Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘everitt foster’

The Alt Right Needs To Create A Comprehensive Platform For The Future

Wednesday, August 2nd, 2017


by Everitt Foster and Brett Stevens

One of the simplest observations that can be made about the AltRight in mid-2017 is that it has to develop more depth to avoid the fate of the libertarians. As I write this there is a bit of a crisis going on regarding the next step for the movement. Simply put, outrage culture isn’t really enough to keep anything in motion for long. The AltRight has since its inception been about explicitly white identity. In terms of policy this has translated into opposition to immigration, legal or illegal, that threatens historically white countries, including the United States.

In the last twelve months we’ve seen success in helping to get Trump elected, but we’ve also failed on the European continent three times. Over the past year we’ve lost Hofer in Austria, Wilders in the Netherlands, and most recently Le Pen in France. What these three loses have in common with our greatest victory is important. Trump was successful primarily because he tied immigration, the most important issue of our time, to jobs and the economy. In all three cases where the right was defeated at the polls we can see that all three candidates favored by the real right were defined as almost cartoon characters. Every time I heard Le Pen speak it was about immigration or her father’s comments and stances from the 1980s. Similar criticism can be and should be understood to be a reason behind the losses of Hofer and Wilders as well.

We are right now running the risk of being defined as a single issue movement, not unlike those who vote based exclusively on a candidate’s position on abortion. In an upcoming article I will address the importance of learning from the American “Know Nothing” party of the 1850s that was defined by opposition to German immigration. Short story version is that they eventually broke as slavery came to the forefront of American consciousness on the eve of the Civil War and were eventually absorbed into the Republican and Democratic parties. To avoid a similar conclusion to the AltRight we must develop a more comprehensive platform that includes tangible, winnable, short term political strategies. In other words, like Trump, the AltRight in America and the Identitarians in Europe must become three dimensional.

***

The opposite of single-issue groups are those with a complete plan for the future, meaning that they tie economy and jobs to more transcendent issues like identity and purpose. In addition, they are able to articulate a vision of the future they desire, the changes necessary to achieve it, and both tangible and intangible benefits for the functional and productive members of society.

Focusing on those functional and productive members of society is essential. These are the people that everyone else tries to emulate because these functional people, by virtue of being functional, tend to be productive and successful. They may not be rich, mainly because most of them want normal jobs and homes so that they can have normal lives, and they value this more than giving their souls to a quest to become wealthy. This is an existential and practical choice; those who do not become entrepreneurs or go into the professions have more time to spend with their families, and this is what most people indicate as more important than excessive financial success. This group of normal but realistic people is the target audience for anyone hoping to achieve political change in the West because this group has always been the backbone of our society, providing the competence that allows our engineering and social feats to be accomplished.

This group is most concerned about having the ability to be prosperous with the least amount of time required. If they want to spend time with their families, they need to have that time free of not just excessive hours at the job, but time spent on red tape or running around looking for new jobs as the economy implodes. This group is sensitive to transcendent issues like “I wish our society had more of an identity and a culture,” but only when these are necessary to and paired with a plan for an efficient economy that will give them more time. If your only plan is to “save the white race,” they are going to look at you cross-eyed unless there is something else in there about making us prosperous and strong.

American and European voters are skeptical of single-issue parties because these tend to be fanatics like the greens, communists or neo-Nazis. To the average voter, this fanaticism means that the person elected will follow the Napoleonic pattern, starting ideological wars and bankrupting the nation. If Hitler or Stalin came back today, they would start by talking about healthcare, jobs, growth and retirement funds.

***

People are frustrated and angered by the immigration crisis in Europe. I don’t have the strength to be outraged anymore. I’ve been outraged by it for years. Reading about the population problems of Europe, and the white race in general, are depressing but I just can’t bring myself to feel anything, anything at all, when I hear of the latest terror attack in Europe. I’m not saying I support “migration” from third world shit-holes to Europe, but rather that I don’t have the energy to feel anger towards the story anymore. I’ve been desensitized.

The salvation of Europe was looking rather impossible. After all, you must participate in your own rescue. The first world must begin to reevaluate their positions on Enlightenment era thinking. We must begin to reevaluate what we believe about democracy, “western values” such as liberalism, universal suffrage, teleological historiography and other ideological factors contributing to the desire of Europeans to not have children.

Then a light bulb went off as I was researching my latest book. Europe from 1300-1350 saw an absolute population decline from the Black Death, and all we got was the Renaissance. I began looking into medieval demographics with a sharper eye. Case in point, Italy in 1300 had a population of around ten million people, by 1350 the population had dipped to its lowest point in over two hundred years with just over seven million inhabitants of the peninsula. By the end of the Renaissance the population of Italy had bounced back to nearly eleven million, and despite the dysgenic effect of brother wars in the modern era, the country has seen a steady increase in population, though with a birth rate of 1.5 this will not be the case much longer. Indeed even with Italy taking in approximately 100,000 “migrants” (Can we just call them invaders now? Please?) the population will continue to shrink.

The gambit that bringing in non-whites to support the collapsing social safety nets established by western European nations in the twentieth century has failed. The incredible lack of productivity on the part of the low IQ Africans arriving daily indicates that they are simply in it for the gibs and not only will they not contribute to the retirement of the baby boomers, but they cannot do it, even if they wanted to.

Thus we can conclude that reduction in the absolute number of individuals in a society is not in and of itself harmful. It only becomes harmful when there is a deliberate attempt to replace the population of Europe through migration. The notion that the boomers will be able to retire in their sixties and live comfortably for thirty years is a farce. There is no salvation for the social welfare systems inspired by the teleological Whig and Marxist historiographies. There will be no “end of history” culminating in a society where each may have according to his need. Socialism is a failed ideology just as was mercantilism.

Immigration is a concern, but it really cannot be our only position. We must learn that the population decline can lead to great things if we are ready to scrap the failed and bloody ideologies of modernity. The AltRight has so much potential to lead the way it is really a white pill. However, this will not come unless we develop depth to our movement. We cannot afford to surround ourselves in the failed “western values” of Voltaire and Madame Guillotine. My greatest concern for us right now is that we will lose momentum, the young kids energized by the AltRight will feel jaded if we do nothing but complain. That’s all I did as a libertarian because that’s what libertarians do. Thirty five years of complaining and acting morally superior to the horseshoe theory of politics got them exactly nowhere, much like White Nationalism 1.0. What I’m saying is that we must become three dimensional if we are to retain these kids before they laps into cuckservatism or liberalism out of frustration with the AltRight.

***

One other thing to keep in mind is that most functional people hate modern society and want an alternative, but they have no idea what “modernity” is. They are accustomed to primitivists who conclude that our problem comes from technology. Your average normal functional person does not want to give up warm showers, modern medicine, or high-efficiency food and goods distribution platforms like large farms and Wal-marts. They may complain about these things, but these things also give them a higher standard of living, so they would never do anything to remove them. The functional people want technology without the disadvantages of the modern time.

What might these disadvantages be? Our first clue is the white people are not reproducing, with many choosing not to have children. This implies both that dealing with society is taking up too much of their time, and that they are existentially depressed. A cynical look at our cities reveals why this is so: the architecture is ugly, every open surface is covered by advertising, and people trudge to jobs with no hope of really being recognized for what they do well. Too much time is spent waiting in lines, filling out forms, shopping around for options to the inept and corrupt, working extra hours to show that you are obedient so you don’t get replaced by an H-1B visa candidate, and paying off the debt for the house that is really too big for you but it’s in a nicer neighborhood and you don’t want your kids to get raped or murdered. We have made a society that punishes its best people in order to pay for its worst, and the functional people are feeling the strain of being slaves to a tax base. Modern society has removed the joy from life.

This leads us to wonder what modern society actually is. If we take technology out of the equation, since technology seems to develop over time in the presence of intelligent people and did so even before the modern era, we see that modernity is a political construct. Relying on The Enlightenment,™ we redesigned our society around the human individual through the doctrine of “equality,” which says that every individual must be part of the group no matter how little they contribute. If you read that critically, it means that everyone shares in the wealth despite having done nothing to increase it, and that the functional people cannot eject the non-functional or assign them a lower social rank so that the bad judgment of these non-functional people does not infect society and make mediocrity and incompetence into “normal” events. When we make people equal and remove social hierarchy, there is nothing left but money to distinguish the sheep from the goats, and so people become money-crazed. This puts normal functional people into the position of defending themselves against the constant onslaught of other people who want what they have, and society works against them by taxing them and redistributing this money to those who are incapable or unwilling to contribute. If we all contribute, we have more time for our families, friends and the important things in life; if only some contribute, they get worked to death to pay for the rest, and stop having many kids because they realize these kids will have the same terrible life that their parents currently do.

If we are going to appeal to people to support radical change, our change must actually make changes that benefit the healthy and normal. One way to do that is to escape modernity entirely by denying the mental virus of equality. This requires us to really think outside of the box because everything we read, see and hear is designed to support the idea of equality as good. However, if we fail to think differently and reject equality, our philosophy becomes a variant of the status quo, and will inevitably return to the same state we are in now. This is why libertarianism and national socialism do not catch on among the normal and functional people. Despite seeming extreme, these ideologies are too close to what we already have, and so no matter how “racist” they are, they will revert back to the same mental befuddlement in which we find ourselves today.

Right now there are a lot of new participants in the Alt Right who like to think they are “edgy.” To them, the point is to be as extreme as possible, not just to open the Overton Window but to push toward a far-right solution like National Socialism. The problems with this are manifold: first, it embraces a system that has failed; second, this system has some attributes that alienate our people, like cruelty and repression; third, it is too much like contemporary European Socialism or the American hybrid system, just with racial exclusivity added. In addition, it assumes that white people want to unite under the banner of generic white, and not to maintain their own complex social structures which include different white ethnic groups, caste and class. But its real fatal flaw is that in preaching to the choir, it picks a smaller group than the audience of functional people to which it needs to appeal. People get this wrong. Twitter just fumbled this one by choosing to appeal to SJWs by censoring right-wing users as “trolls,” and it resulted in an exodus of normal people from Twitter.

With Twitter, we see the age-old truism that conventional wisdom is usually wrong. Whatever most people think is true is probably mostly a lie. The industry analysts told them that it was more important to avoid fears than it was to achieve positive goals like having interesting content. The same is true of the Alt Right. Our fear is of becoming irrelevant, so we tend to support the audience that we already have instead of the audience that we need to have. We need the normies who are also functional and leaders in their community, the type of people that others follow and imitate. Instead, we are appealing to the single-issue National Socialist types who offer no solutions for anyone experienced with European history or even common sense. Just like Twitter, who limited its audience to SJWs by driving everyone else away, the Alt Right will lose audience as it focuses on one group and ignores the bigger picture.

What the Alt Right offers is a chance to escape the entirety of modernity. Our fear with modernity is that it will never change, just churn on and on, getting slightly worse every year but never really crashing because it appeals to the lowest common denominator in all of us, buying us off with entertainment, sex, gadgets and easy jobs. A system like that seems stable, but really is parasitic. The civilization to which it is attached grows weaker by the day while its false elites grow wealthier and its people grow miserable and eventually fade away by not reproducing, then are replaced by the foreigners imported by their leaders to work, be taxed and pay for all those unaffordable social welfare programs.

***

Other than being based on something other than equality, what would a system that escapes modernity look like? We know that it would involve zero socialized medicine and other government benefits because these destroy our people. As Helmut Nyborg expressed recently, socialism is dysgenic and destroying our people:

Two forces could destroy Western Civilization. One is a social system that taxes the competent to subsidize the proliferation of the incompetent. As Prof. Nyborg noted, “The welfare-state debases what created high civilization in the first place. This is the first time in history that the less fit are reproducing more than the more fit.”

The question begins to make sense when we look at modernity as a deviation from what works into an experimental type of society which, because it is emotionally satisfying to most people, crops up again and again throughout history. All great civilizations die by caste revolt, in which the lower castes overthrow the natural elites above them and replace them with fake elites as we have now, and these caste revolts always take the form of people besotted with the mental virus of equality. Our doom is not atypical but tediously typical, and the solution is getting back to the type of civilization that thrives.

A civilization of this nature is motivated by virtue and is strongly nationalistic, meaning that it defines itself in ethnic terms and excludes all others. It also rejects any institutions which turn its citizens against one another such as democracy and equality. As occurs naturally in all populations, it has a caste system where those who are more intelligent and morally competent are given the money and power, and it beats back its own merchants this way. These societies tend to have strong cultural practices and faith, being naturally reverent toward nature and their own history. Right now, this seems impossible, but that is only because we are accepting modernity as necessary.

We can reach our goal in stages, which follow roughly this pattern:

Step 1: Stop the Bleeding

Western Civilization has already fallen.

We are the people who are going to recreate it.

But the first step is to stop the bleeding, which requires swinging culture and politics to the Right. The Alt Right has already done a fantastic job of this, and if it makes itself appealing to the functional people out there, can go much further. We have to recognize however that we face an enemy in the Leftist who will do everything he can to replace us with foreigners so that Leftists remain in power from that point onward. These foreigners will always vote against us.

This means that our first task, above all else, is to execute a “pincer strategy” on those of foreign blood who are among us: one claw of the pincer involves removing the opportunities they find here, and the other requires raising the cost of them being here. Removing opportunities is as simple as revoking the laws — civil rights, affirmative action, and anti-discrimination types — that protect the foreign among us and ensure that they are forced into our economies. Next, it makes sense to remove all of those free government welfare benefits, healthcare, education, housing and legal help. A fever burns out infection by bringing the body into an artificial state of agitation; removing all of the comforts of modern society will drive away opportunists.

In this way, we can build the Great Wall of Trump without laying a brick. The incentives to come here will be gone, and the costs to do so will also have risen, which will cause repatriation of the largest group of foreigners. In addition, without laws that force us to hire, sell homes to, rent to and work with foreign people, society will naturally re-segregate, which means that life for immigrants here will not be markedly better than what they have back home.

Step 2: Right the Ship

Once we are no longer facing a hostile voting population from afar, our task is to starve the beast: Leftists, and the easy employment that they require.

The first step to this is to attack education and media. Education is easily mastered by removing government money from the equation; end the loans, public education, and any roles created by regulation such as “diversity officers” and watch the number of Leftists decrease. Even before we remove public education entirely, which given its utter failure is an excellent idea, we can implement school vouchers and the group that keeps public schools afloat — middle class white kids — will vanish from those schools, causing them to implode into chaos and low test scores. Media requires a more nuanced approach, but the Trump administration has made a good start: restrict access to information, treat them as a hostile power, and encourage them to face the same boycotts that have wrecked the NFL and CNN.

In addition, it is time to start removing laws. Almost all government employees outside of the military are Leftists. Their jobs are created through regulation and other laws which mandate large bureaucracies. When those bureaucracies are no longer needed, all of those Leftists go elsewhere, mainly to working in retail again. Any law we write creates bureaucrats and lawyers in both public sector, to enforce it, and private sector, to avoid that enforcement. Removing both of these dumps Leftists into the jobs market and removes all the abundant free time they use to cause trouble.

A further step might involve the return of freedom of association. If country clubs are no longer forced to accept Leftists, and the nicer neighborhoods can toss them out, then suddenly being a Leftist will not be a zero-risk proposition, but an impediment. Normal people who go along with Leftism will shy away from it. This type of accelerating cultural wave ends in Leftists being marginalized, as a precursor to relocating them to the third world.

Step 3: Long Term Goals

If we want not just to be men in suits with slightly better ideas, but aspire to the Templars, Vikings, Spartans and maybe the vast cultural and philosophical knowledge of ancient times, it requires that we have a long-term goal that involves getting away from the little-man psychology created by systems of government and rights-based law.

When we achieve a Right-leaning culture and through that, political realm, it can be time for more ambitious action: restoring Western Civilization by abolishing democracy and replacing it with an aristocracy.

Our first step would be a Constitutional Amendment that abolishes every amendment since the Bill of Rights and creates a new branch of pseudo-government, the aristocracy, which will be defined as the genetics of its founding members as appointed by a committee of our wisest people. Those can be selected by our military and other noted and respected thinkers, recognizing that these will not come from the current group of false elites.

After that, it becomes time to abolish most if not all of our written laws such as those based on rights, benefits and other “automatic” procedures. From now on, all decisions are made by hand, with someone of intelligence accountable, not a bureaucrat shrugging and pointing to a line in a rulebook.

With that, we can return to the question of culture, now that it is no longer under assault by government, media and academia. The Alt Right fundamentally desires a Nietzschean warrior culture where people have a sense of honor, integrity and principle and are motivated by a deep inner purpose, if nothing else a striving for those goals that can never be fully achieved but the striving toward which improves everything around us: excellence, greatness, goodness, wisdom, virtue.

This type of change of civilization is the only goal that will motivate our people. Democracy with racism will not, and dictatorship will not; people are done with Communism and National Socialism, and with good cause, considering the wreckage they left. We need a future vision that promises prosperity and greatness, not just ideological greatness followed by wreckage.

Naturally the powers that be fear this more than anything else, which is why they scrupulously avoid ever discussing it. We made a wrong turn in 1789 when the West shifted toward democracy, but even before that, we lost a sense of purpose and substituted mercantile concerns for it. Our future consists of peeling back the mistakes, starting over and then aiming for the stars.

What To Consider When Deciding On College And Graduate School

Friday, July 21st, 2017

This is the final part in the series concerning young people and college that I will publish, probably for quite some time. Simply put, it’s time to move on to other subjects concerning the Alt-Right. But as we have so many young people among our ranks, in this series I wanted to talk to you about the first major decision you’ll even make: college.

Today we also talk about the second major decision many students are also making and it’s called graduate or professional school. By professional school, I mean any graduate level program that leads to a terminal degree, such as an MBA, MFA, JD, MD, or PhD. There are others but those are the major degrees.

Graduate and professional school are often conflated. This isn’t a great way to think of them. Remember back in part one of this series when I said the only reason to go to university was to obtain a credential? Professional school is for the most part about obtaining a credential. Nurses and teachers are the most common, but you’ll also find lawyers, doctors, and in some places engineers looking for a master’s degree in their chosen field.

But the average student should be very careful about what they are getting into when going to graduate school. You’ve probably heard of the MFA and/or MBA. Both are professional degrees for those wishing to work in either the arts or business, respectively. Recently I wrote a piece on another blog regarding whether you should get creative writing MFA. Here is a hint: only take this path if you want to work in publishing. The MFA won’t make you a writer or artist, it will make you a person capable of participating in the professional art world, provided your MFA was from a top school.

But the MFA has been addressed by me on another blog, so let us address the MBA or Master of Business Administration first. Should you go, do you need it, will it get you anywhere?

So when it comes to the MBA there are two basic options: regional and national. When I say national I mean the top 20 MBA programs in the country. These can take the holder anywhere in America and oftentimes abroad. The best MBA programs such as Wharton will land the student a position, or at least an internship that leads to a position, in most of the top companies in the world. That’s not a guarantee, especially in the era of the diversity hire, but it’s as close as you will get to maximum reward for minimal effort. The MBA is a generalist degree. You really don’t learn much outside of some decision making heuristics and leadership psychology. Accounting and finance classes are taught, but not with any depth. They mostly seem to exist to allow the manager to speak with the accounting department without looking like a total idiot.

Next let’s talk about law school. The Juris Doctorate, or JD, is the degree one obtains in law school. About a decade ago there was a major push to get women and PoC into the legal field thinking that it held the key to social power. It’s a little like what is going on now in the STEM fields. A decade later we can see that many of these women are childless mid-thirties feminists who can’t get a date. The men they want all prefer young women in their twenties. Thanks feminism!

But that’s a little beside the point. Many people with a JD think it’s a generalist degree like the MBA. It’s not. The JD exists to prepare you for the bar or for life running a legal firm. That’s it. Do not make the mistake of thinking law school will prepare you for a wide range of careers. It won’t, but it may provide you for a wide range of legal careers. Much like the rest of the graduate world the JD is about prestige. The better the law school you go to the better your chances of having a lot of money are. If you go to a regional law school, you might end up as a public defender in that state. You probably won’t be arguing first amendment rights before the Supreme Court.

Now there are red letter law schools and black letter law school. The black letter schools are more prestigious and tend to lead to better jobs and clerkships after graduation. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with a red letter school, but just know that if you choose to attend one your career path will be largely limited to the region in which you graduate.

Next let’s look at the MD (and I’ll include the DO here as well). This is a general medical degree that takes you to a residency program where you will focus on a specialty in medicine. Med school is usually four years long and is often very expensive. Where you go matters, but it matters a little less than does the JD or MBA. All medical curriculum is the same with a few exceptions for things such as a required class in medical Spanish at some schools. This homogeneity is because the school is preparing you to take the USMLE, the United States Medical Licensing Exam. The USMLE comes in two parts, one you take after your first two years and the second after you finish med school altogether.

Beyond the professional degrees there is the MA/MS and it’s bigger more in depth brother the PhD aka the doctorate.

Before we get to the doctorate we should talk for a moment about the master’s degree. An MA/MS degree isn’t necessarily a degree to avoid. Sometimes companies will pay the student to earn the degree, or at least subsidize the degree helping you avoid massive student loan debt. Sometimes a graduate degree can be used to get a promotion or a little more money out of your employer. But that’s where your education should stop. The master’s degree is the professional degree. The PhD is the research and teaching degree. Beyond the MA lies the PhD and that is a trap set to ensnare young students looking to live “a life of the mind.” Today the doctorate is not a ticket to the upper middle class.

There are plenty of articles available online about the perils of the PhD. The simple explanation of why you should not go, though, is this: Over the past twenty-five or so years American universities have turned out far more doctorates than can be employed at universities. In the field of history, we were told about one in ten PhDs gets any kind of job in their field after graduation. Most go on to work for the government or some return to grad school looking for an MBA or a JD as a way to correct their doctoral mistakes.

And really, I can’t blame them, though I do think “more school” isn’t the answer to any of our problems. I think the best solution is entrepreneurship and taking a chance on something that academics typically look down their noses at, such as blue collar work. But should people on food stamps look down their noses at people making an honest living and paying for those food stamps? I don’t think so.

How did it happen? Why do universities continue to produce students they know won’t get jobs? It’s a complex con job. Universities give departments a certain amount of money each year to cover salaries. But with the increase in students you’ll need to increase the number of teachers. But it’s not cost effective to hire one tenure track professor at $60,000 per year when you can pay three PhD students $20,000 per year and have them teach four classes each. Universities know what they are doing, and they really don’t care about what happens to the students once they graduate.

Finally, I’d like you to know that most people who go to graduate school simply should not pay for it themselves. Graduate schools usually offer their grad students money, a stipend, to teach or do research called an RAship or a TAship and then waive their tuition. If you are absolutely convinced you’d be better off going to a school you have to pay to attend, rethink your decision to go to grad school – again. You shouldn’t pay for grad school. It’s not worth it.

So that concludes my warning about universities. These four essays have covered everything from whether you should go to what to expect at the highest ends of the academic spectrum. If you doubt any of it, feel free to google yourself silly looking at the horror stories of students unable to pay debts, grad students who feel lonely and isolate, almost as if they are in a cult, or look at your professors and see how unhappy they are.

The educational system in this country needs an overhaul. The Frankfurt School is responsible for the Marxist/feminist dialectics you’ll run into, but the system itself is also fundamentally broken. I think the Alt-Right has an opportunity to address the educational system in a realistic way, something neither liberals nor conservatives want to do. This might be a great way for us to branch out and address questions on the minds of young white men and women as they look for meaning and direction in their lives.

See Part One, Part Two and Part Three of this series.

Interview With Brett Stevens on The Uprising Review

Thursday, July 20th, 2017

Many of you know Everitt Foster as one of the voices on our podcast. He also co-helms a site dedicated to up-and-coming writers known as The Uprising Review. I was fortunate to be interviewed on their most recent podcast on the topic of editing and how it can influence the work of a starting writer. It is a lengthy but informative interview by a project that is worth exploring as cultural changes make writing, fiction and literature more important, not less.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 8: Equality

Tuesday, April 4th, 2017

This week the Nationalist Public Radio posse inspect a question which defines modernity and the basis of politics in our era: what is equality, is it a good thing, and is it a substitute for something else? Everitt Foster, James Price and Roderick Kaine look deeply into the philosophy, history and psychology behind equality and discover its roots.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 4: Milogate

Friday, March 3rd, 2017

In this episode, the team tackles Milogate and extrapolates from it to homosexuality and “social justice” issues that the Left has primed our society to fascinate itself with while waiting for the End. Instead, we look at some unorthodox solutions and question whether these issues are issues at all.

0:00 – Introduction of the topic

1:30 – Roderick and James discuss Milogate and how the Left would react to a similar situation

8:50 – Peter and Roderick spar on the Gay Question

21:20 – Brett discusses how Leftism and homosexuality co-exist

30:00 – Where do we go from Milo?

41:15 – Does the Alt-Right need a leader?

  • No, the Alt-Right will not die with Milo
  • Roderick notes that the Alt-Right is a diffuse movement that doesn’t need a leader
  • Peter argues that a reading-list, so to speak, is better than a head ideologue for the Alt-Right

46:00 – How should the Alt-Right subvert censorship?

  • Brett notes that censorship of moderates like Nick Land lead to more hardcore people rising up
  • We need to offer something like “thought leaders”

56:00 – Should we withdraw from the mainstream?

  • Brett notes that there is a short term benefit, but we also need a long term strategy
  • James notes that we don’t need the mainstream media anymore
  • 1:01:28 – Alex Jones on Goblins

1:02:00 – Should we punch Right?

  • “Punching Right” by Greg Johnson
  • Brett discusses what “punching Right” means
  • James notes that the shitlords do shift the Overton Window
  • 1:07:30 – “Punch Everywhere” by Andy Nowicki
  • Peter argues that punching everywhere strengthens movements
  • Everitt and Brett discuss the concept of Whiteness
  • Perhaps culture is a better metric than ‘Whiteness’
  • 1:27:00 – Brett confirmed for Zionist

1:29:30 – Closing and Outro

Visit our Nationalist Public Radio Archives to listen to past episodes of the show.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 3: Copyright Law

Thursday, February 16th, 2017

Despite our Valentine’s Day being hampered by a lack of Roderick, we went ahead and sat down at the round table to open up a new discussion. In this episode of NPR, Brett, Everitt, and Peter discuss a listener suggested topic: copyright law.

As usual, the highlights can be found below.

0:00 – Introduction of the topic by listener 1349.

1:30 – Everitt’s Intellectual Property Law lecture

  • We are not giving you legal advice – don’t sue us!
  • Origins of copyright law in 1709 and the changes that occurred as production has grown

13:45 – What guides the future of a work? What ought we value?

  • Who owns source material?

18:40 – Peter and Brett discuss cultural appropriation and the world of Sherlock Holmes

  • Peter defends derivative works and critiques the concept of “intellectual theft”
  • Peter also defends plagiarism by critiquing by-lines

24:18 – Everitt and Brett go deeper into cultural appropriation

29:20 – The table discusses the idea of “writing in the same world”

37:00 – Peter expands upon his views on copyright

  • The reader’s interpretation may be just as, if not more important than the author’s intent

41:40 – Government granted ad-hoc monopolies are discussed

44:00 – How ought international scientific cooperation work?

  • Should drugs be patented?

48:00 – Brett discusses who ought to control patents

53:30 – How are we going to enforce copyright laws?

  • We shouldn’t punish individuals with huge fines for pirating a $3 song

57:40 – Peter and Everitt discuss their respective content and paywalls

1:05:40 – What liability ought file sharing sites have?

1:08:35 – Peter confirmed for crypto-Libertarian?!?

1:17:10 – Brett confirmed for open-source nerd

1:18:30 – Any questions can be directed towards podcast@amerika.org

1:18:35 – Closing and Outro

Visit our Nationalist Public Radio Archives to listen to past episodes of the show.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 2: Social Conservatism

Saturday, February 11th, 2017

While Roderick is off gallivanting across the third world (either getting a kidney stolen or throwing commies out of a helicopter with Based Duterte), Brett, Everitt, and Peter sat down at NPR’s round table to discuss a meta-topic not often discussed in the Alt-Right: practical social issues. Specifically, the discussion revolved around three major topics: abortion, gay marriage and/or gay rights, and women in combat. We all have different opinions on these topics (even if some of us haven’t given them much thought) and so it was nice to sit down and hash them out.

As usual, below is an outline with the highlights from the show (as well as links to articles and books referenced) and we’ll see you next time!

0:00 – Introduction

0:54 – Peter clarifies his role at NPR and is confirmed for Contrarian Alt-Right (Con-Alt-Right)

3:35 – Everitt lays out the meta-topic for the episode

5:00 – What does abortion mean for the Alt-Right?

  • Brett chimes in arguing that unfettered abortion leads to it being used as birth control
  • The conclusion, as per Brett, is that abortion ought to be between a woman and her doctor
  • What happens when if a woman messes up her birth control? How ought we deal with those cases?
  • 11:00 – Peter pushes back upon Brett’s position and argues for contraceptives and argues that there are more legitimate uses for abortion than Brett claims
  • The conclusion is, according to Peter, that if a teenage parent is unable to take care of the child, then the child should not be birthed
  • How can we give the child the best life?
  • 19:22 – Brett brings us to the real issue: is casual sex permissible?
  • Peter defines casual sex as hookup culture while Brett views that as merely half of it; the other half is dating without purpose
  • Peter argues for a destigmatization of sex
  • Brett concludes that we shouldn’t have casual sex and ought to focus on marriage exclusively while Peter agrees that we also ought to strive for marriage

33:48 – Should abortion be used as a eugenic tool?

  • For Brett, abortion is the wrong tool for the job of eugenics
  • For Peter, we don’t know enough about human nature to eliminate various traits as some traits may have unforeseen positive effects
  • 37:12 – Richard Spencer on racial superiority – 1:10:40

43:44 – How ought homosexuality be treated in the Alt-Right? Should a baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

  • Peter argues that forcing bakers to bake anything is absurd and concludes that individuals should be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors
  • 47:33 – “The Rainbow Coalition” by Richard Spencer
  • 47:57 – Richard Spencer’s infamous tweet on implicit white identity
  • Everitt blindsides Peter with a killer question…
  • Brett agrees that the bakery shouldn’t be forced to bake the cake and argues against the state
  • Both Brett and Peter argue for legitimate gay communities
  • 59:40 – Gay Bar story, Savage Hippie Podcast episode 27, 42:20
  • Everitt notes that we ought to treat the gay community as simply an other tribe

1:03:50 – What do we think about women in combat?

  • Peter thinks notes that women should be allowed in combat and, in the current system, required to sign up for selective service
  • 1:06:50 – Kurdish YPG Fighters
  • 1:07:20 – Danish student kills 100 ISIS militants
  • Everitt opposes selective service and Brett opposes women in combat
  • 1:09:50 – Not a Gentleman’s War: An Inside View of Junior Officers in the Vietnam War by Ron Milam (2012)
  • Peter argues for a pragmatic understanding for women in combat and opposes selective service
  • Women in men’s battalions might hinder operational effectiveness, according to Everitt
  • 1:16:10 – The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East by Chaim Herzog (2005)
  • 1:17:20 – Robert A. Heinlein on women in the military:

    “[T]here is very strong reason why female Naval officers are assigned to transports: It is good for trooper morale…Can you think of anything sillier than letting yourself be fired out of a spaceship with nothing but mayhem and sudden death at the other end? However, if someone must do this idiotic stunt, do you know of a surer way to keep a man keyed up to the point where he is willing than by keeping him constantly reminded that the only good reason why men fight is a living breathing reality? In a mixed ship, the last thing a trooper hears before a drop (maybe the last word he ever hears) is a woman’s voice, wishing him luck. If you don’t think this is important, you’ve probably resigned from the human race.” – Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers, (New York: Ace Books, 2006), 260.

  • Brett rejects materialism and wants to preserve the feminine mystique that combat might destroy

1:21:20 – Any questions can be directed towards podcast@amerika.org

1:21:30 – Closing and Outro

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 1: The Alt Right Rises

Thursday, February 2nd, 2017

During the inaugural episode of Nationalist Public Radio, the round table (Everitt, Brett, Roderick, and Peter) meets to introduce your new source of news and entertainment in The Current Year™, NPR! We discuss what we see NPR as being, who we are, and a myriad of other topics. Specifically, we discuss what the Alt-Right is and how we each view it, we examine questions of history and culture, as well as straying down the path of biological determinism.

Below is an outline with the highlights from the show (as well as links to articles and books referenced) and we’ll see you next time!

0:00 – You are Now Listening to Nationalist Public Radio!

0:40 – What is Nationalist Public Radio (NPR)?

2:00 – Introductions

10:20 – What is the Alt-Right?

19:30 – Is History Cyclical, or is there a ‘Right Side’ or ‘Wrong Side’ to History?

  • Roderick discusses inequality amongst humans, notes that a natural hierarchy arises, and discusses eugenics and genetic engineering
  • Peter on individualism and in-group preference and how that may play a role in success
  • Brett on exceptional people and mixing culture and genetics

31:00 – Does Human Nature Lead to Nationalism?

46:00 – When Does A Tribe Become a Nation? What is the Culture-Genetic Feedback Loop?

1:07:40 – Closing

“An Introduction To Nihilism” And An Interview With Brett Stevens

Friday, October 21st, 2016

brett_stevens

Over at Manticore Press, a short writing entitled “An Introduction To Nihilism” which explains in straightforward terms the philosophy applied in Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity.

Perhaps its most biting moment:

By facing the darkness of life directly and allowing the cold wind of the abyss to lick our faces, nihilism creates acceptance of the world as it is, and then embarks on a search for meaning that is not “social meaning” because it is interpreted according to the individual based on the capacity of that individual. Nihilism is esoteric in that it rejects the idea of a truth that can be communicated to everyone, but by freeing us from the idea that whatever truths we encounter must include everyone, allows for lone explorers to delve deeper and climb higher, if they have the biological requirements for the mental ability involved.

For this reason, nihilism is transformative. We go into it as equal members of the modern zombie automaton cult, convinced that there is objective truth and we have subjective preferences. We come out realizing that our preferences are entirely a function of our abilities and biology, and that “objective” truth is as much an idol as the Golden Calf of Moses’ time: a fiction and consensual reality created to keep a troupe of slightly smarter than average monkeys working together.

Its most interesting part however may be its clarity on the idea of nihilism as a different method of finding reality than the intermediaries and symbolic realities normally chosen by humans:

Nihilism rejects the ideas of universalism, rationalism and empiricism which have ruled the West for centuries. These ideas arise from our social impulses, or the desire to include others as a group and motivate them with what is perceived as objective truth.

Universalism holds that all people are essentially the same, and therefore that values are a matter of respecting the choices of each person, truth is what can be verified in a way a group can understand, and communication relies on words which have immutable meaning. Rationalism supposes that the workings our minds can tell us what is true in the world without testing, and implies universalism, or that the workings of our minds are all the same. Empiricism, now linked to its cousin logical positivism, states that truth is only found in observable and testable, replicable observations.

In addition, for your reading pleasure, Everritt over at A Natural Reaction has published “An Interview with Author and Philosopher Brett Stevens” in which he asks the big questions and some subtler ones that reinforce them. This was a well-executed interview.

Apparently this section has generated the most reaction:

Do you have hope for the future? If so why?

There is always hope. Humans can change themselves, or at least some can, and they tend to influence others by their natural leadership abilities. Right now, every Leftist policy is failing at once, and so history will force us to make a change. In my view, it will shift toward the vision of futurism and not the old, tired, and failed system of liberal democracy.

You may also notice that we have a new site design. This arose from practical concerns — how to make the text more readable, work around some technical glitches and support mobile devices — but also as an upgrade to our aging three-year-old site design. There will be minor corrections over the next few weeks as there always are, but if you spot something that has gone wrong, please mention it.

Recommended Reading