The problem that arises when you're the greatest nation in the history of the world, is that there's no real problems to deal with. There's no war. Anybody who wants a job can get one. Nobody starves to death. Everybody has access to medical care. Even beggars can make six figures a year.
There’s no sense in mincing words anymore: the Alt-Right has hit a wall, and is faced with the hard task of pulling back and searching for a new course. The enemy media are (prematurely) claiming victory. Many progressives are hasteningto vindicate the ‘antifa’ domestic terrorist movement, discarding the pretence that liberal misgivings about organised political violence hinge on anything more than crass utilitarianism.
My purpose here is to offer some thoughts on what has happened and how our side can hope to recover its ground. I do not wish to exaggerate the present difficulties, nor blame people in the Alt-Right for suffering a form of outsourced government repression. However, repression by those in power is a constant for us; what has changed is the effectiveness of this repression, which used to meet with a fluid, agile and durable target, and now increasingly enjoys a sluggish, clumsy and brittle one. One major reason for this is that prominent figures in the Alt-Right, protected by a widespread culture of hooting down internal dissent, took strategic and aesthetic decisions that have ended up transforming an antifragile movement into a destructible one.
But the question underlying these verbal catfights could not be of greater importance. We and our debating opponents both know that the Left has worked itself into a toxic cultural revolution from which it can no longer back down, and that this is generating a massive public backlash against it. The question, then, is whether this backlash will give rise to a truly viable reaction against the forces destroying the West – or whether it will end up in a miserable and futile Ghost Dance of liberalism, the very ideology that brought us to this point in the first place. Sargon/Benjamin deserves serious attention not because he is a serious thinker, but because he is an archetype of the seriously deluded Westerner, who sees how the Left wields and justifies its tyranny and still concludes that the only remedy is a double dose of liberalism.
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.
10) "I would never vote for a warmonger. For the sake of future generations, we must seek peace instead of provoking conflict."
9) "All of this anti-Russia hysteria-- this looking for dangerous subversives under every bed-- is silly and embarrassing. Really, it's nothing more than a politically-motivated witch hunt. Knock it off, already!"
Millennial Woes' recent video entitled "The Emerging Dynamic" brought up a lot of interesting points, and I thought I should add some of my own thoughts through this article.
Perhaps one of the great unstated features of liberal egalitarianism is that it seeks equilibrium, which, for the purposes of this article, can be described as any (homogeneous or heterogeneous) group's ability to reach a theoretical consensus on the most expedient way to pacify internal conflicts (ethnic interests, social capital, and sustainable socio-econonic considerations be damned).
In this sense, what the Western World calls "egalitarianism" could be more aptly described as "coalition management," since it actively tries to (organically and through force) prevent conflict (i.e. zero-sum competition) by imposing what it considers to be the universal moral codes of "human rights" and "equality."
Nietzsche once wrote that all profound things wear masks, but this Halloween, and others before it, will witness the merely mundane trying not to culturally offend anyone with their choice of costume. Since the exhausting expelling of literal interpretations of monsters from the human mind, the symbolic, functional, and allegorical aspects of such creatures compel interpretation.
Liberalism represents the triumph of the sovereign individual’s freedom based on desire over the community’s order based on duties.
A few hundred years of liberal political hegemony in the West (England, France, and the United States primarily) have resulted in a total cultural hegemonic apparatus always affirming its own biases with pretensions of objectivity.
Lionel Mordecai Trilling, in his preface to The Liberal Imagination, wrote that Liberalism is the “sole intellectual tradition” of the United States.
During our "unscheduled reorganization" back in December 2013, many of the old Alternative Right articles were archived to Radix Journal, but almost all the articles from 2013 were lost, including this interview with Alex Kurtagic by George Whale, which we now take great pleasure in restoring to our readers. (C.Liddell)
A full transcript can be found at the bottom of the page
At a conference in Washington DC in September 2011 writer, musician and artist Alex Kurtagic delivered a lecture entitled "Masters of the Universe," in which he argued that we must win the cultural war against the Left as a necessary prelude to real political change. The speech, full of original and provocative ideas, fascinated me and I determined to ask Mr Kurtagic for an interview so that I might explore some of his ideas further. Fortunately, he agreed.
This article was originally published at Western Spring in November 2013. It is relevant again in the light of recent events in Paris. An audio version is available here.
The internationalist Leftist elites that have ruled Europe since World War II have failed. They have failed not just by our high and exacting standards, but by their own low and sloppy ones. They have created the very world that they most feared, and generated a situation that even they are now coming to realize is unsustainable and impossible.
If they don’t realize now, then it won’t take too many more years to enlighten them. All that they hold dear – gay rights, women’s lib, abortion-on-demand, the moral free-for-all, welfarism, gender equality, and even racial equality – now hangs by a thread, all because their great game plan is coming unstuck.
They thought that the way to win total victory in the great cultural and ideological war with the old conservative order was to destroy it with multiculturalism, a perfect strategy because it was something that could only be fought against with racism, parochialism, and a rejection of the global economy – all things that had been stigmatized beforehand. The old order was caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The more they fought back the more the Left could screech the dreaded R-word and their other incantations and intimidate their naive and befuddled opponents. Fish being shot in a barrel would have put up stiffer resistance.
A singularity is coming: the mainstream right and the underground right are converging, but they need to do it faster. These groups share a worldview of realism which no other parts of the political spectrum possess. Both realize that Western Civilization is hurtling towards a catastrophe at the hands of the dictatorship of public opinion, and that this same force destroyed the great civilizations of the past.
As Walt Kelley wrote long ago, “We have met the enemy and he is us”: public opinion denies common-sense realism because people prefer sugar-coated and flattering illusions. Gossip about the Speakership nomination, or Malia’s college party beer pong antics, dominates the headlines to hide the grim reality that we are literally fighting for our survival as a civilization.
A common tactic employed by leftists is to accuse their enemies of being on “the wrong side of history.” When I toured UC Santa Cruz around 9 years ago, I recall seeing a mural juxtaposing old school Jim Crow bigotry with current conservative hostility towards homosexual marriage. The image must have caught on, because I could easily find it online.
It didn't take long for the Liberal Left to exert its hegemonic power and destroy the feeble attempt by Indiana and Arkansas to bring in Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). From what I could tell, these laws were mainly designed to protect hypothetical Christian bakers from the unpleasantness of having to bake wedding cakes for hypothetical homosexual couples role-playing as married couples. But of course they were also symbolic.
Some analysts are seeing this defeat as an example of the perfidy of the GOP, others as some kind of ideological setback for a mythical ideology called Conservatism, which, if anybody took the trouble to check, they would find does not exist. Liberals, of course, are seeing it as the victory of the forces of light over the forces of darkness, because nothing screams unspeakable evil more than a couple of homosexuals not having their cake and eating it.
If you listen to the usual voices for (leftist-slanted) news, you will hear the beginnings of a disturbing refrain: democracy is in decline. Those voices are arguing this so that they may claim to be the underdog, because victimhood is the only justification for power recognized by liberalism, and so they can return to the argument that worked for them so well from 1861-1969, which was that they were bringing democracy, freedom and equality to a world under the control of evil blue meanies who opposed such things from fear, hatred, and other surrogates for inherent evil.
Doctor Johnson once famously refuted the nonsensical idealism of the Anglo-Irish cleric Bishop Berkeley by kicking a rock. This example is relevant when considering the over-intellectualization that many on the alternative right are drawn to in their attempts to challenge the hegemonic power of "Liberal Ideology," while also signalling their general intelligence and all-round superiority to their friends. It is certainly relevant to the contentious and arcanely expressed ideas of Alexandr Dugin.
The Russian intellectual's striving for a "Fourth Political Theory" is based on his abstracted view of the history of ideology, which, like Berkeley's idealism, seems to exist in a rarefied space separate from a robust dialogue with physical reality of the kind that Johnson favoured.
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.
The world, as Americans know it, has been both compounded and downsized into USG-proscribed racial blocs: the White Race, The Black Race, the Eastern Mongrel Race (Arabs), and the Western Mongrel Race (Mestizos). But boundaries are rapidly being dissolved, via migration and miscegenation, among even these once stable groups.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) bears the distinction of being a writer who resisted virtually all of the dominant trends of his era. He lived during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, precisely the time that modernity was fully consolidating itself within Western civilization more than a century after the apex of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Chesterton began his writing career as a young man and as the twentieth century was just beginning. As much as any other writer from his era, he predicted the horrors that century would entail.
Many white nationalists and those on the alternative right have rightly pointed out the disgusting hypocrisy of many influential Western Jews. The same people who promote multiculturalism and denounce any manifestations of white identity unapologetically assert Israel’s right to exist as a “Jewish state.” I won’t write about that, since Jewish hypocrisy regarding Israel is well documented. However, what isn’t acknowledged too often is the insincerity of Jewish support for non-white minorities within Western countries. Jews love to boast about how they supported the black civil rights movements and were at the forefront of liberal egalitarian movements. But did they really care about black people and other minorities, or were more self-serving motives present? The late Malcolm X has his own answer to that question:
“I gave the Jew credit for being among all other whites the most active, and the most vocal, financier, “leader” and “liberal” in the Negro civil rights movement. But I said at the same time I knew that the Jew played these roles for a very careful strategic reason: the more prejudice in America could be focused upon the Negro, then the more the white Gentiles’ would keep diverted off the Jew. I said that to me, one proof that all the civil rights posturing of so many Jews wasn’t sincere was that so often in the North the quickest segregationists were Jews themselves…And an even clearer proof for me of how Jews truly regard Negroes, I said, was what invariably happened wherever a Negro moved into a neighborhood that was thickly Jewish. Who would lead the whites’ exodus? The Jews!”
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?
