What if the alternative Right took over?


You see the alternative right in the news lately because with the rise of Donald Trump, we have seen that the “mainstream right” has become dominated by those who are good at compromise, not winning.

Such things should be expected in any political system because when you set down rigid rules, the strategy required to win according to the rules replaces actual winning. This creates a selection matrix for those who are good at playing the System, not those who are going to push hard for goals outside of the system itself. From this condition arose the modern cuckservative who essentially embraces left-wing goals in order to get along with the other politicians who are, in effect, his coworkers.

In response to this, the alternative right began as a cultural movement toward certain ideas and developed into an organ of truth-telling in a time of universal deceit. On the surface, it is a dissident movement against the conclusions of a corrupted system; underneath, it is an attack on the methods and values that allow such systems to perpetuate themselves when all sense and logic suggests their conclusions are wrong. The alternative right is a correction to our current political process as much as to its contemporary policies.

As might be expected, “alternative right” is an umbrella term. It includes those who would otherwise identify as white nationalists, paleoconservatives, New Right, orthosphere, monarchist and anarcho-capitalist (including National Anarchist). There is no resolution as to the outcome of its ideas in the alternative right because it is a think tank for cultural change which wants to build momentum and clarity of vision before it selects specific proposals. You can see this in action over at Alternative Right or its spinoff, Radix Journal.

The one thing the alternative right is sure about: classical liberalism of the equality plus free markets idea is not welcome. In fact, across the alternative right, the sense seems to be that “invisible hand” systems of this nature always produce what we currently have, which is mob rule with cynical low-quality corporations at the top. This outlook synthesizes right wing and left wing ideas, but more importantly, accurately describes the situation of our civilization as a human problem and not a political one. The bigger the mass, the lower the quality.

That leads to conflicts such as the following analysis from Outside In:

This blog, I’m guessing predictably, takes a count me out position. Neoreaction, as I understand it, predicted the emergence of the Alt-Right as an inevitable outcome of Cathedral over-reach, and didn’t remotely like what it saw. Kick a dog enough and you end up with a bad-tempered dog. Acknowledging the fact doesn’t mean you support kicking dogs — or bad-tempered dogs. Maybe you’d be happy to see the dog-kicker get bitten (me too). That, however, is as far as it goes.

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).

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. For NRx (XS version) fascism is a late-stage leftist aberration made peculiarly toxic by its comparative practicality. There’s no real room for a meeting of minds on this point.

As a consequence of its essential populism, the Alt-Right is inclined to anti-capitalism, ethno-socialism, grievance politics, and progressive statism. Its interest in geopolitical fragmentation (or Patchwork production) is somewhere between hopelessly distracted and positively hostile. Beside its — admittedly highly entertaining — potential for collapse catalysis, there’s no reason at all for the techno-commercial wing of NRx to have the slightest sympathy for it. Space for tactical cooperation, within the strategic framework of pan-secessionism, certainly exists, but that could equally be said of full-on Maoists with a willingness to break things up.

He brings up two specific points of interest centered on the same point:

  1. “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).”
  2. “For NRx (XS version) fascism is a late-stage leftist aberration made peculiarly toxic by its comparative practicality.”

For right-wingers here it is important to translate from libertarianism, which inherited a mostly leftist vocabulary. Statism means having a modern government as opposed to strong power, which can take several forms; “fascism” is a generic container for all authoritarian rule. With that out of the way, you can see his point: the alternative right has not yet escaped the framework of government designed by liberalism. That means that it both supports authoritarian rule, and the type of socialist or other managed state desired by mass political movements.

I think he is correct in these critiques. However, to understand the issue in depth, one must look into the history of the alternative right. The alternative right is a cultural revolution which wanted to escape the taboo on a series of related ideas like monarchy, nationalism, eugenics, human biological diversity (hbd), and anti-democratic thought. It does not come from a libertarian view, but more of an atavistic one. The alternative right is Oswald Spengler meeting Colonel Kurtz at a Nietzsche book club.

As a result of this “cultural” approach, the alternative right is not a political agenda but an attempt to change values. During the late 1990s, I wrote about what were then considered “extremist right-wing” notions on an underground philosophy/culture website, which then expanded into CORRUPT.org during the early 2000s, and now continues on here. Influential also during this time were writers like Michel Houellebecq, bloggers like Bill White and Bruce Charlton, artistic movements like black metal, and the rising libertarian wing that people like Eric S. Raymond chronicled as a means of criticizing the present order. All of these influences flowed together for a number of writers who saw this civilization as a dying, falling empire.

Looking into the future, we can see where alternative right, Neoreaction and the oldest threads of conservatism overlap — and that this is an agenda we can agree on, and which the mainstream right is increasingly supportive of:

  • Strong power. We must have arbitrary leaders chosen for their ability to lead, not popular appeal. These both give us direction and keep the insanity of the herd at bay.
  • Free markets. Capitalism works; it requires guidance from strong leaders and culture however. Socialism does not work and destroys societies.
  • Nationalism. Diversity does not work and destroys societies; homogeneity works very well and should be enforced, exiling all Other.
  • Transcendentalism. There must be a higher goal than reacting to the situation as is; we need a way to plan for a future that makes us rise to the excellent, good, beautiful and true.

Right now, no movement expresses these ideas in their raw form. But much as the alternative right used the method of cultural change to accelerate right-wing thinking, and Neoreaction builds from the libertarian wing, future right-wing movements will return to the crucial moment called “the Enlightenment™” when the West broke away from organizing our society according to an order larger than the individual. Those movements will insist we break away from Enlightenment-style thinking entirely.

That much is certain. The question upon us now is how to include the changes since that time in a society which, while greater in every intangible way, did not possess the convenience of the present which we enjoy. My suggestion, a type of thought called Futurist Traditionalism, is that we focus on the fourth point, a transcendental order to existence, and use it to guide our adoption of technology. In other words, we must look to our goals and not our methods and, if our goals are good, use any methods appropriate for achieving them.

With that in mind, what would our right-wing post-Enlightenment future look like? My guess is a lot like now, except that instead of layers of government, you will have a local lord and his staff to solve all problems, and kings at the national level to lead you. There will not be any regulation to speak of, but the local lord will have arbitrary power, so if you pollute a stream he will show up, investigate and make you fix it. Taxes will be low and most of the land will be owned by the aristocracy, who will keep it in near-natural condition. There will be a caste system to keep competition low and stabilize society, but among those who are of the higher castes, free market thinking will be natural and happen with low intrusion from the lords or kings. Life will not be “managed” as by a state, but anarchic, with the dark side of anarchy present: no one will be obligated to accept you, let you live among them, or to sustain you, so your behavior has to fit with that of your neighbors. Culture will be more important than government, and with that, media and entertainment will recede in importance. As with all successful societies, nations will be homogeneous, with a few smart people on top keeping the rest in check because most people and all large groups are unrealistic and destructive in their urges.

After the disaster that was the French Revolution, however, I think the new aristocrats will add one major change to the past and the status quo they will integrate: exile of the lower echelons. The French Revolution happened because under the good leadership of the aristocracy, the lower echelons — who practice r-strategy reproduction and fornicate frequently to produce as many offspring as possible — expanded in population to beyond the carrying capacity of their environment, and then blamed their leaders for not having been so fascist as to curtail the reckless fornication. In the future, leaders will selectively exile the least useful members of the lower echelons, gradually improving the quality of the population and avoiding the bottom-heavy form of overpopulation that brought us liberalism.

The point of the alternative right is to cast doubt on the idea of the diverse, liberal state with lots of regulations as our best possible future. Instead, we need to finally tackle some grim realities: that most people are literally insane, but at a low level, and their decision-making is bad. That in groups humans always pick the wrong answer. That equality is nonsense, and democracy is suicide, and diversity is merely population replacement for the convenience of our Leftist leaders. And in crossing a taboo line, we must acknowledge that our survival depends on us reversing the pathology of equality, which everyone seems to follow because parroting the dominant idea leads to success.

With liberalism, we have now seen the truth: it behaves like an infectious pathology, spreading between minds, forming a giant mass of zombie ideologues who refuse to acknowledge the failing of their ideas. These take over society, displace the nativist population with imported third-world labor, and destroy that civilization as thoroughly as Athens and Rome exterminated themselves biologically and culturally. To avoid that, we must give up on the fond ideas of liberalism, and return to realism, which is what all non-Leftist movements including neoreaction and the alternative right share.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses to “What if the alternative Right took over?”

  1. Nisargadatta Evola says:

    I would add the eventual, organic (i.e., not top-down or by decree) emergence of guild networks to the future you posit. If the aristocracy and the guilds were then to cooperate in the ongoing creation of the civic commons, then we would arrive at what some may call “National Syndicalism”. No need to insert post-Enlightenment totalitarian jackboot pageantry to see how this could be possible.

  2. Wrong Side of History says:

    A society ran by incorruptible philosopher-kings, basically.

  3. Wrong Side of History says:

    I think the most reliable form of leadership would be an elite committee of men promoted from the top ranks of the military. Military service would be required of all citizens with the most fit for future leadership identified and groomed young. The only path to leadership should be through the military.

  4. -A says:

    How people define fascism is quite new. Apparently it is considered totalitarianism. What I knew fascism to be was the “removal of all elements that are considered unwanted or unsavory to society, whether by the people, the government or both.” In this instance, who isn’t a fascist? Even the left want to remove elements from society.

    South America, Africa, the Middle East and even Australia all have in common that they are great places to dump the peasantry (which is what made England so great for a time: their unemployed were shipped to Australia along with the violent criminals) but they all also have crops we either need or like. Unless we can adopt Shigeharu Shimemura’s “factory farm” method to grow coffee, it would be a bum deal having the unwanteds ultimately control the production and export. Though, I doubt they would even if they realized it would likely make them millionaires.

    • Fascism originally meant the economic and political system developed by Benito Mussolini, but now it is shorthand for anything vaguely totalitarian that liberals do not like. They like elections; it is easy to fool people with promises.

      I agree there needs to be some place for emigration of those who do not fit. It will benefit those places as well as the new workers bring more skills.

  5. Dualist says:

    I can feel momentum gathering. This was a piece that needed writing, and has been written well. This is the best description and definition of what ‘alternative Right’ means that I’ve yet read. . A clearer path is forming, not so much politically, but to further critique, and eventually dismantle, post-Enlightenment thinking.

    We are now also talking about aims, vitally, including the necessity for a Trandscendental element of some form. I naturally agree with your general vision of a healthier setup in society, though I also think, and refer to the quotes from ‘The Republic’ I mentioned below your last article, that we could be even more optimistic than that.

    Rather than exile large numbers (though something would need to be done with the criminalised class), if the system of educational selection and character-building that Plato suggested was implemented and used as the criteria of where you ‘fitted in’ to society, then most people would naturally have occupations and positions that suited THEM also: after one single generation, the vast majority of people would be much, much saner and actually much happier than they are today.

    One of the most truly monstrous aspects of modern society, maybe its greatest sin, is the vast waste of TALENT. Most people, if shown discipline in their upbringing and strongly encouraged to impose it on themselves, if given an education that made the most of any talents they had and who lived under a system that also spotted, nurtured and allocated the best use for this talent, would end up more-than-satisfactory members of society. Even if their best skill turned out to be basic woodwork, they could still be ‘the best darn joiners in the world’ and would have infinitely more self-respect and contentment than their equivalent counterpart in today’s society, who instead would have been forced to study academic subjects that they simply had no aptitude for, probably got bored with school and then ended up on benefits.

    I wonder if there are any ways the various alt-right websites could pool their resources in some way, or possibly act more in unison? Alternative Right is the only site I regularly read other than here, along with Occidental Observer, but I’m sure everybody reads the ones that (dread phrase) ‘speaks to them’ most.

    As there is so much diversity of viewpoints within the movement it may at first look doomed to be forever a talking-shop. It is normally true that unity is strength. But I think, in this instance, this atomisation is a good thing. Having SO MANY different, coherent viewpoints contra liberalism, varying from monarcho-anarchists(!) to anarcho-minarchists, has one great advantage over trying to force a single, unified, compromised orthodoxy: it means that those on the ‘outside’, who at the moment are vaguely intuitively-conservative (would probably vote for Trump, say) can be sure to find at least one that is closer to their exact values.

    This may sound like pick ‘n’ mix individualism, but it’s actually the best way to ensure that one particular aspect of our various ‘agendas’ doesn’t alienate a whole swathe of potential supporters. A purely white-nationalist approach could put off many otherwise traditionalist Christians. On the other hand, a purely Christian approach would discourage involvement from purely-Nietzschean minds. It’s more important to start gather some momentum at this stage. We can discuss differences along the way, and iron them out later, if necessary.

    Once we have broken past the stage were the media can no longer dismiss our views as those of an insane, negligible minority – then we can start to think politically. But time is most certainly not on our side. If the current trajectory does not change, we will all be strangers in our own lands within 30 years. And we are up against all the evil of The World, with all Its temporal power and resources.

    • We are now also talking about aims, vitally, including the necessity for a Trandscendental element of some form.

      I agree. The West needs to rediscover its spirit without reliance on external means.

      Plato showed us the path; much of The Republic was a thought experiment, but he made it clear that aiming for the good, beautiful and true was necessary to do things for their own sake, and only then do we leave the ego, achieve mental discipline and move upward.

  6. fodderwing says:

    “The local lord will have arbitrary power, so if you pollute a stream he will show up, investigate and make you fix it.”

    Or he will investigate, shrug his shoulders and move on.

    I say a hearty “amen” to all you have written here, Brett, with the exception of the above. I think one should beware, lest rainbows and unicorns enter the vision.

  7. Sig Sawyer says:

    What you’re looking for is archeofuturism. Keep in mind that the aristocracy reproduced more than the commoners in terms of children per capita because they could afford to maintain them. There must always be limited social mobility to refresh the aristocracy and prevent inbreeding. I think democracy works on the town level and only the monarch should have arbitrary power

  8. Bruce Charlton says:


    I have brooded on the secular ‘Right’ for a few years – http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=fascism
    and you probably already know this, and have not been convinced by it!

    But from a personal perspective I remain convinced of its explanatory power.

    1. Fascism was secular (i.e. non-religious) anti-communism – that is a secular reaction against communism.

    2. Alt-Right (etc) is closely related to fascism in that it is secular anti-New-Left-ism (or, the secular reaction against PC).

    3. At present, the Secular/ Alt-Right has been totally unsuccessul in getting significant power and making substantive changes

    e.g. in Britain the UKIP got much further than Trump, but in the end got nowehere, and has just about collapsed after a massive defeat in the General Election. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are other examples.

    This is because secular Right motivations are feeble (e.g. most leading secular Right bloggers are too afraid even to post under their own names and addresses).

    4.To get power, and implement significant changes (against truly massive opposition from the ruling elites – especially the mass media to which everybody is addicted and which everybody believes) the Alt-Right would need to become fascist in the negative sense of mobilizing mass hatred and resentment.

    5. Even this is very unlikely, due to the power of the mass media and the addiction of the masses to it. Only if the mass media collapses or is destroyed (down to about 1000th of its present size) does any kind of secular Right strategy have a chance.

    6. Therefore, since New Left PC is suicidally self-destructive, it will be some or several (traditional patriachal) religious groups that will take over at some point – quite possibly mediated via non-Western colonization.

    7. The strongest current candidate is pretty obvious. But if China flips to Christianity, as happened in the late Roman Empire under Constantine, and if that Christianity become official and hierachical – then that will create a very different scenario from that suggested by trends of the past century.

    • Bruce, great to see you commenting here. I have a sort of middle path on this issue, but first, I wanted to quote this and say how much I agree:

      The answer, I think, is that successful fascism was nationalist.

      Because fascism is a secular form of government, unless there is a strong nationalist sentiment, fascism cannot achieve the cohesion necessary to defeat Leftism.

      I’m assuming the term “fascism” here is being used as shorthand for any of the nationalist movements of the 1930s. Nationalism is a very strong motivator, as is religion, but is either enough?

      My answer is to duck the question and say instead that, much as Michel Houellebecq has observed in Submission, we need a prior state to any external form and that is a will to survive.

      Re-starting a civilization is much like powering up a nuclear reactor, a complex process in which multiple power sources are used to start other power-generating sources. In my view, it needs to begin with something like identitarianism, then be given momentum through the fall of guilt, and finally develop into a consciousness. This is why I emphasize that the alternative Right is more a cultural movement than a political one.

      I do not think religion can do it alone because for most of the population, religion is an external method. For a few who naturally seek excellence such as yourself, it is an inward calling, but for the rest, it is more of a social event that may gradually inform them. This is pure esotericism but it fits with what we know of humanity, the Bell Curve, Dunning-Kruger, etc.

      Imposing religion without that inward starting point will merely lead to the further corruption of religion. The same is true of politics, and this was the weak point of “fascism.” Hitler, for example, could motivate people to obey but not really strive for excellence on an ongoing basis. Perhaps after several generations of National Socialism that would have been possible, but I do not think that strong power for its own sake, including its cruelty and viciousness, will motivate people. Perhaps I am wrong. But I think people respond to opportunity more than to aggression, and under National Socialism at least, this selected for a somewhat blockhead mentality (not as blockhead as liberalism, but as the old saying goes, “better” is the enemy of “best”).

      My platform — aristocracy, nationalism, free markets and transcendental motivation — is based on the idea of giving people an alternate type of civilization. A whole vision, if you will. The point of this is that it is wholly motivational, where what the alt Right offers, like what religion offers, is only one part of the picture. This helps build the identity and purpose that conservative movements have until now lacked, being caught in the struggle of fighting a rearguard action while trying to advance.

      As you may know, I do not share the skepticism of some on the alt Right who are rather mad at Christianity. I think the situation is more nuanced and we cannot treat religion as ideology. Christianity depends on its interpretation; that depends on getting the right people out there interpreting it. We’re back to starting up nuclear reactors there with a bit of chicken and egg problem.

      For that reason, my approach is to group all of what we need together into a civilizational vision — adding a bit of futurism, because retroactivity is rarely appealing except as fashion — and to include religion where interpreted to fit that vision. Since part of the vision is a transcendental outlook, it’s a natural match.

      My feeling is that the masses will never approve of right wing ideas, but that this is good, because with the masses comes corruption of the idea itself as the interpretation is dialed back to what they can understand (Dunning-Kruger, again). It is enough that the 2-5% of natural leaders understand it and promote it, and the rest will follow without understanding.

      The appeal of “fascism” is that it does away with the system of “demotism,” where whatever is most popular wins; this is necessary because in groups humans are insane, and the vast majority of them lack the biological intelligence to process these problems, as you have covered more gently over the years in your blog, which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading.

      Thus, our situation is precarious and complicated. We know what we want: sane leaders, healthy nations, transcendental religion and an end to the subsidy state. We can only get there when we have a sense of “Us” and a look toward the type of society as a whole that would adopt these approaches. Our spirit is the reactor that needs restarting.

      And as far as why most Alternative Right and Neoreaction bloggers are anonymous, that is easy. For the any part of the above message, or what you routinely post on your blog, someone in Amerika would have his life destroyed. His employer would be called; he would be fired; future employers would not hire. If he is renting, his contract will be canceled with the justification that his presence is causing danger to others. His friends will abandon him as will his allies. This is the face of “soft totalitarianism.”

      Congratulations on your new book and keep up the great writing. It has been an inspiration for many years, and I think you will find that you are more influential among Neoreaction, New Right, Alternative Right and other post-Enlightenment movements than seems to be the case from the more egregious extremes to which these movements sometimes drift.

  9. Bruce Charlton says:

    @Brett – Thanks for that.

    My view is that politics is necessarily very simple, and your scheme is too complex, multi-factorial, to appeal to anyone but intellectuals!

    My point about the pseudonymous/ anonymous blogging was that a highly motivated ideological leader will – at least this happened in the past – take significant personal risks in order to lead. Much greater risks than blogging.

    That applied to most of the successful religious leaders – and even to nationalists, communists, fascists etc.

    Such cautious, risk averse behaviour does not bode success for an aspiring new leadership, because it suggests weak motivation even among the elite (it comes across as hanging back oneself, hiding; and hoping that others will make a move and take the risks and build the movevment – before the leadership ’emerges’ from behind anonymity – hoping to take charge…

    • crow says:

      Ah! Bruce is suddenly to be found on neutral ground. And so, as an opportunist, I have this to say:
      You’re an intellectual, Bruce. Which is why religion does not deliver. You’ll have noticed this, and wondered why.
      It’s because you can’t ‘do’ religion with the intellect. It doesn’t work like that.
      Which is why you’re so good at logic and reasoning, and so poor at religion.
      If you want your primary interest – religion – to work, you’ll have to do a crash course in intuition-development.
      I didn’t say this. You didn’t read it.
      Over and out.

      • It’s neutral ground except in that I’m inoordinately fond of both of you and your perspectives.

        In my pidgin Platonic, spiritual experience is the effect of a cause, and that cause is transcendent intuition.

        Bruce makes a good point that something more accessible and motivational than philosophy is needed. I tend to agree, but think that for the reason above, religion imposed externally will not alone work.

        Houellebecq has it, gentlemen. The West needs to revive its spirit so that it may have transcendent intuition, self-preservation and all other good things. This begins, as Fred Nietzsche said, with the casting aside of that which has had its definition changed and thus no longer serves a use.

        Beyond that, I think we’re all speaking the same language.

        • crow says:

          But are we communicating? Language has rather little to do with that.
          Soul = The Rosetta Stone.
          Development of soul is the only possible route to a working society. By route, I refer to foundation. After it’s built, it can be reliably forgotten about. Without it, nothing built will last.

          • Writers and thinkers are like conductors, creating a story out of music, guiding others past their obstructions to see what is possible.

            For a society of souls to emerge, its precursor will need to put those with excellence on top. The step to that is having a vision of what people want.

    • That’s a good point: this is philosophy, and not politics. Then again, anything which appeals to the masses will quickly become adulterated.

      I might remind also that Plato was pseudonymous and he is perhaps the best writer we have ever had (in my view).

      One great fear alt-righters have is of politics itself because it corrupts everything it touches. Hence the desire for a cultural revolution, then formulating a clear long term goal, then achieving it through whatever means present themselves.

    • Dualist says:

      You are both correct. We do need a leader in each country – but not now. The movement is barely nascent, and much too new and atomised to present a united, political front, yet.

      Having single individuals as a ‘front’ for the movement is a bad idea right now, for this reason: as you both know, the mass media would simply perform the obligatory character-assassination on him. They wouldn’t stop until they found something sufficiently compromising in his past or, if they couldn’t do this, would simply manufacture lies. The problem with this is, the WHOLE movement would then be discredited in the eyes of those currently unaware of what we really stand for, in one fell swoop.

      The mass media would like to portray all Alt-Righters as odd, lonely, stupid, resentful ‘haters’. Better still, they’d prefer to ignore us completely. So the first step is to get enough people on-board so that they could no longer succeed at this. Once many more people know of us and support our ideas, the media can no longer ignore us, as we saw in the UK, with UKIP being given a platform with the other parties on the televised debates leading up to the election.

      Once we are close to that level of development, THEN we can look for a leader, one for each nation. He would ideally have these qualities: he would need to be academically proven, preferably having a PhD in a science or philosophy, though certainly not somebody who comes across as a limp-wrister intellectual (the public hates those). This first requirement is so the media can no longer use the trope of presenting race-realists as knuckle-dragging neanderthals. Credibility, basically; though even if he was no academic himself, many of those members visible ‘around’ him must be so, for this reason.

      The second requirement is, quite obviously, being a good speaker; not only in rousing speeches, but also quick on his feet when dealing with dishonest, sneering, sarcastic TV presenters and political opponents, who will all try their best to to make him look stupid. He would have a good speaking voice and tone.

      He should always come across as honest, and be honest, as this will finally look like a real ‘alternative’ to the polticians who simply evade the question or lie outright. He will present our ideas directly and totally unashamedly

      Finally, this is something that shouldn’t matter but really does in this media age, he should not he too old, and should be ideally be much more handsome and masculine-looking than the usual weasel-politicians, with their liars’ faces. Research has shown people are much more likely to trust and believe somebody with symmetric features. It also makes the movement appear less ‘dirty’, and appeals to the female half of the population.

      Now the real business starts. By that point we will still be a small minority. The media, and the propaganda in schools, will continue to fool most of the people, most of the time. If people are still happy to vote for the status-quo when this is happening:



      then it is very clear they will only start to support ‘fascist’ politics when it starts to look like it might affect THEM personally. This is where ‘mobilising mass-hatred and resentment’ comes in.

      The problem we have is that everytime another Paris-type massacre occurs, there is a little extra resentmemt for a few days, a few people upload pictures of the most mindless memes imaginable, then the uproar dies down after a few days. Forgotten. Subconsciously, people have realised that they themselves are personally safe, and, being competely self-centred, continue to think first about showing off their liberal credentials rather than the health of their nation and race.

      But what if it didn’t die down after a few days? Now, the following is only applicable to Europe, which already has a large percentage of seething, mortal-enemies in its midst. Muslims are our most useful tool, and the key to everything (though the situation in the US with blacks, with their tendency to riot at the drop of a hat, is roughly analagous, too).

      Imagine if a situation arose that lasted for MONTHS instead of days (ideally when an election was looming.) Were there was muslim-induced carnage running through every city, every day and night, for months on end. If all our TV screens were covering this break-down of law and order, 24/7. If all the native population had to stay indoors for fear of attack. This situation happened in the UK a couple of summers back (starting over a police shooting) but died down after a few days. Imagine if it continued for months, only with outraged muslims running amok instead of Britain’s benefits-class, this time.

      I believe only THEN could we achieve the popular support required to gain power. Once people realise THEIR future was no longer safe, they would look to the one and only party who had been predicting this disaster and had been offering remedies to such problems in advance. Remember, Hitler would not have gained power if it wasn’t for the insane situations arising due to hyperinflation. Only in a situation like this would our support reach its required level.

      So the question remains, how could WE induce this situation? Obviously, it will happen anyway once the muslims become a majority and attempt to apply Sharia on everybody – but it’s far too late then. We would have already long lost. No, we need to get the movement going, gaining credibility and support as we do so, then pick leaders who will address the people and predict this situation arising, and offer the pre-emptive remedies we would all like to see. Naturally, our opposition will howl and screech, will play unfair, and look for skeletons in our cupboards.

      And then some of US, behind the scenes, would INDUCE this situation. I have thought of a perfect sequence of events that would lead to it, though I obviously can’t write them here. But just bear this in mind: remember the bloodthirsty uprisings in Europe’s muslim communities over Charlie Hebdo, a simple CARTOON? If there’s one singular characteristic of muslims, they’re extremely touchy. Just look at the following video:


      And why did these adherents of the ‘religion of peace’ take to the streets? Because our police had had the temerity to arrest the wife of a certain convicted islamist. It doesn’t take much to get them going…

      So we start off with several acts of ‘offence’, and once the uproar starts, we carry out more and more, pre- orchestrated and timed to cause maximum impact, until the Muslims are in a murderous fury and taking to the streets of every city.

      The media would have no choice but to cover nothing else but this. People would be talking about nothing else. Hatred and resentment would start to rise and, crucially, would not die down after a few days. Even if many people still weren’t prepared to admit it openly, they would nontheless all be starting to realise diversity had always been an unrealistic and dangerous idea – and we would be the only voice opposing it.

      Then the second part of the plan would start, which I certainly cannot write here, and the real fun begins….

    • peter connor says:

      I have grown extremely skeptical that government/media encouraged mass delusions in society can be derailed by any group that plays by “the rules.” The rules, which inevitably require government permissions for everything, prevent any reform from happening of consequence. Trump, or someone like Trump, is probably the last chance to save the US, within the system, from multi-cultural hell, but I doubt that he can succeed, even if elected…..
      .In my opinion, the likely scenario is a civilizational crash that cannot be dealt with or even acknowledged by the establishment. Most likely candidate, a food crisis, since farmland, fresh water and topsoil are disappearing rapidly.

  10. Kestrel says:

    Interesting article. I think some of the abstract principles are very widespread amongs the alt-right. On the other hand, the majority of the alt right would not necessarily support Utilitarianism, controlled markets or your specific concept of the future.

    That underscores the need to focus on the short term and practical, and the things the alt-right does broadly agree upon.

    • I disagree. We need to know what we want and what we are working toward, or we will simply recapitulate the process that landed us in the present state.

  11. […] Amerika’s Brett Stevens avers that “realism […] is what all non-Leftist movements including neoreaction and the alternative right share,” his implication being that “the Left” distinguishes itself by its uniquely unrealistic ideas; but is this necessarily an accurate assessment? Is “the Left” always wrong? One traditional truism for those on “the Right” is that birth control is a crime that paved the way for saturation depravity. Incog Man, for instance, after rightly identifying the disproportionate number of Jews active in reproductive rights advocacy, calls abortion “just another part of the Jewish supremacist agenda to destroy their enemy, the Goyim,” while Andy Nowicki deems it “a much graver matter” even than mass Third World immigration. It is not necessarily this writer’s intention to suggest that the Roe decision was good; but is abortion all bad, and is no more nuanced position available? Again, the Republicans’ ludicrous harping on the theme of fetus-flaying death camp system Planned Parenthood’s “genocide” of black babies is unintentionally instructive. […]

    • Is “the Left” always wrong?

      Yes, as an idea.

      Some individual leftists — for example Jonathan Haidt and Stephen Pinker — have good ideas, but they are always bent toward the leftist agenda because these people need to survive.

  12. […] barely) perspective on the question. Brett Stevens takes a stab at Alt-Right taxonomy and wonders What if the alternative Right took over? (There’s a reason that can’t […]

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>