There’s a particularly annoying strain of political discourse that I can’t seem to escape no matter how many rides I take on the ideological roller coaster. There’s a tendency in politics to regard people you like as ideologically aligned on the virtue of being someone you like. At the same time, you might regard people you dislike as being the enemy regardless of their personal values simply because you hate them.
This is the reason I largely disassociated from the Libertarian movement, where this sort of garbage is rampant. Just a few months ago a slew of articles came from Libertarian publications disparaging Murray Rothbard as an evil, racist, and I quote, “politically retarded” gentleman. Some of you who are more educated may recognize Rothbard as the founder of the modern Libertarian movement. Obviously this is stupid beyond belief, but the only reason it exists on its platform is people in the Libertarian movement desire it! It would otherwise of course not exist. This kind of celebrity politics is cancerous, its tumors growing from popular figures and damaging the health of political influence and respectability. It provides a nice explanation for why the Libertarian movement has failed at every turn, but I’ll save that for another time.
The reason I bring this up is I notice similar tendencies growing in the Alt-Right. Take two gentlemen, for example. Milo Yiannopolous is self reportedly not Alt-Right, and yet I still enjoy his content and lectures. Richard Spencer is very much part of the Alt-Right, but I find my attitude towards him largely ambivalent as I have no particular attraction to his content. These are, I think, perfectly reasonable and well mannered positions to take. I haven’t ideological alignment on whether or not I like the person, and I haven’t based whether I like the person on ideological alignment.
This does not appear to be a common approach. This past week I noticed some ridiculous articles claiming Richard Spencer is not “true” Alt-Right. They reminded me a great deal of the articles claiming Milo Yiannopolous (who stated in no uncertain terms he was not alt-right) was attempting to co-opt that same movement! This kind of celebritarian politics has no place in a movement such as ours. Quite frankly, it’s unadulterated bullshit, the whole lot.
At the front of our thoughts and focuses at every turn should be a desire to advance the desires of our movement and a proper dialogue with our fellow man on what means we will take to accomplish those desires. Anyone willing to assist us in gaining a foothold (at this point, a stronger foundation) in politics, culture, and art are an ally to the movement to that end. Nothing more, nothing less.
I discuss my thoughts on the air so to speak on the recent NPI conference. Up until around the 4 minute mark is background information, skip to that in order to get directly to my thoughts on the subject.
I address issues like controlled opposition theories, marketing our message, and strategies in dealing with the mainstream media.
I apologize for the poor audio, I’ve recently discovered some deficiencies with my microphone but I felt the need to provide my thoughts regardless.
Some more moderate liberals, seeing a good opportunity to gain respect or providence from conservatives after the election (no one can blame them) have decided to pitch in on why Donald Trump won.
The tone seems to have converged around this statement; “We lost because we haven’t focused on ideas and arguing them. We lost because all we do is call people names! If we could only argue properly, we would win!”
This is easy to agree with on most accounts but it’s misleading in a sense because it implies the left has an argument to make. The reason the left switched to name-calling and use of violence is because they made what passed for argument among them and lost. This is why the immigration debate is so important; the left is focused purely on outvoting the right by any means possible and if that includes importing new low IQ third world immigrants, than that is what they will do. In fact, that’s precisely what they’ve done for decades.
Social Justice Warriors aren’t an “extremist wing” of the left. It’s their logical conclusion. This is why the left attacks speech and dialectic. They have no intellectual tradition of engaging in it and thus have no idea how to utilize it. The destruction of free speech is necessary for their victory.
Understanding this is key; there will be no return to civil politics in leftist circles beyond conciliatory moderates. The left will not come to bear with their mistakes because in doing so they will cease to be leftists. The left will cling bitterly to its delusions, and there is no number of bodies they will not climb over to achieve them.
“Utopia is only ever approached across a sea of blood, and you never get there.”-Peter Hitchens
The few liberals with enough foresight to see where the nation is headed have stopped crying and rioting long enough to cry for “healing”.
“It’s time for peace! Please ignore the fact we’re rioting! Did you hear about that hate crime that you already confirmed is a hoax? Do you repudiate…”
This isn’t new; this is the natural response of snakes, liars, and cowards. For eight years our way of life, our religious beliefs, our desire for prosperity, etc has all been swept aside and condemned. “It’s racist, it’s Nazism!”
We were told it was the end of the right, the end of heritage, even the end of whites as a race. We were told to stand aside, as the better and more virtuous races (who by nature of their natural virtue couldn’t possibly be racist by saying such a thing) were brought to replace us as opposed to live among and harmonize with us.
Why on earth do these delusional people think we should stop now? Do they not understand the momentum that has been created? Are they so clueless as to see the monster born of their stupidity and self righteous arrogance? No one but they know what pitiful hope they have of achieving whatever this is designed to do, and it doesn’t matter.
Our single response must be “No, we will not. It is our turn to make the nation in our image and you will be made to comply so long as you live under us. By the way, we’re not going anywhere.”
Don’t forget the snakes and traitors that will sell you and themselves out for a bit of money or social prestige. After all, they certainly won’t forget you.
Globalist Libertarians and Nationalist Libertarians have had it out again this year, which isn’t meaningful to many people outside of libertarian circles. Immigration is always the primary focal point of this debate, which is why it can provide meaning and insight to people outside of Libertarian circles as immigration effects virtually everyone in a country.
- Libertarians assert that regulations, centralized government, frivolous government agencies/services, welfare, etc are morally and economically fallible, harmful, and ultimately dangerous.
- Immigrants as a whole, but particularly from the third world vote for and take advantage of these policies in ratios greater than the average American.
- Each vote of an immigrant cancels out that of a native born citizen with history in the nation.
- Therefore, immigration disproportionately benefits those who wish to increase state authority and intervention.
This is a simple and easy demolition of the belief that immigrants are better for the economy under our current laws concerning immigration, citizenship, and voting.
I think it is the best response to the common deduction Globalist Libertarians put forward, which is as follows;
Immigrants take $4 billion in welfare, and provide $44 billion in created wealth, thus immigration is a net positive.
This isn’t even sound on the surface, as it makes no division of wealth created/taken on things like gender, country of origin, etc.
However it is the common argument they present, making this rebuttal commonly effective and therefore useful. This also avoids the complex topics of human biodiversity and r/K selection, often deemed too complicated and offensive to discuss publicly.
“Will you absolutely accept the results of this election?”
It was a silly question to ask mere days after Project Veritas confirmed voter fraud was being coordinated. Trump declined to answer, prompting outrage from the Clinton Camp.
“He’s attacking our democracy!” After all, democracy is legitimate if someone’s cheating, right? Thankfully they didn’t succeed and Trump has indeed accepted the results (Clinton has as well, to provide credit where credit is due).
Now in the aftermath of Trump’s victory the Left is in shambles. The response to this victory over them has been protest, anger, infantile hatred, and outright violence. Indeed these “protesters” have been shipped all over the country to intimidate, harass, and assault others. The hideous video of an old, white Trump supporter stumbling as blows rained down on him from a few dark complexioned youths (not to be confused with tanned German men of course) has been making rounds around the web.
Why do they do this? We on the right are constantly berated for our “hateful” and “dangerous” rhetoric for assuming there are only two genders or recoiling at the prospect of handing off half of our income to the state. We’re told our speeches are literally violence should we dare to criticize college millennials. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the 21st century American Left holds no standards to their own, and are no different than the Stalinists and Maoists that preceded them.
Believe it or not the Left has been gearing up to excuse this kind of behavior for several months now. The reason they designate speech as violence is to blur the boundary between words and actions. This must be understood; dumb people are better at hitting than thinking. Their response to events they dislike will follow that model whether we of the New Right are prepared to engage them or not.
Don’t get caught unprepared.
I found two things of note the day after the election beyond my general happiness in response to the results.
The total reversal of leftist propaganda I found rather startling. The immediate response was to facilitate “healing”. Anyone who’s been paying attention to the general leftist elements of culture know they have no such intentions at hand. This is a plea for mercy.
The second thing I found genuinely surprising was the total bafflement present on all the faces of the media across the board. “How could this be”, their dumbfounded expressions read. Apparently expressing hatred for the normal people of the nation is a poor election strategy.