Correcting confusion about the alternative right


Most of us know what a tree is: a large plant with woody branches. A tree is also an abstract form of data that resembles the outlines you did for papers in high school. There is a topic, and off of it, branches that support a thesis or interpretation of that topic.

Over at Alternative Right, the gang found some guy trying to explain the alternative right. He did an admirable job, but for the clarification mostly of right-wingers, I offer the following elucidation, using the form of the tree.

The ideologies espoused by “alt right” types can vary greatly, but broadly speaking includes certain sorts of extreme libertarians, immigration critics and “race realists” (basically intellectual racists and anti-semites), “neo-reactionaries” (who argue against democracy, human rights, and other manefestations of modernist philosophy), and anti-feminists, including some of the “Men’s Rights” crowd.

Stop: ask yourself: what is the topic? The answer is: people who think the modern world is screwed. What defines the modern world? Its egalitarian basis. Therefore, people who dislike the modern world are not egalitarians, or in other words do not believe people are equal, but valuable in proportion to what they contribute or their innate qualities.

All of those other definitions are branches off that topic. Race realists look at the differences between ethnic groups. “Racists” — the word “racist” is made up by leftists and has no meaning — are those who dislike other ethnic groups, or as liberals define it, simply notice ethnic differences and/or wish to live among their own. Nationalists are those who, like me, believe in self-rule and respect for every ethnic group and race (races get continents, ethnic groups get nations). Neoreactionaries get the best definition above, but he might add that modernist philosophy is defined by its egalitarian, utilitarian basis. Anti-feminists are opposed to a form of egalitarianism called feminism that focuses on equalizing the gap between males and females. When you view the above as branches of anti-egalitarian thought, the associations become clearer.

But there is also a more generic or moderate flavor of alt right thought that may not fully embrace any of the above agendas, but still be sympathic to their contrarian messages of skepticism towards prevailing conventional wisdom on matters like race, gender, and electoral politics.

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.

Its main subjects of scorn tend to be out-of-touch, left-wing elites in politics, business, academia, and the mainstream media who they believe to be actively ruining society through their aggressive embrace of feminist, multicultural, and post-modernist ideas.

Not really. Our main source of scorn is mob rule, which is enabled by democracy, equality and altruism.

Our response to it is hierarchy, or having a social order where we put the most competent on top and exclude trends, fads and manias from dictating our policy.

The elites — who are not natural elites, or the most competent, but meritocratic elites or the most obedient to education, government and industry — are in power because of mob rule. People in committees or bigger groups always make bad decisions. What is popular is generally bad.

I would say the alt right is primarily about cultural issues, and less interested in economic policy or public policy in general.

We are primarily about change through culture, since change through government tends to be corrupted by the franchise that is government. Government has the aegis of public interest to protect it as it goes about activities that resemble those of profit-making corporations, except for government the profit is distributed in salaries to the elites and benefits to business entities. This includes regulation, which essentially provides a liability shield for companies that conform to the paperwork, which enables them to hide bigger transgressions that are not formally defined. Law is always “by the letter of the law” and not by intent, which enables regulated entities to get away with near-murder.

The alt right is an interesting, creative, growing intellectual movement within broader American conservatism. It appears to be led, and most enthusiastically supported by young white men, who could rise to become an important force within Republican politics and Republican-aligned media. Already we are seeing some “mainstream” conservative publications and institutions — particularly Brietbart and the American Enterprise Institute — coming under greater sway of the alt right, as a new generation of young, web-savvy conservatives begin to rise to prominance within them. Alt right fans are passionate and energized, and represent an attractive demographic of readers, activists, contributors, consumers, and voters for any savvy conservative leader to harness.

No disagreement. But it makes more sense to style it as a movement than his earlier comment:

The “alt right” exists mostly in the form of an archipelago of blogs, podcasts, and social media accounts, many of which center around a single pseudonymous commentator.

It exists as a group of people who agree on roughly the same thing: democracy and equality are lies; we chose a bad path at a fork in the road two centuries ago, and we need to go back and pick another route.

We are pseudonymous because opposing democracy and equality will get you fired from your job, have your business confiscated, your family taken, your friends abandoning you and your rental or owned home removed from your control. They will destroy you for failing to affirm the dominant illusion.

He makes a point for alt-righters that is very much worth attending to:

A lot of alt-right commentary tends to be more easily defined in terms of what it opposes than what it supports.

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.

But, it is not a terrible thing to contemplate what our world would look like. We tend to do a fair amount of it here, but it is hard to visualize from abstractions. Nevertheless, that is too wide of a scope for this article.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Correcting confusion about the alternative right”

  1. NotTheDude says:

    Education under this system should be based on looking at facts objectively, without teaching any kind of dogma or any kind of religion, Left or Right. Morality can be taught passively without the sickly lines that I remember from First School such as ‘What’s fair for one is fair for everyone’. Children pick up on what makes sense and what is right if you guide them but don’t preach to them.

  2. proJAY viJACK says:

    The term alternative “something other than what is mainstream” does not soung good to define what shoud be RIGHT. The RIGHT is RIGHT, its the mainstream Right that was a watered down “alternative” for many years. I agree with the conquest through culture, after all it was how the left won the west.
    But I must ask. You say that each race is assigned to a continent, so I wonder who is aMerica assigned to? “Western Europeans” are assigned to two continents then? And since you rejected American Republicanism as a viable form of Government, and this Republicanism is the source of American excepcionalism and Independence, and you defend a return to Maonarchism what prevents America from turning to a dependence of Britain again.

    • proJAY viJACK says:

      Where it says “soung” we should read sound, where it says “aMerica” we shoud read America and where it says “Maonarchism” we should read Monarchism, though MAOnarchism is a more suitable name to where America is currently heading. My apologies, i was in a hurry…

    • -A says:

      Is there a problem with kicking the brown people out of North America? Furthermore, with speciation being what it is, who is to say that White North Americans are even still the same race as our cousins overseas? It would be worth a look into. I suppose that even though you are stirring shit and refuse to admit it, it would seem disingenuous to admit that you have a point. It isn’t fair that Europeans and Orientals get their own continents and all of those NOMs get stuck in Africa in a perfect world.

      • proJAY viJACK says:

        “Is there a problem with kicking the brown people out of North America?”
        Aparently there is acording to the author when he wrote one race per continent.
        “Furthermore, with speciation being what it is, who is to say that White North Americans are even still the same race as our cousins overseas?”
        Speciation does not work in 2 or 3 generations. Not to that point. If so then you must stop using the word Western Europeans, because you are not. Please decide.
        “I suppose that even though you are stirring shit and refuse to admit it, it would seem disingenuous to admit that you have a point.”
        What happened to the love for “Socratic dialogue”?

  3. -A says:

    J.J.(really?) is right in that the flavors of alt-right are somewhat segregated from each other. The blog niches tend to attract readers based off of their particular gripe with modernism and keep them around, narrowing their scope of what is specifically wrong. This is a gap that is filling up but, real Hierarchy and race realism are the two that are the slowest for most to pick up. Most will pick up race realism before discussion about political reform, some will pick up political reform first and refuse all racial discussion altogether or limit it, drawing lines in the sand of what they will talk about the whole way.

  4. Steve says:

    Liberalism and diversity don’t have a theory that makes sense. When attempted, it has always produced terrible results. How seriously can you take a doctrine and it’s politicians when every action under their banner will be a blunder?

    We are defined as “anti” because the prevailing system is erroneous in nearly every way and selects the opposite of what we desire. But rather than discussing in the context of the system, we could describe instead what we want.

  5. […] and ritual observations. Postage-stamp format Moldbug. An NRx reading list. Alt-right profiled (relevant). The weekly […]

  6. Landsknecht says:

    Mr. Brett Stevens, do you plan to move to Europe sometime in the near future, regarding your declaration against the united states (Conservatives owe no loyalty to party.. 4 July 2015)? You understand that the u.s. is already rapidly declining to its death and is not going to be a good place to live in the very near future. I do believe you also know that even its foundations were based on greed, the enlightenment TM with the egalitarian ideology, and treason against the Old Order. I am curious if you plan to move back to the land of your forefathers, where ever in Europe that they came from.

  7. RJ Moore II says:

    I think one problem is that ‘Right wing’ is at best a heuristic attitude, and probably one that mainly applies to middle-class European societies with national parliamentary-but-aristocratic political orders. A reason the mainstream Left/Right and Alt Left/Right converge so often is that the distinction is largely bullshit or characteristics that no longer define social or political cohesion.

  8. RJ Moore II says:

    There is also a tension between the ‘Tradition/Nationalists’ and the more existential or eugenic types, the former wanting to defend a proven-failed system based on falsified history; whereas the latters (like good Europeans) know that a failed aristocracy and a Jewish slave religion deserved everything they got and can not be the basis of further and higher types of society. In short, the Ancien Regime died and should remain dead. Faust can do without Boniface.

  9. […] From a recent article by flaming Leftists, an insight into the Alt Right that has been provided by Amerika for some time: […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>