We know a movement not so much by its statements but by its aspirations. These are difficult to articulate, and group dynamics do not reward exact specificity so much as generating interest and emotional connection. As a movement groups, however — whether artistic, political, social or religious — it finds a need to clarify itself in order to avoid assimilation by entryists.
As the alt-right has grown, though, mainstream conservatives have loudly shot down suggestions that its rise has anything to do with them. “They are anti-Semites, they are racists, they are sexists, they hate the Constitution, they hate free markets, they hate pluralism, they despise everything we believe in,” American Conservative Union executive director Dan Schneider told Conservative Political Action Conference attendees last month. “They are not an extension of conservatism. …”
If memory serves, the Alt-Right emerged in the 2000s and defined itself against George W. Bush and “mainstream conservatism.” National Review was our foil at the time. In our eyes, it represented everything we were not: pro-immigration, pro-war, pro-free trade, politically correct, indifferent to White interests and submissive to the mainstream media.
We know the fundamental idea of the Alt Right was to serve as an alternative to existing Right-wing movements. While it is clear that it rebelled against mainstream conservatism, it also implicitly rebelled against the capture of the underground Right by National Socialist and other Leftist hybrids. This does not mean it rejected all of their ideas, only the totality of their ideas.
The Alt Right emerged from several strains of anti-egalitarian thought — social Darwinism through libertarianism, nationalism through human biodiversity, anti-democracy through Neoreaction, and a smattering of influences from the Old Right and underground Right — which came together into a simple framework: oppose equality and diversity, and strive for a society more like the West before the fall.
In this way, it unknowingly rejected modernity itself. The idea of equality gives rise to the notion of democracy and the idea of legitimized class warfare that is the basis of modern politics, as well as to the ideation behind diversity and feminism. While most Alt Righters recognize those movements as opposition, it has not yet dug deeply enough to see its anti-modern tendencies.
In this way, the only contribution that mainstream conservatism made was to turn itself into an ideological movement like Leftism, and thus unconsciously adopt Leftist assumptions. Conservatism is a means to an end, and that end is having a thriving and not simply utilitarian society so that we can achieve greatness again. Without that, all movements fail among the ruins.
As the Alt Right grows, it faces a crisis: its more mainstream components have had their victory with the rise of Donald Trump, but its core — which desires greater social change away from the Leftist stream of Western nations over the last century — finds itself at a loss for how to push the window further.
After all, the Alt Right is half advocacy for traditional civilization and half provocative trolling that turns the shock of an effete Establishment into a weapon again them. Just as Christian parents freaked out over rock ‘n roll in the 1960s, gutmensch bourgeois parents find themselves in panic mode over the memes and rhetoric of a raging right-wing resurgence.
This gives the Alt Right momentum, but like a car going too fast in the night, its speed means that its headlights do not see far ahead and so it is flying blind. This creates a vacuum of direction, and so the strongest and clearest voices win out. On one end, these are the Alt Lite and near Alt Lite types who popularize simple ideas and miss the big point, and on the other, it is the fanatics from the white nationalist world who hope to dominate the Alt Right with their oversimplified and ultimately not radical enough message.
In this way, the Alt Right finds itself in the same unenviable position as Twitter. It can either reach out to the wider audience out there who are less active and less responsive to dogma, or it can deepen its appeal to its captive audience who tend to be fanatical but ineffectual. Twitter panders to SJWs, and many on the Alt Right pander to the True Believers who will be its doom.
To reach a wider audience, the Alt Right must be practical. It cannot merely appeal to our widespread loathing of modern society and what the fallen Western Civilization has become, but offer an option that is not merely negative, that is, not merely directed against symptoms of the present. We have to target the heart of what is wrong, and come up with a replacement that involves a growth direction, such as happens when people find purpose and discover joy in pursuing it.
Some micro-movements have done this. Hipsters are moving to farms and learning self-sufficiency. Tech nerds are forming communities to build next-generation solar and robotics. Futurists have transhumanism and the singularity to aspire to. Libertarians are working toward free states. These will all fail because they are not complete replacements, and become fetishistic over time.
We want to reach the normal people who want both a good normal life and a chance to remake this civilization. They are in favor of what we say, but do not want to give up the chance to live. This is natural and good; as in lifeguarding, one must save oneself first and then deal with whatever disaster is raging in the surrounding environs.
These normal people are fed up with the utter failure of modernity but will not “jump ship” to a vessel steered by fanatics. They are looking for something responsible, realistic and reasonable to which we can transition without destroying families, careers, lives and hopes.
In contrast to regular political movements, the Alt Right has thrived by being an ecosystem instead of a group of people who each do the exact same thing; it has thinkers, agitators, artists and trolls. It is ultimately a cultural movement. The trolls serve an important role: by saying outrageous stuff, they widen the window of what is acceptable by stretching what most people consider as “normal.”
That sort of dialogue shifts the “Overton window” to include ideas that have deliberately been edited from history by the Leftist Establishment. However, the trolling is a means-to-an-end, and not an end in itself. It can help convey a message, and clear aside the critics, but it cannot be the whole of the message.
For the Alt Right, as everyone else who wants to escape modernity, the dividing line proves to be the democracy question. Those who believe in equality are on one side, and everyone else on the other. This means that the “other” side is at a disadvantage, since they are unified by what they do not believe in and not what they do.
It has become clear to most at this point that those who favor equality are either the enemy or a tool of the enemy. Equality penalizes the competent in order to subsidize the less-competent, and by doing so, it inverts the society and gears it toward the negative and finite instead of future positives of infinite potential.
The future of the Alt Right then belongs to those who are against equality even if this is a cultural and not political opinion. It will be guided by those who want escape from modernity, instead of some option to “fix” modern society. Our current path is a winding road to death, and anything we can choose that goes another way is better than sitting around waiting for the crash.
Western Civilization was a good thing. Starting a thousand years ago, it fell into decline, but as is the nature of decline, this was not an absolute condition but a gradual one overlapping some of the greatest moments of Western Civilization. Thus it was both rising and falling at the same time but its ultimate direction was toward failure.
Starting in 1789 and extending to 1968, the West fully collapsed, and all of us born after those times have inherited a vast disaster which we alternately try to save and escape. This schizophrenic state cannot last; we must choose one, and the sensible answer is to stand and fight, saving what is good and throwing out the rest.
That requires however that we give up false allegiances. Our only allegiance can be to Western Civilization and the genetic stock of Western Europeans that produces it. Everything else is an intermediate, a symbol standing for those great things, and by misdirecting us from the reality to the symbol, these become parasites.
What we think of as our nations — governments and institutions — are dead. They are working against us. The only solution is to destroy them much as we destroy any other enemy, so that in their place we can create something working again. The real culture we need is within our souls, and all of the means to that end need to be removed because they have become corrupted.
We must burn every American and German flag. And cheat every tax authority and public institution. We should ignore all social obligations. Whatever destroys this society is good, and whatever helps it is bad. Burn it down to the ground and keep what we have that still works, carried over from the past, and rebuild on the basis of keeping what is good, and destroying what is bad.
Most people do not realize that we exist in a fallen civilization. Western Civilization, once great, died before we were born. Now we are those who are either trying to hold on to an illusion from the past, or those who are ready to erase that illusion and instead, re-create Western Civilization by displacing the parasites who rule its corpse, and renewing it like a phoenix, rising among the ashes.
Here are ten ways you can tell that you are living in a dying age…
Overpopulation. We hit 7.5 billion human monkeys this week. How will all of these people live? The answer is simple: by consuming everything we know of as our environment, and leaving behind only ruined wastelands full of starving people who cannot allocate the resources or achieve the social organization necessary to feed them. The first world is imploding, and the third world exploding.
Diversity. To survive, every group needs to prioritize itself above all others. This is sensible, but means that multiple groups cannot co-exist in the same society. Groups which fail to prioritize themselves will simply fade away. As a result, diversity cannot work, and creates the ethnic tensions that Leftists — consummate reality-deniers — call “racism.”
Tragedy of the Commons. A tragedy of the commons happens when a resource exists and individuals discover that they have an incentive to exploit it. The Left blames “capitalism” for this problem, but really, it occurs anytime a resource is owned by no one but accessible to all. Imagine a forest: if every person needs firewood, each will cut as much as he can, and soon there will be no forest. With cultural cooperation and a shared purpose, people limit their own takings, but in an atomized dying civilization, each person exploits to the maximum to the ruin of all.
Ineptitude. Societies that are dying tend to formalize rules and procedures as a means of working around the inequality of human beings which mean that some are more competent than others. Instead of choosing the best, these societies set up “meritocracies” based on memorization and obedience. This means that they select incompetents in both public and private, leading to idiocy like Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, American President Barack Obama, and Catholic Pope Francis.
Low human quality. When a civilization is dying, it becomes inverted, or focused on the opposite of every meaning so that it can make everyone feel accepted. This means that the good are penalized so the bad can be included as well. This keeps the society together despite its citizens no longer having any real relevance to each other. As a result, the good fail to breed and are replaced by the thoughtless, selfish and mediocre.
This correlates highly with a “free rider” problem. In organized societies, it is expected that every person contribute as they are able and take in proportion to what they give, so that the most valuable members of the community are those who contribute the most. When free riders, or those take more than they give, are allowed, the society becomes dedicated to justifications, rationalizations and excuses instead of actions and the responsibility for them. This creates an industry out of government where people are paid to manage the free riders and in turn become a type of “mega free riders” themselves by blessing the decay and being rewarded handsomely for it, despite making negative contributions to the society.
Pollution. No sane society sacrifices tomorrow for today, but every dying civilization does exactly that because in absence of a cooperative spirit, each person wants to extract as much wealth as possible and flee the collapsing ruin. As a result, it becomes culturally acceptable to be self-centered to the point of disregarding the environment. Disregarding others is socially taboo, but externalizing cost to the world is encouraged, especially because most resent nature for not making them equal.
Existential misery. To live in a dying time is to know that all is for naught; every act of the individual will be ground down into the same uniformity as everything else, and nothing honestly good will be appreciated. In addition, people are aware at a gut level that their society is crashing and dying. As a result, they become alienated and unstable because they have no actual hope for the future. This misery spreas between individuals.
Existential misery relates strongly to a sense of purpose. Healthy civilizations have some form of purpose which is shaped from an ongoing and immutable goal, even something as simple as “be the best possibility of what we are.” When a civilization turns inward, and focuses on people instead of purpose, the existential certainty and meaning that comes from purpose is forgotten, and the citizens turn aimless, starting with the most sensitive and intelligent.
Inversion. In a collapsing civilization, the actual goal of results in reality is replaced by a social goal, which consists of doing things that are approved of by others. This leads to inversion, or the changing of definitions and goals to be the opposite of what they once were. Good becomes whatever flatters most, even though that is bad; heroism becomes victimhood; benevolence becomes cleaning up after a crime instead of preventing it.
Pretense. An awakened person in the last stages of a civilization will notice that most people around them are pretentious, holding forth as if they are a gift to humanity and nature alike. This is projection and preemptive passive aggression that allows people to act as if they are victims when interrupted despite the fact that they are acting in an exploitative way. Pretense is required to conceal the actuality of their behavior, and enables them to fend off criticism despite it being well-deserved.
Ugliness. Healthy societies produce beauty, pleasure, goodness and honesty. Dying societies cannot do this, so they produce novelty and freakishness as a way of garnering attention, and then claim those are beauty, inverting the original meaning. When you see brutalist architecture, ugly modern art, crass mass culture and aggressive, unpleasant social interactions, this is a sign of the decline.
On this blog, you will read two general responses to the decay. The first is “clean up, rebuild and restart” and the second could be characterized as “burn it down and start over.” These two are compatible in that they implicate the same action: remove the dysfunctional, collect those who are still able to think realistically (the “remnant”), and then rebuild civilization according to the ways that have worked for time immemorial.
Another way to put this is that an accurate assessment of human existence never changes because humans never change. The pitfalls of our cognition that lead us toward bad acts remain the same, as do the impulses that impel us toward positive acts. Even if we become transhumanist super-geniuses, the same struggles will afflict us. Much as the cosmos might be seen as a struggle between creation and emptiness, the soul of the thinking animal — human or not — will always be a struggle between good and evil (hubris, narcissism, individualism, solipsism and egoism).
For that reason, we do not face this problem blind. We are not struggling against the gods, but ourselves; we do not struggle against an ideology, but the human mental mistake of which that ideology is an example. Our goal is not to defeat evil, but to separate from it, and by our own improvement to thrive, such that the evil fades into the background by virtue of being irrelevant.
Our first step is to discard loyalty to the dead and dying. Take those national flags and throw them in the fire. If there is a war, make sure you do not fight. Anything you do which strengthens the dying system will only prolong its suffering and yours. Give it as little money, time and power as possible, and sabotage it at every turn.
That outlook proves entirely compatible with the idea of rebuilding. When a forest becomes overgrown, a fire sweeps through and destroys all that is weak, parasitic and irrelevant. The vines that choke the trees, being weaker than the trees, burn. All take some losses, but those things that are enduring remain and then regrow, newly freed from encumbrances.
Recognize that most institutions and many people merely serve to impede this process and must go. Yes, the Other must be relocated; big deal — the bigger problem is within, and lies in those who are our people on the surface but not in the soul or mind. These entryists weaken us by appearing to be of Us, and yet, working against us because of their moral or mental weakness.
Apply ancient mental technique to your quest: envision a renewed Western Civilization and visualize us getting there by discarding the bad and keeping the good, then nurturing the good until it covers everything else. Imagine the shopping malls not aflame, but being replaced after the fire. Focus on the image of the civilization you want to see.
This renewed civilization would make note of the fact that modernity was created by egalitarianism, itself a product of the division of hierarchy by conflict between religious leaders and monarchs, caste-mixing and conflict, and destabilization after crises like the Black Death and Mongol invasions. In this light, it becomes clear what to discard from modernity.
Uniting our past civilization with the best knowledge of modernity, namely the study of organizations and psychology, we can envision a futurist traditionalist society as follows:
Aristocracy. The best of our people are entrusted with wealth, property and power. This occurs in a cascade from kings through lesser lords. Every locale has a lord who is responsible for final decisions.
Wise elders. In each community, an informal group of wise elders is chosen whose goal is to be the memory of the community and to make helpful suggestions on everything from placement of businesses to potential partners in marriage. They handle civil actions as well.
Anti-work. Jobs are replaced by roles, in which each person has not only certain responsibilities and privileges, but a unique position in the local landscape and a calling, or a skill they develop. This requires us to be less efficient and decentralize industry and food production to some degree.
Culture. Our society becomes strongly nationalistic, including only Us with all Other relocated generously. Almost all regulations and detail-oriented laws are rejected, replaced by cultural norms and standards which allow people to collectively ostracize violators. No one has a right to live anywhere; those who exhibit the values of the community have a place.
Capitalism. No subsidies or wealth redistribution exist. Instead, people are able to offer products and services on the market, as regulated by cultural norms and local lords. Inequality is viewed not as a linear competition for money, but natural to a hierarchy both vertical and horizontal in nature.
Caste. We recognize the natural divisions in people by intelligence and character, and assign to them familial roles that persist through the generations except in case of getting a “bad egg.” The upper castes become the arbiters of culture and tastes, which enables them to influence aesthetics and through it, values.
Technology. Our society fears no technology, but insists that every technology fit within our purpose and values. Grants and commissions are used to separate innovators from the workforce so that they may focus on their ideas, even if these have no immediate monetary value.
Purpose. Civilization requires that we have purpose, which is an ongoing and immutable goal in which we can always improve qualitatively without shifting approaches, a quantitative approach. At first this is simply to cast off the bad, select the good, and use that as a basis for rebuilding.
Family. The fundamental unit is no longer the individual but the family. Our goal is to have each person be integrated in one of these, or heading in that direction, at all times, and to that end, families and family-directed activities are given precedence. Courtship replaces dating, love replaces casual sex.
Aesthetics. Instead of aiming for materially-deduced quantities like efficiency and convenience, we act from moral imperatives and aesthetic sensibilities, building a society that is a pleasure to live in as our first and greatest goal. From that come all other good things, including technology and quality leadership.
Religion. Our aristocrats are also our religious leaders, and they lead by example and argument, not by force. This enables those who can believe to understand the metaphysical underpinning of reality, while allowing the others the time they need to come to that point if they can.
Leisure. We, as a people, are not a means-to-an-end of ourselves; we are an end in ourselves, as a means of being a means-to-an-end of our principles which create our civilization. Through this, we do not sacrifice ourselves, but better ourselves, as an integral part of the ecosystem of our culture and civilization.
In the penetralia of our hearts, we know what we want: a rising civilization, happy families, pleasant social interaction, the ability to explore ideas and space, honorable and moral standards in our hearts. All that stands between us and that is the illusion of equality which keeps us atomized and withdrawn.
We have not had this for many generations, and this tells us that collapse has occurred and we are no longer in a phase of resisting decline and conserving, but in a mode of having to tear out the bad and rebuild from the good. This painful recognition, while off-putting, provides us a doorway through which to stride in order to inherit our future.
Alt Right ideas arose not together, but separately, and were melded only by the collective failure of the Left, mainstream Right and underground Right (“1488”) to address the problem of civilization decline. As a result, a new movement arose that wanted not just to beat back immediate threats, but to put Western Civilization back on track to greatness.
Since that thought is apparently both too abstract and too long-term for all but a few of us, the Alt Right finds itself surrounded by a miasma of confusion as people debate its meaning, even when that meaning is right in front of them. Witness, for example, Alt Lite superstar Fred Reed stumbling toward an understanding of the Alt Right:
For people who have better things to do than study abnormal psychology, the players are briefly as follows: Something called the Alt-Right that believes the white race to be superior and wants to rid the country of of encroaching dark scum.
For readers of this site, of course, that elicits a collective groan. Why? Mr. Reed has made the same mistake that The New York Times tends to make and for ideological reasons, likes to make: he has confused the Alt Right with white nationalism, despite the fact that the Alt Right was founded to get away from white nationalism to something more functional.
Because of this, he finds himself arguing from a Leftist position:
The Human Biodiversity movement, HBD, more scientific and less surly but picking whites while conceding that yellow are smarter. Finally IQists, who believe that IQ is a reliable measure of genetic intelligence. They too put yellows as more intelligent.
If we decide that all humans belong in the same society, then we should rank them by IQ and choose Asians as the masters of that society. Right? He misses the point of the Alt Right and nationalism: we do not care how smart they are, nor do we hate them like a white nationalist (spit) would. We care only that they are Other, and we need them gone so that we can nurture what is Us.
He is caught in the old “we have to make one world order for everyone” thinking, where the Alt Right has decentralized its thinking. We know that no order will work for everyone, and that we — Western Europeans, the genetic component of Western Civilization — must find our own path by excluding all Other, whether we like them or not (and most of us like some or many of them).
As a result, Mr. Reed is fighting a phantasm of his own mind, what the kids on in the internet call a “strawman.” The Alt Right he describes is not the Alt Right by any plausible definition, although all the Leftist newspapers like The New York Times really like his definition.
Since his precepts were erroneous, the rest of the article constitutes little more than error. As with most Alt Lite writers, Mr. Reed specializes in taking a simple concept and expanding it emotionally while condensing it intellectually, which makes his readers feel “in control” of the knowledge domain and therefore, content with their own wisdom vis-a-vis that of their peers.
Onward to the next logical contradiction and stumbling block of the Alt Lite, we find Vox Day, who as a Caucasian-Mexican-Amerind hybrid believes himself capable of offering ethnic commentary without retribution by the Leftist horde, probably hoping to follow in the footsteps of Dr. David A. Yeagley. He understands some of where Mr. Reed is wrong, but then compounds the error:
That being said, the fact that so many diverse population groups observably prefer white cultures and societies to their own does tend to indicate the objective superiority of those cultures and societies.
Unlike Fred, the Alt-Right understands that both average intelligence and the maximum elite intelligence are merely factors in the success of a society, factors that are heavily influenced by other cultural and genetic elements, such as Christianity, time expectations, and in-group trust.
Here we go again with the Alt Lite mantra: you can have your equality and democracy, just as long as you add in thinly-disguised racial preference. This is why Vox Day is more popular than this site; he offers you the mainstream lie, just in another form, so that you can believe this society will turn out fine with just a few little tweaks.
First, the idea that many people prefer something and therefore it is better is broken thinking and de facto democracy. On the contrary, what most people prefer is almost always a simplistic lie. What he has identified is the tendency of groups to prefer easy answers, and they find emigrating to the West far, far easier than fixing their own broken third-world societies.
Next, he wants to suggest that if we just become Christians, lower our time preference and become nationalist, all will work out fine. In other words, democracy is working smoothly, equality is still in effect, and there is no reason to change paradigm at all, because with these few self-help-ish suggestions, we can make our rotted modern society work.
This, too, is Alt Lite. Like the mainstream conservatives, they want to patch a leaky boat and present it to you as brand new, and this is very popular because it does not force people out of their comfort zones. They can keep watching television and eating chicken nuggets in oblivious contentment.
Just like the Republicans, he offers a simple enemy and a simple solution, and then ignores the reasons we got to this point in the first place. The Alt Right recognizes that The Enlightenment™ is bunk and therefore equality is bunk and we need to move on from democracy. The Alt Lite, like the GOP, refuses to acknowledge this at all.
Perhaps it is time to assert this dividing line even more ferociously. The Alt Right belongs to those who are no longer entranced by the illusion of equality; we recognize hierarchy and caste, and seek an escape from modernity entirely. The Alt Lite are sellers of cheeseburgers, telling us that we can fix up modernity with a few mods and everything will be fine.
Of course we cannot do that. Modernity is cursed by its basic ideas being paradoxical and therefore anti-realistic. We must move on from this dying time by ripping it out by the root, not trimming away a few symptoms and declaring the patient cured. If you wonder why the Alt Lite seems so easy and yet so unconvincing, these two examples should demonstrate why.
With that backstory out of the way, we can look at the actual appeal of Jane Austen, and then expand upon it. Luckily, you have a credible guide; I wrote extensively on Jane Austen while entrenched in academia, before realizing that academia was just as much a lie as the private sector and bailing out of both as much as possible. And so, there are some expansions that can be argued as well.
Austen writes books that many still consider “women’s novels” for their topic matter, which is fine as long as you think that Apocalypse Now was a war film and Repo Man was a film about cars, or that Naked Lunch was really about heroin, for that matter. Setting is not content; a good novel is like a virus, with an outer shell of setting and characters, and a payload of philosophy and detailed observation of life.
As revealed in one of our recent Austen reviews, her thinking as a writer extends beyond the concerns of her characters to human questions of morality, existential fulfillment and even civilization itself. She may write through the lens of women’s issues, but Austen belongs on the shelf with Nietzsche, Houellebecq and Céline.
Naturally, the Establishment is resisting the idea that Austen could be Alt Right, which tells you right away that some similarity between the two can be found, because otherwise they would not bother getting the hive-mind in a buzz about this issue. As Hannibal Bateman writes:
Indeed, the Jane Austen outrage didn’t just stop with The Chronicle but has now penetrated into other elite purveyors of liberal discourse via The New York Times and The Paris Review.
From The Times article “Jane Austen Has Alt-Right Fans? Heavens to Darcy!”:
But it has prompted the most sustained chatter among Austen scholars, a more reliably liberal bunch who, like Ms. Wright, emphatically reject white nationalist readings of her novels.
“No one who reads Jane Austen’s words with any attention and reflection can possibly be alt-right,” Elaine Bander, a retired professor and a former officer of the Jane Austen Society of North America, said in an email.
…Of course Jane Austen comes out of a White world. This is why the commentary on the original Counter Currents article were so relevant. Because Jane Austen as a European writer speaks to peculiar conditions of European man, the same way Langston Hughes and Chaim Potok speak to their respective black and Jewish readers. All of Austen’s work takes place in a world where European identity, and in particular, regency English countryside identity, were presupposed.
Austen not only touches on, but by arguing for certain attitudes within them, endorses some of the most taboo institutions to Leftists, including caste systems, eugenics and aristocracy. In the Austen world, people are either good or bad, and those that behave according to the psychology of Leftism are parasitic and threatening.
Click here for an imaging of what Jane Austen might have looked like. Just two centuries ago, and already so much is forgotten. But her vision lives on because it remains relevant for any sane and thinking person in this time, as well.
For example, her classic Pride And Prejudice melds eugenic theory with an intensely realistic morality. All of the bad men are slightly effete, harmless-looking and parasitic; all of the good ones are elitist, good-natured and generous. The self-deluding characters end up with other self-deluders and make themselves miserable, and realists find each other and escape.
In her book Emma, Austen describes the Leftist mentality as similar to a lonely over-disciplined child playing in a doll house. The people and consequences are not real, only symbolic, and this manifests in a profound and damaging loneliness. In the background, civilization chortles on, oblivious to these deeper issues, as if Austen is reminding us that most of humanity is inert.
For this reason, it is both a mistake to argue that Jane Austen is an Alt Right writer as it is to argue that her work does not contain some ideas which overlap with the Alt Right. She writes about a white world of a different era, in which social rank (caste distinctions) and personal qualities are more important than commerce. Her world is appalled by European foreigners, much less non-whites, whose presence she would find as awkward as she finds the concept of slavery.
In other words, like most literary superstars, Jane Austen was that odd mixture of intense Realism and a passionate sense that the idea is greater than the material, or Germanic-style Idealism. In her books, characters are practical, but also live for spirit and a strong sense of doing what is right not only by themselves, but by principle itself.
Claiming that her philosophy fits into the Alt Right world is thus both true and not the whole story. As The Chronicle writes:
On the popular blog of the alt-right publisher Counter-Currents, the world of Austen’s novels is extolled as a prototype for the “racial dictatorship” of tomorrow. One commenter wrote, “If, after the ethnostate is created, we revert back to an Austen-like world, we males ought to endure severe sacrifices as well. … If traditional marriage à la P&P [Pride and Prejudice] is going to be imposed, again, in an ethnostate, we must behave like gentlemen.”
In Jane Austen, the only reason the ethnostate works at all is the presence of an aristocracy. Austen’s work is intensely elitist, and she recognizes that most people are horrible and most human events are in fact failures. For example, witness this classic voicing by Elizabeth Bennet that expresses elitism and aristocracy at the same time:
There are few people whom I really love, and still fewer of whom I think well. The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of merit or sense.
Most things are garbage; most people are confused. The few who rise above merit attention, and this theme runs through Emma and Pride And Prejudice as well as other Austen works. In a foreshadowing of modern literature, most of her characters end up self-destructing or slotted into dead-end existences, while the few good ones struggle and then finally find a path of meaning for themselves.
This elitism is the core of hierarchy. When sorting out a human group, it makes sense to place the best above the rest, not just by external traits (wealth, power, status, popularity) but by internal traits (honor, intelligence, wisdom, pathos). Much of Austen’s work consists of filtering out the internal traits from the external image presented by characters, including slimy ones.
For those of us in the present day, this becomes essential because under democracy, everything is political. In Austen’s world we can see a comradeship of the gifted in which the political is recognized as a front, and the internal traits and motivations of individuals determine their quality and thus their relevance to that world. Austen may be as anti-democratic as she is insightful.
Her characters are — unlike modern “literary” protagonistas — not uncomfortable with their roles. Women want to get married and have families; men want to be men; proles want to prole, and elites are concerned with the abstract issues that are relevant to leadership. Each thing has its place, and the only remaining task is to sort them all by hierarchy.
That type of comfort only occurs in a strict hierarchy of both leadership and social status, demonstrated in her time by aristocracy and caste. Every person has a place, or zone of comfortable operation, paired to his or her characteristics. Scullery maids are not expected to be ladies, nor are footmen expected to be gentlemen. But all are accepted as they are and even seen through a kindly filter.
One reason that Austen remains popular is that she shows us a time before the neurotic existence occasioned by modernity, which has its roots in the removal of this leadership and hierarchy and their replacement with egalitarian mob rule. In Jane Austen’s time, being accurate in speech was still more important than flattering others, and discerning inner traits was permissible. Neither is true today.
This leads us to another uncomfortable recognition: the white world of Jane Austen could not exist without its other aspects such as aristocracy. The world she describes will never emerge from equality and democracy. It is an entirely different direction that we could have at any moment, were we willing to surrender our pretense of equality.
Aristocracy in turn could not exist without her elitism, or recognition that inner traits exist and are important, and that we need those with the best inner traits on top because if decisions are left up to lesser people, crisis and horror result. It is this realization, which reverses the logical framework for both the French Revolution and The Enlightenment,™ that really scares the Left.
If we read Austen as honest and alert people, we encounter a vision of human existence which directly refutes Leftism while simultaneously adopting and disciplining the emotional responses behind it, much as Elizabeth Bennet learns to discipline her emotions in Pride And Prejudice. While that vision includes the ethnostate, it is not limited to it.
That in turn normalizes the ethnostate as a concept. Instead of being a radical idea, it is an ingredient in the most sensible recipe for happiness; it is not chosen for its symbolic meaning or personal value, but because it works, like every other idea demonstrated positively in an Austen novel.
Her insight is to show us that the reason these policies work at the national level is because they work at the personal level. The question of civilization is not institutions, but individuals, and individuals follow the same framework and so can be predicted. Is Austen Alt Right? Perhaps neither yes nor no, but she attacks modernity the same way the Alt Right does, and we should heed her wisdom.
Here is a prehistory of what we call the alt-right today, which is probably better described as a 21st-century incarnation of what in the 19th century would have been called right-Hegelianism. I’m skipping over many political movements (in Spain, France, and Italy), and clownish leaders like George Lincoln Rockwell, Oswald Mosley, and Fr. Coughlin, to get right to the core ideas that form something like a school of thought which developed over a century.
As with most material-over-pattern style thinking, they get it exactly wrong. The Alt Right did not arise from these thoughts, but discovered them late in the game, which is why the Alt Right is ideologically unformed instead of repeating the dogma of the past. In fact, what defines the Alt Right is that it wanted to escape the far right and mainstream right both.
How do I know?
For starters, myself and several others produced a series of proto-AltRight sites before the Alt Right existed. The American Nihilist Underground Society was a 1990s version of the Alt Right, while the followup CORRUPT was a 2000s version which showcased the mixture of influences that made the Alt Right: libertarianism, pan-nationalism, human biodiversity, anti-egalitarianism and transcendentalism.
The Alt Right arose mostly from people who were not particularly Rightist, but found themselves drawn to Rightism as they realized how pervasively destructive Leftist was, and how libertarianism was not far enough removed from it. Most came from libertarian backgrounds and later branched out into dangerous ideas like nationalism not out of dogma, but from pragmatism: nationalism works, diversity does not.
All of us who were on “the fringe” back in those days knew something was coming. Mainstream conservatism had failed and the George W. Bush presidency made that clear because instead of aiming for conservative goals, we were using conservative methods of achieving the liberal goal of “equality” worldwide. Neoconservatives endorsed globalism, which was clearly broken and insane.
This is why the Alt Right was vague; it came after the time when conservatism was understood, and found no allies anywhere. It did not trust the White Nationalist fringe, nor could it have any faith in mainstream conservatives or libertarians. It was all on its own, and composed of knowledge of what did not work (sexual liberation, equality, democracy, diversity) and some general gut instincts.
For this reason, it avoided becoming a formalized ideology and preferred instead to stick to what it could verify as realistic and therefore workable:
The problem is that “alt-right” was not defined. And so it became like “anarchism”. The term “anarchism” is of course a mess in terms of meaning – originally meaning the abolition of private property / the state, then to some became the abolition of just the state and even greater power of private property, and to some just the abolition of private property and a total state, and to some it’s not about “the state” or “private property” but the elimination of hierarchy in any form, and these people reference the root words of an-archy.
Richard Spencer, the chief popularizer of the term “alt-right”, didn’t want to lay down a hard definition of it. He instead wanted to create an “idea space”. The result was predictable; loss of control of the term. Now “alt-right” means anything from The Daily Stormer to Milo to Mike Cernovich to Sean Hannity. It has ended up like anarchism. There’s a very vague idea of what it might mean, but at the same time it could include extreme multiracial absolutists who say “nazi” a lot.
In contrast to the above, the Alt Right is clear about what it is, but cannot articulate it. This is the opposite of it including the Alt Lite, who are pretty clearly more along the line of Allum Bokhari’s “cultural libertarianism” than a Rightist movement. But it is willing to work with people of that viewpoint because the real enemy is Leftism, and hiding behind it, the solipsism of the herd.
Many threads came together into what we now know as the Alt Right. A general sense that diversity and equality has failed forms the cornerstone; from that, it branches outward into an MRA-influenced critique of sexual liberation and a human biodiversity fueled critique of the idea of human universality. It is a complex, multifaceted toolbox of ideas for refuting the Left.
The Alt Right is gaining prominence, rather than losing it. People want an “alternative” to all of the rotten and sold-out options which like junk food, strip malls and daytime television fill our modern world. This is a call to warfare, but even more so, to creativity. We want to reinvent our world so that it does not only not fail, but so that it is beautiful and inspiring again.
The profile tackles a number of obscure and provocative topics such as:
The Alt Right is an umbrella term covering several different ideologies and sub-ideologies. Whether it be big or small, an ideological or a factual belief, what is your personal pet issue and why?
I have one issue: restore Western Civilization. This is necessary as a means to the end of my ultimate hope, which is to limit or avoid ecocide, a consequence of overpopulation and land overuse which was set in motion by the liberalization of Western society following the French Revolution. The rest of the world has followed our lead. The philosophy of deep ecology states that we cannot directly attack our environmental damage, but must re-order our civilization to avoid the excesses which cause ecocide. In other words, ecocide is the result of a leadership problem, and our only solution is to fix our leadership and make our society sane again, so that we can clearly see. The knowledge that we are committing ecocide makes our people self-hating, which in turn makes them despair, and so they become even less likely to address this problem. For that reason, the theory of deep ecology led me to realize that Western Civilization must be restored and made healthy in order to avoid the insanity that perpetuates ecocide.
This week the Nationalist Public Radio crew tackle a subject that will become more prevalent as war with China approaches. How would an Alt Right or nationalist government approach foreign policy? The subtopics of isolationism and imperialism are covered with the same aplomb with which we attack domestic issues. Expect to be shocked, horrified… and possibly intrigued.
0:00 – Introduction of the topic
1:50 – Everitt gives a brief overview of US-Russian relations
4:15 – What should our relationship with Russia be?
Brett notes that Russia is heading towards conservatism where we’ve drifted towards leftism and that ethnic differences between Russians and Europeans makes it hard to see a mutual goal
Does the U.S. have a Cold War hangover? – There seems to be a sentiment of anti-Russia because that is politically useful
9:15 – How will the Trump administration address the Putin administration?
Peter notes that realism is likely what states subscribe to and thus recognize that war is not in their best interest
Russian “hacking” will make things hard for Trump to get things done, however
According to Peter, people of his generation seem to view Russia as a totalitarian state and Europe as some monolith of Whiteness
14:45 – Are we still in the “Better Dead than Red” mindset?
17:05 – Could the U.S. have a positive energy relationship with Russia?
Peter notes that, despite contestation, natural gas from Russia is a key import to European countries and we might be able to operate similarly, we would just need to not impose Western values
Further, European states seem to take a Schmittian view whereby Russia is viewed not necessarily as a moral ‘foe,’ but as a political ‘enemy.’
The question remains as to whether Reddit banned /r/AltRight (and unrelated sub /r/AlternativeRight) over the topic — Right-wing politics — or the behavior of the moderators in that sub. Reddit admins insist on the latter, but it is increasingly looking like the former, as an older message reveals (backup):
I was mindin my own business when i came across this post on raltright. Anyway, it got me thinking, “Isn’t this post violating the reddit rules on doxxing in the most transparent way?” so I reported it to the admins because I’m a good concerned citizen. Anyways, I got this response. I asked a few hours later to check up on the reddit cops and got this response so there ya go. They forgot to update the rules page so im asking you all to spread this story so people know the real rules until it’s updated, posting bounties on people that you want the personal information of isn’t a reddit crime any more
In other words, when informed of the fact that /r/AltRight had posted a WeSearchr link, Reddit admins responded with:
We reviewed the post in question and found that it does not go against site guidelines.
Only a few days later, they reversed their opinion and banned /r/AltRight for “a violation of our content policy, specifically, the proliferation of personal and confidential information.” In other words, the exact opposite of what they had originally told the /r/AltRight moderators and other users.
This confirms that the ban was for political reasons. Now consider /r/AlternativeRight, a subreddit that existed for several years before the banning of /r/AltRight, and which was banned at the same time despite having a different moderation team. This was banned with no reason given, but was not home to the same WeSearchr link that caused the /r/AltRight surprise ban.
At this point, the proof of politically-oriented censorship on Reddit has become evident. The usual apologists will talk about private sites and property rights, but the fact is that like other social media sites, Reddit is requesting the trust of a community, and does not deserve it because of these Court Of Star Chamber style bans.
The mods of /r/AltRight, as far as they knew, were obeying Reddit rules… until Reddit changed the rules, which meant that the rules were not the reason for the ban, but a pretext or excuse. This makes Reddit appear every bit as untrustworthy as other social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, and makes it apparent that perhaps humanity would be better off without these sites.
Over at social media site Reddit, the admins are claiming that the recent ban of the Alt Right community there was not motivated by politics, and not sudden, in contrast to what appears to be the case:
We reached out to AltRight several times to attempt to cure the issues that we saw there. In the end, it was clear that they would not be willing to operate that community in compliance with Reddit’s rules, and so we were left with a choice: allow that community to ignore the rules, or admit that we had irreconcilable differences. There really wasn’t much disagreement about the eventual outcome.
As one of the moderators at the subreddit, I would say we are pretty vigilant about trying to abide by Reddit’s terms of service by removing “hate” speech such as slurs or taking down material that is proliferating personal information of people i.e. “doxing.” In fact, we were purposely hyper-vigilant by having absurd warnings like NSFW tags on posts and an age restriction warning on the subreddit just to inform readers that they were entering a “dangerous” part of the internet.
The only incidence where our subreddit may have violated these terms of service was promoting the WeSearchr bounty that was looking to bring justice to the masked man who assaulted Richard Spencer, President of the National Policy Institute and Editor of Radix Journal and AltRight.com. This would not be the first time someone has been removed from a social media platform for promoting WeSearchr. I should know because I was banned from Twitter for promoting that exact WeSearchr bounty. Twitter informed me I was taking part in “targeted harassment” and then had my appeal denied. Apparently, trying to identify a criminal is now considered “doxing” but I digress.
Only one of these can be true. Either Reddit is incorrect, or the /r/AltRight guys are. And if Reddit is incorrect and is asserting that incorrect view now, then the political bias of Reddit is beyond question.
Since most of social media seems to be enforcing political correctness at this point in order to create the impression that “everyone agrees” on Leftist values, Reddit would be an anomaly if it did not enforce political censorship, but the Reddit guys seem to want to hold up that free speech banner so they can be cool like Julian Assange, Aaron Schwartz and other anarcho-libertarian hacker guys.
However, that all fades if there was no actual dialogue and no unresolved problems, but a sudden ban on a pretext. That looks less like violation of the rules, and more like a censor waiting to pounce, and eliminating a thriving community as a result. If that is the case, Reddit loses its free speech mantle and will have to admit that it is a safe space for Leftists, which then limits its wider audience and threatens to send it, like Twitter, Starbucks and Target, into a decline as Middle America abandons them.