The “Alt-Lite” Is Just Buckley All Over Again

A process that is strange on the surface, but totally predictable and understandable if you have seen it before, is the emergence of the “Alt Lite”, as I believe Hunter Wallace has dubbed it, a new political movement that supports Trump, adopts many nationalist positions, but rejects racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and homophobia.

First of all, this is a classic Jewish move. Prominent “Alt Lite” figures are Mike Cernovich and MILO. Jews don’t come up with new ideas and movements, they look for ones that are up and coming and worm their way in and take over. Trump of course did this with nationalism- which who knows may be proof he’s controlled by Jews- and then the Alt Lite did it with Trump specifically, and nationalism more generally.

What this also reflects is the history of the modern conservative movement. Leftism came to power in the US in the 1930’s, and by the 1950’s people were a little sick of it. A strong backlash against cosmopolitan socialism and the control of urban elites, Jewish, Puritan and Quaker, developed.

This kind of thinking had been culturally marginalized since the 30’s as small-minded, provincial, and mean-spirited. Everybody knew that cosmopolitan socialism of one kind or another- Soviet communism in the more benighted places, social democracy in the West- was the way to go. Communists and Western socialists regarded each other as fellow travelers, each believing themselves the senior partner

The Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe however angered a lot of people. They wanted to know why and how communists had such strong influence in the federal government.

TPTB couldn’t really just blow this off, because Soviet rule was far from democratic, and obviously cruel and unjust to all but the most committed. Politicians like Joseph McCarthy and organizations like the John Birch Society demanded to know who the communists were and what they were doing.

As English-speaking society does, this was deflected as a matter of social taste. To ask these questions was framed as being gauche and cruel. A few good-hearted folks may have been involved with the Communist Party years before, but why ruin their lives with reckless accusations? The term “smear” came to be used. All the best people agreed these questions were not to be asked.

Trouble was, as we know from the Venona transcipts, the US government was chock full of communists sympathizers, Party members, and actual Soviet agents. But it was not socially appropriate to say so.

People still wanted to be conservative though, and William F. Buckley came up with a solution. Form a conservative movement free of the cranks, soreheads and conspiracy theorists of the hinterlands and make it an urbane, gentile movement of Manhattan intellectuals.

This movement was still anti-communist, but dropped the idea that anyone in the US was a communist activist. It was still racist, sexist, and homophobic- this was the 50’s, after all- but not anti-semitic, because this was also socially handicapping by that point.

In rapid order, the left defined racism as socially unacceptable- and conservatives dropped it. Then sexism, then homophobia. As we know now, National Review has always been in favor of gay marriage!

If you want to oppose the corrupt system, but don’t want to be one of the weird kids, then the Alt Lite is for you!

Trouble with all this is that racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and homophobia are all true. Any ideology that does not put objective reality first is not going to work. Conservatism crippled itself by wanting to be socially acceptable first, and true second.

The Alt Lite, just like modern mainstream conservatism, is fundamentally just another form of liberalism and as such can’t compete with the real thing. National Review and William F. Buckley conservatism lasted around sixty years, but the Alt Lite isn’t even a movement, it’s just a pose. MILO is gone, and the rest will not last too much longer.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

The Atlantic Is Stupid and Boring

The media is very upset about the President’s lack of respect, Atlantic writers David Frum and James Fallows being among the most butthurt.

I used to love the corporate media. I read newspapers every day. I watched the Sunday morning talk programs. I used to go to the bookstore on Mondays and read Time and Newsweek when they came out.

The Atlantic was once an excellent magazine. It used to have great long form pieces, particularly by William Langewiesche. Then Michael Kelly died, and it wasn’t the same.

I rarely read newspapers, and haven’t read the newsmagazines in a long time. I used to read the Atlantic online, but now it’s not even interesting to see what progs think. All these publications are pretty stupid and boring. It’s just bad writers pushing the official line.

There used to be at least some competition in the media. Publishers wanted to deliver a product worth reading to attract and hold readers. TV networks wanted ratings.

There’s little competition any more, and owners are mostly interested in ideology. The Washington Post is owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and the New York Times in large part by Mexican telecommunications monopolist Carlos Slim. The Atlantic is owned by some guy who made a lot of money in medical records.

In any case the product is of low quality, which in this case means not informative, interesting or influential. The media doesn’t have the power it once had because it isn’t as good as it once was.

If Frum and Fallows are upset by their loss of influence, they should consider why people don’t consider them or the magazine they write for worth reading any more. The internet makes all kinds of information easier to get, and what it lacks in polish it makes up for in other ways.

President Trump- I love saying that- can trash the media because people already don’t like it. So guys, try not to suck so much.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

The Elites Have Crimestopped Themselves Into Paralysis

As a refresher on Orwell, “crimethink” is prohibited thoughts, which is easy enough to understand, and “crimestop” is the mental process by which crimethink is avoided.

A normal person understands crimethink perfectly well, and understands that certain ideas, facts, or truths must not be aired in any formal social situation, be it work, family gatherings, or any other place where all present are both like-minded and trusted. There is a special moment between two white men, when one first uses the “n” word, and it is met with a laugh.

This is not difficult, because it is simply an extension of basic social rules about appropriate matters of discussion and expressions of values and attitudes. There are things you don’t talk about around your mom, your sister, or even your uptight brother. You can talk about certain very delicate things with your dad, but maybe not others. Normal people generally have no trouble with this.

Why then is crimestop needed? And what is it, exactly? Orwell described it as- “It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”

People outside of the power structure are simply discreet, as theoretically are people at the top. People instructing and enforcing social rules however must really believe them on some level. Thus in “Nineteen eighty-four” the proles are barely spoken of, and the people at the top, the “Inner Party” make an appearance only at the climax.

People at the top need to understand where social reality ends and actual reality begins. This has been a topic of discussion at Ribbon Farm. This is what it means to be in the Inner Party. The Outer Party, to which Winston, the hapless protagonist of 1984 belongs, creates and reinforces social reality but does not know the difference.

Unless people from the Outer Party actually become the Inner Party, or the Inner Party can’t control the Outer Party, which I guess could happen.

Things are really, really out of control right now. And there is no reason for it. Peasant rebellions are easily dealt with. The king appears, or makes an announcement, that mistakes have been made, by incompetent bureaucrats, and he is really sorry for not keeping a closer eye on these people. They may or may not be publicly or actually punished, but this is implied. Some leaders are met with and some concessions are made. If they were really necessary, and the king is smart, the concessions stay. If he doesn’t think they are really necessary, he can slowly and quietly revoke them a few months later and have the peasant leaders quietly taken care of.

The other alternative is to brutally crush the rebellion. This may be the way to go- you get to be and stay a king by making judgments like this- or it may be dumb. No ruler has absolute power. Every ruler has to have at least some acquiescence.

Our current ruler haven’t so much made a misjudgment, as lost the capability to see that anything could be wrong. You may say “Anyone opposed to undocumented immigrants is a racist” but if you actually believe it, you have lost a great deal of ability to take action or change direction. You may say “Black people are oppressed by whites, and especially by police officers” but if you actually believe it, you have taken away from yourself a great deal of ability to act.

A calm and partial walk back on immigration last year would have calmed down most of the current anger. People say Trump talks more about trade than immigration, but it was immigration that he got a toehold. Moslem terrorism- closely related- cemented it.

George W. Bush burned these bridges long ago, but after eight years of a progressive Democrat, Republicans could have made a change. Democrats, after eight years of a progressive Democrat, could have made a change to shore up their vulnerable spots. It would have been the smart thing to do.

But they can’t. The people fronting the organization are pretty old- Hilary, Bernie and Trump are all old- but the people running things are pretty young, and they can’t even remember when anybody thought anything different.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Is Life Itself Horror?- More on Horror

Horror is not something bad, that can be managed and endured, but something that must be avoided at all costs. To experience horror is to experience the destruction of all hope of order or decency, if not personally, then indirectly through witnessing someone else’s loss.

Horror might include unmanageable suffering such as early death, early loss of physical or mental functioning, severe, untreatable illness, or other similar things. “Horror” movies- which certainly feature horror, but only of a limited kind- for this reason always feature young people, since hope, health and bodily vigor are highest in the young, and in the young their loss is the most strongly felt. And for this reason the virgin- a young person who is not attractive or popular and can expect a lifetime of not being attractive or popular- survives, because he has much less to lose.

Denial, as a psychological term, describes an unmerited positive belief about the present and future. This however is regarded as a sign of psychological health, if it isn’t excessive, because looking at things realistically is likely to lead to depression.

“Life’s a bitch and then you die”, says the joker. Or, “Life’s a bitch, then you marry one”. Life is mostly pretty difficult, with some enjoyment to keep us going. Being happy all the time probably isn’t possible, and maybe not desirable, despite what the gurus say. You can try to be happy all the time with substances, but this will backfire. If you have enough money, you can devote you life to enjoying yourself, but boredom and excess will take their toll here too. And the richest person can’t avoid eventually dying. Death might be quick and painless, if you have a massive heart attack or a massive stroke, but it will probably be a slow process of declining function and pain.

Does religion offer any solace? Maybe not. What could be more horrifying than a universe where we are subjected to a lifetime of pain, followed in many cases by an eternity of pain? Or in the case of reincarnation, many additional lifetimes of pain? A new age and Mormon belief is that persons choose to be born, although they do not remember it, because they desire the spiritual growth that comes from bodily incarnation. That sounds like a way of putting a positive spin on it, but like all other religious things it’s unfalsifiable.

The first season of the HBO program “True Detective” featured a strongly pessimistic character who many thought had ideas based on the horror author Thomas Ligotti. A homicide detective who had suffered the death of his young child, this man concluded horror was an inescapable element of life, and probably its primary element.

One might conclude it’s better never to be born in the first place, and some do. The philosophy of anti-natalism is most commonly associated these days with author and blogger Sarah Perry.

One does not choose to be born; your parents make the choice for you. Is it ethical to make this choice for another person knowing at a minimum they may suffer a lifetime of pain? And that depending on your beliefs, they could suffer many lifetimes of pain or an eternity of pain?

Life wants to live. That’s what life is. Things that do not want to live do not continue living long. Every living thing must die, but it can extend its life in some way by reproducing. Life isn’t something you possess, it is something temporarily entrusted to you, to be passed along in turn.

If something is worthless, you may keep it but not pass it along, or you may not even keep it. If something has some value you keep it, maintain it and pass it along.

Life is substantially horror but it is not only horror. Just surviving is an accomplishment to be proud of. Hope that things will be better for you, and your descendants, springs eternal.

Horror is a basic fact of life, maybe the basic fact of existence for corporeal creatures, but we can and do overcome it. As somebody once said- we are the fight.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

A Message to Conservatives, Neocons, and Cucks

“The Duel” is a Joseph Conrad story made into a movie called “The Duellists” in the 70’s by Ridley Scott. One of Napoleon’s officers, a stupid and aggressive man, challenges another to a duel over an imagined insult. They fight many inconclusive fights over the years but eventually he loses. His rival ends the story with this speech to him-

“You have kept me at your beck and call for fifteen years. I shall never again do what you demand of me. By every rule of single combat, from this moment your life belongs to me. Is that not correct? Then I shall simply declare you dead. In all of your dealings with me, you’ll do me the courtesy to conduct yourself as a dead man. I have submitted to your notions of honor long enough. You will now submit to mine.”

All your ideas are failures. All your political activity has come to nothing, if not less than nothing. You have made the world a worse place by having been born, by having seen the light of day and by having breathed. You have been repudiated in a conclusive and humiliating fashion.

You could maintain the last tiny scrap of dignity you have by remaining silent, although you most certainly will not. But whatever you do you will be treated as dead men, dead men forgotten as soon as the mourners turn their backs on the grave. There is a future, life goes on, but it goes on without you.

Good night, and good riddance.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Wherever Black Is Worn……

tshirt3-copy

Live we but where motley is worn?

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

A Key to Alt-Right Identity

Geez, two months? I have been busy a lot, but hopefully will find more time.

“What is the alt-right?” people are asking, including the alt-right themselves. Other say it’s a stupid question, or there is no qualification, or the only litmus test is being pro-white. I have another idea.

“No enemies to the left, no friends to the right” is a basic rule of leftism. And it’s a basic rule of Buckley conservatism, or neoconservatism, or cuck conservatism. All these movements police to the right.

Even alt-righters do it, sometimes by policing anti-semites, but usually by policing Nazis. Milo did this in his Breitbart essay, if only by dismissing them as mischievous young people looking to get a rise. RamZPaul does this more forcefully, and some others. I don’t keep track of all these people, there are too many.

I don’t have any enemies to the right. I don’t know who is to the right of me, really, but let’s say Nazis are. (Another way of dismissing Nazis is saying they are really leftists, ¬†which both Jonah Goldberg and Jim Donald do.)

I’m not a Nazi, and I don’t think German National Socialism is a good model for ethno-nationalism now. I don’t know if it was a good idea then, but hindsight is 20/20. I don’t think killing a bunch of people is optimal, but contrary to what parents and teachers say, “They started it!” is a perfectly valid argument.

However, if you are a Nazi, I don’t hold it against you. We can have a beer and talk about it.

I believe 9/11 was an Al Qaeda operation, not an Israeli one where explosives were planted. But if you do, I respect your take on things. I can’t say I know everything or have all the answers. I generally hold to the Puritan hypothesis. Jews aren’t the problem, but they are enthusiastic participants in the problem. But if you are hardline on the JQ, I don’t condemn you. I don’t believe violence is the answer, I believe that the system is prepared to deal with violence best of all, and poorly equipped to deal with principled resistance. But there are people who believe in violence, and I don’t condemn them.

The left got the right, and the center, to police themselves, which is much more effective than the left doing it. They have all kinds of rules which are flexibly defined as they see fit.

This is part of the problem, that started with Buckley, but also the “conservative” movement is just a big scam, and always has been. Some guy wrote on Politico how the Tea Party got hijacked by scam PACs that kept all the money. But ever since direct mail solicitation started in the 70’s, taking money from old people has been the main business of conservatives. Since talk radio got started in the 90’s, selling crap to Limbaugh and Levin listeners has been a big business. At least when Grandpa watches Fox, he gets to see some hot ass, and Grandma can’t get offended.

The alt-right is an attitude more than a philosophy or an ideology, and that attitude is “go f*** yourself, cuck-boy.”

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments