In Defense of the Alt-Right, a response to Paul


Let me first thank you for writing your piece on True Detective and our present Reactionary moment. It’s refreshing to read a criticism of NRx and the Alt-Right that’s written in good faith, without attempting to do too much of a hatchet job on it. You bring up some insightful points, and being a member of Left-Catholic Twitter, you also bring an interesting perspective to the discussion. That being said, let me try to respond to what I believe are your main points. In hopes that, by the end of this piece, I’ll have you convinced that, to paraphrase a particularly woke Thomist: “NRx and the Alt-Right are very good, in fact, they are beautiful.”

Unfortunately, I can’t speak precisely about your allusions to the second season of T.D.. While I’m a big fan of the sublime first season, I’ve avoided the second like the plague due to its terrible reviews. However, I don’t think this will handicap me in responding to your critique.

You correctly perceive that many currently involved in “Alt-Right” online communities are, like the characters from season two of T.D., damaged individuals. Individuals who, like most persons in this fallen world of toil and pain, certainly have more than a few peculiar hang-ups. Given the profoundly disordered state of modern society, is this so unexpected? I mean, is it all that surprising that many men in the contemporary Western world would feel angry, a bit lost and an even perhaps a little insecure in their masculinity? The real surprise, in my estimation, would be if this weren’t the case.

The thing is, given the circumstances, they have every right to feel this way. Assuming that most of the Alt-Right and NRx communities are comprised of what has become known as the “millennial generation,” it’s safe to assume many have direct experience with many of the social pathologies they are now rebelling against. At least half of them were likely raised in a broken home and got to witness first hand the emotional scars and resentments which are usually engendered by such lovely circumstances. Another safe assumption is that they probably received a first-rate Liberal public education which drilled into their heads the idea that they were special snowflakes whose primary concern should only be chasing their own late-Capitalist hopes and dreams.

They also probably have had the joy/anguish of being able to experience what is frequently referred to, in the ever multiplying thinkpieces produced by our centrist shitrags, as “hookup culture,” that beautiful triumph of feminist ideology which has seen the majority of women and men “liberated” from the oppressive patriarchal social structures of past generations. “Liberated,” it seems, to become ever more miserable as they compete in a cut-throat Neo-Liberal sexual marketplace from which only a select few actually benefit. In this environment, when trust between the sexes is at an all-time low, is it so surprising that hilarious terms like “cuckoldry” and “cuckservative” have become so popular? That some men may perhaps begin to genuinely struggle with what, as you called it, “authentic masculinity” actually is?

In a society in which almost every interaction between the sexes has to be approached with a hermeneutic of suspicion, is not this supposedly toxic masculinity that you deride a bit more understandable? Perhaps a bit of a understandable defense mechanism? Say what you want about someone like Heartsie (the Dark Lord himself). Say that what he recommends is immoral, or grotesque, or misogynist, or perverse and manipulative, because all of these things are probably true. Just don’t say that, in the context of the modern sexual meat market he operates in, his observations of human behavior are wrong. Because they’re not. The reason why people like Heartsie are so popular is that their observations jive with people’s actual, lived experience. Jane Austen certainly would not approve, but let us remember that in America’s enlightened sexual marketplace the emphasis is on self-preservation, not ethics. As unfortunate and ugly as these circumstances are for everyone involved, they remain the product of structural problems which have their genesis in Liberalism’s promotion of the sexual liberation of the individual from patriarchal norms. Essentially, the very thing the Alt-Right and Neo-Reaction oppose so vehemently.

Your brief point regarding the role of religion within the Alt-Right/NRx is especially interesting. You wrote: “A major problem with reaction is its desire for the aesthetics of religion without certain hard teachings.” I look at it this way: If you were to build a time machine and go back to say, the year 2008, a good number of the individuals within the Alt-Right would be profoundly different people. Today many of them, if not religious themselves, at least regard religion with a particular kind of respect. But circa 2008, these same people would have almost certainly been decked out in vintage fedoras while sharing their favorite Richard Dawkins quotes. While not ideal, I’d call this evolution a welcome development. One of the more interesting things about someone like Mencius Moldbug (the Autistic Emperor of Neo-Reaction) is how his ideas have so altered the views of certain individuals in regards to religion. People, for instance, who were previously Randian Anarcho-Capitalists or tech-worshippers awaiting the salvation offered by the coming singularity; people who previously would have approached religion with only contempt or suspicion, now tend to have much more open and respectful views concerning traditional religious systems, even if still only seeing them as a kind of social technology. Again, while this may not seem ideal to a traditionalist Christian, it’s still a development one can only regard as a vast improvement over the previously state of affairs. It would be a mistake to let the perfect become the enemy of the good on this issue.

You also wrote that “The alt-right and neoreaction ought to see the subtle minority-blaming of certain depressed paleoconservatives as the wicked and foolish thing it is, not amplify it.” Here, I don’t think you could be more wrong. As the Alt-Right’s popularization of many, previously obscure, Paleo-Conservative critiques of Liberalism remains one of its most notable accomplishments. In particular the Paleo-Conservative criticism of Neo-Liberalism’s multiculturalist pretensions and Neo-Conservative foreign policy (which so often seem to go hand in hand). The Paleo critique of multiculturalism consists merely in pointing out that there are important differences between ethnic groups, cultures and religions — between say a Muslim Whabbhist and a French secularist; differences which will make it difficult if not impossible for them to live peacefully together in the same nation. That not all cultures are inherently equal, and even the magic dirt beneath the feet of the American multiculturalist can’t change this. That some cultures, such as that of the African-American underclass are actively poisonous and tend to produce maladjusted individuals who tend to commit crimes and display anti-social behavior with significantly higher rates than the rest of the population. These observations, which are frequently made by NRx and the Alt-Right, may make some young idealists uncomfortable, but that doesn’t negate their accuracy.  So if merely observing these facts counts as “minority blaming,” by all means let’s have some more of it.

The danger of ignoring these differences is more than just an academic one, with many real people suffering greatly due to these multicultural delusions it seems you would like to cling to. As Slavoj Zizek recalled when discussing multiculturalism:

In a homologous way, there was, in Slovenia, around a year ago, a big problem with a Roma (Gipsy) family which camped close to a small town. When a man was killed in the camp, the people in the town started to protest against the Roma, demanding that they be moved from the camp (which they occupied illegally) to another location, organizing vigilante groups, etc. As expected, all liberals condemned them as racists, locating racism into this isolated small village, while none of the liberals, living comfortably in the big cities, had any everyday contact with the Roma (except for meeting their representatives in front of the TV cameras when they supported them). When the TV interviewed the “racists” from the town, they were clearly seen to be a group of people frightened by the constant fighting and shooting in the Roma camp, by the constant theft of animals from their farms, and by other forms of small harassments from the Roma. It is all too easy to say (as the liberals did) that the Roma way of life is (also) a consequence of the centuries of their exclusion and mistreatment, that the people in the nearby town should also open themselves more to the Roma, etc. — nobody clearly answered the local “racists” what they should concretely do to solve the very real problems the Roma camp evidently was for them.

Not only does clinging to multiculturalism harm regular people directly, through crime, terrorism and the like, but it also sets back the Left’s own anti-racist ideology. For by denying the reality of religious and cultural differences you inadvertently give ammunition to the very “racists” you so despise. Since these discrepancies in outcomes between population groups will have to be explained somehow, and burying your head in the sand won’t make them go away. Some, like the folks who believe the human condition is reducible solely to genetics, will agree with you that it isn’t culture after all but instead that these differences can be attributed to the “scientific reality” of race. This idea will be ever more appealing as we enter a hyper-analytic and post-religious future, where seemingly neutral statistics like I.Q. scores will seem awfully appealing explanations for differences between population groups. So just remember; if you do not admit to  “culture” as an explanation for group differences, you’ll be almost certain to have a secular, post-Paleo conception of “race” instead. After all, as you said, when all’s said and done, we tend to “get the world we deserve.”

Your critique goes on to accuse the Alt-Right and Neo-Reaction of also preferring order to chaos, even if that order is an “unethical” and “unjust” one. On its face, this criticism is entirely accurate, but it seems to suggest that preferring order over chaos equates to an uncritical endorsement of the Liberal order. It is important to note here that, as I’m sure you’re already aware, views in the Alt-Right and NRx proper vary widely on the subject of Liberalism and shouldn’t be casually lumped together. The Alt-Right of Gavin McInnes and Milo Yiannopoulos is basically an extreme form of Libertarianism which affirms the tenets of Classical Liberalism, while NRx and other related forms of genuine Reaction tend to reject Modernism and Liberalism outright. It’s therefore a bit dishonest to equate them both with an uncritical embrace of what we may refer to as “Americanism.” But at the end of the day it is true that both the Alt-Right and NRx see order as almost always preferable to chaos. This may fly in the face of classic Leftist philosophical presuppositions, such as the assumption that traditional hierarchies are always inherently exploitive, that human society, once liberated from these authorities will somehow manage to self-organize into a utopia of primitive Communism. This egalitarian fantasy has been the heart and soul of Leftist thought since its genesis — there is no way to escape this. This is why there can be no genuine synthesis of traditionalist Christian ideas and Marxist ones. As Nicolás Gómez Dávila pointed out:

In order to ally himself with the Communist, the leftist Catholic asserts that Marxism merely criticizes Christianity’s compromises with the bourgeoisie, when it is Christianity’s essence which Marxism condemns.

This is the hard truth that most of the idealistic Catholics who earnestly seek common ground with Marxism refuse to see. The Marxist rejection of hierarchy is at the heart of its entire project. Let’s remember that Marx believed the traditional patriarchal Christian family to be a system of oppression and exploitation. A system which needs to be abolished in favor of a post-familial society in which men and women would enjoy perfect equality, with bonds of sexual exclusivity being completely eliminated in favor of uninhibited free love. The grace of the Christian Church transformed the conception of the old pagan family, but the Marxist critique seeks not its transformation, but its complete destruction. Is not this desire for the eventual annihilation of the traditional family at the heart of today’s Left-Liberal synthesis? In light of the new emphasis on same-sex marriage and gender ideology by Liberals, is the Right so misguided in decrying this as “Cultural Marxism”? It is noteworthy that it has only been the Alt-Right and NRx which have been willing to openly condemn these grotesqueries, while the new Catholic Left has been mostly silent or else attempted to change the subject. This is unsurprising, as any such dissent from the Catholic Left on these issues would almost certainly result in an excommunication by the petulant ideologues running the show at the likes of Jacobin Magazine. It is difficult to see how a “Catholic Left” can simultaneously be both Catholic and Leftist on the issue of societal hierarchies, and thus, difficult to see how one can be authentically both “Leftist” and “Catholic.”

So in conclusion, what makes the Alt-Right and NRx so valuable in our present context is the very thing you seem to deride it so for: its tendency to discriminate. I mean here of course not the modern conception of discrimination, which is understood mostly as “being mean for no good reason,” but rather that to “discriminate” is merely the process of making distinctions between things — something the Western world, until the last several hundred years, had historically been so adept at. Distinctions between different cultures, between male and female, order and chaos, between the good and the bad. It is this ability to make rational distinctions which separate us from the lower orders of animals. And it is for this reason that the Alt-Right and NRx, for all their vulgar flaws, are not only very good, but are, in fact, completely beautiful.

P.T. Carlo

Head Ideologist of the late Weimerican Empire. Interests include, but are not limited to, attempting to reestablish the Presley dynasty, the only rightful hereditary rulers of the American Nation, and cigarettes. At any given moment probably huddled in the ruins of an abandoned strip mall somewhere between San Diego, California, and Newark, New Jersey.

6 thoughts on “In Defense of the Alt-Right, a response to Paul

  1. An impeccable response, but for Carlo that is expected.

    It is very important that we delineate between the different brands of dissent that exist today. Milo’s contrarian antics are in no way comparable to something like Social Matter. Lamenting the gaggle of, yes, social misfits, outcasts, dropouts, basement dwellers, trolls and so forth is stupid for two reasons, the first being that such individuals have in many cases been placed into such situations by Liberalism itself and thus are acting on a correct instinct by fighting back, but also because they really do not correlate with the intellectual milieu of the far right. They are ‘soldiers of lulz’ in place of soldiers of fortune, and they have their uses. Are there a great many deluded into thinking America was actually ‘great’ at some time, that Donald Trump is going to ride in on a white stallion and save the day, or perhaps that the world would be just fine if only we had ‘real’ free speech and were allowed to offend leftists all day every day? Yes. A great many indeed. But these people would exist regardless, and if they didn’t believe these supposed ‘right wing’ fictions, they would be deluding themselves with left wing fictions like, “the patriarchy is a global conspiracy!”, “Donald Trump is literally Hitler!” or worse.

    Reaction’s primary statement on democracy is that most people are stupid, and so for the leadership of nations to be determined by majorities is lunacy. If we accept that, that most people are indeed stupid, then of course there is no use in trying to hold them to a high intellectual standard. Such a thing would fail. Instead, why not put them to good use? Going out and setting up a religious mercenary order (which I saw on Twitter the other day) is a reasonable use of time. For those not at this level, generating online popularity for the truth about Soros-puppet Hillary is also a reasonable use of time. Who loses?

    Last week I laid out how the AltRight in general has two systems within it, one constructive (intellectual heirs to the counter-Enlightenment), the other destructive (unintellectual offspring of the internet and teenage rebelliousness). The split is about 20/80 and that’s okay. Both are doing their jobs very well. And there is no scapegoating whatsoever. In the wake of Cologne, Rotherham, etc. it is villainy to say that one is scapegoating when they speak of the dangers of third world migration. The response to this is fully justified, as is a healthy suspicion of Jews, who have facilitated it in many instances.

    1. “Reaction’s primary statement on democracy is that most people are stupid, and so for the leadership of nations to be determined by majorities is lunacy.”

      Obviously, at certain points in history, the term “stupid” may apply, but I believe historically, this is actually a derogatory thing to say, although I get your meaning. The masses should not be considered stupid just because they are not able to collectively perform the duty that a worthy authority or specialized elite should be responsible for. The working class, the warriors, the artisans and so forth, should not be considered stupid just because a democratic system asks them to be responsible for something they are not prepared to manage. As Evola said, a shepherd who performs his duty to perfection is superior to a king who underperforms. We would not call the masses stupid because most of them don’t know how to weld, for example. We understand that each person in society has a duty to perform that is geared towards their character and genetic disposition. Furthermore, even “intelligent” people are evidently often incapable of understanding proper decision making in regards to nation building. I don’t mean any disrespect! However, I think this silly argument that “democracy doesn’t work because the masses are stupid,” should frankly be offensive to anyone who understands how a society with a healthy, functioning caste system works. It is like saying, the masses are stupid because most of them don’t even understand how to lead a country!

      1. Stupid in context. Of course, there are gradients of stupidity, but one cannot expect most people to be able to comprehend what the Brahmin caste can, nor should they. Yes, it was a little derogetory, but you understand what I mean. The masses are not prepared to lead a country, manage its accounts, etc. so they should not vote on it. This does correlate with intelligence among other things (spiritual capacity, sound judgment, etc.) Ideally leaders should be intelligent. It isn’t always necessary, but is more often than not a plus.

        Let us perhaps recategorize it as a certain ‘aptititude’ only possessed by a select few, the aristocracy. Not only are the masses not typically as intelligent as the ruling class, but they also lack the scholarship of the Brahmin caste, for good reason. Who can farm if they are occupied by study? Who can soldier if they are occupied by study?

        You are right, stupid is the wrong word for it. ‘Ill-equipped’ or ‘Ill-suited’ may be better.

    2. You act as if the United States is run as a democracy. I am not alluding to any conspiracy or form of such a thing, but simply that it is a republic in structure but an oligarchy in power. Hillary Clinton does not draw her power from unwashed masses pouring over the Mexican border, nor from obese pigs who grew up on delicious Gen-X rebellion and Feminism. She has very little power in itself. She suckles off power from democracy makers who in turn influence policy makers which shape the direction of the country. Americanist lobbying is everything, in which Plutocracy rules in such a capitalist society.

      And I think the United States was quite great, prior to the 1960s. WWII was something the US should never have been involved in, along with WWI.

  2. “classic Leftist philosophical presuppositions, such as the assumption…that human society, once liberated…will somehow manage to self-organize into a utopia.”

    I myself just completed a piece detailing how these presuppositions insidiously haunt the policies and practices of the State today, and the damage they do in the process. One of the very best things about the new dissident Right is that it has started to seriously call this sort of thinking into question where various self-styled “Conservatives” wittingly or unwittingly duplicated it (the “end of history” as understood by the neo-cons, etc.). Social order does not simply just happen; that’s why God created temporal government. And since the Utopian conception of auto-magic instant order necessarily relies on an extreme form of materialistic determinism as its central premise, it is indeed radically incompatible with religion of any sort (as its chief theorist, Marx, made abundantly clear).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s