“We must seek a final solution to the Alt-Right question.” – Every Democrat and most Republicans.
Jo’s got a new post up on his blog about if he’s a part of the Alt-Right, and ultimately concludes he’s an “alt-light.” It’s a pretty good read, and it got me thinking. And, hopefully, this doesn’t turn into another “nazi” thing like he and I had a month or so ago. Lol. I’ve already written a post related to this, but haven’t published it because I’ve been mulling it over. That being said, I figured I could write something here that, while related, wouldn’t be overly repetitive if I do publish that other one.
So while Jo has apparently done his research like a scholar in a library when it comes to the alt-right (at least that’s how his article seems), I’ve actually been the “anthropologist” who went into the depths of the alt-right’s native land, /pol/. And while that is not the only place the “alt-right” gather, it’s a place you can see pretty much all parts come through or get talked about (I refuse to go to reddit). And the Alt-right includes “anything right of Marx” at this point. About the only ones who aren’t in the alt-right are, as Jo says, “classic republicans” (I’m convinced those don’t exist anymore) and “neo-cons” for reasons I’ll get into later.
But yeah, everything from Nazis to Constitutionalists, Libertarians to Monarchists (yep, I was surprised too), Fascists to Ancaps. Ancaps are terrifying by the way. Everyone is terrified of the Nazis and the Fascists (which are somewhat different, apparently), but if they were smart they would be fucking terrified of the ancaps more than anything. Seriously, go on Bing and type in Ancap memes. Laugh at the horror, then realize that’s actually the truth.
I’m not joking, two years in Ancapistan and you would beg the national socialists to come save you. Assuming you weren’t dead for violating the NAP in one of a thousand ways.
Anyways. Jo puts that there’s two branches of the “Alt-Right” which he describes as “alt-light” and “alt-right,” placing himself in the “alt-light” category. I kinda think there’s three, where the “alt-light” could be divided into the New Right and the Alt-light, but that maybe just me. In this case, the “New Right” would be the laity of the old/current Republican party, the Folks who bought into the traditional republicanism of Reagan and the NeoCon teachings/philosophy, who are mostly siding with Trump but still hold to “Republican values.” This is different from the current Republican Right who have followed their leaders into “cuckoldry” of sacrificing their philosophy’s “conservative” teachings to join with Democrats against Trump and the rise of the “alt-right.”
The best way I can think of it to describe the “Right,” “New Right,” “alt-light,” and “alt-right” would be this: there’s four positions to the right. State First, Constitution First, Citizens First, and Ethnicity First.
The “Right” is State First, they put the government and it’s power above all other concerns because without the state, there is no country. It’s not a wrong belief by any means, but it does mean that if the people of the nation should suffer (or change) so that the state retains its power in order to be a world player, then that’s acceptable. This is not Fascism, however. The citizens can still be “free” while the State is supreme. Just look at the high number of regulations and programs that the Government runs and are put in place under Democrats and Republicans, especially “security” regulations that allow basically unfettered intelligence gathering.
For the longest time, Republicans and their elite were torn over the issue of “state power” vs “constitutional protections.” The New Right is mostly made up of the Constitutionalist Republicans faction of the Republicans who have witnessed their party leaders jump fully to State and forsake Constitution. These are folks who believe the government should be small and held within the bounds of the Constitution, and if the power of the state suffers that’s okay, so long as the nation remains strong via a small size, high functioning government within the rules of the Constitution, which must not be violated at any cost.
Then you have the Alt-Light, which is folks who largely agree with the Liberty of the Citizenry, but are willing to negotiate away from the hard-line stance of the constitution. They certainly believe in it, and recognize it as one of the most classically liberal written things in the world, but where as the New Right would hold to chapter and verse, the Alt-light would hold more to the spirit. Libertarians are a strong presence here. The rights and freedoms of the citizens trumps everything, including the power of the State and/or Nation. And whatever solution provides this, even if it means removing part of the Constitution, is acceptable.
Then you have the Alt-Right, which is probably the most ideologically diverse of the four. Jo isn’t wrong when he says the Alt-Right is focused a lot on Ethnicity. If the New Right and Alt-Light could be described as “civic nationalists” then the Alt-Right is solidly in the “ethno-nationalist” category. This doesn’t inherently mean that the Alt-Right is “racial supremacists” (though there are some) as there is a strong “ethno-egalitarian” strain that simply believes each “ethnicity/race” should remain in its areas and respect the sanctity of each others homelands. The reason for the ideological diversity then is because no one has decided on the best way to create/preserve/protect the “ethno-state.” This is why you’ve got groups like the National Socialists, the Nazis (or neo-nazis), the “Deus Vult” guys who believe in a theocracy, the rise of a new faction best described as 14/76 (combining the 14 words with ideals of the founding fathers of the USA), to a half dozen or more different factions. You even have Libertarians who have concluded that a Libertarian state can only exist in an ethno-state due to various factors.
To give some examples, Mitt Romney and John McCain are Republican/Neocons, and the best way I can describe them would be “State First” people. Rush Limbaugh, from what I’ve listened to him lately, is someone I would classify as New Right because he’s keeping to the teachings of Republicanism, and refusing to cuck those teachings (he’s dropped some redpills lately though). Paul Joseph Watson and guys like him are “alt-light.” I’m not sure of a good example of an actual Alt-Right person, mostly because while everyone would say “Richard Spencer” or something, there’s a strong belief that Spencer is “controlled opposition” and not to be trusted as a leader. That could just be /pol/ being paranoid, but they’ve been proven right too many times to just dismiss their theories.
Now, Jo mentions that the “alt-right” is obsessed with things like race, the Jews, etc. This is not wrong, though Jo doesn’t go into just how and why they’re “obsessed” with these things. The best way to describe it is /pol/ and the alt-right are racists for the same reason every single AI tends to go absolutely 14/88: Statistics. Raw, unfiltered data. Now, I’m not going to deny there’s probably some bias, /pol/ is openly a racist and even racial supremacist board. That being said…it’s not a “white supremacist” place simply because literally everyone from every nation who spends time over there becomes a racial supremacist for their own people. The only exception to this seems to be Jews/Israelis, but that’s quite literally because everyone from Mexico to Japan will rip into a Jewish supremacist. It actually gets quite hilarious sometimes. Of course there’s the Eternal Leaf, Canada, but it is best to ignore the fucking leafs.
The reason the alt-right hates Jews is simply because Jews are literally the most powerful and privileged people on the planet. No other ethnicity is allowed their unquestioned ethno-state (this is why even the Japanese hate Jews, because Jews have and will campaign for “open boarders for Japan” while simultaneously insist closed boarders for Israel). No other ethnicity is so unquestionably wealthy and powerful across the board. In every nation you can find them, Jews are wealthy, as well as socially and politically powerful. No other ethnicity is allowed to influence the policies of their home nations while openly being citizens/supporters of their ethno-state. The alt-right sees this double standard not permitted to any other ethnicity and hates it.
When it comes to Blacks and Hispanics, the “hate” is based mostly on crime statistics and cultural differences. While one could argue all cultures are equal in their own way, the alt-right looks at the statistics of crime and infection in say the black community and comes to the conclusion that removing/segregating would only improve things. While this is debatable (for example, raiders in World of Warcraft thought that switching from 40 man to 20 man raids would improve the raiding experience, only to discover that there’s always a “bottom” group that drags things down and gets you killed), a strong case could be made, at least according to them. After all, if 12% of the population commits over 50% of the murders in a nation, removing the 12% should in theory cause 50% of the murders per year to go away. I don’t know if it would actually work that way, but the reasoning is fairly logical. There’s also the argument that the USA gets made fun of because we’re the “Dumbest” western nation in terms of IQ average, but apparently if you remove the African American population we’re tied with third place. I’m not sure how true that is, but there’s “redpills” with statistical data that indicates it might be true. I won’t swear one way or the other, but the average IQ of African Americans is apparently 84 (which I’m told is one standard deviation below Whites (100)/Asians(105), whatever that means. Although I think I read that at some point in the 60/70’s they changed the limits of what was classified as “mentally retarded” from 85 to 75 simply because the old standard meant that half the African American population was classed as retarded. No idea if that’s true though.).
There’s also cultural reasons for the alt-right’s ethnocentric stance. Europeans move towards a more “Libertarian” governance with rights and say in the rule of Government. Asians historically have preferred Imperial/Monarchies. Same for Arabs and Persians. Africans seem to do well under strong leaders/dictators (or at least that’s how they seem to naturally form). Everyone’s got their own cultures and way of doing things, and when you try to make one work under another it doesn’t always go well. Look at how the attempt to set up democracies in the middle east has fared (not well). Imagine trying to implement a dictatorship in America. The alt-right looks at this and takes a stance of cultural relativism and believes the solution is segregation of everyone into their own culture.
Of course, in a “multi-cultural” or “globalist” world, the problem of how you do this arises and the solutions tend to be, well…unpleasant. This is why most people have a problem with the alt-right. It goes against “fundamental” western ideals to say “we round up all the Jews in America and Europe and force them to live in Israel,” because we’re individualist societies that don’t think the group should be punished for the bad actions of a few (or in the case of Jews, refuse to admit any of them are engaging in bad actions). And the “Solution” creates a great deal of intellectual diversity in terms of solution. One of which is “balkanize” and everyone who agrees with any particular solution just teams up to create their own “ethno-state.” But it’s too early to tell what will come.
What is not too early to say though is that the case for separated “ethno-states” is only growing stronger. Where initial attempts to remove Confederate Statues created ethnological divides between two ethnic groups that could be snarkily described as “muh history” vs “muh slavery,” the removal side has expanded their efforts to every kind of historical statue from Andrew Jackson to Joan of Arc. Not even Jefferson or Lincoln are safe from the ethnological destruction. This only strengthens the alt-rights stance that racial/ethnic integration is failing and the solution is ethnological-homogenization/balkanization.
This is also part of the Alt-Right’s (and even parts of the alt-light’s) issue with NeoCons and why they’re so hated. The thing to fundamentally understand about NeoCons is that they are Pro-Military, Pro-War, and Pro-Israel. In fact, the primary issue is exactly those things, though in the inverse order that chains together. NeoCons are Pro-Israel (because a looot of Neo-Cons are actually duel citizenship US/Israeli citizens or other ties to Israel), most of the Pro-War they engage in is directly tied to Israeli intelligence/theory-crafting about what would most help Israel, and they’re Pro-Military so that the USA can have a strong, internationally powerful Military to fight these wars.
One might think this conspiracy theorizing until one learns that Mossad (the Israeli CIA) had agents in New York City on 9/11 to film the terrorist attacks. Israel knew 9/11 was going to happen, and didn’t do anything about it. Which got us into Afghanistan. Okay, dick move but so what? Guess who gave the USA intelligence about Saddam having WMDs? Israel. NeoCons pushed this as the reason we had to invade Iraq, because we were already there. We get in there and…no WMDs. It was all a lie fabricated by Israeli intelligence. ISIS? Funded and supplied in part by Israel, with help from pro-Isreal CIA. Why? Well, if ISIS is around then all the Arab states are busy fighting them, and can’t focus on Israel. Also, if Syria goes away, Israel has access to oil fields that they can easily take back and exploit. The number one threat to Israel? Iran getting nukes. Who is the biggest force to prevent that? NeoCons. Which leaves Israel the major nuclear power in the area with the only suicide button. And while the NeoCons preach that “Israel is our greatest Ally!” the Israelis receive billions upon billions of free money, military equipment, and other aid…which they never pay back, and will sell to the Chinese even after agreeing not too, (not to mention false flag attacking US armed forces in attempts to get them to attack targets Israel wants destroyed).
The alt-right views, with some valid reasons, that the Neo-Cons have basically turned our nation into a puppet nation that kills its own sons to protect a foreign nation that they have dual citizenship or other loyalties too above their homeland. And this is intolerable. After all, we’ve spent the last 16 years destabilizing everything in the Middle East for the benefit of no one except Israel.
This Ethnological way of looking at things provides a different view and explanation of events that either appear perfectly normal, or simply go unquestioned by an individualist, post-ethnic society. It also helps to explain situations that most New Right, Alt-Light, or other political groups don’t understand, because the other side is also functioning from an “ethnological perspective.” Black Lives Matter is a good example, since it is a movement that has caused absolute confusion in most people. “How can the deaths of a few as a result of their own actions mean the persecution of the many? Why does it necessitate an entire mob response when individual their claims are easily disproved?”
Because they are not working on an individualists basis. They’re working off an ethnological basis. And when an individualist response proves ineffective (as it overwhelmingly has), one must consider other options. It presents a situation, to quote Ben Franklin, were “If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.”
Hanging together, then, is the focus of the Alt-Right. “They came for the Nazis, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Nazi. Then they came for the Confederates, and I did not speak up because I was not a Confederate. Then they came for Ancaps, and I didn’t speak up for I was not an Ancap. Then they came for the Christians, and I did not speak up because I was not a Christian. Then they came for the Libertarians, and I did not speak up because I was not a Libertarian. And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.” This is why the Alt-Right tolerates everything, including Nazis. Because each group is so small, barely creating an ethnic identity for themselves (after decades of “white” culture being erased for Globalism, what is White Ethnic Culture?), something for people to rally around, then you accept everyone willing to pick up a meme or a flag.
So where do I stand these days? I don’t know. I’m certainly not a neocon. I’m definitely not a New Right. I frankly don’t consider myself an alt-light either. But I’m not an alt-right either. When it comes to Europe, I will admit I am pretty much fully in the “white nationalist” camp and believe that European countries should be unquestionably for their native peoples. When it comes to the USA, it’s debatable to me if the US was meant to be a “white ethno-state” since…lets be honest, that concept as we know it didn’t quite exist. There really wasn’t a great focus on the “White” race, and America was largely meant to be a somewhat “post-ethnic” society that set aside the divides of European Ethnicities in favor of an American Civic Nationalism. On the other hand, for the longest time immigration was limited largely to a European Majority, and it was only in the last 60 or so years that this was changed (largely to efforts by Jewish politicians and political theorists/activists). Since its inception the USA has always been a “White majority” state in ethnic terms. Was it meant to be? Was it meant to remain such? These are questions to which I have no historic answers too. But then the USA has always been a nation “by the people, for the people,” so really I suppose that’s for the people to decide at any given time.
But since I don’t have clear answers as to what the creators of the nation desired, I can’t draw from them to decide. Looking towards the people, well, there is a very large, very violent section that certainly wants to create an “Ethno-state” that is sans white people. This, personally, I find rather distasteful. Not because I have anything against genocide (though I am not a fan of it and think it should be avoided if at all possible), but because of the reasons for it. Since, on a very basic level the reason for the desired “white genocide” seems to be mostly “Gibs me dat or ah keel yuu!” Although it could also be the part that is “Gibs me dat, ah keel yuu anywa!” that’s also kind of a turn off. But then Communists have always been a petty, greedy, genocidal lot and frankly if you’re going to kill millions of people I think you should have a more noble and legitimate goal than “gibs.”
Jo makes his choice and his position based on his beliefs and what he feels is morally right. I can and do respect this. Personally though, while I am pretty firm in a few basic principles, I’m a lot more negotiable in my morality, more realpolitik about it. I also take my moral cues from those around me and then apply them equally. Given the vast, vast majority in those in power side with the actions and deeds of the alt-left and consider them just and moral, I’m willing to abide by and enforce the rules as mortals desire them to be. However, that removes any moral onus from those actions which frankly puts the furthest branches of the alt-right to be just as morally acceptable as moderates, centrists, or what have you. The more extreme the alt-left gets, and the more this is considered moral, the wider the other end goes in terms of the alt-right. Since the alt-left is allowed to go around burning down cities, destroying historical artifacts, and murdering people…then I can’t really say that the alt-right is bad or distasteful were they to engage in these things either.
If tomorrow a bunch of alt-right people decided they wanted to march down the street of some city, set things on fire, assault people, etc…I don’t think I’d have a problem with it. Because when Anti-fa did that, the press and politicians praised them and lauded their actions between perfectly acceptable to outright heroes. Even now, anti-fa is celebrated as “heroes who bring peace through violence.” I can’t really condemn anyone in the alt-right were they to do the same. Humanity has set the moral framework and legislated its morality. Gods and devils just have to abide by this fact, and the morality the mortals put forth for themselves.
For now, I don’t want to necessarily throw in with any particular side. Not because I’m a “radical centrist, you can’t drag me down into your shit” but mostly because I would still like a peaceful resolution to things. But given the president can condemn both sides and be labeled a nazi white-supremacist by everyone with power…that hope is rapidly dying. There’s also the fact that of the many subsections of the alt-right…I honestly don’t know which one I’d want to be in. “Deus Vult” is certainly interesting as a being of faith…but at the same time I’m a heathen and don’t really want to go with the Church (doesn’t help that almost every single branch of Christianity has completely cucked itself). Some of the ideas in National Socialism aren’t terrible, but what worked for ethnic Germans probably wouldn’t work for multi-ethnic Americans. AnCaps terrify me. The new 14/76 thing is interesting, but it’s way too early to tell how that’s going to go, or even if it can work given that the Founding Fathers weren’t focused on an “ethno-state” when they designed America…and I don’t know what would be lost or gained in the adaptation. And if there’s an “American Traditionalist” faction I haven’t found it to know what it believes. If there were a Heathen faction, I might probably go for that, but again haven’t seen it.
I suppose the best way to describe where I am would be as someone sitting in a spaceship orbiting the planet that is “alt-right.” I haven’t decided if I want to land yet, but there’s a bunch of asteroids headed through space and I might have to if I want to live.
War is most likely coming. We’re already well into the starting stages of a Maoist Cultural Revolution. It’s only a matter of time before we head into a Bolshevik Ethnic Cleansing Revolution, unless something drastic happens. And if war does come, well…I’ll probably be firmly in the alt-right, I’ll be honest. I don’t know where, but that’s probably where I’ll be.
Why? Because the Neocons are shit. The New Right is just the old right that got co-opted and killed, following some vague Reaganesque ideology while forsaking the Republicanisms of Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln, and it would fall just like it fell before. The Alt-Light isn’t bad, it’s not as ideologically weak as the New Right, but at the same time it still fights the war in the old way. It believes that lining up with volley fire and trenches can win, despite the fact that war has changed to rapidly moving tanks and aerial bombardments. Sure, the development of memetic landmines and anti-aircraft weapons has disrupted the advances of the alt-left and won a great victory with Trump, but let’s be honest most of those tools came straight from the minds of the alt-right. And the alt-left is already adapting to those weapons by shifting their violence from online into the real world where memes are not physically dangerous, as well as “carpet bombing” the web to remove any site or person capable of memetic warfare.
If it does come to a war, to me, the alt-right are the ones best equipped ideologically and psychologically. The New Right and Alt-Light will be bound by the ideals of civic nationalism, and constantly hold out hope for peace and the brotherhood of man. This will leave them weakened against a blood-thirsty, ethnically focused foe who will not care about the Civitas between citizens, only the color of their skin and the need to purge that evil race from their land. Just look at Communism in Europe, or Tribal Warfare in Africa. Because those are the two biggest factions in the alt-left, and they will fight as their traditions dictate. And all it will take is a critical moment of weakness, or a blindness to this fact, to destroy the New Right and Alt-Light in a civil war. I know this because that is what has happened in Communist and African states. They will, at some point, attempt to negotiate for peace against a foe whose goals are non-negotiable. And they will fail, and they will lose.
And I know this because that is already the case. Just look at the statue situation. Where removal was negotiated, the New Right and Alt-Light lost. Where removal was denied, they still lost and the statues were wrecked anyways. The alt-left will not negotiate, and any attempts to negotiate will result in failure even if you “win” and come to an “agreement.”
On the other hand, the NatSocs with their history of ethnic cleansing and ethnic protectionism, the AnCaps with their absolute lack of morality or mercy towards those who violate the NAP (seriously, these guys are what would happen if you mixed the Ferengi with Mad Max), and the religious Deus Vult crusaders will not have such a weakness. Don’t get me wrong, these are not the flawless Ubermensch of which Zarathustra spake, they’ve got their weaknesses ideologically too, but not ones so easily exploited by the alt-left. In times of peace, people will want either a bit more or bit less State and liberty than is provided by these ideologies, but for times of war against an ideologically and ethnically supremacist foe whose only goal is genocide, they can hold their own. The existence of their people is non-negotiable, and that balances well against “the extermination of your people is non-negotiable.”
And…that’s where I am.