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,


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: , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedIn

Recommended Reading