The Alt Right Needs To Double Down


Within minutes of globalist candidate Hillary Clinton opening up both bores of her nagging grandma guilt shotgun on the alt right, dissent broke out like a rash as the alt right began the difficult task of finally formalizing itself.

Self-policing becomes inevitable in artistic movements, musical scenes, cults, gangs, religious sects and political shockwaves like the alt right. Any distinctive ideal which does not police its supporters will be taken over by those who want to use it for their own ends.

This “entryism” explains why so many once-promising movements become the opposite of what they started as. For example, most Leftist movements start as well-intentioned programs to help people. This can be seen most clearly with the Greens and Anarchists, who started out with unique ideas and ended up as wings of the Leftist parties.

In the case of the alt right, there are numerous people who are now trying to re-define the alt right as one of the following:

  1. A less PC version of the mainstream right.

  2. A more PC version of White Nationalism.

Those attempts ignores the fact that the alt right rose up in the first place because neither of those options — Republican or White Nationalist — fit the needs of the generations who grew up after the Leftists took over in 1968. In particular, the alt right attacks two trends:

  1. The current leftist takeover of our society through political correctness.

  2. The need to get Western Civilization out of a death spiral and back on a path toward greatness.

Conventional conservative movements have utterly failed to arrest either one of these trends. In fact, by pledging to be “bipartisan” and work within the System, conservatives have co-opted themselves by adopting the assumptions of Leftism within a conservative context, thus obliterating any “conservative” ideas.

On the other hand, White Nationalism has also failed, mainly because it is an outrage and not a plan. White Nationalists want a variety of things, usually centered around the idea of all white people hanging out together and being equal. This kind of “ethno-bolshevism” does not appeal to Europeans, who defend their specific national identities, nor Americans, who identify with various strata of whiteness (Western European, class, region).

That alt right does include something simpler: white self-interest. This is inherent in the term “nationalism,” which in its historical and correct use refers to ethnic nationalism, or the definition of a nation by its founding ethnic group and not political or economic systems.

White self-interest includes a desire to disconnect ourselves from political correctness by rejecting the stigma of the term “racist,” to cut ourselves free from immigration and the liberal welfare state, and to be able to freely associate — which requires abolishing anti-discrimination and civil rights laws — with our own without some Leftist politician shipping us inner city people, foreign refugees or deranged homeless people.

But on a broader scale, and in consideration of the second concern of the alt right, how did we get to this state?

Some blame individualism. This seems plausible, except when one wonders what the cause of individualism (placing concerns of the individual before nature, civilization and God) might be. There must be some root for this dysfunction.

One might plausibly blame diversity. Northern Europe encountered its own Siberian and Mongol immigrants early on, and the same people who populate Northern Europe once also wandered through China and India. When diversity is introduced, it destroys social trust, and so people become individualistic: the self against the world, including civilization.

Another view is that individualism arises when a society becomes fatalistic. This can come from several sources. First, by succeeding, it loses any inherent sense of purpose, which in early civilizations is to defeat threats in nature and establish consistent nutrition and safety. It could also be, as I argue in my book Parallelism (yet unpublished), that success as a society causes a ballooning of the population of people who could not survive without civilization, leading to the “idiots rule” situation of today because what is popular shifts from what is realistic to what is unrealistic.

Still another view comes to us from the writer Thomas Pynchon, building on what William S. Burroughs wrote: entropy. Over time, things decline. The more centralized they are, the more catastrophic that decline is. And so, when a society becomes efficient and orderly, it creates the seeds of its own destruction.

Knowing life, or the way things work out at a level of pattern and not material, it seems likely that a combination of these introduced a crisis. Against all odds, Western Europeans thrived; in turn, this brought parasites and attackers, and then created a society so focused on stability that it forgot to be Darwinistic and periodically clean house and re-order itself.

This could be the core dilemma that the alt right addresses, and the reason for the seemingly savage and chaotic nature of its activity. We do not need new policy, but a house-cleaning, where we send away the Other and then turn to the bad amongst us, which can no longer hide in the chaos of diversity, and exile it. Under this calculus, both Hillary Clinton and the fourth-generation welfare families would be headed to Brazil via cargo plane.

In this perspective, the alt right can fail only one way: by not being extreme enough.

Already it is under assault from special interest groups. Some want it to go National Socialist, and blame the Jews for the downfall of Western Civilization; others want “civic nationalism,” which is essentially the liberal State, instead of ethno-nationalism; still others want a religious basis to it. And then there are the many who want it be simply a restored form of GOP conservatism. All have missed the point.

In this way, they will reproduce the exact same thing that made Republicans and the White Nationalists both fail: they will destroy a comprehensive message and replace it with a special interest group that will leave the status quo mostly intact.

Mainstream conservatism and White Nationalism both failed. They attracted those who were fanatical about certain issues, which created groups which could not find agreement on the big issue: what type of society do we desire, and how do we get there?

White Nationalism for example tells us that we want the existing System but only for whites, ignoring the problems that groups of mixed-whites have had merging in the past. Look to Northern Ireland, or even Poles in the UK, or perhaps the fate of Sudeten Germans or even the veiled conflict between the mixed-white North and the WASP Confederate States of America.

Even more, it leaves the same system that produced this bad result — democracy, rule of law, individualism and personal liberation from social standards — intact. White Nationalism, like most revolutions, will reproduce the conditions before it, just in a worse form (a type of decay). Republicans will leave the decay intact in order to pursue symbolic issues and rake in money.

This leaves us with a problem in the West: we have been taken over by parasites, and nothing will drive those parasites away except to cut off their source of nutrition. That happens for the lower through the welfare state, and for the higher through the state itself, which hires them as politicians and bureaucrats.

For the alt right to succeed it must then oppose the root of the problem, so that people are guaranteed actual change to avoid the conditions they see today — and to obliterate the decay which has chased Western Civilization for centuries, eroding our faith in ourselves and our sense of our future having meaning and something good coming out of it.

This requires that we identify the actual enemy, which is both intangible and invisible. It is popularity. Put together a group of people, and they react socially, which means that they avoid difficult truths and instead focus on what keeps the group together. This leads to compromise on all important issues.

To tackle this, we must be both moderates and extremists. We must be moderates in that we do not scapegoat partially culpable groups (minorities, the rich, the elites) but focus on the policies that bring us into conflict. Diversity, for example, is a policy: the idea that a state can be comprised of people of different backgrounds.

It is not extremist to note that culture arises from genetic similarity, and that politics arises from that. Nor is it extreme to say that voting removes responsibility from both voters and leaders, and that it leads to bad decisions. Where we must be extremists is to say that enough is enough, and we need these dysfunctional policies — which produce parasites both high and low — removed.

Us extremist moderates have a difficult task. We must be cool-headed and realistic, but then knowing the nature of the human tendency toward entropy, must push hard for long-term solutions applied evenly and completely. This redefines the term “moderate” from meaning “bipartisan” to meaning “common sense,” and then gives it a strong authoritative push toward full implementation.

The grim truth of humanity is that we destroy ourselves. We try to find a theory that fits all the people in a group, instead of looking for a theory that fits all the data in the external world and history. In so doing, we end up choosing a crowd-pleaser that is a loser, every time.

With popularity, entryism occurs into every idea. It is watered down to what flatters individuals by making them think themselves magnanimous, and it makes the group have warm fuzzies because it feels that it is unified and cannot be divided, therefore each individual is safe in the protection of the crowd.

Most movements self-police the wrong way. They set boundaries, and look for those who overlap beyond that edge, and then declare the problem solved. This misses those who are subverting the definitions at the center of the movement, and cuts out people who are providing necessary challenges.

The only way to police is to look at the center. Is this person basically heading in the same direction toward solving the problem? If so, let them in. If they deny or subvert a central part of the argument, such as being pro-democracy or thinking that solving one aspect of the problem magically fixes the whole, you have an entryist: a zombie of the dominant paradigm who has found your movement and will, deliberately or not, subvert it.

The alt right needs to double down on its core appeal: modern society is insane. It is illogical, destructive and cannibalizes its best people to keep its worst voting for the Leftist ideals that it has endorsed. This is the end result of leadership by committee, or vote by popularity.

With that in mind, it makes sense to look at how the alt right can defend itself.

Entry Thresholds

These are minimum requirements for someone to participate in the alt right. They focus on goals, not boundaries, and serve to draw focus to what is actually being worked towards.

  1. Strong ethnic nationalism.

  2. Irreverent, extreme and nearly sadistically offensive humor.

  3. Resistance to centralization.

The average liberal convert will want to find a version of the alt right that avoids the great liberal no-no of ethnic nationalism. This person will start by saying that maybe all of those who can assimilate to our culture can be included, or that what we need is focus on a political and economic system.

Saying “Western European countries are for Western Europeans only,” and pointing out that France should be for the French, will alienate this person and drive them back into liberalism to see the contradictions in their own thinking for awhile.

Similarly, those who fear realistic humor are opposed to realism itself. If something is true, it forms the basis for humor, especially if it is absurd. The convert from liberalism will try to neuter this into a crowd-pleasing “we can all get along” sense of mild humor.

Finally, one must beware of those working within the liberal paradigm, which is that a universal value is established, everyone is forced to obey it, and then government enforces it. If you argue for free markets, localism or any other form of decentralization, this person will experience a freakout.

Acceptance Thresholds

These apply to those you are willing to give voice to, by repeating their memes or ideas or by advocating their inclusion in anything more exclusive than the general group. Here you are trying to filter out people who have understood the basics, but are unwilling to be moderate extremist in application.

  1. Rejection of democracy.

  2. Rejection of equality.

  3. Assertion of biological imperative.

We are in a democratic system. Therefore, most people will be coached in finding a democratic implementation of any solution they find attractive. The problem with this is that even limited democracy quickly leads to mob rule, and the mob always chooses flattering illusions over reality, just like committees always pick the solution that rocks the boat the least. Individuals fear for themselves and choose compromise over solutions.

Equality is the basis of democracy and the Left. Those who want to set up a white ethnostate and then implement equality have missed the point. We need hierarchy, or each person acting in a capacity suited to their abilities, which are innate and biologically determined and cannot be implemented by education or obedience.

Finally, the biological imperative will scare them senseless. This says that culture is not universal, and that its root can be found in the genetics of specific populations. Those populations create their culture wherever they go, as fits their abilities and inclinations, which they share as these are genetic traits.

Anyone who does not grasp the above has adopted only the surface of alt right theory and does not understand the alt right as something distinct from a slightly more extreme version of mainstream politics.

Inner Goals

When choosing leaders, it is important to look for those who share the ideals of a movement on the basis of goals. That is: what type of society do they want to create? What is their definition of civilization? Those who do not understand these are entryists who will, by compromise, re-create that which they claim to dislike.

  1. Restoration.

  2. Repatriation.

  3. Physical Removal.

Restoration means a removal of democracy and materialism and their replacement with a society in which inner values determine outcomes. This means an end to “systems” and an organic society where all institutions are in unison, collaborating on a spirit toward transcendentals, or the intersection of what is excellent, true and good.

Very few are willing to publicly endorse Repatration, and they usually hide behind the pragmatic argument that it is difficult. So what? — most change is difficult, but if it ends in a better condition, then it is worth doing. Even carrying on with the present ruin of a civilization is difficult.

As a side note, those who oppose repatriation with reparations may be reacting emotionally. The right way to heal a historical wound is with generosity and benevolence, but also an unwavering commitment to setting the problem aright. Diversity fails, so those who are diverse to the founding group must exit the host nation. No compromise.

Finally, we reach the controversial idea of Physical Removal. This states that a healthy society is not Leftist, and for that reason, those who are Leftist must be viewed as a fifth column and sent elsewhere. It does not (necessarily) mean killing them, but in its gentlest form, means exiling them to a Leftist wonderland like Brazil, where vibrant diversity, rampant sexuality, and few social rules means they will be at home.

At all times ask yourself: what is our goal? It is not measured in the issues of today, or of tomorrow, but those things which for 6,000 years of human history have separated the thriving and rising civilizations from those which are headed to third world status.

The alt right is not another wing of the failed ideological movements of the GOP and White Nationalism. It is the antidote to those: a historical shift where people are willing to undertake the difficult and do the unthinkable, and remove the layers of our current system as if we were peeling an onion, creating a functional and ascendant civilization instead.

At the end of analysis, there are two ways to create human civilizations. Either we develop a spirit toward the good in ourselves and promote those who exhibit the best of it, or we accept everyone and try to bribe and threaten them into being good. We have tried the latter, and it has failed, so no vestige of it can remain.

This is why the alt right must double down. All of the entryists will serve to dilute its message and appeal to those of us who recognize that not only is diversity Hell, but so are all aspects of modernity, including sacred cows like democracy, pluralism, government and equality. They must all burn or we end up in the same condition.

To a person from the present year, this will seem like ludicrous extremism. And yet it avoids what defines extremism, which is a special interest group which takes to violence for one issue. We want civilization change. We want it now. Our current path is a path to death, and the only solution is to get entirely off of that path.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

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

Recommended Reading