Fidus, Light Prayer
1,229 words
Several months ago I noticed a guy following me on Twitter with the username, “A Clockwork Green.” In his bio, he identified as “AltLeft, racially aware white.” He deactivated his account, and I have no idea what ever happened to him. Shortly before he disappeared though, he had expressed his distaste for a lot of the rhetoric of the AltRight and seemed somewhat disillusioned. I began to wonder how many others there were like him. How many white progressives have begun to reject the politically correct narrative and secretly venture into thought crime circles on the web? I’m willing to bet it’s probably more than you think. Of those that pop the purple pill and make the trip . . . how many see all the boilerplate, post libertarian corporate conservatism, radical traditionalist Christianism, 15th-century LARPing, pseudoscientific anti-vaccination stuff, and wacky conspiracy theories being promoted and decide, “Fuck this. These people are freaks. Maybe the social justice crowd isn’t so bad after all.”
Then there are the ones who stick around. Seriously though, who are the AltLeft anyway? Who are we? I would say that the majority are white people who hold a lot of typically leftist views on economics, the environment and some social issues, yet at some point realized the new left had become hostile to any white person even slightly reluctant to act as a scapegoat for everybody else’s problems. No self-respecting white person would want to be associated with a movement that trashes their heroes, their culture, their history, denies their achievements . . . a movement which seeks to destroy their civilization and erases their identity. Hell, besides all that, a lot of Cultural Marxism has become so freaky that most normal white feminists and gays are probably weirded out by it.
My own journey was a bit different. I was mostly a Nixonian sort of republican for much of my young adult life. As an irreligious person living mostly in artsy metropolitan areas, I identified more with the culture of the left, while always privately retaining a racial awareness(which would come out occasionally at peak triggering) and a low tolerance for hippie bullshit. I became disillusioned with unfettered capitalism through real world experiences watching corporations and brands in action, the way they had loyalty to nothing and prioritized profits over absolutely everything: including quality, aesthetic, even people’s lives. The creepy cult-like way they manipulate and motivate people. So at a certain point I began to think of myself more as AltLeft than AltRight.
Terms such as left and right seem obsolete in this day and age. The true divisions are between nationalists and internationalists, as well as pro-whites and anti-whites, identitarians vs. multiculturalists etc. What we find though in reality is that these words are deeply ingrained. Anyone who spends time in a political movement with “right” in the title will soon discover it’s difficult to divorce it from organized religion, traditionalism and sexual puritanism. What better way to repel certain types and prevent entryism from them than by partially identifying with a label they already don’t like? Out of these groups forming, something of a coalition can emerge. The AltLeft exists in that small space where Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan begin to meet. It’s that point in time where Mussolini ditched Marxism and moved toward Fascism. The question is, can the AltLeft be divorced from political correctness and white ethnomasochism? My guess is that it can, with the help of enough problematic language to scare the cucks away and create a safe space for leftist shitlords to don their greenshirts and appear in full force.
Here is a brief guide, which outlines various political positions of those who might identify as AltLeft. Of course, not all of these will apply to everyone, and some may apply in varying degrees:
Religion – Mostly outright atheist or agnostic, occasionally some nominal identification with ancient European religions/mythology. Extremely rationalist, skeptical of supernatural or “new agey” beliefs, homeopathic medicine, and conspiracy theories.
Economics – oppose laissez-faire capitalism and excessive consumerism, free trade. Where corporate profit interests run counter to the interests of the nation and the people, regulation is needed. Recognizes benefits of capitalism in generating wealth but also skeptical of “market forces” which seem just as likely to lead to an Idiocracy-styled “Brawndo” aesthetic than a dwarf planet mining colony. In addition to fostering an environment for dual loyalties, transnational laissez-faire capitalism seems to correlate with a population of fatasses: walking advertisements hooked on cheap Walmart junk, garbage entertainment and fast food. Tend to favor mercantilism and soft socialism (Norway without Third World immigration)
Prefer fair trade (or free trade only with nations that have similar standards of living and environmental controls) including tariffs, value added tax etc. Some support for soft socialism and state capitalism (but racially conscious.)
Democracy/Government – opposes “warm body democracy.” Prefer some type of confederate. Participation in government selection must be earned in some way, through intelligence testing, civil service and sacrifice to demonstrate concern for the greater interests of the group (think Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.) Sometimes fascist ideology or national bolshevism . . . occasionally sympathetic to Soviet communism.
Technology – Support for new medical technology, research initiatives, cloning, and space exploration without any of the reflexive anti-whitism, “noble savage” fetishism, or “Little House on the Praireactionary” longing that dominates much of the traditional left and right.
Race – The postmodern left is defined mostly by its ceaseless advocacy of ethnomasochism for ancestral Europeans. It claims to promote egalitarian values but in both net effect and rhetoric has become implicitly anti-white. The AltLeft is for racially aware whites who don’t feel like they have anything to apologize for. Culture is a biological expression of race. Genetic average differences in IQ and behavior exist between races. These are observable on a large scale. Many so-called “left-wing” values like feminism, tolerance for alternative lifestyles, and sexual freedom are not (at least at the present time) compatible with the third world populations the left currently champions. Support for (most) non-White immigration is counterproductive in the long term if it results in whites becoming a minority. Recognition of the disproportionate number of Jews with tendencies to oppose white people collectively acting in their interests.
Art – The AltLeft is more open to different styles of art. Conservatives tend to rail against “modern art” while often not being able to distinguish between modernism and postmodernism (though they probably would hate both.) The simplest imperfect analogy for modern vs. postmodern would be Dr. Evil vs. Austin Powers.
Social Issues – tolerance for (or indifference to) abortion, birth control, homosexuality, and prostitution to varying degrees. Support for eugenics and transhumanism.
Feminism – Generally support for second wave feminism, TERFs, etc. Rejects intersectionality for being anti-white and for its advocates being apologists for non-whites, who rape women and commit violence towards women at much higher rates. Intersectional feminism indirectly promotes “rape culture” by naively importing it under the guise of sticking up for the oppressed.
People in the AltLeft usually accept that there are biological differences between men and women which affect how they interact with one another(beyond social pressures and conditioning.) They have a tendency to be “purple pill,” agreeing with certain manosphere concepts and rejecting much of the intersectional men’s rights movement that blames Western women for most of society’s ills.
Foreign policy – mostly isolationist or non-interventionist, reject neocolonialism except in space.
Source: http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/
39 Comments
How will the $PLC categorize the Alt Left?
Anti-Semitic.
HAHAHAH
And, if they examine things to their logical conclusion, would speak out against Jewish political power.
I’ve come across comments on some sites made by people referring to a kind of Alt-Left. If they are racially aware and support a white ethnostate without Jews, I’ve got no problem with that. I still the Right is meaningful insofar as hierarchy and inequality are seen as positives.
This purple pill stuff though… Soon we’re going to have people calling for an Alt-Center magenta pilling normies into subpolitical infinity. Just please no rainbow pills, goyim.
Interesting outline because it suggests a spectra wherein intra-white blue pill type appreciation can hone away old parochialisms and conserve our mutual ethno-political interests.
The alt-right doesn’t really have a coherent economic policy outside of measuring something as being better or worse for our tribe. I think a lot of people on the alt-right are not fans of laissez-fair capitalism either since that results in not only the free movement of capital but also labor, particularly of the peasant of color variety. Opposition to universal democracy also seems to be a shared belief. Promoting White identity and JQ awareness are also overlaps, which of course bans the alt-left from the entire left (at least on the mainline right you can win some White people over by appealing to their heritage with dogwhistles; this can only be done for POC on the mainline left).
I personally can’t see an alt-left thriving as anything more than a subset of the alt-right that is as uncomfortable with being called right as the alt-right is with being called conservative. Our media is much larger than theirs evidently and we are in a better position to absorb their would-be converts. Trying to maintain your links with the left is foolish since you have adopted too many hierarchical and discriminatory beliefs that fly in the face of the egalitarian roots of the left.
On the other hand, left and right are a dead metaphor from the French Revolution and if your priority is truly the White race it does not make sense to be a rival faction at this time. Because White nationalism is not politically hegemonic these sorts of academic divisions are unhelpful.
“I personally can’t see an alt-left thriving as anything more than a subset of the alt-right that is as uncomfortable with being called right as the alt-right is with being called conservative.”
I agree. Two things I learned from this article:
-The “Alt-Left” are just white leftists that are slowly waking up to the reality that they have created, but still dogmatically oppose anything on the “right” for sheer namesake.
-They are unaware of the social, political, religious, philosophical and intellectual diversity already present in the Alt-Right.
Also, is labeling/naming a necessity? As long as there are whites who are in support of their race, nation and culture, who cares what platform you are standing on? We can divide ourselves into however many political parties we want AFTER we have total control over our destiny.
I agree with both of the above. I would add the following:
Many in the ‘alt-right’ seem to be sympathetic to Guild Socialism and Social Credit, both of which came from the left and which could fairly be called ‘alternative’.
A key distinction: the leftist movements tend to assume that economic relationships are fundamental, .i.e. that economic organizations should precede and control political organizations. It is not just a question of the alt-left believing in peace and love, the alt-right believing in authority. While grimly realistic about the influence of modern economics, I am not certain that the alt-right tends in this direction.
Finally, I am not highly literate in this area, but I would say that Guild Socialism and then Social Credit probably both took a certain amount of nationalism for granted, and then found themselves ‘On The Wrong Side Of History’ after WWII.
WE are the alt left.
So long as the Alt Right doesn’t compromise its convictions, sounds good.
I still get the feeling that, if push comes to shove, you’d flip-flop in favour of distancing yourself from ‘white supremacism’ in favour of the easy life, just being seen as slightly controversial leftists, but still very much in ‘their’ camp than ‘ours’.
If you’re posting on Counter-Currents, you should know that it’s getting the to point where you’re going to have to chose sides. Irrespective of our more intellectual musings here, it’s getting very specialized. We might wax lyrical about Jack London, make vague appreciations of Chavez etc., suggest that nationalistic Stalinism wasn’t all that bad but in the reality of postmodern politics, it’s still very much a right vs. left playing field. And not necessarily in regards to actual ide0logical particulars, but to a general world-view, a mind-set. You are either with us on this, or you are against us. To be supremely ironic, it’s black and white.
Are you actually prepared for this? To say this in public and in front of other people? To maintain this viewpoint in the face of social ostracism or physical violence, as we have to? Or will you always demand the caveat that you are actually ‘left-wing’ so can’t possibly be ‘racist’?
And are the left, apart from this essay, which is pretty much a one man band, making overtures to the Alt-Right, or anything even slightly similar? No, they are still shouting ‘RACIST!’ at anyone who questions the whole scale destruction of the white race. That’s the top and tail of their dialogue.
It’s only the right who are having to make concessions to the left in an supposed attempt to remain relevant, not the other way round. While this change in rightist emphasis might be justified, the move away from strict doctrinal labeling, as in the right justifiably condemning capitalism for its pro-multiculturalist agenda, it does appear that it’s only those on the right who are prepared to try and jettison this dualistic thinking. The left aren’t. Why should they? They are arguing from a position of power. They don’t have to question what they are saying and whether their ideology is strictly coherent. They just keep on doing what they are doing and, at the moment, they are winning.
So yes, in some respects, the distinction between left and right is no longer ideologically tenable. Perhaps we should classify our struggle as being between ‘nationalists’ and ‘globalists’? ‘Identitarians’ versus ‘Internationalists’? We can use more fashionable words to categorize our struggle but we are still, at the end of the day, coming back to the basic tenets of what constitutes ‘right’ and ‘left’; what our respective world-views are. We should never lose sight of who and what we are in the name of temporary pragmatism.
In the real world, it’s very much a dividing line and trying to pretend that it isn’t does nothing to further our side, the ‘right’ side. I couldn’t give a rat’s backside about leftists who are having vague palpitations because their personal world-view is being challenged, because they’re having their world turned upside down by reason and logic. As long as they feel the need to self-identity as being still very much part of the ‘left’, then you know that they are not looking at this from the right (excuse the pun!) perspective.
I’d take a ‘radical Christian traditionalist’ or a ’15th Century LARP’er’ over a leftist with self-identity problems every time. Because you know that know that the former can have their rough-edges taken off and they can be useful. With the latter, you’ll always be looking over your shoulder because they are coming to you from the position of desperation and pragmatism, not conviction.
I’m not discounting a white-nationalist left totally. Despite my mention of him previously, Jack London could act as a template for this. But you will have to seriously prove that this isn’t just a temporary ideological fancy. We’ve been doing this for years, been treated like pariahs for doing so, so if you’re serious about this, prove to us that it’s not just a passing phase, that you won’t slip back into thinking that being seen as a ‘leftist’ is the most important thing.
Because it isn’t: being white is the most important thing and this should guide your thinking at all times. Anything else is of a lesser import. We can work out which economic and social system we utilize once we’ve secured our homelands, whether we value classical or postmodern art etc. Until we are safe, race is all. And if you can focus on this, to the exclusion of all else, then you can be part of our movement. If you think anything else is more important than this, unless you are prepared to prioritize, to put necessities overs social standing, then you will always be more of a hindrance than a help.
s
That is a good article from a young person; we should hear individuals like
this; they make sense; whites are, by the standards of every other culture,
inherently liberal, it is just the way we are, and that includes appreciation of
traditionalism; I know this sounds wishy washy, but it is part of our culture
and I think the bottom line is not to be anti white and for diversity. I am for
many things we identify with the left, for animal rights, for environment,
though I mistrust the current leftist assessments; I am for families, though I
know that there will always be a small percentage of homosexuals, and accept
this reality while still being for traditional definition of family; same
with socialism; we do need some public works, collective endeavours, helping
those in need without sentimentalism and weakness; and yet I
appreciate libertarianism, with all the tensions this entails; there is no such
thing as a solution, the tensions are healthy, so long as we don’t allow
traitors who are for the destruction of whites.
This is great. We need a right wing, a left wing, a Christian and a pagan wing. Like the other reader said, what matters is the preservation of the white race.
It might be pertinent to recall that Benito Mussolini once characterized Fascism as “the church of all the heresies.”
I might consider myself “AltLeft” or “recovering liberal” or some such. “Until we are safe, race is all.” Couldn’t agree more. Whatever other identities we may have or aspire to, we must have White unity first (and last).
This is a great idea. White racial consciousness doesn’t need to be contained to the “far-right”. The destructive ideas in the last few decades (mass immigration, ‘anti-racism’ etc.) ultimately won when they were embraced by both the right and left of the spectrum. Thus final victory for whites will be when whites across the spectrum will understand the importance of re-inforcing borders around european civilization in a mostly uncivilized world. Many on the left are increasingly looking for alternatives to the cult marxist posion. This deserves more popularity.
This is a great article and I suppose I could be labeled alt left. I am definitely post modern in my thinking and a believer in freedom of association and local control. This article gave me a lot to think about. I see no reason why alternative right and alternative left couldn’t work together. We might not share a common community but we could be fellow travelers.
Q.
“Terms such as left and right seem obsolete in this day and age.”
Not only obsolete, but a down-right distraction. As other commenters have pointed out the “AltLeft” is just the “AltRight” with a bit of liberal smugness and hypocrisy. The fact that “traditionalism” is automatically equated with religious fanaticism and ludditism just speaks to their continued unwillingness to investigate their shallow media-influenced perceptions of non-liberal ideas. I myself had a leftist upbringing, and can tell that as a anti-liberal, I’m perfectly enthusiastic for technological progress and curbing laissez-faire capitalism. But the fact remains, as one AltLeft blog confirmed to me, that liberalism, especially New Liberalism, is in and of itself bad for any society, White or not. Feminism, anti-traditionalism, materialism, and fetishism of sexual deviance are destructive even in the absence of any racial conflict, not least because they weaken the family, which is the foundation of any working society. Wonder why all urban civilizations have looked down on promiscuity, effeminacy, breaking of gender roles, etc? If that makes you stop and think, then you’re already on your way to becoming a traditionalist.
I should also like to add, that premised at the foundation of all new-liberal ideology (i.e. feminism, gay rights, etc.) is the assumption that all people are equal and/or that the making equal of all groups and persuasions should be the primary/only goal of society. With that in mind, an “AltLeftist” type can only support white nationalism and his accustomed equalitarian liberalism by being a hypocrite. Better I think to skip the “AltLeft” stage and encourage free-thinking young people to come all the way to a real alternative.
Yes, for me it is the promotion of the margins as being superior and as more healthy than what is normal, rather than the existence of marginal people that is the issue.
I would suppose that all organized societies have had to make room for marginal people. What seems to be unique about our current society is the promotion of marginal lifestyles as being healthier and superior to what has had hitherto always been considered healthy and normal.
There must have been gays, the transgendered, women who didn’t quite fit in and racially and ethnic minorities on the fringe of all organized socieies of the past and there must have been made some room to allow for their existence, insomuch as they did not disrupt the normal flow of normal society.
It has been my experience that everyday people are mostly instinctively aware of their tribe while at the same time rather tolerant of deviance as long as it remains a deviance on the margins of society.
I stop and ponder, did this give rise to Liberalism? The idea of accepting that there is some much marginalized other that exist in their own space on the fringe and that as long as they aren’t hurting anybody, wouldn’t it would be best to leave them alone? Is that not a rather tolerant point of view? This is probably a pretty natural response that most people have had to marginalized people
The aggressive promotion of the margins as more healthy and more worthy has probably made more racists and homophobes than anything else.
For me, at least, the goal is to right the course and find that healthy equilibrium again. But first I’d like to know, how did it get to this point?
Right, I think.
But who is being divided by the “AltLeft” label, them or us? Terms like leftwing and rightwing have been a mainstay of political manipulation in the West for generations now, distracting people from their real common interests. Isn’t better by far that we should aim to provide a pro-White alternative that takes ideas from all camps, and evaluates them on their own merits, and their utility for Whites, rather than unthinkingly cling to, or reject out of hand, ideas because they’re too “left wing” or “right wing”? Feminism, technology, tradition, religion, race, poverty, the environment, the economy, and sexual mores affect us all as society, whether we choose to identify as “Left” or “Right”. Since presumably we want unified White societies with room for political disagreement, pro-Whites should be able to tackle all of these questions, without recourse to cliches about what constitutes leftwing or rightwing politics.
Agreed.
These are my thoughts as well. My reaction, immediately, was, “isn’t this just, more or less, the position of Nouvelle Droite and GRECE?”
I can only interpret the need for an AltLeft label as stemming from the fact that there are those who are attracted to the ideas of Nouvelle Droite and at the same moment are made uncomfortable by the ideological divergences of the North American New Right, or AltRight. The divergences being quite naturally occurring, of course, precisely because North America is not Europe.
What has historically been Right in North America can be very different from that which has been historically Right in Europe.
It’s obvious that the North American AltRight is a confluence of paleoconservative, libertarian, White Nationalist and European New Right ideas. I do not come from a paleoconservative, libertarian, or White Nationalist background myself and so I cannot readily treat them as natural, or obvious, fixtures and forebears in my own political thought and approach to the AltRight. At least not a way that makes me comfortable. I suppose I would too be considered a racially conscious Leftist.
I remember for me, in my mid-20s, being interested in both the New Left and also reading, or at least making my best attempt to read, Evola, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Mishima and Jünger. I found my way to different European currents that synthesized Right and Left. I ended up reading about Nouvelle Droite and GRECE from reading about the Conservative Revolution in Germany. I felt a strong connection, a connection I hadn’t really ever felt with any other political movement.
I believe strongly that localism, environmentalism and anti-capitalism are compatible, and in fact are more compatible even, with the Right than with the Left.
The AltRight, the New Right, whatever you call it, finds strength in being a very eclectic movement. That’s the very opposite of the Left which is so very dogmatic and rigid. I think that there is certainly room for all racially conscious whites under the umbrella of AltRight and no need for any reason to further muddy the waters with labels such as AltLeft.
I thought the alt right was the alt left , these days
As an anti globalist west coast liberal type who recently discovered race realism and the alt-right, I can identify with this alt left subgroup of the white identitarian movement. I can’t go on Facebook now without puking at the fervent Bernie worshipping, “we all just need to have more love and acceptance” signaling bullshit of my leftist circles. As a gay woman sometimes I find the altright off putting, but at least it is actually addressing the most prescient issues we face as a people. Even as women and gay people the altright has our best interests at heart over our queer breathren who welcome these muslim immigrants to throw us off buildings after they rape us. Just because people like me are coming on board now, doesn’t mean we are going to mess it up. I don’t need the altright to approve of my lifestyle or give me equality, but I do need it to be tolerant as long as we both fight for what’s important. To be a real powerhouse of a movement people like me will find our place in it. Don’t worry there will be no pride parades or emotional manipulation. We are sick of that too.
As an outsider to American politics, the most laughable part of the Sanders campaign is their suggestion that the ‘middle class is disappearing’. This is a lame, walking-on-eggshells attempt at political signalling to an ‘alt-left’?
A bit unfair to subtract a sentence or two from this rather interesting piece, and focus solely on this, but I just cannot help it.
I find it very contradictory to on one side be pro white and one the other side underplay the fact that almost all white populations today are shrinking. All this while you at the same time accept liberal abortion laws, or being indifferent.
If you look at the child sacrifice to the god Bahl som 2-3000 yrs ago, and the horrible screaming at these locations, the change is not that significant. You replace Bahl with some obscure ‘god of convenience’ and make sure to grab the ‘child’ early enough so it cannot scream, and you have very much the same process, albeit a more silent version of it.
This ‘activity’ undermines the very core of the white movement, which either grows, or dies.
Actually, abortion in the United States benefits whites demographically, since higher percentages of non-whites than whites use it. This postpones the date that we become a minority in the country we created. Indeed, we might already be a minority.
Granted, in your case.
But here in northern Europe the very fact that we are not procreating sufficiently (in which abortion plays a major role) is used as an argument to increase immigration. “Who else is to look after us when we grow old?”. The chain of argument is worthy a madhouse.
There already is a name for Alt-Left though, National Socialism.
There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of originality here. It looks like someone adopted, or maybe stole is the better term, the west coast white nationalism concept that CC pioneered six years ago, along with sensible economics and the notion that white values need to be hegemonic across the cultural spectrum.
I agree with the idea that National Socialism is the true alt left; that’s an astute point. I have to say also that I think the “social issues” are an unnecessarily toxic element of an otherwise solid program. Going out of the way to mention homosexuality seems to be inviting divisiveness when the potential for convergence exists between all sectors of the alt left-right on the other issues.
Interesting exposition. The differences between alt-right and alt-left seem clearly smaller than the differences between either and the status quo.
And the question of whether one ultimately subsumes the other in some way is moot for me. The goals they share in common are critical, and worthy.
Interesting article. I’ve struggled to find my place within racialism and get the feeling of being simultaneously radically conservative and radically liberal, and always explained this to myself as the “horseshoe theorem” playing itself out (two very extreme opposites of a political spectrum can become very similar to one another) or that at the very core, I am in fact a mentally-ill degenerate as designated by the “old guard” racialists. I’ve also come to the realization that my views could technically be a self-concluded form of national socialism.
The thing that really turned the tide for me was discovering how many whites depend on welfare. While it is disproportionally used by minorities when compared to their percentage of the population they make up, the majority of people who benefit from welfare are white. The “old guard” forgets about the whites who are “have-nots”. The image associated with welfare and subsidies is an unmarried, unemployed minority woman with n kids to n different men, who spends her child support money on liquor, weaves, and fake nails. As long as this is the reason why racialists oppose social programs, that will be as long as poor whites live in poverty and without healthcare, young whites graduate college with crippling debt which prevents them from moving forward with their adult lives, and white families don’t have more children because they can’t afford daycare or afford a parent to take time off work. The idealistic vision of a homesteading white man in rural Idaho with his minimal taxes, wife and quiver-full of homeschooled kids is not realistic (“Little House on the Prareactionism”?).
When the “old guard” dismisses non-classical/non-literal, “a painting of a sunset should look like a dad’gum sunset” art, they are dismissing a viable medium of communication. Radix has acknowledged this need for a more contemporary aesthetic. My personal thought on this, is that (for one), having additional mediums for expression does nothing but benefit racialists. Secondly, “modern art” is unexpected of racialists so it would be easier to “get things past the radar” and attract younger people who are acquainted with the modern or post-modern aesthetic.
I’m conflicted on how to approach the issue of LGBTQ. I certainly believe they shouldn’t be harassed, and can’t help their sexuality or identity any more than someone with autism can help being autistic…what people do in their bedrooms is their business. I’ve seen LGBTQ whites come out on Stormfront and be verbally attacked and ultimately banned, and racialist speakers and bloggers do the work for the new left of painting LGBTQ whites as enemies of the rest of their race. Is it good to cast out a section of our race for them to be picked up by the new left and told that their suffering is caused by the straight, white, cisgender man? Is it good for there to be a need, when a person has a friend, relative, or child who comes out as LGBTQ, to need to choose their alleigences?Are there any better alternatives?
I’m glad you’ve helped to define such a niche ideological categorization. I’ve had difficulty identifying with any specific ideological school of thought to any 100% degree, since my views are nuanced, but it seems like altleft comes closest so far.
My one disagreement with it though, which prevents me from getting fully on board is the focus on race. I think that idealism is more significant than materialism, which informs my view on both economics and race. While i’m not against eugenics, is it not as, if not more important to adopt a maximally, scientifically sound education system that is empirically proven to develop the smartest most self actualized citizens? And if this were implemented, would not an individual of any race subjected to ideal cultivation be developed much greater than the mean?
Maximizing how government is constructed, into a Platonic Philosopher King Meritocracy, developing rational but fair economic systems, creating an ideal education system available to all, and implementing non racial eugenics would serve to create an advanced enlightened society, and the mixing of the races among this intellectually elite civilization would represent a unified, post racial society. This is not multiculturalism as it demands that any culture or race subscribe to the tenets of humanism and rationalism.
What would you define this ideology as?
So glad to have found this. This sums up my current political stance pretty much to a tee. I have pretty much had it with the anti-white new left, and due to key differences on economic, and certain social issues, along with their embrace of neo-Nazi holocaust deniers there is absolutely no place for me on the alt-right, as much as I do agree with their absolute disgust with the social justice, Islam appeasing, new left.
I am under the impression that the fundamental split between left/right in todays discourse has entirely to do with “equality”. This, in my least nuanced and most Occam’d form of thinking on the matter.
Today, it has degenerated to a bizarro-world form of equality, familiar to anybody who has read Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron”. In the past, perhaps, it meant equality under the law — or equality under God. Now it simply means kill all the whites.
So this leaves me questioning the need for an alt-left. Many of the commentariat have already rightly pointed out that the alt-left already exists, and is known as National Socialism. If you already disagree with the notion of equality itself, or a need to forcefully impose it on society, in what way are you a leftist?
In the admin’s post, clearly “equality” is already viewed with scorn and disdain. Does this not simply leave you as a member of the alt-right? I identify as a member of the alt-right, I just chalk up people calling me a gasworthy degenerate to banter. Is the alt-left the place people go when they are tired of the banter?
I expected the alt-left to mostly be /leftypol/ posters, since they constantly bemoan IdPol, yet this post is steeped in IdPol. So why the need for the new label? Just another sign of the splintering, the fragmentation of modernity? Another tent in the ideasphere of alt-politics?