A discussion on how the alt-right/alt-lite interact, in my mind, and where they may be headed. As always, I might be wrong. Comments appreciated.
An interesting post emerged on Amerika.org:
"The week of the great Milo meltdown renewed tensions between the Alt Right and Alt Light: are we merely defending “cultural libertarianism,” another form of freedom of association, or are we pushing for the real goal of the Alt Right, which is to restore Western Civilization?"
In general, I agree with the fact that a rift between the alt-right and the alt-lite is becoming more and more severe. However, from my own place on the alt-lite (and I think there are more like me), the division is not between freedom of association and restoring western civilization. I can see the Paul Joseph Watsons taking that line, but I am not sure Sargon would agree. In any event, my own take is that cultural libertarianism simply could not survive unless Western civilization is restored. So the question is not if the goal should be restoring Western Civilization, but rather, what that would look like.
Having established this alternative take on the alt-right/alt-lite division, it is necessary to very briefly dissect the "what will a restored western civilization look like" discussion. To get straight to the point, I think the biggest division regarding what a future Western Civilization looks like between the alt-right and alt-lite is whether it involves the existence of white people or European ethnic nations. This is because, to decide that it the West is ONLY about culture, or principles, or what have you, is, as current demographic numbers will demonstrate, to make the decision that it is ok for the progeny of the founders of Western civilization to become outnumbered in the West and lose control over the West's future.
I rate that this division will fester and boil over again in the future, as it begins to become apparent to many people that, unless certain sacred principles of the standard alt-lite such as individualism and race-blindness are contravened, white people and the European ethnic nations from which the category sprung, will have no future in the West or anywhere else.
Andy Nowicki penned a thoughtful and convincing piece with which I am generally inclined to agree. Holding itself hostage to its most extreme elements is unacceptable for any movement interested in credibility or truth, regardless of the risks inherent to “punching right”. Indeed, I believe it is this reasoning that inspires Vox Day’s affection for retaining both an alt-right and alt-lite within the general “alt” universe, though it is up to him to comment on that. A thought, rather than criticism, is inspired by Nowicki’s piece.
While focusing on “truth” ought to be the central occupation of any credible school of thought (with ideological/tactical/rhetorical conventions coming second), it is worth noting that the left is rather marvellously and ruinously immune to this requirement. In this respect the left could hardly be said to be “credible”, and yet it has somehow managed to become the as of yet undisputed judge of credibility in the West, to the extent that all opposing schools of thought dance to its dictates.
Indeed, ever since the Frankfurt school deemed “truth” to be non-existent/subjective, and associated those pursuing “truth” with being dogmatic idiots at best and Nazis at worst, the left seems to have had an advantage over everything else. This is indeed evident in the nearly lethal gains it has made within the gestalt of Western civilization and European nations.
This observation should ought to prompt two specific questions for the alt-right and the alt-lite. The first, rather more depressing, question is to what extent might its pursuit of “truth”/dialectic above rhetoric put the alt-anything at a terminal disadvantage in the war of ideas?
Secondly (and more optimistically), to what extent might the lefts’ refusal to recognize that “truth” exists be systematically used against them in rhetorical and dialectical terms?