Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old April 27th, 2011 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default #1 Alt-Right Thread

[interesting comment 4/11]

Allerious 2 days ago in reply to Christopher_Nelson

"Christianity has nothing to do with liberalism. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is not liberalism , it is called human decency"

The very desire to call one's actions 'decent' is the mark of an intellectual coward. It is a trait held universally by christians and by progressive liberals. Fascists don't concern themselves with doing the "decent" thing, but the correct thing. Capitalists concern themselves with doing the profitable thing. Christians and liberals are both very eager to portray themselves as "decent people". That is the common link between them, and you'd better believe that the Golden Rule underlies all liberal proposals.

"And it has no political background. For instance, I could say, do unto me libertarian principles and I will do unto you libertarian principles."

The Golden Rule is a moral principle and political systems are always built from the prevailing morality of the times. Simply read the criminal statutes. The moral foundation of market capitalism, quite unlike the Golden Rule, is individualism and self-interest. So no, you couldn't say the same thing to libertarians because they wouldn't be stupid enough to fall for it (admittedly, left-libertarians are on board with the Golden Rule; I don't consider them real libertarians).

"Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ – who I think was the first socialist – only socialism can really create a genuine society." – Hugo Chavez

In an academic sense he's completely right, of course. Jesus WAS the first socialist. And Karl Marx was an unrecognized Catholic saint.

The Bible on the Poor or, Why God is a liberal (complete with scripture verses!)
http://www.zompist.com/meetthe...

"The bible does not hold special victim classes like liberalism does. All men are expected to act the same, and do what is right, no matter what race they may be. Nobody gets special status. Any ofcourse the bible would never support homosexuality, homo marriage, abortion, lying, porn, christian bashing, muslim ass licking, humanism, atheism, as the left does."

The existence of victim classes is simply a byproduct of egalitarianism and White Guilt, both of which feature prominently in christianity.

You have to ask yourself how it came to be that large swaths of the Western intelligentsia transitioned so effortlessly from christianity to communism/socialism to liberal, secular progressivism. The obvious explanation is staring you in the face but you refuse to accept it: that there is no fundamental difference between those ideologies. They are all built around the same, self-denying, egalitarian, collectivist moral code.

Like liberalism and communism, christianity preaches about the equality of men before God* (*interchangeable with State & Law) but since equality is in practice unrealizable, both doctrines ultimately result in elitism and totalitarian rule. Under traditional Christianity the priest-class, working hand-in-hand with old blood/"Divine Right" aristocrats, became the chief oppressors of society. Under liberalism it's the same, only priests of a different sort: As Murray Rothbard (an atheist, anarcho-capitalist) put it so brilliantly in 1991:

"...a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats allied with, and even dominated by, powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Trilateralists); and the New Class of technocrats and intellectuals, including Ivy League academics and media elites, who constitute the opinion-moulding class in society. In short, we are ruled by an updated, twentieth-century coalition of Throne and Altar, except that this Throne is various big business groups, and the Altar is secular, statist intellectuals, although mixed in with the secularists is a judicious infusion of Social Gospel, mainstream Christians."

Rothbard goes on to explain the historical parallels of the present-day situation:

"The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule. In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-moulders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, "social scientists," and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy."

Brilliant article. Please read it and internalize it.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rot...

And then we have Thomas Jefferson, telling us much the same thing as Rothbard above:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government, and in every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

"Liberalism does not believe that people are to be treated equally. It believes that people are to be victims and treated unequally. With minorites getting special rights that others do not get, that is not christianity at all. With liberalism, everyone is not held to the same standard, in christianity, all are."

You're conflating theory with practice. You shouldn't do that because it opens up huge gaps not only in liberalism, but in practically every ideology. In theory, liberalism *does* want people to be treated equally, just as christianity does. And what of practice, then?

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.

The Christian resolve to find the world evil and ugly, has made the world evil and ugly." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Might not a similar thing be said about the liberal resolve to find every minority a saint and every White man a sinner and every White institution oppressive?

You wondered where liberals get their pathological self-hatred from? Now you know, my friend.

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true." -Friedrich Nietzsche

"Liberalism: see 'Faith'." - Allerious

"The long slow decline of the West can be attributed to the Catholic Church who erroneously taught that the logical syllogism is consistent with divine revelation. The Catholic church, being a Western church, has always contained that special feature of the Western mind: reliance on the logical syllogism. Having divinized human thought the decline was inevitable. In the scholastic Middle Ages, Christian theology became systematised and subordinated to logic. Logicalness becomes the first test of truth.

For this reason the Renaissance could only have happened in the West. Logic is a form of measurement performed by man, logically, man becomes the measure of all things, theology becomes scientific method; this follows to the Enlightenment, with its profoundly naive optimism in the unlimited progress of man's reason. This logical mechanicalness also fired the ideas of mechanist thinkers like Newton and Descartes. Rationalism reached a dead end with Hume and Kant, who show that pure reason cannot exist by itself: all truth is subjective. Having dethroned God through the centuries and put reason in his place, Western man is now left with nothing--save himself. An infamous and disastrous attempt to regain order was attempted by Hegel, which Marx took and turned into Dialectical Materialism - a last attempt at trying to make the logical syllogism sympathetic with (material) objective reality-the objective reality that now serves as a God substitute (the divine true and beautiful higher future of humanity.). The pseudo-religiosity of Marxists, and the popularity of Marxism with lapsed Catholics (and vice versa) is well known and supports the above."

Christianity is communism is liberalism is marxism is democracy is progressivism is egalitarianism.

Fascism is...the way out. Reject slave morality. Reject feminine influence.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main...#disqus_thread
 
Old September 5th, 2011 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Is there an alternative right?

Sat, 03/06/2010 - 8:55am — Jim Kalb

I’ll be crossposting Turnabout entries to Alternative Right, an online magazine/weblog swarm that’s sort of a Takimag spinoff.

The stated purpose of the website is “to forge a new intellectual right-wing,” but at present it seems pretty inchoate. The basic issue is that “alternative right” could mean a great many things. If you knew what it was you wouldn’t call it “alternative,” you’d tag it with something more substantive.

Still, you have to say something definite about what you’re doing. I suppose that’s why the website bills itself as “an online magazine of radical traditionalism.”

That description suggests one understanding of the alternative right. On the other hand, the Executive Editor is also happy with this description:

“Alt Right was designed to appeal to a younger audience who reject the Left, but who don’t fit in on the stuffy or banal Right either.

“The ‘post-paleos’ tend to be more secular than their predecessors. They are more willing to challenge multiculturalism and political correctness; more libertarian on economic and gender issues; more opposed to third world immigration and affirmative action; more interested in men’s issues; more willing to flaunt [sic] racial taboos.”

Another writer explaining the “alternative right” emphasizes the impossibility of conservatism in the present situation (he certainly has a point).

None of that seems to have much to do with traditionalism, so the situation (as they say) presents puzzles and challenges as well as opportunities.

Willingness to talk about issues nobody wants to talk about is certainly indispensable. In America today you can’t talk rationally and concretely about issues that are as basic and pressing as immigration. If you do you don’t stay respectable.

So discussion of difficult topics is an opportunity the site offers. On the other hand, there are reasons for the near-impossibility of discussion apart from Leftists being bad, stupid, irrational, self-interested, well-placed, and well-funded.

My recent entry on Inclusiveness and Thought Control was to some degree a “bash the Left” piece: inclusiveness, thought control, and the Left are all one big horrible package.

The substantive message, though, was that what’s behind the package—which all educated people today are trained to buy into—is the current understanding of what’s rational and real.

On that understanding, what’s rational is getting what you want and what’s real is atoms, the void, and technical expertise.

If that’s so, then politics becomes a problem, because all you have is people trying to get stuff for themselves using all means available. You have the war of all against all.

Hence liberalism. Liberalism never exists pure, and it goes through various stages, but its enduring theoretical problem is getting people who at bottom are purely self-interested to get with the program, do productive work, and not murder each other.

Hence the tendency of modern politics to depend on some combination of force, fraud, and radical claims as to equality. Hence lots of other things too, for example the liberal attitude toward gun control and Tea Parties. Everything other than liberalism threatens to restore the reign of mindless greed, rage, and violence, because apart from liberalism that’s all there is.

If we want something better we need a whole different basis for politics. That, I suppose, is what the “radical traditionalism” of the site is about. If modern science, equality, and getting what you want isn’t enough for politics, then you need to look to something basically different, and tradition seems a candidate.

Whether that’s the right candidate or not, a new intellectual right needs the vision thing, and needs it big. Secular libertarianism, breaking rules, asserting identities, and acting up don’t seem likely to do the job. For something solid that will work and that people will adhere to it needs more.

Earlier generations of intellectual conservatives, who talked about things like visions of order and the permanent things, failed. Their present-day successors keep on talking, keep on failing, and worry too much about respectability. Something else is evidently needed.

Still, their concerns are indispensable. Talking (as they do at AltRight) about Baron Evola is a start, but there are four traditional castes, and it seems unlikely the kshatriyas can save us without the priests.

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2844
 
Old September 5th, 2011 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Is there an alternative right?

Sat, 03/06/2010 - 8:55am — Jim Kalb

I’ll be crossposting Turnabout entries to Alternative Right, an online magazine/weblog swarm that’s sort of a Takimag spinoff.

The stated purpose of the website is “to forge a new intellectual right-wing,” but at present it seems pretty inchoate. The basic issue is that “alternative right” could mean a great many things. If you knew what it was you wouldn’t call it “alternative,” you’d tag it with something more substantive.

Still, you have to say something definite about what you’re doing. I suppose that’s why the website bills itself as “an online magazine of radical traditionalism.”

That description suggests one understanding of the alternative right. On the other hand, the Executive Editor is also happy with this description:

“Alt Right was designed to appeal to a younger audience who reject the Left, but who don’t fit in on the stuffy or banal Right either.

“The ‘post-paleos’ tend to be more secular than their predecessors. They are more willing to challenge multiculturalism and political correctness; more libertarian on economic and gender issues; more opposed to third world immigration and affirmative action; more interested in men’s issues; more willing to flaunt [sic] racial taboos.”

Another writer explaining the “alternative right” emphasizes the impossibility of conservatism in the present situation (he certainly has a point).

None of that seems to have much to do with traditionalism, so the situation (as they say) presents puzzles and challenges as well as opportunities.

Willingness to talk about issues nobody wants to talk about is certainly indispensable. In America today you can’t talk rationally and concretely about issues that are as basic and pressing as immigration. If you do you don’t stay respectable.

So discussion of difficult topics is an opportunity the site offers. On the other hand, there are reasons for the near-impossibility of discussion apart from Leftists being bad, stupid, irrational, self-interested, well-placed, and well-funded.

My recent entry on Inclusiveness and Thought Control was to some degree a “bash the Left” piece: inclusiveness, thought control, and the Left are all one big horrible package.

The substantive message, though, was that what’s behind the package—which all educated people today are trained to buy into—is the current understanding of what’s rational and real.

On that understanding, what’s rational is getting what you want and what’s real is atoms, the void, and technical expertise.

If that’s so, then politics becomes a problem, because all you have is people trying to get stuff for themselves using all means available. You have the war of all against all.

Hence liberalism. Liberalism never exists pure, and it goes through various stages, but its enduring theoretical problem is getting people who at bottom are purely self-interested to get with the program, do productive work, and not murder each other.

Hence the tendency of modern politics to depend on some combination of force, fraud, and radical claims as to equality. Hence lots of other things too, for example the liberal attitude toward gun control and Tea Parties. Everything other than liberalism threatens to restore the reign of mindless greed, rage, and violence, because apart from liberalism that’s all there is.

If we want something better we need a whole different basis for politics. That, I suppose, is what the “radical traditionalism” of the site is about. If modern science, equality, and getting what you want isn’t enough for politics, then you need to look to something basically different, and tradition seems a candidate.

Whether that’s the right candidate or not, a new intellectual right needs the vision thing, and needs it big. Secular libertarianism, breaking rules, asserting identities, and acting up don’t seem likely to do the job. For something solid that will work and that people will adhere to it needs more.

Earlier generations of intellectual conservatives, who talked about things like visions of order and the permanent things, failed. Their present-day successors keep on talking, keep on failing, and worry too much about respectability. Something else is evidently needed.

Still, their concerns are indispensable. Talking (as they do at AltRight) about Baron Evola is a start, but there are four traditional castes, and it seems unlikely the kshatriyas can save us without the priests.

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2844
 
Old August 21st, 2012 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Over the past, six months, I’ve reached a point of professional crisis. NPI, Radix, AltRight, Washing Summit Publishers, Vanguard, additional writings… Unfinished projects pile up. Emails go unanswered. More funds need to be raised. My desire to do all of these projects is preventing me from completing any of them.

Something’s got to give.

I’ve decided it must be AltRight. And today, I am resigning from being the editor and main blogger AlternativeRight.com.

Don’t worry—AlternativeRight.com won’t go anywhere. I’ll keep it “live” so long as the Internet still flickers. The articles, even the shorter blogs, won’t curdle anytime soon, and I’m confident that new readers will continue to discover AltRight as the years go by.

In the coming days, we will be moving towards an editorial collective; that is, the site will operate more like a group blog (and less like a webzine.) I’m also considering streamlining the structure of the site in order to better serve AltRight’s new identity.

And don’t worry—I am not burned out. Indeed, I care about our issues more passionately than I did two years ago. However, I simply need a break from the incessant grind of running webzines, which I’ve been doing for the past four years.

And, finally, don’t worry—Radix will be produced. Indeed, Alex and I will now be better able to dedicate our energies towards this project. Around 200 people have pre-ordered the first two issues. With my usual naive optimism, I hoped to complete the first one by March 2012...which I’ve had to delay until June. I need to lighten my work load in order to fulfill my promise.

A cultural journal that is beautifully typeset and produced will play an important role in our movement. And the more relaxed pace of two issues per year (at the beginning, at least) will afford Alex and I the time to make it a work of art.
*
* * *
*

Looking back over the past two years, I feel that I have accomplished most of the goals I set for myself in founding AltRight, which was never meant to become an institution. It was more like an experiment, in fact.

I wanted to see if I could help create an alternative to “conservatism” as we knew it. AltRight was never to be “to the right” of, say, National Review on an imaginary sliding scale. It was to emerge from a different universe—to have a different starting point and vision of society. Much of this work was aesthetic in nature. And I worked closely with AltRight’s web-developer in order to capture the kind Gothic and Romantic aura I had in mind. (The billowing-flag-and-apple-pie aesthetic of American conservatives has never attracted me.) It’s probably not an exaggeration to say that Alex’s “Equality As Evil” represents a culmination of the kind of intellectual world I sought to foster.

Since March of 2010, the alt-right blogosphere has grown into something like a collective brain. Our website did not create this movement, of course. But it was inspired by it and sought to contribute to it.

It’s also worth noting the degree to which AltRight functioned successfully as a “Big Tent.”

Looking back over his career in the Beltway, Sam Francis noted that the non-mainstream Right (such as it was...) amounted to a collection of colorful personalities and their devoted followings—each of which distrusted, if not positively loathed, one another. (Little has changed.)

AltRight, on the other hand, along with friendly sites and bloggers, offered a model of a non-aligned Right that could actually get along.

I often got chided for my putative attempt to align traditional Catholics, atheistic Darwinists, Nietzscheans, National Anarchists, White Nationalists et al. But this critique never touched me, and not because I imagined AltRight as an effort in team-building (à la “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” or “We’ll resolve internal disputes after the Revolution.”)

To think that we all must agree on dogma is to adopt the very American notion of politics as a substitute religion: that to be a citizen, you must “believe” in some cocktail of dumbed-down Enlightenment precepts, consumer capitalism and welfare socialism, love of all mankind, free speech (expect for bad, anti-American speech), democratic representation, und so weiter…


But politics isn’t ultimately about “believing” in anything; politics is, to be frank, the (often brutal) use of state power to achieve the aims of the governing class. What’s most interesting about the world is not politics, really, but the human flourishing that occurs outside it, or rather in the shadow of state sovereignty: from the mother and father to the warrior to the monk to the businessman to the aristocrat to the artist.

AltRight was never supposed to be a new “more conservative than thou” political doctrine; it was instead intended as a conversation within an extended family—what social, cultural, and political discourse could be like in a society when egalitarianism is expunged and European identity is taken as a given.
*
***
*

My central goal moving forward is to develop The National Policy Institute and Washington Summit Publishers into a successful thank-tank and book-making firm, both of which can harness the energies of our movement, speak forthrightly and publicly, and begin articulating an alternative social and political vision for traditional Americans, and Europeans around the world.

I have no illusions regarding the difficulty of building institutions that expresses views that are considered out-of-bounds, if not positively evil, in our current climate. Beltway “Conservatism” can subsist as a multi-million-dollar racket, staffed by sub-mediocrities at best, because it is connected to Republican legislators (that is, money and power). NPI can’t and won’t offer such “access.”

That said, I’m convinced that we stand at a historical turning point at which a growing number of European-Americans grasp the utter bankruptcy of the current political paradigm, not to mention the current Right. At no other point in recent history has there been a better chance for a new movement to arise.

Moreover, the fact, reported in the 2011 U.S. census, that the majority of births in the United States are non-White gives our movement a new urgency and requires us to move beyond conventional conservative politics: e.g. “just leave us alone,” “follow the Constitution,” “let’s grow the economy” etc. If all immigration, legal and illegal, were miraculously halted tomorrow morning, White Americans’ demographic destiny—that is, as a hated minority in a country their ancestors settled—would merely be delayed by a decade or two. Put another way, we could win the immigration battle and nevertheless loose the future for Western people in North America.

NPI can help set a new course—and offer Americans not just a discussion of the biological reality of race but a vision of an alternative foreign policy, economic system, and governing order.

*
***
*

There are so many contributors and supporters who are deserving of thanks and recognition. I would first like to acknowledge those, like Peter Brimelow, Paul Gottfried, Mark Hackard, Alex Kurtagic, Keith Preston, Derek Turner, and others, who came on board when the website was in its infancy. Thank go out as well those, like Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki, whom I had never met when AltRight first began but who became indispensable contributors. I’m immensely proud of our archive, which is a true model of diversity!

Thanks go out, as well, to those who have financially sustained my wife and me these past two years—the major supporters as well as the hundreds who anonymously threw $20 into the hat. Subsequent donations will be put towards maintaining the website and producing a journal of the highest quality.

And this really isn’t good-bye…

Sincerely yours,



Richard Spencer

http://www.alternativeright.com/fund...#disqus_thread
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[christmas day treachery from dick spencer pissess of colin liddell and andy nowicki]

RADIX Journal
Dear All,

It has come to our attention that we, the editors of Radix Journal, must address the situation with the Alternative Right website. Here are some facts:

1) Richard Spencer owns the domain name (URL), the branding, and the Facebook page.

2) As of late 2010, the Alternative Right was not simply a web publication. It was officially a project of the National Policy Institute. As you probably know, NPI has the legal status of 501 (c)(3), i.e., a non-profit think tank which relies on fundraising.

3) From the onset, the Alternative Right was conceived as a bold experiment and a short-term project to differentiate itself from the American conservative movement. It was never meant to be a long-term institution and, indeed, never was.

4) In the last 12 months, Richard Spencer had communicated to the Alternative Right’s current editors, Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki, on a number of occasions that he plans to move on in terms of archiving the website and changing its direction. As recently as this autumn, Spencer informed them, once again, that it is time to shut down the Alternative Right. Therefore, it was not a surprise move by any means, as has been insinuated.

5) Under no circumstances was Richard Spencer not going to give the current Alternative Right editors the content for which they were responsible. He was also going to include them on the new web project, Radix, if they so desired, and generally wishes them well.

Best Regards,

The Editors
Like · · Share · December 27, 2013
Top Comments
John Morgan and 6 others like this.
3 shares

John Liner Speaking as a reader, I am disappointed that the content is no longer available at a single source. If I were an author, I would be as displeased as Colin. The writers had the expectation that their content would be available to readers who want access to it in a single location. In my view, it would have been preferable for there to have been a smoother transition.
Like · Reply · 11 · December 28, 2013 at 9:47am

RADIX Journal replied · 2 Replies

Colin Buchan Liddell Nobody owns the alternative right, especially not someone like you Dick, whose whole course of action is "dicktated" by his fear of losing his NPI sponsor. The alternative right is a concept broader than any "NPI experiment."

Yes, Dick, keep the URL and do what else you can do to kill off a perfectly healthy site for no good reason, but don't expect me and Andy to cooperate. Sure you talked about killing it off and Andy and I talked about keeping it going, and then nothing happened for several months, until your pathetic Xmas coup, launched without a word to me or Andy.

The real reason you're closing it down is because the coverage from Rachel Madcow gave you the shits and put you in fear of losing your donor. Your actions just signal to your enemies how to close you down - pressure Spencer's donor. Don't think they won't do it.

Your other ploy to raise money is to set yourself up as a publisher. In fact I notice that the whole NPI conference was skewed into promoting your one book by that multiculturalist Italian survivalist. Yes, yes, yes, civilization is about to collapse so please buy our book. Do you know how stupid that sounds? Anyway, as a publisher. you're not needed. We already have Arktos.

This Xmas allow me to wish you a Very Merry Fuck You!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...7860568&type=1

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 4th, 2014 at 01:09 AM.
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[another comment, mixed in my own]

Andrea Ostrov Letania

"Nobody owns the alternative right, especially not someone like you Dick, whose whole course of action is "dicktated" by his fear of losing his NPI sponsor."

I find this hard to believe. After all, NPI is no less 'racist' and reviled by PC than Alt Right site. (Besides, in our age of google, no one can hide one's personal record, so getting rid of alternative right site will hardly serve as a blank slate for Spencer.)
I think the reason is due to personal disappointment. When Spencer started the site, he thought it might make a big splash and attract many top talents with fresh ideas. But except for a few bright/interesting writers, Alt Right was hardly different from most other alt right sites and blogs. It had a better web design but not much more.

You say Spencer shied away from notoriety, but I think he was disappointed that Alt Right didn't turn out to be notorious enough.

As for the commenting section, it initially had interesting people but too many regulars were a bunch of nasty Neo-Nazi holocaust denying lunatics, and that turned off a lot of people who stopped visiting Alt Right. And some interesting commentators were blocked. [the opposite of the truth. if you fear being called a racist and neonazi, you have plenty of sites catering to you. the 'racism' and 'nazis' are where the interest is these days. the problem is the opposite of what this freak ostrov (history there) says: the problem is alt-right, yes, is just another conservative site pretending to be different from other conservative sites but not genuinely willing to take an openly white nationalist position. it's just another site that pretends you can be a conservative and a radical. that you can be hint-racist and respectable.]

Since Alt Right failed--at least when measured up to Spencer's expectations of it serving as the spearhead of something bold and new--, I think Spencer is trying to redo it from scratch by calling it Radix and being more choosy about who gets to write for him.

That's not a bad idea, but he could have handled it more diplomatically. Or maybe it was just his way of signaling to Liddell and Nowicki that he wants to go on without them.

I think Alt Right would have done well IF

(1) it made no alliances with neo-Nazis like Alex Kurtagic.

(2) made it well-known to all its readers that it's NOT a neo-Nazi site.

(3) cut out the clowning by some of the whinier writers.

It should have had more class.
Like · 1 · December 29, 2013 at 4:14pm · Edited
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Saturday, 28 December 2013

LOOKING BACK, FORGING FORWARD

The two-faced Roman god Janus

by Andy Nowicki

As we reach the end of an old year and anticipate the start of a new one, it is appropriate to reflect on what has come to pass and to look ahead at what’s likely to come.

We find ourselves at a temporary virtual home right now, there being no room at the proverbial inn following the events of the “Christmas Day Purge,” described in an Alternative Right Facebook status update that I authored, which was posted on December 26:

"To those of you still wondering, here's what happened: on Christmas Day, we discovered that Richard Spencer, the originator and former editor-in-chief of Alternative Right, had fixed the web address of alternativeright.com so that it automatically reroutes to his new magazine, Radix Journal. This unannounced move caught us by surprise. Although Richard owns the URL for Alternative Right, and thus had every legal right to do what he did, we were still taken aback by the way this transition was handled.

That said, we forge forward, without acrimony. We wish Richard Spencer and his new venture the best, and recommend that all Alternative Right readers check it out for themselves. (The more thought-crime, the merrier!) At the same time, we plan to continue bringing you, our loyal Alternative Right-ists, the same hard-hitting, hilarious, provocative fare you have come to love, crave, and expect from us.

Just be sure to bookmark our new, temporary link, which is where we'll post articles, podcasts, and other nuggets of glory until we alight upon a more permanent home: www.alternative-right.blogspot.co.uk/

Thank you for staying tuned! --Andy and Colin"
Richard Spencer has since responded with a post of his own at the Radix Journal Facebook page, which, while true in its general assertions, is misleading when it comes to certain crucial particulars. Richard did, on a couple of occasions, tell us that he thought it was time for Alternative Right to be put out to pasture. It seems that he’d lost interest in the venture a long time ago, and had long wished to rebrand in one form or another. We always recognized his right to do this, as the originator of the Alternative Right site and its editor until mid-2012, when he gave editorship duties to Colin and me, but having never heard anything definitive, we assumed that things would be business as usual until we were definitively told otherwise.

Richard implies in his Radix reply that we ought to have known that the end of Alternative Right was coming, and in fact we did perceive that a change might be imminent. Colin and I never really understood why Richard felt tempted to pull the plug on a venture that continued to be successful within a niche market, drawing a significant following in the process and even gaining national exposure upon one occasion. Even now I can only speculate about Richard’s lack of enthusiasm for the project he had started but seemed disinclined to keep going, even as it kept going from strength to strength, meeting success after success.

Still, I always figured that, should Richard indeed decide to make this move, he would give Colin and me adequate notice, and granted us an opportunity to archive our past work, so it could continue to be accessed and read. That the Alternative Right link (www.alternativeright.com) would suddenly become non-operational, that all of the posted material would vanish, and that all traffic would be automatically rerouted to Radixjournal.com on December 25, 2013 was absolutely never imparted to us. Thus, it is not in the least inaccurate to say that we were caught off guard by what Richard did, or that the move was abrupt and unannounced.

Though I remain disappointed by the manner with which this transition was handled, I don’t wish to engage in a feud or a war of words over the matter. Moreover, I remain deeply grateful to Richard Spencer for the many kindnesses he has paid me over the past few years. None of us should be judged solely by our more dubious acts, but rather we should be taken for all-in-all, the good with the bad. All in all, Richard has been very good to me, and I won’t forget that.

Both Colin and I would like to keep this site going, because, unlike Richard, we see absolutely no reason why it ought to be put out to pasture. We thank you, our readers, for your loyalty and support over this past year, and we hope that you will stick with us as we forge forward into 2014 and beyond.

Andy Nowicki, co-editor of Alternative Right, is the author of six books, including Lost Violent Souls, Heart Killer and The Columbine Pilgrim. He occasionally updates his blog (www.andynowicki.blogspot.com) when the spirit moves him to do so.

http://alternative-right.blogspot.co...g-forward.html
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #8
Sam Emerson
Diversity = White Genocide
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Posts: 2,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Spencer
3) From the onset, the Alternative Right was conceived as a bold experiment and a short-term project to differentiate itself from the American conservative movement. It was never meant to be a long-term institution and, indeed, never was.
One year earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Spencer
Don’t worry—AlternativeRight.com won’t go anywhere. I’ll keep it “live” so long as the Internet still flickers.
Shutting it down was weak.
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Here's the problem.

What's missing from jewed conservatism? The old focus on literature and philosophy - the stuff now covered by chronicles. In exchange for lit and thought, neocons offer social wonkery and warmongering.

But the stuff that really interests people these days, and rightly so, is racial. That's where an alt-right could distinguish itself. But it won't. Because in the end it's the same as the right it affects to depart from. It doesn't depart, it shifts focus. But retains the essential: fear. That's why it's properly denominated alt-fright, and dismissed.
 
Old February 9th, 2016 #10
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default Contra-altright

[read article at source for proper formatting]

“Conservatives are sissies” -George Lincoln Rockwell

In response to fallout over the latest Spencerfest, I can’t say I’m surprised regarding the “content” of the National Policy Institute conference; this is Dickie Spencer after all. I guess he got bored of arrogantly parachuting in to lecture the Hungarians on how to be Hungarian and is back to his usual routine of buzzword-laden, content-devoid TED Talk nationalism and promoting repellent weirdos.

Spencer, as per his ingrained faileoconservative sentimentality, is a weak, pandering, fence-sitting coward who tries to play all sides of key issues while maintaining plausible deniability when held to any stance or standard, kinda like Grindr Greggie and the Alt-Gay Mafia in that regard, but wider in the scope of his offenses and more stupid. Spencer brings absolutely nothing to the table beyond repackaging the same old conservative/mainstreaming approach that’s been argued, tried, and refuted a million times already, pretending he’s doing something “new” and “different”, while busing in homosexual freaks and jew-appeasing cowards. Dickie blacklisting Matthew Heimbach for rightfully opposing homosexuality and allegedly supporting violence – like Dopey McGodboy is any threat to anything or anyone as he’s laying 6 million wreaths of white Christian guilt on the graves of dead niggers – was also particularly funny.

When not cucking for Trump, vouching for disgusting fags and attempting to silence all criticism on that matter, Dickie will go out of his way to exculpate jews from blame and argue for their inclusion, while throwing the occasional, vaguest insinuation in the other direction to retain the loyalty and cashflows of some of his other supporters. Weak, pretentious, and stupid. It seems that Dickie “please don’t quote paranoia” lil Dick Spencer was finally able to the muster the minimal amount of courage required at this latest conference to state that jews “aren’t us”, barely addressing the scope of the jewish problem and why it matters. Dickie, with all his prissy concern over the media calling him names, doesn’t need the media to look bad. He makes himself look worse than they ever could with his cowardly backtracking right in front of them like the stupid, simpering idiot he is. Whatever one may think of them, the cartoon klansmen that NPI’s branded as no matter what they do at least have the balls to stand by their convictions. Look, mom! I’m a thought criminal!

Spencer’s previous inclusion of alibi jews to avoid being called mean names by their media and continued hesitance when forced to discuss the subject bring his most recent declaration into question. With no public disavowal of his past stances and actions, and with the inclusion of Jew appeasers like Guillaume Faye, his audience is sent an unclear, confusing message to internalize regarding the role of Jews. This sets them up to be co-opted by Jewry and ultimately is the result of Dickie’s cowardice and continued prissiness when it comes to “difficult” subject matter. At the end of the day, Dickie’s more concerned about maintaining his appearance and not being even vaguely affiliated with anything remotely “fascist” than he is with the truth and leading people in the direction they need to go. For that reason alone, he’s a despicable coward and a weakling. One is left wondering where his continual, subservient fawning over jew, Paul Gottfreid, and pathetic adoration of various other jews like Rothbard and Mises fits in here, and what conclusions his audience draws from that.

It’s hilarious how alt-right postures as some radical alternative while pussing out on things like naming the Jew, attacking the holohoax, making a clean and explicit break from conservatism, and adopting anything even vaguely resembling a vanguard strategy. They just sit around and play girly little parlor word games – buzzword-laden and pretentious enough to retain their audience’s attention and $$$ but vague enough to avoid committing to anything tangible – so they can all congratulate each other on being oh-so-clever and “above” those vulgar philistines who consistently out-compete and out-achieve them in pretty much everything. They want the image without actually owning it. Repackaged faileocons. It’s a big fashion statement for them as they all play another round of pin the evasive buzzword to the champagne glass with Sam Dickson whining about equal rights for Whites.

It’s all vague, evasive bullshit defining itself on what it’s not – yeah we’re not fascists, but we’re not conservative either – and by its own big tent design, is incapable of developing any internal consensus and corresponding goals. Self-indulgent, directionless, overanalytical bullshit put out by smart people with no balls with a serving of hobby horse bullshit needlessly thrown in. It’s a big tent structure paradoxically pitched to a very narrow niche audience – a handful of nerds whining over inconsequential bullshit and arbitrarily redefining themselves to avoid being called mean names by their enemies. As a result, they can’t agree on any concrete set of standards, making them unable to mobilize any consistent platform, and unable to defend themselves from hostiles and homosexual Fifth Columnists intent on co-opting them. Hell, they can’t even agree on who their enemies are. A prime example of this in action is the vapid jewish skank Rachel Haywire, who’s allowed to fester (and generate $$$) as a result of the alt/new right’s explicit rejection of fascist politics and insistence on liberal principles like free speech – except when they’re being attacked over Haywire. Funnier yet is how the big tent idea is used to justify the inclusion of jews, jew-appeasers, faggots, and all range of unrelated tangential subcultures while radical, fascist elements are denounced as icky extremists and “disinvited.” All while they co-opt the imagery behind fascism for the purpose of vibing out to an aesthetic and maintaining a false image of radicalism while shitting all over the ideology and related goals behind it.

In the end, it ends up functioning as the same failed, capitulating conservatism it nominally opposes, minus the real world presence and institutional power. Forever on the defense; forever trying to justify itself in accord to liberal/jewish precedents; forever prefacing itself with faggy disclaimers; forever pandering to people’s existing viewpoints and getting co-opted; forever ceding ground; forever splitting hairs over irrelevant minutiae and boring everyone to fucking tears with needlessly esoteric wordplay in an attempt to make itself look profound and relevant when it has no reason to be.

The usage of the term “identitarian” as a self-descriptor is another perfect example of this chickenshit mentality in action. The term is vague and flexible enough to mean anything, to offer plausible deniability whenever called a mean name. I D E N T I D Y. Yeah well wtf’s that? Who’s identity? Who’s excluded? What clear reference points and course of action is the term establishing beside directionless, self-serving obfuscation. The original Generation Identity primer by Markus Willinger was already cringeworthy enough, going out of its way to explicitly condemn and downplay the nationalist focus on race and ethnicity in favor of I D E N T I D Y, going out of its way to condemn Germany’s National Socialists and Fascism as whole as “extremism.” These happen to be the only forces who were historically capable of resisting the Jewish-led onslaught of liberalism whom the alt-right routinely caterwauls about while marinating in a level of angst reminiscent of some fat emo bitch’s livejournal. It’s only fitting these cowards would want to emulate Generation Identity. The concept of the “Overton window” is a frequent defense used by the alt right to justify their approach.

However as correctly pointed out by Alex Linder “The alt-right shit has absolutely nothing to do with our cause, it merely sucks potential supporters away from it. Overton window is wrong. It’s a zero-sum game.”

Acting in terms of the Overton window is just ceding immense ground while pretending you’re moving things in the direction you want. At the end of the day, it’s a theoretical model that nerds use to sound superficially smrt while rationalizing their inability to hold a concrete, clear, consistent stance of anything. It’s a model, not an immutable law of nature. The idea that we need to gradually convince people to the point of radicalization overplays the degree to which people actually think, and ignores the fact that there’s no such thing as “gradual radicalization”. They side with whatever puts food on the table and with what they think the neighbors are doing. What people “think” they want at this immediate current point in time doesn’t really matter. People don’t think, they respond to authority, which requires acting as our own unit of authority. Stemming from that, to a large degree all politics is local. Which requires building up local, PHYSICAL on the ground units to serve a variety of community interests as well as actively challenging for power. See Golden Dawn. How did they do it? Providing community services tailored to their specific localities. Providing recreational meetups. Providing security escorts in dangerous neighborhoods. Providing food drives, medical supplies and other charity services. Staging public demos, leafeletting, and all the usual IRL promo activities. Maintaining an unwavering, unphased image of confidence and consistency while beating the living shit out of immigrant invaders and anything standing in their way. Basically acting as a state within a state and doing the exact opposite of everything the alt right claims is necessary. All while fielding candidates, who started out getting fractions of %’s of votes. But, that signaled a serious intent to actually challenge for power. They’re now the third biggest party, and because their support’s coming largely from the police and military going up to the highest levels, they can’t be shut down because they can leverage a credible threat of violence against the state if it breaks its own rules. They’re basically running the whole show now to where both the left and the right are trying to co-opt their support, and failing. What they didn’t do – publicly support figures that were hostile to their interests or sell out out of some mistaken notion of expediency. They lumped EVERYTHING that wasn’t them in with the System, populist conservatives included, and attacked it as a whole, capitalizing off the growing disenfranchisement of their voter base. A large segment of the population’s already disillusioned, voter non-participation’s on its way up. There’s an opening, if it’s acted on and taken advantage of by an unapologetically fascist vanguard. Let’s look at some numbers – when William Johnson half-assedly ran for congress in MI on nothing more than lazy robocolls, he got 0.9% of the vote in his district. Think that’s like 3,000 or so people already willing to ditch the two party system under an openly racial line. That’s a small segment of the larger population in that frame of mind. Now if ~10% of those local 3,000 were actively coordinated into an ideologically and politically relevant unit , you know where that could snowball? Going from that, what would those numbers look like decade or two down the line as conditions get worse?

The A3P wasn’t that unit, as it never sought to fully differentiate itself from failed conservatism, and increasingly tried to copy it. No one wants a shitty knockoff version of an already failing product. Its membership numbers tanked accordingly. The same applies to the alt right as it’s just another incoherent rehash of conservatism for repulsive degenerates who want to play Nietzschean crossword.

The success of Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, the prior organizational success of the US’s National Alliance is a direct refutation to everything these people claim, and puts them to shame. They are pandering cowards trying to rationalize their cowardice, they want the radical image without actually owning it in any capacity. All these design flaws are why all this shit will never make it past the blogosphere and occasional self-important dinner parties into any concrete organization/movement. Oh, but here’s an inspirational game of thrones reference. Dude, I’m like fuckn Voltaire or somethin.

As for Guillaume Faye’s claims on holocaust revisionism being ineffective and unnecessary, that’s demonstrably false, as several prominent figures came into racial politics via learning the truth about the holohoax and the jewish problem – which remain our primary institutional obstacles. The holohoax, in particular, is the enemy’s primary propaganda point to keep the public away from any Ethno Nationalist stance; we have the tools to counter and disprove it, exposing the enemy for what they are and further harming public sympathy for their antics, which is already tanking. The holohoax happens to be both the enemy’s strongest point of psychologically disarming whites, and their weakest point of defense. Disproving it and pointing out how the jewish control of the media allows such a lie to be institutionalized quickly opens the door for people to understand the rest of the jewish problem. When they see the extent they’ve been LIED to and EXTORTED, any sympathy towards the jews goes right out the window, being replaced by righteous contempt and distrust, opening the door for public examination of other areas of the Jewish problem. Revisionism is our greatest tool for tackling the jewish problem; sacrificing truth out of some misplaced notion of expediency is a hallmark of corruption and cowardice, only making our work harder.

Avoiding crucial material out of fear of negative framing, that will happen regardless, and has already happened simply giving the enemy power, resulting in ceded ground. If we lure people in under false pretenses and insinuations couched in plausible deniability in hopes of later radicalizing them, that just creates a risk for a hostile takeover the second the envelope is pushed too far; it creates an ideological prison, pandering to and reinforcing their current misconceptions, drives them away from the direction they need to go, and prevents them from perceiving and defending against external threats. No way out but through the jew and it’s depraved existential playground, America. The basic mechanics of media control and the holohoax can be easily understood in an hour by pretty much anyone, and is absolutely necessary introductory material. This isn’t graduate level course work, so it isn’t complexity that holds the audience back from these points, as various alt right figures sometimes claim in regard to revisionism. It’s fear of punishment from authority figures that holds them back. This requires us to champion these points and act as our own unit of authority instead of beating around the bush – which frames the subject as dirty and shameful – undermining morale and reinforcing cowardice in our audience, further making the audience even more reluctant to approach it, as well as appearing fundamentally dishonest, like we’re trying to slip poison into the food. Avoiding this subject out of fear it will alienate the audience, pandering to their misconceptions and giving that power. This isn’t a complicated subject. Snapping that the audience already knows about the jewish problem, as Dickie did when Mike Enoch briefly mentioned the subject, is a cowardly lie, especially when the alt right goes to great lengths to redirect from all aspects of the jewish problem whenever it is brought up, all out of concern of how it’ll make them look to a hostile media that hates them anyway and brands them as klansmen and dressup Nazis regardless of what they do. The inclusion of Kevin MacDonald on the panel at the recent NPI event was an attempt to retain credibility in the eyes of more radical elements and related revenue streams, an attempt to maintain plausible deniability when accused of going soft on the jewish problem. KMac’s content was devoted entirely to a fantastical “pathological altruism” with not a single word mentioned in regard to his previous primary area of focus.

As fascists, we’re responsible for setting parameters of ethnonationalism manifestations to come. This requires delineating “us” and “not us.” A jew of any kind will never be us, and will always be an alien entity both in terms of biological composition and cultural function/identity. “European Jews” may physically look closer to us due to admixture, and can outwardly mimic our cultural expressions/forms, but, internally, will still be hyper-aware of their jewish status with accompanying motives, cloaked actions, internal ruminations/content, etc. They will always act in accord with their ingroup interests at our expense. Codewords do not cover that, and leave too many loopholes, and for that reason, the jew needs to be named, excluded, and attacked as a whole. Anything that does not address this crucial aspect of ethnonationalism in full will be co-opted by jews and taken out. Initial task for Ethno Nationalists: branding the “we”, from which jews must be identified as a cohesive biological entity and unilaterally excluded. Part of the exclusion requires instilling a very clear sense in members who the “we” is, otherwise, you end up with jews getting caught in the mix and causing their usual problems, thus necessitating regular attacks on the jew. Anything that fails this will be infiltrated and co-opted by them, secessionist breakaways included. The same applies to fags, and the alt right is living proof as to why they must be treated exactly the same as jews, as their function is identical. Just like jews, fags infiltrate rising movements, form their own internal power blocs and start jockeying for positions of power and influence to ensure their interests are carried out within a new context.

The problems with Faye and Donovan should be obvious, and it speaks to White Nationalism’s lack of principles and coherent direction that aside from being rightfully attacked by Carolyn Yeager, this garbage is going on relatively unopposed, with no organized response. Spencer should be attacked until he picks a side, his conferences boycotted until he stops bringing in homos and outright enemies as shining examples for us to follow. Meanwhile, the resulting Zionist and faggot influx from the alt right needs to be spat on and shown the door in no uncertain terms. Their attempt to run with and dredge ethnonationalism with their reactionary, cowardly conservative bullshit cannot go ignored. All such efforts, when spotted, will be immediately and publicly kicked to the curb by us.


Article by Max Macro

http://ropeculture.org/2016/02/05/contra-altright/
 
Old February 9th, 2016 #11
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Default

Max Macro is right about quite a bit of that. But his hardcore act is pretty humorous. He himself is one of the freakiest attractions at the circus by being a faithful follower of this useless, drama-loving, mentally ill old guy :
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona
 
Old February 10th, 2016 #12
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

I've never heard of Max Macro before, but that was a good piece and sorely needed.

I've started to grow suspicious of people who promote the 'White suicide' argument first and foremost. That MacDonald seems to have taken that path (even writing a book on it, I think) in recent years makes me very disappointed. I wonder where that idea originates from, because all it does is it take away the blame from the Jews and put it on Whites being 'suicidal'.

Last edited by Robbie Key; February 12th, 2016 at 11:59 AM.
 
Old February 10th, 2016 #13
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Key View Post
I've never heard of Max Macro before, but that was a good piece and sorely needed.

I've started to grow suspicious of people who promote the 'White suicide' argument first and foremost. That MacDonald seems to have taken that path (even writing a book on it, I think) in recent years makes me very disappointed. I wonder where that idea originates from, because all it does it take away the blame from the Jews and put in on Whites being 'suicidal'.
As a result of the recent Roosh brouhaha, I have developed a slightly different perception of Spencer, his organization and its more tolerant view toward homosexuality. The alt-right showed a higher level of resistance to the outpouring of knee-jerk, anti-Roosh hysteria which revealed a feministic and social justice mentality implicit in old school White Nationalism.

In mammals, cuckoldry is only possible through the cooperation of the female. Homosexuals, for all their social liabilities, are resistant to the subversion of White nationalism by implicit feminism.

I think it no accident that harpies and their sex starved WN groupies are at the forefront of the attack against the alt-right.

Show me a White man who's willing to line up behind a "line drawn in the sand" by a flat earth feminist and I'll show you a quintessential cuck.

 
Old February 13th, 2016 #14
Orazio
Junior Member
 
Orazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr View Post
As a result of the recent Roosh brouhaha, I have developed a slightly different perception of Spencer, his organization and its more tolerant view toward homosexuality. The alt-right showed a higher level of resistance to the outpouring of knee-jerk, anti-Roosh hysteria which revealed a feministic and social justice mentality implicit in old school White Nationalism.

In mammals, cuckoldry is only possible through the cooperation of the female. Homosexuals, for all their social liabilities, are resistant to the subversion of White nationalism by implicit feminism.

I think it no accident that harpies and their sex starved WN groupies are at the forefront of the attack against the alt-right.

Show me a White man who's willing to line up behind a "line drawn in the sand" by a flat earth feminist and I'll show you a quintessential cuck.
Very well said Jim. White nationalist White knights are beneath contempt:

Sweden : radical feminists say they would rather be raped by migrants than helped by local stret groups
Feminists in Sweden have launched a new campaign against men that wants to protect women from being raped.

FEMINISM
So, no doubt you have all heard about taHarrush by now, the Islamo-Arabic rape game. You might also have heard about the backlash against the people engaging in this behavior in Stockholm, where 200 men put their viking-genes to use by physically attacking these “refugees”.

What you probably have NOT heard about however, (or find hard to believe) is the feminist outcry (surprise surprise!) against these noble berserkers. Indeed, the rage was so great, they created the hashtag #inteerkvinna (translated as #notyourwoman) where they spewed their hatred over racism, fascism, white men and many other things that can be loosely tied to the events with some cognitive dissonance. In short, they made a collective tantrum on social media over the fact that white European men are standing up to the rape-fugees

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d98_1...tDSWBfaXK6S.99
__________________
How odd of God,
To choose the Jews.---William Norman Ewer
 
Old February 11th, 2016 #15
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Key View Post

I've started to grow suspicious of people who promote the 'White suicide' argument first and foremost. That MacDonald seems to have taken that path (even writing a book on it, I think) in recent years makes me very disappointed. I wonder where that idea originates from, because all it does it take away the blame from the Jews and put in on Whites being 'suicidal'.
Macdonalds a good guy surrounded by bad people. These people control the platforms from which he can speak to the world, so he has to meet them half way to keep his projects afloat (Occidental Observer, an excellent website mostly dedicated to the Jewish question). Hence why when you go to NPI/Taylor/ or any event hosted by the WASP country club Jew-obfuscators, the man famous for a three volume groundbreaking study on jewish race psychology doesn't mention Jews even once.

They're instructions he's given.
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona
 
Old February 12th, 2016 #16
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,089
Default

This Trump enthusiasm has gotten out of hand. You can agree, or disagree, but I'm ready to lump in the Trump chumps with the alt-right movement.

My take on the alt-right is they're simply conservatives with a wink wink, nudge nudge nuanced approach trying to bump people in the right direction, but I don't think their approach is working and is actually working to the contrary, especially if they're like Ramzpaul and attacking legitimate Nationalists who don't pull any punches when it comes to the jews. If they think they can prove their method is more successful in steering people to a more jew-wise direction than people simply telling the unapologetic truth, more power to them, but as things stand right now I'm not convinced their method is working, if that is even their intention at all.

The alt-right movement is geared toward neoconservative knuckleheads who aren't the sharpest tools in the box. So the problem with the wink wink, nudge nudge approach succeeding is clear. This requires sparking cognitive dissonance, the later of which only works on reasonably intelligent people, but the alt-right is targeted toward the lowest common denominator. Expecting a targeted group to start to think when they haven't shown a capacity for thinking independently their entire lives (especially christ tards) is not just a failure, but will lead only to political dead ends while competing with legitimate nationalist movements that offer more potential. So I say fuck the alt-right. For the same reasons Alex says we should attack the Conservatives, we should also attack the alt-right.
__________________
Low-IQ bible scholars are legion, the big book o' bullshit is catnip to the underbrained. --ALEX LINDER

Last edited by Crowe; February 12th, 2016 at 06:46 PM. Reason: I decided to add more to this post.
 
Old May 1st, 2017 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default #1 Alt-Right Thread

[just going to put in here leftist attempts to understand, dick spencer stuff, whatever else seems appropriate. for me, White Nationalism is it. alt-right is hazy. pro-white & anti-jew or GTFO]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...far-right.html

1. To understand this new right, it helps to see it not as a fringe movement, but a powerful counterculture.
 
Old May 1st, 2017 #18
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

There is already this thread:

https://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=126967
 
Old May 12th, 2017 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[couple embeds i'm not posting thru link]

MEME MAGIC
'Kill All Normies' Is About the Alt-Right But the Left Ends Up Looking Worse
RK
ROISIN KIBERD
May 12 2017, 10:00am

[IMG]https://video-images.vice.com/articles/5914a277acbe3813d7ea2c60/lede/1494530184738-magazine-1.jpeg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,center&resize=1444:*[/IMG]

Image: Pepe and Donald Trump. Image: YouTube

A new book from Irish author Angela Nagle chronicles the rise of the alt-right and how the worst of the internet went mainstream.

There are certain books where, as you're reading, you realize your mind is about to change. Reading Kill All Normies is one of those experiences. Written by Angela Nagle, an Irish writer and academic known for articles identifying "The New Man of 4chan," the book is a record of the recent online "culture wars", culminating in the 2016 US election and the triumph of the alt-right. It is also an indictment of the left, pinpointing just how it allowed this to happen.

The book opens with a cultural history, "From Hope to Harambe," outlining the progression from mid-00s pickup artist communities, to overtly anti-feminist "neomasculinity," to Gamergate (here Nagle's narration takes a near-audible sigh), leading to its collusion with 4chan's troll army and its political awakening as the alt-right. Nagle wrote her PhD dissertation on online misogyny, witnessing this evolution in real-time. "There's a sort of broad arch of reactionary politics which moves from anti-feminism to racism," she explains, meeting me in Dublin to talk about the book.

With its promise of a collective identity, the alt-right can seduce and assimilate these groups, lending them a sense of coherent identity.

Nagle approaches the alt-right as a tangle of wayward factions, united in their loathing of the left. Named for Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci who argued that political change follows cultural change, the "Gramscian Alt-Light" are those people you've seen on 4chan threads: creative, angry, unpredictable, but politically vacuous and messy. The "Manosphere" are men threatened by feminists, who they claim augur in civilizational decline and "cucking." They have converted their misogyny into racism, which links them with more old-fashioned far-right bigotry.

What each group shares is a fear of the future, an atomized life spent forever alone. With its promise of a collective identity, the alt-right can seduce and assimilate these groups, lending them a sense of coherent identity.

Among the alt-right's leaders, Nagle sees Richard Spencer as the most influential and the most likely to sustain a political career. "Mike Cernovich, Lauren Southern and Milo, all those people are brilliant at media," says Nagle. "They're really good at Twitter, but they're shallow thinkers. Richard Spencer is much smarter. He realizes that conservatism will never be cool, so he's trying to bring in figures from the dissident left."

Essentialist arguments about what it is to "be a man" have evolved to address what it is to be a white man. Nagle cites "Return of Kings" (a "neomasculinity" blog) author Roosh V's transition from pickup artist to alt-right proponent as an example. Overwhelmed by a sexual hierarchy in which they cannot compete, and immersed in anti-immigration rhetoric and talk of "white genocide," the alt-right has coalesced around an aggressive, ultra-conservative version of white masculinity.


Nagle identifies a contradiction at the heart of the alt-right's demands: It might call for a return to old-fashioned values, but it fails to recognize how those same forces that brings it together erode any chance of returning to that lifestyle (the kind lived by people who hardly use the internet in the first place). "I think they want out of their lives, because their own lives are nothing like that," Nagle explains. "They're living the ultimate kind of individualism. They spend their time watching porn and playing video games. They're not part of any greater purpose." Spencer himself alludes to this in speeches, stating that "in a culture which offers video games, endless entertainment, drugs, alcohol, porn, sports, and a thousand other distractions to convince us of another reality, we want to cut all of that away."

This argument for the "real" stretches far beyond the online right: As a generation born far away enough from lifetime monogamy, home ownership, job security and a life without technology, we have little concept of the "normal" we're denied. On the alt-right, this plays out as an irresolvable frustration. "When they talk about 'normies,' explains Nagle, "they're also saying 'I want a normal life. I want a wife and a house and a family.' They're deeply conflicted, because everything they hate in this world is what they are the ultimate example of."

It would be tempting to dismiss this as an attack on easy targets (a group of antisocial teenage boys), but Nagle never dismisses their hopes and frustrations. Instead, she traces where they come from. Nor does she spare the online left: Kill All Normies can be categorized alongside Jarrett's Kobek's 2016 anti-novel I Hate the Internet in that both titles attack the online left from the left. Beside the /b/tards and racists and the Men Going Their Own Way (aka "MGTOW," the anti-feminist group that claims to renounce women and sex entirely), still it is the left who come out looking worst of all.

This is what makes Kill All Normies so troubling, and in other ways so exhilarating to read. Nagle attacks a liberal internet sunk in filter-bubbled complacency, drunk on the relative ease of expressing one's politics in retweets, and obsessed with calling out the right-wing bogeyman.

Nagle links this stagnation to a poverty of thought: "The thing is, you cannot come up with new ideas if the intellectual culture of your movement is totally closed down. Which has been the case for years. That's why the alt-right has been such a shock, because everyone was banking on the fact that everyone now agrees with us."

Nagle's argument finds horrifying validation at the book's conclusion, which leaps forward to January of this year, immediately after the suicide of author and cultural critic Mark Fisher. Rather than mourning his loss, or expressing condolences to his bereaved family, members of the online left gloated and portrayed his untimely death as a victory:



Nagle is damning here, writing that "this response is a fairly typical example of precisely the sour-faced identitarians who undoubtedly drove so many young people to the right during these vicious culture wars."

In the recent past, Fisher came under fire online for his essay "Exiting the Vampire Castle," which argues against the online left's call-out culture as obstructing change, and breeding a further sense of futility among the online left. When I interviewed Fisher two years ago about his Facebook project "Boring Dystopia," he was certain that Facebook, Twitter and their ilk would die away within our lifetimes.

This hasn't yet come to pass. Rather, "online politics" have gone mainstream, and won an election. What went so horribly wrong in online life, that it got this bad? Have we learned to love the filter bubble so much that we've forgotten our own humanity?

More than anything, this book is about the a battle for the real. What is real? Who gets to be a normie?

It is tempting to dream of an end to Twitter, of Facebook imploding and Instagram going offline, to put an end to this culture war. But Nagle isn't convinced it would solve our dilemma: "I think it would be replaced by something that would fulfill the same purpose. I wouldn't want to suggest a technical solution to what is in essence an absence of ideas."

The book ends with the alt-right on the ascendant, spilling off the screen and into real life as riots erupt at American universities. The alt-right has been validated: we have already let them, to paraphrase Ivanka Trump (herself misquoting Ayn Rand). Now, who is going to stop them?

More than anything, this book is about a battle for the real. What is real? Who gets to be a normie? What will we accept as "normal," and what will we stand against? To Nagle, the challenge posed is a moral one: "We think of them as kind of a dirty word, one which reminds of us of reactionary politics, but moral questions are so important. We constantly make moral decisions, whether we want to or not. And the central issue of the alt right is a moral one."

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 12th, 2017 at 02:28 PM.
 
Old May 12th, 2017 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

top four: non-white, mudshark, cuck, jew




Last edited by Alex Linder; May 12th, 2017 at 04:21 PM.
 
Reply

Tags
#1 thread, altright, andrew anglin, richard spencer, vox day

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 AM.
Page generated in 0.89949 seconds.