Alt-Right Viewed From the Right

Instead of couching the subject, I’ll be very direct. I have yet to see anything redeeming about the so called “Alt-Right.” At best, it is a general milieu where some, though quite rare, individuals exist which have a certain predisposition to look with a transcendent eye at political events and systems. Rarer still are finding individuals who live out such ideals with any degree of élan awesome enough to be compelling. Perhaps it’s not surprising, since if such individuals still existed, they would not dare to be involved in such an amorphous and disorganized phantom.

However, most people see it as the only viable ark left. In a modern world which has no will to escape from its bourgeois or collectivist solidity, alternatives are a must — an escape is a must. The world offers, for the most part, two options of centrist or Leftist policies — there is no third. To many people, a more reactionary mindset becomes the only breathing room left. But is this choice truly a different one?

The insidious nature of modernity is that it often sets up two false poles; opposites by which it generates shocking electricity with the underlying and unconsciously cynical reality that the two opposites are not so different at all. Instead, the shock paralyzes those caught between the poles. This is most obviously seen between the choices of liberals and conservatives in most modern states which, if they are not already colluding, represent only stone-throw distances from each other. Furthermore, while the spectator is busy in the circus of Right and Left, he is never left to ask whether or not the contest is necessary or just at all.

Does the “Alt-Right” fall into this same category? If it was something truly “alternative” wouldn’t it present a fundamentally different essence than its liberal or centrist counterparts? I can already hear the various objections if one were to make any sort of challenge to what the “Alt-Right” is. “These are strawman arguments,” some might say simply because the “Alt-Right” has no defined orthodoxy. It makes itself invincible to criticism because it shrugs off any attack on its various members as not the true essence of what the “Alt-Right” represents. Ironically, it is this amorphous defense that is indicative of its shared pedigree with its other modern counterparts.

Any true recall to order requires organization. Organization does not simply mean the efficient rearranging of materials and elements in order to properly “function” — no, this would be “mechanization.” This kind of “mechanization” is what plenty of people see in the Leftist ideologies of today. The true essence of “organization” is found in the word itself — in organs; in something living. If we projected the “Alt-Right” phenomenon into a living thing, what would it be? It has no true head, but rather several heads talking and vying for influence with each other. It promiscuously allows any form of rebellion into itself in an attempt to destroy the present, corrupt system. In essence, a vast swell of people who are tired of the slavery of the bourgeois machine have summoned a monster to fight it. It has even come to the point where the inane, puerile, and destructive use of memes is not only defended, but celebrated as “chaos magic.”i

This point of the methods the movement employs is key. I have spoken before about the difference between learning how to use a gun and learning how to use a sword, but I bring it up again because the willingness of the “Alt-Right” to use the same destructive disrespect that its counterparts employs is a sign that, in essence, it holds no interior superiority. It only simulates superiority rather than being actually superior. The movement’s use of “dank memes” is as vulgar as an adult responding to a child’s profanity with more profanity. The celebration of “chaos magic” as effective is the same revelry behind the utility of the nuclear bomb. It is ignoble and betrays just how low-class the movement is if it encourages the cunning of “efficient” methods of destruction rather than the nobility of respectable warfare. It is the same mistake I.S.I.S. fighters make when they blow-up churches and temples.

Because in the end, what is the underlying fundamental principle of memes? “Nothing is sacred.” This attack on sanctity, this attack on the soul for the purpose of deconstruction and laughter is the grandfather of memetic attacks. Whether or not the targets of these attacks are deserving of them or not is not the point; the point is that the man degrades himself by resorting to or defending such actions. It is not whether or not one’s enemies deserve death, but to employ cowardly and childish methods to achieve that kill is to make one’s self as dishonourable as any barbarian. It is not a question of whether or not one should fight, but the method of one’s fighting is just as important to a differentiated man. For the efficiency by which one’s fight is the trap of the machine as I’ve pointed out before; while the ferocity of hatred is the trap of the monster.

These two poles of machine and monster are just two sides of the same coin of the crisis of masculinity. In fact, these two sides are present even in individual male psyches. Jungian psychology interpreted by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette pointed this out exactly when they mapped out the four masculine archetypes: King, Warrior, Magician, and Lover complete with their polar dysfunctions.

Archetypes

While the “Alt-Right” accuses the Left of being “weaklings,” they tend towards being the “Tyrant.” While the “Alt-Right” accuses Western civilization of destroying itself masochistically, it sadistically points out groups or individuals to be “hated.” In fact, it is indeed in the warrior/hero dynamic that the “Alt-Right” has its immaturity hand-in-hand with its cowardly liberal counterparts.

Here is the sad truth about the “Alt-Right:” the “rediscovered” chauvinism it has adopted is simply walking the psychological line from one immature state to another. It has yet to grow up. Because it is only truly the individuated man that finds an exit from the closed loop of Left and Right; it is only the individuated man that can find the “fullness” of a political pole beyond Left and Right.

But doesn’t the “Alt-Right” have at least some of the proper ideas? Does it not hold the advantage? Isn’t it better to be a sadist than a masochist? Shouldn’t we prefer the Tyrant rather than the weakling? Couldn’t the “Alt-Right” be pardoned as being the lesser of two evils? Look at yourself, you are speaking like moderns do. “The lesser of two evils”? Is this not what modernity has been teaching you to do? To compromise on your ideals? This kind of lukewarm state should be spat out immediately. Unfortunately, the “Alt-Right” movement is a bastard movement. It is what happens when the pure is intermixed with the modern milieu. It takes some of the vocabulary and temperaments of the West’s traditional past and projects it through the pollution of modernity.

“I’d rather fight with something than be inactive,” someone might object. Seeing the potential end of one’s race, for example, could mean a reaction towards nationalism. It’s an understandable reaction. After all, any animal who gets hit wishes to recoil and hit back. Unfortunately, for many individuals brought up in modernity, the “hitting back” is informed only by the methods they see in the modern world — no matter how self-destructive it is. This is what could be called the “Shadow complex,” where a defense mechanism from one’s early development is carried on into biological adulthood. A boy, for example, who was constantly hit as a child, might flinch from an embrace or find it easier to be a bully first in order to prevent any abuse onto himself. Even if this might protect him throughout his young adult life, it no longer becomes necessary as it prevents full integration of his self as he gets older. In other words, he remains a child.

The problem with the nature of the internet and modernity is that with no proper examples of mature masculinity entering into the arena of popularity (because it would shun such a thing as childish), most man-children mistake themselves to be fully developed. They abandon any spiral upwards to engorge themselves in the ouroboros of communal euphoria. Conversely, the man who seeks the truth of the matter of political systems or societies is not swayed by the modern preference to the excitement of mass action. He is not carried away by the waves and fads of dishonourable conduct.

He will never be given the joy of plunging himself in national, social or political collectivity. He will never have the blissful experience of having shared out the weight of responsibility with the multitude, and he can never fit in at festivals — or orgies — in the sense implied in the words “we French,” “we Germans,” “we Jews,” “we Republicans,” “we Royalists,” or “we communists.” The intoxication of plunging into collectivity is not given to him. He must be sober, i.e. alone. Because the pursuit of truth through synthesis — which is peace — implies prudence, and prudence is solitude.ii

The “Alt-Right” is just another collectivist orgy similar in pedigree to the liberal social justice hordes, except it has committed the double sin of being a bastard — of polluting what would be noble and traditional values with the efficiency and utilitarianism of modern weaponry. It holds itself as the vanguard of “proper” political systems but promiscuously mixes with the demagoguery of the lower classes. It extols the virtues of courage and masculinity, but lacks the courage of training itself to live well and die well, hoping, instead, for material victory. And, ultimately, this is the promise of the “Alt-Right”: that it can provide some kind of material victory. It is willing to achieve this at whatever moral cost. “Material Victory” — the security of “life” and “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness” at whatever cost. This is just the same clash of the titans that has been repeated throughout the modern age. For, indeed, the “Alt-Right” is no Olympian who has found the pure and elegant kingship of the what made civilizations of old “great.” Instead, it has as many heads and arms as Geryon — it is a Titan that people worship and hope in to destroy the machine of modernity.

Despite all of its failings, it can serve as a starting point. This amorphous cloud can serve, at least for the immature, as their first forays into a world that goes beyond the bourgeois concepts of politics, so long as they avoid the trap of idolizing the titanic monster. Just as the Jung’s shadow complexes might have protected the young man as he developed, but must be resolved, assimilated, and affirmed to make way for the “Golden Self,” so, too, must the true elite eventually break out of the closed circle of the Alternative Right and explore new domains. This is not an easy task and it is certainly reserved only for those individuals who are courageous enough to resist the temptation of “easy” weaponry; it is only reserved for the Warrior in his fullness and the King in his fullness.


i. http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2016/08/memetic-warfare-chaos-magic-of-altright.html

ii. Meditations on the Tarot, pp. 225.
Advertisements
James

Pretentious foreigner seeking Dante enthusiasts . Do not apply if you're stuck justifying your limp wristedness with some High-Anglican pseudo-aesthetic . I may seem like another one of those Pale persons out there , but English is my second language .

27 thoughts on “Alt-Right Viewed From the Right

  1. A harsh, but fair, criticism. It must be understood that the contemporary cultural milieu is not and never will be sufficient, and that those who’re able must not needlessly confine or constrict themselves to its paradigms.

  2. Always good to push toward higher things. Could not agree more that we cannot fight pornography with pornography, as I see in some peoples work. This generation is so corrupted by so many kinds of filth it must be hard for them to even know what a holy life could mean.

    Yet I think you make the error of comparing the best with the worst.

    Pepe memes are only a part of the struggle. More a nod to each other than an attack. Pepe is truly an agent of chaos. Like Loki but more like half troll half god.

    There is a good deal of writing and online conversation and even lived examples of more serious effort toward the return of virtue and valour. Naturally we are at the fledgling stage of this spiritual growth.

    Comparing this one childish aspect of the Alt Right to the the full glory of a (Christian?) virtue and valour discipline is a bit skewed. I am every day surprised that this inclination toward restitution is at all a part of our cultural conversation. Considering where we have begun from it is all the more surprising. However corrupt still, I know of no other mass conversation where these ideas are available. Ideals must rise above a certain amount of pragmatism. But we Occidentals once on a pure path are often disdainful of the grubbier struggle that gave us the chance to press upward.

    1. You’re right that it would be a bit too stark to try and compare virtue and the pepe-meming flock of individuals , but this was more of an encouragement to those whom I know who call themselves Christians or virtuous people to realize that reveling or extolling these qualities of the “alt-right” as pepe etc. should not be done with such gusto or enthusiasm , but , rather , to recognize the alt-right for what it is: a shadow-protector so that one can “let go” of it and find more effective , golden tools for development and progress .

  3. When you need to build something, you must first tear down whats already there. That’s the purpose of the alt-right. Tear down the edifice..then the builders can come in, clear away the ruins and put up something better.

    1. Like I said in what I wrote , it is not whether or not the edifice deserves to be taken down , but the method in which it is done . To take on the methods and mindset of the barbarians would be to lower one’s self . This is the present state of the very horizontally orientated “Alt-Right” . The world deserves a better kind of leader , fighter , and way of fighting . To avoid the follies of the proles , one must be above them and not just in power , but in interior disposition .

      1. If one is to win the fight, one must study the ways of winners. And it is the left that is winning…not us. A beautiful loser is still a loser.

        1. 1. You are implying that we want to “win” by the same measure leftists want to “win” by . e.g. popular demand , quantity , influence , power , etc . Some of us prefer quality to quantity . Some of us prefer interior character rather than external prowess . To be more precise , some of us prefer both and some of us recognize that to have one without the other is like a body without a soul ; it is dead .
          2. Winning through ugly means is not winning at all , but losing spectacularly since it admits to the superiority of the opponent’s way of life . If you want to win through accomplishing the same destruction as your opponents , then you have become your enemy .
          3. A beautiful loser . That’s the paradox that most people , I suppose , won’t understand . I suppose you’d be the kind of person that would have asked the last Samurai who rode out against machine guns that they should have , instead , adopted Western modes of fighting ? They would have destroyed themselves more effectively than the machine guns .

  4. Good analysis of the AltRight.

    To paraphrase de Maistre, what we need is not a revolution in reverse, but the reverse of a revolution – a counter-revolution. CRx means, first, becoming worthy. We need to have virtue and self-control before anything else. Then we’ll build/cultivate an organic state (or states) that will gradually replace this one as it breaks up. Somewhat like the way the Kingdoms of Europe sprang up to fill the gaps in the receding Western Roman Empire. When people in an area start going to the local representative of the counter-revolutionary ‘brotherhood’ ‘for relief/ justice we’ve won.

    If any serious man would like to discuss this project, please feel free to contact me on Twitter @costofles.

  5. In the original article I drew a distinction between two elements of the contemporary ‘far right’, which is now being paraphrased as the ‘AltRight’:

    One was destructive, the other constructive. I also pointed out that the former outweighs the latter in terms of sheer numbers.

    Let me try and re-word my thesis, just in case it was misunderstood. There are a growing number of individuals (white, usually young, males) who are disenfranchised and displaced by Modernity. As the vestiges of Traditional life are swept away, some succeed but a great many fail. They are adrift without purpose in a clinical economy, one which demands of them an unrealistically easy transition into a world where biological realities like kin selection are deemed heresy, where women masquerade as men, and where supportive institutions that in ages past they would have been born into, simply do not exist.

    What ought to be done with such people, the human refuse of Liberal bourgeois society? It is very easy to demand that they pursue virtue, that they become religious devotees, become fathers of many children, that they dedicate their time to study of the great philosophers, that they find a way to live outside of this sick system. We should encourage such things, but it is unrealistic to expect them of any but a handful. The sad truth is that for a great many people, perhaps even the majority, Tradition is simply not something they can ‘step into’ or ‘discover’ at age 21. To achieve the best for them, to realize their true potential, requires that they be raised in the living Tradition, that they feel it from the moment of birth to adulthood, that they never come into hazardous contact with Modern ideas which posion the mind of the common man. This is out of reach. We have no institutional power to erect such an incubation for the masses. I wish we could, but at present it is impossible.

    And yet, if we accept such a sad reality, we are still left with the broken and damaged, the men that Mammon spat out. My preference is that they not be ignored, but instead their ‘talents’ put to use. These talents are, as I said, purely destructive. They will not build anything. Chaos only destroys. I have for a long time been convinced we cannot transition out of Liberalism. Liberalism must be destroyed, razed to the ground, and what is currently occuring in the realm of the dialectic (at least in certain spheres) is precisely this kind of desolation.

    As I am sure you are aware, I have criticized the foolish elements of the AltRight; On pan-white nationalism, on nihilism, abortion, and putting faith in Donald Trump’s candidacy, Brexit, and so forth. It would be unfair to think that I had, in praising the achievements of /pol/-tier memery, embraced the ‘vision’ of those behind it. I don’t think they have a vision, nothing cohesive anyway. I believe the alternative will come in the wake of Liberalism, and up to that point I am not party to any disarmament agreement with the enemy. Show me a tactic and I will judge its effectiveness and its negative externality. Memetic warfare has clearly been effective (Liberals would not be howling like scalded dogs if it hadn’t) and I judge its negative externality to be minimal, no more than the warrior plunging a sword through a brigand’s heart on some meadow disturbs the bishop’s contemplation back home. I would need to be shown how this rhetoric is negatively impacting the radical right (long term), in order to be convinced. As I said in the article, if those engaging in this behavior were not doing so, I hedge my bets they would be doing worse things with their time.

    Let me just raise this example: Julian Assange’s network of hackers and leakers is doing damage to the established power structure by exposing the gruesome innards of the machine, the things that are supposed to be secret. Do I think Julian Assange is an exemplary character? No. Do I think free speech and transparency are virtues? No. If Reactionaries had power and a similar situation arose, would I want Assange protected by the walls of an embassy? No. Despite this, I support what he is doing because A) it hurts my enemy & B) it doesn’t have long-term consequence to my goals. If your ideals end up helping what you endeavor to fight, I believe the ideals are either bad or are being misapplied (usually the latter).

    Guido de Giorgio described how the Modern World needed to become ‘fertilizer’ before a ‘new tree’ could grow out of its collapse. I agree with his assessment. All the grand architecture of Liberalism must be broken down, mulched into fertilizer, its framework (including its dialectic) torn asunder. Then all the great, resplendent plans for cities, pastures, and towering spires can be enacted. Until then, we are a select few, are we not? A select few with only one thing to our credit, that being our loyalty to the World of Tradition, to truth, to the sovereignty of God over the universe. The puerile elements of the AltRight are raising nothing of substance, but they are processing fertilizer from the ruins. The question I was asking was, do you really want to stop them?

    It’s okay to disagree on this point. I respect many who have disagreed on it, who hold varying degrees of association or distance with the ‘core’ AltRight (side note: I have no connections to Richard Spencer or any of the others). However there are also several who agree with my assessment . I see Renegade Broadcasting and Shiksa Goddess to be damaging, harmful, and something to be anathematized, but I don’t put Pepe the Frog into the same category. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is how I see things at the moment.

    1. It’s definitely true that “Tradition” or at least the contemplation of it or the pursuit of philosophical studies is certainly not the domain of most men . However , it is a false dichotomy to assume that we only have the choice between enabling the lower natures of destructive pepists or “ignoring them” . There is a third option .

      I don’t think that the destructive tendencies of certain individuals is their “talent” but rather their shadow like I pointed out in the article . Take a manipulator who lived most of his life scheming because he was raised in a serpentine society . It doesn’t mean that his intrinsic talent is “manipulation” but it is his shadow talent: that which obscures and protects his true inner self . Perhaps his real true self is “counselor” or “facilitator” but it is perverted into the talent of “manipulator” and “liar” . In essence , we should not mistake the destruction learned by certain individuals as their essence just like we should not confuse the habits of homosexuality or alcoholism as a biological fact (to make a materialistic analogy) but as acquired habits due to trauma , abuse , environment , or interior choices . Thus , analogously , if there were several homosexuals who decided to join me in restoring the Roman Empire and volunteered to seduce senators in order to bring about the end of the bourgie order , I would not condone such actions . I would not use such barbaric tools as subterfuge even if I had a master manipulator who wished to join me to create a glorious new Empire . I would not employ the talents of a mass murderer in order to bring about an era of peace . It is not enough to win or survive , one must be worthy of survival .

      As for the question of whether or not memetic warfare is destructive , I understand that you see nothing externally harmful in it . I see in it plenty of danger . One is what I outlined in my article: that it concedes to the notion that nothing is sacred and that satire , parody , and disrespect in combat is allowed . It is the “Total War” mentality that was spawned by modernity . The problem with vices is that the more it is reinforced , the harder it will be to remedy in the future . It is also with vice that the smaller vices open the way for larger ones . It is the converse to “he who is trustworthy with small things is trustworthy with big things .” To continually reinforce this negative and shadowy aspect of the lower classes is analogous to a father cheering his son on for being a bully . This is different from a father who teaches his son how to act honourably in fight honourably . Again , the false dichotomy is between passivity and activity . The answer is above both these poles . One does not need to be a bully in order to act and one does not need to be a coward in order to preserve character . One synthesizes both above . One transcends both . Can the lower classes of the Alt-Right accomplish this ? It isn’t in the scoope of the article ; rather it is the conduct and encouragement of those who know better that is at stake .

      You talk about a warrior plunging a sword into a brigand’s heart . That is absolutely wonderful , but it is certainly not what the dregs of the Alt-Right do . Memetic warfare is not precise or elegant as plunging a sword into the heart of the matter . When a warrior does this move , he is not laughing nor is he disrespecting his enemy . He gives his enemy a swift death . He doesn’t revel in the pain or destruction . He is stoic and pure in his execution of justice . In contrast , memes are like the torture-pornography of revenge movies like the travesty Inglorious Basterds . They revel in the destruction of their enemies and laugh all the way down . This will give any bishop pause .

      Are you perhaps aware of the character of Bardolphs in Henry V ? He is tasked with the looting of French towns as Henry’s army makes its way through . However , he is caught trying to steal from Churches and is unapologetically hanged by the King .

      Even in Oriental cultures , when common soldiers are used by Kings , they are severely punished if they rape or steal from locals . Those who “know better” or have “superior morality” condemn rather than invoke the chaos of their subjects or inferiors .

      You talk about fertilizing the world , but the world is also a macrocosm of the human person . If you wish to destroy the present state of the world , then I would humbly advise that you encourage the dregs to also destroy their present sadistic tendencies and their denial of sanctity . Otherwise , how do you expect to have a new beginning when the seeds of destruction are still growing rampant in the hearts of the foot soldiers you’ve encouraged to “be their destructive selves” ?

      Whether or not stopping them is possible is beside the point . Whether or not I am complicit in encouraging their immoral conduct of warfare is another

      1. “We should not mistake the destruction learned by certain individuals as their essence”

        I’d agree with this. Nobody is ‘born to troll’. Troll is not a caste. However, I tried to get across that I see most of these people as having been so damaged by Modernity, by the state of society, the dissolution of caste, that it is essentially impossible to say, especially to such a huge swath of people, that they can realistically hope to achieve their best. This would be something of an individualistic understanding of ‘becoming oneself’. I believe people need the guidance of a very carefully tuned, developed society full of great institutions. For the common man, if he is born into a family that inducts him into a religious tradition, if he observes the noble behavior of his father, the correct station of his mother and sisters, if he is taught to honor his sovereign and his people from birth, to the point where he will die for what is above him, then we have common men who achieve their potential. We don’t have that. I’d like to build that, but it doesn’t exist right now. I say this with some sorrow, but even ‘redpilled’ individuals may not be able to live up to their essence, not due to their own failings, but the failings of the society around them.

        “I would not use such barbaric tools as subterfuge”

        I don’t see meming as that serious. Maybe one could say Breivik was ‘barbaric’ but making fun of John Oliver and his ilk doesn’t seem so bad to me.

        “It is not enough to win or survive , one must be worthy of survival .”

        This I can agree with, but from what point will survival be decided? If there is a question of survival, then surely it is in the face of a more traditional kind of enemy than one who simply wishes to reduce us to inhuman valueless drones. The potential conflict with Islam would be an example, but we cannot expect such a conflict to fully emerge for a while yet (i.e – a Siege of Vienna situation). What exists right now in the West is not worthy of survival. I’d like to see the inception of something that was worthy once more and native, rather than Islam’s expansion in its place. The pursuit of virtue is important, but it is a select few who will be able to pursue it right now. It is an elitist project, as Guenon in particular observed.

        “it concedes to the notion that nothing is sacred and that satire , parody , and disrespect in combat is allowed .”

        I don’t think it concedes that ‘nothing’ is sacred, only that the left’s sacred cows are not sacred, hence why it crosses the lines of supposed ‘sexism’ and ‘racism’. As for combat, I do not see combat with Liberals as akin to combat with any other kind of enemy. I have said before, as per Ilyin’s writing on Bolshevism, that this is entirely a different category of enemy, the inversion of all things virtuous, rather than simply a lack of virtue, or a hostile and alien kind of virtue.

        “One synthesizes both above . One transcends both . Can the lower classes of the Alt-Right accomplish this ? It isn’t in the scoope of the article ; rather it is the conduct and encouragement of those who know better that is at stake .”

        We need to be very clear about the alternative that is being proposed. What in specific would you want to be done? I am operating under the assumptions of realism about the behavior of most of the AltRight from what I have observed. I appreciate what they have done (most of it anyway), and do not think they could have done considerably better, given the current parameters. Your assumption seems to be that they could have been utilized more effectively. I think this asks too much of the ‘dissident proletariat’ while we are unable to offer any reasonable support structure.

        “Those who “know better” or have “superior morality” condemn rather than invoke the chaos of their subjects or inferiors .”

        To turn back on an earlier point, I just do not consider the ‘banter’ of the AltRight to be a proverbial rape of Nanking, i.e – it isn’t that serious. These people have watched Conservatives play nice with Liberals and fail to conserve a single thing, so they aren’t particularly interested in the fine points of debate. They hate Liberals, and who can blame them? I can offer them no greater path, since not only do I think most are incapable of pursuing it without institutional support, but also I do not possess the faculties to provide direction. If you do, then more power to you, I hope you succeed! God knows I want the best out of them, but I’d say things are running at almost full capacity given the circumstances, and only specific recommendations will convince me otherwise.

        “If you wish to destroy the present state of the world , then I would humbly advise that you encourage the dregs to also destroy their present sadistic tendencies and their denial of sanctity.”

        I think this will happen necessarily once privilege is removed from their lives. I can’t ask for asceticism from the average AltRighter given the climate and the fact that I am nobody to them. Those of a higher quality will achieve more, and I think they are. People tend to gravitate in these spheres to what they are capable of. Some take one look at a site like this and say “I can’t make head nor tail of this”, so instead take on Ben Shapiro about his Israel/America double-standard, even to the point of frustration. Others get it entirely and become intellectuals.

        Just as I don’t expect much from Trump, I don’t expect much from the broad AltRight, but I’m apreciative of two things:

        1) The destruction of the Liberal narrative and mainstream Conservatism
        2) The elevation of geopolitical influences which will help bring about multipolarity (Trump/Brexit/etc.)

        I will criticize them when I think they make ideological error, for instance I lambasted Radix for publishing a stupid article on abortion, but I don’t feel that attacking their methods would serve much good, especially considering that these methods are achieving some tangible gains where, say, the tactics of the past 50 years have not. You have a higher standard of behavior/expectation set for the average AltRighter than I do. Acknowledging as I do that the AltRight is, in the aggregate, a populist movement, my expectations are low. /pol/ is not going to become Metternich’s drawing room, but like Assange’s exploits, it could certainly help to weaken the enemy’s position. In fact, it already is.

    2. I would like to point out how leftists have taken over things.

      They seem to have an intuitive sense of the conservation of sovereignty.

      Brianna Wu was in charge of a panel at SXSW in name only. She is known for being insane. https://archive.fo/BWnZV But according to Randi Lee Harper “.@Spacekatgal we worked all this out weeks ago. You weren’t a part of the conversation. Milo is not here. Please stop.”

      She is not in charge of anything.

      I can only imagine that she receives media attention out of sheer sadism. Look at what we can get away with or something.

      There are realpolitik measures to dealing with the Alt Right. If we get to an organizing point, ensure that control and authority of new or old institutions goes to reliable persons.

      Or you could do what Hitler did and purge the SA.

      This isn’t really difficult, the decisions in comparable situations have already been done, the implementation however is difficult.

  6. Imagine the formation of a new consciousness, or a new ideal. The alt-right currently constitutes that consciousness as an embryonic form barely at the end of its first trimester within a corrupted womb. The internal discourse and formation has yet to solidify into a truly terrifying form of singular purpose that will eventually break forth into the world and rip its enemies to shreds. The politicking over the shape and guise of the abstract principle before the physical becomes actualised must be afforded more time to play out. You seem to be expecting too much too soon, despite the urgency of our cause. Rome was not built in a day. The notions of better living and societal change via higher principles are there for many, but it will take decades to see palpable shifts in group behaviour and action. The thought comes before its articulation, and, as I see it, the thought has not been fully formed yet.

    1. Good Doctor, with all respect, I think it’s proper to differentiate the potential of individuals within the culture with the potential of the culture writ large — mass movements cannot, by their very nature, breed aristocratic traits aside from in the most rare and straight of circumstances (e.g. the Iron Guard). To pretend that the Alt. Right is anything more than a rabble with, yes, a few specks of gold hither and thither, but ultimately a different shade of dull grey stone, is foolishly optimistic.

      1. There’s no denying that the Alt-right is a rabble of sorts (in many ways it needs to be). But it is a rabble that is beginning to orient itself towards higher things – at the very least many recognise the reality of higher principles (even if they don’t practice them in reality – which is a shame, but better than nothing). If we look back at the formation of Christian city states and regions in early medieval Europe we can see that morality and law were instituted and intertwined in such a way as to enforce and breed-in, in the long-term, a populace that set its sights on higher principles and spirituality. A mass that supported and promoted (either actively or passively) the attainment of higher virtues and better living. People will shift their base behaviour and beliefs to align the prevailing zeitgeist if there are dramatic enough examples, especially if they accord with traditional principles (perhaps only partially, but still). We need that again if we are to survive. If one has a crab populace then they will naturally pull down the ones bright enough to try to escape the bucket (or cut down the tallest poppies if one prefers a Greek analogy). If you have a populace of ants, or wolves, or dogs (or some other sort of cohesive or pack animal – you see where I’m going with this) then they will naturally enable the best of us to shine. I’m talking about the need to view the Alt-right within the context of very long-term change – a reverse long march through the institutions, if you will. In order for that to happen a broad consensus of action based upon a shared ideal must be allowed to congeal and then actualise – it is the congealing/growth stage that the Alt-right is going through now. The foundations are always dark, but the lighter they can be made, the higher and brighter the top of the building will be. The mass facilitate the living and cultural space, without them and without nurturing them we cannot express ourselves in full. Would you rather build an observatory at sea level or on a hill? In both cases it’s ground, one’s a little more useful than the other.

        1. I can see what you are trying to accomplish with the Alt-right and I can certainly see the utility you see in them ‘laying a foundation’ of sorts or at least clearing away the field in order to lay down a proper foundation . However , one can clear out a field with the mindset of a gardener and with the élan of such a vocation , or one can clear it out like locusts . Alt-rightists are locusts who know nothing but their biologically monstrous consumer mindset . In other words , their methods themselves , while accomplishing an end desirable to you , are morally dangerous as they represent the same kind of pest as their liberal counterparts . A demon on your side is still a demon . To use the demotic undercurrents and their mass-action ways is still an admittance to the legitimacy of the lower impulses . It is an acceptance of dishonour . It is not enough that a brigand’s actions aid the cause , one must be willing to condemn the brigand even if it means hampering the just cause because increasing the difficulty of achieving a just cause is not a sin when the alternative is to betray that cause with dishonourable actions .

          You show great confidence in the ‘growth’ or ‘crystallization’ of this alt-right movement . Considering their guiding principles , what is considered the “alt-right” is not a viable creation . It is inhuman , titanic , and monstrous . One cannot build a foundation off of it . Interestingly , even if it were true that some crystallisation could happen — perhaps if the climate changed such that this chaotic water becomes an iceberg , it still doesn’t change the point of the article that , in essence , those who have a superiour bearing should not revel or encourage their demotic , low-brow , and sacrilegious mindset . It would be like encouraging the atheists just because they fight militant islam . It would be like supporting pornography because it causes ISIS fighters to abandon their sacred idols .

          1. The ecclesiastical responses to the migratory age (c. 400-600) were disparate, but two distinct groups can be observed. Initially many saw the Germanic hoards in the same way that you see the Alt-Right – uncivilised, materialistic barbarians with essentially no redeeming qualities (See Quodvultdeus or Guildas’ accounts (amongst others)). Whilst others such as Gregory the Great saw an opportunity to cultivate the energies and talents of the Germanic folk (Non Angli, sed angeli) in such as way as to rebuild Western Christian civilisation – the latter mindset ultimately succeeded.

            At the present the Alt-right are indeed morally questionable and do, at times, behave like animals, but I think it would be more productive in the long run to cultivate them, than spurn them in toto as they currently do not act how you would wish. Lower impulses and groups have always existed and always will (- you must be aware of this(?)). Do we currently inhabit such a lofty and safe position that we are above harnessing them, or admitting their partial utility? They are a means to an end, nothing more. I think you’re coming dangerously close to a deontological outlook on this matter. Certainly, the foundations are always lower in any socio-cultural system and prone to baser things – history is replete with examples of this, but we if get them looking up towards the possibility or reality of higher values and principles (which some already seem to do), then we will ultimately be helping ourselves in the long run.

            Presently there are simply not enough reactionaries and traditionalists to survive what is coming. It’s all very well and good condemning the low to illustrate your patrician status, but we are in a state of (effective) total war and we do need to bring to bear every asset at our disposal. You say, that by ‘increasing the difficulty of achieving a just cause is not a sin when the alternative is to betray that cause with dishonourable actions’ – all very noble of you sir (if there was indeed scope for a fair(er) fight – which there isn’t), but as the existential death of our people is at hand then I think it would be prudent to craft the raw matter and nascent energies we currently have at our disposal into a useful tool, or vehicle, for future victory. I’m not saying that we encourage them as they are, but help guide them towards better things – I believe that there is potential there – there always is with our people.

            We do not learn of higher things simply to act selfishly, we do so to help our kith and kin. We cultivate ourselves – ultimately we live through them, and they us. We must not act like the left and guide the masses to ignorance and death, then abandon them. We must do the exact reverse. A traditional society – a real community – requires the participation of all. We must acknowledge them for what they are and what they could be, and then lead them. They are an aspect of our future, but we must guide them to suit our vision of it.

            1. All ‘organismic groups’ contain base, primal, demonic urges and energies. It is up to the head to recognise and channel those fundamental elements of the body. To direct ‘the monster’ as an aspect of the totality, is to acknowledge mastery, not dishonour. The head still knows what it right and principled, even if the mass does not – that’s why it is the head.

            2. This wouldn’t be a bad justification but there are two fundamental differences between the response to the germanic tribes and that of dealing with the alternative right . The irony is that I do not view the alt right as barbaric from the point of view of a Roman loftiness , but from a germanic sense of honour in combat . The first major disparity in the analogy is that the Germans would have considered the tactics of the alt right as distasteful .

              Secondly is that you are absolutely correct that one should cultivate these lower urges into something better . And yet what do you see from various writers defending the altright ? You don’t see any of them guiding them , you see them being guided by them . You see them reveling in the dishonour . They are not riding the tiger , the tiger is riding them .

              The whole painting them as noble savages while ignoring their innately ignoble and anti germanic way of fighting is convenient . Ignoring the rampant disrespect for sanctity is dangerous . Because it is this line of justification that makes abdication of our judgment for justice and honour so long as it opposes a common enemy that might swing impressionable youth to embrace ISIS as good for discipline for example .

            3. Furthermore , I agree that we should acknowledge them for what they are . Hence why my analysis dealt with their nature as titanic — mostly monstrous with parts resembling humans . From what I see so far , most defenses ignore the monstrous parts or gloss over them . The problem I see is a temptation in the desert for reactionaries . “Turn these stones into bread” . Perhaps your vision of moulding the alt right does not include being euphoric at their every act of spiritual terrorism , but there are plenty if not most rightists who gladly and blindly accept the power offered by Mephistopheles .

              1. We’ve come to a point of marked, possibly intractable disagreement. I’ll simply say this in response and call it a day. Different times, different needs when it comes to warfare – the ancients could, at times – not always, afford their enemies honour in combat as they themselves held similar sensibilities – we are not so fortunate in our times and would do well to remember that. If they know how desperate the situation was they would not be so noble -personally I think we should be following Vlad III of Wallachia’s example – total and utter ruthlessness. The Alt-right are not noble savages – that’s a leftist term used by anthropologists that I find particularly disgusting as it emphasises the prerequisite of tabula rasa – they are simply a group with whom we share a common enemy. The Germans were pagans and showed the Christian faith as much disrespect as many the Alt-right do to spiritual matters. Again though, not all of them – and this can be changed through our investment in them.

                That being said, upon reflection can we really describe them to be truly monstrous? Have they committed genocide and mass rape? Do they mutilate and maim people for the sheer thrill of it? No, not really. At best they blaspheme and don’t engage in principled ways of being. Spiritual terrorists can repent if shown the light. Actual terrorists against our people deserve to be existentially and metaphysically expunged. They need cultivation, even if this requires a lot of hard work on our part. To quote my favourite orator: ‘The one man with belief is worth 50 men who don’t have any’. This is why we happy few can overcome by offering just a little persuasion and guidance to our people, especially those in a state of profound disbelief.

                1. “Different , different needs” has nothing to do with honour . Honour , if we come to believe in such a thing , should speak to the fundamentals rather than to the particulars and accidentals of warfare . Memetic warfare among other crass things that the alt-right does is not honourable , full stop .

                  I would also disagree that the Germans showed as much disrespect as moderns do . They had a deep sense of honour and their oath was their bond . They had an intrinsic understanding of spirituality and sanctity that is leagues and orders of magnitude beyond what is being taught and encouraged for the alt-right . Like I pointed out in my previous comment , the two are not equivalent even when taking into account degrees . They both have fundamentally different interior dispositions and attitudes . Many apologists for the alt-right enjoy them as agents of chaos . The Germans held onto order and hierarchy in their own tribes and in their own personal conduct .

                  Your emphasis on physical ramifications is a good one . They have not mutilated or raped (as far as I know) , but it is only the modern world that deals with external concerns . It profits not a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul . Even then , I wouldn’t necessarily blame the mass-action of the alt-right , it is the agitators and apologists who willingly enter the Faustian bargain of such power that are in danger of losing themselves .

                  “at best they blaspheme” . If you belieeve that blasphemy — violence against God — is less ignoble than violence against neighbour , then this is where our fundamental differences will be . The transgression of the vertical dimension should never be overlooked . If one only worries about the horizontal dimension , then one might be permitted to look at the spiritual death of the alt-right as workable . However , it is only when one unites the vertical considerations with the horizontal that one arrives at the wisdom of the cross .

                  Yes , they need a lot of cultivation . And the first part of that cultivation is by cultivating ourselves . If we are a lot who encourages and revels in chaos , then we have no right to be their gardeners or teachers .

  7. Well said. Pretty much confirms my feelings as an American having trudged through the alt-right into a more all-encompassing spiritual worldview. I think the American nature of the movement is the key aspect. Most white Americans have little cultural or historical reference, and so they fixate on “bottom of the barrel” issues like some vague form of racial identity only defined by its negative, “the other.” Ironically, they get the sense that there is something about their race to be protected or more precisely, “reawakened” but reject the importance of “spirituality.” I believe the alt-right is only useful as something ultimately to “give way” to the people that transcended it.

  8. Your judgement is fair, but I think you’re mostly preaching to the choir (though I could be wrong). We must not be *too* puritanical; I myself am guilty of this. We live in an age of depravity, and no one is perfect. Christ dined with sinners and in doing so he did not express approval for their vices. When dealing with “allies” (if such a term is permissible) who’re not quite in line, you have to reproach them for their faults and praise them for their merits. To say that there is nothing of worth in the alt right is a vast oversimplification. Frankly, in the position that “we” are in, we have to take what we can get and work with it to whatever extent is possible. Of course, the alt right is imperfect and insufficient, but there’s no need to beat a dead horse. Adam’s article in response to this seems to sum it all up very well. Getting too worked up about something as chaotic as an internet “movement” is easy yet largely fruitless.

  9. “No country was ever saved by good men because good men will not go to the length that may be necessary.” – Horace Walpole

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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