The Alt Right Fights For Its Own Soul

ku_klux_klan_-_ceremony

This week, the Alt Right fights for its own soul. It worries about how to keep itself from being assimilated like the mainstream conservatives on one hand, and on the other, if it has gone too far.

It should instead worry whether it has chosen the right method of going too far.

The Alt Right has a unique mandate in historical terms: the existing order of Leftism and globalism has spectacularly failed, and people are just barely catching on. The smart ones among us want an end to the immediate Leftist crisis, and to the conditions that have enabled it, namely the collapse of Western Civilization.

For the Alt Right, there are two missions as a result:

  1. Stop the Leftist insanity.

  2. Reverse the decline and fall of Western Civilization.

To achieve this, the Alt Right has to adopt a radical course that rejects the illusions of our time — equality, pluralism, utilitarianism, individualism — and replace them with a goal that rises above mere material and social convenience. That is not an easy task, but looking at those in the Alt Right, it is clear that we are up to it.

We can achieve that goal through the four pillars, which are actually more radical than anything suggested in the Alt Right so far. They combine Alt Right, Identitarian, New Right, Neoreaction and Traditionalist thought:

  1. Nationalism. Exclude all Others; rule by culture. Zero diversity, not even a drop.

  2. Aristocracy. Remove democracy and popularity. Give power and wealth to our best people.

  3. Hierarchy. Reward for performance. No subsidies, welfare, unions or socialism.

  4. Purpose. We find a goal that is not material or humanistic, like “excellence.” Good to the good, and bad to the bad.

These pillars have been mostly ignored by the underground Right because they are simply too extreme.

The White Nationalists want to combine all white ethnic groups and social classes into a single vanilla milkshake with no culture, origins or distinctions. This is just another form of Leftism.

The “civic nationalists” — fools using a term re-defined by the Left — want to make rules and obedience tests in order to make us all obey the right economic and political system. This and “culturism” are the same thing.

The theocrats want us all to simultaneously convert to Jesus or Odin, and forget about the other dimensions of our problem, some of which are in fact material, but can only be fixed by applicable of principle, which is not.

All of them have missed the point: we are trying to restore a golden age in which our civilization is the best because it seeks qualitative improvement in all areas.

We cannot do that with any vestiges of equality, modernity, politics, or other manipulations. We need to break free from all of this nonsense.

Most of these groups who are competing for control of the Alt Right make the same error: they are special interest groups who will achieve one change, but leave the system of modernity in place. Modernity is what got us to this stage. It must depart.

The real problem is egalitarian/individualistic thinking. This consists of individuals demanding their equal share, and in order to achieve that, forming mobs or “Crowds” who use their numbers to demand equality, in the name of the group but with the purpose of the individual. It is selfishness, collectivized.

The Alt Right has made great strides by denying the official narrative and instead pointing to the genetic and biological origins of culture, which refutes the egalitarian theory that a random group of people can be instructed in the same political and economic system and be as great as those who invented it. This is the magic dirt theory.

Against the magic dirt theory, the Alt Right suggests Nationalism: that each nation be defined by its founding ethnic group, and that all others be excluded.

Most people have forgotten what Nationalism means, but they can refresh their memories by recalling that World War Two was a war against Nationalism, or the nations that wanted “Germany for Germans,” and excluded all Others.

Nationalism remains controversial because it denies the modern conception of what civilization is:

Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of “nation,” or population group unified by culture, heritage and language.

As such, Nationalist is “rule by culture” where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.

The term “nationalism” comes from the term “nation,” which has a different meaning in current politics. Currently, the nations of the world are political constructions made of borders, legal systems and economies, called “nation-states.”

Nationalism is the core of the Alt Right. The “proposition nation,” a creation of liberal democracy — equality plus democracy — has failed, and Nationalists are pointing toward a better order.

The twentieth century consisted mostly of war against Nationalism in the name of liberalism or Leftism, which is the idea of the equality of all people, independent of race, ethnicity and caste/class.

This alone constitutes the line in the sand which separates those who are Modernist zombies from those who will make the next great civilization.

Normies cannot accept Nationalism, because it offends them because it violates equality.

Join us on the dark side. We reject The Enlightenment™ and other ideas of human equality. This is the Rubicon which must be crossed. It is also what defines the Alt Right, and why it is thriving while mainstream conservatism and liberalism die the same death.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “The Alt Right Fights For Its Own Soul”

  1. -A says:

    The very notion of demanding a say in policy in the name of a special interest group is a very familiar liberal tactic. Unlike the liberal version, however, they only half heartedly try to define liberalism whereas the deviants in your list are trying to completely subject the Alt Right to their frame. It is almost as if they were planted.

  2. DM says:

    I have always thought the main problem with western thought is the search for ideological purity. This is a problem on the left and on the right. We are humans not platonic solids and as such our purity will never match our ideals.

    I have equated Alt right with empiricism that is if a method has worked many times in the past there is an excellent chance that that method will work in the future, a return to common sense in other words. However, I do not think we will return to a common sense regime any time soon.. My reason being it’s hard to get a man to leave his fields and fight for a 80%/20% proposition or even a 90%/10% one. It has to be all or nothing. Replacing Red hair (Big Red)with red shirts could be your future.

    As a man who is almost 60 I can see it has taken the left almost 50 years to get us to this point. It will take 25 years us to balance this ship we call society.

    This is all talk until the “right” can raise the birth rate, That rate is under 1.6 in all developed countries. As you may be aware a birth rate under 1.6 per couple is considered to be unstoppable terminal decline for a nation. Demographics is destiny…

  3. avraham says:

    Very interesting ideas. A lot to think about.

  4. avraham says:

    Nationalism mainly finds justification with Hegel and Howard Bloom. Autonomy of the individual finds justification with Kant. My own point of view is more based on the Law of Moses. That is I put the center of gravity not in the individual nor in the nation but in the Law. But in any case there are some very good points in the idea of stopping the destructive aspects of diversity and welfare etc.

    Welfare is really enforced servitude of white to serve blacks. Diversity is really a way to undermine traditional American values.

    • Nationalism mainly finds justification with Hegel and Howard Bloom.

      What about Herzl and Santayana?

      Autonomy of the individual finds justification with Kant.

      It seems so, at first, but digging down into his work, one finds a different story. Three important ideas from Kant:

      1. Idealism. The world is information, and what we know as real we create from filtering out what we can understand. (Note similarities to Dunning-Kruger, but on a species-wide level).
      2. Radical evil. Evil is not external, but moral wrong choices based on outcomes, usually from being selfish instead of deciding to be good. One must desire to be good before one can be good, but most do not, and so the average behavior is often the most evil, just camouflaged.
      3. Intuition. The root of our knowledge is our intuitive understanding of structure and its consequences. It comes inbuilt in us, and does not require experience, but we do need experience to translate perception to this level, and it is done unequally.

      Kant is very subtle.

      I put the center of gravity not in the individual nor in the nation but in the Law.

      I can see the temptation that this holds, but I cannot agree. Law is written in words, and words are interpreted. For me, the goal is realism, through which several ideas spring:

      1. Consequentialism. Results and side-effects matter; intention is not important.
      2. Purpose. We have choice (not “free will”) and so must select the purpose with the best results.

      At that point, we are back into a land where common sense can rule. A society should aim to be the best, not by its individuals, but as itself as an organic entity; this takes us to nationalism. Democracy is mob rule. Diversity is insane. People are not equal.

      Welfare is really enforced servitude of white to serve blacks. Diversity is really a way to undermine traditional American values.

      Seems about right. They have added more ethnic groups. The original idea was merely class warfare, and Leftists view diversity as an extension of that.

      • avraham says:

        I can not say anything about people I ave not done my homework on. Even Hegel I am reluctant today anything about because of this same reason though I ave done more work than on the others. Still Hegel requires years. As for Kant I find the idea of reconciling Kant with Nationalism very tempting. I would love to reconcile Kant and Hegel.

        • I would love to reconcile Kant and Hegel.

          That is quite a project, but interesting… my estimation is that what Hegel considered were his major points were probably relegated to minor point status by those interpreting him, so a careful re-reading may allow these “minor” points to become contiguous with Kant. Fun project.

          • avraham says:

            Right about that. To me it seems clear that what Hegel thought what was important were his ideas on Metaphysics =not politics which were later usurped by the Left.

  5. Daniel Hassard says:

    I believe we need to get as far away as possible from the left, that has become the very monster it believed it was fighting against. Nationalism is much more progressive than in nazi times. I advocate a ‘user pays’ immigration policy such as Australia’s. If you burn your identity papers and turn up screaming refugee! Then you pay by being held in detention until you’re identified. Only then will your claim be processed and the vast majority of refugees swamping the west is economic.Deciding who comes to your country, where they come from, how they get there and if they’ll stay is every nation’s sovereign right. The left will of course call you every “-ism” under the sun but fuck them. They caused this mess we’re in, they don’t get a say on how we decide to fix it.

    • I advocate a ‘user pays’ immigration policy such as Australia’s.

      While that is better than the current system, “better is the enemy of the good,” oftentimes.

      I advocate zero immigration. Countries have an ethnic character and that must be supported.

      The only reason we are taking migrants is that the rest of the world is imploding.

  6. Dieversity Feceberg says:

    San Francisco State Builds Segregated Dorms Where African-Americans Can “Safely Live And Talk”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-20/san-francisco-state-builds-segregated-dorms-where-african-americans-can-safely-live-

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>