The Alternative Right’s Dilemma

Michael Sebastian at Return of Kings has a short piece on problems inherent with the Alternative Right, which includes neo-reactionaries. I think he addresses several legitimate points about this new “hippie” movement, but I wanted to elaborate on a few and add some of my own observations.

  • They tend to confuse race with culture. Thus, they will speak of blacks and whites and Jews and Mexicans as though they all have the same politics and behave the exact same regardless of externalities. They think the people who live in Mexico are the same as those who jump across the border fences. Which leads to the next problem:
  • The isolation of non-whites who agree on everything that matters because they don’t fit their version of The Vision. Talking about an white entho-state automatically and logically leads to the assumption that ethnic cleansing and pogroms will have to happen first.  A non-white person is naturally not going to find this agreeable.
  • The underlying (flawed) belief that white people’s problems are the fault of other ethnic groups. The same way feminism has always required men to implement their agenda and would fail without it, all the political policies that Alt. Right white men hate is due to other white men.They’re quick to attack illegal immigrants, but why do they come here? Because white people voted in politicians who voted to approve laws that give them free stuff.  In the People’s Republic of Seattle where I live, the political campaigns are financed by rich, white liberals. Since other white people are white people’s biggest problem, a white entho-state won’t solve the underlying problem.
  •  Their support for Trump as president, not as a presidential candidate. The two are different, as it happens to be. Enjoy the damage he does by all means, but don’t cause a movement to get inextricably linked to any one person, especially when they’re not personally or directly involved. Focus on efforts outside of elections.
  • The emphasis on a centralized state as opposed to a tribal mentality. Obviously they are looking to seize power already accumulated in D.C. This works as long as your man is in charge, and he doesn’t end up getting rid of you because you’re a threat. And this assumes the Deep State doesn’t manipulate things behind the scenes so that they always come out on top.
  • Most critical of all, their rejection of libertarianism due not to what the philosophy itself actually teaches but because they mistakenly conflate the Left’s hijacking of the Non-Aggression Principle to fit within their version of The Vision and confuse their cognitive dissonance with political autism.

Nevertheless, I think there is a potency to their movement that could bring about ideal changes, but only if the momentum they provide is harnessed properly. Sadly, I don’t think that will happen. They should know better by now than to put their hope in political elections.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in borders, conservativism, cultural marxism, Culture, federal government, Immigration, libertarianism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Alternative Right’s Dilemma

  1. Tab Spangler says:

    To me, the alt right is the authoritarian wing of the manosphere. They think if they can just get an alpha, like they view Trump, into office, that he can speak all of their gripes out of existence.

    It annoys me that a lot of guys that otherwise would be pretty individualist in their self improvement and have a general distaste for current culture, feel that they can follow someone to the promised land based on whether or not he is a “cuck.”

    Like

    • The Question says:

      It annoys me that a lot of guys that otherwise would be pretty individualist in their self improvement and have a general distaste for current culture, feel that they can follow someone to the promised land based on whether or not he is a “cuck.”

      I think this speaks to the desperation of the situation we’re in. Chris Cantwell is an example of this. I’m not going in the same direction he is, but I understand why he and other libertarians like him are.

      I’m on the record elsewhere on the Net predicting we will have an out-and-out “fashist” movement in this country by 2020. Fascism requires two things; a conflict instigated by the Left, and a perceived lack of plausible alternatives to fascism. We have the former, and the latter will soon arrive.

      As for the word “cuck,” I see the word getting misapplied and misused the same way racist and misogynist are, but it is still a useful and applicable term. I made this comment elsewhere but thought I’d post it here as well.

      The word “cuckservative” has such a sting because it is a powerful one-word assault on a man’s lack of the four tactical virtues of masculinity; strength, courage, mastery, and honor. A cuckservative is not strong enough to prevent himself from being cuckolded, he cowardly avoids confronting the true perpetrator of the cuckolding out of fear, he’s unconsciously incompetent (lack of mastery) about his pro-active cuckolding of himself and other men like him or can’t do anything about it even if he is aware, and he has no honor because he backstabs the very men he claims to defend while placating those he says he opposes.

      But what makes it sting so strong is the contempt it demonstrates for the person. Telling a man he is a coward is one thing. You can say it with the intent of helping them. Calling them a cuckservative is to mock their cowardice.

      The best part of it is that there is not much one can say to it if they fit the definition.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tab Spangler says:

        That’s a solid definition of a cuckservative. It’s a great insult that points to the emperor not having clothes.
        Would the alt right consider a guy like Ron Paul to be a cuck? Like women, the alt right wants an Alpha to swoon them with populist Game.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The Question says:

        Would the alt right consider a guy like Ron Paul to be a cuck?

        Depends on the issue being addressed, but calling him one, to me, is cruel and counter-productive.

        Like women, the alt right wants an Alpha to swoon them with populist Game.

        I think it’s really a matter of being able to have some sort of fearful respect for the person who rules them, whether they like him or not.

        I explored this concept just before he got into the race in the post Return of the King.

        Again, these rulers of old were not morally superior to our current crop, but there is something to be said about a man who will risk his own life for his claim to ruling over a territory. I find the blunt honesty of the approach more tolerable than the sneaky, back-scratching to back-stabbing, back-room political scene that plays out in D.C. This certainly went on in palaces and castles, but at the end of the day physical confrontation was always possible.

        Today, rather than charge a battlefield and defy death and defeat to gain the highest title, candidates earn their claim to the modern throne by placating milquetoast men and swooning single mothers. During debates they are asked questions insulting to anyone above the mentally retarded, only to offer pandering answers in order to appeal to a certain demographic so easily placated by bread-and-circus tactics.

        In other words, they would rather have a masculine “liberal” like Trump rule them than another weak-willed conservative who cowers when attacked by the Left and doesn’t go on the offensive. Or, they try to tone down their speech to placate.

        The entire foundation for Trump’s support has nothing to do with his politics and everything to do with how he is attacking people the Right hates – that, and his support for a border wall.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Tab Spangler says:

        Do you want to be ruled by someone you fearfully respect or someone that deserves none? Also, which kind of cancer would you prefer to have?

        Also, if you reject their authority, is it better if they believe they have power over you or if they don’t dare try to find out of their dictation a carry any weight?

        Like

      • The Question says:

        Do you want to be ruled by someone you fearfully respect or someone that deserves none? Also, which kind of cancer would you prefer to have?

        It’s unbearable to be ruled by proxy. I’d rather be ruled by a king than by someone who uses them as a puppet.

        Also, if you reject their authority, is it better if they believe they have power over you or if they don’t dare try to find out of their dictation a carry any weight?

        Unfortunately that isn’t one of our realistic choices. Obama is weak, but he is still dangerous, as many a Syrian civilian blown up by U.S. bombs can testify. It’s how they rule that bothers me; if I have to choose an overtly oppressive ruler or a passive aggressive one who pretends to be what he isn’t, I’ll take the former.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Tab Spangler says:

      “Don’t blame me, I voted for Genghis Khan.”

      I get it though. If you didn’t have a choice in the amount of authoritarianism, it would still be better to be under an overbearing father vs the wrath of an overbearing mother.

      Like

  2. I hate anybody that wants to rule through the aggression of the state. If the Alt-Right is merely one of the many camps that wishes to do so, they are just as much my enemy as the progressive left is. I don’t give a damn if i may agree with them subjectively on a number of issues because, as a libertarian, it’s the use of aggression that i reject. If being on a side i agree with justifies the use of state force, then i could never morally oppose the left for doing the same thing. What makes their ideology repugnant is not their ideals, but how they go about achieving them. Because without force, most of their ideals are completely unattainable anyway.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      What makes their ideology repugnant is not their ideals, but how they go about achieving them.

      I agree but it’s hard for me to be entirely unsympathetic. They’re people who for years have been playing a game of soccer in which they’re expected to be competitive while the other side is allowed to use their hands and carry the ball.

      Meanwhile, libertarians like us just want the rules to be followed.

      Like

  3. Pingback: The State’s Tower of Babble | The Anarchist Notebook

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s