…identity politics/tactics of the Alt-Right:
– Opposes the Left
– Opposes the ideas of Equality, Diversity, Tolerance, Progress, Control
– Fights on the identity/culture level
– Accepts any that are willing to fight who subscribe to some/all of its tenets
– Maintains the higher ground (what makes life better?)
– Recognizes the uphill fight requires more energy
It does have flaws, which I can recognize: seems to imply/advocate defensive or reactive tactics, much too wordy, doesn’t delineate between the Alt-branches, etc. Praise kek that it did, indeed, lead to a second, more successful attempt which is in more alignment with the clear, tactical understanding of the Alt-Right:
I. Alt-Right is forward-looking and not defensive.
II. Alt-White and Alt-West are independent and distinct branches.
III. Their success, either individually or together, results in success of the Alt-Right.
IV. Other Alt-branches can be added, as long as they share enough of the same philosophy and direction.
V. Alt-Lite can be considered allies, as long as they are not interfering with the two primary branches.
VI. Fighting between branches or internally within a branch is not constructive.
VII. Each branch can be arranged however they see fit (or add their own sub-branches, e.g. Alt-White:US and Alt-West:German).
VIII. Stronger individual branches and a broad collection of branches is ultimately beneficial to the Alt-Right
IX. No branch is more important than the others nor leads the other branches
X. The head of the Alt-Right is Pepe
This iconography does raise the question of “what other viable Alt-branches are there?” for the Alt-Right. I would not be surprised to see Alt-Masculinity be a potential ally given the success and philosophical direction of Roosh.
* To me, the Alt-Right is synonymous with the 14 words. As long as you agree with that statement, you are Alt-Right.
* As long as the core principles of nations/nationalism and identity/identitarianism are maintained, it’s all good; Anyone can join in that regard. We can agree to disagree and argue about each other’s values once the current zeitgeist is done for.
* This is very clear: the altright is white nationalism, with the ultimate goal of an ethnostate. It’s Zionism for the indigenous white Europeans. That’s it, that’s all, folks.
My enemy are the Jews; they are the ones with power, and they are the ones who want a multicultural stew. They are the ones who want whites to live in a state of dhimmitude. It is true, the leftist program of feminism and gay rights is annoying, but they are merely pawns. I want the Queen, and then I can strike the King. Perhaps that is the real issue. The Alt Light thinks Milo’s enemies are the real enemies: feminists, marxists etc. And then after they are defeated we can live in a libertarian paradise. That is not white nationalism … it’s not even related. I want to behead the Jew at the top of the pyramid. I don’t want the orc at the bottom of the pyramid carrying out the Jew’s orders.
There can be no coalition-building with WN. It’s a singular movement. The goal is an ethnostate. If there are to be allies, then they will be with organizations like the PLO, or any nation in search of statehood.
* Before Hillary named the Al-Right and the scramble to define it ramped up, I had always thought of it as a big umbrella group containing everyone from paleocons (like Buchanan) to HBDers of the Sailersphere to the various “Men’s” factions (Roosh, Roissy, etc.) to Neoreaction (Moldbug) to WN/NatSoc to /pol/ to what is now “Alt-West” to now “Alt-Lite (Trump, Milo, Breidbart).
I lean toward WN/NatSoc, but I 100% agree with the big tent, no enemies on/to the right idea. Plenty of enemies without fighting each other.
But, the White Nationalist side of really does not like the big tent idea at all for Alt-Right. They are really, really adamant on this. A few of them have posted on your threads on this, but it is basically all of them who view it this way. Milo, being a ‘degenerate, coal-burning, kike faggot’ is particularly egregious in their eyes, but the whole “entryism” thing is a major concern.
/pol/ doesn’t even like being called Alt-Right at all. They are just /pol/.
* While at this stage I don’t think we should present any clear targets…I mean leaders. A leader of the Alt-Right(West)should be White. But not all Whites qualify. A Russian is White, but they are not of the West.
So no Russian leaders. Besides Russia’s Alt-Right was already at victorious and Putin is their leader. We can learn from them.
* Alt West is not, in and of itself, White nationalism, but it explicitly states the need to secure the future of the White race and its progeny. Others can be allies or supporters or even merely fellow travelers, but Alt-West includes White nationalism or it is not Alt West. No branch of the Alt Right has “a” leader; all have excellent theorists and varying degrees of strategists and multi-pronged, mixed streams of followers.
* First of all, White Nationalism does NOT equal the Alt-Right. White Nationalism is a subset of the Alt-Right, which is a big tent consisting of basically every non-mainstream rightwing philosophy that has someone representing it. I may go so far as to say that White Nationalism is one of the backbones of the Alt-Right. But making it the poster boy by spreading the idea that Alt-Right is defined as White Nationalism is incorrect, and furthermore, it’s like putting the cart before the horse.
White Nationalism has a purpose, but as a brand and marketing tool it’s counter-productive.
The purpose of White Nationalism is to prevent the Alt-Right from compromising too much, from sliding too much to the left, from watering down its message. That is a very important task, indeed. As a comparison, I question if the Milos of the world have anything at all to contribute. After all, the Alt-Right have far, far loftier goals than “being naughty on the interweb”, which is basically how Milo tries to define it. If not for the White Nationalists, the Milos might already have co-opted the movement. But White Nationalists still need to get real. While I would never disavow those to the right of me, I can give them a constructive kick to the arse.
Because in the real world you have to be practical. You have to make alliances. You have to make concessions. You need to begin with the present situation and take proper steps in the right direction. You have to walk a tight-rope between what’s possible and what’s ideal. Otherwise, you won’t get any results, and results are ultimately what matters. Everything else is wankery.
Why is White Nationalism counter-productive? Because its weak arguments threaten to destroy its strong arguments. Their ideal is to have white homelands. But most normal people would probably rather let EVERY immigrant stay in Western countries, than to make them ALL leave. People would not understand why their well-behaving, productive friends of color should leave, yet White Nationalists propagate that only whites, maybe only whites of certain ethnic groups, should be allowed to stay in Western countries. I’m not saying the argument necessarily is wrong, only that it’s weak. Most importantly, it’s an effective way of making enemies of people that could otherwise be allies.
However, we COULD convince a critical mass of people that SOME immigrant groups should repatriate, such as criminals, illegals, welfare-beneficiaries, muslims, gypsies, etc. And that would go a long way towards stopping the decline.
Look, Western Civilization is sick. We’re being invaded. Unlike “White Genocide” which is an abstraction, deterioration is a daily fact. I see it when I look out my window. I read about it every day on alternative news sites. Even the MSM can’t hide it anymore.
Now is not the time to gloriously fap to the vision of some hypothetic, future utopia. Now is the time to forge alliances and drive out the r-selected untermenschen that have festered in our lands, and wrest control from our semitic overlords and their gentile enablers.
The time for White Nationalism may eventually come, but it is not this day.
In other words, do not let perfection be the enemy of the good.
* There were those who read a great deal into the fact that the song that played after Trump finished his acceptance speech at the RNC was “All Right Now” by one-hit wonders Free. And they may be on to something.
* White Nationalism is *not* the core element of the AltRight, but white racial consciousness is, and anyone concerned to deny that is either ignorant of the movement or has malevolent intentions toward it.
* “For those still thinking that the WN position is a mere 10% of the Alt Right, compare the traffic of the Daily Stormer with Vox’s Site:”
This is silly.
Compare the traffic of DS with /pol/, reddit, twitter, and Breidbart.
Not to mention all of the places where people are not at all redpilled, yet.
That is where the numbers which dwarf White Nationaliost numbers will come from.
/pol/, DS, and TRS are great at taking people straight from normie to nazi, but for most people, it is going to be a progression from “Alt-Lite” to “Alt-West” to hopefully large numbers of the “Alt-White” version of Alt-Right.
* A lot of this comes down to the JQ. Most people are so conditioned that the fnords come for them just for thinking about it, let alone talking about it. Loosely, the alt-light ignores it, the alt-west thinks about it, and the alt-white thinks it’s the root cause of our current woes and makes plenty of noise about it.
* The Alt-West has other interests than White Nationalism. We are Western Civilizationists, not White Nationalists. The European nations are merely one component of Western Civilization, they are not the West in and of themselves.
By Michael Bell
Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents has asserted that the Alt Right is “a broad umbrella term for ideological tendencies that reject mainstream American conservatism.” He contends, however, that White Nationalists need to give it a more concrete identity by making it our movement: “the Alternative Right means White Nationalism — or it means nothing at all . . . go forth into battle and make this concept of the Alternative Right the dominant one.”
Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer fame agrees in his article “A Normie’s Guide to the Alt Right“: “The short story is that although the term could refer to a lot of different people saying a lot of different things, the people that it is being used to refer to by the media — Trump-supporting white racial advocates who engage in trolling and other activism on the internet — are the core of the movement, with any other groups and figures being peripheral.” As far as fulfilling Greg Johnson’s objective, Anglin argues that we are already on the verge of reaching that consensus.
Even from a non-White Nationalist corner of the Alt Right, it is agreed that the Alt Right is a broad ideological gathering but that the core is white Identity. Vox Day stated in an interview with Stefan Molyneux that “. . . what the Alt Right is at its core is we are the descendants of those who were read out of the conservative movement . . . mostly due to an unwillingness to defer to the conservative movement’s attempt to ingratiate itself with the industrial mil complex, and the neoconservatives, and the Bush administration.” He states that our ideological ancestors are “the John Birch Society, of Sam Francis, of Pat Buchanan . . . of everyone from John Derbyshire to Ann Coulter.” He leaves out some very important thinkers, but still ultimately concludes that “The Alt Right takes an Identity approach to the world . . . which 95% of the world takes. . . . White Americans are beginning to learn that they have to play the game (of identity politics) just like everybody else.” Vox is not even white, yet he understands our plight and appears to sympathize with our cause while he himself focuses on combating social justice warrior agendas.
Taking these viewpoints into consideration, my own view is this:
- The Alt Right is a movement consisting of many different viewpoints, all of which agree that the mainstream conservative doctrines of free trade, open-door immigration, multiculturalism, and interventionist wars in the Middle East are net negatives.
- The Alt Right traces its ideological origins back to the more nationalistic conservative ideologues who were purged from the mainstream conservative movement by Will Buckley, as well as to men like Kevin MacDonald, William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell, Jared Taylor, and other old-school White Nationalists. I would even argue that Adolf Hitler deserves to be on this list, which I’m sure will make some of the “Alt Lite” folks cringe. One also cannot discount philosophers like Julius Evola, Oswald Spengler, and Francis Parker Yockey.
- The Alt Right needs to be turned 100% into a vehicle for our message. Lawrence Murray did a good job of outlining this message in his article “The Fight for the Alt Right: The Rising Tide of Ideological Autism Against Big Tent-Supremacy.” To summarize: Human equality is a myth; our world is tribal; the white tribe is being suppressed in its own nations; men and women are different; freedom is a responsibility and not a right; democracy ought to be of limited form or replaced entirely; and the Jews exercise a negative influence on our societies, which they do out of some biological impulse. To this I would add Andrew Anglin’s “Cultural Normalization, Common-Sense Economics, and White Countries for White People.”
- While we pursue our goal of fully occupying the helm of the Alt Right, we must recognize that those who are not fully on board with all of our principles can nonetheless be considered a part of the Alt Right provided they aid us in our efforts and do not work to contradict us. Many of these types can eventually be turned into full White Nationalists anyway, as their views are only a few inches away from ours. To quote Lawrence Murray, “The big tent is worth preserving to persevere against our common enemies, for our struggle is revolutionary.”
The fourth point leads us into the main purpose of my article. To quote Anglin again: “The Alt Right is a ‘mass movement’ in the truest possible sense of the term, a type of mass-movement that could only exist on the internet, where everyone’s voice is as loud as they are able to make it. In the world of the internet, top-down hierarchy can only be based on the value, or perceived value, of someone’s ideas.”
I have taken it upon myself to delineate this hierarchy, as I have always had a predisposition toward putting things into categories since I was barely able to speak. I shall call it . . . The Caste System of Alt Righteousness. Our race has a history of creating caste-based societies, after all (though on a much grander scale).
This caste system is based on the idea that full-on White Nationalists who embrace all of Murray’s and Anglin’s principles represent the highest peak, which descends downward into castes of people who embrace less radical narratives. However, like an initiatic society, the system is meritocratic; one can ascend to the heights as they begin to embrace more principles of our worldview.
White Nationalists must occupy the helm of this pyramid, as we deal in the ultimate truths when it comes to race, politics, economics, and culture. We tackle the “meta” stuff whereas the lesser Alt Rightists go after the more immediate things. In the same light, the higher priestly castes of ancient societies tackled the meta-physical questions while the other castes dealt primarily with the physical.
The very existence of Western civilization, which most of the Alt Right purports to champion, hinges on the biologically-distinct white race that created it as a natural consequence of its unique mental and spiritual impulses. The deep, dark level of decadence the West has descended to is largely because of the influence of Jews, who have created their various movements and causes to undermine our foundations as a result of their own unique mental and spiritual characteristics. Since the Alt Right wishes to remedy the modern-day symptoms of the Jewish disease within White societies to save them, it only follows that those groups who promote White advocacy and discuss the Jewish question are fit to lead the movement.
The Top Tier
In this top-tier, Brahmin level of Alt Righteousness, I would include the following groups, websites, and individuals. Forgive me if I have left any big players out:
Counter-Currents, The Right Stuff, The Daily Stormer, David Duke (who probably uses the word “Jews” more than he uses the word “the”), Kevin MacDonald, weev, Millenial Woes, Red Ice Radio, Evalion (who focused more on naming the Jew than White Nationalism, and who is apparently part Amerindian), Murdoch Murdoch, the Occidental Observer, Uncuck the Right (now known as Walt Bismarck), and the older-school websites like National Vanguard and Stormfront. All of them — whether in the form of print, videos, or even music — argue that Whites are a distinct socio-biological entity that has a right to its own exclusive set of homelands and cultures, and that Jews are a distinctly different group that works to undermine our very existence.
Below this rank of ultimate bro-tier, I would place all of those groups and individuals who address racial realism and promote white advocacy, but who for whatever reason choose not to cover the Jews or who adopt a soft position on them. These are the guys who you respect and love (at least I do), but to whom you say “Bro . . . c’mon . . . are you serious?” It’s like when your brother is a good-looking dude but chooses to date an ugly chick way below his league. You simply don’t understand it, and you feel disdainful towards him, but you still love and respect him because he is your brother and you’ve shared so much of your life together.
In this rank I would include the following: Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, Richard Spencer and Radix Journal, and Vdare.
Guys, c’mon now. The anti-white narrative comes from Cultural Marxism, which comes from the schools of Critical Theory and Cultural Anthropology; the latter comes from the Jewish intellectuals Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, etc., and the former comes from the Jew Franz Boas. Their theories and books were disseminated by other Jews in academia, and their educational programs were funded by Jewish money. The Jewish intellectuals of Critical Theory were influenced by the coked-out pervert Jew Sigmund Freud and the out-of-touch-with-reality Jew Karl Marx. Karl Marx was largely influenced by the teachings of the Jew Moses Hess. The Jews at large have developed an evolutionary mechanism wherein they seek to undermine the cohesion of other ethnicities and societies for their own benefit, and many times they do this without even realizing what they are doing. I know that post hoc ergo proctor hoc is a logical fallacy . . . but guys . . . c’mon now. To quote a scene from Family Guy where Lois attends a skinhead meeting: “No but seriously, the Jews are bad.”
Third from the top, I would place those Alt Righters who acknowledge the greatness of Western Civilization without being overtly pro-white, and who address the dangers of non-white immigration without being overtly anti-white. These are the ones who will openly condemn non-Western cultures as being backward or deficient, or who stress the impracticality of Third-World immigration into the West, but who don’t walk the next 5 inches into discussing race. Of course, they will on occasion acknowledge that whites built Western Civilization and America and that “white privilege” is a false concept. They are the civic nationalists, paleocons, and even libertarians. I feel that they aren’t totally outside the spectrum of the Alt Right because they argue against many of the Left’s most sacred cows and earn its revulsion as a result. They also serve as a possible entry point into the Alt Right. A member of my own family has stepped through the gateway of places like TakiMag only to end up at the beautiful floating city of White Nationalism. He now listens to Red Ice Radio and The Daily Shoah and reads Vdare, and mind you, this was a man who used to tell me to calm down at age 14 because my views were too “virulent.”
While it may seem counterintuitive to place the God Emperor in a spot underneath the apex caste, Donald Trump must go here. Let’s be honest guys, he’s a civic nationalist who means well, and who has been instrumental in the ascension of our movement to mainstream recognition, but he is no White Nationalist. Alongside him would be his priestess Ann Coulter, the former libertarian Stefan Molyneux, Pat Buchanan, TakiMag, Gavin McInnes, and RamzPaul.
RamzPaul has explicitly stated that he is not a White Nationalist, and he often mocks us for the amount of time we spend discussing the Jews and derides us as “1488ers.” I suspect this is just because of some chip he has on his shoulder, or some desire to set himself apart from the larger group to feel cool. I cannot be sure. What I do know however, is that his videos are incredibly pro-white and anti-multiculturalism, he loves Europe, he argues that every people has a right to a homeland, he mocks Jews on occasion (“Let’s call them Finns”), and he looks like British comedian Stephen Merchant (irrelevant, but I felt someone needed to bring it up). I love his videos, but because of his attitude, he gets the third caste.
Black Pidgeon Speaks is another excellent YouTuber who belongs in this caste, though he is borderline White Nationalist. His videos are very well-produced and accessible, covering topics such as gender differences, race, IQ, immigration, George Soros, globalism, and economics from a pro-Western perspective. I suspect that in his heart he actually belongs at the top, but for now he goes here. He has not overtly labeled himself as a White Nationalist or said anything against the Jews as a group.
Beneath this caste I would place the people who work to combat the professional and intellectual thuggery of the Social Justice Warriors and very particular Leftist narratives, but who don’t have any kind of overarching pro-White, pro-Western, or anti-Semitic ideology driving it.
Author and video-game designer Vox Day goes here. In fact, I would elect him the leader of this caste if such a thing existed. He was an outspoken supporter of Gamergate and organized the Rabid Puppies movement, which at its core sought to diminish the influence of Left-minded authors like George R. R. Martin over the science-fiction Hugo Awards. Rather than giving awards to books about transexual vampires fighting against homophobic dragons, Day and his followers felt that the science fiction community should once again seek to emulate luminaries like J. R. R. Tolkien and Frank Herbert, who were essentially pro-Western and Right-wing in their thought. His book SJWs Always Lie is a must read for every member of the Alt Right. Of course, he is only part-white and does not explicitly push a pro-white or pro-Western agenda (though he comes close.)
* It is important to differentiate between, on the one hand, Vox Day’s personal identity as well as some of his preferred causes (e.g. GamerGate) from, on the other, his role as a thinker and analyst of the Alt Right movement as a whole. His role as the latter is, in my view, incomparably more important than the way you describe him. The views he laid out in Cuckservative, as well as his recent posts “What the Alt Right Is” and “Of Alt-West and Alt-White”, among others, make it clear that Vox is certainly “tier 2” in terms of his understanding of the movement. Perhaps because of a combination of his identity and the fact that he writes more as a “describer of reality” than purely as an _advocate_ for a particular position, it is difficult to fit him within your caste system. But to ignore his larger role in philosophically outlining the key tenets and contours of the movement, and just to relegate him to a kind of anti-SJW, GG leader is to misrepresent his contribution and importance. His understanding of, and willingness to describe, the Jewish role in undermining Western society differs little from Greg’s or Kevin MacDonald’s fundamentally.
In my view, the most important thinkers and theorists of the Alt Right are Greg Johnson and Vox Day. Greg has been more of a theorist and formulator of the ideology and an advocate for certain positions, whereas Vox tends to be more of an expositor of reality as well as a highly acute anticipator of where things are going. But no one else comes close to them in terms of providing a sophisticated and comprehensive analysis and description of Alt Right, identity-based politics today. In Europe, Faye is probably the most important.
I realize that the above caste system was not meant to rate the importance of thinkers, so perhaps my view above is an entirely different topic. But I raise it because viewed in a vacuum, I find the castes simply an analysis of who is more “hardcore” in his thinking.
Some people are criticizing Vox’s post on Alt-West and Alt-White as “punching right”. But I don’t believe that is what he has doing. Vox has actually been among the most vocal critics against those who attack allies. His view is that we should be firing on the enemy, and work out differences later. That is why he doesn’t attack either Milo (someone much further Left than Vox) or Andrew Anglin (someone far more Right, or at least hardcore than Vox). Vox’s critics are, as is often the case, mistaking his description of reality for an advocacy of a particular reality. In his Alt-West / Alt-White post, he was not saying the Alt White is wrong; rather he is pointing out where the likely trend is: that Alt West is proving to be more palatable and is gaining greater acceptance. Therefore, we need to distinguish Alt White so that it is not subsumed by Alt West. He is actually trying to protect and ensure there is a space for Alt White. One can dispute that view, but I don’t think one can say he is criticizing or trying to “read out” the Alt White from the overall movement.
It would be very interesting to have Greg address Vox’s post on Alt-West / Alt-White, because obviously — whether consciously or not — Vox is taking issue with Greg’s idea that “the Alt Right is White Nationalism … or it is nothing”. A podcast between Vox and Greg on this issue would, in my view, be very enlightening.
* Andrew Anglin: Excellent article. Especially liked the GG-Alt-Right, Spanish Civil War-WWII analogy.
As I find these categorization exercises useful, I think those who don’t talk about Jews should further be categorized into three tiers.
Those who don’t talk about Jews for:
1.) Personal reasons – they don’t fully understand the issue (difficult to believe, but it is possible, especially among people who have Jewish friends and family members) or are made uncomfortable by it for some reason.
2.) Financial reasons – they are not willing to deal with the financial costs of speaking on the issue, due to getting their PayPal donations being cut, losing their YouTube channel, losing sponsors
3.) Subversive reasons – they seek to draw away attention from the Jews for subversive Jewish reasons
(they aren’t mutually exclusive)
I won’t go through and categorize all of these people, because I’m not a drama queen. This is more of a thought exercise than something anyone needs to write an essay about just yet.
But for example, I think Jared Taylor is mainly doing it for personal reasons. For one, he is obsessed with IQ, so has an Ashkenazim fetish. He also has Jewish friends. And probably most relevantly, he’s old and has never said it before, so there’s pride there.
Alex Jones mainly skips it for financial reasons, but his children are part Jewish so there are personal reasons. Then he also has a Jewish producer, so there is a subversive element there.
Someone like McInnes is doing it for financial reasons, while working for the Jew Ezra Levant who is doing it for subversive Jewish reasons.
inb4 “strategic reasons,” I don’t really think that is valid at this point, especially in the Age of Trump when most of the other stuff is on the verge of just being openly discussed on Fox News. And so any claim of “strategic reasons” would have to be categorized as either “personal reasons” – that is, you have a personal problem with formulating reasonable strategies – or “subversive reasons” – that you’re giving off the impression you’re avoiding the issue for strategic reasons while actually just trying to shield Jews.
It’s clear that people who don’t talk about the issue for personal reasons are not a threat. People who don’t talk about it for financial reasons are probably not a threat. But if someone is being subversive, we have to be very careful with the assumption that we can “use them before they use us.”
I had a disagreement with Greg and some others about back when Milo first started posing. Maybe the disagreement was on whether or not he was a genuine subversive or whether he was just using the movement for the purposes of his career – I don’t recall the details.
At his Houston talk however, there were shots fired. I was named and he openly said that racists are “2-5% of the movement,” saying that we are the only ones who call ourselves “Alt-Right,” and he is using the term for a different purpose. He is now openly attempting to purge the movement from itself. And I don’t think that claiming “oh well, we’re smarter than he is” is a very good strategy. Even if we are smarter than he is, his audience is orders of magnitude larger than ours.
I believe that he has objectively outworn any usefulness he may have had, and everyone should be openly attacking him at this point. He has helped popularize the term, so if we can throw him off now, it will have been a net positive. But if we allow him to continue to define the movement, claiming credit for our work (mine in particular, I say with utmost modesty, but he is claiming my troll army) while saying we are all just joking, we are going to begin losing ground. We are at that point: refusing to address this any longer – allowing him to define us as cultural libertarians who just think it is funny to make fun of Jews because they are overly sensitive people – can only lead to harm to our agenda.