states and not the winners, as in the West. The lower a population is, the more Leftist it votes, because Leftism is the philosophy of decay and compensatory behavior that amounts to neurosis and altruism.
It took these groups several generations to gain power, but when they finally did — after the interruptions of the World Wars — they offed the WASP establishment in the 1960s.
For those who want to fix America, a good place to start is to separate the population. Your ancestors were either Western European, or you belong elsewhere. This is not because you are bad — it would be hard to argue that Italians, for example, are bad — but that diversity does not work.
The only way to save America, and Europe, is to undo diversity and send those who do not fit the founding population profile back to their homelands. While this is taboo today, it is losing that edge, because as diversity falls, and class warfare/Leftism implodes, it becomes clear that white diversity will fall as well.
Much as it makes sense to repatriate Africans, Asians and mixed-race people to their homelands, it makes sense to repatriate whites who are of these non-Western European populations. This will revitalize their home countries with new talent and knowledge, as well as fix the flagging populations in those countries.
In turn, America and Europe can achieve homogeneity of population and therefore restore culture, doing away with the need for government and endless increasing police power. Everyone wins. But we must first overcome our pretense of caste, class and ethnic equality, starting among white people.
Over in the newly-halfway-rightist Wall Street Journal, James Taranto writes:
Libertarian humor writer P.J. O’Rourke endorsed Hillary Clinton for president back in May, arguing that she is the lesser of evils—or, as he put it, “the second worst thing that can happen to this country.” He added: “But she’s way behind in second place. I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”
Any minority group will never identify with the majority. Those who see themselves as a minority will always work against the majority in order to provide a place for themselves, and an identity other than as hired labor for the majority. O’Rourke, an Irish-American, therefore identifies with anything other than Trump’s indirect defense of WASP America.
Hillary Clinton gave a speech today, and it was a pivotal point in history not because she is important, but that it consisted solely of one question: are you with us, the herd, or do you walk your own way?
To be with the herd is to approve of what it desires, which because humans are basically talking monkeys with car keys, consists of the venal side of life: no rules, free stuff, more debt, more protection for those who are not doing good things.
They hide these desires behind a wall of symbols. These symbols are abused; instead of correctly summarizing complexity, they leave out most of it in order to create an emotional effect. Everyone feels good when everyone in the group is happy and included.
Out there the neurotics are gathering. They always are, because they are defined by avoiding real problems and focusing on distractions instead. Their goal is to indulge in the pleasant fantasies which present simple questions and easy, binary answers — good America versus bad undemocratic dictators — and that makes them feel safe.
With the rise of Leftism in the West after the end of the Cold War, the neurotics have won out. For most of this time, the remaining functional people have taken it lying down because after all, they are functional; they can work around the problems created. But now it is clear that we are facing a decision for our future.
We either follow the path of the neurotics, which is easy and familiar because it is what has happened our whole lives, or stage a rebellion and disenfranchise the Left’s most powerful weapon, which is its imported third-world population which almost exclusively always votes Leftist.
Clinton made it easy for us by choosing to attack Donald Trump by calling him names. She called him Adolf Hitler, by invoking the Klan, white nationalism, anti-Semitism and any other postwar American taboo she could. Underneath those words however, her message was simpler. You must take a side: join the neurotics, or join the rebels.
For many of us, this one is a no-brainer. Leftism leads to Venezuela. Clintons lead to corruption. The two seem to go hand-in-hand, which is why unions are always in bed with organized crime and Leftist dictatorships always end up criminal, with a half-dozen rich people owning 90% of the country.
You may not like Donald Trump or his policies, but that is secondary to the fact that not riding with Trump means that you will allow the Clintons to import enough permanent Leftist voters that you will never have a choice like this again. The next election will be a Clinton versus another Clinton, or people who act just like them.
This is a battle for the soul of our nation, and by mustering up the same insults that the Left has used since the 1940s, Hillary has shown us our choice: further into the clutches of Leftist power, or something — anything — to escape what we know is a dead-end path.
At that moment, she handed the potential for victory to the alt right. The question of whether to join the alt right is no longer a choice; you either join the Party with Clinton, or you are an outsider. Outsiders, if they stick together, can win and stop this debacle.
No more do people fear being called “racist,” because now we know it is simply a synonym for outsider. You are either in the Party, or you are little people, unless of course all us little people turn on the Party. For all of her bitter words, Clinton has done what no Republican can do, which is unify the dissenters — and our power is rising.
From the Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB) file, Twitter has decided to shadowban the Amerika.org Twitter account from the #AltRightMeans hashtag. Perhaps this means more recognition for us as truly the outsider wing of the alternative right.
Thanks to Hillary Clinton deciding to make war on Donald Trump by linking him to the Alternative Right, implying that the Alternative Right is an ideological enemy so derided that none can survive being linked to it, the Alternative Right is rising in public consciousness.
As mentioned in other parts of this blog, conservatism is fundamentally consequentialism. This means that it is concerned with the results of actions, not our feelings or judgments of them. From this comes its worship of eternal truths, or things that work because a study of reality shows them to produce optimal results, and from that a study of transcendental beauty and timeless good.
Any alternative right — or pressure on the mainstream right — that will succeed is going to work outward from these ideas. They are not fences to keep ideas in a chaotic mass, but like the center of a wheel the anchor to which spokes connect, drawing all the sub-ideas together. They are like the root note in a scale to which key and chord harmonize.
This gave birth to the Alternative Right, which is best summarized as “right wing views which are not hybridized with the Left like public right-wingers are forced to be,” with a few tenets:
Nationalism. This is where the Right has always clashed with the Left: the Left defines nations by politics, where the Right uses the historical definition of related groups of people indigenous to a land. The Left is anti-nationalism because it endorses equality as a means of replacing cultural standards (culture, values, morality, religion, heritage) with an all-encompassing drive to realize the Utopian egalitarian State.
anti-Cathedralism. The traditional Right opposes centralization and the replacement of natural developments with human intentions, which it sees as fallible and linked to evil because of the weakness of most people and any people assembled in groups. The cabal of media, corporate and government interests that is the Cathedral depends on the ideological basis of government for its legitimacy.
some Traditionalism. Tradition is the essence of conservatism: conserve what achieved the best results in the past. It sees the world as a single thing of which there are many interpretations arriving at the same eternal truths. This includes many diverse methods such as chastity, patriarchy, masculinity, transcendentalism, and humility.
Human Biodiversity. When looking at humans in any way, think like nature: biology first, then how you can educate/brainwash (same difference) them, force them to comply with laws and incentives, or otherwise control people. You cannot control people. Heritage is all, not just at the level of race, but ethnicity, class, caste, family and individual.
The alt right is an online movement opposed to political correctness, multiculturalism, feminism and mainstream conservatism. It’s primarily comprised of young white men. While a large portion of its adherents are white nationalists, not all of the folks tweeting out the hashtag are concerned with enforcing Aryan supremacy. The alt right is an umbrella term which includes multiple ideologies — everyone from anarcho-capitalists, neo-monarchists, American nationalists, men’s rights advocates, “identitarians,” and even out-and-out neo-Nazis all claim to be apart of the alt right.
The Alt-Right is not just a populist or nationalist revolt against Conservatism, Inc. Most of Trump’s supporters now fully accept our critique of Conservatism, Inc. Few of these people grasp where the Alt-Right is coming from or have even heard of the Alt-Right.
…The Alt-Right has three hallmark characteristics:
1.) Realism – First, the most important characteristic of the Alt-Right is radical realism. By that I mean that Alt-Right is non-ideological and analyses almost every question from the perspective of whether or not it is true.
The Alt-Right has a reputation for “racism.” That’s because the Alt-Right looks at the question of racial equality, demands to see the evidence, and draws the conclusion it is just a bunch of bullshit we are supposed to believe. The Alt-Right looks at places like Detroit, Haiti, sub-Saharan Africa and so on, shrugs its shoulders, and suggests “not really.” There isn’t a school district in the United States which has ever demonstrated the existence of racial equality under controlled conditions. The evidence for racial equality is less plausible than Medieval alchemists trying to turn lead into gold…
2.) Identity – Second, the Alt-Right’s interest in identity is an outgrowth of its radical realism. The Alt-Right’s analysis of history and biology has led us to the conclusion that human beings ARE NOT primarily individuals. On the contrary, we are tribal beings who invariably divide the world into in-groups and out-groups, and those tribes have always been in a primordial struggle for DOMINANCE.
Liberals tell themselves a cute story about how individuals once exited a “State of Nature” and came together to draw up a social contract in which they parted ways with some of their inalienable rights to create “society.” But that’s not really what happened now is it? The evidence suggests that prehistoric man lived a life that was nothing like this liberal fantasy. There is no evidence either that “society” was created as it was said to have been created – like a lawyer’s contract – in the liberal origin myth.
The timeless struggle for DOMINANCE between rival groups is why we have POLITICS.
3.) Iconoclasm – Third, the Alt-Right has a strong Nietzchean streak. Even if many of us have studied Nietzsche at one point in our lives and moved on as we grew older, we still tend to relish creating mischief. We enjoy smashing idols.
In the United States, liberals, progressives, conservatives, and libertarians are all branches of the common liberal family. All these groups want to preserve the fundamental liberal world order even if they disagree on whether “liberty” or “equality” should be given priority and fight viciously with each other. They all share the same blinkered liberal worldview in which more “liberty” or more “equality” is the solution to every problem.
We don’t belong to the liberal family. We’re see ourselves as something else altogether. This is why, for example, so many of us enjoy trolling because we don’t believe in any of the standard bullshit – for example, nothing is less self-evident to us than the notion that all men are created equal – and political correctness is an irresistible target.
Raspail’s vision has been cited frequently at Breitbart News, especially when a major Western leader criticizes anti-immigrant sentiment. “Now, as in the novel, prominent political officials are urging on ever larger waves,” wrote Breitbart’s Julia Hahn in 2015. “Secular and religious leaders hold hands to pressure blue collar citizens to drop their resistance; media elites and celebrities zealously cheer the opportunity that the migrants provide to atone for the alleged sins of the West — for the chance to rebalance the wealth and power of the world by allowing poor migrants from failed states to rush in to claim its treasures.”
Perhaps the biggest contribution of the alternative right is to mention the real elephant in the room which is the decline and fall of Western Civilization beginning with The Enlightenment™ and worsening as its ideas became more mainstreamed. The idea of human equality means that choices can be arbitrary because they are equal, which has the effect of banishing reality from the room. When the assorted fat feminists, minorities, lunatic liberals and apartment plankton millennials vote for Bernie or Hillary, they are unconcerned about the results of that act. They know what they want to be true and that is enough. Voting is wishful thinking. Naturally, with this mentality in place, the West has become unable to respond to reality and chases dreams and illusions instead of looking at hard problems.
Since the mainstream right will not mention these truths, and the Left and its enthusiastically compliant media will not mention them, actual conservatives needed another outlet. The alternative right draws together several groups — libertarians, paleoconservatives, white nationalists, New Right, neoreactionary — and unites them under the idea that our current way is dead and our conservative opposition will not stop it because it will not mention forbidden truths. As a result, there is great variation between alternative right beliefs. The leftist media and politicians will try to spin the alternative right as having “Nazi” or “neo-Nazi” origins, letting one trait speak for all others as usual, as will compliant mainstream “cuckservative” conservatives. Both groups are threatened by this outsider voice that accurately describes what mainstream politics will refuse to address.
Hillary Clinton will argue that Donald Trump is helping to spawn a new ideology in America embraced by white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremist groups as she takes aim at a movement dubbed the “alt-right.”
“He is taking a hate movement mainstream,” Clinton said Wednesday night on CNN in previewing her speech, scheduled for 3 p.m. Eastern. “He’s bringing it to our communities and our country.”
It “reminds me of that great saying that Maya Angelou had that when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. And Donald Trump has shown us who he is, and we ought to believe him,” said Clinton.
In many ways the “alt-right” is a rebranding of classic white nationalism for the 21st century. As BuzzFeed described the movement: “In short, it’s white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times: 4chan-esque racist rhetoric combined with a tinge of Silicon Valley–flavored philosophizing, all riding on the coattails of the Trump boom.”
The “alt-right” opposes diversity and immigration, arguing that those policies are a form of “white genocide.” It embraces racism, sexism, anti-Muslim bigotry, and anti-Semitism and sees its goal as usurping the traditional conservative movement, which it views as feckless and weak, in favor of a brand of nationalism.
Last week, when Donald Trump tapped the chairman of Breitbart Media to lead his campaign, he wasn’t simply turning to a trusted ally and veteran propagandist. By bringing on Stephen Bannon, Trump was signaling a wholehearted embrace of the “alt-right,” a once-motley assemblage of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, ethno-nationalistic provocateurs who have coalesced behind Trump and curried the GOP nominee’s favor on social media. In short, Trump has embraced the core readership of Breitbart News.
“We’re the platform for the alt-right,” Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July. Though disavowed by every other major conservative news outlet, the alt-right has been Bannon’s target audience ever since he took over Breitbart News from its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, four years ago. Under Bannon’s leadership, the site has plunged into the fever swamps of conservatism, cheering white nationalist groups as an “eclectic mix of renegades,” accusing President Barack Obama of importing “more hating Muslims,” and waging an incessant war against the purveyors of “political correctness.”
[T]he Alternative Right is an alternative to white nationalism as much as the Republicans.
The goal of the Alternative Right is to establish principles by which civilizations thrive, in contrast to the dying principles upon which we base our current time.
These include nationalism, naturally since all other options have failed, but also extend to many other options. In particular, the Alternative Right studies how the the common sense opinion of a population is replaced by that of its professional politicians.
A better way to view the Alternative Right: a recognition that liberal democracy has failed, and a searching for alternatives which are both not oppressive and not prone to decay like liberal democracy.
Alternative right in my mind means two things: (1) right-wing (2) in ways that the mainstream will not acknowledge. This means actual conservatives, since mainstream conservatives have always been liberal apologists at least in part, and so have failed to achieve anything over their 200 year long slow retreat. Alternative right as a term is used like the phrase “alternative music” once was, meaning that which the mainstream is not yet ready for but will mine for ideas once its own get too stale.
…It is also a cheap shot. We are the resistance movement to liberalism; we want non-liberalism. In my mind, that means going back to the root and through cultural change, removing individualism and replacing it with self-interest in context of social role. It means nationalism, or one ethnic group per country (send all non Western Europeans back to their homelands). It means having an aristocracy, or people chosen by ability and character rather than obedience to industry, academia and popularity, instead of mob rule. It means a removal of millions of lines of law and their replacement with a few informal principles.
[T]he Alt-Right is a movement founded on the need to reject the false political dichotomy that favours an increasingly Leftist and globalist world. But why should we be so opposed to this? The reason is quite simple: Leftist globalism is sick and degenerative, both in demographic and economic terms, and any individual or group that deems itself healthy – or which at least values health – must reject it.
Leftist globalism can only exist thanks to modernity and the power of technology. The more technologically backward or economically underprivileged areas are, the more they are forced to resort to traditional, localist, and hierarchical modes of existence, in order to survive. This is why Leftist globalism only exists in the West. But even with all its advantages, Leftist globalism is degenerative. We see this in the West, where the core populations are failing to reproduce and are thus in the process of being replaced by incomers from societies that are more technologically backward and economically underprivileged.
As official mouthpiece of globalism Hillary Clinton prepares to attack the Alternative Right, people are becoming curious as to what the Alternative Right actually is. No movement has been more enigmatic and less understood in recent history, and none will ever be so resistant to debunking.
Those of us who were writing back in the day with CORRUPT hit on the same formula that you see on contemporary Alternative Right sites: nationalism, anti-democracy, human biodiversity (HBD) and a sense of needing a goal, even a transcendental one, to society itself, as opposed to merely needing religion. We saw the Alternative Right movement as a “true Right” which did not have to make itself into pleasant salesmen to sell the voters denatured versions of right-wing ideas with all the controversial, triggering, upsetting and otherwise realist parts removed.
In this sense, the Alternative Right lives up to its name: the mainstream Right has become corrupted in the same way every other institution in the collapsing Western Civilization has. Once politics takes over, an inevitable drift to the Left commences because equality rewards the lowest common denominator. As a result, conservatism and Right-wing politics have come to mean the exact opposite of their original meaning, and the Alternative Right is zeroing the compass on true north yet again.
Although it combines many views, the essential philosophy of the Alternative Right is Nationalism: the idea that what defines a nation is the ethnic group and its corresponding culture. Ethnicity = the nation. Ethnicity = the culture. This inescapable truth can be verified by looking at human history, and noting that the happiest most successful nations are the least ethnically diverse, while the least happy and successful tend to be diversity paradises like Brazil.
The root of nationalism is this recognition that a nation cannot be forced into existence, but rather arises from a genetically-related group who, since they share traits and abilities, form a cohesive unit which does not require constant control through force, because its shared preferences create cultural standards and norms which make it self-regulating:
To be harmoniously embedded and contextualized in one’s own culture is, as everyone everywhere seems to have understood until the latter half of the last century, the foundation and bedrock of normal human experience, and is generally a precondition for individual happiness and flourishing. Furthermore, the variety of human cultures is not a superficial fact, nor is it a matter of contingent historical accident; cultures do not simply fall from the sky and land, haphazardly, upon whichever human population happens to be passing below. I believe they are best understood, instead, as what Richard Dawkins has called “extended phenotypes“.
The idea is a simple one: a biological organism has both a genotype, which is the sum of its genetic information, and a phenotype, which is the physical result of the expression of the genotype — the term “phenotype” usually being understood to refer to the organism’s body. Dawkins’s fertile insight was that the phenotype extends beyond the body, into the wider world.
…In H. sapiens, the social animal par excellence, the extended phenotype quite naturally includes culture. And just as we see variation among subspecies for, say, bowerbird nests, we should expect to see that long-isolated human populations, whose genomes have been subject to widely varying selection pressures throughout their history, will create different, often very different, cultures — cultures as distinct as their physical appearance. And so we do.
As with all things in nature, nations are not made of rigid squares and lines, but of a center which associates all of the parts. This is why traditional societies were nationalist: they admitted few if any outsiders, were xenophobic in outlook, and did not require modern legal, police and economic systems because most behavior was guided from within. This “from within” means both from within the group, and from the inner conscience and awareness of individuals.
This realization leads to two heads to the Alternative Right platform:
Resistance to demographic replacement. In the short term, immigration is a question of birth and votes. The Leftist plan in both US and EU is to import third-world people who will then reproduce at the rates they have done for centuries, an r-strategy of reproduction, and then promptly outvote the natives. This creates a permanent Leftist majority. Plato notes that tyrants have always done this.
Reversal of civilization decline. Since the dawn of time, only one method has worked for producing high-IQ societies which do not self-destruct, and it has four basic principles. Western civilization has been in decline for centuries if not millennia and the only way to change that is to start heading in the opposite direction, but in order to do this, we must recognize that the cornerstone of culture and civilization is the ethnic group and its heritage.
Civilizations in decline turn toward egalitarian ideas because there is no longer any center to their existing belief; they no longer have a sense of shared purpose, so instead they focus on what will keep the inmates pacified. Equality is this pacification, which takes the form of a social contract of “we will include all of you in our society, as long as you support this ideology which will be used to control you.” Equality wins because it is socially popular; it is never a winning play in a social group to deny that all people should be included because someone else will come along, offer universal inclusion, and have more Twitter followers and drinking buddies than you will.
Our current civilization is just one stage of the collapse of Western Civilization. There are five stages of grief and loss which mark recent history:
Denial (2,000 BCE – 1915 AD)
Anger (1916 – 1945 AD)
Bargaining (1968 AD)
Acceptance (2016 – )
All dates are approximate. As Plato noted, once there was a golden age where people lived for purpose alone; when that failed, we began to work by the opposite principle, which is that we determined purpose from ourselves. At that point, commerce and social popularity invaded, and the long slow decline began through a staggered series of civilization collapses including ancient Greece and Rome.
The core realization of the Alternative Right is that our enemy is not the many red herrings raised by the media and government, but civilization decline itself, and that the way to fix this is to go back to a biological metaphor and focus on health. Specifically, we must focus on the health of the nation, which is expressed through what forms a nation over the centuries: its people, which form a specific ethnic group and have roles within that group, through both the vertical measurement of caste and horizontal divisions for specific abilities.
This is why the cornerstone of the Alternative Right is nationalism. Nationalism preserves an ethnic group and shifts focus from government to culture. The population then eliminates the primary vector for the introduction of parasites, which is the tyrannical nature of government that always preaches to people what they want to hear and uses the ensuing enthusiastic support as a mandate for doing what government does, which is solidify its power at the expense of the nation. During the past 227 years, this trend has accelerated greatly, but it really took off after World War II and then, when the threat of Communism was removed in the late 1980s, kicked into high gear over the past twenty-five years. The results have been disastrous.
Equality will always be the favorite idea of both governments and large crowds of people. It spreads those good feelings of pacifism through the thought that by equally including everyone, we have eliminated conflict and can now let only the good events occur. This especially appeals to children, morally weak men, and women, and this is why governments are adamant about expanding the voting franchise as far as possible, which inevitable leads to the “if people are equal, why aren’t they equal everywhere?” mental meme which shortly precedes the abolition of borders. Governments take over prosperous nations and leave behind vast impoverished masses of mixed-race grey people living under third-world conditions. Modernity is predicated on the idea of government with its sword of equality replacing national identity, culture, heritage, religion and customs. Political correctness is the method of enforcing modernity, making people deny reality and promote equality or lose their jobs, friends, homes or worse.
So what does the Alternative Right mean? In the short term, it means that postwar Leftism has failed; in the long term, it means that modernity and equality have failed. This is the core of the Alternative Right. It recognizes actual power, and realistic thinking, as the root of civilization, which means a reliance on biology and history instead of the preferences of the herd. It rejects the legitimacy of modernity and instead recognizes it as a path to death, and in doing so, focuses its attention on restoring civilization so that we overcome the causes of modernity. Those causes exist in human individualism and the megalomaniac egoism it fosters, and those in turn originate in turning away from the precept of Plato’s golden age, which was that purpose and ideal in a naturalistic sense must come before convenience, pragmatism, popularity and even self.
The current media focus on the Alternative Right is an attempt to subvert it, not celebrate it. As one sensible critic wrote:
A short definition, that seems to me uncontroversial: The Alt-Right is the populist dissident right. Set theoretically, NRx is therefore grouped with it, but as a quite different thing. Another obvious conclusion from the definition: the Alt-Right is almost inevitably going to be far larger than NRx is, or should ever aim to be. If you think people power is basically great, but the Left have just been doing it wrong, the Alt-Right is most probably what you’re looking for (and NRx definitely isn’t).
…As a consequence of its essential populism, the Alt-Right is inclined to anti-capitalism, ethno-socialism, grievance politics, and progressive statism.
The Alternative Right has absorbed Neoreaction because Neoreaction, in its desire for “exit” from the West, has abandoned the West to its own decay. The Alternative Right instead wants to recapture the West, throw out the broken and exile the defective, and restore a great empire.
However, the Alternative Right fails where — as media certainly wants it to do — it distills itself to populism. The point made above by Nick Land’s text is that “people power” always shifts Left because it is based in the human ego, and the individualistic human will choose what is morally and mentally convenient over what needs to be done to create and nurture a healthy civilization. People choose what is easy when the choice is left up to them, and double down on that approach when in a crowd, because whether in democratic voting or any other popularity contest, crowds have zero accountability. People vote for something and then blame an abstraction, “the vote” or “the others,” for its failure.
Instead, it makes sense to view the Alternative Right as one of those decision points in history where what was assumed to be correct has been revised; it is a rejection of democracy, equality, “people power,” populism and any herd dynamics. Instead, it aspires to hierarchy, nobility, strong arbitrary authority, transcendental purpose and self-rule by each nation through its own culture and internal Darwinistic selection process. This is not a Jeffersonian revolt, but a Nietzschean one. That this is lost on most people is indicative of the ongoing failure of any politics based in the individual, and not the Alternative Right itself.
Today the Leftist and globalist candidate Hillary Clinton will attempt to link Donald Trump to a strawman of the Alternative Right, and will almost certainly call us ignorant and racist and bigoted and all of the usual Leftist dog whistles for “not Leftist, therefore bad.” In doing so, she will strengthen the Alternative Right. It will then have to face its own internal indecision: does it rise above all of recent history, and restore Western Civilization to greatness, or content itself with being — like the mainstream conservatives — another watered-down attempt to merely stop the advance of Leftism in the short term?