Thursday, March 8, 2018

John Derbyshire on Vox Day's Definition of the ALT RIGHT. Is or Isn't Derbyshire part of the Movement?

Check the Link below for John Derbyshire's evaluation of Alt Right principles, at least according to Vox Day who has his own special take on the ideology and movement.

Vox Day is a goof and not to be taken seriously. All said and done, he’s a plus to the movement but a rather shallow and snippy character. And he sometimes goes for low-hanging fruits like Andrew Anglin whose only value is as class clown.

Vox Day: The Alt Right is of the political right… Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.

There's a problem with the above formulation. Even though people who call themselves ‘socialists’ are not Alt Right, Alt Right is open to socialism as component of economic nationalism. Alt Right must be neo-fascist or social-democratic in accepting both socialism and capitalism. Indeed, the capitalism vs socialism dichotomy is rather useless for our purposes. When 'unfettered' capitalists had free rein in the 19th century to create their own fiefdoms and when communists called for abolition of private property & radical tyranny, one could speak of capitalists vs socialists. However, esp following WWII, both Europe and US have adopted economic policies that combine elements of capitalism and socialism. Even US Conservatives who claim to love free enterprise will not vote for politicians who call for ending social security and other government programs.
And even American Liberals who call themselves ‘socialists’ want to live in nations with booming capitalist economies. Just consider. If self-described 'socialists' are truly socialist, why don't they choose to be like Amish folks or Zionist Kibbitzim? Why not get together and work on communes where everything is shared equally? But so-called socialists in US and EU don’t act this way.  They prize their individual liberties(mainly for hedonism and consumerism) and private properties.
They always try to move to the most affluent urban areas and live off capitalists. They write books and plays in the hopes that the affluent class will buy them. As ‘artists’, they seek rich patrons to sponsor and fund their 'creative' projects. As academics, they teach at universities funded by rich donors who majored in business and high-tech. Consider the ton of money Harvard and Yale have thanks to donors at Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. These donors made their money in capitalism, not socialism.
Or, if these ‘socialists’ are into artisanal work, they make fancy products and exclusively cater to the vanity of rich folks. Artisanal beer, Artisanal candy, Artisanal candles, etc. These folks are ‘socialist’ in the sense that Europeans used to be ‘Christian’. The label makes them sound noble, caring, and into ‘social justice’, but they would never want to live in a radical socialist nation. They love to feed on capitalist success. Your average ‘socialist’ moves to glitzy cities like San Fran or NY. Most 'socialists' in the West are really just hipsters or socialites pretending to be edgy with radical politics. In fact, they totally really on trickle-down capitalism of companies like Starbucks and Microsoft. Seattle has Microsoft workers flush with money, and 'socialists' try to get some of it by offering yoga lessons or some bogus advice.

In the 60s, some ‘socialist’ dreamers experimented with communes, but it didn’t pan out too well. Unlike Amish who are disciplined, orderly, humble, and virtuous — I guess Mormons are like free-market materialist Amish — , the hippie ‘socialists’ were into hedonism, drugs, orgies, and etc. They were more into bumming off others than working for the common good. It’s like the pothead commune in EASY RIDER where the main activities are smoking dope, skinny-dipping, and growing their hair long than getting up at the break of dawn and doing chores like milking cows and churning butter. Look what the hippie ‘socialists’ did to Woodstock. If not for the wage-slave people like the Portosan man, the place would have been covered with shi*.

Anyway, Alt Right seeks to move beyond the ‘capitalism vs socialism’ dichotomy. While socialism can be anti-right, so can capitalism. The core of rightism is nationalism and identity in race and culture. Capitalists will easily betray their own race and nation for more profits or status. To a capitalist, profits and 'reputation' trump any other consideration. Anything for profits and privilege.

Worse, once a society turns hedonist and shameless, ethos of capitalism is defined by the Vice Industry that feeds on people’s weakness for instant pleasure in food, trash culture, sex, and etc. Shameless and hedonistic capitalism is the basis of globalist control of the populace as 'sheepigs'.
True Power of autonomy and independence derives from self-control. If you can't say NO to the pusher offering crack or meth, he owns your senses that define your soul. And if he controls your soul, he controls your body.
Those who lose control of themselves also lose control of everything around them. It’s like, once American Indians surrendered to the pleasures of firewater, they lost pride and will. And Chinese on opium were lost in lala-land while their families and nation were being auctioned off to imperialists. White people are now lost because so many of them are addicted to the opiate of pop culture and drugs(legal and illegal), most of which is controlled by Jewish globalists.

Capitalism defined by Culture of Vice is about excessive appetites, indulgences, and therapies. It says pig out, hump all over, laugh like tard at OW MY BALLS(see IDIOCRACY), play dumb video games, and worship comic book super heroes. And if you make a mess of your life, don't seek to regain self-control. Just see a therapist and become addicted to never-ending Kafkaesque advice that do little good because it doesn't slap you in the face and say GROW UP, FOOL!

Capitalism of Vice promotes infantilism, and this is reflected in the political culture of celebrity, vanity, and therapy. So, there is babyish PC that divides the world into goodies and baddies. And progs cry and wail like babies and call people ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ and ‘homophobic’ and chant slogans like ‘black lives matter’. And then, there are all these therapies that, instead of telling people to get real and grow up, indulge them in their self-aggrandizing baby-emotions…. like General Silvestra who indulged that lowlife black ‘hate hoaxer’ who was responsible for the bogus KKK vandalism.

Indeed, isn't it ironic that the very people who push this EXTREMISM in appetites and ideology are the ones who accuse Alt Right and any basic patriots as ‘far right’ and ‘extreme’? Alt Right is calling for self-control over appetites. It’s not calling for globalist imperialism or war-mongering. It’s calling for the right of each Western/European nation to survive for what it is. How is that extreme?
In contrast, globalists call for More Wars and More Intervention even after such ventures have destroyed much of the Middle East and led to useless ‘new cold war’ with Russia. Globalists also say the native peoples of US and EU must be replaced by nasty non-white ingrates. Yet, that is considered ‘normal’ while basic Nationalism 101 that is pro-peace and pro-borders is denounced as ‘far right’ and ‘extremist’. What kind of crazy world are we living in? Consider Francis Fukuyama, aka George Soros’ dog. 'Fukyomama' is convinced that wars and mass invasions are justified because they hasten the ‘end of history’ when it’s really hastening the End of Humanity.

Vox Day: The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA

Alt Right is that but it is also an alternative to old-style far right of white racial politics and white supremacism as represented by organizations like KKK and Neo-Nazis. It is also an alternative to the grim and dour racial apocalyptic views of men like William Pierce.
KKK was too hick. Neo-Nazis were too deranged and demented. And men like Pierce came across as odd, to say the least. On the one hand, men like Pierce were very bourgeois, but their views were nutty or insane.

And then, there were serious men like William Shockley who didn’t crank out nutty visions like TURNER DIARIES. But Alt Right differs from them as well. The problem with men like Shockley was they thought people could be persuaded with rational arguments and facts alone. But any socio-political movement must have vision, passion, and the element of the prophetic. Shockley never had it. Jared Taylor and his kind have a broader vision, but they too are focused on rational discussion. Alt Right understands that cautious rational arguments are not enough. People want to be fueled by shared passion and collective will. Rational ideas are about True or False, not about Live or Die. A people must FEEL a surge of emotions that makes them willing to fight and die for a cause, indeed as if their lives are incomplete or meaningless unless they struggle to achieve their vision. (Nationalism is the ideal vision since every people can have their own nation and respect the nations of others, like when the French colonialists returned to their beloved France while Algerians and Vietnamese regained national autonomy over their own turfs.)
And this is why the Alt Right is anti-stuffy and not so bourgeois in its attitude and approach. It is looser, even bohemian, and Richard Spencer certainly has edgy qualities. Also, Alt Right understands that even race-rationalists like Shockley(and perhaps even James Watson) are motivated by something more than facts and logic. They are pro-white because they are white and feel comfortable being white and want to preserve white civilization. It’s not just about IQ. Would Shockley have been okay if blacks were to gain IQ parity with whites and then humped tons of white women to make mulatto babies? My guess is NO.
So, it’s a vision of OUR PEOPLE and OUR CULTURE and OUR LAND as an aesthetic(genetic as opposed to generic) expression. Alt Right is more honest about the roots of the movement. It’s not mainly about rational discussion of IQ. It’s about Race and Culture. In this respect, George Hawley is right in his wussy-boy book Making Sense of the Alt Right. Hee-Hawley is too much of a Pee-Wee-Herman to be a proud white man. He has characteristics of CucKen Burns and looks like a dork. And by ‘racism’, he doesn’t mean race-ism(race + ism = belief in the reality of races & racial differences and/or need for racial consciousness) but ‘nasty nah nah racism-wacism’.
Still, he is right to understand that Racial Identity is at the core of Alt Right. Alt Right has a sense of racial and cultural familial bonds. And it is for this reason that Alt Right understands that nationalism must be a kind of ethno-socialism. After all, Zionism is a nationalism premised on racial-socialism. Zionism says that the richest Jews must regard even poor Jews in Israel(and around the world) as fellow brethren. So, rich Jews in Israel must favor poor Jews over rich gentiles. He may do business with rich gentiles, but all said and done, even a poor Jew is more his brother than a rich gentile is. Indeed, Jewish-Americanism is a form of racial socialism. After all, why did Jews push the US government to 'save' Soviet Jews when there were plenty of gentile groups far worse off in the USSR and around the world? Because Jews, first and foremost, cared about fellow Jews. And even now, despite all the money they have, Jews make a fuss about there still being poor Jews.

Now, if Jews are totally beyond race, rich Jews should identify mainly with rich gentiles. But even as Jews tell rich gentiles to betray and abandon their own kind(such as 'white trash' exploited by merchants of filth like Jerry Springer), rich Jews never stopped caring for less fortunate Jews, like those in USSR or Romania. Rich Jews bribed Ceausescu to let Romania’s Jews to emigrate to Israel. This is the basis of Jewish Power. Racial-Socialism or Nationalism among all Jews. Jews fear that if white gentiles were to gain(or regain) a similar mindset(like when white elite New Dealers cared about poor whites like the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH), they might represent, serve, and lead the white masses than serve rich Jews. This is why Jews push libertarianism on whites. It serves as a wedge between rich successful whites(& rich-wanna-be whites) and the white have-lesses.
Jews do push a kind of socialism on whites, but it’s the ‘anti-racist’ kind that forbids rich whites to identify with and care about less fortunate whites. Rather, rich whites and their children(attending elite PC universities) are admonished to channel their civic sympathy toward  non-whites… like Bill Gates pouring billions of dollars into programs for blacks(and some other non-whites) but not even spending a penny on whites. Racial-socialism is good enough for Jews but never good for whites according to PC that's been programmed by Jews.

This is what the Alt Right opposes, and this is why it is detested. To Jewish globalists, Unite the Right sounds like Unite the White. This is why Spencer calls on Trump to pass Single Payer. All this ‘muh free enterprise’ has only helped to drive a wedge between white have-lots and white have-lesses.

That said, another reason for Alt Right's emergence is it is the ONLY voice willing to speak honestly about the Power. Mainstream Media of both ‘right’ and ‘left’ are all owned by the Jewish Globalist Establishment. Now, there are many alternative voices, organizations, and etc. Alt-Right doesn’t own the ‘alternative’ label, which has a long pedigree. There are alternative voices on the Left, Libertarianism, white nationalism, anarchism, feminism, and etc. Esp in the age of the internet, there are tons of alternative voices with so many bloggers and cloggers.

So, why has the Alt Right stood out from the rest of alternative media and voices? Because it is the ONLY ‘movement’ that really doesn’t give a crap about PC. Now, I’m defining PC in a broader way. Not just globo-proggy PC(even though that dominates current discourse) but far-right PC. KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust-Deniers, and etc. have their own thick-skulled PC. Though their PC is ‘politically incorrect’ by rules of Mainstream PC, it also calls for mental straitjackets and iron dogma. For the white supremacist types, Hitler did no wrong, or it would have been better if Germans won. Or, they believe Stalin intended to invade first, and Hitler only attacked to preempt the Soviets. Or everything Jewish is evil or suspect. Or the Shoah is one big lie and the only Jews who died was due to starvation under duress of war.

What white supremacists and white submissivists(who follow proggy PC) have in common is this penchant for dogmatism. Anyone who has tried to discuss reality with a communist, BLM moron, homomaniac, radical feminist, or libertarian knows it’s like talking to a brick wall. It’s like Stefan Molyneux the baldie losing his last few hairs while trying to talk logic with a communist.
And we can't expect much from Evangelicals for whom everything is hallelujah and glory be and such childish stuff. They are sheeple. Even when Evangelicals oppose homo agenda, it’s not based on truth, morality, or logic but on the Bible, as if modern society can be organized around what was written 1000s of yrs ago. Still, the fact that the strongest opposition to Homomania has been in the Conservative Christian community indicates reason and logic aren't the primary motivators of Political Will. Most secular people who oppose Homomania on rational grounds lack the righteous fire of faith to stand up and say NO.

Now, one would expect far-left commies and far-right white supremacists(for whom supremacism is a crutch to compensate for their 'loser' status) to be thick-skulled and rigid. In contrast, we might expect liberals and moderate conservatives to be open-minded, intellectually honest, and respectful of free speech and etc. But it isn't so. PC permeates every aspect of the Current Discourse, which is more like Disdain and Dismissal than an open conversation among many sides.
Moderate respectable conservatives will claim to champion liberty, constitution, and free speech(along with traditional values) but then run scared when confronted with honest discussion of race and Jewish power. Today, these Conservatives don’t even have the spine to say NO to homomania. Even Charles Murray caved and bent over for 'gay marriage'. And these Conservatives hardly oppose censorship of voices that dare speak truth to Jewish power. Mark Steyn talks big about Muslims but never about Zionists and their nasty actions in West Bank. He won't mention that Jews, more than Muslims, have been the primary agents of shutting down free speech.
As for liberals, it'd be more accurate to call them Illiberals. To be sure, on many issues and subjects(unrelated to the sensitive or hot button issues of the day), they are still bona fide liberals in the best sense of the word. But when anything triggers and disturbs the shibboleths of Proggy PC, the liberal minds close the shutters and turn illiberal. They become like frenzied bees with hive mentality. They lose all sense of principles and become zealous in defend the poisoned honey of their sacro-ideology.

Liberals espouse Compassion Supremacism or Sensitivity-Supremacism that says certain groups deserve more love, care, praise, and protection than others do. Even though Liberals will pretend to denounce all forms of ‘bigotry’, they don't much care about hostility directed at Muslims, Chinese, Iranians, Russians, or Mexicans. They get really triggered only when the negativity is directed at the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, while Liberals are open-minded and curious about many subjects(at least compared to the average Conservative who's into 'muh gun' and 'muh Constitution'), their response to any perceived derision of the Holy Three is swift and vehement either in flight-or-fight mode. They will either duck & hide like gophers bolting into holes, OR bark & bite like a pack of guard dogs. How does the Rule of the Holy Three work? Take the issue of Culture and Work Ethic. Suppose someone says the problem with Russia is the lack of work ethic compared to, say, Germans and Japanese. Now, keep in mind that Russians are not part of the Holy Three. Liberals may agree or disagree on the issue of Russian Work Ethic, but they will nevertheless listen to the argument with an open mind. But suppose someone says something similar about blacks. Suddenly, the Liberal will either try to run out of the room or hiss & scream that you're a ‘racist’.
Or, suppose you say the problem with China(not one of the Holy Three) is culture of corruption, and therefore, any Western businessman seeking to do business in China should keep his guard up and be very cautious. Again, the Liberal may agree or disagree, but he will be open to discussion. But if you say Jews have become overly corrupt and abusive of their power, and therefore, we need to be more critical of Jewish reach & influence, the Liberal(esp if Jewish) will have conniptions, foam at the mouth, and demand that the discussion is OVER. This is why Liberals have become useless on certain key issues. They've been mentally programmed in such a way that their nerves simply can't tolerate certain ideas or views. No matter how committed to free speech they claim to be, their ideals and principles are overridden by The Taboo. (But then, Conservatives aren't much better, especially when it comes to Jews, blacks, and increasingly homos. Tough Guy Conservatives will talk big about Iranians, North Koreans, and Palestinians but wet their pants when confronted with the fact of Jewish power being the main enemy of the white race.) Also, PC won’t allow honest discussion of Shoah. While 'Holocaust'-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people love being the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked Apollo landing), not everyone who questions certain aspects of Shoah are ‘deniers’. David Cole is not a denier, but he’s been so labeled because he refused to conform to the Narrative of the sacred 6 million and extensive gassing at Auschwitz. Too many Jewish Liberals will label as ‘denier’ anyone who dares to raise questions about what has become the High School Textbook Narrative. Some will label as ‘deniers’ even those who accept the Official Narrative but try to understand WHY the Nazis did what they did as an extreme reaction to radical excesses of Jews and the times(that sought scapegoats of one form or another all across the political spectrum). Ernest Nolte has been so labeled.

Anyway, there are 'white supremacists' who can't move beyond Heil Hitler, and as such, they can't be true members of Alt Right. 'White supremacists' of the Neo-Nazi and KKK kind are truly a pathetic sight. It may be bad form for the superior to brag of his abilities, but it's downright comical for the inferior to do so. It'd be like an out-of-shape boxer pretending he's champion of the world.
Even supposing that the white race is indeed generally superior to other races, imagine if whites with superior ability don't make a big fuss over it while whites with inferior ability make a big deal of the collective superiority of the white race. And that's the problem with Neo-Nazi types. Even if they're right that the white race is generally more talented and capable than other races, individual whites with real talent tend to be modest whereas Neo-Nazi whites with no talent shamelessly lay claim of pride to the achievements of whites of talent(who despise Neo-Nazi types). Perhaps, whites with superior ability feel personal pride, and that's enough to stoke their egos. In contrast, whites with inferior ability, having no claim to personal pride, can savor greatness only via collective identity. It's like the spectacle in sports where, so often, the fans get more excited than the players. Players have pride of personal glory. In contrast, the only way the fans can feel pride is by collective identification with the players since they have no personal glory of their own. Ironically then, cucky white fans of black-dominated football and Neo-Nazis into white supremacism have something in common. Both can lay claim to greatness and supremacy only by collective identification. Since cucky 'slow white boys' can't compete with blacks in football and basketball, they can taste athletic greatness only by cheering for and identifying with black players who win the trophy and hump the white girls with jungle fever. Likewise, since Neo-Nazi types tend to be lower in IQ and lacking in creativity, the only way they can feel pride is by racial identification. They lay collective claim to the genius and brilliance of whites with talent, despite the fact that most talented whites are on the Liberal side of the spectrum.

Anyway, for most people from the far-left commies to globalist liberals to far-libertarians to Conservatism Inc., the Iron Taboo of the Holy Three is the highest law of the land. They simply cannot speak honestly about Jewish Power. The far-left may criticize or denounce Zionism per se but is loathe to connect the dots between Zionism and Jewish Supremacist power in the US. Libertarians claim to support total freedom but turn knee-jerk politically correct on issues pertaining to blacks and homos. And Conservatism Inc. denounces the Left without pointing out that the globalist Left is largely funded and led by Jews. Conservatism Inc. won’t even address the fact that Homomania is a Jewish proxy agenda. And even though Conservatives do notice that blacks disproportionately commit more crimes, they will not state the obvious that blacks are more prone to be violent because they are naturally more muscular and more aggressive.
As for 'white supremacist' and Neo-Nazi(aka 14/88) types, they will address the Jewish Question but with their own brand of PC that totally vilifies Jews(as if Jews were always wrong and white gentiles, especially Germans, were always innocent). And when it comes to blacks, 'white supremacist' types tend to subscribe to the Caste Football theory that black dominance in sports is just a Social Construct created by 'racism' against white players.

This is where Alt Right is different. You don’t have to be Nazi-tard to think like an Alt-Rightist(though, to be sure, I prefer the Left-Right of National-Humanist Neo-Fascism that is clearly superior to Alt Rightism). On so many subjects and issues that go neglected or ignored due to cuckery, timidity, and cowardice, the Alt Right is willing to speak freely: Jewish Power, Black thuggery, and Homo degeneracy.
Furthermore, Alt Right positions tend to be hard but also supple in their facts and logic, thus generally avoiding the pratfall of dogmatism. Consider the matter of Homomania that is strongly opposed by the Alt Right. If Evangelical opposition to the 'gay agenda' is a matter of theological dogma, the Alt Right opposes the homo agenda(of making Homomania the New Normal) on rational and moral grounds while also accepting the science on homosexuality, i.e. that some people are born homo, it isn't their ‘fault’, and they should be allowed to be homo in their own private spaces. And if homos have talent, it should be acknowledged and admired. If Alt Right had been given the conservative role in the homo debate, it would have been much more interesting. But when the media and powers-that-be were going all-homo, what did we get from the establishment Right? Mostly silence from Conservatism Inc. that was so afraid of alienating Jews(as even Neocons were pushing Homomania) and ‘Muh Bible’ platitudes from Evangelicals as if social policy should be decided by Ancient Biblical Text.

This is why Alt Right can make a difference, and therefore, Alt Right must never lose sight of its special niche in the current political environment. If the Alt Right can coalesce more into a real movement, it must be mindful not to insist on new dogmas and taboos that will only blunt the edge and lower its potency as the most honest and courageous ideology on the political landscape. The fact is even radical anti-racists have been provoked, threatened, and stimulated by the Alt Right because the Alt Right and only the Alt Right is willing to disregard PC shibboleths that strangulate the entire spectrum from Far Left to Conservatism Inc. (And the Alt Right can make its case without resorting to tiresome 'far right' 'white supremacist' cliches of 'blame Jews for everything, including the weather' and 'muh Fuhrer'.)
Western European Marxists and Frankfurt School garnered respect, albeit reluctantly, even from elements of the Right. Integrity has its own rewards. While the Soviet Left turned dogmatic and bureaucratic, the European Neo-Marxists presented newer perspectives and critiques of modernity, materialism, capitalism, individualism, and Soviet communism(and why it went wrong). And even Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and Gore Vidal had partial admirers on the Right because they dissected the American Empire in ways overlooked or suppressed by mainstream media or hardline leftism.
Still, even Alt-Left figures tended to be bound by Taboos. Chomsky was critical of Zionism but didn’t connect it with Jewish American Power, nor did he address the ethnic character of US media monopoly. After all, if US media were monopolized by Mexican-Americans or Muslim-Americans, the direction of US foreign policy would surely be different.

Due to WWII and Shoah-guilt as New Religion of the Secular West, the West was loathe to speak honestly about Jewish Power. Also, due to Black Slavery narrative and anti-imperialism — and blacks as the colorful and commanding face of ‘social justice’ — , blacks became objects of semi-worship, culminating in the Magic Mountain Negro in GREEN MILE. And as pop culture turned the West into a hedonistic cesspool of narcissism and excess, it wasn’t long before homos rode on that wave to become the neo-angels of globalism. Especially with the lavish support of Jewish Media, homos spun their self-created disaster — AIDS epidemic — into their own ‘holocaust’.

And then, the media and academia turned into endless parade of celebrating Jews, blacks, and homos. Indeed, Americanism(which also infects the EU) is now about little else but praising Jews, blacks, and homos. Ideology must bow down to the ‘iconology’ of the Holy Three. You can say you disagree with or even disdain the underpinning principles of America’s Founding, and that’s perfectly fine. But if you say anything that runs counter to the spirit of the Holy Three, you are done for. You must worship MLK. You must wave the Homo flag. You must feel guilty about Shoah even though you had nothing to do with it.

Alt Right is an iconoclastic weapon against the Holy Three. Its anti-taboo polemic can be effective because it doesn’t play by the dogmatic White Supremacist playbook that discredits its criticism of Jewish Power with a radical craziness of its own. Sounding like a pathological Nazi only vindicates the Jewish supremacist insistence that critics of Jews are all vile unhinged lunatics. If anything, the Neo-Nazis are the gift that keeps on giving to the Progs. It’s no wonder that so many Jews playacted as cartoon Nazis. It’s no wonder that Deep State operatives infiltrated Neo-Nazi movements and encouraged even more extremism so as to discredit all forms of White Consciousness. Have someone claim to be for white interests and then wave the Nazi flag. According to PC, any kind of white identity or white interests is NAZI or KKK, an automatic moral disqualification. And the white supremacist morons obliged such narrative with their retarded gestures, dumb narratives, and beer-belly ubermensch ‘larping’.
Even as proggy PC detested the Neo-Nazi-KKK morons, it saw propaganda value in white supremacists making total fools of themselves. It’s like the Globo Media found the Westboro church invaluable in making opposition to Homomania seem deranged(like the mother in CARRIE) and unpatriotic, as the 'church' gained notoriety by protesting military funerals. According to the PC narrative, any pro-white person must be ‘nazi’ and anyone who opposes the homo agenda must be a crazy Christian lunatic harassing the families of fallen soldiers.

But Alt Right doesn't play to this script. It has cogently exposed and laid out the real Power Dynamic in the West. The ripple effect has been that even anti-Alt-Right people are more willing to discuss certain issues. The Overton window has certainly shifted, and most of the credit should go to the Alt Right.

Vox Day: The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

Derbyshire: "No problem with that. We should, however, bear in mind what a knotty thing nationalism can be. There is a case to be made—a conservative case—for big, old, long-established nations resisting disaggregation. Does Catalan nationalism trump Spanish nationalism?"

The answer to Derbyshire’s question is Localism. Let Spanish and Catalans arrive at what is best for them. Non-Spanish and Non-Catalans might offer their advice and opinions, but it should be handled as local affair between Catalans and the Spaniards

Vox Day: The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian.

Actually, it’s better to say Alt Right is honestly anti-equalitarian. Let’s face it. NO ONE believes in equality. Everyone with any sense knows that Jews are smarter than Gypsies, West Africans can outrun Hindus, and Germans are, on average, taller than Mexicans.

Alt Right is just honest about what everyone knows already. I mean do 'liberal' Jews really believe that Bolivian Indians could become just as good in finance as the Jews are? Do 'liberal' blacks really believe that Chinese will soon win 100m sprints?

Vox Day: The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption

Derbyshire: "It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s."

Vox Day is a sci-fi writer and them fellers love to come up with 'neat' ideas. He’s just being sciencefictionoid with terminology.

Derbyshire:   "a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision. Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life."

True enough, but I think Vox Day was talking about Social Sciences. After all, theories on atoms and stars have no bearing on matters of politics and society. But scientific matters relating to humans have huge relevance and implications. And there has been too much 'scientistry' — scientific sophistry — in the field. Scientistry is like quack dentistry that pulls out the wrong tooth. So, even though the black tooth must be removed to stop the pain, white ones are yanked out. It’s Clouseauean Dentistry.

Derbyshire: "Again, not bad as a first approximation, but this ignores a lot of feedback loops. Has politics not affected culture this past 72 years in North Korea? Did not North Korea and South Korea have the same culture a hundred years ago?"

True, but if South Korea were to reunite with any nation, wouldn’t it be easier with North Korea than with Japan even though South Korea and Japan are economically and politically similar?
Or look at Israel. Jewish immigrants to Zion came from capitalist nations, communist nations, Muslim-majority nations, Christian-majority nations, and etc. Many spoke different languages and few knew Hebrew. There were religious Jews, secular Jews, and etc. But they made it work because they were bound by identity as the basis.
Now, imagine the creation of a new nation based solely on creed. Suppose German Christians, African Christians, Chinese Christians, Mexican Christians, Arab Christians, and etc all came together to form a nation based on faith in Jesus. Would it work out as well as Israel? Or imagine a new nation founded on shared ideology of capitalism. Suppose French capitalists, Swedish capitalists, Nigerian capitalists, Turkish capitalist, Japanese capitalists, Indonesian capitalists, Pakistani capitalists, and etc all formed a nation. How long would it last? Thus far, US and Canada have held together despite diversity because there was a Core Majority and Core Narrative that had served as a glue for so long. But as they fray with More Diversity and white loss of confidence, can these nations remain together or function based on shared credos of ‘muh constitution’, ‘muh liberty’, or 'muh diversity'?

Vox Day: The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Derbyshire: "As several commenters pointed out, the Iroquois and the Sioux might have something to say about that. Bitching about historical injustices is such an SJW thing, though, I can’t bring myself to care. I’m fine with Point 10."

Indians don’t count. They were savages and had no civilization and had no means to resist white invaders. Also, the world had yet to be fully navigated and explored back then. Today, the world is so very different. Mankind has explored, mapped out, and claimed every inch of territory. Also, the Age of Empire ended after WWII with non-whites telling whites to go home.
So, universal nationalism, or nationalism for every people, is possible. Every part of the world has been CLAIMED by a particular people and culture. And this condition must be defended and formulated as the fundamental political principle for the world. After all, the premier international organization is called United Nations, not United Empires or United Economies.
And yet, this common sense view is demeaned as the ‘far right’ by the Far-Jew Globalist Media. The real extremist forces are the far-globalists, far-imperialists, far-Zionists, far-profiteers(greed is their only creed), far-thugs(black criminals and lunatics), far-sluts(what has become of womenfolk), far-invaders(neo-colonialism with massive third world movements). Why should peoples today be invading and colonizing other nations when all the world have already been claimed? Also, the agreement after WWII was for the End of Empire and Imperialism. So, why must we now have ‘reverse-imperialism’ whereby non-whites get to demographically swamp white nations?

Vox Day: The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

Derbyshire: "Again, there are nits to be picked. Diversity per se is neither good nor bad. Numbers are of the essence. I’m a salt-in-the-stew diversitarian. I want to live in a society with a big fat racial and ethnic supermajority: somewhere north of ninety percent."

True enough, but by ‘diversity’, Vox Day surely means diversity as cancer than condition.
Diversity as condition is a fact in any nation. Even the most homogeneous nations have some diversity, the presence of non-nationals and foreigners, some of whom are permanently settled. And those people can be tolerated as co-existing folks. Also, look closely enough and even a homogeneous people can be categorized as diverse in dialect, local customs, attitudes, and etc. Not all Greeks are alike and indeed vary region to region.

But by Diversity in today’s parlance, it means Diversity as a cancer. Diversity as condition is like a tattoo or a scar. Good or bad, it will not expand. Diversity as Diversinoma is like skin cancer that starts as a a mere speck but never stops growing. PC and globalism say this is the only kind of Diversity that is good and NECESSARY. This is obviously a fatal disease for any racial-cultural civilization, but this is pushed by globalist quacks as the cure for national malaise. It’s like Barbara Specter saying that, “In order for Europe to survive, it must go into multicultural mode.” Huh? If Europe is swamped by non-Europeans, it is no longer Europe. But cunning witches like Specter manipulate the earnest naive good-will of Nordics who tend to be such easy suckers because they were raised on Holocaust Guilt and the dogma that white homogeneity = Nazism.

Vox Day: The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

Derbyshire: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

It depends on what one means by 'Free Trade'. Surely, the Brits embarked on free trade long ago but didn’t allow massive invasions of non-whites into Britain. Also, the leftist Scottish National Party is more pro-immigration. And Stalin moved plenty of people around in his empire.

Still, what Vox means by ‘free trade’ in the 21st century is globalism. This is different from free trade in the past that meant commerce among sovereign nations with national governments that represented their own peoples. Today, 'free trade' is the favored policy of globalist corporations that feel NO sense of allegiance to their own nations and peoples. So, ‘free trade’ now means free movement of capital and peoples for economic opportunity, investment, exploitation, colonization. It is a form of anarchy.

Also, a kind of secret agreement has been forged between rich and poor nations under globalism. It's as follows: Rich nations can invade or invest in poor nations, but if First World industrialists gain access to Third World, Third World folks must have access to First World.. to work and toil and send remittances back home. It’s like US companies gained access to Mexico, but Mexican masses gained access to gringo-land.

Vox Day: The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses

Derbyshire: "Hmm. That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or '-oid'). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. What do the 'unique strengths' of the Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines, avail them in the world we actually live in?"

Bushmen and Austro-Aborigines are outliers. They are few in number and don’t count. But when it comes to the major races, there are indeed advantages and disadvantages. While Japanese can make good gadgets and run an orderly society, they are short dorks and have no iconic value. So, even though they make all these electronic devices, people prefer to see OTHER races on Japanese-made gadgets. Sony made a lot of TV and walkmans, and Japanese were good at making such stuff. But it was Negro athletes and Jewish personalities who dominated global TV. So, even though Negroes have little industrial value — they can’t run an economy — , they have much entertainment value, and that means billions around the world will be watching Negro runners and footballers.
Look at China. Over billion people who work hard to build a modern nation, but they’re addicted to NBA Negroes. And look at all the 'Blapanese'. They are almost all the products of black fathers and Japanese mothers. If Japan that has so few Negroes is going this way with 'jungaru feebah', imagine what is happening to EU! Sure, all those Negroes coming from Africa have little industrial value. They be jiving and messing things up. But blacks got more rhythm and funk and bigger dongs. And white folks find black music, black muscle, and black meat very pleasurable and entertaining. So, blacks have superior 'hedonic' value. As whites are addicted to Negropium, one can say blacks do have serious advantages over the white race.

Derbyshire is a math-geek and judges people's worth by science and intellect. But most of humanity is pretty vulgar, trashy, crass, hedonistic, and infantile. And they want fun, fun, fun. And since Negroes be flipping and jiving and humping more than others, non-blacks have come under the iconic-idolatrous spell of the 'groids'. Bongo, the power of Negro-ness, does have a decisive advantage in the modern world. Capitalism and West used to be about work ethic, virtue, and restraint. But with over-surplus of food, clothing, and production, the West no longer worries about enough-to-eat or essentials of survival. They care mostly about fun, fantasy, and pleasure. Vice industry has overtaken virtue industry. In PLACES IN THE SUN, the Negroes were willing to pick cotton for corn meal. But today, Negresses got fat asses from welfare and ‘twerk’ their butts as if having sex with bad boys, and white kids grow up to this music and dance as ‘western values’.

No comments:

Post a Comment