Vox Day’s Alt Right in 16 points

Let’s turn the heat on right from the start: Vox Day announces this as a basis for a core Alt Right philosophy. Where is the philosophy in these 16 points? Where is the study of the fundamental nature of … anything … here? And 16 points? Come on. The ten commandments of the Alt Right overgrowing it’s numbering scheme? I don’t want to dismiss it just because it looks on the surface like a haphazardly thrown together list of n points about some en-vogue topic of the week in Huffpo or the like. But frankly, the whole thing could use some professional marketing intervention.

Could we agree on that these 16 points are a summary of the status quo of popular Alt Right thinking (or opinions) as it currently presents itself on the internet (mainly Breitbart, a lot of blogs, forums and some YouTube channels)? It certainly isn’t a battle cry or something that fits in a 20 seconds news pitch. For that it needed to be boiled down to 3 (absolute maximum 5) short points.

The 1^st point is defensive descriptive. The Alt Right is NOT the other 8 things you list (socialist, progressive, liberal, communist, Marxist, Marxian???, cultural Marxist and neocon) and not the two other things (mainstream conservative, libertarian) which somehow meandered from point 1 into point 2. You say the Alt Right is of the political right, which is clear enough for those already familiar with the term. For those unfamiliar with the term Alt Right, those indoctrinated all their life by MSM or their college professors, “political right” already sounds like Hitler, Nazi, Beelzebub, capital EVIL. They may wonder why there’s no mention that you are not the daily stormer or the golden dawn. A link to a website that describes “political right” in terms digestible by today’s hypersensitive high school graduates is probably helpful and might win over some of the liberal voting bots.

Besides piggybacking on what the Alt Right is not in point 1, the 2^nd point comes up with a reference. Russel Kirk’s 10 conservative principles. Goody. At least a link to philosophy there. But it comes along somehow mangled. So the mainstream conservatives follow the 10 principles, but only nominally because they have devolved towards progressivism. It remains unclear if the Alt Right stands by Kirk’s 10 principles or not. Do they? My opinion is “yes, but”. I’d say these 10 conservative principles are too weak to stand on their own and need a major update. I’ve done a bit on that in a separate post, maybe inadequate but at least I gave it a shot.

In your 3^rd point you state that the Alt Right is not a defensive attitude. Victory through persistence? Like that huge granite rock that stood there since the beginning of time? Have you overlooked the millions of dwarfs chiseling away, the tunnels they built under it, the mines that were steam hammered into it? Is it like Christo’s wrapped Reichstag in Berlin, 1995, where you can still see the contours but not the foul smell and decay inside? Your first two points were defensive, points 6,7,10,13,14 and 16 are mainly or purely defensive. How about you replace points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 14 with the following:

My 1^st statement:

The Alt Right is a new political movement. The closest we are to any existing political philosophy is the 10 conservative principles of Russel Kirk. Since mainstream conservatives have largely abandoned these partially outdated principles, we see the need to pick them up, to revise and rejuvenate them. We believe that these conservative principles will be in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history. They are the only way to guarantee the survival of western civilization and the white people who created it. We have recognized that we need to fight for our survival or will be forced to assimilate into immigrant cultures.

In your 4^th point (which I included in the statement above), you make the first unapologetic statement of what you are for. Yes, we are in favor of western civilization, we think it’s the best there is for us white people who created it. I don’t know the quality of American history classes, but I must assume people are so historically dyslexic these days that you have to tell them what the foundations of our culture are.

I like your 5^th point, also because it’s a positive statement, a request, not defensive. And a nation is homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration, otherwise it isn’t a nation, at least not for several generations. There are however quite a number of exceptions. Switzerland consists of three national heritages with even more local languages. It’s kept together by 400 years of successful history and wealth. Singapore is another example. Extreme diversity, kept together by wealth and brute government force. But in general and in larger countries, diversity is a failure and the root cause for violent conflicts inside a nation. Yugoslavia is an example for your point 11. But that the Alt Right, I mean OUR Alt Right, the one in favor of western civilization, is for ALL nationalisms is a step too far. The rest of the world can do whatever the heck they want, I don’t care. Why would I support the nationalism of some middle eastern or African state which was somehow randomly made up by a bunch of British Lords who drew lines on a map? What about the nationalism of Kurds versus the nationalism of Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq? Which one of these nationalisms should the Alt Right support and why should we even bother to think about it? Colonialism is history, these people are free to do what they want. If they want to adhere to lines in the sand that some long dead Westerners drew, so be it. If they want to form new nations and countries, well, best of luck to them. The less we meddle in their affairs, the less we have to deal with Asylum requests, refugee streams and so on.

Your 6^th points is a bit too unspecific for my taste, besides it being a defensive statement again. What exactly is this globalism that you are opposed to? Is it the movement of capital, of profits, of goods or of people/labor around the world? In my view the most important issue is that certain capital investments force national governments to agree to immigration. We should put a stop to this neo-liberal game. The second issue is that globalist capitalists request the protection of their nation state if they invest outside of their nation state. The general public should bear no responsibility or costs for the individual investment decisions of a capitalist. If Mr. Ostrich from Arkansas wants to invest in a factory in Nigeria, I say good riddance. Neither me nor my neighbor will shed a tear for his losses, maybe he should have invested in his home country where our laws protect him. Since we usually won’t see one cent of his profits if he succeeds abroad, there’s no reason to extend him any privileges. The rest of globalism will rattle itself out if these two issues are covered.

Your 7^th point is already covered in the 10 conservative principles.

Your 8^th point. Scientodific is a new word creation. All google searches for this word point back to your blog. Congratulations, you own a brand new unique identifier. Is this a new marketing strategy for search engines? It seems you only brought this up to rail against the global warming schemers. Anyway, this is nothing specific or descriptive of the Alt Right. The whole global warming scam will probably be forgotten ancient history in 20 years time. It’s a desperate attempt of failing governments to strip regular workers of more of their hard earned money without naming it a tax.

In your 9^th point, I’m not sure what the mathematical sign would mean in plain language. Is it that identity dominates culture, which dominates politics? Or did you mean precedes instead of dominates? Anyway, it doesn’t make much sense. Culture is influenced by many things, mainly technology and art IMO. Whether identity has a dominant influence on culture, i.e. trumps all other influences is disputable. However, properly expressed, it may become a slogan to win more supporters.

Your 10^th point reinforces your point 5 above, which is your request for a homogeneous nation state. I don’t see much value in this, besides being a clarification. In the specific case of a very un-homogeneous nation like the U.S., I get your point. But frankly, if the European descendants in the U.S. won’t remain the dominant race/culture it is a violent clash of civilizations waiting to happen.

This leads logically to your 11^th point, which is a historical truism.

Your 12^th point sounds bold, but we all know it isn’t true. Everybody cares what others think of them, it’s human nature. Maybe we can rephrase it from passive aggressive into offensive aggressive?

My 2^nd statement (replacing your point 12):

The Alt Right recognizes the declaration of war issued by the Neo-Liberals since the early 19^th century against regular working people. We also recognize the declaration of war issued by the Neo-Marxists in the late 60’s and acknowledge their tactics of sneakily undermining the fabric of our society by claiming positions in the courts, schools, universities and various government offices. We acknowledge that the Neo-Liberal elites bribe and use the Socialists and Liberals as an underclass to the detriment of regular working people. We fight back now. We are the intellectual Stormtroopers who will disable your non-productive, welfare sucking and rent-seeking life. You will loose. You will loose anyway, because you have no babies. The few kids you have are mislead into educations and jobs which are non-productive and not sustainable. Your socialist fantasy world will be inherited by our kids, not yours. We will fight for our kids. We will not allow you to destroy their world just because you have no future yourself. (Please liberally insert expletives after the word “you” in this paragraph)

Your 13^th point is kind of an extension of point 6, it is defensive again. Trade between nations is a good thing, but free trade is a cornerstone of the globalist agenda, thus must be rejected. I’d attach the free movement of people rather to the globalist issue than to the free trade issue. The trade of services must not lead to (even temporary) immigration, because this undermines the local market for services. Maybe I can coagulate your request in point 5 with the defensive statements in points 6, 10 and 13.

My 3^rd statement

Any nation state must ensure the survival of its people and strive for their prosperity. In order to protect itself against foreign dominance, dominance through economic means or through invasion/immigration, certain measures are unavoidable. First a nation must secure it’s borders. Second it must strictly limit immigration and scrutinize immigrants (even temporary immigrants) for the security risks and economic risks they may present. Third it must protect it’s national economy against foreign challenges; this may include tariffs or import/export bans on capital, goods and services. As a general guideline, the well being of a nation’s vast majority of people supersedes the strife for profit or opportunities of individual investors.

I believe I covered your 14^th point above in the discussion of your 4^th point and my 1^st statement.

Your 15^th point states that the Alt Right is no white supremacy movement. Even if Europeans believe they are supreme in their homelands, they don’t claim supremacy in other people’s homelands. OK, fine.

Your 16^th point opposes war and war-like aggression of any kind. OK.

Where will the list stop about things that we don’t want or that we are not? I mean it could be endless. Do we have to state that we are not basement dwellers and are not part of the annelid species? This makes no sense. The cultural Marxists will call us Nazis, racists and whatnot, no matter how many defensive statements you put up. You could use a postscriptum in which you list the common but untrue accusations of our enemies. Or maybe the best response to name calling and misrepresentations is a resounding “Fuck you”? I’d say it’s a better use of our time to defend our demands and core philosophy instead of getting into endless discussions about things we are not or things we don’t want.

###

If you want to comment here, please remember that I’m the supreme shitlord on MY blog. Competition is futile. I’d like your comments to be based on reason and evidence; if you can’t manage that be at least hilariously morning-coffee-spilling-over-my-keyboard funny.

Advertisement