The Alt-Right is essentially a dead movement that has been betrayed by the attempts of its would-be leaders to nail it down and concretise it as something in the real world.
The Alt-Right is a living movement, with a powerful polymorphous energy that transcends all petty attempts made to brand it and profit from it.
Although these two statements are "contradictory" from a petty logicalistic viewpoint, they are both self-evidently correct to anyone at all familiar with the movement. In short, the Alt-Right operates between these two poles of over-concretisation (and moronic leadership) and potent diffusion.
The crux of the problem of the Alt-Right has been its generally retarded interface with the issues of identity and nationalism. Here the obvious schisms are between what is called White Supremacism, White Go-It-Alone-ism (my own coinage), and Civic Nationalism, which basically is pride as a welfare system. Most of the main sites and figureheads in the movement (as opposed to intellectuals) tend to have two or more of these camps, but with White Go-It-Alone-ism predominating.
This tendency is sometimes presented as "nationalism for everyone," and allows its promoters to propose a new "morality" while basking in that of the old. But, of course, "nationalism for everyone" is a self-evidently absurd notion when most human groups are still struggling with the tribal stage – far below the national stage – while many actual White populations that have experienced nationalism in their history – are desperately trying to get back to tribalism.
Also, once we get into "everybody leaving everybody alone," what do we do when all the areas that revert back to jungle are then colonised by the Chinese or whichever other nationalism has kept a few supremacist tricks up its sleeve?
What we are seeing here is the "Metaphysical Gap."
The fact is that the Alt-Right, whether it realise it or not, has bitten off more than it can chew, and certainly more than most of the pedantic and modest minds sucked into its leadership positions can cope with, for it has unwittingly taken as its subject matter the destiny of man, the spiritual vacuum of modernity, the nature of morality, etc., but with a limited ability to move these giant shadow-casting rocks round the tiny candle of its sun.
This is also the reason why normie politics tend to stick to the relatively unchallenging minutiae of tax codes, welfare benefits, and drone strikes. To its credit, the Alt-Right hasn't.
By focusing on eternal problems and infinite solutions, the Alt-Right has invoked the great pagan formlessness of the cosmos. But then its leaders have started to revert to the modes and mind habits of petty talk radio hosts, GOP policy wonks, or think tanks.
What the Alt-Right truly is, and what animates it, is hard to put in a box – an analogy of its deathless vitality, hopefully. Tying it to a policy wagon makes an unsightly Gordian Knot, especially when the movement is supposed to be an Alexandrine stroke of the sword.
Greg Johnson is an interesting example of how the Alt-Right has gone wrong. Starting off as an academic with an interest in Ayn Rand, Greek philosophy, and intellectual pretensions that promised much, unfortunately his prissy and arid logic led him to increasingly over-emphasise the White Nationalist, anti-Semitic strand of the Alt-Right, instead of developing a convincing critique of modernity and a positive way of asserting White interests.
Such crude and visceral reductionism, dressed up with the ribbons and bows of dilettantish "philosophising" – the Counter-Currents model – keeps Johnson in sufficient funds for his allegedly gay lifestyle of international mini conferences and meet ups, but on the political and metapolitical level merely invokes the failed White Nationalisms of the 1990s rather than offering something new and potent, as the essence of the Alt-Right promised to do.
The Alt-Right has always been a lesson in how some metals become stronger by being subtly alloyed, which is why anally-retentive purists like Johnson are always its worst enemies. Richard Spencer with his Space Age Roman Empire nonsense is just as bad.
(((Andrew Anglin))) – someone who has successfully latched onto the Alt-Right but is clearly not "of it" in the same way that a tapeworm is not part of the digestive tract of a mammal – is another case study of how those directing the Alt-Right have endeavoured to steer it into sterility. Anglin and his Jewish friend Weev have literally placed the unthinking "hive mind" at the centre of what they do.
They have turned their following of alienated teenage human detritus that spends too much time on the internet into virtual bots for their retarded memes, and now they are laughably trawling and trolling through the world of "burger" or "mobility scooter nationalism," while incongruously keeping all their K and N words. This sudden pinpoint turn from 1488 to Stars n' Stripes nationalism is merely a measure of how stupid, pliable, and unthinking their sheeplike followers are.
Back in 2016, Vox Day, a card-carrying member of the so-called "Alt-Lite," came up with a family-friendly list of bullet points that were laughably intended to serve as a manifesto for the wider Alt-Right's would-be leadership cadre, keen to shine its shoes and walk over the marbled floors of Washington.
These bullet points, however, are all duds, not for what they say but because they have been minted into bullet points. But the whiff of possible respectability that they offered attracted support from the likes of RamZPaul, Stefan Molyneaux, and even Richard Spencer, who even agreed with this dictum:
How very nice and Christian! So, goodbye Roman Space Empire!
But whatever grand manifesto the "Grand Central Committee of me-and-my-opinions" occasionally comes up with, we should be careful not to try to condense and crystallise the potency that lies behind the phenomenon of the Alt-Right or whatever succeeds it. Such attempts take something that is naturally turbulent, fuzzy, nebulous, and synergetic and try to make it obvious, pat, and static.
Analogies from contemporary art or whodunits apply: once art critics break the artistic code and put an artist in a box with a label on it, his work loses a lot of its power to make plutocrats pay up; once we know who the villain in a potboiler is, why bother turning the next page? Nailing things down, clarifying them, is also a way of killing them. The butterfly with its name written clearly in Latin is a dead butterfly. This is what the Alt-Right has been doing over the last two years to itself.
As Zen teaches us, imprecision, obliqueness, and vacuity at the center—at least until the moment of decision!—have an intense potency. Nailing things down, by contrast, presents our enemies with an unmoving target – a virtual piñata – to beat to smithereens. This is what Charlottesville clearly was—a cartoon donkey with a picture of Richard Spencer on it.
For a movement that has got hung up on retarded Hitler worship, perhaps a WWII analogy is also in order.
Hitler was victorious as long as his enemies were surprised by his point of attack (Norway, Ardennes, the Eastern Front, etc.), and defeated when his point of attack became too obvious (Moscow, Stalingrad). Telling the enemy who you are, and laying out clear and precise principles (carefully budgeted and time-tabled down to each railway car or repatriation boat), is not too bright because the future is shifting and ever-changing.
As I predicted in 2016: the degree to which the Alt-Right fits into any autistic little schemata or zombie hive mind will be the degree to which it dies before it can be killed by its own enemies. In a nutshell, the Alt-Right is the ultimate freedom – the freedom to think, and even to unthink, the "unthinkable." Does it still have a future? That remains to be seen.
The Alt-Right is a living movement, with a powerful polymorphous energy that transcends all petty attempts made to brand it and profit from it.
Although these two statements are "contradictory" from a petty logicalistic viewpoint, they are both self-evidently correct to anyone at all familiar with the movement. In short, the Alt-Right operates between these two poles of over-concretisation (and moronic leadership) and potent diffusion.
The crux of the problem of the Alt-Right has been its generally retarded interface with the issues of identity and nationalism. Here the obvious schisms are between what is called White Supremacism, White Go-It-Alone-ism (my own coinage), and Civic Nationalism, which basically is pride as a welfare system. Most of the main sites and figureheads in the movement (as opposed to intellectuals) tend to have two or more of these camps, but with White Go-It-Alone-ism predominating.
This tendency is sometimes presented as "nationalism for everyone," and allows its promoters to propose a new "morality" while basking in that of the old. But, of course, "nationalism for everyone" is a self-evidently absurd notion when most human groups are still struggling with the tribal stage – far below the national stage – while many actual White populations that have experienced nationalism in their history – are desperately trying to get back to tribalism.
 |
| Two groups of Whites helping each other get back to tribalism. |
What we are seeing here is the "Metaphysical Gap."
The fact is that the Alt-Right, whether it realise it or not, has bitten off more than it can chew, and certainly more than most of the pedantic and modest minds sucked into its leadership positions can cope with, for it has unwittingly taken as its subject matter the destiny of man, the spiritual vacuum of modernity, the nature of morality, etc., but with a limited ability to move these giant shadow-casting rocks round the tiny candle of its sun.
This is also the reason why normie politics tend to stick to the relatively unchallenging minutiae of tax codes, welfare benefits, and drone strikes. To its credit, the Alt-Right hasn't.
 |
| Detail may not be your friend. |
What the Alt-Right truly is, and what animates it, is hard to put in a box – an analogy of its deathless vitality, hopefully. Tying it to a policy wagon makes an unsightly Gordian Knot, especially when the movement is supposed to be an Alexandrine stroke of the sword.
Greg Johnson is an interesting example of how the Alt-Right has gone wrong. Starting off as an academic with an interest in Ayn Rand, Greek philosophy, and intellectual pretensions that promised much, unfortunately his prissy and arid logic led him to increasingly over-emphasise the White Nationalist, anti-Semitic strand of the Alt-Right, instead of developing a convincing critique of modernity and a positive way of asserting White interests.
Such crude and visceral reductionism, dressed up with the ribbons and bows of dilettantish "philosophising" – the Counter-Currents model – keeps Johnson in sufficient funds for his allegedly gay lifestyle of international mini conferences and meet ups, but on the political and metapolitical level merely invokes the failed White Nationalisms of the 1990s rather than offering something new and potent, as the essence of the Alt-Right promised to do.
The Alt-Right has always been a lesson in how some metals become stronger by being subtly alloyed, which is why anally-retentive purists like Johnson are always its worst enemies. Richard Spencer with his Space Age Roman Empire nonsense is just as bad.
 |
| How the World sees America. More importantly, how America sees itself. |
Back in 2016, Vox Day, a card-carrying member of the so-called "Alt-Lite," came up with a family-friendly list of bullet points that were laughably intended to serve as a manifesto for the wider Alt-Right's would-be leadership cadre, keen to shine its shoes and walk over the marbled floors of Washington.
These bullet points, however, are all duds, not for what they say but because they have been minted into bullet points. But the whiff of possible respectability that they offered attracted support from the likes of RamZPaul, Stefan Molyneaux, and even Richard Spencer, who even agreed with this dictum:
"The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples..."
How very nice and Christian! So, goodbye Roman Space Empire!
But whatever grand manifesto the "Grand Central Committee of me-and-my-opinions" occasionally comes up with, we should be careful not to try to condense and crystallise the potency that lies behind the phenomenon of the Alt-Right or whatever succeeds it. Such attempts take something that is naturally turbulent, fuzzy, nebulous, and synergetic and try to make it obvious, pat, and static.
Analogies from contemporary art or whodunits apply: once art critics break the artistic code and put an artist in a box with a label on it, his work loses a lot of its power to make plutocrats pay up; once we know who the villain in a potboiler is, why bother turning the next page? Nailing things down, clarifying them, is also a way of killing them. The butterfly with its name written clearly in Latin is a dead butterfly. This is what the Alt-Right has been doing over the last two years to itself.
As Zen teaches us, imprecision, obliqueness, and vacuity at the center—at least until the moment of decision!—have an intense potency. Nailing things down, by contrast, presents our enemies with an unmoving target – a virtual piñata – to beat to smithereens. This is what Charlottesville clearly was—a cartoon donkey with a picture of Richard Spencer on it.
Back in 2016, in the aftermath of Hillary's speech attacking the Alt-Right, few realised the source of the movement's power. Some of us here at Affirmative Right did, and so did Heartiste. In his "Why The Alt-Right Is Kicking Ass And Taking Names" Heartiste cited Robert Greene's "power laws." The two that made the most sense were Law 17 and Law 48, which work better in inverted order:
Law 48: Assume Formlessness
By taking a shape, by having a visible plan, you open yourself to attack. Instead of taking a form for your enemy to grasp keep yourself adaptable and on the move. Accept the fact that nothing is certain and no law is fixed. The best way to protect yourself is to be as fluid and formless as water; never bet on stability or lasting order. Everything changes.
Law 17: Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability
Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off- balance and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.
For a movement that has got hung up on retarded Hitler worship, perhaps a WWII analogy is also in order.
Hitler was victorious as long as his enemies were surprised by his point of attack (Norway, Ardennes, the Eastern Front, etc.), and defeated when his point of attack became too obvious (Moscow, Stalingrad). Telling the enemy who you are, and laying out clear and precise principles (carefully budgeted and time-tabled down to each railway car or repatriation boat), is not too bright because the future is shifting and ever-changing.
As I predicted in 2016: the degree to which the Alt-Right fits into any autistic little schemata or zombie hive mind will be the degree to which it dies before it can be killed by its own enemies. In a nutshell, the Alt-Right is the ultimate freedom – the freedom to think, and even to unthink, the "unthinkable." Does it still have a future? That remains to be seen.
I disagree only because ultimately one has to take power and lead. You can be an insurgency for only so long. Michael Collins came back from London with a deal for Irish independence - but without the North. He took the deal.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, at that point things changed. His glory days of fighting the British with guerrillera tactics were over and he had to form a government. So it goes with the Alt Right. Mike Enoch is correct. Donald Trump is giving us (at least in the US) four to eight years of breathing space to come up with a platform so he can implement it. Ann Coulter is now retweeting Mike Enoch.
Insurgency and rebellion is fun, but ultimately and in the final analysis, it must end.
How can she retweet him if he's been kicked off Twitter?
DeleteHe just got kicked off didn’t he? Like I mean just days ago... in fact I believe he was kicked off precisely because she retweeted him.
DeleteLike the drawing of Richard Spencer! Is he a tranny-man? That is a girl on male hormones?
ReplyDeleteI think that drawing seems to suggest it.
Heimbach looks very girly as well.
The Alt-right being some kind of political masonic girlband??
Well, even old Adolf seems a bit madame-like herself.
pretty good...
ReplyDeleteThe Alt-Right are noobs experimenting with politics. Mistakes were made, no surprise there. But until now they were able to get over them, and that's no small feat.
ReplyDeleteI don't like (((Anglin))), and don't like Heimbach and I also recognise the flaws of Greg Johnson. But their association with the Alt-Right is part the learning curve that had to be made. It would be nice if all leaders of the Alt-Right had at least 10 years of experience in dissident and activist movements...
I think they still have a good chance of evolving to something better and more powerful.
Ok... we´ve been here before, it seems to me: all existing approaches with somehow noteworthy followership are shit... ok. So again my question: how come that it´s just the shit-approaches that have noteworthy followership? And that non-shit approaches do not have noteworthy followership.... yes, all just for the USA, not the great Euros who do everything right.
ReplyDeleteSo... who, what? is impeding a non-shit approach in the US to have noteworthy followership?? Hm? It´s a strange, noteworthy phenomenon that begs an answer.
A lot of good analysis here. The description of Vox Day as Alt Lite, however, is not correct. Alt Lite is essentially Civic Nationalism, it is Classical Liberalism plus discomfort with the excesses of multiculturalism but without the clarity of thought or honesty to discuss race head on. That does not describe Vox at all. He is Nationalist, and discusses race and the JQ honestly and without venom. I don't believe Molyneux has ever 'signed off' on Vox's 16 Points, whereas both Greg Johnson and Richard Spencer have.
ReplyDeleteIt is useful to think of the Alt Right in three layers:
-- The top layer -- the philosophical and taxomonological level -- is a description of the historical forces that have created the Alt Right and describe its common features. Vox Day's 16 Points, in my view, have done this admirably. They are high level, abstract, and can apply equally to the U.S., Europe, Japan, Thailand, wherever.
-- The next layer is the phenomenological: The expressions of the Alt Right in the real world, _whether they identify as Alt Right or not_. So this would include everything from Golden Dawn, Nordic Resistance, the Sweden Democrats, Jobik, Victor Orban, even Trump. Wherever there is true push-back against SJW Liberalism and the Neoliberal Project that is coming _other than from liberal assumptions_, is part of the phenomenon of "Alt-Rightism". Thus, any pushback that maintains liberal assumptions (e.g. Conservatism Inc., Jordan Peterson, much of the Alt Lite, etc) is not part of, or only marginally part of, the phenomenon of the Alt Right. Someone like Trump is confusing for this reason: he clearly had ideological connections to the positions motivating the Alt Right, but he was CivNat and "liberal" enough to not want any actual affiliation with us (similar to the Alt Lite). This is where One Hundred Flowers must blossom and be left to do their own thing, with cooperation from sympatico groups and as little infighting as possible. The problem thus far has been that there is too much infighting (purity spiraling and purity tests generally). Often the most successful groups are those that are just doing their own thing and not getting into unproductive tussles with "competitive groups", or those that are not even thought of or noticed as part of the Alt Right, even though phenomenologically they are, using the definitions of the 16 Points. Identity Evrope, Generation Identitaire and Nordic Resistance are good examples of phenomenological AltRightism.
-- Finally, at the third level, there is what we might call "Alt Right Inc.", i.e. those groups that try to "own the brand" and in doing so attempt to clumsily force themselves into a leadership position in what should still be (as Duns noted) a formless, multi-headed beast that is difficult to attack. Alt Right Inc. is, as Duns describes, the target that the MSM wanted and helped to create. Alt Right Inc. ghettoizes the movement, tends to link itself anachronistically to failed iterations of the Old Right or WN 1.0 and generally has become low-hanging fruit for Liberals to use as a foil that turns off normies who might otherwise be sympathetic to the Alt Right cause. Even if Alt Right Inc. has (unwittingly) served this purpose, the Alt Right as defined in the 16 Points remains true and essentially inevitable as a historical trend. Thus, the phenomenological Alt Right will continue to grow in various as-yet unknown manifestations. Alt Right Inc. may or may not have a come-back or regain a leadership position; that depends on how much they can learn from their mistakes and their ability to humble themselves for the good of the movement as a whole. The main problem with Alt Right Inc. is an arrogance and insistence that it be universally acknowledged as the sole coronated "leader" of Level 1 and Level 2 Alt Rightism.
I ackchyually think the demise of the Alt Right is mostly fake news. I agree that the Alt Right, unfortunately, allowed itself to compromised from both sides, becoming too entangled with both Naziesqe sorts and with basic b@tch white nationalism. TRS has long been a strange combination of both. Any right wing movement that gains any kind of traction will inevitably attract these kinds of people, and gaining sympathy from basic b@tch WN is not necessarily bad, but yes, "leadership" should have made more of an effort to keep a safer distance from those people/ideas. Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent that the Alt Right really is struggling, I think it has less to do with trailer park love triangles and strategic missteps by prominent people like Spencer, than it has to do with establishment rage at the election of Donald Trump. The relentless and parodic narrative that Russian twitter bots are an existential threat to American democracy, the constant concern trolling about fake news, and the hysteria around Russia-gate in general; this is very clearly an attempt to suppress right-wing speech as much as possible. Of course there are people who genuinely believe these things are grave threats—even in the media and in government (there are plenty of morons in their ranks too). But the meta-motive that keeps these ridiculous stories at the top of the news day after day, month after month, is the desire to silence the Right. The Left has been playing this game for a while, from their shallow critique of Citizens United to their constant efforts to delegitimize talk radio and Fox News, but Trump's election has kicked this effort into overdrive. A Trump presidency is unacceptable, and that kind of thing can never be permitted to happen again. And the mainstream media goes along not only because they are broadly sympathetic to the Left, but because they rightly see it as a chance to eliminate at least some of the competition that has been biting into their profits. In this atmosphere of whipped-up hysteria, the Alt Right has suffered collateral suppression, or perhaps we should call it trickle-down suppression.
"This tendency [nationalism for everyone] is sometimes presented as "nationalism for everyone," and allows its promoters to propose a new "morality" while basking in that of the old. But, of course, "nationalism for everyone" is a self-evidently absurd notion when most human groups are still struggling with the tribal stage..."
I don't see the problem here. I think some version of "nationalism for everyone" is the only way forward the moral high ground. Even if it is true that much of humanity is "still struggling with the tribal stage," so what? A tribe is just a small nation. In principle, I say let a tribe be a nation-state if it wants, or let it join together with other tribes into a state if it wants. The point is that nations deserve states, territorial sovereignty, provided their ambitions do not get in the way of ours....
"Also, once we get into "everybody leaving everybody alone," what do you we when all the areas that revert back to jungle are then colonised by the Chinese or whichever other nationalism has kept a few supremacist tricks up its sleeve?"
(cont.)Yes, the white ethnostate(s) is not a guarantee of perpetual world peace. Geopolitics will continue, I grant that. But to answer the question, we, I hope, would oppose foreign colonization in principle, especially when the would-be colonizer is a serious geopolitical rival. Like any sane state, the ethnostate would always be aiming at a world more favorable to 1.) itself and 2.) its ideals. Sometimes these two are not in perfect harmony and a decision must be made tending one way or the other. Also, our ability to influence events is not always as great as we would like; that's life. You change the things you can, accept the things you can't, and hopefully have the wisdom to know the two apart.
Delete"But whatever grand manifesto the "Grand Central Committee of me-and-my-opinions" occasionally comes up with, we should be careful not to try to condense and crystallise the potency that lies behind the phenomenon of the Alt-Right or whatever succeeds it. Such attempts take something that is naturally turbulent, fuzzy, nebulous, and synergetic and try to make it obvious, pat, and static...."
It is a fool's errand to attempt to define the Alt Right with any precision, that is true, and I agree that the movement as a group should not be irrationally dogmatic and closed-off to new ideas. And I pretty much agree with many of the specific critiques you make. But as individuals at least I think we should be striving, among other things, for more precision in our ideas. I'm not as hard on Spencer as you are, but one of my criticisms of him is that his ideas are too vague.
"As Zen teaches us, imprecision, obliqueness, and vacuity at the center—at least until the moment of decision!—have an intense potency. Nailing things down, by contrast, presents our enemies with an unmoving target – a virtual piñata – to beat to smithereens."
Perhaps this sometimes applies at the tactical level—demonstrations, memes, whatever, but as far as ideology, you want people to know what you're talking about. How else will would-be supporters know to support us? Besides, opacity can also have a self-ghettoizing effect.
Of course, we do not want to be an unmoving target, but assuming formlessness is not precisely what I have in mind. Our moving should consist of ideas building up and branching out to other ideas. Yeah, I guess ideological clarity and precision does make an unmoving target for others to pick apart our logic, but long-term I don't view that as a great problem. If the critiques of us are valid, we should adjust our reasoning accordingly, if not, we should critique the critiques right back.
(cont. I didn't realize this was such a long comment.)
DeleteThis is naïve to some, I know; they'll say the Left will not attack our logic, but will instead twist our words to insinuate this or that, or play some other word tricks on us. Or maybe some worry that clarity makes it easy for the left to point-and-sputter at us, which will work because normies are just not ready for the truth.
For the first of these, I don't think our level of clarity makes any difference. If you're going to argue in bad faith anyways, it hardly matters whether you have a precise understanding of the other side. As for the second, maybe this is a sensible concern. I'm no PR expert, I don't know. But I do know that radical arguments like ours are not properly directed at the general public. You're not going to win over many people over age 30-35 who are not already somewhat close to us politically. The older people get, the more their minds are made-up about the big things. Radical arguments are for those who have not made-up their minds about things yet—young people and future generations. Our task is to capture as many of the best of the young minds as possible, and if we do that, our ideas will likely trickle down gradually from them to the general public. I think Colin Liddell wrote a piece a few years ago explaining how this works.
Being over thirty, I am stuck in my ways and only regularly visit the same handful of Alt/Affirmative Right sites, so maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't noticed any great decline.
One reason why there is disagreement about "the decline of the Alt Right" is that people's definition of what that is often differs yet they don't realize they are talking about different things. As Confucius said, "First, rectify the names." I tried to do some of this in my comment above. What I called Alt Right Inc. is (in my view) experiencing a period of decline, whereas the broader societal spread of Alt Right Philosophy and Alt Right Phenomena has, and will, continue apace.
DeleteYou wrote something that I had to stop and read, and then read carefully a few times; therefore you deserve a substantive response which I will do in two parts: first, jabs at a number of weak and missed points, and secondly, what the movement ought to be and what the movement that will ultimately deliver victory will be.
ReplyDelete1) The Alt Right has been dead for a while: the killing blow landed when Mike Enoch raised his hand in a Nazi Salute; the last breath was the “Triumverate” podcast of Enoch, Anglin, and Spencer, where, instead of walking back their damage, they literally and figuratively “Tripled Down”. This allowed the shady figures of Daily Stormer to redefine who was and wasn’t “Alt Right” and the subsequent attack on the child of a Jewish real estate agent and the aborted March on Whitefish triggered the Deep State to lay the trap of Charlottesville.
2) “Leave Greg Johnson Alone!” Johnson, who, thanks to the New York Times, is no longer living in the shadows, had the opportunity to voluntarily take the reins of the movement and spare it a lot of pain in the aftermath of Heilgate, but he did not. He strikes me as a Count Fenring and not a Muad’dib; let him be a helpful role player, and quit prodding him to more. It is not clear why his homosexuality must be wagged at me by his critics; does he bring it up? The right thing to do is to bury the hatchet, even if it requires overcoming Johnson’s self-inflicted wounds of disavowing worthy allies in favor of the shady and damaging Mike Enoch.
3) The answer to China et al, is not one thousand Icelands, but an actual federation of white nations as they exist now or could exist by a plausible process of evolution, such as the Partition of the United States; a Northern Alliance. Abandoning colonialism is similar to quitting tobacco, something you do for yourself, even if you get an almost equal satisfaction from contaminating others with second-hand smoke. The Northern Alliance will use soft power to uphold terrestrial boundaries as they are, as we spread out into space.
4) The correct allusion to WWII is the NSDAP after the Beer Hall Putsch. The Nazis were kept alive by the threat of Communism, as white nationalism is kept alive by White Genocide. A better analogy, since you bring up the Irish, is the aftermath of the Easter Rising. Many of its leaders wrecked, the Empire having potently struck back; and yet the seed planted by Bob Whitaker’s Mantra, like Pearse’s blood self-sacrifice, must and will grow to fruition.
5) No one is going to write us a blank cheque. We have to, prior to victory, lay out plans. Many argue that because our last forward movement was in the game of shadowy warfare, that we must remain there for the indefinite (and perhaps infinite?) future. A plausible plan, even if it will be modified here and there, is not only necessary to move forward, it is actually the engine. Most of the hijinks of the last two years came from not having a concrete plan to which wild energies could be directed, and as a yardstick to against which we can measure the consequences of our actions
Laying out a reasonable plan is trivial: In intact white nations we keep new invaders out, then slowly push existing invaders out. The civic order responds - per Le Chatelier’s principle - by effortlessly shifting back to the “right”, towards Order. In nations like America, that will not work. We need to campaign to split it up – for instance into an East, Middle, and West, where we take the Middle - and catalyze a Northern Alliance (Russia, the UK, Eastern Europe, Canada and Middle America) . We stabilize the world, while going to space. The campaign will include a parallel block by block raising up of our shudras and vaishyas out of their diabetic stupor by helping them cultivate, in their own humble way, Vohu Manah – Good Mind.
(continued below)
But that is merely the political where you want the metapolitical!
DeleteLet me at last address what the movement - what you, mirroring Vox Day, mistakenly equate with the “alt right” - is at the deepest level. You claim that the Alt Right is “the freedom to think, and even to unthink, the ‘unthinkable.’” If that is true, then the Alt Right is nothing more than “the vacuum of Modernity” in a new and twisted form. While that explains much of the Alt Right and its “evil beest thou my good” underpinning, it is the exact opposite of the actual movement, why the Alt Right died so quickly, and why it needed to die. Nietzsche, who wrestled with the “vacuum of modernity” (and lost) wondered why people were uninterested in midwifing the Superman. He argued that all of history is a series of surpassings; do we want to be the end of that great tide? The most beautiful act of Will is midwifing the Superman!
How wrong he was! The supreme act of will is swatting away the tides of history, making the world fit for your nature as you would have your nature be. In other words, I do not have to yield to the Superman, the Superman will yield to the best me. The best me will endure into the indefinite and infinite future and will not give way or “midwife” robots, AI, and transhumanism.
One of the happy personal benefits of this movement was learning much of the hidden history of our people, and from this learning I will draw upon:
What you call the “the spiritual vacuum of Modernity” has been faced by our fathers before, perhaps as early as the start of the Ice Age, when animism had no answer to the advancing ice, or at its end, when retreating ice was replaced with rising seas and disappearing coasts. As we gained greater and greater purchase on the body and mind of Nature, we find it less and less obvious that value and meaning can be found “out there”. Even today, the Drake Equation hopes for a universe filled with thousands and millions of “older brothers”, wise and god-like aliens that can help us see out there what we cannot see with our own efforts. Rather than an intergalactic polyphony, we confront, what Armstrong quipped of the Moon, a “magnificent desolation”. This was understood by the Vinca culture, and they found an answer in personal and social equipose, an acceptance of and balance with nature without and within. The answer to that “vacuum of Modernity” was the Aryan spirit: instead of the static harmony of truth, order, and righteousness, a heroic romance with life, a masculine penetration and impregnation of the world with Truth, Order, and Righteousness, a movement halted by an ocean until 1492, and by the Van Allen belt until 1969.
Whenever this Aryan wave washed upon the shores: the Kurukshetra, Marathon, Hadrian’s Wall, Viet Nam, the white man had a spiritual cum demographic collapse, what you call the “metaphysical gap” – and required a spiritual Renaissance to return to Order: Zoroastrianism, Stoicism, Rationalism, and … what we are doing now!
In a sense, what we are doing is what Cicero, Seneca, and Aurelius were trying to do when faced with their “vacuum of Modernity”, but could not complete before being overrun by Philo’s SJWs. Philo – through John - instead of having us cultivate the Logos within, and then fill the Cosmos with it, inch by desolate inch; that nascent inner Logos was projected onto the external world as God, and then used to suffocate the Logos within.
The rootless battalions of /pol/ cannot (yet) articulate this. The normal people, the people who walk (or scoot) the streets everyday, cannot articulate this, but this is at the heart of the diseases of the day. We must restore the Order within ourselves, and then radiate that Order onto the magnificent desolation of the Universe.
We’re getting there.
The category "Aryan" is itself a problem for the alt right. Indians and Iranians hear it and think it refers to them. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for an "Aryanist" alt right to reject having a leader like Jason Jorjani, an Iranian Aryan who's thought hard and written well about Aryan mythopoetics. But rejected he was. And predictably so; he clearly didn't belong, because the word "Aryan" doesn't actually capture what the alt right is. The alt-right is the post-Christian, post-colonial West trying to come up with a way to define and defend itself as an entity capable of actually reproducing itself, in biological and cultural senses of the term.
DeleteThe word "Aryan" also comes off as a threat against jews, which tends to galvanize jews against the antiliberal correction which is needed, and also tends to push normies over to these galvanized jews' corner. This is an unnecessary conflict, and one which the alt right cannot win (and in fact has already lost).
In my view, the spirit which is needed is the *revivalist* spirit: revivalism of multiple past worlds of meaning: the medieval, the "magian" (early christian); the classical, and the protoclassical (Egypt, Babylon, and the Aryan peoples).
"Also, once we get into "everybody leaving everybody alone," what do you we when all the areas that revert back to jungle are then colonised by the Chinese or whichever other nationalism has kept a few supremacist tricks up its sleeve?"
ReplyDeleteWhy would I do anything about it? Part of the ideal of nationalism is that the age of universalism and world-saving is over. If the Chinese invade my land, we should respond by nuking Beijing. If they don't, then it's not my problem.
>"How very nice and Christian! So, goodbye Roman Space Empire!"
You're not going to rebuild the white race without Christianity, and you're not going to do it while trying to keep creaky empires chugging along.
>"But whatever grand manifesto the "Grand Central Committee of me-and-my-opinions" occasionally comes up with, we should be careful not to try to condense and crystallise the potency that lies behind the phenomenon of the Alt-Right or whatever succeeds it."
The idea of having a long, complex version and a short, simple version of the basic ideas of your movement was one of the great master strokes of communism. Any pipe-fitter could pick up the Communist Manifesto, finish it in a couple of hours, and come away with the basic ideas digested. For those who wanted more, there was Das Kapital. It's a good strategy that we should adopt.
>"As Zen teaches us, imprecision, obliqueness, and vacuity at the center—at least until the moment of decision!—have an intense potency. Nailing things down, by contrast, presents our enemies with an unmoving target – a virtual piñata – to beat to smithereens. This is what Charlottesville clearly was—a cartoon donkey with a picture of Richard Spencer on it."
I'm a big fan of Lind and 4th Generation War, so I agree with these basic ideas. Don't give the enemy point targets to hit.
A good article and an interesting discussion. The basic thrust of the argument tallies with my own thoughts on the subject: a combination of bad leadership, purity-spiralling and enemy media interference has turned the Alt-Right into a centralised and ghettoised travesty of itself. The idea of consciously maintaining formlessness and unpredictability is exactly what is done by successful 4th Generation War insurgents; William S. Lind has truly become required reading at this point.
ReplyDeleteI like Samuel Nock's coinage 'Alt-Right Inc.', which is apt precisely because it reminds us of the false opposition racket of 'Conservatism, Inc.' The demise of the Alt-Right as a wider movement may be fake news, but morale and perception are vitally important, and it is the usurpation of 'Alt-Right Inc.' - raised up only to be knocked down - that has made it possible for this fake news to demoralise us.
I would say Richard Spencer, Andrew Anglin and Mike Enoch/TRS made large contributions to the present situation; I would not extend this list to include Vox Day or Greg Johnson. Vox is no Alt-Liter, just someone capable of addressing things like race realism and Jewish power without falling into the usual cult-like obsessions, and his '16 Points' were more about describing the wide common ground of the movement than trying to prescribe a hierarchy within it. Johnson did write that one article about torching the Alt-Right if it strayed from white nationalism, but he has otherwise been critical of the present direction of the movement, and is generally on the right track with his metapolitical strategy. That, in any case, is my view of these two figures; others are welcome to disagree.
James,
DeleteThat’s exactly the effect, and allusion, that I was going for in “Alt Right Inc.” It hits at its ambition-for-ambition’s-sake element. Generally, I take all those guys at their word and I believe their overall good intentions. Vox Day challenges them yet further, referring to them as Fake Right. I wouldn’t go that far, but I do think their arrogance and Nietzschean Will to Power is their Achilles’ Heel.
Greg Johnson does excellent work, in my estimation, although - as Duns Scotus noted - he errs somewhat too much on the side of a ghettoized White Nationalism, softened somewhat by its gentile and effite vibe. In fact, Johnson was very accurately described by Ted Sallis as Type 1 (Nazi) in substance but Type 2 (cerebral) in style. Anyone not familiar with Ted Sallis’ work should check it out. He is about as negative and dour a personality as can be imagined but his analysis and insights into Der Movement (as he calls it) are extremely intelligent and carry a lot of experience and thoughtfulness behind them. He is the main proponent of Frank Salter’s work (On Genetic Interests). He has several blogs. Eginotes.blogspot.com is his main site. (He also has the distinction (along with Collin) of having been banned from commenting at Counter-Currents.)
A short list of people who are, let’s say, going in the right direction would, in my view, include: Johnson, Vox Day, Collin Liddell, Guillaume Faye, Andrew Joyce, Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, Identity Evropa, Arktos, as well as a number of the European groups like Generation Identitaire, Casa Pound. The recent Arktos volume “Rising From the Ruins” is worth checking out in giving an overview of the movement as a whole.
James: by the way, your work is excellent. Your Thoughts On the State of the Right is absolute must-reading for anyone who wants this thing to succeed.
Thanks, I'm glad you appreciated it. I do occasionally visit Sallis's site. Like Harold Covington, he is very much a man of the Movement he despises, but he has enough personal experience to give a great deal of insight on what's wrong with it.
DeleteOn the AR and JQ: It never made sense to me why the Alt Right would want to go in a more JQ-centric direction, which definitely happened over the course of 2016 -- unless the final goal was to arrive at E Michael Jones style Catholic Neoreaction (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing!). JQ is not compelling as a racial narrative; it's more interesting and alluring when understood as a question about different spiritual dogmas. This is something Kevin MacDonald, Spencer, Enoch, etc, never grasped, or pretended not to grasp.
ReplyDeleteOf course European jews constitute an ethnos. And if you want to define Irish as ethnically distinct from ashkenazi jews, that makes sense, I'd agree with that -- but the Alt Right never embraces local ethnic identities, instead opting for a big-tent "white" identity. Well that just leaves everyone rather confused as to why melanin-challenged jews aren't "white." The "glass of milk" meme tried to harp on higher jewish rates of lactose intolerance -- funny, but not a conceptually interesting way of defining them as a "them." To outsiders this meme registered as hollow -- unlike the "cuckservative" meme, which was both funny and got to something larger.
Anyway despite having never thought this stuff through, alt right leaders insisted upon prioritizing the distinction between "white" and "jew" as the focal piece of their worldview. Again, if the idea were to go in an E Michael Jones direction I would totally understand. But alt right leaders are basically anti-christian, and pro "pagan" in a very LARPy, theologically unserious way.
Jews are anti-White, explicitely. They identify as not-White. They do not belong to us. They are out-group. They pursue different interests than Whites. That´s what makes the JQ.... not "race".
DeleteBesides, there may well be a lot of jews who are also unadmittable for racial reasons.
It´s, by the way, not difficult to determine who is White: you simply look at the person. Have a group of reliable Whites, show them the person, and if those Whites approve of that person, then that person is White.
I don't know any Ashkenazi Jews who identity as "not white." I seriously have no idea what the JQified alt right means when they assert things like this. It doesn't resonate with me or my experience with them, and I suspect it doesn't resonate with normies either, esp. normies with jewish friends.
DeleteMy comment of "27 April 2018 at 12:52" was meant to be a reply here... see below.
DeleteJews consider themselves as a distinct identity. That means: they belong to their identity group, which means that they dont´t belong to our identity group. Your claim to not notice that appears disingenuous. It is patently absurd and ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteSome bits among unlimited material:
-"I'm not White, I'm Jewish - A Slam Poem"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=w9zVVXONnuI
-Jews are a completely separate racial group from Whites:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/New-law-says-genetic-test-valid-for-determining-Jewish-status-in-some-cases-506584
Peter (sorry I'm "Anonymous", i dont have a non-disqus handle): I do not see the difference between the Irish perceiving themselves as a distinct identity and also as white, and the ashkenazi jews perceiving themselves this way as well. It's called nested identities, and is healthy and necessary for any identity group. I'm sure that in the internet era, you can easily find a few oddball jews who'll say "I'm not white." For those of us who know lots of jews and to whom they are not some kind of demonic abstraction, those oddballs have no significance. Find a poll where an impressive percentage of jews state they don't consider themselves "white" and you've got something.
DeleteBut as I was saying above, I think that what makes ashkenazi jews unusual among European peoples is that they've not only retained a sense of ethnic identity, they've also retained a spiritual identity which is ethnically specific. What's more this is something they were encouraged to do by the European aristocracy for a thousand years -- better the money lenders have their own religion. That's why their distinctiveness is more pronounced. Again, this comes down to a difference in spiritual dogmas--something EMJ notices and discusses directly, which makes him interesting and illuminating. By contrast, look at something like TRS, which followed the KM formula of analyzing jewish-gentile relations, immediately ran out of real, illuminating things to say, and started flirting with the anti-historical dead end of holocaust denialism.
It´s impossible to assume that you are arguing in good faith - it is impossible to be that blind. I will for that reason not continue... just mention a few more aspects. My litmus test: pro-White is to wish to have MORE Whites, to wish that Whites have MORE power: do jews agree with that, yes or no? In that sense they are hostile to Whites, that´s the point. A White is a racially White person that is in favor of Whites, all other kind of Whites, i.e. "Whites" hostile to Whites, are enemies. So I don´t care if you fantasize about jews being White, they are an enemy. Non-hostile jews are still aliens by their own identification (they are first jew, second an inhabitant of a country) and will thus not be allowed citizenship to a White state.
DeleteP.S.: the commenting system of this site allows you, in "Reply as", to choose "Name/URL", choose a name there.
I mean, I dont think the Irish particularly care about white birthrates in Ukraine, and I don't think that jews particularly care about white birthrates in Ireland, or Ukraine (or Canada, Italy, etc). The evidence that jews are especially hostile to white birthrates is not compelling. Most are hostile to the idea of a racial-nationalist conception of birthrates, but the same is true of all white normies, whether liberal or conservative. Jews fit right into that white liberal/conservative normie spectrum. Anyways, apparently I am not able to raise these points with you and you won't continue. That inability to continue means you're at what I've referred to above as a dead end.
Delete