In 2009, Human Events named its "Conservative of the Year."
Their choice hadn't passed an important piece of legislation. He didn't write a philosophical treatise on conservative principles. His selection had nothing to do with his position on healthcare, the economy, gun rights, immigration, or affirmative action. Dick Cheney became America's most important "conservative" for his criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the war on terror.
My point here isn't to argue that the former vice-president is wrong when he advocates torture of Al-Qaida leaders, though I believe he is. It's to show how intellectually hollow the modern day conservative movement is. Including the 9/11 attack, terrorism has been responsible for no more than 2.2 percent of the murders in the United States since 2001. But it's unlikely that anyone would be named "Conservative of the Year" for his handling of the issue of crime.
What about the potentiality of, in Cheney's words, the "very worst coming to pass--a 9/11 with nuclear weapons"?
I'm no scientist, but I would guess that nuclear technology, like all technology, is going to get progressively less expensive and more widely available. Muslims have never failed to use against their enemies any type of arms they could get their hands on . They also tend to fight those whom they live amongst. One would think that the odds of a major terrorist attack happening would depend on how many Muslims are allowed to live in the United States. Reducing Islamic immigration in the name of fighting terror would receive widespread public support, be completely practical in a way installing a puppet regime in Afghanistan wouldn't, and not lead us to kill or torture anybody. Yet the "Conservative of the Year" whose entire raison d'être has been "keeping us safe" acts as if such a thing isn't even possible. The idea that nothing must be done to stop the March Of Diversity is so entrenched in the minds of those considered of the Right that they will defend America policing the entire planet, torture, indefinite detentions, and a nation on permanent war footing but won't mention immigration restriction or racial profiling.
It's because of so-called "conservatives" like Cheney that an Alternative Right is necessary.
Besides our disagreements with mainstream conservatives on the issue of foreign policy and the relative importance of fighting terrorism, there is the topic of race and, more broadly, IQ and heredity. We've known for a while through neuroscience and cross-adoption studies--if common sense wasn't enough--that individuals differ in their inherent capabilities. The races do, too, with whites and Asians on the top and blacks at the bottom. The Alternative Right takes it for granted that equality of opportunity means inequality of results for various classes, races, and the two sexes. Without ignoring the importance of culture, we see Western civilization as a unique product of the European gene pool.
True, the writings of IQ popularizers John Derbyshire and Charles Murray occasionally appear in mainstream conservative publications. But the true value of hereditarian arguments in defending property rights and the free market and attacking affirmative action is never appreciated. To get an idea of why liberals have been so successful in the last fifty years, just look at how well they follow their premises to their logical conclusions on a wide variety of issues. Men of the Left believe that all races are biologically the same. Therefore, every social pathology that especially afflicts blacks and Mexicans (non-Asian minorities or "NAMs" for short) has a cause in the environment. Stereotypes probably have something to do with it, so we must watch our words and purge anyone who says anything insensitive from a position of power. Billions need to be spent on schooling to get those struggling up to par. Minority children must learn about heroes of a similar ethnic background. In addition to stereotypes, there's old fashioned discrimination, so we don't need to worry about whites losing opportunities due to affirmative action. And since white society bears a collective guilt for pathologies that affect the entire black community, 40,000 white women raped a year by black men does little to change the racial scorecard.
Meanwhile, though National Review Online will let John Derbyshire do a Q&A on race and intelligence, precious few mainstream conservatives will draw the obvious conclusions from such research. For example, low-IQ Mexican immigration is the greatest threat to America. Anti-discrimination laws should be repealed not only because they're unconstitutional and infringe on the right to free association, but because whites have very good reasons for avoiding NAMs. Schools should stop wasting time trying to close achievement gaps. And not only do whites have nothing to feel guilty about, they are the best thing to ever happen to blacks. Even ignoring race, humanity will not move forward through equality or by raising up the really stupid to the level of just plain stupid.
Right-wing writers even refuse to bring up hereditarian arguments when their implications dovetail with the ostensible aims of conservatism. So while the free market is defended on utilitarian grounds or a conservative will attack affirmative action from the perspective that such programs "reinforce stereotypes," nobody in the mainstream will point out that it is unjust to punish some people for being better than others. IQ is a magic bullet that penetrates the entire egalitarianist agenda. To be a conservative and ignore it, or even not give it the attention it deserves, is like stabbing at your opponent with a knife when you have a bazooka in your arsenal. Could all this be why leftists treat war lovers like Cheney and the neocons as respectable opposition, while going for the jugular of anybody who goes slightly off script on the issue of race? John McCain, who seems to favor nuclear conflict with Iran, Russia, and other adversaries, is considered a "moderate"; Jared Taylor, on other hand, whose foreign policy views are peaceful and diplomatic, is considered a beyond-the-pale extremist.
The topic of heredity is like that of fighting terrorism in that even when we agree with the mainstream conservative movement on basic facts, we differ on how much emphasis we should give the topic. Since any movement only has so much political capital to spend, the choice of what should be prioritized can be just as important a question as those regarding deeper ideology. The libertarian magazine Reason doesn't have enough pages to go after every state violation of liberty, so it focuses on restrictions on gay marriage and marijuana, and virtually ignores fiat money and multicultural brainwashing in public schools. So though the Alternative Right encompasses a certain brand of libertarianism, there's little for us to be excited about, and much for us to detest, about the journalists most often associated with that term.
An anti-statist movement sits very uncomfortably in the atmosphere of an anti-racist society. If the races are equal, why does the free market always produce results that favor some groups and not others? And why do whites always end up near the top and blacks at the bottom, everywhere and always? What could explain the exact same story being told in the Caribbean, America, Europe, Latin America, and Africa? The most consistent thinkers who reject hereditarianism tell us that we live in a world dripping with "white supremacy." Mainstream discourse expresses this implicitly in such things as who is and isn't allowed a positive racial identity. And conservatives are by and large silent on NAM failure. It's no wonder, that as Michael Levin says, "a bad theory beats no theory," and Leftism has triumphed among the educated public.
There's an important semantic purpose behind the name Alternative Right. When you live in a society in which you'd like to change the entire idea-making establishment, it makes little sense to call yourself a "conservative." On the other hand, we shouldn't do away with the term completely, as there is something inherently conservative about seeking a political and social culture that is a better fit with human nature than the one we currently have. We may lament the low European-American birth rate, but the fact that it's even near replacement level in such a feminist and anti-natalist society is a testament to natural sex differences. While there's more miscegenation than in the past, with the media as it is, we should be heartened that white teenage girls aren't passing themselves around in black neighborhoods. And though nobody will tell a pollster that they desire to live in a neighborhood free from NAMs, the real estate market doesn't lie. People to a large extent act as if they agree with us. And they'll be healthier socially and as individuals when they'll be able to say so openly. Consider this webzine a first step in that direction.
Their choice hadn't passed an important piece of legislation. He didn't write a philosophical treatise on conservative principles. His selection had nothing to do with his position on healthcare, the economy, gun rights, immigration, or affirmative action. Dick Cheney became America's most important "conservative" for his criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the war on terror.
My point here isn't to argue that the former vice-president is wrong when he advocates torture of Al-Qaida leaders, though I believe he is. It's to show how intellectually hollow the modern day conservative movement is. Including the 9/11 attack, terrorism has been responsible for no more than 2.2 percent of the murders in the United States since 2001. But it's unlikely that anyone would be named "Conservative of the Year" for his handling of the issue of crime.
What about the potentiality of, in Cheney's words, the "very worst coming to pass--a 9/11 with nuclear weapons"?
I'm no scientist, but I would guess that nuclear technology, like all technology, is going to get progressively less expensive and more widely available. Muslims have never failed to use against their enemies any type of arms they could get their hands on . They also tend to fight those whom they live amongst. One would think that the odds of a major terrorist attack happening would depend on how many Muslims are allowed to live in the United States. Reducing Islamic immigration in the name of fighting terror would receive widespread public support, be completely practical in a way installing a puppet regime in Afghanistan wouldn't, and not lead us to kill or torture anybody. Yet the "Conservative of the Year" whose entire raison d'être has been "keeping us safe" acts as if such a thing isn't even possible. The idea that nothing must be done to stop the March Of Diversity is so entrenched in the minds of those considered of the Right that they will defend America policing the entire planet, torture, indefinite detentions, and a nation on permanent war footing but won't mention immigration restriction or racial profiling.
It's because of so-called "conservatives" like Cheney that an Alternative Right is necessary.
Besides our disagreements with mainstream conservatives on the issue of foreign policy and the relative importance of fighting terrorism, there is the topic of race and, more broadly, IQ and heredity. We've known for a while through neuroscience and cross-adoption studies--if common sense wasn't enough--that individuals differ in their inherent capabilities. The races do, too, with whites and Asians on the top and blacks at the bottom. The Alternative Right takes it for granted that equality of opportunity means inequality of results for various classes, races, and the two sexes. Without ignoring the importance of culture, we see Western civilization as a unique product of the European gene pool.
True, the writings of IQ popularizers John Derbyshire and Charles Murray occasionally appear in mainstream conservative publications. But the true value of hereditarian arguments in defending property rights and the free market and attacking affirmative action is never appreciated. To get an idea of why liberals have been so successful in the last fifty years, just look at how well they follow their premises to their logical conclusions on a wide variety of issues. Men of the Left believe that all races are biologically the same. Therefore, every social pathology that especially afflicts blacks and Mexicans (non-Asian minorities or "NAMs" for short) has a cause in the environment. Stereotypes probably have something to do with it, so we must watch our words and purge anyone who says anything insensitive from a position of power. Billions need to be spent on schooling to get those struggling up to par. Minority children must learn about heroes of a similar ethnic background. In addition to stereotypes, there's old fashioned discrimination, so we don't need to worry about whites losing opportunities due to affirmative action. And since white society bears a collective guilt for pathologies that affect the entire black community, 40,000 white women raped a year by black men does little to change the racial scorecard.
Meanwhile, though National Review Online will let John Derbyshire do a Q&A on race and intelligence, precious few mainstream conservatives will draw the obvious conclusions from such research. For example, low-IQ Mexican immigration is the greatest threat to America. Anti-discrimination laws should be repealed not only because they're unconstitutional and infringe on the right to free association, but because whites have very good reasons for avoiding NAMs. Schools should stop wasting time trying to close achievement gaps. And not only do whites have nothing to feel guilty about, they are the best thing to ever happen to blacks. Even ignoring race, humanity will not move forward through equality or by raising up the really stupid to the level of just plain stupid.
Right-wing writers even refuse to bring up hereditarian arguments when their implications dovetail with the ostensible aims of conservatism. So while the free market is defended on utilitarian grounds or a conservative will attack affirmative action from the perspective that such programs "reinforce stereotypes," nobody in the mainstream will point out that it is unjust to punish some people for being better than others. IQ is a magic bullet that penetrates the entire egalitarianist agenda. To be a conservative and ignore it, or even not give it the attention it deserves, is like stabbing at your opponent with a knife when you have a bazooka in your arsenal. Could all this be why leftists treat war lovers like Cheney and the neocons as respectable opposition, while going for the jugular of anybody who goes slightly off script on the issue of race? John McCain, who seems to favor nuclear conflict with Iran, Russia, and other adversaries, is considered a "moderate"; Jared Taylor, on other hand, whose foreign policy views are peaceful and diplomatic, is considered a beyond-the-pale extremist.
The topic of heredity is like that of fighting terrorism in that even when we agree with the mainstream conservative movement on basic facts, we differ on how much emphasis we should give the topic. Since any movement only has so much political capital to spend, the choice of what should be prioritized can be just as important a question as those regarding deeper ideology. The libertarian magazine Reason doesn't have enough pages to go after every state violation of liberty, so it focuses on restrictions on gay marriage and marijuana, and virtually ignores fiat money and multicultural brainwashing in public schools. So though the Alternative Right encompasses a certain brand of libertarianism, there's little for us to be excited about, and much for us to detest, about the journalists most often associated with that term.
An anti-statist movement sits very uncomfortably in the atmosphere of an anti-racist society. If the races are equal, why does the free market always produce results that favor some groups and not others? And why do whites always end up near the top and blacks at the bottom, everywhere and always? What could explain the exact same story being told in the Caribbean, America, Europe, Latin America, and Africa? The most consistent thinkers who reject hereditarianism tell us that we live in a world dripping with "white supremacy." Mainstream discourse expresses this implicitly in such things as who is and isn't allowed a positive racial identity. And conservatives are by and large silent on NAM failure. It's no wonder, that as Michael Levin says, "a bad theory beats no theory," and Leftism has triumphed among the educated public.
There's an important semantic purpose behind the name Alternative Right. When you live in a society in which you'd like to change the entire idea-making establishment, it makes little sense to call yourself a "conservative." On the other hand, we shouldn't do away with the term completely, as there is something inherently conservative about seeking a political and social culture that is a better fit with human nature than the one we currently have. We may lament the low European-American birth rate, but the fact that it's even near replacement level in such a feminist and anti-natalist society is a testament to natural sex differences. While there's more miscegenation than in the past, with the media as it is, we should be heartened that white teenage girls aren't passing themselves around in black neighborhoods. And though nobody will tell a pollster that they desire to live in a neighborhood free from NAMs, the real estate market doesn't lie. People to a large extent act as if they agree with us. And they'll be healthier socially and as individuals when they'll be able to say so openly. Consider this webzine a first step in that direction.
