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.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’
What is it that a humble, 19th Century New England Poet knows that Jean-Claude Juncker doesn’t? Well, he gets the point of a well-maintained border. A well-maintained border is a ticket to peace and quiet. A well-maintained border enhances the commonweal and economic prosperity of any people who are lucky enough to live within such a strong enclosure.
EU President Jean-Claude Juncker gives us the jarring, soul-dead, Post-modern antithesis to the bucolic and poetic Robert Frost.
Speaking at the Alpbach Media Academy this morning, Mr Juncker said: ‘Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.’
Juncker showed us his junk in response to criticisms over the recent Rapeigrants from Syria unleashing hell in cities like Cologne, Germany. This bothers and scares poor Jean-Claude. Because some poor German women were subjected to sexual terrorism? Pteh! He probably just assumes they were sluts and had the kabob coming – good, long and hard. He’s bothered because the total lack of sexual discretion on the part of these Rapeigrants encourages nationalism. “The horror!” said Kurtz. “The horror!”
If Jean-Claude were decent, this would imply he had the proximate IQ of a toadstool. You see nationalism is pretty much the humane response that any chivalrous man would have to seeing a tribe of slobbering barbarians cross into his community under false pretenses and start taking unwanted sexual liberties with the women. If Jean Claude doesn’t like this; Jean-Claude doesn’t like any males not named Jean-Claude.
Had Germany told the Rapeigrants to travel further down the road and only allowed people in on a very selective basis, than many, many rapes would never have occurred and the Volk would be chilling rather than reminding poor, nervous Jean-Claude of The Nuremburg Rallies. Walking Jean-Claude through a Child’s Garden of Logical Syllogisms would bring him around to goodness, enlightenment and US Presidential Candidate Donald Trump’s position on national borders. The poetry of Robert Frost could wait until next semester of Kindergarten.
Well, Mr. Kurtz, he dead. And Mr. Juncker, he evil. The man knows good and well that ISIS has infiltrated the Rapeigrant stream. The man knows good and well that the religious extremists who literally spew feces into public swimming pools because they resent the revealing swimming suits worn by European women have no intention into peaceably assimilating into any culture they haven’t totally deracinated and enslaved. He knows good and well that the major corporations that pay his salary just want cheap labor that doesn’t expect the salary and benefits European workers have grown accustomed to under socialist parasites like Jean-Claude Juncker.
The man is doing for Europe what Mephistopheles did for Dr. Faustus. There is no poetry in the evil, Post-modern soul. Telling Juncker that good walls make good neighbors is a waste of time. Jean-Claude Juncker is a man who hates and opposes the good. Which is why he takes the opposite opinion to the humble and decent poet, Robert Frost.
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.
But what is it? A survey of literature:
“What Is An Alternative Right?” (Amerika, 2012):
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.
“What Is The Alternative Right?” (Amerika, 2016):
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.
“What is the Alt-Right?” (Outside In, 2016):
A short definition, that seems to me uncontroversial: The Alt-Right is the populist dissident right.
…For the Alt-Right, generally speaking, fascism is (1) basically a great idea, and (2) a meaningless slur concocted by (((Cultural Marxists))) to be laughed at.
…As a consequence of its essential populism, the Alt-Right is inclined to anti-capitalism, ethno-socialism, grievance politics, and progressive statism.
“What is the Alt Right?” (Daily Caller, 2016):
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.
“What is the Alt Right?” (Occidental Dissent, 2016):
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.
“What’s the alt right? A Primer” (Washington Post, 2016):
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.”
“The Alternative Right Rises” (Amerika, 2016):
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.
“Clinton links Trump to white nationalist ‘alt-right’ movement” (USA Today, 2016):
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.
“What Is The ‘Alt-Right’? A Guide To The White Nationalist Movement Now Leading Conservative Media” (Media Matters, 2016):
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.
“How Donald Trump’s New Campaign Chief Created an Online Haven for White Nationalists” (Mother Jones, 2016):
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.”
“Is the Alternative Right Actually White Nationalism In Disguise?” (Amerika, 2016):
[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.
“Correcting confusion about the alternative right” (Amerika, 2015):
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.
“A Normie’s Guide To the Alt-Right” (Alternative Right, 2016):
[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?
From a surprisingly anti-modern analysis in the Wall Street Journal:
Working to achieve a particular outcome is a good model for many crucial human enterprises. It’s the right model for carpenters or writers or businessmen. You can judge whether you are a good carpenter or writer or CEO by the quality of your chairs, your books or your bottom line. In the “parenting” picture, a parent is a kind of carpenter; the goal, however, is not to produce a particular kind of product, like a chair, but a particular kind of person.
In work, expertise leads to success. The promise of “parenting” is that there is some set of techniques, some particular expertise, that parents could acquire that would help them accomplish the goal of shaping their children’s lives. And a sizable industry has emerged that promises to provide exactly that expertise.
If we had to distill modernity to this, it would be conformity and emulation through expertise. Someone learns a way to do some task, and then that becomes the definitive model and all must at least do that. It is a game of “follow the leader” played by crowds out of fear that, by not doing what is the established norm, the individual involved will be culpable if something goes wrong.
For example, Farmer Bill wants to plant okra. In his town, there is lore that states that okra will not grow unless you bury a cow skull among the plants. Farmer Bill does not have a cow skull, so he plants the okra anyway. A tornado strikes his patch. In town, the open-mouthed nodding heads all agree: he failed because he did not bury a cow skull in the plot.
Expertise is the same. We specialize in teaching it through schools, certifications, and government qualification programs. This produces a legion of people who know techniques, but lack reasoning skills, which is why we have a proliferation of slick but contentless art, complex but non-functional and insecure software, interior design products that all look the same and are impractical, and bureaucrats who can tell us why we cannot do anything but cannot tell us how to achieve anything. It is a disease of the crowd.
This produces a death spiral where superstitions are established and can never be removed, much as laws are created and never renovated or struck when they are obsolete or inexact, and bloated companies and government agencies linger long after their relevance. People are afraid to work against the wisdom of expertise lest they, like Farmer Bill, get blamed for an unrelated failure and worse, jailed or sued for denying “contemporary standards.”
Moribund institutions like modern art and rap music linger because people are afraid to criticize them as the calcified and talentless zones they are; absurd government doctrines like affirmative action persist long past their plausible expiration date simply because everyone is afraid to criticize the prevailing expertise. In the meantime, expertise conveniently blocks the vital skills of judgment ability, critical analysis and aesthetic taste.
One way to tell a healthy society is that its behaviors exist as principles which are constantly reinterpreted in the abstract, and perpetually interpreted when applied to specific localized situations. In contrast, a dying society exhibits expertise which is both fixed in a universal sense, and never interpreted locally, meaning that its inexactitude gets spread around much as inefficiencies are spread by subsidies and collective bargaining, in which the least competent is favored as much as the most competent.
The parenting propaganda is another form of this. Instead of producing people who have principles for living, and goals and healthy lifestyles, we come up with a set of universal roles so that broken people can still pretend to be doing the right thing, even though they are just kicking along antiquated and calcified “knowledge” because everyone is afraid to criticize it. As usual, the Emperor has no new clothes after all.
In your life, you will see many things live — and some things die. They will die from a number of different causes. It would be pointless to wish that this not happen to you, because it will, and because it is an important part of life. That does not make it more fun.
Consider a person infected with a fatal disease. Diseases are parasites — did you know that? — which take nutrients from the host and use it to fuel their reproductive process, at which they find a new host. It is no different than what a mosquito, flea or tapeworm does. All are parasites.
(Some parasites have even figured out how to turn the host against itself, in the case of cancers and auto-immune diseases like AIDS. This may have advantages in that these infections are nearly impossible to displace and spread silently, enabling the reproduction of the parasite.)
When a parasite kills its host, it is usually the result of the parasite having gone the way of yeast and reproduced excessively, thus the parasite dies with its host — but has reproduced, so other parasites are carrying on its message in the form of its DNA. Thus it is content to die, or at least cannot stop its own reproduction, and enters a terminal phase.
The victim takes time to die. Generally this is a cycle of staggered rises and falls, culminating in a big crash and a sudden, unpredictable exit. As the host sickens, it grows weak, but then uses its natural strength to fight back and rises again, but this guarantees a crash, because each time the host improves, so does the parasite.
Such situations are called death spirals because to win is to lose. If the patient gets healthier, the parasite gets healthier, and then the patient gets sicker; if the patient gets worse, the parasite also gets worse, but it is very hard to get to the point where the parasite is destroyed before the host is. This creates a Catch-22 situation.
Over time, the crashes may not increase in frequency so much as they will in intensity. The highs stay about the same, but the lows get lower. At some point, the body enters an unstable state where it is clear it will not extract itself, but might cruise at this level for some time. Randomly, usually at some inconvenient hour, one bodily system fails and starts a domino effect.
Humanity has a parasite. That parasite is our pretense, which says that we are all important, and we can be whatever we want to be, despite being limited in our abilities. It says that we do not need a natural order, formed of a human hierarchy in balance with nature, logic and the supernatural, but that instead we have an order of individuals. This notion flatters us and is socially popular, leading to a social takeover of our individual brains.
As this cresting wave of illusion — called “Crowdism,” for its collectivized individualistic nature — gains power, it throws civilizations into a death spiral. As they gain wealth and power, they gain more parasites, and those together form an echo chamber that amplifies their message, brainwashing more. And then the end is certain.
Michael Crichton wrote a book named State of Fear in which he attacked the myth of global warming, pointing out that measurements of temperature change were not consistent globally, suggesting that instead local effects were responsible for warming.
The liberal establishment basically crucified him and he died of cancer a few years later.
However, as has happened with every one of his theories in his books dating back to the 1960s, Crichton was right. Check out this entertaining report from China:
Researchers have found evidence that the pollution engulfing China’s cities enhances the warming effect of cityscapes, raising the temperature by one degree Celsius. Writing in Nature Communications, they say it’s not the bigger cities that suffer the most, but those with the worst of a certain type of air pollution.
Cities tend to be hotter than countryside areas because of the Urban Heat Island effect—the density of buildings and the materials they are built out of absorb heat and radiation from the sun extremely well, but don’t readily release it at night, keeping the area warmer for longer.
As written here some years ago, the culprit in cities is most likely the vast amount of concrete used because it holds on to both heat and moisture unpredictably, and covers over natural regulatory mechanisms like earth and forest. Those tend to absorb water during the day and release it just before dawn, creating a natural cooling cycle.
In addition, heavy particulate pollution like that from car exhausts creates a kind of blanket over the city which increases its temperature. For a great example, examine Los Angeles: a flat plain in a large desert valley, it gets hottest when the smog serves as an insulator. After a rain, when smog is visibly reduced, the city is cooler and the air better.
Global warming is a proxy for human effects on the environment. As usual, humans have created a phantom problem that is smaller than the real problem, which is huge. The huge real problem is overpopulation, because on a finite earth, the more people we cram into it the more we exclude nature, including these regulatory mechanisms. People are terrified of that idea, so instead they are campaigning against actually functional appliances and non-electric cars, pretending that this pretentious course of action avoids a problem because it addresses one part of it.
As more evidence comes out which shows that global warming is a local problem, the herd will have a panic attack because then, the big problem will come into view. That problem requires us telling some people they cannot breed or migrate, which violates the Leftist feel-good ideal of equality, and will precipitate the downfall of Leftism as a concept.
The weak link in the chain of logic that supports minority protests against the majority, from Black Lives Matter to A Day Without A Mexican, is that beyond guilt, minority groups have nothing to offer the majority. It is this way in any society where a majority group, no matter what race, presides over minority groups.
If all non-whites vanished tomorrow — hopefully instantly repatriated without harm — what would happen to whites in America and Europe?
Our labor costs would go up, but we have millions of unemployed. We might have fewer doctors, but we would have far fewer patients. Construction jobs would go back to white guys. Cost would rise, at the level of what is paid, but would also fall as social welfare systems found themselves with far fewer recipients.
Would our cultural diversity perish? No, because we have museums and recipe books, and can do what others do. Would we lose vibrant diversity? Most white people seem to have fled it, except for the ethnic restaurants and kumbaya social events. Would we lose friends and neighbors? — undoubtedly, but most people socialize within their own groups.
In short, nothing would change after a brief adjustment period, and rising costs would be met by falling taxes and lower externalized costs from a failing social apparatus. Whites would lose nothing. Minority groups — assuming they were not harmed — would gain, as in their own countries they could live by the standards of their cultures, values and religions, and have something more important: pride in themselves and a sense of shared purpose.
This is the shrieking fear hidden behind these protests. Minority groups are not needed. We will carry on as we have always carried on, building nations and creating civilizations that fit us. Any momentary inconveniences would be offset by a restoration of our own pride and sense of command over our destinies.
What does this leave for minority groups? Only guilt: a type of projected shame on us for being prosperous and having built great civilizations. And what purpose does guilt serve? It is retroactive, and acts only to destroy those who wish to rise above the norm by artificially humbling them.
America and Europe are awakening to the emptiness of multiculturalism. We can cut our own lawns, make our own kebabs, and build our own houses. We would lose guilt and the lower social trust environment that diversity creates, and feel pride in ourselves again.
What have we got to lose?