1,251 words
There are two views of human development: those of the Darwinians and those of the Progressives. We in the Alternative Right belong to the Darwinians because we believe in science, the scientific method, and the value of observation and analysis. The Progressives, on the other hand, are repelled by their observations of the human condition and attempt to replace science with a belief system they can manipulate. Progressives are Utopians; while we on the Alt-Right are Realists.
Before I go on, I should explain the Alternative Right is an alternative to the conservative movement which, we believe, has been taken over by neo-conservatives who believe in free trade, mass immigration, nation building, and individual rights above ethnic rights.
We believe the neo-conservative worldview is a recipe for disaster; indeed, for the disaster that has already overcome the world with violence from the Middle East in Europe, America, Canada, and Australia; with the loss of good middle class jobs, with attacks on our heritage and ancestry and with issues of crime and culture shock associated with mass immigration from the Third World. We believe, in short, that neo-conservatism has accepted Progressive globalist goals and attempted to dress them up in conservative clothes.
This is easily proven. Communism, the product of Marxism, sought to expand over the whole world and to impose a top-down governing structure run by socialist elites. Neo-conservatism seeks to establish a New World Order of international free trade, complete with open borders for Western nations for corporations to hire cheap Third World workers, controlled by a small coterie of international elites. In reality, it’s the same totalitarianism in a different color.
The Alt-Right, on the other hand, believes in democratic bottom-up government, the nation state based on an ethnic model, a capitalist national economy, very little immigration, the family as the basic social unit, and a national birthrate of, at least, 2.1 children per family. These are all conservative policies, or rather what were classical liberal policies at the time of Adam Smith. They are now extremely out of favor in the West.
Why we believe in these policies is very interesting. It’s because, as Darwinians, we think the nation should exist as a gene pool, since we come from a European background, a European gene pool. We think the same argument should apply to other ethnic and racial groups. Thus, we support the Kurds in their demand for a country of their own. We support Israel as a land for the Jews, Japan as a land for the Japanese, Congo for the Congolese, and so on. Each race/ethnic group is like an extended family for the people in it, and this large extended family should have a home of its own. Again, this used to be standard fare for Classical liberals, but again it has fallen into disfavor.
It’s fallen into disfavor because utopianism is a very appealing concept and has won many converts. It was the driving force behind Christian evangelism, international Communism, and the United Nations. It appeals to some of the best human instincts (helping others); but it also appeals to some of the worst (something for nothing, negation of human nature, and the manipulative creation of a “new man”). In this latter form, it has become useful to those who are attempting to leverage it to achieve power, such as cultural Marxists, environmental activists, and Left liberals of all stripes.
Let me present a very simple concept at the heart of the Alt-Right movement. If people in a group are genetically similar they will develop a pattern of habits and procedures which they’re comfortable with. This is their culture. Any laws they happen to agree on are designed to catch the exceptions, that is, those individuals who deviate from the accepted norms. In other words, the law is for exceptions to the culture, not a method of enforcing a new culture. Because most people in the group agree on most things, there is a maximum amount of personal freedom.
If, to take the reverse of this argument, you have a group of people who are genetically different, each sub-unit will differ in its culture from the others. These cultures will eventually clash because their laws are based on their cultures and their cultures are based on their biology. To put these different races and cultures in the same political basket is to ask for trouble. In every case where it has been tried, it’s failed. There are numerous examples: India, Ireland, Iraq, Syria, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the United States (white and black America), Canada (our Native problem, the Quebec nation) and, my favorite, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This latter was an empire based, like Canada’s constitution, on multiculturalism and bi-culturalism. Its spectacular failure led to WWI.
The Alt-Right believes that the maximum amount of personal freedom, the best form of national economy, and most harmonious society can only exist within the boundaries of an ethnically-based nation state. If we seem anxious and upset at current events in the world it is because we see them as a disaster unfolding over which we have no control and about which we are very well informed.
All of which means nothing to most people because if they express an interest in the Alt-Right they’re afraid they’ll be accused of racism. This is a real tar baby in modern discussions on race, even for physical anthropologists who have shied away from making comments on the subject because of the influence of Columbia University physical anthropologist Franz Boas (1858–1942). Boas, whose grandparents were observant Jews, turned the discipline from the study of biology into the study of culture, claiming humans could be changed by social and environmental factors and downplaying the role of genetic inheritance.
However, as I’ve just shown, culture is downstream from biology just as law is downstream from culture. To claim otherwise is to confuse cause and effect. Indeed much of the failure of modern day social programs can be laid at the feet of Boas’ followers, from the Great Society, to school busing programs, to demolished public housing complexes in St. Louis and Chicago. None of these programs worked because none of them dealt with the root cause of the problem.
Surely, after 75 years of failure, someone somewhere needs to return anthropology — the study of humans — to studying humans as the animals we are. We need to study humans at least as well as we do dogs, sheep, cattle or horses. We need categories, we need statistics, we need to establish (actually re-establish) the relationship between these categories and their social and cultural by-products.
Is it racism to study race? I’ll answer that by narrowing the field in question to that of your own family. Is it racist to prefer and enjoy your own family over someone else’s? Is it racist to love your wife, cherish your children, defend your parents? Some leftist thinkers believe it is. Indeed, Cultural Marxists believe the family unit itself should be abolished.
In this semantic and social fight, which side are you on? Are you with those who want to atomize society, remove inheritance, make babies in factories to specifications approved by a ruling elite? That’s what anti-racists are calling for, working for, demanding for us all. Consider what their ultimate goal is: a world of individuals stripped of any biological relationship, the race-mixing of all Western cultures, and thus the extinction of Europeans as a distinctive race. This is the truly horrifying end game of anti-racism.
Source: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/04/alternative-right-belongs-to-darwinians.html
21 Comments
SocDar > SocJus
The author claims Alt Right consensus for issues on which there actually isn’t much agreement. Given the nature of his claims I suspect his observations are molded by Facebook where discussion in Alt Right groups reputedly takes a more libertarian and paleoconservative slant. Much public Alt Right discourse occurs in other venues, notably Twitter, /pol/, the TRS Forum, Daily Stormer, and popular blogs. These cover a wider gamut of Alt Right opinion than Facebook.
On to the claims:
The Alt Right has no unified position on the ideal form of government; in fact, rejection of democracy, egalitarianism, and individualism is widespread, and many people support significant limits on the franchise of voting. The poll with the largest sample size I’ve seen was conducted on the TRS Forum (during the forum’s previous incarnation, so unfortunately it’s now lost) and the results showed roughly a quarter in favor of Fascism, roughly a quarter for National Socialism, and the third largest group favored Monarchy. Of course TRS has its own slant, and while it probably doesn’t hold the moderate ground within the Alt Right it’s generally less hardline than the much larger Daily Stormer community, so I don’t believe those poll results could be easily dismissed as being unrepresentative.
Capitalism doesn’t have universal support on the Alt Right either. Fascists and National Socialists favor fascist approaches to the economy, which in historical practice were neither entirely capitalist nor wholly socialist.
That figure is oddly specific. I’d like to see a citation.
This is the figure needed to keep the population size stable. The 0.1 are to offset natural mortality.
The 0.1 figure is needed to offset natural phenomena. In every species including humans there is approx 11 boys born per 10 girls.
Great article. A very succinct explanation of the cultural war that we are fighting, and why we are fighting it.
Just a couple of quibbles: environmentalist activists are not our enemies in-so-far as they are environmentalists. It’s just that many of them are misguided, or are in actuality cultural marxists posing as conservationists. In my opinion, the issue of White survival, and our planet’s survival, are one and the same.
Also I’m not sure that the alt-Right is by any means decided on the issue of economics. I don’t claim any expertise, but I know that there are many alternatives to capitalism floating around radical right circles, including corporatism, Social Credit, and of course, NS. Then there are those who want to do away with the modern economy altogether.
My my where would the anal retentive English in Ontario be if they didn’t have the French Canadians and Indians to complain about? Why they might have to figure out who is the real enemy and perhaps look at themselves and their collusion. It is extremely lazy to complain about Quebec and the Indians, and sit on your fat ass about immigration.
I think you have it backwards rhondda. Last I checked, it was Frenchies and ‘First Nations’ who make a living off whining about Anglos, and not the reverse, even as the government gives them special treatment. No good deed (done by the majority) goes unpunished.
Sorry, no that is all I hear from Whites all the time, but if I bring up immigration or short term working permits that take jobs from Canadians, I get that stare that I am a racist. Indians get away with whining because they play on guilt and stupid whites fall for it. Where I live a marxist educated native women got hired by the school board and she complained all the time and said they needed an all native school in town, so the board gave her a school and since they all fight among each other, the parents would not send their kids to that school and it shut down. Nobody dared say the truth of the cost of this nonsense. When I was a social worker and got called a racist by Indians I called them on it and gave specifics. They always backed off and we then could manage some mutual respect.
French Candians do not whine about the rest of Canada as much as the English whine about them. At least they are trying to preserve their language and what culture they have that has not been savaged by globalism.
“French Candians do not whine about the rest of Canada as much as the English whine about them.”
Well my experience has been different, but that’s not what matters in the end. As you say, it’s great that the Quebecois are trying to preserve their language and culture, I’m all for that. It’s just a shame that they’ve been so blinded by their resentment towards Anglos that they failed to see that native White, English-speaking Canadians, evil occupiers that they are, do in fact have more in common with them than allegedly “Francophone” Arabs, Africans and Mongoloids. Hey, don’t get me wrong, I respect their stance against Muslim immigration, but who invited the Haitians to Canada?
With all this bickering and dysfunction, I’m starting to think that the only solution for Quebec to really separate and gain independence, if White Canadians are ever to stop hating each other. But I can’t help but wondering if the French really do want to get away from Anglos, or is that just empty posturing to extort money from the government?
I basically agree with you. However, I believe it is in the government’s interest to keep the hatred alive so that they can slip through their other globalist intentions. Way back Canadians voted out one government because we did not want the NAFTA and what did Mulroney do? He went full hog for it. So if people are bickering over English/French relations, the government stirs the pot and does what it wants.
The silly, continued infighting between Anglo and French Canadians despite the common external threat is reminding me of the history of the Indians.
We know the outcome.
“… utopianism is a very appealing concept and has won many converts. It was the driving force behind Christian evangelism, international Communism, and the United Nations.”
Once again let me bore the crowd with my assertion that blaming Christianity for our current rootless universalism is cherry-picking history and utterly ignores the birth of our kind of toxic universalism in the completely anti-Christian Enlightenment. Consider the French Revolution. Read Rousseau and the Romantics.
As counter-vailing evidence I point out that the “moderns” all considered the Church as a sinkhole of privilege and aristocracy, as well as noting that at not time when Europe (or America) was largely Christian did it import hordes of Muslims or other aliens (except, tragically, Africans as slaves).
Contemporary liberal Christianity –which is pretty much all of it, Rome included– is hopeless. That I grant. But it was colonized by post-socialist/Marxist liberalism. In the long age of Christendom, none of the suicidal crap we live with now would have even been thinkable.
Our Lady of Lepanto, pray for us.
Here endeth the lesson.
http://conservativefans.com/2016/04/13/quebec-mayor-gives-muslim-refugees-a-rude-wake-up-call-that-canadians-dont-adapt-to-them-its-the-other-way-around/
I wish mayors in English Canada had this guy’s audacity.
” We support Israel as a land for the Jews”
Speak for yourself. It is because I do believe in indigenous peoples having a right to their own homelands that I support Palestine as a land for the Palestinians, just as Europe is the land of whites (Europeans), China of Chinese, etc.
Then where do you think Jews should go? I’ve heard pro-Palestinians say that Israeli Jews should “go back to Europe”. That’s the last thing we should want.
The main flaw of this article is that it discusses the alternative right as if it possesses an orthodoxy. In reality, the alternative right is highly heterodox; it is a generic label applied to those elements of the right outside of and opposed to and by the mainstream right. As several commentators have already noted, those on the alternative right envisage several models of government (e.g., organic democracy, monarchy, fascism) and economics (e.g., corporatism, social credit, national socialism).
Another flaw is that the author effectively defines the alternative right as a race realist form of classical liberalism. Speaking for myself, I could call myself a conservative-liberal-socialist in the manner of Leszek Kolakowski’s essay, “How to be a Conservative-Liberal-Socialist”:
http://www.mrbauld.com/conlibsoc.html
There are elements of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism that I accept, but I wouldn’t define myself as a liberal, conservative, or socialist. However important these elements are, I regard them as ultimately secondary; they define means rather than ends. They define certain governing ideas of a polity, but they don’t define the identity of the polity.
I’d rather define myself as an identitarian, in the sense in which it is defined here:
http://transcendental-titans.net/identitarian/transcendental-titans-the-identitarian-credo/
I could say that I advocate an ethnocentric radicalism for creating White ethnostates and an ethnocentric centrism for governing White ethnostates.
Evolutionism is sometimes a great epistemological tool, but it should not be used too much. There are at least four reasons to that.
First, evolutionism itself is a progressive position. Cultural Marxism may reject the importance of genes, but the dispute between evolutionism and CM is an opposition between two progressive narratives. It is but a false alternative between two modern decoys. We should aim at getting out of modernity, out of the pseudo-progressive narratives that negate esotericism, initiation, spiritual consciousness, and so on.
Second, evolutionism is necessarily false because, as said René Guénon, it is impossible that the superior appears from the inferior. Colours cannot appear from something that does not contain, at least, the potentiality of colour. Complex animals cannot appear from mere molecules. Only something which contains all the possibilities ever can be the true origin of complex beings and properties. Emergentism is but a modern position to not recognize the metaphysical truth.
Third, evolutionism does not allow for a true hope. If the world reduces itself to Darwinian competition, what can we hope for? The mere survival of White peoples? I would like something more.
Four, Darwinism is ultimately antisocial. It implies that the essence of our world lies in competition, in perpetual struggles for life. Darwinism exists too in capitalist markets, in the “economy of attention,” and if we trust Dawkins it goes down to each gene competing against each other. If we accept the world to be like this, how can we pretend to found a society? Societies only make sense in antagonisms against other societies. Pull that away and the antagonisms come back between individuals.
Everything we can hope for is perpetual struggle. This is not very tempting.
These points made, evolutionary psychology has many merits: it helps us to recognize relevant stuff, like human biodiversity, the variability of IQ amongst individuals and races, the hypergamy of women, the individualism of White peoples… yet all that stuff is something we find today, not something that needs evopsy to be accounted for.
Darwinism is sometimes a fine tool, but it should be used with a grain of salt. I would rather hope for a new Golden Age and for a renewed sense of White solidarity than struggle for crumbles in a metaphysically impoverished world.
The theory of evolution is a scientific postulate. Was Rene Guenon a scientist? The answer is no. He was a philosopher. Are you suggesting we abandon science in favour of philosophy? Sounds like a step backwards. There’s nothing wrong with non-rationalist interpretations of the world, but if that means you can’t make use of the scientific method (which by definition requires it be applied consistently to all scientific question), then you might get a society with all the spiritual authenticity of a Stone Age tribe, as well as the same level of technological and scientific advancement.
Also, I should like to point out that the theory of natural selection does not mean that superior organisms will always progress from inferior ones. It simply means the survival of the fittest (i.e. those which are more likely to reproduce). In times of extreme danger and want, this has rewarded the strong, the brave, and the clever. In times of comfort and unnatural security, this means those more likely to exploit the system, and the toil of others, will have the most children, i.e. the stupid, the slothful, the sociopathic. The theory of evolution is thus perfectly consistent with the decline we are seeing in society today, and possibly since the rise of civilization itself thousands of years ago. As Jack Donovan put it, we’re the Chimpanzees who’ve done the job of survival too well, and now we’re devolving into Bonobos.
interesting how you say culture is Downstream from biology. I don’t think we should underestimate the impact of culture however. in the short run culture is more impactful than heredity. for example there are now more whites born out of wedlock than there were blacks a century ago. however blacks responded to the same environmental changes by having far more children out of wedlock today than whites do today and likewise a century ago they had more out of wedlock than whites. so while in the short run and culture is more important, in the long run biology is more important in terms of setting the floor and ceiling for potential conduct of a group of people. the thing is that biology is scarcer than culture because culture can change rapidly as we’ve seen in the past Century in America but biology cannot change that fast. genetic building blocks are less pliable than the learned actions of their possessors. it just sucks that we can’t even get to that level of analysis because we’re still contending with the sophist arguments Stephen Jay Gould etc who deny culture is Downstream from biology.
“Is it racist to prefer and enjoy your own family over someone else’s? Is it racist to love your wife, cherish your children, defend your parents?”
Yes. Now go adopt a black african child.