ARE HUMANS NATURALLY CONSERVATIVE AS A SPECIES?

by Dota

The two greatest forces that impact any community are economics and politics. Economics is primarily concerned with the distribution of resources, whereas politics is concerned with the distribution of power. Conventional wisdom states that societies and culture are formed at the intersection of the two. So, which came first, politics or economics?

ARE WE RIGHT? (PART III)

 This is the concluding part of a three-part article. Go to Part I. Go to Part II.

by James Lawrence

It is time to deliver on the promise of this essay – which is, of course, an answer to the great question contained in its title. Can our movement honestly lay claim to the Rightist tradition of the West, which in turn leads back to the roots of our civilisation? Or do we represent a shallow, transitory and chimerical reaction of older Leftist ideas, like nationalism, against newer ones like multiculturalism?

In short, can the Alt-Right really call itself the True Right?

WHERE THE RIGHT WENT WRONG

by Ryan Andrews

Ever since the shuttening of Radix, I have intended to re-run this essay at some point. And with the recent publication of James Lawrence’s Are We Right? (Part I), now seems to be as good a time as any. I wrote this piece over two years ago, and if I were to do it over again today there are certain portions I would phrase differently—my explanation of particularism would be more precise, for instance. But I stand by my main conclusion about the reasons for the meta-political failure of the Right throughout history, and I think that conclusion is relevant to the questions raised by Lawrence in his essay.

ARE WE RIGHT? (PART I)

by James Lawrence

Long before choosing to involve myself in the Alt-Right in 2012, I used to lurk around the fragmentary dissident Rightist scene as a passive observer, red-pilling myself on various topics. From that time back in the early 2000s up to the present day, as the range of official thought has narrowed and dissent has expanded, I have watched one truth go from a pessimistic suspicion to an article of faith among the awakened. It is this: the so-called “mainstream Right” is not a secret sympathiser or potential ally, but a deadly enemy that loathes us just as much as the Left.

The “free competition of Left and Right” in the “democratic public sphere” is a sham. “Conservative” politicians – those who are not outright imposters – are essentially client rulers, allotted some political power in return for pacifying and misdirecting our people, true advocacy for that people’s interests being forbidden. Disturbing as this may be, accepting it meant that dissidents no longer had to cut themselves loose from all ideological tradition by framing themselves as “beyond Left and Right”. The modern Left was indeed the same force that had bathed humanity in blood under the guise of Communism; the Right, properly understood, was the antithesis to this force; but the “mainstream Right” known to the general public was a kept eunuch of the enemy.

BILL BUCKLEY AND THE RISE AND FALL OF THE NATIONAL REVIEW

Colin Liddell and Tim Kelly discuss William F. Buckley, the National Review, and the Conservative Movement. This was an interesting synthesis of Leftist and Rightist tendencies called into being by the expediencies of the Cold War, but was unable to oppose the rise of political correctness or prevent the dangerous hollowing out of the American Empire that we see today.

• First broadcast on the Our Interesting Times Podcast
• "The National Rearview, Obituary of a Cuckservative Rag"
• Review of "RADIX II, the Great Purge"

VIDEO: THE FAILURE OF CONSERVATISM AND THE INEVITABILITY OF THE ALT-RIGHT

One Man's Chorus is an excellent source of well-argued Alt-Right videos. This video addresses the Conservative movement's surprising refusal to engage with the Left on fundamental issues, where it could win, and to instead to argue detail. Hint: symbiosis. 

#AltRightMeans: WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE RIGHT?

by Brett Stevens

Thanks to Hillary Clinton deciding to make war on Donald Trump by linking him to the Alternative Right, implying that the Alternative Right is an ideological enemy so derided that none can survive being linked to it, the Alternative Right is rising in public consciousness.

But what is it? A survey of literature:

THE DEATH OF THE DEATH OF THE WEST

by Rémi Tremblay

The rise of Donald Trump is a good excuse to discover or rediscover one his most intelligent supporters, himself a former candidate for Republican leadership, Pat Buchanan. He has now become an unapologetic cheerleader of Donald Trump, defending with arguments and brains what Trump is yelling with a populist tone, thus giving an intellectual stature to the one the media portray as Donald Dumb.

It is always hard to pinpoint the best text to read and analyze when trying to understand someone who has written a dozen books and countless articles. The choice is subjective and might be misleading, but the New York Times bestseller The Death of the West sparked my interest. How could a book with such a Spenglerian title become so popular? And how could a book said to be that politically incorrect get such high rankings and recognition? I then decided that this would be the book I would read to better understand the American politician so often quoted by Guillaume Faye and other New Rightists.

ANTI-FRAGILITY: RIDING NASSIM TALEB'S TIGER

by Charles Jansen

An essential concept for understanding the Old (or fake) Right and its inability to defeat the Left is "fragility" – normally defined as the quality of being easily broken or damaged. It has been noted that such right wingers are people who either want to ignore momentum and impose a status quo, which means being Conservative, or LARPers, who yearn for some previous unobtainable moment in history. Many of the disagreements on the right basically boil down to "My LARPing doesn’t line up with your LARPing."

But the essential point about those on the Old Right is their sense of fragility, a feeling that any change or shift will make them lose out in terms of income and social status. This inevitably pushes then to the wrong side of the System. Rather than their defended position, it is this fragility and the fears it generates that comes to define them.

They effectively act like people with osteoporosis fearful of any knock or bump. This is why you see New York Conservatives hobnobbing with Democrats – and submitting to their anti-White agenda. Also, many millennials move to the Left against their better inclinations simply because it gets them a job, money, and social recognition, while people on the Right live in fear of SJWs and "social shaming."

THE KLUELESS KUCKS KLAN

by Duns Scotus

In recent days the Cuckservative meme seems to have taken off, spreading from the covens and enclaves of the alternative right to the underbelly of the mainstream media. But what exactly is the Cuckservative mentality, and can it be defeated simply by the dissemination of a powerful pun and meme?

To answer these questions it is necessary to look more closely at the workings of the basic Conservative/Cuckservative mentality. There are several important factors to consider. These include:

• White/Non-White asymmetry
• The internal and the external nature of the threat to Whites
• False threat consciousness and the tendency to externalize enemies
• Christianity as a facilitating mechanism

The first point to make is that America (as well as the Greater West) exhibits a strongly asymmetric character, by which I mean that, even though Whites are courting their own ultimate destruction, they remain in a position of near total dominance.

THE STEPFORD STUDENTS AND THE MIDWICH MEDIA

by Colin Liddell

Now and then the back end of the Liberal-Leftist train – i.e. the Conservative baggage car – makes a mournful, screeching sound as its slightly off-centre wheels dig into the rails down which the Leftist locomotive is dragging it. Such a screech resonates through a recent article in The Spectator, that bastion of old-school British conservativism that doesn’t really know what to do about the premises of the Liberal Left – except to lube well before being shafted by them in the best public school fashion.

THE TRUE GLOBAL MINORITY

by Bay Area Guy

Our liberal leaning mainstream media never hesitates to inform us that whites are slowly but surely becoming minorities within Western countries. Most of the time such trends are reported in a mildly enthusiastic manner, with naysayers depicted as paranoid and alarmist racists. I guess according to leftist logic, objecting to your group’s eventual extinction renders you a horrible extremist.

However, another refrain that I’ve heard from many online leftists on blogs and elsewhere is that whites are already a global minority. Therefore, recent demographic changes are only natural. When reading through Studs Terkel’s book Race, one black woman that he interviewed emphatically rejected the term “minority” in favor of “people of color,” arguing that non-whites like her are the global majority.

Putting aside the foolish notion of a united “people of color” coalition and the fact that all groups are global minorities (as once pointed out by Jared Taylor), I’ll accept the argument that whites are a global minority at face value. After all, one cannot technically dispute such a claim. However, in the spirit of my post on the left and collective responsibility, I’m going to play the fun game of taking leftist logic and applying it to other groups. In this case, the intended target of my game are leftists themselves.

WHY THE LEFT IS OBSESSED WITH RACE

Race mixing – the perfect way to create a standardless world 

by Brett Stevens

For years they kept it under wraps by accusing anyone who mentioned the topic of being a "racist." Simultaneously they concealed their own intent toward topics regarding race by giving them pleasant names. But now the leftist agenda stands revealed as it becomes clear that their policy is exclusively racial, and aims to replace the American white population with a third-world group.

But this is not new. Leftist movements since the Enlightenment have sought to obliterate national boundaries and make people "citizens of the world." Leftists for decades have advocated world government and the free movement of citizens. Under its most tyrannical dictators, the Soviet Union expanded its multicultural policy to include not just non-Christian religions (Christianity was demonized) but other races. The pursuit of racial equality, a proxy for racial co-mingling, has been a leftist policy since the birth of leftism.

THE REDUNDANCY OF THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT

by Brett Stevens

We live in an age of trends. For this reason, people are constantly inventing new "movements" which claim to be different, but are at a logical level identical to the older ones. By "at a logical level," I mean comparing the structure and function or their ideas and not their surface appearance. Appearance is always misleading and geared toward concealing the fundamental sameness of things.

Currently the roiling trend on the internet is movements like the "Dark Enlightenment," "Neo-reaction" and "red pill" as well as various "third way" movements. Each proclaims itself to be a new and untested idea, knowing that its audience craves novelty. And yet, if you dig below the level of appearance and look at the structure of the arguments of each group, you find something very far from new.

However, these groups have a lot vested in not admitting this. First, they are saturated in the media of a time that demonizes certain beliefs as ignorant and bad. Second, they would lose their novelty, and thus their reason to exist as independent profit-producing entities (generally through advertising revenues from blogs). And finally, they'd take an ego hit, and who wants to do that?

LIBERAL HEGEMONY

by Michael Parish

When an ideology gains control of the institutions that shape opinion, it is said to have gained hegemony. At this point, something happens to public discourse. As the tenets of the ideology are considered objective and not subjective, all contenders must embrace them to keep their corner of the ring. Its ends cannot be contested, only their means. One cannot propose an altogether different value system, but only critique ways of realizing it.

Rather than clashing ideologies, we have clashing methods. The result is the assimilation of all competition into the dominant ideology and their reduction to a shadow of it. There are thus no options beyond minor variations in the same type of thought. In Western democracies, this is the current condition in regards to Liberalism.