1,124 words
The growth of what is termed the alt-right in recent months has lead to a growth of criticism and some debate over its meaning and scope. (We’re also on Wikipedia now). The “Alternative Right” is a 2010s political label with history I am sure most people reading this are familiar with, and if not it is beside the point. What I aim to discuss here is not so much alt-right history or criticisms of it, but rather a survey of what basic tenets compose it now.
But before that, I would emphasize that by necessity the alt-right is a “big tent” philosophy. Ideally this means that it functions as an intellectual alliance between other philosophies that embrace most or all of its core principles. Therefore it is counter-productive for any of these philosophies attack one another more than they attack outside philosophies. Some people call this no enemies on the right or no enemies to the right, the latter being less inclusive, but what is most important ultimately is to not throw competent people who agree with you on major issues to the wolves. Having clear battle lines is crucial because it ensures we are our own moral authority rather than a third party that is opposed to most or all of our beliefs, which is a major problem if not the problem with the mainstream right.
So what are the tenets of the big tent? I believe they are as follows:
1) People are different. Human inequality is a fact of life and belief systems that deny this lead to distortion and oppression. Both individuals and populations vary in their characteristics in meaningful ways, such as intelligence and social behavior. One size does not fit all, not comfortably at least.
2) Our world is tribal. The struggle for survival which has produced all life on earth extends into biological human races, which both exist and matter to their members. Such conflict is neither immoral nor moral, but a condition we must engage with in order to develop any meaningful philosophy or ideology. It can be found on the streets, in the human resources department, at the ballot box, or in the trenches. Even something as trivial as the Oscars is fought over. Though it is currently politically incorrect to acknowledge that races and their national subdivisions exist and compete for resources, land, and influence over one another or over themselves, that does not mean the struggle has stopped. That one side has been cajoled into not struggling does not mean it is left alone.
3) Our tribe is being suppressed. The new left doctrine of racial struggle in favor of non-whites only, a product of decolonization and the defeat of nationalists by egalitarians after WWII, must be repudiated and Whites must be allowed to take their own side in their affairs.A value system that says Whites are not allowed to have collective interests and literally every other identity group can do so and ought to do so is unacceptable.
4) Men are not women and women are not men. Men and women have roles to fulfill for the species to persist in a stable and healthy way. Feminism and the sexual revolution, by destroying the conditions that promoted and sustained heterosexual monogamy, have had disastrous implications for the sexes and relationships between them. (I highly recommend F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here for those interested in more). No viable society can exist where the long-term union of one man and one woman producing a replacement level of offspring is not the norm. Some Western countries have obscured the impact of sexual degeneracy on birthrates by importing foreigners, but such measures only further the destruction of nations; they do not sustain a people but keep a state’s balance sheets in order.
5) Freedom is a responsibility and not a right. The freedom of too many incompetent people to make too many bad decisions is harmful to society and constrains the freedom of virtuous and responsible people. There are externalities to most actions and when these are harmful to non-actors it is a kind of injustice. These need to campaigned against, or suppressed by force or the threat of force—the basis of the rule of law. A virtuous society is an ordered one that provides freedom from anarcho-tyranny.
6) If we must be a democratic society, the franchise should be limited. Universal democracy is a bad system. It gives power to the worst and shackles the fittest. It is a degenerative institution in which the weak and unproductive collaborate against the strong and sustainable.
The final alt-right shit-test is whether or not someone agrees with the reality that Jewish elites are opposed to our entire program. It is the third rail for a reason. The hardest redpill to take is a suppository, the Jewish Question. (Here I highly recommend Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s site if you don’t have the time preference for an entire series of books on the subject). The disproportionate influence of an elite Jewish minority in Western societies has been a net negative. Jews, who have a three thousand year history of regulating their communities to be as insular as possible among the nations whose territory they dwell in have a consistent pattern of promoting the interests of their own ethnoreligious minority at the expense of the majority nation. It is what they do and when they do it here it is bad news for us. When given the power they have now it results in degeneracy, the losing of one’s race. Even in Israel one will find Jews who are firmly dedicated to the destruction of their host’s borders and hold in contempt the idea of loyalty to their national kin. Who shrieks loudest at anti-immigration nativism? Who praises their own ethnocentrism as a virtue and shames others for having the same feeling? It is a pattern that crosses time and borders, and there is a war against noticing it. The staunchest social egalitarians, anti-nationalists and “anti-racists” are Jewish, inside and outside of Israel.
There are plenty of ideological directions one could go in from here, and as always there is no silver bullet solution to problems of the magnitude we deal with in Western societies. And people who claim to have the bullet tend to be the most zealous about it. Some proposals are modest, some are LARPy, and some won’t be LARPy for long. But if they address our root issues they are worth some consideration. And if after such consideration you find you only disagree about secondary or tertiary issues, there is definitely room to work together. The big tent is worth preserving to persevere against our common enemies, for our struggle is revolutionary. Stay fashy my friends.
31 comments
Great article. Excellent way of condensing what we believe to 1000 words. Love the conciseness and the simple prose. A great article to link unconvinced fence-sitters to.
“Jewish elites are opposed to our entire program” Isn’t closer to the truth that the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community is opposed to our entire program?
Another terse & correct bazinga from L-Mu. Stoddard would have approved.
I would add a seventh tenet:
The money supply must be controlled and managed in the public interest.
This, I think is an economic position, which unites the alt-right, and distinguishes it from the establishment right, which – for the most part – is happy with usury and other private banking shenanigans. I found the works of Kerry Bolton (‘The Banking Swindle’) and S. M. Goodson, (‘A History of Central Banking’) most informative in this regard.
I’m right with you until you get to blaming the Jews. I fail to understand this obsession with this tiny minority of the world’s population, and their undo influence over the lives and civilizations of the entirety of White Europeans. How weak and pathetic ARE we if this is our greatest enemy?
And, further, I cannot understand their supposed interest in destroying the cultures in which they are most accepted, most tolerated, most safe, most successful. Whatever would be their motive to destroy the “White Man” and institute Third World ignorance and violence worldwide?
How in the world would this further their own interests, safety & success….creating a world in which they very lives are most and always in danger?
If they’re so damned smart, clever, devious and cunning, why would they create a virtually, uncivilized, savage world in which they are most at risk?
There is an element in Judaism, like Christianity and Islam, which is ‘universalist’. At present, this is the most influential element. They are less interested in safety than in rule, and they do this politically by advancing the narrative that they are the only people who understand suffering, agitating the lower strata of society, most of whom are neither inclined nor equipped to govern themselves.
Bernie Sanders has just said that White people do not understand poverty or discrimination.
I recommend taking a look at the names and money behind whatever hate speech watchdogs your country has for starters. Hate speech of course refers to enthocentric attitudes and speech from gentile White people.
There’s tens, hundreds, or thousands of hours of reading to be done here to understand this question properly, but in its briefest form, a society which understands race, the biological imperative of continuing one’s race, and removing threats to one’s race, is a society which is bad for Jewish interests. It can lead to nativism, “xenophobia,” closed borders, closed markets, or “pogroms.”
From Franz Boas to Ashley Montagu (Israel Ehrenberg) to Stephen Jay Gould, Lewontin and more, there has been a consistent, tribal, and very well funded attempt to remove race as a biological categorization for humans. Ignatiev, Ferber, and Wise work at deconstructing ‘whiteness” for this purpose, as it organizes a large homogeneous community, rather than having a collection of minorities, which is how the Jews prefer to operate for obvious reasons.
If you’re in Group B, all alone, you don’t want to live somewhere where everyone else is Group A, you also want Group C, Group D, Group E, etc., rather than a minority among a monolith, like the Jews in the Pale of Settlement.
Tanstaafl had a good series on this, worth looking into
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPiUs9Q7xkU&list=PL5QfRA0ZW163YLf5TLGBvsdjLdV3iaZuN
and Radishmag covered some of this in the article on H.P. Lovecraft too, lots of answers in there.
https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/cosmic-horror/#race-science
People don’t come up with this because they like saying “it’s da joooooooooooooos,” as rather unserious people claim to minimize this, people say this because it’s exactly what happened, as anyone who has studied the development of racial thinking during the last 150 years would realize. A look at Israel’s policy for admitting new citizens, vs. what Jews advocate for what defines a society outside Israel, should make even the most blinkered observer begin to wonder at the blatant double standard and why it exists.
Israel is, of course, extremely bad for PR. But I’m inclined to think that Israel was conceived as a practical ‘foothold’ for the internationalist set, and that the Israeli himself has been something of an embarrassment to the greater diaspora. I do not think for a second that the present diaspora would be happy to retract into Israel or any other small, homogeneous state.
The point is that the image of a self-interested, self-contained minority community – whether it be a ghetto or an ethnostate – is misleading. This is most certainly a people with a mission and with their own kind of proselytizing.
Jews will have to be forced to leave for Israel.
If all the truth were put in one red pill, no one could swallow it. You have to take a course of medicine, a series of red pills, to get all the way from standard conservative to understanding the JQ. Good recommendations already in this thread, if you want to start reading.
“And, further, I cannot understand their supposed interest in destroying the cultures in which they are most accepted, most tolerated, most safe, most successful.”
It may be some restless perversion, some desire to destroy what is beautiful. Jewish influence on American culture has been revolting. It starts with Gershwin, whose music is wonderful. But then we get to, well, the cesspool of 2016. Granted, Whites are bad enough on their own, with our weakness for hedonism and juvenile vulgarity masquerading as hip insouciance. I’m old enough to remember when you really couldn’t say Carlin’s seven dirty words on television. Decorum is a White thing.
Mr Lawrence is entirely correct that the JQ is the thorniest of questions for the Alt Right. As a corollary I can’t help but wonder if another cornerstone goal of the Alt Right ought to be the honest acknowledgment that our people have a serious defect that needs political action to curb, much like smoking has been banned in many public places in the West to encourage public health (I’m neither for nor against that – just using it as an example).
Whites have a defect of niceness and empathy, a defect of always looking to be on the moral high ground. It looks like, in the minds of many Whites, particularly the left, the moral high ground = what feels good and results in the least possible conflict for the most people in the short term even though it’s thoroughly self-destructive in the long term.
Whites’ niceness and search for morality is manipulated by organized Jewish activism into self-destructive tendencies; embracing immigration and diversity, fighting ‘noble’ wars to ‘bring democracy’ in the Middle East, that everyone is equal, religion is bad and oppressive, and the West isn’t civilized or moral until it has a plethora of Jewish-introduced laws punishing Whites for trying to defend what’s left of their nations.
For whatever reason; media saturation, the education system, co-opted gentile politicians who are corrupted into becoming mouthpieces of Jewish power – it seems to be extremely difficult for many Whites to resist these destructive suggestions when they are couched in moral terms and repeated. Part of the Alt-Right should be in reconditioning Whites, inoculating Whites against these suicidal defects.
Not easy, but even if we win tomorrow, we have to be thinking about how to keep things together in the long term.
Yes. And it happens on the Alt Right too when someone is attacked by the MSM and we fall over each other to criticise them for bringing the movement into disrepute. I am think of of the Heimbach incident at the Trump rally; also I have been checking out the mainstreamer site Power Through Discipline and the absolute horror they evince at anyone mentioning he JQ or blaming hostile elites and minorities–sound character means always and only blaming the Ingroup apparently. These are characteristically White foibles that should be recognised and guarded against as a form of the same hyper moralistic pathology that enables mainstream Whites to be hoodwinked into betraying their own interests.
We should not be so obsessive about appearing always to have the moral high ground. We have it and anyone open to our message sees that already. What we have yet to prove is that we can be a cohesive fighting force. Look at the Jews, blacks, Muslims et al. They don’t navel gaze when one of their number commits violence; they don’t castigate each other for having the wrong mentality and so not deserving to win; they take their own side in every case.
I disagree with you on this. The kind of dumb, reflexive solidarity that you admire makes people suckers for hotheads and con artists. You certainly do not see this in military groups, which should be the model for any activist movement. If people in our group do things that harm our cause, they need to be swiftly disciplined. If they show consistent bad judgment, vices, or personality disorders, they need to be expelled completely. That is the only way to run a movement that is serious about victory.
I’ve heard you say things like this before, Greg. What I don’t understand is how anyone can be a “sucker” unless they are being ripped off in some transaction, and I don’t see Heimbach (for example) doing that to anyone in any sense.
Worst case scenario you are dealing with a Dylan Roof situation. Actually the piece you wrote here about that was awesome because you took the “If had a son…” line and talked about the issues and the ways in which he was right in his motivation if not his terrorist method. That was the right approach, I feel. So if you can stick up for a mass murderer (without of course condoning what he did) why must you condemn a street fighter?
Yes, you are being ripped off in a transaction. You think you are getting activism for our cause, but you are really getting just undisciplined adolescent buffoonery that predictably does more harm than good.
tfw you are a jewish altrighter and agree with all 6 points, and the 7th point is da joos did it
I dont deny that most jews are leftists and/or anti-nationalists, or that they have a big influence on culture and politics because of their (our, lol) higher IQs. But had it been only leftist jews against healthy, racially aware whites they woudnt accomplish anything. The white race is profoundly ill with equalism, leftism and pathological altruism.
Most jews are culturally but not genetically assimilated into white culture. So I propose to treat a leftist jew like you would treat a leftist white – like an internal foe and a traitor ready to open the gates to the enemy hordes. Tho most jews are anti-nationalist, some of them are on our side, here in Russia too, myself included.
Sorry, but every Jewish infiltrator and subversive begins with the same line. And if you are sincere, then you know better than I ever could what a dangerous tribe you spring from. A really sincere Jewish sympathizer would be warning us away from any association with Jews. In any case, we don’t need Jewish help to win. We’ll do this on our own. You aren’t us; we aim to separate you from us completely; and we don’t need your consent or help to do so.
What’s your position on half Jews? I am half Jewish and half English. I didn’t grow up with my Jewish side of the family (divorce), so i have never considered myself to be Jewish.
I became “alt-right” before the term even existed (around 2010), and everyone i know considers me to be white. Saying I’m not white or that I’m not welcome in the movement sounds crazy to me, really.
Really, there is no shortage of good people in this cause who are 100% white, so when it comes to people of mixed white-Jewish heritage, I tend to err on the side of caution. If you came up to me at an event, I would not be unfriendly. If you bought my books or donated to CC, I would be thankful. But I wouldn’t bring you into any confidences or depend on you for anything important. Others in the movement are more open. So there is no shortage of opportunities for you to contribute in whatever way you feel comfortable.
I have actually contributed a lot (made daily mail, drudge report, news.com.au for white student union i created, write blog that i know frank salter reads, donated to CC as well as Radix, Steve sailer, etc, and i have come up with original ideas, like a definition of race that is (empirically correct) and not easily rhetorically refuted.
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/56dd9f931e0000870070367b.jpeg
I put a lot of effort and time into this movement. It would suck to be excluded from it.
Let’s not fall into the forum-dwellers’ obsession with who is in and who is out of “the movement” as a whole. This is not some sort of Bolshevik political party, so it is asinine to talk about “purges.” I was amused by the people who were upset about me “purging Roosh” as if Roosh were going to go away because of what I wrote about him. We are all more or less independent actors here, with independent platforms, and we can choose with whom we associate and how we do so.
That said, I still think that alliances with Jews, confidences with Jews, or building Jews into our movement are deeply foolish and self-defeating.
Tell me Josh, in view of what Jews have done and continue to do to promote the destruction of the white race, should White Nationalists have anything to do with them?
Keep up the straight talk Mr Johnson. Our race needs every bit of it.
When you say 100% white, are you saying that some Italian who’s like 3% Moorish or whatever should be excluded from the alt right inner circle?
From what I understand, “half Jews” and “quarter Jews” almost always identify as Jews (enough that you can safely assume that they do), but I wouldn’t use that as a justification for imposing a “one drop rule” universally.
My attitude toward mixing with non-European Caucasians is completely pragmatic: an amnesty on past mixing and a moratorium on all future mixing. I have a good friend and comrade with an Italian surname, and sure enough, his 23 and me came back with about 2% middle-eastern ancestry. That means nothing to me. The problem with Jews is not their genes per se, although they are ugly and have quite a lot of mental illness. The problem is their culture and consciousness. And as I said in another comment, if a partial Jew is drawn to ethnonationalism, it is natural for him to gravitate toward his Jewish side, which will be welcoming, rather than to ethnically conscious (and Jew-wise) whites who will be diffident to hostile. I am one of the least hostile WNs toward such people that you can find. If they make real contributions, I am not going to make a fuss. But I simply don’t think they are in this for the long haul, and I will never bring them into the inner circles. A one drop rule, however, seems silly. If a person has only a tiny percentage of Jewish ancestry and no real ties to the hive, and if they basically honor whatever Jewish ancestor’s decision to opt out of the tribe, I am not going to worry about this. Again, the real issue for me is whether such people would end up finding a more comfortable place in the tribe. And people with distant, miniscule, or merely probable Jewish ancestry are nothing to Jews.
I’m at a loss as to why a half-jewish alt-righter would even want to identify as such. If your Jewish ancestry is that irrelevant to you, why tell people who can’t even see what you look or sound like that you are half-jewish? You claim to have no real ties to but then why are they still worth mentioning? Zionism clearly makes room for people of partial Jewish ancestry who don’t practice Judaism at all. The ethno-nationalism advocated by the alt-right as a solution to diversity problems and to provide a homeland for each tribe would suggest that anyone who feels any attachment to Jewish identity, culture or blood belongs in a Jewish state. If you really feel the need to identify as half-jewish that suggests you are more of a Zionist than a White nationalist in terms of which ethnostate you would be loyal to.
I suppose in theory a half-jew could be alt-right and a Jewish nationalist (Zionist). But a White nationalist who identifies as half-jewish? Doesn’t really add up.
Here’s my standard reply to partially Jewish people who show up in our circles. If you are drawn to ethnonationalism, you will eventually move back to your Jewish roots. For you will find many people in our circles who will reject you, whereas you will find the Jewish community much more welcoming. So by all means, if you want to spend time promoting White Nationalism, go ahead. But I am betting that eventually you will find Jewish identity more appealing. Thus you can understand why I don’t want to share confidences with or depend in any way on such people. This is probably just a phase you are going through. We, however, are in this for life, and we are playing for world historical stakes.
ohh lol, i posted the wrong link . I meant this link https://forum.therightstuff.biz/topic/2212/define-race
WYAM? – Would You Accept Me? All alternative right sites are seeing a huge rise of these posts in their comments sections, forums and twitter feeds lately. I would say 75% of them are Jewish or half-Jewish laying out their case why Jews and whites are natural allies and we are not that different. I don’t know if it’s coordinated or individual Jews have seen the increasing media attention on the alt-right lately and have started the long march through our institutions. It’s like clockwork.
“We’ll do this on our own. You aren’t us; we aim to separate you from us completely; and we don’t need your consent or help to do so.” That’s all we need to say.
It is interesting that this is a trend you are observing. In which case, it is probably an op. We definitely need to raise our opsec. Thanks for the perspective.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.