THE TRIUMVIRATE OF DEFEAT: SCRUTON, HITCHENS, AND DANIELS

Paleocon line-up.

by Alter Orbis

Like most people, I never questioned the basis of the society that I lived in. Growing up in Leicester, it was assumed that multiculturalism was a fact of life. This has to be distinguished from seeing ethnic diversity as a positive thing, in and of itself. The fact that half of the city was non-white was just another quirk of geography, like living in a frost hollow or being more exposed to a sou’wester. A majority of people are political only in a provisional sense and those of us who spend our time browsing the wilder corners of the internet, never mind reading The Mail or The Sun, are in a minority. The average man has political opinions, often very deeply held, but they are not central to his life and nor are they consistent. I have seen people simultaneously support gay pride parades, castrating paedophiles, renationalising railways, wind-power, Gurkha immigration, repatriating blacks and reintroducing corporal punishment.

IN DEFENCE OF STATISM

by Colin Liddell

"Every anarchist is a baffled dictator" ～ Benito Mussolini

My esteemed colleague Andy Nowicki has just penned an interesting piece denouncing certain perceived proclivities in the motivations of members of the Alt-Right in distancing themselves from Libertarianism. His article "In Defence of Anti-Statism" draws attention to two factors that supposedly drive anti-Libertarian tendencies in the Alt-Right, namely a wish to signal "intellectual maturity" and a desire to bluster about the up-side of authoritarianism. In particular, he takes issue with the notion that some people want to rule.

These observations are sure to prove controversial as many of the best and brightest on the Alt-Right found their way here over the loose and shifting sands of the Libertarian desert. I expect triggering aplenty and the rustling of jimmies.

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?