Alt Right AMA Postmortem

The “Ask Me Anything” AMA session on Reddit last night went quite well, thanks to the /r/altright moderation team and all of those who participated. Many longtime supporters and friends as well as new acquaintances showed up to make it possible.

Of course, the whole thing almost failed when it became apparent that Reddit has banned my original account for posting the following message:

This caused Reddit admins, who generally lean far-left, to suspend the account despite it not having violated their content policy under any reasonable interpretation. The information posted was public information about public regulatory agencies and employers, as one does when a group wants to complain about the behavior of a public figure like Tanya N. Gersh, who orchestrated a witch hunt against Sherry Spencer.

My response to Reddit is as follows:

Specifically, I wrote a counter-argument here:

Hi there,

I feel this is in error:

> Your account has been permanently suspended from Reddit for attempting to organize a witch hunt.

Tanya N. Gersh is a public figure who made public statements against Richard Spencer’s mother, and I posted public sources to the regulatory committees that oversee her licensing as a realtor, a role she abused when she attempted to extort money from Sherry Spencer. This is the opposite of a witch hunt; it is accountability for someone who did organize a witch hunt. Nothing but public sources were posted, and posting these is not in violation of Reddit’s rules.

I request that you reconsider. I will consider failure to lift this ban a proof of ideological bias by admins because there is no other credible explanation for using an anti-witch hunt rule to ban people who are defending an innocent woman against a witch hunt by using the regulatory mechanisms set up by our government for exactly this purpose.

Thank you,

Brett

There is really no way to read this except as politically-motivated censorship on the part of Reddit, which could explain the troubles they are having in finding funding. Reddit is an improvement over Facebook and Twitter because its software rewards posting links and discussion more than chatter and ego-drama, but it was quickly taken over by the Leftist herd of SJWs when it became popular because they are drawn to the ability to mass “down-vote” stories that contradict their narrative, and the type of people Reddit is able to hire to keep watch on the site tend to be lower-paid Silicon Valley workers who are single and lonely and therefore lean Left. Based on what I have seen, the “down-vote” button and the need to have paid babysitters are the big flaws of this site, which has had problems with censorship in the past.

In fact, this was a running joke on free speech site Gab, a reference to Reddit’s CEO editing messages that criticized him.

Upon consideration, this seems to be a problem with all social media and all governments: if they organize in defense of the weaker, they end up penalizing anyone who has something to lose in an attempt to protect others from uncomfortable truths. In America, for example, the great equalizer is the lawsuit, where if someone has more money than you and you can find a reason to attack him, you can essentially extort cash from him with the threat of a lawsuit. On social media, small percentages of the user base can organize into angry mobs that then force censorship on those who are stronger and therefore post more realistic material, which the angry mob knows it can get removed by acting as if it is the victim.

If anyone is the victim in this case, it would be Sherry Spencer and myself, as Mrs. Spencer was the target of a real-estate extortion scam closely tied with Leftist political groups, and my account was targeted by Reddit for posting counter-narrative material. It will be interesting to see how Reddit responds to the request for reconsideration.

In the meantime, you can read the AMA offsite if you do not want to give Reddit the clicks, or view it on Reddit. Some interesting questions and answers that came out of it:

What are your thoughts about Donald Trump?

Donald Trump represents (1) a cultural revolution against the idea that white people cannot have self-interest and (2) a reversal of direction in the West from ideology toward practical concerns, or time-proven results in the conservative tradition.

I see DJT as a moderate, ultimately, but also a businessman, which means that he measures his successes in terms of how well his projects turn out, not just the theater of public opinion as Leftists do. People elected him because he pointed out the obvious crises of America — big government, diversity, immigration, red tape — and showed how people were suffering on a day-to-day basis because of these. If he acts to reduce these problems, especially BUILD THAT WALL, he will be a success bigger than Reagan. If he does not, he will quickly exit stage left.
My hope for Donald Trump is a reversal of affirmative action, civil rights and anti-discrimination law through an act of Congress, in addition to what he has promised above. These laws mean that if a non-white person wants a job, apartment, sale or home and a white person wants the same, the non-white person always gets it because the seller/employer can be sued for millions of dollars if they do not give it to the non-white. Diversity is killing America, and its forefront is this triad of laws.

In addition, DJT can do some great things for Europe. He is against American ideological intervention in Europe, which frees up Europe to have non-Leftist opinions again. He will make them pay for their own defense, which means that their socialist-style social welfare programs will no longer be affordable. He has started a cultural wave away from the appearance-based Leftist ideology and toward practical realism.
There is much to like about DJT, but I think it is a mistake to see him as a rightist or alt-righter. He simply wants to make this country functional again, but there will be ripple effects from this worldwide that the alt right can seize upon and use to further our message and objectives.

On Nihilism:

On the topic of Nihilism, and I plan to buy your book on the subject, do you see Nihilism as a starting point for reevaluating ones values where one throws out everything they thought they knew, and starts over? Or, Nihilism as a life philosophy where nothing matters?

Great question. Nihilism as I see it is radical skepticism toward humanity, both as individuals and as mobs, which are ultimately individualist because every person in the mob wants to use the mob as their personal army to achieve social acceptance without having to contribute toward a positive direction for society. For this reason, I see nihilism as a clearing out of all the insanity of the Leftist years and The Enlightenment.™
From that space of zero belief in humanity, it is possible to notice nature and the pattern order of reality, and from that to understand what was common knowledge 2,000 years ago, including the divinity inherent to life and the necessity of sane and normal practices like patriarchy, nationalism, reverence and warlike aggression.

On the future:

What do you think is in store for 2017 for the alt right? Where do you think we should focus our energies?

2017 is the year when Donald Trump begins to change American law, but more importantly, he has changed the playing field by refuting the accusation of “racism.”

This campaign was interesting. The Left was accustomed to using its magic word “racist” to make white people stop advocating for their own interests; when they used it on Trump and his followers, they shrugged and said, “If you say so.” This broke the power of the Left.

In addition, we are seeing a wave across the West, including USA and Europe, where people are realizing that Leftist policies have failed, and that we have to change direction if we do not want to be dragged to certain destruction by these policies.

For this reason, I suggest we start with “baby steps” by removing the laws in our way. I mention the triad of affirmative action, civil rights and anti-discrimination laws as a starting point; if we restore freedom of association, the normal functional people are going to break away and leave the freaky rainbow nation of deracinated people of all races and the “beige horizon” mixed race people to their own fate. We need to be able to break free and pursue our own goals, and that requires getting rid of 70 years of Leftist rules designed to stop us from breaking away from the herd and living sane lives on our own. That would be my first point of focus.

On “physical removal”:

What are your opinions on physical removal?

Physical removal is necessary.

I favor gentle kinds of physical removal: reparations only with repatriation for non Western European people in North America, and removal of laws that protect people from their bad decisions, with the idea that eventually it will be time to exile career Leftists — who are, by the criminal nature of Leftism, also criminals — to Brazil.

So, helicopter rides… with gentle landings, far away, and those Leftists become someone else’s problem.

On the alt right:

What do you think is the alt-right’s weakest link right now? What part of our platform is being neglected that we need to reinvigorate going into the Trump administration?

The weakest link on the alt right is that there is confusion about what the alt right is. For a short definition, the alt right is the original Right that is not restrained by political correctness, and so can tell the truth about homogeneity being the best option for society, that equality is nonsense, that democracy is toxic and that diversity is a path to doom.

As far as the neglected parts of our platform, the biggest one is freedom of association. All of us need to put pressure on Donald Trump to remove toxic civil rights laws so that we can have freedom of association again and begin building our community.

On homosexuality:

What is your opinion on homosexuals and bisexuals being in the alt right movement, such as Greg Johnson, James O’Meara or (previously) Jack Donovan?

Homosexuality is a complex topic. First, they occur among our people; second, they tend to die young, suggesting that they are genetically different than the mainstream. Finally, homosexuals are a group in which a great deal of talent rests.

Some say we should not tolerate them, others advocate for equal tolerance. My eyes grow red and my teeth gnash at the mention of anything “equal,” so you can guess what my response will be, which is to take a middle path.

I say bring back the closet. Let gay people be quietly gay, as the gentlemen you mention above tend to want to. If you target them, they will pretend to be heterosexual and will take on heterosexual families, which will spread those genes for early death and create fractured families; no one can fully love a wife if he wants boyfriend. If you norm them, you expose our people to behavior they do not need to see, especially when young. So take a middle path: let there be gay bars and theaters, let gay people do their thing… so long as they keep it quiet and do not work against our interests.

Beyond that, I do not think about it much. I enjoy the writings of all three of the gentlemen you mentioned and think they are a credit to our movement.

On Anders Breivik:

Lately, I’ve seen a lot of people hating on Breivik and completely mis-characterizing him. Care to give your thoughts?

Anders Breivik is a hero. Instead of shooting minorities, he took the fight to the people responsible, which is white Leftists. He informed them that the choice to be a Leftist was not without consequences, which is why they are terrified of him. He did not fight their proxies — the human shields they create in minorities, women, gays, trans, etc. — but fought them directly. What an intellect, and what a man!

On anarchism:

What is your ideal form of government?

No government!

Conservatives are anarchists. We dislike government, but do not mind “authority,” or strong leaders. What we reject is the idea that there should be some bureaucracy to manage us and save us from ourselves. Let Darwin do his blessed work, and each person face the results of his own actions, including early death if that is the case.

In place of government, I prefer strong culture; nationalism allows this. That way, instead of trying to have an incorruptible police officer for every citizen, we let citizens enforce social standards on one another. This is both less “fascist” and less permissive than modernity. To keep that together, we need military leaders like kings and aristocrats to handle defense, cultural activities and giving us an example to follow.

On capitalism:

Marxist or Capitalist?

Strongly capitalist, with the caveat that capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. It cannot exist in a vacuum; we need other forces to regulate it, like strong national culture, a caste system so that the “consumers” who define the market are our smartest and not our lowest common denominator, and powerful leaders like aristocrats and kings. Marxism and socialism simply fail whenever they are tried, and they leave behind zombified people who seem to depend on others to tell them what to do, which over multiple generations becomes a genetic trait of the aggregate population. These ideologies are best avoided in any and every form.

One important distinction here is that while any set of political beliefs may be seen as an ideology, the basis of Leftism is ideology itself, or thinking about what “should” be instead of what is. Conservatism consists of time-proven actions that lead to successes above the norm; Leftism is entirely conjectural, and consists of our human intent — what we wish were true — applied with force as a kind of groupthink, mob rule, hive mind, cult and gang. Naturally this destroys societies, and Marxism is just one variation of this that includes the idea of the State subsidizing its citizens.

And a reading list:

As a nationalist, what do you consider to be required reading for us of that mindset?

Great to see you here! Basic nationalist reading:

  1. Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age. An insight into how we get past this era in history.
  2. Julius Evola, Men Among The Ruins. Why modern society does not meet our needs, and how to have a spiritual nationalism that saves us from ourselves.
  3. Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State. One of the first modern arguments for nationalism for its own sake, Herzl saw diversity as the cause of racism and pointed out that the only solution was to end diversity.
  4. Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley. The common sense and far-reaching argument for nationalism: without it, we have nothing in common, and it makes us hateful.
  5. Marcus Garvey, Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey. A sensible view into how each group walks its own path, and has to bypass competition within the diverse state to find its own destiny.
  6. Tom Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right. A theoretical approach to thinking our way outside of the world in which we live, a Left-leaning internationalist regime.
  7. Billy Roper, The Big Picture. This one is new, and is a practical argument for nationalism and how to introduce normal people to it.

On top of those, a general background in history, literature and philosophy. For those wanting to enter the latter, Will Durant’s The Story of Philosophy is a good toe-dipping-into-the-water entry point.

This was an invigorating question and answer session and other right-wing figures should consider doing the same to establish a quick summary of your viewpoints.

Tags: , , , ,

8 Responses to “Alt Right AMA Postmortem”

  1. Liam Jackson Smith says:

    Why aren’t you on voat yet?

    /v/identitarian

  2. Youkai Polygraph says:

    didn’t make it on time to ask the AQ darn it

    good job good job. thumbs up emoji

  3. coyote says:

    Excellent summation of various points for the AltRight to consider and to move foreward. Thanks for the reading recommendations! Merry Christmas, and a prosperous and happy New Year, good Sir.

  4. I think there is a fundamental misconception of what the West is all about. Why?

    Societies are organizations created by organisms. So, the foundation of any organization, social-political-or-otherwise, must focus on the well-being of the organism. After all, an entire city can be destroyed, but if human-organisms remain, a new one can be built. German and Japanese cities were horribly destroyed in WWII, but they were rebuilt. Even Hiroshima. Why? Human organisms remained. It’s like someone can mess up an ant colony with water and feet, but as long as ants survive, they can rebuild it.

    Ideas, values, and systems all exist to serve the organism. Humans are organisms of nature and of culture. As natural organisms, they are of flesh and blood. As cultural beings, they have identities, memories, and concepts in their consciousness(created by the organ of the brains). But there must first be the organism. That is key. Even culture is secondary. After all, a people can survive even great cultural destruction. The barbarian invasions destroyed much of classical culture in Western Europe, but the European races did remain and were able to rediscover what was lost. The Bolshevik Revolution destroyed many churches and art works, but as long as Russians survived, they were able to restore much of Russian culture. The Maoist Cultural Revolution was horrible in wrecking so much, but as long as the Chinese people survived, they were able to piece together what remained and restore the continuation of Chinese culture.

    So, the fundamental foundation of EU should be the preservation, survival, and defense of the European Organism as natural being and cultural being. Other considerations are also necessary, but the foundations must be preservation, defense, and survival of the organisms. Only when such is secure can other things be considered.

    But materialism, atomization, vanity-feminism, male immaturism, interracism, and PC are weakening the very premise of European Order.

    Europeans have the tree upside down. Roots must be in the ground and offer stability to the trunk from which form the branches from which forms the leaves. A tree cannot survive if you chop it in half and if you plant it upside down with leaves as roots.

    The notion of ‘European or Western values’ are all very good, and I don’t mind liberalism either as long as its sane and sober. But they must be outgrowths of the solid and stable European trunk with roots firmly into the ground.

    An order isn’t built on ideas as premise. It is built on survival and security of the organism, and ideas grow from that.

    The problem of the West is that the idea of ‘rights’ take precedence of the idea of ‘fights’.

    Rights are abstract guarantees allowed by the state. Negative rights are for individuals who wish for autonomy, and positive rights are for the community with collective interests, such as social security.

    But for there to be a system of ‘rights’, there first has to be a secure and stable social order that guarantees the survival of the organisms. So, ‘fights’ must precede the ‘rights’.

    Fights would be the securing and strengthening of the forces that allow the organisms to survive, thrive, and reproduce in its own chosen domain. So, before there can be any talk of human rights, there must be the consideration of organismic fights.

    After all, what use are ‘rights’ on their own when only a stable and secure order can guarantee those rights in the first place?

    Whether the rights are negative(individual) or positive(collective), they are useless without the power of the state that governs and manages the Order. And for that state to operate, it has to defend the organisms of the domain. After all, those very organisms are the main supporters and enablers of the state. (It’s like the mind has to serve the body. If the mind hurts the body, the body will no longer sustain the mind, and the mind will die too.)

    If the organisms are not defended, then the order will fall apart, and then the state won’t function either. And then, all those rights will just be abstract nothings since there is no power to guarantee them via enforcement.

    Suppose Sweden continues to expose itself from massive African and Muslim invasion to the point where whites are a defenseless minority. The state would hardly function with all those barbarians and savages roaming around. Soon, the notion of ‘rights’ would be just empty talk since the Order(now disorder) would be unable to enforce anything.

    Rights don’t exist in nature. ‘Rights’ is a abstract ideal that can only be enforced by the state. But for a stable order to exist in the first place, it has to be secured by fights. Fights would determine who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’. Fights would determine which land is our land and which land is their land. While not fixed permanently — as wars can change boundaries as in WWI and WWII — , there needs to be some kind of borderline to secure the peace among competing powers. Even animals have this territorial instinct. Without such borders, any people could move into any place, and that would lead to mess and mayhem; Order simply isn’t possible with ceaseless mass migrations on a huge scale.

    Indeed, the most fundamental concept of rights, that of property rights, is founded on the reality of fights. In order to prevent everyone from bickering and attacking one another at all times, the concept of property rights acknowledges the instinct for territorial ‘fights’ within the organismic instinct. So, there is bound to be far more peace among neighbors if people know where the property begins and ends, like on Sanford and Son.

    https://youtu.be/swvn78ipqSs?t=9m27s

    It was through the struggle of fights that each domain was created, defended, and secured for posterity. And it was only when the domain enjoyed that security that it could grow and eventually develop the concept of rights that made life more pleasant for those in the domain. So, rights grew out of fights, and that means that fights must take precedence over any consideration of rights.

    Fights are not pleasant, but it is only through fights that a domain can be created and defended in order for there to be the guarantee of rights.

    Now, fights in the modern sense isn’t necessarily violent. It merely needs to use the threat of violence. So, every nation has its military and organized system of laws that favor those of the domain over those outside it who may or may not be hostile enemies. Once the fights secure a domain, then the rights can exist to make life easier and pleasant for its members. And as long as outsiders are a minority who respect the majority, they too can partake of the rights as fellow citizens. Indeed, the concept of martial law or state-of-emergency proves that fights come before rights. If a domain is under ‘existential’ threat, rights must be suspended in order to favor the fights for basic survival.

    So, in order for a nation like Germany to work, it has to first think in terms of fights. What is Germany, where is Germany, who are Germans, and what is German identity and culture? Those fight-centric things must be secured and defended by military, organization, and laws . And once there is a secure Germany with posterity, then rights can be practiced and expanded.

    But the tragedy of the Current Year is that Europeans are not allowed to think in terms of fights. Thus, they don’t know what they are, who their brethren and sistren are, what their core territory is, what their history is, and etc. Since they no sense of what they are, they have no sense of fights.

    And without the survivalist foundation of fights, the sense of rights become fuzzy, confused, vague, shifting, and even dangerous. Since rights are not seen as outgrowths of fights, they are applied to everyone. So, French rights are not about the historic racial/cultural French folks. They must apply to the world. So any invader is also deserving of French rights. And since there is no Core France, the ‘French’ must keep inviting more and more outsiders and aliens to become ‘French’ and enjoy ‘French’ rights. And Germany is under the same delusion, as is the UK where BAFTA announced that films won’t be nominated for awards unless they have ‘diversity’. So, BAFTA doesn’t defend the rights of white Britons rooted in British ‘fights’. Rather, because it rejects the idea of British identity rooted in race and culture, British rights are ‘universal’ and apply to all, and the UK must bring in more and more foreigners who are just as ‘British’ as historic Britons and deserving of ‘rights’. And the police in Rotherham must suppress any sense of fights. If a bunch of white girls are raped by Muslim gangs, the police must favor the ‘rights’ of non-whites over the basic ‘fights’ of white British girls to live in safety in their own homeland. This is what happens when rights are disconnected from fights.

    This is obviously insane. If Israel practiced this kind of ‘rights’ with neighboring Muslims, how long would the nation survive? Surely, Israel was founded on the basis of Zionist fights, and it’s been defended by nationalist fights, and Zionist rights are premised on the security availed by those fights. Indeed, even the rights that Palestinian-Israelis enjoy in Israel are possible only because Israel is secured by fights. Jews are willing to be generous with Palestinians IN Israel because they have the power and dominance. If Israelis felt as insecure as Hutus in Rwanda, the practice of rights would collapse and it would turn into bloody struggle between Jews and Arabs as in 1948.

    Western concept of human rights severed from organismic need for survival fights is useless. They are just leaves blowing in the wind from a dead tree.

    It’s like the Rule of Law must flow from the Rule of Claw, or else it’s the Rule of Flaw.

    Humans are organisms, and all organisms are in constant state of war. Though all of life has single ancestor in some single-cell organism long long long ago, the descendants of life have been attacking and eating each other. So, in a way, it’s like super-cannibalism since life eats life. And humans are no different. We destroy plants and animals for food. Humans fight humans. Even in 21st century, nations are at war. Under Obama, Libya was destroyed. Russians used military power to defend their interests. (The neocon paradox is that making Russia out to be the great enemy instills Americans with fear over getting into a war with Russia. Neocons feel that Russia is economically so small and weak that US can easily kick it butt and drive Putin from power. After all, Russian economy is less than that of Italy. US spends 10x more on military. So, neocons are confident that the US can crush Russia. But most Americans don’t want care about foreign affairs. So, the Neocons have to hype how evil and dangerous Russia is in order to get Americans all riled up against Russia. But such scare-mongering convinces Americans that, geez, maybe Russia is a badass nation, and we better not mess with it.. which defeats the whole Neocon purpose. Russia is both so dangerous that all Americans must worry about it AND so weak that the US can easily kick butt.)

    Since organisms are always at war, the premise of life is Rule of Claw. And all human orders also came into being by rule of claw, or mace, sword, spears, arrows, guns, cannons, bombs, and etc. But rule of claw itself is unpleasant and too brutish. So, there needs to be Rule of Law. But the power of law has meaning ONLY IN PLACES where it can be enforced by violence or threat of violence.

    Rule of Law is not something that exists in nature. Nor is it something that the state can guarantee in all places outside its sphere of enforcement. What happens to be the Law in the US isn’t in some other part of the world. Look at the poor sod in MIDNIGHT EXPRESS the movie. He ain’t protected by US laws there.

    Now, the Rule of Claw exists in nature, and all organisms use it to defend itself. But Rule of Claw is bloody and cruel. So, we prefer Rule of Law. But the Rule of Law must first be established by Rule of Claw(or guns or whatever). After all, US was founded through violent wars against ‘red savages’, violent repression of outlaws(like Lee Marvin characters), and violent transformation of nature filled with bears and wolves into human habitats secured by the reach of enforcement of laws.

    So, the concept of Rule of Law must be seen as outgrowth of Rule of Claw.

    Another advantage of sensible formulation of Rule of Law is the sense of limits. Clannism and tribalism are too close to Rule of Claw, as hatcoys and mcfields demonstrated all too well with their stupid vendettas. Clannism isn’t far above Claw-ism. So, clannism had to be suppressed in order for there be larger communities of united purpose. And for this to be realized, the ideal was an order with a majority population united by race, culture, and language. Thus, the nation-state is ideal for Rule of Law. Yet, if Rule of Law tries to stretch beyond the nation-state of shared ethnos and mythos, it moves into mode of empire, which is never easy to maintain because very different peoples have contrasting and competing identities, interests, customs, values, taboos, and etc. The more Rule of Law tries to expand beyond its national perimeters or the more it tries to increase diversity within its national boundaries, there’s gonna be trouble when the breaking point is reached.

    US effort to spread Rule of Law to Libya and Iraq has been disastrous. And both EU and US are suffering all sorts of shocks to the system due to increasing diversity of people of competing interests, made all the worse by the fact that the ‘good whites’ that control elite institutions are addicted to the thrill of virtue-signaling against ‘bad whites’ to score pokemon or PC-mon points with non-whites. Just look at the ‘hate hoax’ lunacy in the US.

    So, Rule of Law divorced from consideration of Rule of Claw turns into Rule of Flaw. While Rule of Claw isn’t enough for humans who deserve something higher and nobler, it must be the roots of Rule of Law as all orders must primarily defended and maintained through force and/or threat of force. Rule of Claw can give into Rule of Law only if the Rule of Law promises to use its power to defend the well being of core organisms within the domain. When Rule of Law fails to do that and promises to apply to EVERYONE across all borders, that is the beginning of the end of the Domain. All this bitching about defending ‘liberal values’ from the dangers of the ‘far right’ in the EU is such trite PC nonsense. So-called ‘liberal values’ can only be organic outgrowths of a well-defended domain of core organisms with identity and culture that are deemed worthy of defending. But when the elites of Sweden say there is no core Swedish identity and culture, that is recipe for suicide. If that is ‘liberal values’, it is nuts. It’s like believing in the worth leaves while denying the reality of trunks and the roots.

    What is so dispiriting about Current EU is that its people have forgotten their own historical lessons. The reason why Europe rose to such prominence was not because of imperial diversity but because of the spirit of independence that amazingly maintained so many dynamic states, kingdoms, and nations within that crowded continent. It was like a replay of Greek city states except on the national level.

    It was inter-diversity than intra-diversity that made the West. Empires are intra-diverse cuz different peoples come under the same power. Roman Empire was intra-diverse. The Ottoman Empire was intra-diverse. So were the Chinese empire and Russian empire. Empires develop because various peoples aren’t strong or proud enough to insist on their own independence.

    Unlike most peoples around the world who came under the power of empires, the various European folks insisted on their independence. Even when they were conquered, they worked hard to regain independence. And this spirit was behind American Independence to break from the UK and forge its own path. American Revolutionaries didn’t want to be part of the British Empire that stretched across the world. Whatever was okay for ‘darkies’ was not okay for the Founders who had the spirit to break free. Because of this powerful spirit among Europeans, even the Soviets got tired of ruling over Eastern Europeans. Though Soviets had the power, they sensed the furor and anger all around among the various nationalities that clamored for independence.

    Given that Western Roman Empire fell while Eastern Roman Empire survived, the logical wager would have been to bet on the Eastern Empire that continued with the Roman tradition. But the West kept gaining in power while the East kept slipping. Why? Among many reasons, one was that Western Europe couldn’t be quelled and united by a single power. As there were several competing kingdoms, there was fierce competition in weapons and technology, like Niall Ferguson said in the Killer Apps series. In contrast, the giant empires of Byzantine and Persians suppressed competitive spirit in the East. And much of state power was exerted in maintaining order over diverse peoples who had little in common. While mere isolation can keep a people backward, independence can make it competitive and innovative. Japan vis-a-vis China borrowed ideas from the continental giant but also maintained its independence, and that accounted for much of the achievement. Suppose China had conquered Japan and ruled over it as just another empire of China. Japanese would likely have done much less.

    Given WWI and WWII, Europeans have come to see competition among Europeans as an evil that will lead to WWIII, but this is stupid. The age of empires was finished in Western Europe after WWII and it also ended in the East with the end of the Cold War. So, the danger of wars is gone. Europe can still remain competitive with one another without war, and for this to happen, each nation must maintain its spirit of independence and pride. All nations can trade and cooperate where necessary, but the spirit of competition comes from independence of mind and spirit and identity. It’s like the Olympics encourage the spirit of competition because there are many nations. If all nations were part of a single empire, who’d care about the Olympics? Olympics started in Greece where each city-state guarded its pride and independence to the extent it could. Of course, the city-state as an organizing principle is too small for the modern world. It still works in places like Singapore, but they are small and overly depend on other nations for stability and defense. Still, the spirit of the Greek city-states was crucial to the formation of the Western spirit.

    Intra-diverse empire that rules over various peoples(crushed of their independent spirit) eventually leads to stasis and decline.

    In contrast, the inter-diverse ‘compire’ or competitive empire of independent states leads not only to sense of freedom and pride but much innovation borne of competition. And Western Europe was like a ‘compire’. It was bound by commonality of race and religion(mostly Christianity), and in that sense, most of Western Europe was a single Civilization. And yet, different groups with different identities and languages insisted on their independence and, in vying for power, they had to be ultra-competitive and never rest on their laurels.

    In contrast, the ruling elites of intra-diverse empires were either complacent in their total mastery or over-stressed on maintaining the empire together to focus on anything else. As for the subject peoples of the empire, they were often without pride and sense of independent spirit that could spark individuality and innovation. They just kept their heads low and get what is theirs. Ottoman Empire just kept slipping.

    Though we tend to look down on Arabs and Muslims, it was during the reasonably competitive era of the Cold War that there was considerable progress in that part of that world. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and etc made considerable progress(even if less than Asia) in competition with one another, sometimes friendly, sometimes not so friendly. And there were advances in technology and improvements in living standards. But all that came to an end as the US empire stretched its arms all over with endless invasions, interventions, and sanctions. As entire areas of MENA fell directly or indirectly under the power of US neo-imperialism, there was destruction and decline all around. Just look at Syria, Libya, and Iraq today. Set back 40 yrs. That’s what empires do.

  5. ThuleanEvola says:

    I am a very longtime fan but I didn’t realize you did a Q&A before it was too late.

    I have a last question for you:

    If you could pick one specific location as being the nationalists/alt-rights most sacred place, similar to how Mecca is for Muslims, which one would you pick ?