This Site's Purpose
This blog is an effort to breath some organized life into Vox Day's description of the "alt-lite". It is for all those who can see valid arguments stemming from the alt-right, yet remain skeptical of its intentions, methods, and associations. It is for those who are frustrated at the refusal of standard media outlets to honestly and openly debate the arguments of the alt-right, but also of the alt-right's own refusal to admit dissent. My position is this can be fairly well summed up by Andy Nowicki's description of his own.
"I have never been shy to admit the ways in which I might not fit into everyone’s idea of the “alt-right” mold. To wit, I am not a white nationalist (though I apprehend the folly of multiculturalism and strongly oppose the imposition of the “white guilt” psy-op upon the native Occidental populace); I don’t see miscegenation as a sin against the Holy Ghost, or as any kind of sin at all (though I do find the race-mixing propaganda of the powers-that-be thoroughly obnoxious, and observe that there is no shame in people’s natural proclivity to prefer their own kind as mates); I am not hostile to Jews qua Jews (though I recognize the reality of Jewish power and the baleful influence of many contemporary Jewish-led movements); finally, I hew to a universalist morality and recognize an essential unity of men of all races being created in the image and likeness of God (while at the same time acknowledging the obvious existence of biologically-based racial differences)." The only real changes I would make to this are
1. I do not recognize any inherent "equality" to different human populations, though I understand the distinction between the individual and the group to be a relevant one. Groups are different entities to individuals, a truth evident in how they operate differently to individuals, can lead to individuals to behaving differently to how they would outside a group, and can be judged on their statistical variance with respect to the likelihood of positive or negative genotypical characteristics. Thus I do consider it a problem to be discussed that there may plausibly be a genetic component to the lower IQs of non-European ethnic groups, who have evolved in different environments. I believe this demonstrates a terrible risk for the mass absorption of the sub-Saharran African genotype into European populations. I believe this is also true between Europeans and East Asians, the latter of whom on average have a higher IQ. This is, however, in terms of judging groups. No differences are extreme enough between human groups that one need assume an individual black person is necessarily less intelligent or competent than any of ones' European or Asian acquaintances. This is because the information regarding the statistical likelihood of certain qualities emerging in individuals of certain groups, becomes useless when one encounters an individual of that group. At that stage, it is only the individual qualities of that individual human that matter. For instance, if I were a fruit seller and discovered that a particular kind of a particular plum was predisposed to having having rotten patches, I would stop, or be wary of, purchasing that type of plum. However, if I already one of those plums and saw that it had no rotten patch, the genetic statistic would not prevent me from eating or selling that plum, since the statistic becomes irrelevant with respect to that individual plum. As the old saying goes, a low statistical murder rate becomes irrelevant when a man with a knife breaks into your house. Consequently, I believe that assigning the statistical trends of a group to judge an individual, who one knows as an individual, would be a counter-productive and rather tragic outcome of ethnically aware European movements.
2. I think it is more valuable to derive ones' universalist claims about the individual worth of individual humans from ones' experience with different individual humans, and recognition that they experience the world in much the same way as oneself, rather than from a god toward whom many ethno-awareness sympathizers, like myself, are agnostic.
So, while I have profound sympathies for the altright, identitarians, neo-reactionaries, and all ethno-aware European groups fighting cultural marxism and working to preserve the ethno-cultural identity of European nations, it is unlikely that I would pass any tests of the alt-right purists. I am not not sure if my DNA is 100 percent European, and my sympathies for globalism, individualism, classical liberalism, and Star-Trek style globalism, make my ideas suspect too. So while I tentatively consider myself a neoreactionary, I have difficulty embracing any other movement entirely. This is partly because of their occasional calls to violence and partly because of their willingness to pass judgment on individuals (its fine to discuss groups, see above) based on their appearance or origins, particularly with regards to Jews. I AM convinced that the removal of ethnic European populations from any global significance is occurring. I AM also convinced that within my lifetime or shortly after, Europe as a continent will not be primarily inhabited by its indigenous populations or be primarily animated by its indigenous cultures. I am NOT convinced that this is as organized as many think, though it seems clear that there are individuals and groups who are committed to removing ethnic-Europeans, and that this has been true for a long time. It is clear, however, to those honest and informed, that, whatever the reason, the public refusal to discuss the demographic situation of ethnic Europeans in the clearest terms might be about to result in a scale of disaster the world has not yet witnessed. At the very least, it will result in a disaster for ethnic Europeans far more fundamental and permanent than has ever been at stake for all those of European descent since the siege of Vienna in 1529.
It is clear as day that events are transpiring around the world, which may cause the near extinction of population groups deriving from Europe, along with their cultures and ideas. These events have already led to people with European ethnicity to become demographically irrelevant in global terms. It is also clear that the demographic replacement of ethnic Europeans is occurring in their ethnic homelands. It is possible that with this will come the near or complete extinction of their ancient cultures and societies. It seems almost certain that, if current trends continue, within many peoples' lifetimes Europe may cease to be ethnically or culturally recognizable. This will also be true of nations around the world, whose majorities currently derive from Europe. Should this be a cause for concern, or should this be celebrated? Should it be prevented, or should it be encouraged? Is it a top down plan, or is it just a huge mistake? This blog is for anyone interested in any of these questions.
So, regardless of your ideological position, the millennial generation should be open, and informed about the rapidly diminishing global significance of European demography, and of the replacement of European cultures and peoples around the world, but especially in their home continent. The decisions we make, whether European or not, will determine the fate of the original inhabitants of an entire continent.
Some Important Distinctions between the Alt-Right and the Alt-Lite
To be clear from the get go, this is not a manifesto, and it is certainly not a set of rules. I think one of the most desirable possibilities of the alt-lite, is the opportunity it provides for free discourse without the constant purity spiraling of alt-right purists. What I am trying to do here is produce a set of points with which the alt-lite may be reasonably distinguished from the alt-right. This list mainly constitutes a rebuttal of the standard alt-right beliefs that I consider most problematic. Also present a few alternatives that, hopefully, may come to define the alt-right’s less severe cousin. If you disagree with any of these points, please comment on the post with the same title as this section, located HERE
Jews: The Meme of Jews as nefarious, slimy monsters bent on exterminating the white race is perhaps my greatest problem with the alt-right. Incidentally, it has also been described by the the Daily Stormer as one of the core principles of the movement. It is largely because of this that I wished to build on Vox Day’s notion of the “alt-lite”. To those insistent that “the Jews” are the most dangerous threat to Western civilization and its ethnic European people, I would ask this “which Jews”. No amount of, what I grant are very well documented, arguments for Jewish intervention in bringing about the decline of the West can change the fact that these are still only some Jews.
Jews have contributed hugely to Western civilization, from Freud to Einstein, and to categorically declare war on them in this way helps no one. To point out those specific Jews who, perhaps because of the networks they established through the Jewish community, have damaged the West is reasonable. Indeed, the role of largely Jewish organizations, like the Frankfurt school, in bringing about the sad state of the West should be clear to any informed and honest observer. However, so too should the role of non-Jewish ethnic Europeans in this phenomenon be clear. Furthermore, what about those Jews who fight harder and smarter against the left than nearly anyone else? Half of the alt-right organizes around Breitbart for goodness sake, a publication created by a Jew. Rebel media is another example. I simply cannot reconcile blanket Jewish condemnation with these examples, nor can I understand why the alt-right refuses to apply the simple solution to this dichotomy staring at them in the face, which is to recognize that Jews, like everyone else, are individuals whose opinions and allegiances can be swayed. They can condemn those who have brought about the demise of Western civilization, while finding allies in others. In fact, ethno-aware European movements around the world can and should point out that organized Jewish groups that encourage immigration and multiculturalism in European or European derived nations, while remaining anti-immigration with respect Israel, should be identified as the intentionally seditious groups that they are. However, it is a waste of time to lump all Jews into this category and fight them all, especially since they are not all committed to the same ideology.
With respect to ideology, it is necessary to point out that the pathological altruisim that may destroy European nations is also present in Israel, among its Jewish population. Rather than a well oiled machine through which all Jews can flood European nations with non-European immigrants, while ensuring Israel remains a pure blood ethnocracy, the doctrines of cultural-marxism have been used by Jews both within and outside Israel to extend their destructive influence on the West to their Jewish homeland. Even Noel Ignatiev, an archetypal anti-White Jew, has been condemned by Zionists for extending his Marxist reasoning to the question of whether Israel should favour Jews in any way or pursue an ethno-state. Organized Jewish influence has been destructive to European nations, but also to Israel itself. Thus, I cannot logically or even strategically abide all Jews being placed in the same category as their activities, opinions, and motivations differ. Contrary to some objections, I do not believe this individualist attitude to amount to idealist/cucky thinking, but rather pragmatism. Why declare war on more enemies than you actually have? By all means target the jews, and groups of jews, who show evidence that they are committed to destroying the indigenous nations of Europe while arguing for an Israeli ethno-state, but leave the others alone, or criticise them differently if they are just run of the mill Marxists who apply their seditious ideology universally.
Women:: The suicidal excesses of modern feminism are clear, and their impact on Western civilization are fundamentally disturbing. The memes of men as stupid, violent creatures, who are always in a position of “privilege”, is entirely absurd and unhelpful. Further, the astonishing collapse of ethnic European birthrates world-wide is likely at least partly a result of the role of mothers and homemakers being so regularly ridiculed at all levels of society, but mostly top down as a result of modern feminism. Little girls should see the roles of mothers and homemakers as desirable, important, and entirely necessary. The absence of people willing to fulfill these roles may be the single most damaging aspect of the status-quo for the West, so its presence should also be recognized as the most important aspect.
Generally speaking, an honest observation of human society would demonstrate that there is value in the distinction of roles between men and women, particularly with respect to child-rearing. Men are generally better at certain things, whereas women are generally better at others, though exceptions should not be ostracized. Human talent should be valued, from whomever it emerges, as it is the most valuable commodity a civilization can have.
Ultimately, Western civilization has a long history of proud upright women making all the difference between success or utter destruction (Boer women shooters, Joan of Arc, etc.). Despite the influence of the “Manosphere” in the alt-right, it is clear that women have very important roles to play in society at all levels. Their potential contributions to society are lost by restricting them to the domestic sphere, and the the unique aspects that collective female participation in every area of human exploit should be valued. I do not think that a future for Western Civilization, or its European ethnic groups, can be secured without equal participation of 50 percent of its members. However, I also do not believe such a future can be secured unless ethnically European women recognize the imperative of motherhood, and men accept and celebrate their role as fathers. And soon.
Scientific Racism: Most scientists agree that there are little to no recognizable differences in innate capacity between human races. It seems difficult to believe that EVERY biologist in the world is corrupted by the seditious Jewish media. I would be lying if I said that those who argue otherwise did not do their homework and produce NO compelling evidence to support their case. However, one may remain inclined to say that opposing standard scientific convention because it offends some deeply held sensibility amounts to anti-scientism, anti-intellectualism, and conspiracy theorizing.
It seems to me, as a non-specialist, that the jury is out on the issue of whether there are measurable differences between human races, but that is largely because the issue is so highly politicized in every which direction. However, even if it were true, that on average there is some difference in intellectual capacity between humans ethnically deriving from Europe, Africa, and Asia, the fact that there are brilliant people in the world of all races, suggests that such a discovery should have no relevance toward what is expected of a person of any race on and individual level. Indeed, much like my position on Jewish people, I think if specific racial and ethnic groups have their homogeneity secured at least somewhere, all other human interaction should emerge from a recognition of common humanity first. Thus, even if it were true that a disproportionate number of Jews have played leading roles in causing the decline of Europe and the West, or even if it were true that there is some difference, on average, between those of European, Asian, and African descent, it does not follow that such is true of ALL members of these races. I take this pan-ethnic individualism to be one of the most valuable contributions of Western civilization, and I would not see it given up lightly. For those who don't agree with my on this point, ask yourself this. What does it matter anyway? How does condemning the capacities of non-European ethnic groups advance the cause of creating a homogeneous homeland for those of European ethnicity?
Individualism: It is hard to argue against the proposition that one of the West's greatest contributions to the human race is the focus on the individual. I, and many pro-western historians agree, that an individualist mindset is what sets the West apart from other societies, and as such I believe its two basic tenets should be upheld by any reasonable person sympathetic to the alt-right. The two key tenets to an individualist outlook are that...
1. Individuals make their own decisions, and exhibit personal traits, based on which they can and should be judged by others
2. Individuals are not responsible for the decisions and traits of any demographic group that they inhabit involuntarily
Bear in mind that the second basic tenet draws a distinction between those who are part of groups voluntarily and involuntarily. Only the former can be judged by the decisions and traits of the groups they inhabit. If they are unaware of the questionable decisions and traits that typify their chosen group, then that becomes an indictment on them, not those condemning them on behalf of their group. Unless a self-defined member of a certain group can draw a reasonable distinction between how they define their personal group identity, and the decisions and activities of the group to which they adhere, then it is entirely legitimate to judge this individual based on the decisions and traits of their group, and to act accordingly. Legitimate attempts to distinguish one's own remit of responsibility from that of the group to which they choose to adhere will often require creating a whole new group definition to avoid succumbing to the No-True-Scotsman fallacy (like distinguishing between the alt-lite and alt-right) . Obviously, the latter requirement excludes the "Not real Islam" brigade, since all Muslims by definition profess to believe in two collations of documents (Qu'ran, Surah) that stipulate the positions they must take on certain matters in order to legitimately call themselves "Muslims".
It is worth bearing in mind that the second tenet of a consistent adherence to Western individualism requires the benefit of the doubt for a Muslim who was not in a position to choose their faith. It only makes sense to try to de-program their brainwashing, to hopefully acquire a new anti-Islam ally. Of course those who can be reasonably said to have CHOSEN to follow Islam, especially those living in the West, deserve the harshest indictment for perpetuating an atrocious cluster of ideas that are a direct threat to the West. They are an enemy to any sane adherent to Western civilization, and certainly anyone who is anywhere on the "alt" spectrum.