Alt-Right: A Reply to Jakub Jankowski

I confess that I find the Alt-Right ideas, put forward by Jakub Jankowski in his essay at, neither convincing nor positive.

Clearly, in some ways the Alt-Right are enemies of my enemies. Those currently in power in almost all Western societies – I’ll dub them the Ctrl-Left – are hostile to me and to everything I care about. Yet the Alt-Right aren’t much closer to my views and values. If I could pick a keystroke combination to represent my preferred way forward, it would be Shift+Up.

Now, there are some areas in which I can agree, at least in outline, with the Alt-Right view. To take a few from the introductory quotation: “Equality is bullshit.” Correct – if what is meant is equality of outcome. “The races are different.” Partly correct; there are cultural and genetic differences between races. But that shouldn’t affect the treatment of individuals of different races. “The sexes are different.” Correct. But again, that shouldn’t affect the treatment of individuals. “Morality matters.” Correct; some actions are right and some are wrong, and which is which is the same for everyone. “Degeneracy is real.” Correct; those with state power today do, and get away with, many things that are not only morally wrong, but also inhuman. “Civilization is precious.” Correct.

And I can agree with the Alt-Right’s rejection of feminism, and with the idea that democracy is doomed to fail. But I prefer James Bovard’s (or was it Ben Franklin’s?) two wolves and a sheep to Korwin-Mikke’s bum and intellectual.

Furthermore, I can agree that Trump is less evil than Clinton. If only because, as far as I’m aware, Trump doesn’t yet have the blood of thousands of innocents on his hands. And I enjoyed the description of our mutual enemies as “the Cathedral.”

All that said, on the evidence of this essay, I have serious reservations about Alt-Right. Most of all, that – assuming I’ve understood Jankowski correctly – the “new right,” of which it is a part, rejects Enlightenment principles.

What are “Enlightenment principles?” As it happens, I essayed a list of them in an article I published here about 18 months ago [1]. Here it is:

”Reason and the pursuit of science. Toleration, particularly in religion. The idea that society exists for the individual, not the individual for society. The idea that human beings are naturally good. Freedom of thought and action. Natural rights and human dignity. Government for the benefit of the governed. Formal equality and the rule of law. A desire for progress, and a rational optimism for the future.”

No-one complained about my list at the time. Certainly no-one from Alt-Right, or its forebears, came in to tell me that I was wrong, and why.

So, do the Alt-Right denigrate the use of reason? Do they oppose the use of the scientific method? Are they intolerant, religiously or otherwise? Do they put something they call “society” above the individual? Do they think human beings are naturally bad? Do they want to constrain or destroy our freedoms? Do they respect the rights and dignity, which are natural to us? Do they think government should be for the benefit of the governed, or of the rulers? Do they think people should be morally equal, or otherwise said, equal before the law? That is, what is right for one to do, is right for another to do in similar circumstances, and vice versa? Do they want us human beings to move forward and upward?

Some of these questions, I can’t answer on the bare evidence of Jankowski’s essay. But others, I think I can. And the answers I reach are not good for Alt-Right.

“Man is a fallen creature,” says the introductory quotation. This reflects the religious idea of “original sin.” In other words, it says that humans are naturally bad. But I don’t accept this idea. What I say in reply is, if you think you’re “fallen,” take up thy bed and bloody well walk!

“Hierarchy is essential,” also says that quotation. I interpret this as a rejection of the ideas of moral equality and equality before the law. In that view, some – those in power, the hierarchy – should have moral privileges over others. They should be allowed to do things others aren’t allowed to do.

As to religious tolerance, Jankowski’s article promotes a traditional form of Catholicism. Do the Alt-Right want to impose their particular form of religion on others? I would remind American readers, at least, of the following words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

And the Alt-Right, despite its passing nod to Austrian economics, wants to destroy industrial society. It would amuse me, if it wasn’t so sad, that those that intone that we humans have “dominion over all the earth” (Genesis 1:28) also want to stop us putting our dominion into practice, and making the world a better place for ourselves.

Furthermore, it’s been clear to me, for years, that there isn’t much difference between the political right and left. Both want to enjoy power and riches they haven’t earned. But in the past, the right – the best of them, at least – have been content with that. The left, on the other hand, actively want to screw those they don’t like. That’s why the right have been, traditionally, less evil than the left.

But, according to Jankowski, the Alt-Right want to “return to more authoritarian forms of government.” That’s a red flag to me. And who will be the new oligarchy? Who, indeed? You’ve guessed it; the Alt-Right. And what, pray, would prevent them crossing over into Stalinist territory, so becoming the Alt-Left?

Their rejection of what they call “the belief in universal human rights” is also rather chilling. For human rights – like life, liberty, property, privacy – are for human beings. That is, for those who behave as human beings, by respecting others’ equal rights. And these rights are for all those who behave as human beings.

Finally, the Alt-Right tell us we should glorify white civilization; that is to say, European civilization. And correctly so. For the major legacies of white civilization are the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution which followed it.

Yes, it’s true that the Ctrl-Left have perverted our civilization into something all but unrecognizable. But the Alt-Right are almost as bad. They are setting out their stall to destroy our civilization, along with our way of life and all its benefits.

Morons. Will they ever learn any lessons?



  1. [quote]”Now, there are some areas in which I can agree, at least in outline, with the Alt-Right view. To take a few from the introductory quotation: “Equality is bullshit.” Correct – if what is meant is equality of outcome. “The races are different.” Partly correct; there are cultural and genetic differences between races. But that shouldn’t affect the treatment of individuals of different races. “The sexes are different.” Correct. But again, that shouldn’t affect the treatment of individuals. “[unquote]


    If natural differences shouldn’t affect the treatment of individuals, then how would such detriments be avoided in a society based on private contracting?

    Surely I could just decide not to do business with particular people or groups of people for any reason or no reason? That being the case, would you agree that a contractual society of the type you envisage would tend towards reinforcing these natural differences among people – gender/sexual, racial/cultural – as well as the learned/socialised differences involved in civic, social and moral formation?

    This is not a trick question or a criticism, just a genuine query.

    Would you also accept that the paragraph above that I quote from could be interpreted in at least two different ways. I expect what you are getting at is a situation where people are judged as individuals independently of the wider social patterning this produces – which I accept is impeccable liberalism on your part – but equally a radical left-liberal might seize on this and argue for a quite different scenario using the same principles. This is how, I think, we have got to the point of governments and states imposing ‘equal treatment’, constitutionalist enforcement of ‘equal protection’ and statutes imposing principles of no unfair detriment.

    Your liberalism was meant to be the basis for a freer society, when in fact it was twisted and bastardised (for varying motives by various factions and groups of people) into the basis for a statist society – the very opposite of what was intended. For instance, the French Revolutionary, Robespierre, reinterpreted liberalism as a credo for a communitarian demos, explicitly harking back to the communalistic basis of citizenship in Ancient Greece and Rome. This is analogous to my point about the Soviet Union – it was a capitalist society, it was not communist, but it was based on the abuse and bastardisation of communistic/Marxoid ideas. Likewise, today’s ‘liberal capitalism’ is liberal in only a fairly notional sense.

    Actually, I broadly agree with your critique on the Alt Right. I don’t want an authoritarian state or government either. I would personally prefer the term ‘Alt Left’, as I feel a much stronger association with the political Left and socialism than with the political Right (I admit this is partly emotional), but my instinct is towards a co-operative/socialistic form of ethnocentric paeleo-libertarianism, rather than the contractual/market version based on private property that you and others advocate. However our views are not all that dissimilar. When I speak of ‘national-socialism’, what I have in mind is the Nazi bucolic vision of a Herrenvolk society, not authoritarianism.

    • Tom,

      Thank you for your most helpful comment.

      In a society based on private contracting, individuals would discriminate according to their own choices. One might discriminate on race; another on, for example, honesty. Others might seek the best value for what they want. Some might even pick partners of the opposite gender! I think these tendencies, all put together, would over the long term tend to equalize, not reinforce, racial and cultural differences.

      And yes, you’re right that those seeking power twist and bastardize everything they touch.

      • Neil,

        I think there is a praxeology underpinning this, which I would like to outline. I don’t think we can examine a contractual society in isolation, without recognising that the shape of a future society will be influenced by how we get there.

        You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that greater freedom leads to greater equality. That’s an interesting view which I will have to think about further, but for now, my view is that the historical process towards greater human freedom would have to be the other way round – society would already need to have equalised racial and cultural differences before either your version of libertarianism (private contracting/stateless market economy) or my version (ethno-centric anarcho-socialism, if you like) is possible.

        In other words, I would hold that equality is a prerequisite for freedom – however, when I use the term ‘equality’, this is meant a Hegelian sense. I would also hold that human beings have an imperative towards greater individual freedom, which went into high gear during the Enlightenment with the emergence of liberal ideas and the shift in consciousness that produced.

        We can pursue equality in one of two ways – by force and coercion, or by allowing societies to evolve to equal conditions. I believe the Marxoid Left instrumentally support globalism and mass immigration because they believe it will help bring about their objective: the unity of the working class and the overthrow of capitalism through the destruction of significant racial and cultural divisions between working class people globally. Capitalism is doing the work of socialism because it is part of an historical process – this is what socialists call their ‘praxis’.

        I take the view that the neo-Marxists are mistaken and this breaking down of divisions and creation of a globalised melting pot will just create more division. Ethogenesis will occur and new ‘racial’ divisions will arise because people are naturally tribal. The reasons people are naturally tribal are, first, because of natural selection (Darwnism), which is the expression of a genetic imperative; and second, because different people in different places will want to live in different ways, due to climate, physical geography, resources, linguistic differences and so on – which is how different cultures spring up.

        In short – I think the neo-Marxist praxis will not work, or rather, it will work but not with the outcome they hope for or expect.

        That leads us with two remaining visions of human autonomy: yours could be seen as ‘contractual’, mine is ‘identitarian’. I believe identity is partly what defines freedom and autonomy. Human beings cannot live in a cultural void. Even in your society, racial differences will develop through natural selection and contractual discrimination, which will undermine the moral equality precept and even the Non-Aggression Principle, and probably lead to statisation. If we are going to have true freedom, then it has to arise within homogeneous societies consisting of people who have a shared genetic ancestry and sense of destiny, and broadly similar intellectual capabilities. That is how our societies were until the early 20th. century.

        • Tom,

          Greater freedom leads to greater upward mobility for those who are willing to make the necessary efforts. That’s not quite the same as greater equality, but I think the two are closely related. On the other hand, less freedom and more dominance by a ruling class lead, with certainty, to less equality. You can see this today, as the politically hip get richer and more powerful, and good people get poorer and more and more oppressed.

          I agree with you that the EU/UN style vision of a monolithic global politics is a dead end. Indeed, as you identify, it is already creating divisions: as between Remainers and Brexiteers, or climate alarmists and climate realists. But for me, economics – as opposed to politics – not only can, but must, be global and without arbitrary borders.

          Further, I don’t agree that people are “naturally tribal.” That’s only one of many forms of association, which have historically held groups of people together. Bloodlines are, indeed, one. Religion is another. A shared culture is a third. Mutual defence, as in the early city states, is a fourth. More recently, nationalism has tried to “unite” people behind particular political units. Leading to what is, in effect, a religion of worship of the state.

          But that “religion of politics” is now falling apart. For, why should I feel any fellowship for a ruling class that steals from me and oppresses me? And so called “democracy” helps the collapse along, by un-gluing the ties that formerly held people together. Why, for example, should I care about those that support policies, or vote for politicians, that harm me?

          It’s in reaction to this, I think, that older forms of association are now powerfully re-surfacing. For example, racism and tribalism, religionism (particularly among Muslims), and even mutual defence, in new guises such as survivalism. But none of these seem to be getting us anywhere – don’t you agree?

          The Alt-Righters seem, to me, to be trying to jump on the tribalist bandwagon. But, far from wanting to destroy the state, they want to take it over and run it in their own interests.

          As a self confessed progressive, I look for answers to this problem to new forms of association. I rather like Robert Nozick’s idea of a “utopia of utopias.” My conception is of a world with no more than the minimal rule of law and justice. And in which individuals can associate together (provided they don’t harm others) as they see fit. One such form of association is contract – voluntary contract for mutual benefit. I put the essence of this as: “I care about those who care about me.”

          But in such a world, it will still be possible for those, who so wish, to get together and cling to older forms of society, as the Amish for example do today. The religious can have their monasteries and their mosques. White supremacists can have their whites-only communes. Socialists can have the centralized, collective ownership of their resources that they crave. And yes, different people in different places will have different cultures – far more so than today.

          While the rest of us just get on with our lives.

          • I think what animates the concerns of many alt-righters – and paleolibertarians, might I add – is whether we even survive to get to the point where a minimal state is up for debate. The political tendencies of the imported masses from abroad, to serve the elite’s purposes, are not especially conducive to such a thing. Moreover, when virtually every other grouping coming in has a strong tribal identity, I can see a benefit in whites re-discovering theirs, and certainly resisting attempts by the mainstream politicos to suppress this or regard it as somehow, immoral. I agree entirely that the state is a terrible weapon in such a fight and would not like to see a totalitarian state arise as a result, but the only cure I can see for that is for greater political decentralisation in the shorter term.

            • Maurice,

              In the video interview by Dr. Gabb on the other thread, Paul Gottfried is heard saying that if the Alternative Right ever see power, there will have to be a counter-revolutionary ‘Reign of Terror’ to undo and reverse all of the changes made by the Left over the last 50 or so years (I would put the time span at 75 years, maybe more).

              However I can see why political decentralisation might be a solution to this. Give power back to the people and communities and remove the state and central government from the picture, and a lot of what sustains non-white immigration would disappear.

              • I hope it does not come to that; it will ultimately depend on how repressive the modern left attempts to be in the face of the rising threat to its reign.

                • I have mixed feelings about it. The decentralisation approach would be cleaner and I see some potential in Nozick’s meta-utopian, a concept that Neil Lock has raised here, which in practical terms could begin in the form of secession and smaller ethno-states.

                  On the other hand, I’d quite like to see the white people – which include myself – avenged, thus I’m quite attracted to Murovian nationalism: basically a Maoist revolutionary form of ethno-nationalism, articulated by Kai Murros. The following speech of Murros’ to the London Forum has become legendary among the Alt Right:

                  You’ll see it’s a more aggressive form of the famous speech on ‘conservative revolution’ given by Dr. Gabb to the Traditional Britain Group, ‘In Defence of English Civilisation, back in 2012:

                  The Murrovian approach to revolution is National Maoism – i.e. the violent and aggressive removal of the liberal-leftist elite. Here is a link to his book:


                  It is worth stressing that Murros hardly ever discusses ethnic minorities. The target of his revolution would be treasonous and seditious whites – and rightly so, in my view.

                  The Gabbian approach to revolution is not too dissimilar, but involves using ‘lawful’ violence – i.e. the legitimate levers of government following success in an election.

                  The Gabbian approach is a revolution BY the middle-classes, in the incidental economic interests of the working class, whereas the Murrovian approach is a revolution FOR the middle-classes undertaken by students and the rougher and violent elements in society and those willing to use violence. I believe Murros is correct that revolution will only happen when the middle-class begin to suffer economically and socially.

                  Q.: Which will come true, Gabb’s version or Murros’?

            • Maurice and Tom,

              You’re both right about decentralization being the (only) way forward. For me, the goal is decentralization right down to the level of the family and the individual. In such a system, I foresee that people, who feel most comfortable as members of groups, will live in communes of like minded people. Those of us of who prefer individualism will eschew politics altogether and live in a broad society or “wide world” of individuals, partnerships and nuclear families, who relate to each other, not by politics, but by economic productivity and trade.

              The problem of new arrivals tending to favour certain factions of the ruling élite is inherent in the current political system. Put simply, immigrants aren’t likely to vote for anti-immigrant parties. But this problem arises from the state, and the ability it gives the ruling classes to “plan” immigration for their own purposes. For me, this problem is not an argument against open borders, but against the admission of those who cross those borders into full membership of political societies; and, in particular, into so called “democracy.” (For example, in contrast to today, immigrants into ancient Athens could freely stay there, but in most cases could only become metics rather than full citizens.) It’s the political societies that are the problem, not the people moving across borders.

              As to tribal identity, per my earlier comment, I see it as one of a number of older forms of association, which are re-surfacing as the current system of political communities fails. It’s not one I personally feel very comfortable with; because, as an individualist, I prefer to judge people by what they do rather than what they are.

              And Tom, at least, seems to share my concerns about what the Alt-Right would do if allowed power. Robespierre isn’t a very nice role model.

          • [quote]”Further, I don’t agree that people are “naturally tribal.” That’s only one of many forms of association, which have historically held groups of people together. Bloodlines are, indeed, one. Religion is another. A shared culture is a third. Mutual defence, as in the early city states, is a fourth. More recently, nationalism has tried to “unite” people behind particular political units. Leading to what is, in effect, a religion of worship of the state.”[unquote]

            Religion originally began in the classical West as an expression of family and was explicitly about bloodlines, and to an extent that remains the case in that people inherit religious associations. You also mention culture: but how does culture arise, if not from race (i.e. people)? Of course, culture is dynamic and changes with time, but do you suppose that our culture would just continue to change and evolve in the same way if whites become a minority in this country? Do you think mass immigration has not affected British culture? Mutual defence and nationalism are also tribal or racial.

            A different way of putting it would be that people are naturally racial, ‘racial’ being a way of saying that people have genetic awareness. All of the points you mention reflect genetic awareness, which is both about natural selection and also the preservation of families and communities in order to ensure that genes are passed on. Otherwise, how does society continue in any recognisable form, not just in the long-term after we’re dead, but in the short-term: tomorrow, next week, next year? A ‘racist’ is just somebody who concerns himself with the continuation of the society he lives in. If Britain became majority Muslim, we would be living in a very different sort of society.

            In your meta-utopia, wouldn’t different cultures emerge that reflect particular societies or communities, and wouldn’t people want to preserve these by ensuring that they sustained at least replacement-level birth rates and did not allow people across their borders who do not share their values and beliefs? For instance, you may have a belief in private property, but this is not something that emerged in a vacuum, it is socially formed and exists only because of the settled view of a racial group – white Europeans – whose beliefs and ideas are not universally shared.

            • Tom,

              I’m not sure that religion is particularly about bloodlines. I think it may have evolved mainly as a way to hold societies together in those early chiefdoms which had become big enough that the people in them weren’t entirely blood related.

              I see culture, too, as separate from, and in some way orthogonal to, race. What you say about property rights at the end of your comment reinforces this. Property rights for individuals are a product of European culture, and they are rooted in the thought of ancient Greece and Rome. But for me, this doesn’t mean that they are down to any one race; not even to the Greeks. (Who indeed, in modern times, seem to have lost more of their respect for individual property rights than have most Europeans.)

              As to your last paragraph, yes, indeed. I foresee that different cultures will emerge in different communes. And that each commune will have its own rules on new applicants for membership.

  2. You ask whether people on the Alt-Right dismiss some aspects of the enlightenment…..and the answer is, yes, absolutely, with good reason. I once explained what the problems were, in particular, with your adherence to egalitarianism and individualism. If I could somehow find my comment via wordpress, I would gladly dig it out – but it does not seem to have that function, unlike Disqus.

    Where you may be slightly going wrong with your critique, in general, is that you’re taking each part individually and not putting them into their collective reasoning.

    For the most obvious example, if you eschew the ‘white nationalism’ aspect of the Alt-right, then you’re not going to see why some of the other aspects are necessary – and why the ideals of individualism being placed above that of the wider society is a problem.

    To take a quick example – if you don’t care about the survival and continuance of white people, or white homelands (that would be necessary for them to survive as a race) – and instead believed in individualism to the extreme, you’d tend to not see a problem with somebody making themselves and their family richer by actions which put wider society at peril on these matters.

    It could be, say, the encouraging the settlement of “refugees” and “asylum seekers” because you own a chain of hotels that the state want to pay you £millions to house them all in. You get guaranteed payment, your rooms are going to be forever full and paying. It is good for you, your own family future wealth, and it does not harm you in the short or medium term, if at all.

    In an another ‘enlightenment’ ideal, we are duly told to “tolerate” their never ending presence and their ways, including their religion that just happens to cause discord all over the world and has aims for dominance all around the rest of the world (simply because they think it is best and superior improvement to all others, and seek naturally to expand it and its adherence).

    We then get forced to “treat them all as individuals” and say they are “all the same” as us, and that there should be this unquestioned “equality” given to them. Let’s say that women tend to be ones to allow this to transpire and make political moves and pressures to facilitate the continuance of it all…..and to treat women differently and not give them “equality” in running the country, well, that could be against the “enlightenment” values…..particularly if they were expected to raise families and be mothers rather than be careerists….

    It may not be the best explanation or example, but I hope I convey the point that it is a collection of ‘rejections’ that serve purposes for a core concept.

    If white people were deemed as expendable, insignificant, not worth the bother of surviving at all and were just inconsequential “individuals” in a sea of other “individuals” under some “laws” or “shared values” of the establishment or ‘the enlightenment’….then the Alt-Right would not even have a purpose.

    But it does have a purpose, and to achieve that purpose, particularly as things stand in the world and in our nations today, it has to take certain positions that dispense of many of the routes of thinking and arrangements that have thus far led us into this situation we are railing against.

    • CB,

      Oh, but I do see a problem with someone making themselves and their family richer by putting some “wider society” in peril. (Or, in my terms, doing harm to civilized people).

      In the example you give, the hotel owner is a crony capitalist, using his connections with the state to enrich himself. And yes, this is a problem; but it’s only a second level of the problem. It’s those that make the policies and the wars that bring about the refugee problem in the first place, that are the major culprits.

      As I said in an earlier comment to Tom Rogers, it’s one of my tentative conclusions that radical Islam is one of the emerging reactions against the breakdown of the current political system. Racism is another. To me, neither of them is a particularly appropriate response. But my own liking for the “utopia of utopias” comes about because it allows those who only want the company of Muslims, or who only want the company of white people, to have their wishes, as long as they behave towards everyone in a civilized manner.

      As to your last paragraph, my concern is that the Alt-Right may in actuality be no more than statists. And that they are seeking to gain power by making use of the natural reactions of many people on the political right to the ongoing failure of the current system.

      • Whether it is linked to the state or not, it is an individual who is putting his own self interests first and not caring about the consequences of their actions for the long term of everybody else. That was the point I was trying to convey.

        Like many others in society today, they will not even understand that what they are doing is in any way harmful. That is also the point, and why a critique of the Alt-Rights rejections of some aspects of the enlightenment has to put these aspects into their central perspective.

        After all, with the hotel and refugee example, the residents are not all going to be rapists, killers, or even Muslims. It just does not work like that, and it would be rather silly for anybody to suggest it did. It works on group dynamics, not individuals as isolated entities. Also it is much more about the long term future of society, not individuals and individuality in the “here and now”.

        If nobody cares about what or who comprises this country and what ultimately happens to the Caucasian peoples of the British Isles, or if it does not even register to them as an issue, then acts of an “individual” nature can keep working away in the background, unchallenged due to “tolerance” – and who exactly is going to stop it?

        Another example could be drug use. Libertarians tend to see everybody as individuals and if they are not harming anyone else, then what they do to themselves and their own bodies, in their own homes, is no business of anybody else. But this is not how society works.

        Let us say that crack cocaine or heavy skunk was legalised and it crept into society as other factors were breaking it down. Maybe a bit like the hopelessness and such expressed as the backdrop of the film “Trainspotting”. Is what they do to themselves, such as the character who dies in an empty flat, something that has no effect upon wider society?

        Who would want to live in a society of more drug addicts, or dope heads? Their “individual” rights and “choices” that lead to addiction alter the very kind of society everybody else has to live in, and even alter the overall kind of nation we are. The focus upon the individual over that of the group can be harmful.

        When it comes to matters of mass migration, etc, I cannot deny that the problems have to be tackled at root source.

        Alt-Right supporters, like most white nationalists of yesteryear are not interventionists in foreign escapades. We are not interested in being the world police, or sucking up to the globalists and purposeful destabilisers such as George Soros, or American military actions that cause havoc and mass flows of people that they then impose into our countries in the “invade the world, invite the world” way.

        This is one reason why they are hated and feared by both Conservatives and Liberals of today. They are not willing to bend and conform to this globalist style mechanism that binds those entities, no matter which is in elected office.

        I do think it is folly to expect different peoples to live in the same territory and base society upon whom we want to be in the company of.

        I don’t even begin to understand how this could be made possible or workable, and furthermore, I would not even entertain the idea of it anyway because of disparate demographic trends between groups that would be, and are, in low-level competition for control and dominance.

        Once again, with that, it is not about individuals, it is about how the real world tends to work on group dynamics.

        Not that you’re suggesting it, but segregation, apartheid, or any other such arrangements are failures and not worthy of support, particularly because of the real infringements of liberties upon people – whilst some kind of patchwork quilt of “chosen company” is in my view unworkable.

        I would rather we all had countries of our own, like we used to do, rather than impose different rules upon different peoples, or conversely try and force all peoples to be the same. Multiculturalism has failed. Frances’ assimilation model has failed.

        In my view, nationalism of the ethnic type is the only solution to these problems, the only solution to the survival of Caucasians, the only bulwark against globalism and the only provider of true world diversity.

        Nobody has a problem with “individuals”. There is no need for ‘racial abuse’ to the man in the corner shop, or some woman in a burkha on the street, or an African on the bus. There is no point in not being relatively civilised, because it is about groups and trends, not individuals and individualism.

        Yet, I think you need to understand that behaving “civilised” as your own group become 6 people in 10…5 people in 10….4 people in 10…3 people in 10…2 people in 10…1 person in 10…..and thus being “in the company of” an ever dwindling minority is, to me, utterly ridiculous – and what is deemed “cuckoldry” – to expect of us.

        The Alt-Right have no intention of letting that transpire, if they can help it.

        Despite what I suggest, I do lean to many libertarian ideals. The difference for me comes, I suppose, when the nation is relatively homogeneous and certain threats from the “enlightenment” and multi-ethnicity are removed from being issues.

        On this, I think the Alt-Right is prepared to do whatever it takes. Whether it is hard-line rule, authoritarian state apparatus to enforce that it happens, admiration for strong “alpha males” to undertake such ventures, denouncing aspects of the enlightenment…..I think it is a means to an end, against the forces in play today, rather than something sought to be upheld for all time.

      • [quote]”But my own liking for the “utopia of utopias” comes about because it allows those who only want the company of Muslims, or who only want the company of white people, to have their wishes, as long as they behave towards everyone in a civilized manner.”[unquote]

        What if the Moslems decide that they want everybody else to be Moslems too?

        What then?

        • That’s why I say “as long as they behave towards everyone in a civilized manner.” To try to force or browbeat individuals to take on (or to reject) a particular religion is not civilized behaviour.

Leave a Reply