What Is the Alt Right?

This article originally appeared at Katehon.

The Alt Right, which stands for the “Alternative Right,” is an umbrella movement launched in the United States. It challenges both the mainstream Left and Right, which it views as essentially two versions of the same Liberal ideology. American intellectual Richard Spencer is credited with coining this term in 2008; he cemented it by launching in 2010.

At that time, Spencer realized that no existent form of the Right in the United States suited his ideological convictions. Indeed, this is what set that country apart from the European continent, where right-wing intellectual and activist life outside the mainstream thrived. In contrast, the Right in the United States comprises mainstream Republicans more interested in tax law than civilizational issues; warmongering neocons keen to export chaos abroad; Libertarians (classical Liberals) concerned about limited government and mental exercises in political abstraction; as well as paleoconservatives interested in simply turning back the clock.

Of these, paleconservatives came closest to the Alt Right in their cautious approach to foreign policy and advocacy of traditional values. However, they either did not fundamentally question the ideology of Liberalism at its roots, along with its economic system, capitalism, or did not thoroughly investigate questions of identity.

Intellectual Influences 

A number of key paleoconservative were nonetheless influential on the Alt Right. Patrick Buchanan (b. 1938) is the most obvious example due to his political prominence: he acted as an advisor to presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and sought the Republican Presidential nomination in the 1990s. Buchanan advocates pragmatic foreign policy defined by American interests rather than hegemony for the sake of hegemony in such books as A Republic, Not An Empire. His consecutive text The Death of the West discusses broader civilizational questions.

Another key American figure that the Alt Right traces itself to is Sam Francis (1947 – 2005), a paleoconservative columnist critical of ideologically Liberal models of immigration, multiculturalism, and Washington’s wars, such as the invasion of Iraq. Francis, too, emphasized civilizational issues over all else. He defined authentic conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.” Indeed, Francis de-emphasized the “conservative” part of the “paleoconservative” label, saying that he did not want the status quo preserved.

This criticism of mainstream conservatism in America — as it attempts to preserve the status quo in a museum-like manner instead of continuity and passing on tradition (deriving from the Latin tradere) — is one that bridges the gap with European thinkers.

The Alt Right draws from the same major intellectuals from the Old World as the so-called New Right on that continent in an attempt to synthesize their thought as a way out from the decadent ideology of Liberalism. These are Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, along with thinkers of the interwar Conservative Revolution in Germany, such as Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, and Thomas Mann, among others. Of particular interest are Spenglerian theory of civilizational decline, Nietzschean emphasis on aesthetics and temporal cycles of eternal return, and Schmittian concept of the Political.

Alt-Right intellectuals do not shy away from employing classic scholars of the Left either. Karl Marx is useful in his criticism of the middle class, whereas critical theory of the Frankfurt School can be equally employed to demystify Liberal forms of authority that it helped erect in the first place.

Contemporary continental European thinkers include Alain de Benoist, Alain Soral, Guillaume Faye, and Alexander Dugin, among others. Despite diversity of thought, what these thinkers have in common is their scathing critique of Liberal ideology at its core, while putting emphasis on authentic, traditional identities.


One of the key issues central to the Alt Right is the question of identity. Its development in the United States has been quite unique as compared to the rest of the rest of the world. This country’s history of colonial conquest of the continent, slavery, various waves of immigration, and politics of segregation over time produced a hyper-racial society. Certain homogenous ethnic and cultural communities, such as the Italians and Irish, certainly exist even if they are waning, as do regional identities, for instance “cowboy culture,” which stretches from Alberta, Canada, to Texas, even surpassing national borders. However, the majority of Americans of European descent simply self-identify as “white.” Similarly, Americans of African heritage of various strands view themselves as a single group. Yet whereas African, Asian, Hispanic, and other minorities see themselves as fairly coherent communities, with their own demands and institutions, Americans of European descent do not have such organizations and representatives. After all, up until the last few decades they were the majority and maintained social hegemony.

This is changing. The combination of demographics and immigration are transforming American whites into a minority, whereas the mainstream culture of stifling political correctness, suicidal tolerance, human rights, secular relativism, mass migration, trash entertainment, and other ideological expressions of Liberalism, not unlike those in other parts of the West, have led to the sense of dispossession and questioning who they are.

Searching for answers, much of the Alt Right comprises younger people no longer connected to the paradigms of the old, from the Cold War to Liberal individualism and its economic counterpart, capitalism.

Some feel connected to Europe because of their ethnic and cultural background, in which religion is not unimportant. Indeed, the majority of the Alt Right is secular but believes in the civilizational importance of Christian tradition. A more religiously oriented minority seeks to reconnect with the Sacred: some have even converted to Orthodox Christianity, which they see as an authentic continuation of Tradition as compared to the degeneration of certain brands of Protestantism to include Postmodern aberrations. Small groups of neo-pagans also exist seeking for the way of out of civilizational decline by looking back to Norse and Slavic gods of the old.

Alt Right and Alt “Light”

There are two variants of the Alt Right. One is the original Alt Right launched by Richard Spencer. The other comprises a number of figures close to the mainstream, who often speak of the symptoms—not the causes—of civilizational decline in the West, and pick the proverbial low-hanging fruit. The former acts as an intellectual vanguard, while the latter popularizes certain ideas deemed politically incorrect by the Liberal establishment.

The original Alt Right also includes public intellectuals such as Dr. Kevin MacDonald, a now-retired professor of psychology at California State University, whose primary focus has been studying Jewish power structures. Dr. Paul Gottfried, a political philosopher, historian of intellectual history, and a retired Professor at Elizabethtown College, whose scholarship focuses on the criticism of neoconservatism. Although Dr. Gottfried considers himself a paleoconservative, he was one of the first notable figures to use the term “alternative right” next to Richard Spencer.

The majority of Alt Right is, however, anonymous. One of the main problems for this movement is political persecution of dissidents.

Of course, establishment Liberals do not typically throw their ideological opponents in prison. Instead, by using various tools such as their echo-chamber media or releasing private information known as “doxing,” they throw them into the proverbial poor house instead by ensuring that they become unemployable. This is one of the reasons why it is so important to create tight-knit support networks, so that those engaged in intellectual labor and activism should not fear losing the ability of earning basic income.

Notable members of the Alt “Light” included Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, Gavin McInnes, and Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars, among others. Whereas these public figures do not necessarily self-describe as the “Alt Right,” they serve the function of popularizing ideas challenging the Liberal narrative, such as the absurdity of mainstream Western feminism and the warfare-welfare state, for a vast audience. In other words, these popular iconoclasts “red pill,” to use term lifted from the movie Matrix, broader segments of the population to ideas that they would not have otherwise encountered.


Publishing books and opinion pieces, filming video commentary, organizing events, and creating art are undoubtedly important. Yet one of the most successful ways of discarding old paradigms has also been through humor. This Internet-savvy generation of the Alt Right uses memes in order to mock the mainstream—from “fake news” that typify much of the establishment media to foreign-policy and civilizational questions. In the era of Postmodernity, memes repackage the signfiers and signified of a particular image and caption for desired effect. The so-called meme wars have not only been successful in getting the media’s attention, but remarkably forced Hillary Clinton to denounce the Alt Right and even one of its prominent memes, Pepe the Frog, in a presidential-campaign speech and her website! Indeed, ironically, it is Hillary Clinton’s denunciation that catapulted the Alt Right into the spotlight that it has enjoyed since.

Where Does The Alt Right Go From Here?

Since its inception, the Alt Right has been fighting an uphill battle. And since its rise to international notoriety, it has been punching above its weight. In 2017 and beyond, the Alt Right hopes for consolidation, creation of lasting cultural institutions, new projects in print and film, alternative media, reaching a broader audience, establishing multi-channel connections with its ideological identitarian counterparts in Europe and Russia, and, of course, successful fundraising efforts to facilitate all this.

Certain steps are already being taken: this week, Richard Spencer and Jason Jorjani with Daniel Friberg of Arktos Media launched—a one-stop shop for all things Alt Right, the goal of which is reaching a mass audience, while unifying the movement. All this work for the Alt Right as an intellectual vanguard is not a choice but a necessity. After all, as Conservative Revolutionaries once said: the present has no form.


  • Jared Taylor deserves to be mentioned as a progenitor of the alt right.

    In 1990 he began publishing a magazine named “American Renaissance.” This has since then become a website.

    In 1991 he wrote “Paved With Good Intentions.” Here he maintained that the good intentions of the civil rights movement had not led to good results.

  • the biggest obstacle to altright success is the failure of the altright to realize and put foremost the reality that multiculturalism and mass immigration are only here for one reason: because it makes big corporations and plutocrats richer….period.

  • “as well as paleoconservatives interested in simply turning back the clock.”

    I don’t think this is fair. Sobran, Buchanan and Kirk are extraordinary thinkers and extremely valuable for us.

    I see the Paleocons as ahead of their time.

  • Alt Right has core identity, issues, and interests. But it must also be mindful not to fall into dogmatism. It has to be defined by spirit of freedom, independence, and resistance at the individual as well as collective level. As a collective, whites must resist Jewish globalism. But as free individuals, whites must also resist the rise of iron dogma and iron-fisted leaders. The problem with Nazism was it didn’t allow dissent from the Nazi Radical Racist line and all Germans were expected to be like loyal dogs of Hitler. If Hitler said ‘be friends with Russia’, Germans were friends with Russia. If Hitler said, ‘Go and kill all those Russians’, Germans went and killed all those Russians.
    Such mindlessness and PC-of-the-right must be rejected by Alt Right.
    This is where Alt Right is different from 14/88 or Neo-Nazi kind who, lacking in intellect and creativity, cling to iron dogmas. 14/88 mentality is no different from SJW’s or Antifa’s. It’s third-rate lunkhead-ism that childishly hankers for absolute truths and iron formula.

    Of course, Alt Right isn’t just anything. It is defined by core identities, interests, and ideas. However, each person must be encouraged to develop his own mind and cultivate his own freedom and conscience. A European who chooses nationalism of free will and personal conscience is more valuable than one who just obeys like a dog.
    Dogs will go with any master. No wonder that so many Germans who’d been loyal to Nazis easily became East German members of Stasi. From Nazi to Stasi, one mental prison to another.
    Now, there were good things about National Socialism(and communism too), and a free & independent mind may salvage the good things about them, but there is no need to accept all of them. It’s like digging for gold means filtering out the non-gold.

    Another thing. Due to historical circumstances, the principles of free speech, freedom of association, and other issues pertaining to civil liberties have fallen on the lap of Alt Right. Liberals are now PC police and they fumbled the Free Speech ball. SJW’s are crybullies or snowflakes who can’t think freely about anything. They are into hysterics mode. They are into uncontrolled hollers and screams than free speech and free discussion. They are like the lunatics in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST.

    As for antifa types, they are just stupid thugs used by Jewish globalists and media to attack and silence white people with threats of violence. Globalists can’t abide by free speech. They invoke ‘liberal democracy’ as the highest good, but there is nothing liberal about suppression of free speech and freedom of assembly in EU and Canada and even the US. Also, libertarians have also caved to globalist demands. In order to push their anti-nationalist agenda, they too are for violence against nationalists and suppression of free speech to force homomania on children. As for Neocons, they never were for free speech. They’ve been just as PC as the other side. Jennifer Rubin even got Jason Richwine fired. Neocons are about Anything-for-Jewish-Supremacism. As for Conservative Inc Cucks, they are a bunch of pussies who worship MLK and suck up to Jews. Rich Lowry cheered Twitter banning Richard Spencer for awhile.
    As for 14/88 nutjobs, they are just SJW’s of the far right. They throw hysterics whenever ANYONE on the Right has an independent streak. 14/88 morons initially rejected and mocked the Alt Right. They only adopted the term later when it gained currency. Daily Stormer may be amusing, but it is NOT Alt Right. It is 14/88. Some degree of Alt Right and 14/88 connections are inevitable — just like there were connections between Liberals and communists — , but Alt Right should make it clear that it is not a neo-nazi movement of iron dogma that demands Obedience and Conformism among its members.

    Alt Right is the ONLY movement that stands for free speech and freedom of organization. It is the ONLY movement that speaks truth to both Jewish/Globalist power and Neocon/Cuck power. When it comes to issues of Jewish power and race, both conventional ‘left’ and conventional ‘right’ are agreed on the taboos and sacraments: No discussion of Jewish Power and Worship MLK.
    In contrast, Alt Right challenges sacred cows and holy monsters WITHOUT burning crosses or hailing Hitler all the time like 14/88 does.
    In contrast 14/88, though attacking Jews and others, will demand that everyone bow down before Hitler.

    Another thing. Alt Right should appropriate a good part of leftism. The reason why so many Proglodytes and Jewish elites are flipping out is because there is much about Trumpism and Alt-Rightism that is classically leftist. The concern for the working class and ordinary people. Antifa is really angry because it’s upset that it serves the likes of George Soros than the working class who went with Trump. The so-called ‘left’ is no longer leftist in any real sense of the word. It’s about privileged hipsters splitting hairs about gender dysfunctions as valid identities. It’s the game of the privileged and spoiled.

    If anything, Trumpism and Alt Rightism are more properly leftist since there is concern for workers. Alt Right understands that the best formula is fusion of right and left. Indeed, best rightism is good for best leftism. If we want to protect workers and the community of ordinary people, nationalism is necessary because it pressures the national leaders to represent and serve the interests of the national folks. Immigrants serve as a scab labor force who depress wages. Under capitalism, the elites seek profits for themselves above all else. Capitalism is an effective economic system, but unless is it restrained by nationalism, it will run wild and sacrifice the interests of the national working class to reap more profits for the owner class.
    So, we need National Capitalism and Social-Nationalism. The national is the ‘right’ and the social concern for workers is the ‘left’. So, the Alt Right is also meaningfully leftist in the best sense.
    So, Alt Right should stop referring to the enemy as the ‘left’. It is giving them too much credit. The enemy should be called Progs or Proglodytes if they are un-privileged(and brainwashed) and should be called the GLOB or Globlins if they are the elites.

    Alt Right is also Alt Left. It is a fusion of left and right, like a boxer with left jab and right across. It is Alt-Right-Left or Alt-Left-Right, and that was the true original meaning of fascism that fused nationalism, socialism, capitalism, traditionalism, and modernism. Fascism stopped seeing ideology in terms of ‘Versus’; it began to handle ideology in terms of ‘And’. So, a system could be nationalist AND internationalist AND capitalist AND socialist AND traditionalist AND modern. This formula required careful attention and creativity, but it was possible. Ataturk worked along similar lines in Turkey. He modernized Turkey without carrying out the kind of mad revolution that would sweep across Russia. (Fascism failed due to cult of invincible god-like leader and Hitler’s association of fascism with inter-European imperialism and radical racism that led to genocidal war on Slavs.)

    In the end, we can use both rightism(nationalism) and leftist(some socialism). What is really crucial is the sense of what is OURS as opposed to what is THEIRS. Jews have great power because they understand this principle. Jews don’t only choose capitalism or only socialism. Jews use ideologies but their core identity is tribal or ethnic. They think in terms of “is it good for the Jews?” and “What is OURS?”

    In contrast, Conservatism Inc concocted the ridiculous notion that the Right is mainly about dogmatic allegiance to a set of principles. According to Con Inc, even if adherence to these principles or ideas lead to the total demise of the white race, it will have been worth it because those ‘ideas’ are the core of conservatism.
    But that is totally stupid. Human are organisms, and the core purpose of an organisms is to survive as a group or race, not to serve ideas. Ideas are necessary but must serve life than other way around.

    Jews have it right. Jews use ideas to serve Jews. That is the source of their power. Jews know this is a powerful formula, and that is why they discourage it among whites. So, Jews think Jewish, Jewish, and Jewish whereas whites are told to think in terms of ideas, ideas, and ideas. Ideas serve Jews while whites serve ideas. Who’s gonna win in the end?
    It’s like sports. There are ‘ideas’, methods, techniques, and rules in sports that apply to all players and all teams. However, what kind of a fool would play sports to serve those ideas and rules? No, even as he is mindful of them, he tries to maximize his use of them to make himself or his own team win.

    So, we need a Rule of Ours and a Rule of Theirs. We acknowledge that other peoples have their legit identity, interests, and etc. What is theirs is their ‘ours’, and what is ours is ‘theirs’ to them. What is ‘ours’ to Palestinians is ‘theirs’ to Jews, and what is ‘ours’ to Jews is ‘theirs’ to Palestinians.
    The mistake that whites have made is mistaking what is ‘theirs’ as ‘ours’.

    When white folks define what is ‘ours’, they will realize that there is no fixed ideology as iron formula. Both rightism and leftism can be useful for white folks. White folks need identity, heritage, and unity(themes of rightism) but they also need justice, fairness, and concern for workers and ‘little people'(themes of leftism).

    Alt-Left-Right needs what is Ours since Jews know damn well what is Theirs.

    If white people trust Jews, they will be Palestinianized.

    “Go Ask the Palestinians” should be the motto of white folks who question the Jewish assurance that Diversity will be good for white nations.
    Palestinians once trusted Jews and ignored massive Jewish immigration to Palestine. So, what happened to them? They ended up like Serbs in Kosovo that was colonized by Albanians.

  • I think some tried to DDOS this site earlier today, also the alt right reddit was banned, feels like a coordinated effort..

  • Elites invoke Universalism to renege on their Responsibility to the National People

    For most of history, it was difficult for mankind to trek and communicate across great distances. So, the elites of a community developed a strong bond with the people on their allotted territory.

    This bond between elites and people was most resilient among the Jews, not least because their nomadism required strong tribal bonds to keep the community together. The paradoxical nature of the Jews is their preferred mode of existence tended toward the division of elite and people yet their commitment to Tribal Will demanded conservation of unity. The Jewish Will of the Tribe grew stronger against the Jewish Nomadic Drive. Under normal circumstances, the Tribal Will should have weakened under the pressures of Nomadism, but Jews forged for themselves a culture of blessed particularity and unceasing paranoia(and humor of contempt) that militated against the Jewish loss of identity and unity, especially between elites and peoples. Jewish Culture claimed that Jews are a specially chosen people of the only true God and, furthermore, warned of decay and downfall were Jews to give into temptation of assimilation with other peoples and their wicked ways. Thus, even though the Jewish mode of nomadism was naturally most conducive to weakening of identity and unity, the Jewish spiritual worldview fed on that very existence to produce the opposite effect. What should have made Jews weaker as a Tribe made them stronger as a Tribe. The Jewish example illustrates how a people can rise above or triumph against Determinism with a special mindset. It is like the sport of Judo where one channels the force of the opponent against the opponent. What is naturally directed against you ends up favoring you against the opponent. If he pushes, you pull. If he pulls, you push.

    If, in the past, the difficulty of travel, trade, and communication drew the local elites and local masses closer, the ease of worldwide networks has had the effect of pooling together the elites or the best-and-the-brightest all around the world. Thus, globalism acts against the unity of the elites and the masses in any national community(with Israel being an exception because Jews have a special mindset). It is natural for the best-and-brightest to favor other best-and-brightest, just as it is natural for the rich, the famous, and/or the beautiful to seek the company of other people of comparable status or qualities. Since the rich and privileged can travel and communicate easily around the world, they’ve come to disdain the local community of ‘losers’. Why would a rich Briton care much about ‘dumb and dirty’ working class Britons when it’s more fun, thrilling, fulfilling, and glamorous to hang around with rich Hindus, rich Asians, rich Arabs, and rich Russian Jews? (To be sure, the internet has afforded this ‘privilege’ to the masses as well, and this accounts for the rise of the Alt Right made possible through independent worldwide networking of Eurosphere nationalists. Since the white elites no longer care about white masses, the white peoples around the world have formed an international network of voices sharing their disillusionment with the globalist elites and their venal ways, especially in ‘cucking’ out to Jewish Globalists whose advantage depends on white-elite-collaboration with the likes of George Soros. And yet, Alt Right networks, even though international in reach, has an agenda at odds with globalism. If globalism is a neo-aristocratic pact among elites around the world to bond closely with one another than with their own peoples, Alt Right’s neo-nationalism is about mutual pact among different nations and races to respect each other’s borders, histories, and unique narratives.)

    Since the globalist elites have chosen neo-aristocratic privilege over identity-and-unity with their own peoples — Irish elites feel closer to Hindu and African elites than to fellow Irish masses — , they must make up for their moral deficiency. After all, favoring one’s globalist elite privilege above the interests of one’s people sounds rather vain and greedy. An Irish elite member who prefers identifying with rich Asians, Africans, and Muslims has pretty much betrayed his own countrymen.

    So, how does he go about regaining moral legitimacy.

    1. One is universalism over nationalism. The elites may argue that nationalism is too narrow and petty. It’s about us-versus-them, whereas universalism is about the good of all humanity. This may sound nice and noble, but it’s just a pipe dream invoked as an excuse to abandon what is real and doable. It is doable for national elites to look out for the interests of their national people. In contrast, it is impossible for even a nation as powerful and rich as the United States to save and redeem the world. So, lofty rhetoric used by globalists is just a convenient utopian hat-trick to morally excuse their reneging of responsibility to their national folks.

    The truth is the elites of any nation can effectively rule over the nation, but even the grandest project by all the elites of the world cannot fix or redeem the world. It’s like a father and mother can feed their own kids but cannot take care of all the children of the world.

    The lofty-impossible is a useful crutch to excuse one’s dereliction of duty to the real-possible. Parents who neglect their own kids and let them starve in the name of caring for and saving all the kids of the world are just fooling themselves as they throw a party for themselves in the name of saving ALL the kids.

    This is a definitely problem in the black community where leaders are full of Big Talk about ‘social justice’ bu utterly lacking in down-to-earth actual deeds that might make a real difference. So, when a globalist elitist yammers about humanity-over-nationality, it’s just an excuse for him to indulge his own narrow interests. After all, if one’s goal is the lofty-impossible, one can stick to mere rhetoric while doing next-to-nothing since nothing real can be done to save all of humanity. When national leaders take after celebrity phonies like Bono and George Clooney, they no longer care about their own people. Just take a look at Justin Trudeau who can’t tell the difference between Hollywood and nation.

    2. Another is Multi-Culturalism and Diversity. Generally, a nation has a dominant racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural group that defines the essence of the nation. It’s like Greece is defined by its majority Greek population and Turkey by its majority Turkey population. So, the core national duty of the national elites is to be mindful of the interests of the national majority. Greek interests should trump all else in Greece, and Turkish interests should take precedence over all others in Turkey.

    But this is problematic to the globalist elites that now rule many nations, especially advanced ones. The ruling elites don’t much care for their own people since their main identification is with globalist elites they rubbed shoulders with at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, and etc.and whom they meet at globalist gatherings and conferences.

    Still, as national leaders, they come under pressure to look out for the interests of the national masses. So, a kind of tension develops in these globalized national leaders. They feel closer to the diverse membership of the Global neo-aristocracy but are obligated to represent & serve the identity and interest of their national masses.

    So, what is to be done? Multi-culturalism, mass immigration, and Diversity are meant to do the trick. If their own nations are made more diverse and multi-cultural, it means their nations are no longer defined by a dominant history, narrative, or culture. Their nations are now just another globo-diverse nation. Since all nations are to be defined more by multi-cultural ‘minority rights’ than national-majority-interests, the globalized national elites no longer need to be mindful of representing and serving core national interests. After all, if each nation is just a diversified mini-version of the World, there is no such thing as national interests, and national leaders can more legitimately pursue global interests while neglecting national ones.

    If UK is made into a mini-version-of-the-world with its Africans, Hindus, Chinese, Pakistanis, and etc. who are all said to be equally British, then there is no need for British elites to favor British interests since Britain is just one more carbon-copy colony of the Globo-Community.

    Also, the intermarriages among the elites of the world, like intermarriages among the European aristocrats in pre-modern times, tend to favor globalist privileges over national interests. If Chinese in America or Canada marry whites or Jews, they are going to feel closer to globalist empire than to China the motherland.

    3. Pop Culture as Core Culture. In order for the globalist elites to justify their own privileges, they’ve given up on the notion of High Culture and Serious Art. Sure, they might still attend classical concerts once awhile, but they’d rather have fun, like Princess Diana did with celebrities and trash culture. The globalist elites prefer the Pop Art of Andy Warhol and his imitators than serious art or high culture that may be deemed as elitist and ‘exclusionary’. So, with pop culture, Pop Art, dance music, and Hollywood as the centerpiece of globalist elite culture, the impression is created that the richest, most privileged, and the most powerful people are ‘just like us’. After all, there is Hillary at a rap concert. There is Justin Trudeau hanging with famous homo celebrities. There is even the British Queen who’s into ‘hip stuff’ now. There’s some national leader taking a photo with Bono or some Hollywood star. And in some cases, these phony celebrities, like Oprah, become a member of the elite. Elites ‘hipsterize’ themselves to seem like any other consumer.

    But in the end, all of this for the globalist elites and for them alone. For the rest of humanity, there’s just tattoos, piercings, and obsession over 50 genders as the meaning of their life.

  • Alt-Right is kosher nationalism. Alt-Right pretends to represent identity, while insulting and opposing the Anglo-Saxon identity of regular Americans. This is not surprising given the (((Neo-Reactionary))) roots of alt-right political theory, a species of idiocy which places the responsibility for the fall of civilization squarely on the shoulders of, wait for it…. the Enlightenment, the Protestant reformers, the Puritan fathers and any other bulwark of American identity they can find. Yep, that’s right, America would be great if it weren’t for Americans and everything we hold dear. In a way, it’s just a rehash of the old FDR alliance where Yiddish and various white ethnics team up against the historical American nation in order to rob us of our Liberty and property. The Yiddish get their tribal dictatorship and the poor dumb ethnics get three hots and a cot.

    The problem is that we’ll never accept this sad, primitive ideology. “WASP” America was better in every way without this medieval despotism. Our love of Liberty isn’t the result of some tedious, far-fetched dialectic; it comes to us in our blood.

  • As the mind-war continues, here is the best site I’ve found that proves not only vast differences between races, but the inferiority of blacks and Hispanics. All the IQ testing for the last 125 years has clearly shown blacks and Hispanics have IQs in the 70s compared to whites and Asians with IQ 103 and 105 average, respectively.

      • LOL, just throwing this site out there. So many of us are arguing for the correct conclusions, but it does help to show people the 1000+ science articles (some recent) proving the differences between the races.

        • It is only worth it to show them to the truly open minded people.

          There are some, liberals and conservatives alike, who will never accept the observations that scientists have studied for almost 100 years.

          Funny that so many accept the shoddy mathematical modelling that argues for climate change, but ignore the very tangible results of intelligence testing.

  • Although contra-intuitive for alt-right conservatives (as they focus on the ‘own’), a major lever of success in the uphill battle will be to form cross-white-national alliances. Currently we as your European brothers enthusiastically study your movement and wish you all the best. Obviously the American peoples’ counter attack outpacing us European New Rightists is driven by 1. a higher level of freedom (despite PI you white Americans honor free speech more than the avg. European), 2. more desperation (poor south Europeans were always poor, your rust belt workers dismounted more extremely than the north European working class), 3. typical American boldness (just let’s go where no one has gone before) in contrast to the European bias towards philosophical attitudes, 4. your inherited Nazi-innocence bonus as you were the liberator Nation #1 plus 5. tons of cash in good hands.

    Your success will generate tremendous traction for an old world rebirth, however I am convinced that mutual positive feedback from both sides of the lake will help both ends to stabilize. Let’s watch and help us.

    God bless you.

  • “establishment Liberals do not typically throw their ideological opponents in prison”

    Of course over here in Europe they certainly do – generally, minor figures are imprisoned, while major ones like Nick Griffin and Gert Wilders or Marine Le Pen (or Brigitte Bardot!) are put on show trial, but imprisonment is rarer.

    • The imprisoned ones will be released and given medals when we are victorious. Their cells will, of course, be filled by the current fools and traitors. Fanatically believe in victory and whatever it takes and we have the highest probability of success.

  • From a certain perspective, the Alt-lite would be better referred to as the Alt-left. The difference between Alt Right and Alt Lite is not just a matter of degree: it is a matter of kind.

    Most of the Alt lite figures are essentially classical liberals with a live-and-let-live attitude. The Alt lite are classical liberals who object to the authoritarian tactics and intolerance of the SJW left. But otherwise, figures such as Cernovich, Milo, Paul Joseph Watson and Gavin McGinnes, are all classical liberals / libertarians, i.e. of the Left. I don’t say this as a criticism; merely as a descriptor.

    Alt Right derives from the so-called “true Right”, i.e. Thomas Carlyle, Julius Evola, anti-Enlightenment and anti-egalitarian thinkers, and a belief in order and hierarchy

    Alt Lite derives from the Enlightenment, classical liberalism, egalitarianism and people such as Montesquieu, Locke and Jefferson.

    The Alt Lite coming over to join the Alt Right will involve the former’s rejecting some of their Enlightenment-derived beliefs, or at least subordinating them to more immediate goals.

    • “The Alt Lite coming over to join the Alt Right will involve the former’s rejecting some of their Enlightenment-derived beliefs”… aka “faggotry and feminism.”

        • You’re right. Who gives a damn about fags or feminists or diversity or Islam or open borders or affirmative action or PC brainwashing or children being told they can be a boy or a girl based on how they “feel” or children seeing men dressed like women in the streets or fatherless broken families… Who cares.

          A broken and sick society will never be strong enough to achieve any kind of enthostate, let alone one that is free from Jewish influence. “Not giving a damn” is how we became disenfranchised to begin with.

      • I just saw a libertarian-leaning conservative who I used to follow post about the rift between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians and I couldn’t help but think to myself how pointless that discussion is given that we’re becoming a Hispanic country that won’t care about continuing the legacy of any of the founders.

        • Exactly. Also, the founders knew the Constitution would only work with moral, religious, educated people, not faggots, secularists, and Jew-propagandized fools.

          The founders themselves stated clearly that the Constitution is no longer valid or useful once morality, religion, and education are lost.

    • How do you characterise Libertarian Nationalists like Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance who see Locke & co as a genuine part of the Anglo-Saxon cultural tradition? Here he is in 2012 –

      I found it very convincing – that liberty is a genuine part of our tradition and should be defended as such, not as a universal value. From what I have seen, some on the Alt Lite such as PJW would agree, while others such as Milo are much closer to the neocon “Universal Values” position. Trump himself seems closer to the Sean Gabb Libertarian Nationalist position, from what I have seen.

      • I have an old professor who falls into this category. I don’t really know what to do with him either. He seems more libertarian than nationalist, but he is pro-Western Civilization.

      • The concept of political liberty, and minimalist government, is undoubtedly a core value of the English / British (and, to lesser extent, Germanic) people. As you note, it must be understand as a characteristic that has expressed itself as part of a particular ethnicity. That is not to say that other peoples do not, and cannot, understand liberty or incorporate it to their value system. But as an integral and organic political value, it is very much an Anglo-Saxon virtue. From that perspective, National libertarianism is the only libertarianism that makes sense: libertarianism plus open borders is a form of slow national suicide, because they people one allows in do not value liberty, or engender the same degree of trust that allows it to flourish, and so the system eats itself. That is exactly what we are seeing in Britain today. That is why intellectually honest libertarians, such as Hans Herman-Hoppe and Stephan Molyneaux and Vox Day, have had to abandon their belief in open borders, and are generally race realist as well. As Steve Sailer put it, riffing off of Stalin’s famous line, there should be “libertarianism in one country.”

        Note that from the Norman invasion of 1066 until the “Asian” invasion that started in 1965, exactly 900 years passed during which there was almost zero immigration to the British Isles: Liberty developed and flourished amongst a highly insulated and ethnically relatively homogeneous people. Britain was, for a very long time, essentially a kind of minarchy: nominally under hegemonic rule of a monarch, put in fact a very minimally governed place.

        As I noted in my first comment, calling the Alt Lite “left wing” or “liberal” is not meant as an insult; it is simply a taxonomistic description. The problem with trying to be classically liberal in today’s world, and the reason why the Alt Lite’s approach must fail, is the very reason I described above: classical liberalism can only work within a discreet and distinct nation, not in a multi-cultural society. The problems of today’s world can only be solved by the Alt Right (not the Alt Lite) because hierarchy, order and tribe are what are needed to win the battle before us. Once we have our own societies back, then we can establish a classical liberal order (so long as the question of borders is not up for discussion). Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents has written extensively on the idea that, once the ethnostate is established, and it’s survival is not up for discussion, any other number of policy discussions can take place. So-called West Coast White Nationalism is essentially left-wing white nationalism. If one looks at existing ethnostates — say, Korea or Japan — the full range of political parties can exist, with none of them calling for any change in immigration or demographic policy.

        To that extent, I would classify movements such as the Libertarian Nationalists (if I understand it correctly) as “right wing”. Any movement in the West that rejects egalitarianism, rejects open borders and takes ethnic identity seriously is focused enough on tradition, tribe, hierarchy and order, to be considered “right wing”, even if it otherwise advocates positions that are generally considered “liberal.”

        Trump is borderline: his “nationalism” is civic (citizenship-based), not ethnic based. But overall, Trump does represent a kind of Sailerist “libertarianism in one country” approach. Thus, domestically he wants to cut regulations by 75% and internationally he wants to extricate us from “foreign entanglements”, both very libertarian postures. But on borders, he is obviously not libertarian. Maybe he’s been reading his Hans Herman-Hoppe.

      • I’d say it is a complete misnomer. The Roman semi-autonomous res publicas, and the Babylonian satrapies allowed for a great deal of “liberty” but they never would have contextualized this as a value unto itself. The goal was not to conquer foreign people, and force a new political and economic formalization upon them so that they could be more “free”. The value being promoted was simply peace.

        This status quo relied on a functional social and legal system which allowed for a broad base of autonomy among subject populations who did not need to be onerously oppressed and exploited against their will. A bunch of warring tribes on your border, and the inevitable banditry and refugees is what is being prevented and ultimately when you have the ability to provide a situation wherein people can travel from city to city unmolested and the people collecting taxes have a vested interest in the safety and maintenance of roads and bridges you are going to get something approximating “liberty”. The less intervention required to achieve this state of peace the more liberty you get.

        Liberty is purely a byproduct of this kind of pro-social order. It’s purely descriptive of a way of life facilitated by peace. Plato had the right of it in that any society that values liberty will always be on the hunt for new forms of slavery and oppression to abolish. I can’t find an example in human history where this isn’t the case. Even Gabb above looks at the English Levelers and discounts them as radicals, but it is precisely these people whose views of liberty predominate and their contemporaries were not at all arguing against their radicalism from a pro-liberty stance. The more people you have yearning for “liberty” to the point that they don’t care about the peace the less liberty you actually have. The radical actors attain “political liberty” which is simply factionalization, discord.

        I’ve never met anyone, ever who was invested in “liberty” who wasn’t using it in the Anarchist context. This idea that “liberty” is a traditional value of Germanic society is simply redefining “liberty” to mean something completely different than what libertarians actually mean by the term and is completely disingenuous. Liberty means today, that any individual can do what they want and no one can stop them, and also all kinds of bugaboos about abolishing “The State”.

        The fact that various ancien regime had liberty is simply to say that they were functional and healthy societies. Functional and healthy societies do not have political factionalization to the extent that civil war is prevented only by routine oppression of various factions. The reality of England was that it had rulers who had so successfully suppressed factionalization for so long that it became a very healthy society wherein the life of the people was based in their identity which was based in the political unity of the State.

        England was a politeia. The Englishman’s being as an Englishman was expressed by his actions which were constituted in their nature as belonging to England. This in point of fact produced a great amount of liberty wherein the vast majority of individuals were so nearly above reproach that there was little question of their autonomy threatening the political unity of England. I expect the vast majority of people invested in “liberty” would call this ideal way of being something like “slavery”, and cast aspersion at the “kneelers” who allowed it to prosper.

        • I take your point about peace > order > liberty, but I think the English frequently referred to “Our Ancient Liberties” when protesting Royal power. I think there was a strong sense of ‘negative liberty’, a “right to be let alone” by the government. I think this is not the same as Jacobin revolutionary “Liberty”. I think the extremism arises because communitarian values (hearth & home, family, motherland, church) had generally remained implicit/unstated in English political discourse as too obvious to need defending. Certainly this is a criticism of the US Founding Fathers. Unstated values eventually become discarded and you get the extremist “Liberal” society where there is far less actual freedom.

          I think the unique thing about English society was not personal liberty as ab abstract value, but the strength of civic society (non-State, non-Family), probably as a result of its extreme outbreeding as well as its homogeneity, so that the whole nation became a ‘band of brothers’. And the roots of this go back at least to Saxon/Germanic times.

    • The subordination to immediate goals that you mention is the key. That is what might unite the alt-right and its millions of potential alt-lite allies toward something that at least resembles the salvation of the western world.

      I hear you on your categorical distinction between the alt-right and the alt-lite, and I think there is some truth to it. At the very least I would say it applies to the majority of the alt-lite. Though, there odd cases like me, who also derive from the classical liberal tradition, but yet are only really distinguished from the alt-right by degree, which is to say we share many of the tenets with the exception of what we consider to be unproductive obsessions. By “we” I could very easily just mean “I” since I may be an exception to the rule, but there it is.

      For clarification on my take of the alt-lite, do visit my blog if you get the chance and find the energy. The page in this link may be particularly useful:

  • I’d like to see Chad Lit take off as a literary genre.

    Also we need an AltRight film documentary. Already have a working title:

    ‘Rising Fire: The Triumph of the Alt-Right.’

Leave a Reply