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
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

OWNERSHIP AND MISSION

Both RADIX and RadixJournal.com are owned and produced by The National Policy Institute and its publishing branch, Washington Summit Publishers. NPI, a tax-deductible coporation, is dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States, and around the world.

[so just as was alt-right, Radix is owned by NPI, a 501c3 associated with jared taylor]

[id be mildly, very mildly, interested in what people think spencer is up to, as i cannot see any difference between Radix and alt-right. he must be trying to avoid something, but i'll be damned if it know what it is]

RADIX is a project of The National Policy Institute, which is classified as a Section 501 (c) (3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code. Individuals, foundations, corporations, and associations may support the educational and research work of NPI through tax-deductible gifts.

The National Policy Institute does not rent, sell, or publicize its contributor lists.
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #9
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 #10
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 May 4th, 2014 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Question for people: Brett Stevens...

Is this guy known to anyone? My instinct is he's deliberately trying to mislead people. He pushes weak "itz the joooz" jerry taylor clown show bs. As if he were trying to herd people back to safe, impotent conservatism. The only alternative is he really is as dumb as his columns suggest, and I don't believe that. This was the guy who argued against my position and got thumbed out 37-0 on his own site! Shit, that's Washington Generals stuff...

Here's a good example.

http://alternative-right.blogspot.co...n-in.html#more

Dr. Greg "Fill'er -er, 'im- up" Johnson, Ph.D.'s reaction is pretty much mine...

Greg_Johnson • 14 days ago
For such a short article, this is pretty vague and muddled. It seems to boil down to the tired old "mainstreamer" recommendation to pander to the ignorant and fearful by refusing to identify the real problems and propose radical solutions. But you can't fix problems you refuse to identify, and half measures by definition are unable to reach a solution. So the Leftward drift continues, because the Left's vanguard always seeks the move the middle toward its ideas, as opposed to the Right's abandonment of its ideals to cater to the mindless, muddled middle.

Brett tips his agenda here as elsewhere with his crude parodies of Jew wisdom (a.k.a. anti-Semitism). He most assuredly does not want the identitarian Right to go there. When this agenda became clear to me, I put him on ignore. He doesn't belong here.

For some details on the futility of conservatism, see my "Why Conservatives STILL Can't Win" http://www.counter-currents.co... and Part 1 of my "Metapolitics and Occult Warfare" http://www.counter-currents.co...

Brett's sort of conservatism is designed to lose, i.e., it conserves nothing except Jewish power and privilege. Because ultimately it is more important for him to protect Jews from the just and natural consequences of their nation-wrecking evil than to mount an effective defense of what we goyische kopfen think of as conservative values.
20 • Reply•Share ›
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

To the extent people in alt-right genuinely seek to solve our problems, their problem is they can't conceive of politics as something other than pandering for votes. The white cause is not up for vote, though its various vehicles may participate in the process.
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #13
Sam Emerson
Diversity = White Genocide
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Posts: 2,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
To the extent people in alt-right genuinely seek to solve our problems, their problem is they can't conceive of politics as something other than pandering for votes. The white cause is not up for vote, though its various vehicles may participate in the process.
We need strong tactics. These weak ideas can't even support weak tactics. They lead to doing nothing because they downplay the problem, so why bother getting worked up about it?

There's always compromise and signal loss when you turn political ideas into reality. If you start with strong ideas you can at least move the discussion in your direction, as a prelude to moving real politics.

The signal loss problem is why the Overton Window works. The side making the biggest stink, the most demands, and making the most extreme arguments will drag the middle in their direction if the other side tries to keep it polite and moderate.

That sums up Jew political tactics and conservative tactics respectively.
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Emerson View Post
We need strong tactics. These weak ideas can't even support weak tactics. They lead to doing nothing because they downplay the problem, so why bother getting worked up about it?

There's always compromise and signal loss when you turn political ideas into reality. If you start with strong ideas you can at least move the discussion in your direction, as a prelude to moving real politics.

The signal loss problem is why the Overton Window works. The side making the biggest stink, the most demands, and making the most extreme arguments will drag the middle in their direction if the other side tries to keep it polite and moderate.

That sums up Jew political tactics and conservative tactics respectively.
The other side controls the loudspeakers.

Our side is continually beset by false fronts, to sop up the newly awakened.

It's worth it to point this out.

Or, it would be worth it if people took ideas seriously enough to reject those who didn't accept the right principles. But on our side, they generally don't. That's one reason why we have no real side.

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. Limited time, brainpower, money. They go to conservatives, or they go to white nationalists. With media control, any idea can be sold, even something nasty and disgusting like 'gayness' or 'gay marriage' or 'diversity' - these are the mostly radically destructive extremisms possible.

It all comes down to mass media control. That doesn't mean internet. That means tv. If you have that, you can pretty much sell anything. Since WN don't have that and won't in near future, they need to be extremely consistent in their principles and their aggressiveness. Conservatives prefer personalities to principlse, aand they're dyed in the wool passives and reflectives, unsuited to aggression, no matter they like to style themselves as radicals.
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

In any case, I'm interested in the answers:

who is Brett Stevens?

how old is he?
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #16
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
In any case, I'm interested in the answers:

who is Brett Stevens?

how old is he?
Brett Stevens came out of the pseudo-edgy "ANUS" scene (American Nihilist Underground Society), who formed the basic template (IMO) of this New Right fad. Essentially they're a bunch of long-haired losers who try to mix some Fascist concepts with Nihilism, new age bourgeois bullshit and crappy metal music .

I remember about 10 years ago I was invited to meet with them, all the people that went to these events were life long victims of bullying, autistic, or rich kids afraid to name the Jew, or better yet, Jews or sleeping with Jews themselves.

Brett is an anarchist who I believe is either in his late 20's or 30's. He also possesses the Jerry Seinfeld-esque power of pointing out things we already know, but in a watered down lame way due to his probable private school upbringing.

Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, Brett Stevens, are a bunch of useless trustafarians.
__________________
"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 May 4th, 2014 #17
Sam Emerson
Diversity = White Genocide
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Posts: 2,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The other side controls the loudspeakers.

Our side is continually beset by false fronts, to sop up the newly awakened.

It's worth it to point this out.
You'll get no argument from me on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Overton window is wrong. It's a zero-sum game. Limited time, brainpower, money. They go to conservatives, or they go to white nationalists. With media control, any idea can be sold, even something nasty and disgusting like 'gayness' or 'gay marriage' or 'diversity' - these are the mostly radically destructive extremisms possible.
For the Overton Window to work you have to be part of the debate. You can't move anyone's opinion if you're never heard. Within the WN internet blog and forum domain there's an audience that's listening, and their opinions can be moved. In my unscientific opinion the radical ideas on VNN and some blogs have been moving WN opinion to the right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
It all comes down to mass media control. That doesn't mean internet. That means tv. If you have that, you can pretty much sell anything. Since WN don't have that and won't in near future, they need to be extremely consistent in their principles and their aggressiveness. Conservatives prefer personalities to principlse, aand they're dyed in the wool passives and reflectives, unsuited to aggression, no matter they like to style themselves as radicals.
Three main factors drive an idea forward. The power of the idea itself, the personality of the people pushing the idea and the size of the megaphone broadcasting the idea. We don't have television so it's vital to have a consistent, aggressive message as you say.

I also believe that there's a convergence of media taking place that will allow us to compete with television through the internet, at least in the United States where censorship is more difficult.
 
Old May 5th, 2014 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Brett Stevens came out of the pseudo-edgy "ANUS" scene (American Nihilist Underground Society), who formed the basic template (IMO) of this New Right fad. Essentially they're a bunch of long-haired losers who try to mix some Fascist concepts with Nihilism, new age bourgeois bullshit and crappy metal music .

I remember about 10 years ago I was invited to meet with them, all the people that went to these events were life long victims of bullying, autistic, or rich kids afraid to name the Jew, or better yet, Jews or sleeping with Jews themselves.

Brett is an anarchist who I believe is either in his late 20's or 30's. He also possesses the Jerry Seinfeld-esque power of pointing out things we already know, but in a watered down lame way due to his probable private school upbringing.

Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, Brett Stevens, are a bunch of useless trustafarians.
Ok...I remember those guys. Black rose or something? I think Bill White was involved with them.

Stevens' writing is basically a noise or smoke machine, it just confuses things. No one could retain that dopey a faith in conservatism at this point was my initial thought, it must be a screen for something. Perhaps not. But dismissible either way.
 
Old May 5th, 2014 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
I also believe that there's a convergence of media taking place that will allow us to compete with television through the internet, at least in the United States where censorship is more difficult.
All official vectors push the same way.

That's what must be overcome. it can't be overcome with the mass of people. But the mass are with us in one sense: they share our preferences. But they won't say that publicly, because they want to avoid the pain. They will only follow strong leadership.

For our side, the problem was, is, and remains, there is no agreement on who "we" are. This Parrott/Heimbach imbroglio is the perfect example. Are they fucking jebus nuts or White men?

You can't be both.

That's the bottom line.

I will say it till I'm blue in the face. Maybe someone will grasp it at some point.

The two worldviews are mutually opposed and irreconcilably hostile.

It really is that simple.

"No man can serve two masters."

"Fat Oprah, Thin Oprah - pick a body and go with it!"
 
Old May 5th, 2014 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The right -- normal whites -- is incredibly soft in the USA. Any hard (principled, unyielding) body of any stripe could go right through it like butter. That body of people is up for grabs if our side could only figure out who it is and why you can't just pander and flap around like a social butterfly.
 
Reply

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

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:23 AM.
Page generated in 0.42615 seconds.