When the Alt-Right was founded in 2010—in as much as a loose umbrella term can be founded—it was meant to serve as a "big tent" area of intellectual freedom. At least that's how those who gravitated towards it in those early days saw it. I know I did.

Under the slogan "Paper is overrated," Richard Spencer's original alternativeright-dot-com site used the potentialities of the internet age to give space once again to the various intellectual currents that had been laboriously purged from the "official" right over the previous five decades. The site also served as a platform to several new currents of thought as well. This rich intellectual diversity was the reason why the site caught on.

The same need that existed then, back in the Obama era, remains as strong today. In fact, it is even stronger, as new forms of censorship and deplatforming have begun to bite, despite the victory of Trump, from whom so much was hoped. More than this, the problems and ominous trends that the Alt-Right grew up to address, have only accelerated and intensified. 

But can the Alt-Right still effectively address these problems? The answer is yes and no. 

On the one hand, a large number of people have been prepped and red-pilled by all that has happened in recent years—the rise of the Alt-Right, the Brexit vote, Trump's election, and the disappointment of his administration. But on the other hand the actual term "Alt-Right" has increasingly become a handicap

While the living movement—or more correctly the movements—of which the term "Alt Right" was the banner, show every sign of continued growth and vitality, the banner itself has become tattered and tainted.

Worse than this, it has become an unfortunate marker that draws down long-range, deplatforming fire from our enemies, while warning them to avoid the more close quarters intellectual fighting at which we always prevail.

Why has this happened? 

There are several reasons, but these are all connected to leadership mistakes by those whose prominence in our movement was bolstered by a hostile media. It is unnecessary to name names here, or even go into possible narratives of infiltration and sabotage, as the essence of the thing is more illustrative than the personalities, feuds, and vendettas that may result. The detached macro-empirical view always reveals more than the emotionally-embedded micro-empirical one.

So what have been the main errors of the Alt-Right? 

This is a massive subject, but, to attempt to break it down, we could mention the following bullet points:

  • ideological errors
  • a culture of anonymity
  • moral weaknesses—both personal and ideological
  • tactical naivety
  • poor movement hygiene
  • self-ghettoisation

All of these factors—or areas—are interlinked in complex ways. We see how the movement's ideological errors have fuelled some of its moral weaknesses, which in turn have led to poor tactics. For example, its crude and over-simplistic critique on the JQ, only served to unify and empower Jews, while furthering the Alt-Right's self-ghettoisation. The same can be said for its culture of anonymity and its other trollish excesses.

In more general terms, the movement's ideological message became not only too fixed and simplistic, but following the movement's watershed moment—the November 2016 NPI Conference—it greatly narrowed into a form of negative identitarianism, i.e. not being this or that group.

Mike Enoch waving through the Overton window.
This made it difficult to exist within a wider moral context, while also intensifying the drift towards a monomanical obessesion with (((Jews))) by many in the Alt-Right. 

Then, while biting off more than it could chew here, the movement also unnecessarily multiplied its enemies in other directions, usually for cheap laughs—all the while shedding decent people who had initially been drawn to the movement for good reasons.
A quick note on morality: This is a potent weapon that many in the Alt-Right have foolishly neglected. At its most basic level, morality is simply the ability to reassure those who are not your immediate target or enemy, that they won't be attacked, so that they don't attack you. However, since November 2016, the Alt-Right has excelled at picking new battles it couldn't win, while failing to finish those it has started, and then, to top it all off, picking several fights with itself. 
Rather than being a movement defined by morality and a positive identity, it has allowed itself to become a forum for Nazi-esque trolling and pointless Jew-baiting (as opposed to developing a deeper and more palatable understanding of the JQ), all seasoned with a constant drip-drip of racial slurs, aimed at everybody, including members of its own audience

Such tactical naivety rallied its enemies against it, while driving away possible allies. In short, the "brand name" Alt-Right was driven into the ground and has effectively become a device to ghettoize and exclude those who identify with it. 

Back in 2014, I saw the first signs of this trend and realised how this would play out. So did a few other far-sighted individuals, like RamZPaul and even Greg Johnson to some degree. This is why we all attacked Andrew Anglin  and his Jewish associate Weev for attaching their ludicrous Hollywood Naziism to the Alt-Right. What one thinks of Anglin and Weev is irrelevant. They may be sincere idiots or insincere operatives working to bring down the movement, but either way the negative effect has been the same.

Some creepy frogs in uniforms > survival of Western civilisation.
This happened thanks to extremely poor movement hygiene, admittedly something hard to impose on a lose umbrella term, that the founder himself had literally disavowed in December 2013 when he shut down the original site. TRS also played an important part here, serving as a bridge between the Hollywood Naziisim of the Stormer types and the saner and more intellectual elements of the Alt-Right, including our site, Richard Spencer's low-energy ventures (Radix, etc.) and Greg Johnson's Counter-Currents

Because of their success and popularity, as well as their greater ambivalence and moderation in their early days, it was pretty hard to isolate TRS and prevent its poison spreading through the movement. Through their adoption of genuinely funny humour, TRS became the ascendant force in the Alt-Right, while, along with Richard Spencer, the movement's media-anointed figurehead, they played footsie with Anglin and Weev's Hollywood Naziism.

Trolling, clickbaiting, and building a paying audience pushed aside any concerns for the potential long-term damage of this increasingly extreme rhetoric on the wider perception of the movement. 

The online platforms, like Twitter, Facebook, Google, PayPal, and even Soundcloud, that were essential to the Alt-Right originally had a loose, somewhat naive commitment to "free speech." This was partly because it was something that the Left had traditionally made use of, so it was considered cool.

Luciana Berger, Anglin's target to set a
precedent for Twitter deplatforming users.
It was not easy for any of these corporations to directly backtrack on this. But the likes of Anglin and Weev and their florid content, which directly invoked mass murder on every page and used K-words or N-words in every sentence—along with their Twitter mob attacks on people—pushed a shocked and horrified corporate tech to backtrack on their small-L liberal principles.

Big tech lost its "free speech" virginity, and started throwing people off its platforms, starting with Anglin himself. Once the precedent had been set, it became increasingly easy to deplatform others merely for the "wrong opinions," citing "hate facts," or mentioning "sensitive topics" at the wrong time.

The Alt-Right, as a brand, became perceived as a moral cesspit that could be cordoned off without too many questions being asked.  

A more graphic analogy that occurred to me recently is that of the human centipede, from the Dutch horror movie series of the same name, with Anglin and Weev chewing on a Swastika, crapping into Enoch's mouth, who in turn is shitting into Spencer's mouth, all under the slogan of "Don't punch right, dude." 

Human centipede nationalism
This, in one gruesome but illustrative image, is what I mean by "poor movement hygiene," which leads us to yet another major own goal by brand Alt-Right, namely to view itself as a mirror image of the Left. 

Yes, it could be argued that the Left doesn't generally punch left—i.e. Centre Leftists don't go out of their way to criticise commies or even violent antifa. So, based on this, the theory goes, the saner and more moderate elements of the Alt-Right should likewise turn a blind eye to the 1488ers and their Stormerist shenanigans. To do otherwise would be to "countersignal," a special term introduced by TRS to prevent just that. In fact, just to not countersignal isn't good enough. You've also got to breathe the same air as them (and eat their shit).

The majority—or at least a plurality—of those who have worked under the banner of the Alt-Right in the years of its existence have been mainly motivated by the desire to restore common sense, decency, and natural order to a world being put through the blender of debt-fuelled globalism. The things they want are an end to mass immigration, healthy and stable demographics, long-term security, and a economic system based on balanced trade and finances. What they want is the same as any sane man wants. 

In short, the Alt-Right should have been the natural majority and the ascendant force in our sickened societies. But, instead, the banner of the Alt-Right has become a punching bag, a stitched-on Star of David to mark the ghetto dweller, whose social and professional life has been blighted. "Being Alt-Right" has become for many a state identical to that of a scapegoat, blamed for the sins of the world and driven out into the desert to its uncertain fate, while the sins continue.

For these reasons, therefore, I have made the decision to drop the brand from this site. Back in 2013, when Spencer discarded the term "Alt-Right," my colleague Andy Nowicki and myself picked up the wounded brand, still seeing much good in it. We kept it alive until it started to develop an uncontrolled life of its own. In retrospect that may have been a mistake. But giving in early is not in either of our natures.

As I have said above, the movement that has grown up under this banner is a real thing. What has been seen by millions of people cannot be unseen. While the bluepilled can always be redpilled, the redpilled can never be blue pilled again. As the World worsens and the West withers under its many problems—demographic, racial, spiritual, social, economic, cultural, and moral—the impetus that drove the Alt-Right will remain and strengthen. 

But just because this movement isn't going away, doesn't mean that it isn't going to change. It definitely is. It will continue to evolve, and a great part of that will be doing things very differently from the way they have been done—almost certainly under different leaders and different banners, as it takes on new, polymorphous forms, and operates under a variety of names.

As for the original banner itself—loaded with all the mistakes and bad karma of the movement, and an easy target for our enemies—it is now more of hindrance than a help. 

It has entered Normiespace and the offices of corporate tech merely as a reason to avoid us and not listen to our invincible arguments, or engage with our unbeatable ideas. It has become nothing more than a ticket to deplatforming. I therefore choose to toss it aside and to adhere to the true spiritual banner of the movement—the quest for truth, honour, morality, and life.

For this purpose, I have chosen to rename this site Affirmative Right and to redefine what we do here with a set of principles designed to avoid the mistakes of the past (more on that later). 

But even when it was fresh and new, before it had picked up its negative connotations, "Alternative Right" was a fragile, half-formed, and essentially negative concept. It was a mere relative term, referencing something else—namely Spencer's pet hate, the official Right or the Conservative movement—of which it was merely an inverted shadow. This relativistic aspect may partly account for the many weaknesses that revealed themselves in the movement under the stresses of battle

Etymologically "Alternative Right" is weak:
Alternative (adj.)1580s, "offering one or the other of two," from Medieval Latin alternativus, from Latin alternatus, past participle of alternare "do one thing and then another, do by turns," from alternus "one after the other, alternate, in turns, reciprocal," from alter "the other" (see alter). Meaning "purporting to be a superior choice to what is in general use" was current by 1970 (earliest reference is to the media); in popular music, by 1984 in reference to pirate radio. Alternative energy is from 1975. Related: Alternatively.
By contrast, Affirmative Right is strong. Indeed, strength (firmus) is at the very heart of the word along with positivity, both of which we need in order to address our movement's many weaknesses:
Affirmative (adj.)"answering 'yes,' " mid-15c., from use in logic; from Old French affirmatif, earlier afirmatif (13c.), from Latin affirmativus, from affirmat-, past participle stem of affirmare "to make steady; strengthen; confirm," from ad "to" (see ad-) + firmare "strengthen, make firm," from firmus "strong" (see firm (adj.)).
Having finished this announcement, I won't heil victory like a famous idiot once did, but I will salute tenaciousness and a willingness to learn from our mistakes. We are still here and we are only going to get stronger...if we play our cards right.

 None of this is new, snowflake.


Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here. He is also featured in Arktos's new collection A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders.


  1. It is actually Anglin and Weev who are making very sensible arguments these days and trying to try talk people out of the Führerbunker. You are definitely going after the wrong targets here, you should read some of the things they have written post Cville. You can tell that they're saying the right things because Wallace, Cantwell, and other miscellaneous clowns are very salty at them right now.

    If you recall it was actually Mike "this was always going to happen" Enoch who angrily denounced anyone that dared criticize his stupid ass sieg heiling. It was Mike Enoch who pandered to the most extreme, disaffected audience and was instrumental in pushing things in a more activist meatspace direction. Anglin and Weev have a long history as trolls and shitposters that try to make people laugh while Enoch is a shouty drunk that takes himself very seriously.

    1. I am well aware of what Anglin has been up to recently and find it hilarious.

    2. Enoch may have erred here and there, but mistakes are inevitable even among seasoned political operators, let alone fledgling movements. Anglin, on the other hand, was a complete and utter buffoon from the very beginning - moreover, an obvious complete and utter buffoon. Siding with that turd is completely indefensible, even as a rookie error.

    3. no anglin weev and the daily stormer led this division after weev and ricky decided to purge the movements most active people over optics and other class based BS. Hunter is the sensible one actually.

  2. We're getting there.

    Affirmative Right ≈ Arta (Right) Behist (Best)


  3. during the recent enoch vs halsey youtube debate, halsey said enoch and the alt-right were more anti-jew than pro-white...very true...

    how did this come to pass?

    Well, I recall a certain funny and humorous dissident right vlogger who was remarking on the seemingly coordinated comment blitzes that were taking place on his youtube vlogs about 3 years ago or so. These coordinated comment blitzes were all about blaming everything on the jews...another well known vlogger said pretty much the same thing...

    there are hordes of coordinated commentors who attempt to turn every new alt-right voice to the Magic Jew Theory (if we just get rid of the jew, mass immigration and anti-white multiculturalism will go away)...

    for example, a new attractive female vlogger was just recently apparently persuaded by them to take an anti-jew stance...I and others convinced her that she was taking the wrong tack, and she soon disappeared.

    they do that to every new female face on the dissident right...why?

    That humorous vlogger who remarked on these comments speculated that perhaps the comment brigades were paid shills...possibly paid by the FBI or ADL etc...that sounds plausible ...the ADL or SPLC may be doing it...if they can convert the alt-right to something that scares jews, then rich jews may be more motivated to donate to the splc or adl..and there is nothing illegal about what they are doing, at least here in america.

    and when i engage these jew-obsessed alt-righters online and challenge the magic jew theory, their tactics are always the same...

    so, yeah, paid shills were quite likely instrumental in converting the alt-right from pro-white to anti-jew

    As for the shift to a more camouflaged and indirect strategy, one example of that might be the #DogRight and #GroyperRight brigage on twitter...a warm and fuzzy face for white populist politics...

    1. and one more thing-- i believe that it is possible that the adl or splc or some other agency is paying/donating to prominent alt-right figures and rewarding them for their focus on jews...maybe I am wrong...maybe it is just that there are a lot of people who think the jews are behind everything...I don't think so, though..

  4. Early on there was intellectual freedom and some (being generous) depth to it all. But 99% was just passive-aggressive IT-nerd nazism/racialism (augmented by Counter-Currents' esoteric-nazism) and that's why the "hollywood" version took over. Even now, it seems the only difference with Stormer is the tactical approach, i.e. "Shhh, don't be so obvious, we need to gently trick people into supporting our racial caste system by attaching IQ graphs everywhere".

    1. A crude and inaccurate characterisation. White people -- and indeed all economically advanced populations -- face serious existential issues that no-one outside the Dissident Right is even attempting to solve.

  5. While the bluepilled can always be redpilled, the redpilled can never be blue pilled.

    No, they cannot. But they can assuredly become purple-pilled - ie, backtrack in response to the extreme idiocy and overreaction of some redpill rhetoric, and accept that, whatever the unintended consequences, there were often good reasons for certain liberal innovations in their own day.

  6. I understand the name change, but I’m a sucker for the origins of things. It’s why Chateau Heartiste will always be RoissyinDC to me.

    As for what the Alt Right is, I disagree with you that it is all about sane policies and fiscal prudence. It is ultimately just a large tent that must include TDS and TRS. TRS is just about white racial consciousness. It’s simply too early for anything beyond meta politics. We’re 50 years away from real politics. So in my opinion the Alt Right is in gestation, and will not be born into the real world in decades.

    1. White consciousness is about reaching the Whites who don't have consciousness, not being in some impotent little echo chamber circle jerk where everyone can swear.

  7. There are a lot of valid points here. A return to the more freewheeling early days of the AR is called for.

    I had thought the name change was an April Fools joke. However I think the joke is on Andy and Colin with the name. Think again guys, it's a bit of a dud, but good luck with your new tack.

    Vic Stamp

    1. Well, you can't blame Colin for scrambling to evacuate a sinking ship. It's a pity, because I think the name 'alternative right' (particularly its contraction - alt right) had a lot going for it, despite the present troubles. Affirmative Right might pan out, although I doubt it will catch on the way alternative right did. 'Dissident Right' is probably the best bet for an ecumenical non-Conservatism Inc right.

      The phrase 'dark enlightenment' could also do with a dose of rejuvenation. It was sidelined somewhat during the Alt Right's rapid rise through 2016. In the euphoria of the Trump nomination and presidential victory, it seemed that the patient metapolitical work implied by (dark) 'enlightenment' could be dispensed with, and that the Alt Right could just go for the jugular with irreverent memeing and shitposting. Events clearly proved otherwise - the Alt Right provided the finest example of a political movement flying too close to the sun in our time.

  8. For the very reasons described above is why I wrote "Beyond This Horizon - A White Nationalist Blueprint For Tomorrow" - a non-fiction examination of the white nationalist movement and where it consistently goes wrong, as well as what might be done to make it stronger and better. We have several ideological lead weights around our collective necks that are long overdue for casting off. Read the book, and you might agree.

  9. Social movements have a lifecycle.

    Eventually the core WN 1.0 leaders died, went to jail or were revealed as useless.

    This led to the WN 1.5 period, when the rank and file took a step back, re-evaluated their tactics and tried to figure out how to pursue the core issues, without throwing good money after bad; doubling down on the same old failed tactics.

    The result was WN 2.0, where ideas like "meme warfare" were being discussed very consciously, not in the juvenile sense of posting frogs and anime characters, but in terms of forcing "white genocide" etc into people's minds.

    For better or for worse, WN 2.0 was kind of hijacked by the Alt-Right, which took it in a certain direction, the downsides of which are already apparent.

    In fact, we're probably heading into a WN 2.5 period, where most prominent figures are discredited, one way or another, and it's time to step back and re-evaluate the situation, adjust our tactics accordingly.

    While few of the Alt-Right institutions or figures are really useful at this point, the fact is that pro-white ideas have spread far outside of that specific subculture and we now have a significantly higher baseline level of racial consciousness to work with.

    I'm looking forward to the WN 3.0 era, but let's avoid some of the mistakes that we made in 2.0. (And no, it's not simply a matter of making the ideology more moderate or more extreme.)

  10. The altright.com website is anything but neo-nazi. They are aiming to be what National Review was at its founding; a relatively sophisticated thought leader for the movement. TDS is lower-IQ but very funny in a "we won't be bullied" kind of way. TRS falls somewhere in between those two. This is the diverse range any fleshed out movement requires. Running from the brand seems lame; telling the truth about C-Ville and Antifa would be more inspiring to me. Alt-right does not yet mean the same thing as "KKK" or "neo-Nazi" to anyone but enemy propagandists.

    1. I respect Friberg a lot and wish him well with his work. He has certainly done a lot to rein in Spencer and push altright.com in the right direction. But there are still fundamental weaknesses with the Alt-Right brand, not least in how the term is perceived and used to avoid engagement with our ideas by those we ultimately need to win over. Read THIS to understand why I am saying this.

    2. Any movement centred around biological-race separation in the US is Nazism (Europe is a different story). There's no way around that fact. You want to strip rights/deport/disenfranchise anyone not white, whether they've been here 200 years or not. You want to give a South African US citizenship, and send a black (who might have 5 generations of military service) to Africa. I'm not saying it's wrong. But it makes no difference whether the leader speaks like a gentlemen (JT) or chokes out people (MH). Nobody is buying that there's something deeper (or sophisticated) here.

      At least NRX is trying to plan a way forward, that may achieve similar results without the racial baggage, but so far, AR is still passive-aggressive nazism.

    3. There already is racial separation in the US. It is just badly managed, a mess in fact, that adversely affects both Blacks and Whites.

  11. ;-) to think that I´m not even "right"...
    what does White preservation have to do with Rightism??
    Much rather than having now affirmative right (which I also thought was an April Fools´ joke), I would like to have alt- or affirmative or whatever LEFT ! (needless to say doesn´t mean the present Bolshevism... let´s say it´s just common sense liberalism)
    (it´s like the joke: I would like to change my name. - What´s your name, Sir? - Frank Sucker. - Which name would you want instead? - Jack Sucker).
    Self-detarmination instead of authoritarianism, that resonates with the Americans. Self-determination includes racial self-determination... an easy sell in a country of self-segregation. But authoritariaism isn´t an easy sell in the Land of the Free. Our life was good before the browns came, irrespective if that life was right or left. Right or left was not the problem but White or brown, so my problem is not right or left.

    It may be a fight about words. I estimate Colin´s summary:
    "an end to mass immigration, healthy and stable demographics, long-term security, and a economic system based on balanced trade and finances."

    Besides, any pro-White position is Nazi and six million, you can change names all you like. And you HAVE TO name the jew... but ok, there´s a way to do it and a way not to do it...

    Lastly, I see that the N-word is not appreciated here... ok why not... my N-word policy is that people who live as parasites on Whites are N-words but I can sure drop that.

  12. There already is a pro-white Alternative Left. It's been around for a few years. AltLeft.com

    1. Thanks... I know that... but it´s a non-show.
      Rather, White Advocates should totally desist from spouting any political positions and just do White Advocacy. That can, logically, reach the maximum number of people: everybody who feels pro-White irrespective of political stance! Why do you have to buy patriarchy, authoritarianism, military arrogance, crony capitalism, environmental pollution, in short everything that is rigid and violent and cut-off from human warmth just because you want to preserve the White Race... I sure don´t want that.

  13. The common denominator enemy of white people are commies. This is not rocket science. They're not Jews, liberals, progressives, blacks, latinos, trannies, mooselimbs, blah, blah, blah. They're communists. Is the problem that "commies" is too 1950's for marketing purposes or something? White people create civilization, communists destroy civilization. Whether they're calling the shots or just useful idiots, they're communists. Either way, the end result is the same; white people end up as feudal serfs, or on a train to a labor camp, or dead. A commie is a commie is a commie. No matter what victim class they haul out or guilt trip they try to lay on, or whatever technique they're using, it's all commie. Chuck Schumer? Commie. Nancy Pelosi? Commie. Al Charlatan? Commie. Luis Guitierrez? Commie. If white people are as smart as they're supposed to be, they'll get that. They'll get that when it comes to commies, white people always get the sh*t end of the stick. They'll get that only white people are qualified to defeat commies. The first order of battle is enemy identification. Commies. When Chuck or Nancy finally get around to claiming "commie" is a dogwhistle meaning "__fill in the victim blank__", I didn't say that, I said "Commie". Schumer, Pelosi, Charlatan, and Guitierrez are all commies. Jesus Christ, people, stop giving your enemy the rope to hang you with, that's what they want you to do.

    1. While it may be true that "communism" is certainly a more "inclusive" totalizing category, than other more (indiscriminate and stigmatized politically-incorrect) identitarian reductivist labeling, isn't this more a case of mere meta identitarianism?

  14. Good for you, Colin. The drift of the alt right from being a diffuse, loosely neoreactionary space as late as 2015, to being a narrowly and predictably neonazi movement by 2017 was surprising to me. Leaders like Spencer originally heavily signaled against becoming mere 1933 LARPers -- but then became that precise caricature. The movement's worldview became narrowly judeocentric and hit the exact same intellectual dead end as the "muh Wotan" movement a century ago: rejection of "semitism" winds up meaning rejection of christianity, which creates a much larger spiritual void than liberalism does (liberalism still subsumes a christian metaphysics). Talk of worshiping pagan gods in the alt right is always empty and unserious -- not a single alt righter ever did enough research on the history of paganism in Europe to avoid embarrassing themselves when broaching the topic (a recent Alt Right.com article about Easter is an example). The worship of "muh genes" looms large, but nobody in the Alt Right seems to actually study genetics. Anyone authentically interested in the relationship between genetics and culture would be drawn to knowledgeable "cucks" like Nicolas Wade or Charles Murray. So, for the alt right, "muh genes" was another intellectual dead end. The only attractive posture the alt right took up was a kind of "Toryist" defense of the enduring cultural value of the northwestern European patriarchal world of meanings. But nobody in the alt right knows enough about the relevant centuries of history for that posture to be convincing. I'd rather just read Carlyle, Spengler or Toynbee.

    1. Dear Anonymous,

      This is a very thoughtful, interesting and well-worded response. Perhaps you could take it up at length in an essay. I for one would like to read more. I especially like what you say about the "spiritual void" in the alt-right, and the antisemitic "eugenicist" rejection of Christianity and its underlying metaphysical foundations. This seems a deeply rich, if somewhat esoteric, subject--albeit with profound practical ramifications. I don't know that the "only attractive posture the alt right took up was a kind of 'Toryist' defense of the enduring cultural value of the northwestern European patriarchal world of meanings." You say that "no one" in the alt right "knows enough about the relevant centuries of history for that posture to be convincing." It rather sounds like you do. Why not distill "Carlyle, Spengler or Toynbee" to remedy this?

  15. What I am about to say may seem presumptuous, because I never identified with the alt right. I hope it will be accepted as constructive criticism.

    I think there is a need for an alternative to the pro plutocracy bias of the Republican Party, and the pro black bias of Democrats that is so adamant that it suppresses an honest discussion of black social pathology.

    In my humble opinion many on the alt right made the same kind of mistake many in the new left made in the late 1960's. Back then many in the new left began to idealize Communists like Mao Tse Tung, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Minh. Many in the alt right have begun to idealize the Third Reich.

    1. What kind of alternative would you like to see to overcome this dichotomy you describe between Red plutocrats and Panther democrats?

      That is, no one debates the New Left's appropriation of Maoism as a misguided attempt to rehabilitate Stalinism. Apparently, you think that National Socialism is unacceptable, toxic, transgressive, etc. There is no argument there. I believe that much highly controversial antisemitic and denial rhetoric is an even more misguided attempt to rehabilitate National Socialism. Many in the alt right are of anticapitalist rather than libertarian variety. I agree there is a political ideological vacuum that needs filling, and it would be great if more followed this constructive lead, rather than document the collapse of western civilization. What do you think?

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. A well-written and very sensible article.

  18. "....of those who have worked under the banner of the Alt-Right in the years of its existence have been mainly motivated by the desire to restore common sense, decency, and natural order to a world being put through the blender of debt-fuelled globalism. The things they want are an end to mass immigration, healthy and stable demographics, long-term security, and a economic system based on balanced trade and finances. What they want is the same as any sane man wants."

    Is that it? Common sense? Decency? Sensible shoes? I want a hell of a lot more than that! I didn't join the ALT RIGHT to function as an Eisenhower Republican.

    1. We also want good novels, so I'll leave that up to you. Regarding the rest, the proverb about biting off more than one can chew may apply.

  19. Discipline is needed organization and a law firm that defends the movement is needed. We can use the same laws to defend our people against dicrimination. If an alt-right guy is fired when he doxed or arrested demonstrating for the cause we need to help him sue the employer or government. Make the system pay.