ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

What the Alternative Right is

In the interest of developing a core Alternative Right philosophy upon which others can build.
  1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.
  2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
  3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
  4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
  5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
  6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
  7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
  8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
  9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
  10. 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. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
  11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
  12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
  13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
  14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
  15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
  16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.

The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."

This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.

The 16 Points in other languages:

Labels: ,

460 Comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 460 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous God Hates Cucks August 24, 2016 11:10 AM  

I would treat this list as an observation, rather than a plan or manifesto. I would caution against treating it like scripture for 2 reasons:
1. People who disagree could get along if we're dealing with generalities, not absolutes.
2. It could be exploited by enemies, in the same way progs have used the 1st amendment to push porn and degeneracy. #10 could especially be used by sjws to play the sins of your father shtick, which is nothing more than a plot to get impressionable minds to reject nationalism and embrace globalism.

#10 I would modify to mean we don't want OUR lands occupied by others. I don't care about other people fighting over other lands.

Blogger The Other Robot August 24, 2016 11:11 AM  

Perhaps Hillary and her cabal will surprise us tomorrow and come up with a ringing new set of names to call the Alt-Right.

I doubt it, however, and I expect them to double down on sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic dipshits.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus August 24, 2016 11:12 AM  

@ 184 As a bunch of principles they look great, but they are for consumption by reasonably intelligent people.

You know, I was just thinking about this as I was driving in to work this AM. the single biggest obstacle for widespread acceptance of Alt-Right ideas will be the fact that many of them are only comprehensible to people with IQs of at least 115 or so.

Blogger The Other Robot August 24, 2016 11:15 AM  

@201: However, Vox is correct. There are plenty of memes for the not so intelligent, and maybe selection will be required, but it is important to let Hillary and her Cabal know that they no longer have the Intellectual High Ground nor the Moral High Ground.

Blogger praetorian August 24, 2016 11:15 AM  

He'll figure it out sooner or later. His logic there is intrinsically self-destructive; he simply hasn't thought the matter through deeply enough.

I hope so. I would certainly prefer a small-nation nationalism (distributist, subsidiarity-based, taking in lessons of scale), but I'm not sure how much of the alt-right would agree with that.

There is a Faustian element to a lot of the original alt-right. This is another area where I respect them, but disagree with them.

Blogger clk August 24, 2016 11:17 AM  

"And if gun ownership is no longer necessary or relevant, a member of that peaceful, high-trust society should be able to own any kind of weapons in any quantity he chooses."

I think in the spirit of service means citizenship -- every able body man will be part of a standing militia/guard etx and would be issued a weapon as part of that service... in the practical aspects of logistics with ammo, parts, training there will be a limited type of issued guns --- probably a glock type weapon in 9mm vs 1911 in 45 acp but those are details to be joyfully argued about in other threads.

Blogger pyrrhus August 24, 2016 11:17 AM  

@189 Whether you are a practicing Christian or not, there is no doubt that Christianity had a huge role in creating western civilization. By banning cousin marriage even to 4th cousins, Christianity drastically improved the gene pool over a period of centuries. Japan had to do this by government fiat in the 20th century. Christianity's emphasis on marriage and children was also crucial, and provided the backbone of modern society...

Anonymous BGKB August 24, 2016 11:19 AM  

I was quite surprised at the level of open faggotry in Las Vegas. Gays everywhere walking down the street, holding hands

In Vegas they get to exhibition for those not expecting it. In San Fran its legal to take a dump in the street, along with public nudity and sex.

Blogger Nate August 24, 2016 11:19 AM  

Boy: Alt-Right... what is the best in life?

Alt-Right: What is the best in life? To give mind hurt and feelbad. To see your enemies aflame with butthurt...and to hear the lamentations of their non-binary gendered peoples

Anonymous wiseguy August 24, 2016 11:24 AM  

I don't think it's correct to pit Russell Kirk and actual conservatives against the alt-right, given that some of the most important intellectual godfathers of the movement include paleocons who wrote under Richard Spencer's (Spencer coined the term alternative right) editorship at AmCon and Taki's.

Anonymous SaltHarvest August 24, 2016 11:25 AM  

clk wrote:

I think without a Christian base, imperative, shared belief, etc in Jesus as savior and the Alt Right is doomed in time.... I know why one might be hesitant to explicitly call this a Christian movement but understand the values at the core here are Christian whether espoused by christian, agnostics or atheists... this fear to call/acknowledge this Christian is what has led to the issues we find ourselves 200+ years after the founding of this country.. IMHO



One does not need a full strength mixture of the drink to appreciate its benefits so long as the poisons are removed.

Blogger praetorian August 24, 2016 11:29 AM  

I wonder if an explicit mention of the family is worthwhile as a foundational principle.

I prefer the distributist concept of the family as the fundamental unit of society (contrasted with the socialist fundamental unit: the state and the modern capitalist fundamental unit: the individual) but that is getting outside standard alt-right thinking.

Blogger VD August 24, 2016 11:32 AM  

Improved version, courtesy of a GGer:

#AltRight: What is best in life?

#GamerGate: To inflict triggerhurt and feelbad through crimethink, hatespeech, and dank memes.

Anonymous ZhukovG August 24, 2016 11:34 AM  

My version of point 14.

In light of recent history; we explicitly affirm the right of European descended people and their posterity to cultural and political dominion within both the historic European Nation States and the European Progeny States, such as the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 24, 2016 11:36 AM  

I don't consider the right to bear arms to be a philosophical foundation of the Alt-Right.

The alt-Right grows out of the peoples west of the Hajnal line. Those peoples, in particular the Saxons and their relations such as the Vikings et al., kept arms for defense of themselves and the tribe / nation. For example, in the 13th century Swiss forest cantons only men with their weapons were allowed to vote in political meetings. Didn't bring your sword or pike or halbred? Shut up. You have no skin in the game.

More than once I've told a gun grabber who wanted to cure my "gun fetish", "Not. I was born this way".

Not every nation is the same. I don't demand that Italy have the same gun laws as Helvetica. I do demand the historic Anglo-Saxon-Celt "weapons shop" approach be respected in America.

It's probably a wise policy in most current (multicultural) societies, but it's not a prerequisite. Indeed, if the Alt-Right philosophy is carried out properly, there should ultimately be enough societal trust and respect for the rule of law that gun ownership is no longer required.

The lion and the lamb will not lay down together in this world, bucko.

Anonymous #8601 August 24, 2016 11:36 AM  

The Alt Right Philosophy translates nicely into the 3 main goals which VD has discussed previously, aka the 3Rs:

1) Repeal the 1965 Immigration Act
2) Respectfully Repatriate
3) Restore the Demographic Balance

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 24, 2016 11:37 AM  

First substantive thought,

Christianity:Western Civ::Stringed instruments:Western music.

Talking about the brilliant accomplishments of the latter after subtracting the former is absurd.

Blogger praetorian August 24, 2016 11:41 AM  

For example, in the 13th century Swiss forest cantons only men with their weapons were allowed to vote in political meetings. Didn't bring your sword or pike or halbred? Shut up. You have no skin in the game.

Fucking Swiss.

How based can one people be?

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 24, 2016 11:42 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 24, 2016 11:42 AM  

I believe it is necessary to explicitly exclude Churchianity somewhere in here. How about this: #AltRight believes it is the civic duty of every man to offend evil people.

Blogger praetorian August 24, 2016 11:45 AM  

The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage.

It isn't a principle, so I don't know if it matters, but this is (or could be interpreted as being) too genetic determinist. Genes matter and quite a bit, but they don't ultimately define people.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 24, 2016 11:46 AM  

I wonder if an explicit mention of the family is worthwhile as a foundational principle.

Looks pretty strongly implied to me. The details of a particular polity are not within the scope. Different peoples / nations will "do family" differently.

So just because Nigerians include polygamy in their particular definition of "family" doesn't mean I have to do so, nor does it mean I have to accept that definition in America, either.

We know what it means. Atomization, where there's nothing between any individual and the Leviathan state, hasn't worked out. Intervening institutions, starting with the family, are a necessity. Does this really need spelling out? I do not think so.

Blogger ZaijiaN August 24, 2016 11:46 AM  

The Alt Right is not interested in excusing America's historical sins. History is what it is. Deal with it.

THIS should be its own principle.

Blogger The Other Robot August 24, 2016 11:49 AM  

You know, it used to be that Bill was impotent and Hillary was incompetent. They days they are just incontinent.

Blogger Michael August 24, 2016 11:50 AM  

I think you need to include a point on equality before the law to point 4 or point 7. This important as progressive policy tends to undermine equality before the law try to establish the kinds of equality described in point 7. I would say that using the law to enforce or create the fantasy equality, undermines the equality before the law which makes it unjust or unfit law.

Anonymous Bohm August 24, 2016 11:58 AM  

Goebbels would be so proud.

Anonymous SaltHarvest August 24, 2016 11:59 AM  

I think I see an issue that could use some clarification with regards to points 5,15,16, (and 11 by implication):

Suppose that a group of people, through freedom of association (as opposed to myriad forms of propaganda), decide to interbreed (eg. intermarry) and form new a nation of people. How would nations adhering to altright philosophy resolve disputes between respecting a nation's right to exist (to be born) and the necessary implication that new nations would require land and other concessions from older nations in order to exist in reality wherein these new nations can establish new cultures (and new genealogies for those concerned explicitly with genetics).

Anonymous andon August 24, 2016 12:01 PM  

108. Blogger Mr.MantraMan August 24, 2016 9:27 AM

Anti-racism is code word for anti-white.


when I hear this I think white = racists

Anonymous crushlimbraw August 24, 2016 12:04 PM  

"The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law." - In order to drive home this point, I explain to my fellow Christians that Western Civilization would be impossible without Christianity! (And the White Race)
In most cases I get a blank stare - it doesn't compute with the modern church's teaching, which is basic pabulum from the pulpit and singing Kumbaya in the pews. Social theory and End Time Millennialism do not mix well - Gary North wrote a book by that name.
In summary, all three pillars - Christianity, Europe and Rule of Law - have been subverted. American Christianity has become mysticism and neutered by its 'End times' theology - a rubber crutch, if you will.
My fear is that this Christian generation will re-live ancient Israel's experience in Egypt before the next generation of 'Joshua and Caleb' will again crash the Gates of Hell!
Christianity is a live life experience - not a retreat into navel gazing!

Blogger residentMoron August 24, 2016 12:08 PM  

@181

"Remember that the point of the right to bear arms is not only so the individual can protect himself from criminals, but also so the people can protect themselves from government tyranny, so it wouldn't be unnecessary even in a peaceful society."

In a peaceful society there's no need for gun control (peaceful, remember?), but the need for bearing arms doesn't ever go away. People are people, so even at the heights of our civilisation various factions were trying to tear it down. You can minimise that proportion, suppress what remains, but it can never be eliminated this side of paradise.

Blogger Whisker biscuit August 24, 2016 12:12 PM  

You echo Vox's assessment of the "new" atheists in his book.

You're a parasite that will eventually kill the host and yourself.

Nothing Christ said is poisonous.

Anonymous Case August 24, 2016 12:17 PM  

As for the "high IQ necessity" for being Alt-Right.

Don't you believe it. I'm in flyover country, and while many of my fellow residents here aren't Rhodes Scholar material, they're not stupid. They understand that corrections need to be made to maintain their way of life even though many of them have never heard of the Alt-Right.

Most of them are well beyond typical in understanding the benefits of preserving Western culture and many are well beyond the typical intellectual in their desire to do so. ("by any means necessary")

So essentially, The Alt-Right isn't going to be a hard sell in much of America. The mentality for it already exists. Many simply don't realize that it has a name.

Blogger Prez Davis August 24, 2016 12:21 PM  

If the altright is supposed to be a destination, then I have a problem w points 5, 10, 15, 16. According to those lines of thought, the Europeans were wrong to colonize the Americas and should give it all back to the preColumbian indigenous peoples.

I see slavery and genocides as just another part of human history which modern people in the West fancy to have made obsolete. We will never live in a post genocide or post slavery world. My job as a white man is to make sure that my people are not the next in line to get genocided or enslaved. Just because I believe in the Creator does not mean He has endowed anybody with an unalienable right to life or liberty. We win those rights or inherit them from our ancestors who won them and passed them down to us. Those rights can easily be lost by any generation that possesses them.

For example: If it is in the best interest of whites to exterminate Africans, Amerindians or any other bottom dwelling, endangered species poaching, space occupying, disease reservoir, then we are morally justified in doing so.

OTOH, if altright is just a gateway from cuckservatism to some future ideological platform, then I suppose those points are perfectly appropriate.

I also think that #7 and #15 are a logical contradiction. It seems inconsistent to thoroughly deny equality in any observable form, then deny supremacy also.

Anonymous SaltHarvest August 24, 2016 12:22 PM  

Whisker biscuit wrote:You echo Vox's assessment of the "new" atheists in his book.

You're a parasite that will eventually kill the host and yourself.

Nothing Christ said is poisonous.


First, since you're using a version of the website other than the desktop version, please include the name of the person you're responding to in your post so that it will be more apparent for readers not using phones/mobile devices.

Second, I did not explicitly specify that Christ said something poisonous (I didn't claim the opposite either, but that's a whole different kettle of fish given 2000 years of separation).

Third, explain what Churchians claim about the words of Christ, then get back to me.

(Whereupon you might find that your assumption is unwarranted.)

Blogger residentMoron August 24, 2016 12:22 PM  

The high IQ objection is moot. You think N K Jemisin understands her place in the destruction of civilisation?

Hardly.

But the intellectuals - or those capable of assuming that mantle - are the thought leaders of civilisation. They're either busy thinking up popular rationalisations for sustaining civilisation or they're busy thinking up rationalisations for destroying it. Some of those (of either sort) will be designed to appeal to the king, some to the merchants, some to the peasants.

Anyone not capable of spanning the necessary audience for their ideas doesn't qualify as an intellectual.

Happy now?

Blogger Whisker biscuit August 24, 2016 12:23 PM  

Only high IQ's understand the Alt-Right?With academia being an exclusive, insular, self-referencing institution the ideas that are allowed to prosper are deemed "correct" by those running the institution. All opposition to the status quo is crushed deemed inferior or as in the case of libtards, dubbed racist. What, in time, will prevent this? Once homogonation of varying ideas by "leaders" occur, said leaders and their followers will splinter into factions. It happens in every movement. There will be no harmony in time. Only leftism can have some harmony because it's rooted in evil, and dictated by it.

Anonymous Patron August 24, 2016 12:25 PM  

@133

"Furthermore, what about political unions like UK and the US? Should it be said that peaceful partition should be pursued?"

I can't speak for the USA, but for the UK, the issue is whether people see themselves as British or Scottish/English - not to mention issues like the over-centralisation of government and the like getting caught up. Personally I'm British (English/Welsh heritage), so I view the SNP as secessionists, not nationalists.

I've personally wondered whether the SNP would be a thing if all but the bare essentials were devolved to the county level across the whole UK - ie if Glaswegians can handle their own welfare/tax/etc etc etc, and lets Westminster deal with national law & order, foreign policy, defence etc... that ghastly Nicola Sturgeon might be out of a job.

Blogger residentMoron August 24, 2016 12:27 PM  

@236 Bohm

You could fuck off any time.

No, really.

Fucking Johnny one note.

Anonymous #8601 August 24, 2016 12:27 PM  

I have it on good authority that Trump supporters are stupid.

So must be the Alt Right, right?

Blogger VD August 24, 2016 12:30 PM  

I also think that #7 and #15 are a logical contradiction. It seems inconsistent to thoroughly deny equality in any observable form, then deny supremacy also.

Seems. You're wrong. It is not even remotely inconsistent.

Blogger VD August 24, 2016 12:31 PM  

Go away, Bohm. You add nothing to the discourse and your comments are not required here.

Anonymous Bohm August 24, 2016 12:41 PM  

Go away, Bohm. You add nothing to the discourse and your comments are not required here.

Shame. I had so much to give, really. But I get it: Klan members only.

Cheerio and have fun with your little manifesto, boys..

Anonymous ThirdMonkey August 24, 2016 12:45 PM  

4. I would add, "Western Civilization cannot peacefully coexist with Islam or any other ideology that does not overtly recognize these foundational pillars."
12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it, nor are we interested in excusing Western Civilization's historical sins.

Whatever you do, don't change #14.

Anonymous wiseguy August 24, 2016 12:47 PM  

I don't think it's correct to pit Russell Kirk and actual conservatives against the alt-right, given the fact that some of the alt-right's most important intellectual godfathers were paleocons who wrote under the editorship of Richard Spencer (who coined the term alternative right) at AmCon and Taki's.

Anonymous Jack Amok August 24, 2016 12:51 PM  

The alt-right is the space of the political right consisting of people whose rightist politics are chiefly motivated by some form of anti-egalitarianism

No. Anti-egalitarianism is a conclusion, not a motivation. The Alt-Right doesn't start by declaring egalitarianism false, it starts by recognizing that reality must be accepted as the truth even when it doesn't align with the hopes that our dreams were built on. From there, observation makes it plain that egalitarianism is false.

We're not out to prove people are not equal or to create a world of inequality - we're just trying to figure out how best to make such a world work, since that's the one we live in and all of recorded history demonstrates we cannot change that.

We are about accepting the truth* and composing our lives and societies to be in accord with it.

* as best we understand it. As Vox's point 8 says, we may discover we were wrong about something in the future. We're open to evidence, but wishful thinking isn't evidence.

Blogger Noah B August 24, 2016 12:52 PM  

But I get it: Klan members only.

Protip: the guy getting the rope isn't a Klan member.

Blogger pyrrhus August 24, 2016 12:58 PM  

Maybe this is premature, but it should be made clear that the Alt-Right assumes no responsibility for the massive debts, obligations or treaties of the DC Elites....

Blogger Nate August 24, 2016 1:07 PM  

"
Protip: the guy getting the rope isn't a Klan member."

I wonder if he knows that prior 1900 the Klan was primarily known for lynching white yankee carpetbaggers...

Blogger praetorian August 24, 2016 1:08 PM  

Goebbels would be so proud.

Do you think so? Do you really think so?

Blogger praetorian August 24, 2016 1:17 PM  

Prez Davis wrote: also think that #7 and #15 are a logical contradiction. It seems inconsistent to thoroughly deny equality in any observable form, then deny supremacy also.

It's easy enough to understand that each race has strengths and weaknesses, each without a fundamental right to dominate one another politically, which is how supremacy is often interpreted.

If there is one issue I take with some of the older european right, it was the imperialism.

Anonymous BigGayKoranBurner August 24, 2016 1:34 PM  

Bohme Shame. I had so much to give, really. But I get it: Klan members only.

San Fran public schools are 8% black but 71% of students arrested in San Fran schools are black. Adult numbers are more "disparate". If equality exists the only possibility is that GayKK teachers and cops are colluding to ignore Asian girls stabbing people for money because its part of their ninja heritage.

Protip: the guy getting the rope isn't a Klan member."

Its actually a rainbow feather boa with Paracord strands threaded into the core.

I wonder if he knows that prior 1900 the Klan was primarily known for lynching white yankee carpetbaggers...

The ADL was formed because jews got lynched when they raped little white girls, jews also made up the original leadership of the NAACP

Anonymous A.B. Prosper August 24, 2016 1:43 PM  

About damned time. The .alt right needs some rooted concepts before it can try and achieve power.

I'm not sold on the phrasing of #8 , scientody is term I've never heard outisde this blog

Now I'm fine with the core idea, "modern science isn't real its political" more or less

Also I'd add "the .alt right has no strong leanings to neo liberalism or any other economic system only that such system is reality based and works to the other goals and to social stability . " or something to that effect

Also while not manifesto material, oddly we do have a left wing the Nat-Soc , Fash crowd are Leftists and are to some degree act as allies of our movement when they support the above precepts


Blogger Natalie August 24, 2016 1:47 PM  

I didn't think my question about Native Americans was in the nature of reparations or looking backwards. My only thought was that we have some number of non-whites who have historical or territorial claims within the mostly white framework of the USA and that when the US breaks up they'll end up going somewhere/doing something. My only question was "What?"

Blogger Nate August 24, 2016 1:51 PM  

"Also while not manifesto material, oddly we do have a left wing the Nat-Soc , Fash crowd are Leftists and are to some degree act as allies of our movement when they support the above precepts
"

Considering 14-88 came from an avowed hardcore socialist this should not be surprising.

Blogger Were-Puppy August 24, 2016 1:52 PM  

OP is very timely.

I was commenting on BB a lot yesterday about how the alt-right isn't fully defined yet.

Anonymous No use August 24, 2016 1:53 PM  

I'd put "the alt right doesn't care what you think of it" as the last ststement

Blogger Were-Puppy August 24, 2016 1:54 PM  

The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
---

Please reread #1 for those who keep trying to bring national socialism into this.

Blogger Sheila4g August 24, 2016 1:58 PM  

@167 Nate: "Alt-Right only makes sense in white countries. Because only white countries have been dumb enough to suggest that their countries should be run by not-whites."

Point. Vox, while you preface your list specifying the Alt Right is American/European, would it be worth widening or specifying this to include countries such as Canada or Australia? Perhaps Europe and those nations founded by European immigrants - or does that get potentially too broad (re Latin America)? As Nate notes, such a movement or statement of "native" rights is unnecessary in any but a White nation.

@223 ZaijiaN: "The Alt Right is not interested in excusing America's historical sins. History is what it is. Deal with it.

THIS should be its own principle."

If not its own principle, perhaps should be included in some form because MPAI. Would at least prevent the confusion and questions that have already arisen here - you can expect far more among normies, let alone those trying to discredit. Not because we care, but just for clarity to potential converts.

Anonymous 360 August 24, 2016 2:00 PM  

I also think that #7 and #15 are a logical contradiction. It seems inconsistent to thoroughly deny equality in any observable form, then deny supremacy also.

They are not logical contradictions. "Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses" means they are not equal and some are better than others on some things, not all things.

Therefore, #15 has to follow if #7 is true.

Blogger Twisted Root August 24, 2016 2:16 PM  

The alt right does not play defence.

Blogger mushroom August 24, 2016 2:17 PM  

Josh wrote:

Did St. Ted Cruz reveal that to you or did you come up with that yourself?


You know that I never supported Cruz.

You're absolutely wrong. That has been an integral element of the Alt Right almost from the start.

The 14 words is explicit signaling to white supremacists.

White supremacy is not compatible with:

The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.


Well, I guess the white supremacists will be unhappy, won't they?

Anonymous Emmanuel M August 24, 2016 2:25 PM  

Proposal for a 17

17# The Alt-Right believes in its view, is not a vassal of the left and therefore denies cultural marxist any legitmacy nor moral high ground

Blogger SemiSpook37 August 24, 2016 2:29 PM  

For some reason, I think #12 needs to be #1, and then repeated at least three or four times to reinforce the point. That's been a refreshing piece of evidence in terms of the alt-right's effectiveness thus far, and reinforcing the point might be helpful.

If you think about it, when you stop caring about what other people think, you usually tend to get things done, and rather quickly, at that.

That speech tomorrow is going to undermine the D candidate's effort more than she even thought possible, because not only will it draw unwanted attention to the alt-right (in her view, as free publicity is always welcomed), the brigade of idiots that have been shilling for her will overcompensate for her disdain that it will automatically make the movement just that more easy to empathize with.

Seriously, ignoring the movement was their best strategy. This isn't like the vast right-wing conspiracy (aka the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) back in the '90s. The deafening indifference is going to send her over the edge faster than anything she ever expected.

Blogger dc.sunsets August 24, 2016 2:34 PM  

Hmm. What part of "You to Yours, We to Ours" is lost here? Equality doesn't exist. You're entitled to be better sprinters, marathoners, potato-cultivators or wide-receivers while we're entitled to be better engineers, chemists, physicists and mathematicians, while the other guys get to be whatever "best" they wish. Just don't tell us you're entitled to do yours in our backyards.

We happen to LIKE our way best; isn't that self-evident? Does that make us Chauvinists?

No. Shit. So is everyone else. Everyone else likes their system best, else it wouldn't be THEIR SYSTEM. We prefer the society yielded by largely Caucasian persons working under the system known as Western Civilization. You like Sharia? Go for it! THERE, not here.

What all this hinges upon is
1. We children of people who spent most of the last 1000 years inside the Hajnal Line like our system and we don't think importing a bunch of those whose ancestors lived OUTSIDE the Hajnal Line who then try to change the rules to suit THEM are value-added.
2) Everyone may want the fruits of our system, but they sure as HELL can't produce them themselves from where they came (because they'd be DOING SO and not need to immigrate to the USA or Europe.) Screw you for trying to flood into our nations and freeload on a system you did nothing to create and couldn't possibly perpetuate if you and yours were in charge.
3) We're sick to death of our neighbors lecturing us on such narrow-mindedness. Understand this: You are wrong, we are right. Your pathetic virtue-signaling false sense of moral superiority threatens the future of our children and grandchildren. We've had enough of your bullshit. We're no longer afraid of your name-calling. Grow up (out of 5th grade.) Your penchant for rioting and political violence has reached our threshold. You think beating attendees at Trump rallies is helping you? You really are morons who understand nothing of 4GW.

I can't say what is the future of the "official" Alt-Right. What I do know is that the FED UP quotient is there no matter how it's termed, and the reservoir of rage against those who impose on us and insult us is lapping over the dam.

I don't think the Matrix will be able to bleed off and divert the pressure and save the integrity of the dam for another decade. The lunatic left is dumping rage-induction into the reservoir so fast now that evidence of it beginning to spill out is everywhere we look.

Whether Trump wins or loses, the rage isn't going away. If the election is gamed, the rage won't be assuaged; the method by which it will be exhibited is unlikely to be a Chimpout (we leave that to the savages) but instead may be the most amazing reversal of popular consent in the last 300 years.

I've had enough of the last 50 years' idiotic trends. Time that Cthulhu was bashed over the head before it takes yet another left.

Blogger justaguy August 24, 2016 2:35 PM  

Great start and good summation. A minor pick-- pt. 4 one of the triad pillars--the European nations-- seems a bit undefined. whereas the other two pillars are both defined philosophies, I'm not sure that European nations is understandable to anyone other than those who follow this blog. A SJW could have fun defining European nations as the policies imagined policies of Scandinavia or other liberal fantasies.

Anonymous gxg August 24, 2016 2:56 PM  

#264. Hmm. What part of "You to Yours, We to Ours" is lost here?...

At everything you said, I literally wanted to cheer. Yes. A thousand times yes.

Here's one thing the leftists don't understand. Like many other people, I was a nice tea-party person the first time I was called a racist, maybe six or seven years ago. My offense? Suggesting mildly in a Yahoo comment that while I wasn't against helping poor people obtain medical care, Obamacare seemed an overreach. As a response, some guy called me a racist, suggesting that my real objection was the color of Obama's skin.

My jaw dropped. I couldn't believe it. I cared. I cared a lot. Now, whether indirectly or directly, I've been called a racist for years now. The sting has worn off, and I've realized that us nice tea party folks were too nice.

When it comes down to it, I'd rather be called a racist than see my future grandchildren become oppressed minorities in their own country. Now, I'm full-on alt-right, and I suspect many other tea party folks feel the same way, whether they identify as alt-right or not.

The list is great, btw.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 24, 2016 3:02 PM  

Well, I guess the white supremacists will be unhappy, won't they?

We. Don't. Care.

Anonymous Pennywise August 24, 2016 3:09 PM  

How is there room in the Alt Right for Christians, pagans, agnostics, and atheists, but no room for homosexuals in Christianity, considering that Western Civilization is a foundational pillar?

Furthermore, the definition of "native" is absolutely paramount when considering which groups of people will ultimately govern.

"I'm not clear how #10 works in practice. I'm sitting in an office in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on land bought by Thomas Jefferson from Napoleon but formerly ruled by Chief Little Crow of the Dakota. Give it back?"

Yes. You to Yours, We to Ours. Tribal groups have an observably more valid claim to the Americas than Europeans.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper August 24, 2016 3:20 PM  

Were-Puppy wrote:The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

---

Please reread #1 for those who keep trying to bring national socialism into this.


Socialism typically means the same as Communist in Europe which is how I read this, not Social Democracy or Social Credit or any kind of heavy economic regulation. Totalitarian State control doesn't work

However I'm fine with leaving it out, it didn't work well the 1st time unless you consider Japan to be such a state which I do not . Anyway we don't need the LARP crowd or the baggage they bring anyway.

That said pro White and Nationalist are in totalitarianism and expansionist racial violence out

That said you also aren't guaranteed any kind of Economic liberalism either, such systems don't play well with with mass automation

The economic question is one I'm perfectly happy to ignore but as automation gets better and more and more jobs get automated, outright redistribution is going to be a bigger and bigger part if the economy.

The economy is not post industrial in that sense but it is rapidly moving to post employment and automated vehicles which exists now will soon get rid of 3.5 million truck drivers and who knows how many subsidiary jobs the same as many other industries have been wiped out

If you don't have any stable means of employment you are courting either a big state or collapse or some kind of company store corporate state , the last two are incompatible with the .alt right

By the time the .alt right gets power we'll have an employment crisis for men and without male employment and steady work you have no foundation for urban stability

I haven't got a clue as to a solution , regulation? social credit with hitches? welfare state? make work? Who knows.

Its not however something that can be ignored as it has been for decades

Anonymous Adriano August 24, 2016 3:33 PM  

Alaska is heading for conflict soon and will be an interesting area to examine in view of alt right principles. We don't have a reservation system for the Indians, but they have an immense legal advantage over whites and were given more land than most countries have. Yet they are still failing. Now that the state is out of money, there will be a closer look at the huge amounts of gibsmedats that go to certain groups in a society. It will be quite a recruiting tool.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2016 3:35 PM  

SaltHarvest wrote:Suppose that a group of people, through freedom of association (as opposed to myriad forms of propaganda), decide to interbreed (eg. intermarry) and form new a nation of people. How would nations adhering to altright philosophy resolve disputes between respecting a nation's right to exist (to be born) and the necessary implication that new nations would require land and other concessions from older nations in order to exist in reality wherein these new nations can establish new cultures (and new genealogies for those concerned explicitly with genetics).

A Libertarian has a "thought experiment" for you.

Quelle surprise!

They want land, they can damn well fight for it, like everyone else has always had to.

We don't care.

Anonymous Athor Pel August 24, 2016 3:39 PM  

" 79. Blogger Josh August 24, 2016 8:58 AM
Why?

Because it's a gigantic bat signal to retards that says "HEY COME HANG OUT HERE""


You really need to get over your irrational fear of retards. It's making you sound a little crazy.

Were you retarded when you were a kid? Is that what's going on?

Did the other kids make fun of your retardedness?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2016 3:58 PM  

Pennywise wrote:How is there room in the Alt Right for Christians, pagans, agnostics, and atheists, but no room for homosexuals in Christianity, considering that Western Civilization is a foundational pillar?

There is, and always has been, a place for homosexuals in Christianity. Unfortunately, that place involves discipline and self-sacrifice, like every other role in Christianity, including God's role in Christianity.

Oh, I forgot, faggots are special.

Telling you you're sinful is supposed to be Christianity's full-time job, even if you're a faggot. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.

Anonymous Clarifying #5, 10, 15 August 24, 2016 4:06 PM  

One question arising in my mind (and for others as well, looking at the comments) is relevant to #5, 10, 15. Specifically, is there a useful qualitative way to define "native" or "sovereign homeland"? I acknowledge that the following discussion may be overkill, and I can't think of a simple answer. However, if a concise, qualitative clarification of the above question can be given I think it would strengthen Vox's list. To clarify why this may be a concern, examples:

1) Some may argue that whites invaded South Africa and therefore have no right to continued existence in that location. In other words, Africa is a continent for Africans. Others may argue that the lands of South Africa were uninhabited prior to arrival of whites and hence whites living there have a right to sovereignty. That is, the land was empty and the first people to settle it earned the right to their own nation.
2) Speaking more generally, the same sort of question wherever a group of people move to a foreign land of low population density--eg hypothetically large parts of Greenland, some regions of upper Scandinavia, Antarctica, are essentially uninhabited. Some may argue historically the same was true of large parts of the Amricas/Australia. So what distinguishes settlers vs invaders? Does the first ethnic group to create a permanent settlement on the moon earn the eternal right to all of the land? If not, at what point is the moon "full"?

Note I avoid a quantitative clarification as different ethnic groups favor different population densities, and saying "explorers must not settle within 52.87 miles of other peoples" seems rather arbitrary.

Anonymous Clarifying item 4 August 24, 2016 4:10 PM  

#265 said:

Great start and good summation. A minor pick-- pt. 4 one of the triad pillars--the European nations-- seems a bit undefined. whereas the other two pillars are both defined philosophies, I'm not sure that European nations is understandable to anyone other than those who follow this blog. A SJW could have fun defining European nations as the policies imagined policies of Scandinavia or other liberal fantasies.

Yes, strongly agree.

Anonymous SaltHarvest August 24, 2016 4:22 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:A Libertarian has a "thought experiment" for you.

Quelle surprise!

They want land, they can damn well fight for it, like everyone else has always had to.

We don't care.


Well that's a Casus Belli if I ever heard one. Deus Vult, if I understand the old testament correctly.

Blogger John Wright August 24, 2016 4:25 PM  

If the choice is between a philosophy that recognizes the political order to be part of a greater spiritual order, conservatism, and a philosophy that rejects the self evident proposition that all men are created equal in order to embrace a proposition that I owe my loyalty to men of other religions, nations, and parties due to their skin color, but NOT to men of my Church, culture, and party who are of different skin colors, I think the choice you offer is like asking a whole man to buy leprosy from you.

You lost me at the point when you decree men not to be spiritually or legally equal. You can write long books misdefining and misrepresenting the concept, but the thing is what it is, unchanged. It means no man is born master or born a slave.

Rejecting this principle means you want either me or mine to be your masters, or your slaves. I have no need of slaves, and if you wish to assert your mastery, my answer is written on the flag and seal of my commonwealth: and all free men will answer you likewise.

Blogger John Wright August 24, 2016 4:36 PM  

If the choice is between a philosophy that recognizes the political order to be part of a greater spiritual order, conservatism, and a philosophy that rejects the self evident proposition that all men are created equal in order to embrace a proposition that I owe my loyalty to men of other religions, nations, and parties due to their skin color, but NOT to men of my Church, culture, and party who are of different skin colors, I think the choice you offer is like asking a whole man to buy leprosy from you.

You lost me at the point when you decree men not to be spiritually or legally equal. You can write long books misdefining and misrepresenting the concept, but the thing is what it is, unchanged. It means no man is born master or born a slave.

Rejecting this principle means you want either me or mine to be your masters, or your slaves. I have no need of slaves, and if you wish to assert your mastery, my answer is written on the flag and seal of my commonwealth: and all free men will answer you likewise.

Blogger Were-Puppy August 24, 2016 4:41 PM  

@269 A.B. Prosper

However I'm fine with leaving it out, it didn't work well the 1st time unless you consider Japan to be such a state which I do not . Anyway we don't need the LARP crowd or the baggage they bring anyway.
---

I was thinking of it as when they attempt to discredit the Alt-Right, they won't be able to use National Socialist aka neo-nazi, one of their favorites. They might still try to , but it's right there in point #1.



That said pro White and Nationalist are in totalitarianism and expansionist racial violence out
---
I can only step back and see how things hash out on this point. My problem with white nationalism are pretty much all addressed by #1. It's mostly white people who follow those various philosophies that have gotten us into this mess, imo.



I haven't got a clue as to a solution , regulation? social credit with hitches? welfare state? make work? Who knows.

Its not however something that can be ignored as it has been for decades
---

That's a scary thought and it seems likely to happen. I don't know either. There are a lot smarter people than me here who might tackle the issue. I'm just thinking we have to first survive to have a future.

Anonymous SciVo August 24, 2016 5:14 PM  

1. I reserve the right to enter into mutual trade/defense pacts with leftist neighbors.

3. I would say instead, "The Alt Right is a winner and rejects defeat. 'Noble' and 'principled' are adjectives that do not negate the noun." Negation lacks emotional content, so "I am not a crook" is rhetorically equivalent to "I am a crook"; so the first sentence is for my people, and the second is for yours. I know that non-negation is hard (impossible?) for you dialecticians to grok; but unless I choose to violate it, I use a simple heuristic to always state what is, instead of what is not.

6. The alt-right has contempt for transnational cosmopolitanism, and will destroy anyone who supports it (until they repent).

8. I can comprehend your dialectical tribe's cant, and even got a degree in it (since I love a challenge), but damn.

12. In the vernacular of my rhetorical people, Alt-Right don't care.

15. My people are the best, and I support the right of other peoples to believe the same about themselves. Even though they're wrong.

Anonymous llsepher August 24, 2016 5:15 PM  

I'm tentative about #14. I think it is superfluous. It is already made very clear by your other points that you support ALL nationalities having their own homogeneous nations, not just whites. I feel that it may be inimical to the Alt-Rights growth to have one of its founding principles be directed exclusively to "whites" having their own territory, instead of keeping it broadly in favor of ALL nationalities having their own. Lets make sure it continues to be an "everything-nationalist" movement.

Anonymous Full-Fledged Fiasco August 24, 2016 5:15 PM  

"You lost me at the point when you decree men not to be spiritually or legally equal."

#12

Blogger vosvos August 24, 2016 5:27 PM  

most informative , thanks

Blogger Gaiseric August 24, 2016 5:34 PM  

Pennywise wrote:Yes. You to Yours, We to Ours. Tribal groups have an observably more valid claim to the Americas than Europeans.
That's absurd, at least for North America. If you call Latino culture a tribal group, then it works for the area south of the border all the way down to Tierra del Fuego. Mostly. But it's ridiculous to assert for North America.

Blogger Escoffier August 24, 2016 5:37 PM  


Nate wrote:17) The Alt-Right supports your right to keep and bear arms but reserves the right to make fun of you if you choose to do so with a Glock.

What about a Springfield?

Blogger The Kurgan August 24, 2016 5:45 PM  

I think South Africa would best be solved by secession of the Western cape for whites and let the blacks have the rest of it

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 5:49 PM  

About 5, I am not a nationalist, and consider the nation state to be one of humanity's worst inventions. I'm on common ground with the Dark Enlightenment on this, and certainly they're part of the alt-right. The U.S., for instance, I consider to be an unnatural, Frankensteinish thing, even in its original form. If they wanted to be part of a nation they'd have done better to remain English colonists.

I am anti-globalist, which is a big part of what you've espoused as nationalism, so there's that. I don't trust any nation beyond a certain population and land-area that I've yet to pinpoint for myself. But I do trust age-old, homogeneous nations, like Japan, for instance.

I'm also for ethnic self-determination, and for all political communities to be ethnically and racially homogeneous. Though I wouldn't stop them from containing cosmopolitan cities, if they so desired, within their polities.

About 13, it isn't true that free trade requires free movement of people, anymore than belief in free markets requires a free market in murder. Free traders may tend to be for open borders, and overwhelmingly so. The underlying logic may point that way. But there's no reason to be a mad rationalist about it, though most libertarians are mad rationalists.

You can just as easily accept a moral, political, or aesthetic argument against open borders as an economic one for them as a free trader. The very same way libertarians accept the moral argument against murder though there certainly is a black market in murder that consistent libertarians choose to slight.

Or if you don't like that analogy, replace murder with drugs, prostitution, or make the argument about libel law, or anything else the type of people disposed to favor free trade disagree upon.

Blogger guest August 24, 2016 5:49 PM  

That is very interesting. Based on these criteria, I am probably alt-right. But here is the thing. Can a Mick be alt-right around these parts?

Anonymous SciVo August 24, 2016 5:57 PM  

llsepher wrote:I'm tentative about #14. I think it is superfluous.

14 words: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Its truth is game qualified.

Anonymous Alan D August 24, 2016 5:58 PM  

In "9.The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics." what do the > symbols mean? In mathematics they mean "is greater than", so in 9 they would appear to mean "is more important than". However I think that the intended meaning is "governs". I think that they should be replaced by the appropriate words.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 24, 2016 6:00 PM  

@OP
Point 8 will require defining and explaining "sciencetody".

Not a bug, but a feature given the number of people whose real religion is "scientism". However, an elevator speech on the topic is needed.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 24, 2016 6:06 PM  

John C. Wright
You lost me at the point when you decree men not to be spiritually or legally equal.

Does an ISIS Muslim who rejects Jesus as Messiah, and who persecutes Christian have the same surety of salvation as those devoted followers of Jesus he's busy murdering?

Direct question per the rules of the blog.

There's your "spiritual inequality" spelled out in the blood of martyrs.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper August 24, 2016 6:07 PM  

John Wright wrote:If the choice is between a philosophy that recognizes the political order to be part of a greater spiritual order, conservatism, and a philosophy that rejects the self evident proposition that all men are created equal in order to embrace a proposition that I owe my loyalty to men of other religions, nations, and parties due to their skin color, but NOT to men of my Church, culture, and party who are of different skin colors, I think the choice you offer is like asking a whole man to buy leprosy from you.

You lost me at the point when you decree men not to be spiritually or legally equal. You can write long books misdefining and misrepresenting the concept, but the thing is what it is, unchanged. It means no man is born master or born a slave.

Rejecting this principle means you want either me or mine to be your masters, or your slaves. I have no need of slaves, and if you wish to assert your mastery, my answer is written on the flag and seal of my commonwealth: and all free men will answer you likewise.


God allows Slavery as does the US Constitution even know (as punishment for a crime)

For people you don't want to kill but can't live unsupervised, its an option worth considering

I'm not in favor of it myself, going with C.S Lewis on the issue

"Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters."

But its not a moral issue.

As for equality to God, God may see all men sinners but all men won't be treated just the same and he may, nay does favor some over others.

As for equality under law, its a null concept. It doesn't exists now and won't exist in the future. The law is power plain and simple. We can try and create hacks that allow us the illusion of fairness and some measure of justice and truth but it doesn't exist.

The powerful will mostly get a more favorable outcome, the guilty walk free and the innocent suffer no matter what we do.

On top of that the law must reflect differences in behavior and gender and maybe even ethnicity though we might be able to get away without the later.

I'd rather not pretend otherwise

Anonymous A.B. Prosper August 24, 2016 6:12 PM  

guest wrote:That is very interesting. Based on these criteria, I am probably alt-right. But here is the thing. Can a Mick be alt-right around these parts?

Why not?

Most Irish don't care much for the rights of Englishmen and tend to not trust men with arms, much less encourage the bearing of them but of you are White and you believe you'll fit in fine.

Also while its not my blog, custom here is to have a name or an alias and stick to that. My advice is that if you want to participate , read up, listen in, pay attention and use a regular nick.

Anonymous SciVo August 24, 2016 6:20 PM  

guest wrote:That is very interesting. Based on these criteria, I am probably alt-right. But here is the thing. Can a Mick be alt-right around these parts?

Yes. But since you identify as a specific ethnicity that already has a country, you must accept the possibility of going back there to Make Ireland Great Again.

This is one of the places where I strongly disagree with VD. He isn't wrong (and you'll see that phrase alot in the coming weeks), but while the Rights of Englishmen are important to the founding of America -- and for disproving every lie about a propositional nation -- the material that we have in our foundry is what matters now.

Trump isn't wrong about wanting to work with the material that we have available. And we have a common opponent in the Eff You Dad party that wants to squander our legacy on a-holes that don't even respect us enough to follow our immigration procedures, but there is still a tension between the Non-Hyphenated and Non-Elsewheres.

I will use myself as an example, although I try to avoid talking about myself, because someone else's joint isn't the right place for that. I'm actually a good example.

I'm mostly deep heritage American. In fact, I have Mayflower ancestors, and Revolutionary War ancestors, and so on. But my mom's mom's parents were immigrants from Finland. So even though it's a minority of my genome, I have more affinity for Finns.

I maybe shouldn't be allowed a security clearance, if we had a rational policy, but the fact is that I don't belong anywhere else. I would not be accepted by any other people. And we can hold both of these ideas in our heads at the same time, that it's a good idea to stop making America more heterogenous, and it's a good idea to not reject the half-elves that don't have anyplace else to go.

OpenID simplytimothy August 24, 2016 6:33 PM  

Thank you for taking on this important work.

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 6:40 PM  

@203-You may be right about the particular way they're expressed here, but by no means are alt-right ideas above anyone's head. On race and sex, for instance, they're downright instinctual. Look at what the left is able to convince people to believe. You have to jump through loop upon loop of abstraction to get to egalitarianism. No one is a natural egalitarian.

Everybody gets Hobbes the first time, but Rawls doesn't take unless you're willing it to. Those are just a couple of examples.

Thing about less intelligent people is that to get at alt-right ideas now you have to actively seek them out, and you have to do a plenty of reading. There are YouTube channels, but I imagine people get to them moreso from wordy blogs than cat videos, for instance. It takes discipline, which low IQers lack. But once the ideas get out there they'll infect the lazy, too.

Anonymous Leahn Novash August 24, 2016 6:42 PM  

On cellphone. Google login not working. Going by name/url post by necessity. Will comment more at home. It seems to me 3 points are the most contentious.

People believe right to bear arms may become no longer a necessity in the future. I affirm that will never be the case. The government will always be a potential enemy.

Second seems to be people upset with Christianity being a necessity. No one is asking you to become a Christian. A society will survive a minority of people being against its own culture, but a society needs a defined culture nonetheless. Christianity is your best bet, by far.

Third point seems to be #14. I have a personal question for VD, if he doesn't mind clarifying. By placing the focus on the white race, what exactly do you mean?

That the "Western Civilization" alt-right talks about encompasses only United States and Europe?

That Latinos are also white?

As a Brazilian, is there any way for me not to see this as the alt-right basically telling me that they don't consider me part of "civilization"?

Anonymous W. Lindsay Wheeler August 24, 2016 6:44 PM  

Jews are not part of the Alt-Right movement. Jews have been conducting a War against Europeans and Christianity. They are natural Globalists and their ideology is globalism. Jews have no business in our law schools, government, media or cultural creating institutions. The Alt-right must have the right to censor un-European, un-Western things.

That means de-niggerizing the West. That means de-Judaizing the West. (Christianity is a Greek religion--not Jewish.)

Anonymous andon August 24, 2016 6:50 PM  

"That Latinos are also white?"

not to me


"As a Brazilian, is there any way for me not to see this as the alt-right basically telling me that they don't consider me part of "civilization"?....

I dont

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros August 24, 2016 6:51 PM  

John Wright wrote:If the choice is between a philosophy that recognizes the political order to be part of a greater spiritual order, conservatism, and a philosophy that rejects the self evident proposition that all men are created equal...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created unequal, that a natural aristocracy has been endowed among them by their Creator, and that the purpose of human existence is the upward development of the individual, the ethnic community, and the race. That to secure this development, the state is implemented among men, deriving its authority from those who are willing to establish and defend it, and fight on its behalf."

Gregory Hood, "Waking Up from the American Dream"

I will take that over the "self-evident" position that a 70 IQ average population is capable of functioning in a society created by and for a 100 IQ population any day.

Anonymous SciVo August 24, 2016 6:53 PM  

Alan D wrote:In "9.The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics." what do the > symbols mean? In mathematics they mean "is greater than", so in 9 they would appear to mean "is more important than". However I think that the intended meaning is "governs". I think that they should be replaced by the appropriate words.

From Andrew Beitbart, we know that politics is downstream from culture. So that's what that means.

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 6:55 PM  

@210-I agree, especially considering the conservative movement didn't follow Kirk's book so much as mine it for intellectual pedigree, and for its name. Kirk's conservatism is quietistic, and never was meant to sweep the country. His was a philosophy of beautiful loserdom, which is why Vox finds it easy pickings. But it's for that very reason that contemporary conservatism isn't very Kirkian. It wouldn't have lasted this long had it been.

Whatever conservatives are known for, from warmongering, neoconservatism in general, and "neoliberalism," are un-Kirkian. So why pick on him? Aside from the fact that he's an easy target. It's much more accurate to say that the movement failed because it set itself up as the loyal opposition and the Outer Party, than to say it failed because it followed Kirk's inspiration. Because if it had actually followed Kirk no one would've ever heard of it.

I have a lot of respect for Old Right figures like Kirk.

Blogger VD August 24, 2016 7:02 PM  

You lost me at the point when you decree men not to be spiritually or legally equal. You can write long books misdefining and misrepresenting the concept, but the thing is what it is, unchanged. It means no man is born master or born a slave.

You're wrong. I don't decree it. I observe it. Your position requires that the Almighty God lies. He says He has created some for destruction. He says He will separate the sheep from the goats. Some He will save, others He will damn. There is no spiritual equality.

Nor is there legal equality in any polity on Earth. In the USA, if a man shoots his wife dead, he will likely die in prison. If a woman shoots her husband dead, she will serve a few months, perhaps a few years.

Rejecting this principle means you want either me or mine to be your masters, or your slaves. I have no need of slaves, and if you wish to assert your mastery, my answer is written on the flag and seal of my commonwealth: and all free men will answer you likewise.

Conservatives always talk a wonderful rhetorical game right before they go down to another noble defeat. The Alt Right wants two things above all: to survive and make a better, safer future for our children. We don't give a quantum of a damn about all of conservatism's noble principles that never accomplish anything but surrender to the Left.

Blogger Robert What? August 24, 2016 7:02 PM  

The best place for (a small number) of minorities is in a white majority nation. As long as their numbers are kept relatively low - no more than a few percent of the population - they can live in more peace and prosperity than they could in their homelands.

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 7:02 PM  

@298-Brazil was colonized by Europeans, so it is at least partly integrated into Western Civilization. But mostly not. You are not necessarily outside of civilization if you aren't in Europe or in nations founded by Europeans. China has Chinese Civilization, for instance. Brazil doesn't have that kind of history.

Anonymous SciVo August 24, 2016 7:03 PM  

W. Lindsay Wheeler wrote:Jews are not part of the Alt-Right movement. Jews have been conducting a War against Europeans and Christianity. They are natural Globalists and their ideology is globalism.

I have been conducting scientific experiments on published rhetoric, and it turns out that Jews that write for publications -- or even just have a national profile -- are likely to be incapable of comprehending authoritarianism as serfdom, since (as nomads) they're only concerned with pogroms. So as a corollary, they can't comprehend nationalism. They literally can't tell the difference between the separate moral spheres of Authority and Group Loyalty. This is a severe defect, that has apparently been geneticized by the diaspora.

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 7:09 PM  

@304-There's no need to refer to likely scenarios to knock down Equality Before the Law nonsense. There are plenty of obvious, official legal inequalities that basically everyone accepts. For instance, a 17 year old can't vote but 18 year olds can. Even those who want to lower the voting probably don't consider this a breach of the sacred equality principle.

People who believe in legal equality mean something like equality for equal things. But then what's allowed to be unequal keeps changing. The sexes certainly aren't equal, nor are people of different ages. But the races are, except when they're not, as with affirmative action.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper August 24, 2016 7:16 PM  

Leahn Novash wrote:On cellphone. Google login not working. Going by name/url post by necessity. Will comment more at home. It seems to me 3 points are the most contentious.

People believe right to bear arms may become no longer a necessity in the future. I affirm that will never be the case. The government will always be a potential enemy.

Second seems to be people upset with Christianity being a necessity. No one is asking you to become a Christian. A society will survive a minority of people being against its own culture, but a society needs a defined culture nonetheless. Christianity is your best bet, by far.

Third point seems to be #14. I have a personal question for VD, if he doesn't mind clarifying. By placing the focus on the white race, what exactly do you mean?

That the "Western Civilization" alt-right talks about encompasses only United States and Europe?

That Latinos are also white?

As a Brazilian, is there any way for me not to see this as the alt-right basically telling me that they don't consider me part of "civilization"?


Neither Brazilian nor Hispanic is a race. They are cultures. Most importantly non Western cultures

Some people in Brazil are essentially White people typically of Southern European extraction having very little non White admixture

In theory they could have their own ethnic state and be part if the .alt right

An individual who subscribes to the .alt rights precepts strongly in their could also be part of the .alt right but almost everyone in it is White, There are outliers, our host is an American Indian (feather not dot) for example and its plausible that other non white people could be. Generally they won't lead but anyone who works to common goals in his own land is welcome.

MBGO, Make Brazil Great Again not America

Brazil and people of its culture generally cannot

Anonymous Anonymous August 24, 2016 7:30 PM  

I overall agree, but I think there should be fewer points so as to be more inclusive, and the points should be more explicitly worded as this is NOT a movement seeking to appeal to "everybody!" Here are my points:

1. The Alt-right seeks to secure a homeland(s) for whites, preferably by restoring nominally white countries to being explicitly white homelands. This means expelling the vast majority of nonwhites regardless of their individual merits, and also an absolute ban on miscegeneation. The reason for this is that nonwhites are generally incapable (barring the occasional mutant) of creating more whites.

2. The Alt-right opposes miscegenetion and nonwhite immigration to white countries because such policies deprive whites of the ethnic identities of our homelands.

3. The Alt-right opposes sharing resources with nonwhites because land, money and women given to nonwhites are no longer available to whites. Moreover, there are six BILLION nonwhites in the Third World, so that, even if we gave them all of our land, all of our jobs, all of our money and all of our women, we still wouldn't fix their problems. Our land is not unlimited. Out money is not unlimited. Our time is not unlimited. Most importantly of all, our children are not unlimited so that we cannot give them away to nonwhites to satisfy their desires for physical intimacy and mating.

4. For these same reasons, we oppose free trade and military interventionism.

5. We understand that race is a biological reality so that, wherever you put Africans, they will give you Africa, wherever you put Mexicans, they will give you Mexico, and wherever you put whites, they will give you Europe. We reject the concept of magic dirt. It is GENES which determine both beauty and behavior, and not where a person was born or what papers he has. An African born in Antarctica... is an African.

5. As recently as 1950, whites were 30% of the world's population. Today, because of low white birth rates, high rates of nonwhite immigration to white countries, high amounts of government and charitable revenue going to nonwhites, and high rates of miscegeneation, white women of child-bearing age are just above 2% of the world's population. We are facing genocide and we must stop these genocidal policies without regard to the deleterious effects doing so will have on nonwhites who were born in white countries or have the right papers, or who are nice, smart and hard working. Our right to a homeland simply outweighs their individual needs and merits.

6. To the extent we have nonwhites in our homelands, they cannot have the right to vote as they will block-vote against us. Whites must also have affirmative action because any vocational or educational opportunity which goes to a nonwhite is one that didn't go to a white person.

7. There are three legs to the stool of conservatism. There are four legs to the chair of the Alt-right: (1) protectioniam, (2) nativism, (3) isolationism, and (4) racism.

I would greatly appreciate any response or critique! :)

Anonymous Eric the Red August 24, 2016 7:30 PM  

2 cents:

The alt-right is the testing of theory in the crucible of reality to see what really works and what is optimal, including the support of whatever social and political structures have proven to maintain this effort.

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 7:31 PM  

@268-I don't observe that. What about the Right of Conquest? Or adverse possession? Also, what about the tribes that had the land before the tribe that had it taken from them by the White Man? We'd have to go back to the stone age potentially.

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 7:33 PM  

@307-Except they can understand nationalism because they have Israel. It's not a lack of understanding, it's good for me but not for thee.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper August 24, 2016 7:37 PM  

A last point, the .alt right is if anything an alliance of nationalists

.Each nation should look to its own affairs and borders and its own people

This doesn't mean we don't help each other out. I suspect for example some Americans might have donated to Tommy Robinson's defense fund which is a good think and of course trump is meeting in person with Nigel Farage however its up to UK nationals to set a course for the UK, not Americans or anybody else,

Many nations, many paths, same destination

Anonymous SciVo August 24, 2016 7:44 PM  

Leahn Novash wrote:People believe right to bear arms may become no longer a necessity in the future. I affirm that will never be the case. The government will always be a potential enemy.

Agreed.

Second seems to be people upset with Christianity being a necessity. No one is asking you to become a Christian. A society will survive a minority of people being against its own culture, but a society needs a defined culture nonetheless. Christianity is your best bet, by far.

Agreed.

Third point seems to be #14. I have a personal question for VD, if he doesn't mind clarifying. By placing the focus on the white race, what exactly do you mean?

It's a good guess that it's #14 because of the 14 words.

That the "Western Civilization" alt-right talks about encompasses only United States and Europe?

Look, there are two kinds of things: things that are of two kinds, and spectra. Western Civ is not binary. It's a range, and more is better than less.

That Latinos are also white?

Ha! No. They wish.

As a Brazilian, is there any way for me not to see this as the alt-right basically telling me that they don't consider me part of "civilization"?

You're on the fringes. You have a lot of work to do. You have an unfortunately large quantity of indios, but I think you can make it work. Deus vult!

Blogger Mastermind August 24, 2016 7:46 PM  

@312 it's rarely israeli jews causing trouble. after WW2 most of the nationalistic Jews moved to Israel and most of the globalist ones moved to the US.

Anonymous DT August 24, 2016 7:54 PM  

I'm in on one condition: any time this manifesto is printed, or presented in an official format online (web or PDF), point #14 MUST BE printed on a photograph of Taylor Swift.

No exceptions.

Anonymous andon August 24, 2016 7:57 PM  

"Ha! No. They wish."

lol

Anonymous DT August 24, 2016 8:17 PM  

@304 - Nor is there legal equality in any polity on Earth. In the USA, if a man shoots his wife dead, he will likely die in prison. If a woman shoots her husband dead, she will serve a few months, perhaps a few years.

I realize I'm late to the conversation and therefore like a child who wanders into the theater...so forgive me if this has already been covered.

But shouldn't the goal be equality before the law, even if we recognize that we will never achieve perfection here?

When you tell people that group A will be severely punished for activity X, but group B can do X all they want, you pretty much guarantee that group A will lose their trust in the system. At which point they will start to game the system or even openly defy it. You can observe this time and again throughout human history.

Absolute equality before the law may be unattainable. But aiming for that goal increases social trust and cohesion while also tempering criminal activity among the powerful. (Sure you might get away with X because the system is not perfect. But the system might also make an example of you to preserve equality before the law.)

Conservatives always talk a wonderful rhetorical game right before they go down to another noble defeat...We don't give a quantum of a damn about all of conservatism's noble principles that never accomplish anything but surrender to the Left.

Well said.

Anonymous SciVo August 24, 2016 8:20 PM  

tublecane wrote:@307-Except they can understand nationalism because they have Israel. It's not a lack of understanding, it's good for me but not for thee.

Well, but they're different individuals, right? My hypothesis is that those that can grok nationalism have already felt it in their hearts and made aliyah. So we're left with the cognitive/emotionally crippled jerkfaces who look at some other tribe celebrating their own culture, and see anoddah shoa.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd August 24, 2016 8:23 PM  

Adriano wrote:Alaska is heading for conflict soon and will be an interesting area to examine in view of alt right principles. We don't have a reservation system for the Indians, but they have an immense legal advantage over whites and were given more land than most countries have. Yet they are still failing. Now that the state is out of money, there will be a closer look at the huge amounts of gibsmedats that go to certain groups in a society. It will be quite a recruiting tool.

The individuals, many of them, are failing. The native corps aren't failing, are they? Half the folks on the Slope are working for a Native Corp, and the Native Corps get essentially all the Federal contracting bucks. As long as the Federal money for welfare and publich health holds out, I think the Natives will roll along as usual.

Anonymous DT August 24, 2016 8:25 PM  

@308 - People who believe in legal equality mean something like equality for equal things.

Obviously.

But then what's allowed to be unequal keeps changing. The sexes certainly aren't equal, nor are people of different ages. But the races are, except when they're not, as with affirmative action.

People who are dishonest and wish to game the system can abuse any law or principle, including the list laid out by VD. That doesn't mean we discard those laws and principles and turn to anarchy.

It is a constant battle to preserve good laws and good principles because the world is filled with evil people who will take advantage of anything they can. If it were otherwise the ten commandments would have been enough, and we would already be in a close approximation of paradise.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros August 24, 2016 8:32 PM  

DT wrote:But shouldn't the goal be equality before the law, even if we recognize that we will never achieve perfection here?

When you tell people that group A will be severely punished for activity X, but group B can do X all they want, you pretty much guarantee that group A will lose their trust in the system. At which point they will start to game the system or even openly defy it. You can observe this time and again throughout human history.


You are exaggerating the dichotomy.
But, even without the exaggeration, that is true. Therefore, racial separation.

70 IQ blacks will never be equally able to understand a delayed, extended punishment penal system the same way 100 IQ whites do. Yet, applying immediate corporal punishment on them and not on Whites, would inspire their hatred as well. And the reason we use incarceration instead of flogging is that it works on Whites, so flogging everybody would be bad for Whites.

So, back to Africa with them.

Anonymous BGKB August 24, 2016 8:36 PM  

Oh, I forgot, faggots are special.

You got that right, if a black faggot Broadway dancer kills his boyfriend its TRUMP'S fault, just like when an afghani moslem shoots 102 gays in a bar.

God allows Slavery as does the US Constitution even know (as punishment for a crime)

You saw that Kratman everyjoe post.

@307-Except they can understand nationalism because they have Israel. It's not a lack of understanding, it's good for me but not for thee

What if they believe Israel has authoritarian rule over all of the earth?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 24, 2016 8:37 PM  

DT wrote:But shouldn't the goal be equality before the law, even if we recognize that we will never achieve perfection here?
See? See what the "Enlightenment" has done to people?
Equality before the law has never existed, does not exist in any meaningful way now, and will never exist. And yet, we must strive for equality before the law?

Why?

Why not strive for a system that recognizes diversity?
Why not strive for a system that addresses each person in the world as it exists?
Why not strive for a system that works with reality?
why not strive for a system that brings home to each sinner his utter depravity and helplessness before his own addiction to sin?

Each of these would be an objectively better system than the chimera of equality before the law, unless equality is understood the way the founders understood it, that the status of your birth does not give you special legal rights.

But no, you have your shibboleth and you're going to keep repeating it.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd August 24, 2016 8:39 PM  

John Wright wrote:You lost me at the point when you decree men not to be spiritually or legally equal. You can write long books misdefining and misrepresenting the concept, but the thing is what it is, unchanged. It means no man is born master or born a slave.

Rejecting this principle means you want either me or mine to be your masters, or your slaves.


John, there are other unequal relationships than master-slave. Among people, we have example relationships like officer-NCO, and king-baron, in which one is ``greater'' than the other, but responsibilities and obligations flow both ways.

More generally, no two humans are equal, and no well-ordering is possible. An example from math: 1+i2 is not equal to 2+i1, but neither is greater than the other. Similarly, people vary along many orthogonal axis, and cannot be ordered. However, we can distinguish ``our people'' from ``those others.'' That is all I understand that declaration of inequality to mean: I am not you, and don't expect to be treated as if I were you.

If either of us have a wrong idea of what sort of equality Vox was talking about, perhaps he will set us straight.

Blogger VD August 24, 2016 8:48 PM  

But shouldn't the goal be equality before the law, even if we recognize that we will never achieve perfection here?

No, the goal should be riding unicorns, which is why we should fund unicorn-riding lessons for everyone, even if we recognize that no one will ever ride a unicorn.

Blogger Mandos August 24, 2016 9:10 PM  

Your markers are outdated if you consider Western influence to be excessive in Hong Kong. The place is nowadays Chinese to the core, ethnically as well as culturally. At best, affluent Westerners are considered an enjoyable remnant of a past long gone.

I'm not stating that to brag about my knowledge of the place, but rather because I don't see a lot of places that would accurately fit your point today. Singapore does not qualify either, for different reasons.

Locals have taken over foreign influence long ago already. It is actually a good thing, as Westerners in these major international hubs are generally globalist to the core, and I find locals to be less delusional with cultural realities.

Blogger Gaiseric August 24, 2016 9:35 PM  

@DT: Do you believe that a country has an imperative to give preferential treatment to its citizens vs non citizens? Voila. Legal equality neither exists in reality, nor is it a desirable goal.

Blogger Robert Divinity August 24, 2016 9:40 PM  

John, there are other unequal relationships than master-slave. Among people, we have example relationships like officer-NCO, and king-baron, in which one is ``greater'' than the other, but responsibilities and obligations flow both ways.

There are many ways people are not treated the same under the law. Felons don't have the rights of citizens, children and Green Card holders cannot vote, persons give up civil rights such as free speech to enter various professions such as medicine and law. The argument would be the racial element is unique in that all felons regardless of race lose their civil rights, children of all races cannot vote, and so forth. But discrimination is widespread, and even the racial element is allowed now for affirmative action.

Society and life discriminates in numerous ways. There is nothing particularly unique being suggested here other than to suggest as much it to become an UnPerson in some circles.

Anonymous DT August 24, 2016 9:48 PM  

@321 - But, even without the exaggeration, that is true. Therefore, racial separation.

While I might agree with you on racial separation, a nation with a single race will still face this question because race is not the only way in which people can be categorized before the law.

Where there exists a real and relevant difference between two groups, inequality before the law makes sense and may in fact be absolutely necessary.

Never the less, I contend "equality for equal things" is a valuable aspect of western, and especially American, law. One which contributes to social trust and cohesion, and therefore to modern civilization.

@323 - Equality before the law has never existed, does not exist in any meaningful way now, and will never exist.

It does exist in meaningful ways right now in the United States.

At a broad level it exists even before God. There is one way to salvation for human beings. Not a separate way for separate groups of human beings. Some of God's laws to man are also universal, and not in any way dependent upon sex, race, culture, IQ, feelings, etc.

This does not negate the inequality which exists at finer levels. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I argue the same should be true for man's laws. Where group differences are irrelevant, the law should be applied equally and without prejudice. Where group differences are relevant, the law may differ. Equality before the law for equal things.

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 9:49 PM  

@315-Although I may dispute how much trouble Israeli Jews cause (see our burning wreckage of a Mid-East policy), I'll grant you your point. Still, local Jews "get" Israel, even if they don't want to move there.

Blogger True Man August 24, 2016 9:52 PM  

ZhukovG wrote:My version of point 14.

In light of recent history; we explicitly affirm the right of European descended people and their posterity to cultural and political dominion within both the historic European Nation States and the European Progeny States, such as the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.


You're playing their game by their rules when you do that. Don't. That's a sure way to lose.

justaguy wrote:A minor pick-- pt. 4 one of the triad pillars--the European nations-- seems a bit undefined.

Only if you leave out the word foundational. Western civilization was not founded on new age European thinking.

llsepher wrote:I'm tentative about #14. I think it is superfluous. ... I feel that it may be inimical to the Alt-Rights growth to have one of its founding principles be directed exclusively to "whites" having their own territory, instead of keeping it broadly in favor of ALL nationalities having their own. Lets make sure it continues to be an "everything-nationalist" movement.

My surname is Basque. My skin is brown. My ancestors are Spanish and Mexican. But I'm a Christian American through and through. And I see nothing wrong with 14 as it is.

You're making the mistake of looking at it through a leftist dominated narrative that filters out good and leaves you with bad. It's not superfluous simply because this is where we are and that's what it's come to. Every people is allowed to both be proud of and promote their culture and heritage, except white westerners. If you don't think 14 needs to be explicitly stated then you're a weak link that threatens the movement. Don't try to pick away at the parts with a leftist mindset, instead, strengthen them by understanding the Alt Right reasoning that led to them. There's truth there, you just need to remove the filter to see it.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx August 24, 2016 10:02 PM  

praetorian wrote:

If there is one issue I take with some of the older european right, it was the imperialism.


Boo hoo. Read the contemporary rationalizations for imperialism, like Kipling. They saw the nonwhite races as backwards children to be uplifted, and so brought them railroads, sanitation, the Church, and all the other accoutrements of Western Civilization as gifts. Not so very different from today's SJW's version of The White Man's Burden. At all.

In return, the non-whites were supposed to be grateful. That part hasn't worked out so well, but the truth is, they are all better off- and far more numerous- than they were before.

For each and every word of grievance lodged against European imperialism then and white people now, we want to see one million words of gratitude. You owe us 18 million words, plus interest. Clock's ticking.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros August 24, 2016 10:06 PM  

DT wrote:Never the less, I contend "equality for equal things" is a valuable aspect of western, and especially American, law. One which contributes to social trust and cohesion, and therefore to modern civilization.

That is vastly different than your previous comment appeared. The "for equal things" addition changes it from a disastrous lie to a near tautology, to the point where I wonder why you brought it up. Who is suggesting anything that could imply treating equal cases unequally?

Of course, the cancer in our society is to declare that equal things must be treated equally, and then lie on the question of what things are equal. Almighty Procrustes hath declared that all men are equal, or else.

Blogger weka August 24, 2016 10:08 PM  

Tactics. You should all consider what would happen without a constitution. Because Volk > culture > politics > constitution.

Anonymous DT August 24, 2016 10:08 PM  

@325 - No, the goal should be riding unicorns, which is why we should fund unicorn-riding lessons for everyone, even if we recognize that no one will ever ride a unicorn.

It should be obvious from my posts that I am not advocating social justice warrior / progressive / FeelGood(TM) cuckservative eeequality in all things for all people at all times.

There are laws and legal situations where group differences are simply irrelevant. In those situations I think the American tradition of equality before the law is both moral and beneficial. It is not invalid simply because progressives have abused it and stretched it to absurdity.

It may not be something that's critical to the core alt-right platform. It's more likely something that has to be hammered out by each nation's judicial system.

But it's also not a unicorn.

@327 - @DT: Do you believe that a country has an imperative to give preferential treatment to its citizens vs non citizens? Voila. Legal equality neither exists in reality, nor is it a desirable goal.

Equality before the law for equal things. A non-citizen is != to a citizen in all respects.

There are some respects in which the two are equal and a country should treat them equally before relevant laws. An easy example would be laws regarding murder.

Blogger weka August 24, 2016 10:19 PM  

We pray for our sinning brother, knowing that we sin.

Straw argument.

Christendom made the West, not the West Christendom

Anonymous DT August 24, 2016 10:23 PM  

@333 - That is vastly different than your previous comment appeared. The "for equal things" addition changes it from a disastrous lie to a near tautology, to the point where I wonder why you brought it up.

I apologize if I was not crystal clear from the beginning. The problem is that "equality before the law" is a common phrase with radically different interpretations.

tublecane's post (currently @308) clarified this and I started using his phrase as it reflects my interpretation.

Who is suggesting anything that could imply treating equal cases unequally?

Let Vox correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of his blog post, and I will apologize for ever bringing this up. But I believe #7, as it is currently written, is not compatible with "equality before the law for equal things."

I believe he is saying there are never 'equal things.' Therefore there is no possible 'equality before the law.'

I would argue that in some broad respects there is equality between persons, and the law should recognize this.

Of course, the cancer in our society is to declare that equal things must be treated equally, and then lie on the question of what things are equal.

I agree 100%.

Anonymous Anonymous August 24, 2016 10:24 PM  

This.

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 24, 2016 10:50 PM  

@81 Restorative vs reactionary?

Anonymous DT August 24, 2016 10:51 PM  

@335 - It should be obvious from my posts that I am not advocating social justice warrior / progressive / FeelGood(TM) cuckservative eeequality in all things for all people at all times.

I want to address my statement quoted above. Ezekiel's post made me realize that my interpretation of "equality before the law" was not obvious initially. Therefore "It should be obvious from my posts..." really isn't fair to Vox.

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 10:54 PM  

@317-Mox the goal oughtn't to be equality before the law. It ought to be along the lines of Plato's definition of justice in The Republic: everything in its place.

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 24, 2016 10:54 PM  

Vox...if a government tells you what you can offer, how to offer it, the price it must be offered at - is that not government control even if ownership is nominally private?

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 10:56 PM  

I have no idea how I typed "Mox." That should say "No,".

Blogger tublecane August 24, 2016 11:06 PM  

@320-Maybe I didn't explain it well enough. Equality before the law isn't an ideal that unfortunately we can't attain but must try our darndest to achieve. It's a sham. You could use the same language and logic civil rights activists use now to justify African slavery. They're children, see, and can't be trusted on their own...

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 24, 2016 11:10 PM  

"If you're American or European, it is, as it is an integral part of your cultural tradition, if nothing else."

As an agnostic that agrees far more than disagrees with the declaration, the Christianity part tweeked me until the above. I was raised Roman Catholic, it is part of my cultural tradition and I don't try to carve that part of my past out, I recognized I am who I am in part BECAUSE of that cultural tradition even if my parents largely left it when they came to this country shortly before my birth.

Blogger Ian Miguel Martin August 24, 2016 11:12 PM  

You had me until #14, but for the sake of clarity I’m glad it’s there and I think it should stay. I honestly hope the white race survives in Europe, but here in the Americas it’s going to be a free-for-all and I will be bound by Fate (and the one drop rule) to support the multicultural melting pot, and, by extension, to oppose the alt-right.

It reminds me of when I was a kid and I felt obliged by geography to root for the hapless Bengals even though my respect and admiration for the Steelers was far greater, and I knew for sure they were going to stomp the crap out of us anyway. But I never wavered. Who dey?

Yeah, it’s war, possibly to extinction, but hey, nothing personal, and no hard feelings, eh?

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 24, 2016 11:18 PM  

@142 "should ultimately be enough societal trust and respect for the rule of law that gun ownership is no longer required."

Self defense is fundamental to all, you don't abdicate that responsibility to a 'rule of law' as law can be bent to slavery....I understand you stand on the 'societal trust', but I can't ever see abdicating that responsibility....

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 24, 2016 11:27 PM  

It seems to me (because I had to understand my own adversion to #14) that concern with it is based on a deep adversion to being called racist. It is not racist to be supportive of your race...as I think #15 suggests.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx August 24, 2016 11:32 PM  

Tracy Coyle wrote:Vox...if a government tells you what you can offer, how to offer it, the price it must be offered at - is that not government control even if ownership is nominally private?

Softball question. Government governs by the consent of the governed, otherwise it is not a government, by definition. For one familiar example, the US does not have a government. Absent a government, your question boils down to "who, whom?" Who exactly is this third party(s) in your (you being whom) proposed contract? Please provide their names, addresses, and all relevant contact details for verification of your claims. Also, provide a list of all the people they do not presume to enter into contract with as a third party under these same, allegedly-equal, terms.

Anonymous Pennywise August 24, 2016 11:35 PM  

Gaiseric, you said "That's absurd, at least for North America. If you call Latino culture a tribal group..." Except I didn't make that distinction. Tribal group, as in Native American.

Snidely, you said "There is, and always has been, a place for homosexuals in Christianity. Unfortunately, that place involves discipline and self-sacrifice, like every other role in Christianity, including God's role in Christianity."

Where is that place in Christianity specifically in the Bible?

"Oh, I forgot, faggots are special."

So, are they given the golden pass by the Alt-Right despite their penchant for sodomy as long as they embrace the Alt-Right? Makes no sense. That would be equality before the law, mind you.

Blogger M D August 24, 2016 11:58 PM  

You forget to mention Jewish privilege. Of course if Caucasians are privileged then how do you explain all those Middle-Eastern Caucasian "refugees"?

Anonymous LES August 25, 2016 12:14 AM  

How will the alt-right philosophy be implemented? Are we going to be able to elect alt-right representatives?

Blogger tublecane August 25, 2016 12:22 AM  

@323-The Founders didn't believe that. Citizenship status from birth conferred eligibility for the presidency, for instance. Which only strengthens your argument.

Blogger tublecane August 25, 2016 12:30 AM  

@349-I don't think sodomites are given free passes. The alt-right doesn't praise Milo's sodomy, for instance. They like him in spite of it. Or at best he's their pet gay. Sorta like how George Orwell is conservatism's pet socialist.

Anonymous andon August 25, 2016 12:41 AM  

"I honestly hope the white race survives in Europe..."

lol, how decent of you

Anonymous DT August 25, 2016 12:48 AM  

@343 - Maybe I didn't explain it well enough. Equality before the law isn't an ideal that unfortunately we can't attain but must try our darndest to achieve. It's a sham.

Two men commit first degree murder, each against a different person. Each murderer is an adult with the minimum mental capacity required under the law to stand trial and be held culpable. Neither can offer any justification for their actions that would be recognized by law. It's just simple, cold blooded, premeditated murder in each case.

Should the punishments be different for the murderers based on any characteristic of theirs such as race, religion, culture, or skin color? How about if one murderer is poor and another rich?

Should it be different based on the characteristics of the victims? If one killed a homeless man, and the other killed the president, should the sentences be 5 years for the former and death penalty for the latter? How about if one victim is black and another white? Or one a Catholic and the other a protestant?

I would argue that none of these things matter. A homeless man and the president are equal in the respect that they should not be murdered. A black murderer and a white murderer, or a rich murderer and a poor murderer, are equal in that they have spilled human blood without any justification.

And I would argue that God sees it the same way. When he handed Moses the ten commandments, those commandments did not have exception clauses for certain groups.

You might point out that as a practical matter society is going to put more resources into finding someone who has murdered a head of state. That would be true, and is even justifiable given the risk to other heads of state and their role in society.

But once you have the two suspects in hand, you do not deny one a fair trial because "he's accused of killing our leader." Nor, upon conviction, do you give a mere fine to another because "hey, the victim was just some homeless dude."

We ARE equal in some respects. And people quickly lose faith in a system that does not acknowledge this.

Yes, the modern SJW interpretation of "equality before the law" is a sham.

But that does not mean there is no equality in any respect or at any level.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros August 25, 2016 1:20 AM  

tublecane wrote:I don't think sodomites are given free passes. The alt-right doesn't praise Milo's sodomy, for instance. They like him in spite of it. Or at best he's their pet gay.

Milo is... Controversial on the alt-right. Like, not just that he's a Jew faggot and a "cultural Libertarian" which doesn't please alt-right authoritarians, but...

The guy sells "Big Black Cock" T-shirts to white women.

Fucking barf.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen August 25, 2016 1:24 AM  

I believe in thermodynamics and Jehovah, not the rights of dodos.

Blogger tublecane August 25, 2016 1:29 AM  

@356-Let me put it this way. If a convicted murderer were to show up SJWs as consistently and hilariously as Milo, I'd applaud them. In doing so I wouldn't be giving murder a pass.

The question of whether he's "one of us" is another matter.

Anonymous Sazerac August 25, 2016 1:35 AM  

1. Should we have a point referencing something along the lines of:
"The fundamental goal of nation states shall be to ensure the survival of its people and their posterity"

2. Is there room for a point regarding intellectual termites that weaken the nation over time.

3. A big problem now is alot of the elites running the system have no skin in the game, Mr Taleb references this in his book. Can we come up with a point by which elites are held responsible for their actions.

4. Could be covered under this potential point. "The Alt-Right supports the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions and choices"

Blogger rho August 25, 2016 1:40 AM  

Hell, I'm impressed VD managed to condense "Alt-Right" into 16 defensible ideals. He's the first to even seriously try, as far as I can recall, at any number.

It looks good. Coherent arguments that can be used to build counters to emotional statements.

My only critique is that Alt-Right needs a bon mot. Trump laid claim to "Make America Great Again," so that's out. The Alt-Right needs something else.

(An example, "Social Justice Warrior" was freely bandied about on Tumblr before SJW became a trigger keyword:I'm social, I'm in favor of justice, and I'll fight for it.)

The best retort remains, "I don't care." It's the best response because it's the easiest, because almost nobody on the philosophically Alt-Right is interviewed by media outlets. Maybe Ann Coulter. If you can get Ann to parrot point 14, I'll have newfound respect for the Alt-Right.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 25, 2016 1:48 AM  

Pennywise wrote:Where is that place in Christianity specifically in the Bible?

"Oh, I forgot, faggots are special."

So, are they given the golden pass by the Alt-Right despite their penchant for sodomy as long as they embrace the Alt-Right? Makes no sense. That would be equality before the law, mind you.


Well,you are a piece of work, aren't you.
This is neither the time nor place to argue Christianity's stance on homosexuality. You seem to have accepted the utter lie that Christianity has some special animus against homosexuals and that we want them to die.
I can point out to you homosexual Christians, starting with Milo, homosexual priests, even homosexual popes, including Francis. The claim that there is no place in Christianity for homosexuals is a flat lie. You should stop repeating it.
What alt-Rightism has to with homosex is apparent only to you. You will search in vain for a principle of the alt-Right that excludes homosexuals.

In summary, you appear unable to think outside a narrative constructed for you by someone else, and even then, it's a mere emotional reaction, not thought per se.

Sincere question, are you a woman?

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros August 25, 2016 1:50 AM  

tublecane wrote:@356-Let me put it this way. If a convicted murderer were to show up SJWs as consistently and hilariously as Milo, I'd applaud them. In doing so I wouldn't be giving murder a pass.

The question of whether he's "one of us" is another matter.


Understood. But the issue I mentioned is not so much "something he has done" as "something he is doing right now as part of his anti-SJW ministry."

Don't get me wrong, I still lean towards the side of "hes doing enough good that we might reward him with a one-way ticket out of the country."

Blogger tublecane August 25, 2016 1:59 AM  

@359-Concerning 2, we could force everyone to read Dostoyevsky. The Possessed, for instance, is about the idea of liberal fathers raising revolutionary sons (though not literal fathers, I don't think; if you want fathers go to The Brothers Karamozov).

Blogger tublecane August 25, 2016 2:19 AM  

@355-"We ARE equal in some respects"

Well, yeah, at least so far as the law is concerned.

"that does not mean that there is no equality in any respect or at any level"

Yes, but you've lost me on your larger point. What are you getting at? How does this support the notion that "equality before the law" is an ideal toward which we should be striving. Two lords in a feudal society may be roughly equal. That's equal justice! Pat them on the back for having equality in some respect or on some level.

What we have now is a much greater share of people on a level plain, or seemingly so. That makes things simpler for bureaucrats and planners, and also for markets. But you may have noticed our tax code is insanely complicated, for instance. No equality there. The IRS makes about a billion distinctions per second. That's gross discrimination!

There are easily more distinctions between people in our laws than there are equalities amongst people. I guarantee it. One area where state propaganda makes the most noise about equality, race, obvious, naked discrimination. Justified, in their opinion, by various reasons they won't let us in on. But the hypocrisy is thick, because they use the language of equality.

That's a big indication that equality is a sham: how easy it is to use to argue what most people would consider its opposite.

Anonymous Eric the Red August 25, 2016 2:46 AM  

Equality is evil because any mass attempt to achieve it must eventually impose stasis. It's one of those good intentions in theory that leads to horrific slavery in reality. It is far better to have fluidity of movement via earned success by individuals within society, with supporting pillars of law that allow (but not require) it to happen. Those who long to put just a little bit of equality into some philosophical screed are just asking for trouble later on down the road. A goal that is inherently not self-limiting is flawed, and should not even be attempted let alone stated.

Anonymous Anonymous August 25, 2016 5:53 AM  

The idea that we're going to "restore our European identity" by adhering to/restoring belief in the invading Abrahamic religions (Judaism in finance, Christianity in morals) from the Mediterranean, Near East, Africa, and Middle East is too rich.

My people were in the European north for 50,000 years, created social bonds, tools, communities, clans, vehicles for traveling waterways, trade, music, calendars, art, structures for living, sewn clothing, and oral epics.

Christianity arrived for the last 1,000 of that.

If per VD’s point, the alt-Right rejects the first 49,000 in favor of the last 1,000, then it can bite me as just another Jewish/Abrahamic invasion, exactly like the ones underway now with (((global finance))) and Islam.

Christianity did not make our people. Our people were already there. We made the modern world in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Our genome was largely in place.

Nowhere else in the world did Christianity produce similar results. Guess why.

Western civilization didn’t fail because westerners abandoned Christianity. Western civilization is failing because Abrahamics got the upper hand and began abandoning, then marginalizing, then destroying westerners once they stole our DNA and inventions.

olorin

Anonymous DT August 25, 2016 6:20 AM  

@364 - Yes, but you've lost me on your larger point. What are you getting at?

That point #7 is too restrictive and would seem to preclude an American legal principle I think is important. (In its traditional form, not in the modern progressive form.)

What we have now is a much greater share of people on a level plain, or seemingly so. That makes things simpler for bureaucrats and planners, and also for markets. But you may have noticed our tax code is insanely complicated, for instance. No equality there. The IRS makes about a billion distinctions per second. That's gross discrimination!

I would hold up the IRS and the tax code as prime examples of why America should return to the traditional legal principle of equality before the law. Agencies like the IRS and laws like the U.S. tax code are the disasters you get when everyone abandons that principle and seeks to game the system for their group's benefit.

There are easily more distinctions between people in our laws than there are equalities amongst people. I guarantee it.

Agreed. And those distinctions are growing. It is one of the first examples I jump to when I try to explain to friends...who are not alt-right...how American rights and legal traditions are fading away due to both progressives and to mass immigration.

One area where state propaganda makes the most noise about equality, race, obvious, naked discrimination. Justified, in their opinion, by various reasons they won't let us in on. But the hypocrisy is thick, because they use the language of equality.

Agreed.

That's a big indication that equality is a sham: how easy it is to use to argue what most people would consider its opposite.

A skilled liar (i.e. progressives) can twist any language quite easily. That a liar can misrepresent X does not make X false.

I don't wish to belabor this point much further. Vox came up with a very good list laying out what alt-right is. I don't want to keep hammering one point when I substantially agree with the list. If he ever makes a blog post specifically about equality before the law I would be happy to dive into the comments and debate it further.

Blogger Gaiseric August 25, 2016 8:15 AM  

Pennywise wrote:Gaiseric, you said "That's absurd, at least for North America. If you call Latino culture a tribal group..." Except I didn't make that distinction. Tribal group, as in Native American.
I know you didn't. I was trying to graciously offer you an out so that your statement wasn't just absurd and stupid.

Blogger residentMoron August 25, 2016 9:31 AM  

"... I will be bound by Fate (and the one drop rule) to support the multicultural melting pot, and, by extension, to oppose the alt-right."

Duh.

Having your own place, your own nation, your own culture, doesn't mean you have to eliminate all others.

That you think so, though, does illustrate that you are not civilised.

The question is, can you be?

Blogger Vladimir Tepes August 25, 2016 10:18 AM  

Jevrejski bankari su preplavili Evropu sa Muslimanima i Americi sa trećeg svijeta smeće.
.
Evreu bancheri de inundații Europa cu musulmanii și America cu al treilea gunoi mondial.
.
Ebrei banchieri inondare l'Europa con i musulmani e l'America con Terzo Mondo spazzatura.
.
Juif Banquiers inondent l'Europe avec les musulmans et l'Amérique avec Tiers Monde Trash.
.
Żydowski bankierzy zalały Europę z muzułmanami i Amerykę z Trzeciego Świata odpadkami.
.
Jødiske bankfolk er oversvømmelse Europa med muslimer og Amerika med tredje verden søppel.
.
Еврейские банкиры наводнили Европу с мусульманами и Америку с третьего мира мусора.
.
Judiska bankirer översvämmar Europa med muslimer och Amerika med tredje världen smörja.
.
Židovskí bankári zaplavila Európu s moslimami a Amerikou s tretieho sveta odpadky.
.
Judíos banqueros están inundando Europa con los musulmanes y América con la Tercer Mundo basura.
.
Jüdischen Bankiers sind überschwemmung Europa mit Muslimen und Amerika mit Dritte Welt Papierkorb.

Anonymous SaltHarvest August 25, 2016 10:44 AM  

Ian Miguel Martin wrote:You had me until #14, but for the sake of clarity I’m glad it’s there and I think it should stay. I honestly hope the white race survives in Europe, but here in the Americas it’s going to be a free-for-all and I will be bound by Fate (and the one drop rule) to support the multicultural melting pot, and, by extension, to oppose the alt-right.

Yeah, it’s war, possibly to extinction, but hey, nothing personal, and no hard feelings, eh?


Bound by fate? Heh. Humanity in the USA isn't going extinct so much as having their 'benefactors' revealed. The USA is slated for destruction though.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit August 25, 2016 12:00 PM  

andon wrote:when I hear this I think white = racists

No one gives a damn what you think. Now go away and take care of your wife's son.

Anonymous Anonymous August 25, 2016 1:43 PM  

If you actually want a description of what the alt right is, here you go:

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/unexpected-ally-russia-emerges-west-its-known-alt-right/ri15784

Anonymous SciVo August 25, 2016 2:24 PM  

praetorian wrote:I wonder if an explicit mention of the family is worthwhile as a foundational principle.

An explicit mention of dad would be even better. Feminists are trying to redefine the word "family" to exclude men.

I prefer the distributist concept of the family as the fundamental unit of society (contrasted with the socialist fundamental unit: the state and the modern capitalist fundamental unit: the individual) but that is getting outside standard alt-right thinking.

I'm pretty sure that subsidiarity is a bog-standard alt-right principle, and also the family is important in the alt-right instincts (five moral spheres and Jacksonian code of honor). I've never heard of distributism before, but it sounds like it would fit right in.

Blogger Daniel August 25, 2016 2:24 PM  

White argentinian here. I can see many points in people here, although noone realizes how many we are

Anonymous SciVo August 25, 2016 3:03 PM  

@372 Shut up rabbit:

Here's the thing, he isn't wrong. "Anti-racism is anti-white" dialectically implies that racism is white; and if it were effective rhetoric, then it would've worked by now. So drop it. Figure out something else.

Blogger Mikklo August 25, 2016 3:17 PM  

Being this a manifesto, what is the advantage of adding point 12 (the alt-right doesn't care what you think of it)? I'm not protesting that this is a divisive message or that the tone is abrasive, or anything like that. I'm just wandering how it contributes to what the alt-right stands for. Upon reflection, it seems to me that point 12 reads as if the alt-right isn't open to discussion, revision or reform. Thoughts?

Anonymous SciVo August 25, 2016 3:18 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:I believe it is necessary to explicitly exclude Churchianity somewhere in here. How about this: #AltRight believes it is the civic duty of every man to offend evil people.

I would also like to see the phrases "We aim to misbehave" and "Deus vult!"

praetorian wrote:It isn't a principle, so I don't know if it matters, but this is (or could be interpreted as being) too genetic determinist. Genes matter and quite a bit, but they don't ultimately define people.

Genes don't ultimately define a person, because studies consistently show that they account for about half of human behavior, more or less. And for the same reason, they do ultimately define a people.

Anonymous SciVo August 25, 2016 4:22 PM  

A.B. Prosper wrote:By the time the .alt right gets power we'll have an employment crisis for men and without male employment and steady work you have no foundation for urban stability

I haven't got a clue as to a solution , regulation? social credit with hitches? welfare state? make work? Who knows.


Tool coupons. Seriously. There was a country (Mauritania?) that was facing IMF austerity (which is a downward spiral trap) and thanks to some renegade economist, gave out fertilizer coupons instead. So their production went up and they were okay.

Anonymous SciVo August 25, 2016 4:35 PM  

Mikklo wrote:Being this a manifesto, what is the advantage of adding point 12 (the alt-right doesn't care what you think of it)? I'm not protesting that this is a divisive message or that the tone is abrasive, or anything like that. I'm just wandering how it contributes to what the alt-right stands for. Upon reflection, it seems to me that point 12 reads as if the alt-right isn't open to discussion, revision or reform. Thoughts?

The alt-right doesn't care what you think of point 12. You're welcome to enter our Thunderdome of no-holds-barred debate, but we have nothing but scorn for the pansies who change their opinions to avoid the badfeelz of social disapproval.

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 25, 2016 7:19 PM  

Mars wrote:In a hundred years Africa might be a Chinese homeland, with the Caribbean the only homeland for the African race.
The Carribean is too nice to let Africans keep it.  If we only fed the ones who agreed to return to Africa, it wouldn't be long before they'd all be gone.  (Ditto for the USA.)

Blogger Mikklo August 25, 2016 7:31 PM  

SciVo wrote:Mikklo wrote:Being this a manifesto, what is the advantage of adding point 12 (the alt-right doesn't care what you think of it)? I'm not protesting that this is a divisive message or that the tone is abrasive, or anything like that. I'm just wandering how it contributes to what the alt-right stands for. Upon reflection, it seems to me that point 12 reads as if the alt-right isn't open to discussion, revision or reform. Thoughts?

The alt-right doesn't care what you think of point 12. You're welcome to enter our Thunderdome of no-holds-barred debate, but we have nothing but scorn for the pansies who change their opinions to avoid the badfeelz of social disapproval.


LOL, so that makes point 12 unassailable or flawless? You've made it tautological, actually. Listen, I'm not trying to pick a fight or be obtuse. I genuinely think point 12 on its own is not sufficient in its meaning to be helpful to anyone, readers, or members that use this manifesto to identify their political views. If it were attached to point 11, for instance, then it would mean that the manifesto is inflexible when it comes to the understanding that diversity + proximity = war. That would make it make more sense.

It's also possible that I don't understand what is meant with point 12, in which case wouldn't it be beneficial to rephrase it so that it's clearer to thick people like me?

Best.

Blogger Daniel August 25, 2016 8:30 PM  

Not intelligent. Informed. Red pilled

Blogger Scott Birch August 25, 2016 11:02 PM  

The alt-right's Holy Book is the Bible.
The alt-right's manual/hadith is 23andMe.com

Anonymous Avalanche August 26, 2016 11:23 AM  

@70 "The definition of "native" becomes very important here. For example I would say the first listed below are "native" and the second "invasive". My reading of this highlights a potential conflict between a European and American alt-Right.
Native Americans vs. white Americans"

Hence the (very current!) conflicts and lawsuits -- and strong attempts (by 'native' Americans) to (literally) BURY any new research into 'who was first to the "American" continent. The Clovis (point) people are more and more clearly NOT related at all to the 'crossed the (possibly non-existent) Bering land bridge" into what is now Alaska people(s). More and more likely, the 'first Americans" were a branch or offshoot of the Solutrean people(s) from Brittany (you know, in Europe?!). So -- do we sent the so-called "native" Americans back to Russia? (I vote for that, but I'm a) Euro and b) committed to the science and reality!)

Dunno how we start -- or on what we base -- a 'who was where first' or 'who has now got actual possession of a place.' Certainly the concept of "the U.S." is a *White and Euro-derived* country (that everyone else wants to COME to, rather than make their own version on the basis of our example {frown}); it did not exist until WE brought it about. Europe and her many countries (i.e., extended genetic families) seem to have a generally agreed to boundary set... The Americas are the only place we can really say "started empty." (Or, at least as science so far has found... stay tuned!)

Anonymous Avalanche August 26, 2016 11:45 AM  

@89 "can the irreligious support Christianity (I think it's obvious they can in a sense), and what is the standard for supporting it? Full-on belief in God and Christ? Or support and promotion even in absence of that belief?"

I am one-such. I'm not merely irreligious, but in my beliefs about it, actively and vindictively anti-"religion" (esp. Christianity). I do, however, acknowledge (a bit gratefully) the concept of churchianity - which is more probably what I am filled with hate towards.

Raised "northern Baptist," I began to feel "uncomfortable" (to be a bit SJW about it) as a pre-teen, when I saw an adult male, in a pew, all scrunched down, head in hand, all weak and soppy: "I am not worthy, I'm a sinner, help me save me god." That .... unmanly .... male absolutely sickened me! Where was the Church Militant? Where was the church strengthening the backbones of the men who were supposed to be committed to defend and protect their families and tribe -- and church? -- against invaders?

The mere sapping of male strength kept me angry for decades; my alpha-male husband awoke me to (((who))) was causing the destruction of our society (including destroying "the church"; albeit he also hated religion; would have been a Roman soldier in the time of empire by preference). I did not (and sorry guys, still don't entirely) see where a religion created by a (((guy who never even MET Jesus))) that over time seems to have succeeded in its goal to defeat and destroy the White man and his society can be overall a benefit to us.

That written: I also see/know/understand that MOST people need a religion. (I will never be such a person.) The (((religion))) foisted onto us by (((people intending our destruction))) has been modified and expanded (perhaps even recreated?) by Greek and Roman and Germanic and WHITE people so that it suits us, the White race, pretty well. (Well, it did; I would have 'us' go back to that version!)

I am (and most likely will never be) "comfortable" with Christianity. However, MY people seem to benefit by it (once we get the "judeo" the hell out of it! {frown}) and so I can, will, and do support it. I don't know how 'we' untangle the sapping and destruction that has been woven in -- but I accept that we must have it. (Yeah, I seem to be all-"K" all the time.)

Anonymous Avalanche August 26, 2016 11:49 AM  

@93 "The 14 words is explicit signaling to white supremacists."

Oh Josh. You have allowed the leftie-libs to provide you with the (false) definition. WE reject that leftie-lib (and cucky right) definition 100%!

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 26, 2016 3:21 PM  

@385 Avalanche, while my issue with religion in general has the same consequence as yours, I generally agree wholeheartedly with your position. Most people need their beliefs/faith/religion and I use the term 'need' as like 'need to breathe'. It is foundational to their self. I don't see it as a weakness or fault. I can survive and thrive in a Christian society (that isn't actively trying to kill or marginalize me). There is no 'survive' in the nightmare the Left is creating.

Blogger praetorian August 26, 2016 9:05 PM  

Spartacus xxxxx wrote:
In return, the non-whites were supposed to be grateful. That part hasn't worked out so well, but the truth is, they are all better off- and far more numerous- than they were before.


(kek) You are making my point for me, Sparty...

SciVo wrote:Genes don't ultimately define a person, because studies consistently show that they account for about half of human behavior, more or less. And for the same reason, they do ultimately define a people.

50% ain't ultimately in my book and certainly ain't determinism, but I also grant that eucivic and ultimately eugenic policies are absolutely necessary. A given genetic stock can improve itself, via an extra-genetic act of will, or all of this is pointless barking.

SciVo wrote:
I'm pretty sure that subsidiarity is a bog-standard alt-right principle, and also the family is important in the alt-right instincts (five moral spheres and Jacksonian code of honor). I've never heard of distributism before, but it sounds like it would fit right in.


I don't think it is a natural fit. Many of the original alt-right thinkers come from a nietzschean and machiavellian perspective on the state. Many do appreciate the necessity of the family for the perpetuation of society, but straight Distributism would likely strike many of them as soft and, ultimately, unable to defend itself. I'm willing to grant that weakness (analogous to the libertarian logical flaw introduced by mass non-libertarian immigration) which leads me to favor more of a Nationalist-Distributist model based, as usual, on the Swiss. But even that butched up Distributism is in stark contrast with, say, Richard Spencer's Pan-Europeanism.

It is a prometheanism/will-to-power vs. a Chestertonian humaneness. Perhaps a Hegelian resolution of the two can be found in a sufficiently developed Nationalist-Distributism.

Blogger praetorian August 26, 2016 9:28 PM  

Nationalist-Distributism.

Nat-Dist

We could do worse.

Blogger praetorian August 26, 2016 9:30 PM  

Nadsi is best :DDD fug

OK OK
OK

Anonymous hapsburg peasant August 26, 2016 10:34 PM  

The definition from http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2016/08/we-are-alt-right.html is more concise:

Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilisation is precious. This is the Alt-Right.

Anonymous SciVo August 27, 2016 4:27 AM  

praetorian wrote:50% ain't ultimately in my book and certainly ain't determinism, but I also grant that eucivic and ultimately eugenic policies are absolutely necessary. A given genetic stock can improve itself, via an extra-genetic act of will, or all of this is pointless barking.

Sure, as I said, it doesn't define a person. But if you do simulations, then you will find that a very small amount of non-randomness can be determinative for a population. So half is way more than enough to define a people.

And I fully agree that we can improve ourselves as both individuals and as groups. Indeed, one of my mental models for the alt-right is a "managing myself on purpose" plan by the Western Civ metaperson.

Blogger Ingot9455 August 27, 2016 10:28 AM  

@381 Point 12 is a reminder to ourselves to say, "Screw you" to anyone trying a feelings-based peer-pressure argument; then if we feel the need, make fun of the cheesehead online.

Blogger Fred Carter August 27, 2016 2:11 PM  

The Alt right values facts over feelings, The Alt Right holds those who use emotional manipulation to try and overcome facts in the lowest regard and will always appose those trying to manipulate others in such ways.

Blogger Sam Pondet August 27, 2016 6:12 PM  

5, 10, 15, and 16 will be the death of us if we believe other races will abide by the same rules. If they do not actively try to subvert our efforts by advocating for 'just the smart ones get to stay' or the 'ones that integrate well', they will make themselves so terribly dysfunctional they will lose any semblance of a nation-state at all and devolve into the tribal garbage they had been mired in before we got there. Think of just how awful they will end up. Hundreds of millions starving, fighting with one another for scraps. How long do you think it will be before our media crews head over and cover how awful it is to live in these slums?

We may hold out for a couple decades but our altruism will ensure that future whites will take pity on lesser races, bring them in. We will have lost our understanding of why we separate. Our desire to improve them will create a movement to bring them here to save them from their own savagery.

While our birth rates will have flattened and decreased to one that is sustainable in a civilization that requires much less labor due to machines and advanced technology, their birth rates will have remained unchanged and will quickly overrun neighborhoods, towns, cities, states and eventually the nation we fought so hard to preserve.

There is no sense or honor in allowing savage peoples and cultures to survive. If we acknowledge the existence of race and the effects of its mean populations we should not delude ourselves with the Cultural Marxist dogma of cultural relativism. We are a competitive species and by fighting with other tribes, conquering lesser peoples, eliminating their existence culturally and genetically if they are net negatives for our own people/nation, we are making this world a better place, a more prosperous people, and a safer state for future white generations. Only by expanding into new territory, overcoming new challenges and fighting new enemies can we ensure our people's survival indefinitely.

The Mouse Utopia experiment is a perfect analogy for what we are experiencing now as stagnant first world countries. Our expansion has ceased. We no longer strive to invent and create or even care to know about our producers. We've confined ourselves to tiny geographical locations feeding at the trough of easily obtainable sustenance, lauding our leaders for 'taking care of the poor' by spending billions for welfare programs that do nothing but stuff food into the mouths of low-skill, low I.Q. blobs that end up costing millions for health care, raising the costs for everyone else. Producing nothing, Contributing nothing. Making themselves a drain on everyone around them.

Now we have 'NEET' culture. Populations that come from middle to upper class families that have no desire to do anything but consume because there is no opportunity. There is no ability to make your own way. Nowhere to explore, nowhere to feel like you're making an impression upon the land that you take up.

Blogger Sam Pondet August 27, 2016 6:12 PM  

There is no room to advocate for the nationalism of other races. To do so is to condemn your own to stagnation and eventual domination. Culture, made as secondary to Race can be easily preserved by creating culturally homogeneous region states that work to preserve the native culture, promote it within that state while working symbiotically with a greater union that truly strives to increase market competitiveness to offset the otherwise dangerous sentimentalities that would otherwise develop between first world countries.

This would also require these states to have significant power among themselves as well to balance out the possibility of that Union attempting to assert control over things it has no business getting into. The kind of country the United States used to be before The Civil War. When people didn't just fight for their country, they fought for their state.

If we truly believe in preserving the existence and future for white people we must be willing to trash the notion that colonialism was a mistake or 'injustice'. The lesser races have no qualms with invading and destroying us demographically and if they don't do it to us, we will do it to ourselves because of our nature as altruists. We must stop this potential cycle before it can get started. Future generations won't have the ability or time to take back what we have if our populations diminish significantly as they naturally would.

Call it White Supremacy, whatever you want. We have built this world to the way it is today. If we don't want to lose it, if we believe our best days as a species are ahead of us, we must eliminate the people that would subvert and destroy what we have, and what we've built.

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 460 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts