Many an Alt Rightist finds himself in a precarious philosophical position, rejecting instinctually the degeneracy and practical nihilism of the modern world, yet with no objective ground, beyond instinct, for those preferences. Part of my efforts in this space will be to argue that Christianity, as the historical faith of our people (and a faith, properly understood in its historical unadulterated form, I believe to not be unreasonable), provides a mooring for Alt Right views superior to bare materialism.
Materialism, to define terms, is the idea that the world we can observe is all there is. In the words of Carl Sagan, the physical world is “all there is or was or ever will be.” In my discussions with some secular Alt Right figures, there is an objection to this term, because it is also associated with Marxism. Political materialism, a doctrine of Marx, holds that abstract truths are illusions to the extent they result in unequal distribution of resources, and the essence of human existence and purpose is purely economic. So perhaps the better term to use is that of “practical atheism,” which would be an assortment of views ranging from agnosticism to atheism all agreeing on the idea that the role of a god in the universe is of no practical consequence.
Practical atheism may be the majority report in the Alt Right, though there is a sizable minority of us who hold to traditional Christianity. Philosophically, practical atheism would believe that the material world is a sufficient explanation for the origin of the universe, the existence of life and intelligence, and that morality is not truly objective. Many in the Alt Right purport to hold to morality as simply an orientation towards the in-group, with no implications for actions towards out-groups beyond utilitarianism (that is, we should treat out-groups in a way that maximizes benefits to our in-group).
In this post I will not go into great detail as to my personal apologetic for the Christian faith, but rather pose some questions to provoke thought among the practical atheists of the Alt Right. I believe that the most universal quality among those attracted to Alt Right ideas is a heightened sense of aesthetics. Psychological studies have demonstrated that more conservative people have a lower disgust threshold than liberals. Donald Trump’s well-known germaphobic orientation increases our confidence that his convictions are deeply felt, and the man obviously has an usually high sensitivity to aesthetics.
With our higher sensitivity, those of us on the Alt Right feel the decadence of our society most strongly, and I believe this sensitivity goes both ways. I, and I think most Alt Righters, have a profound internal emotional response to great beauty, whether in the music of Mozart’s masses, great classical architecture, monumental sculpture or the beauty of European women. When we hear degenerate music or experience degenerate art, it pains us. The obesity epidemic in our country affects us powerfully, because we most intensely feel the contrast between the ideal human form and the distorting effects of gluttony.
It is at this intersection between our experience of beauty, and our disgust at ugliness, that perhaps I can cause the practical atheist of the Alt Right to notice a flicker, a slight inconsistency, in the “matrix” of their experience. For if there is not an objective force, dare I say an artist, behind our experience of the universe, then we must admit that these intense aesthetic preferences we have are ultimately subjective preferences or delusions. They exist as evolutionarily selected preferences indicating fitness but ultimately with no true value. Our great architecture, music, the human form itself is nothing more than an accidental arrangement of atoms following a blind, numb and completely pitiless process of natural selection, a process that plants these intuitions into us as useful falsehoods to further in some way our reproductive fitness.
A question to consider is why do we trust the consensus of science in this matter over our own experience? For if we weighed the two, we would certainly find our aesthetic sense to be the stronger of the two, that we would feel more strongly that there was an objective direction and purpose behind the universe, it being the part of some great work, rather than arbitrary arrangements of matter. The only answer that I can fathom that would cause us to reject our intuition is if we believe that science has definitively answered these questions in the affirmative, similar to how our intuition about the geocentric universe was shown to be false. I will close this post with a few additional questions.
In our society in the past 75 years, do we observe instances where the weight of academic authority is corrupted for political purposes?
Would practical atheism as a belief system be useful to efforts to degrade our societies?
Have we in detail examined the counter-arguments of intelligent theists against the atheistic consensus?
Is it possible that the true level of certainty about these questions of origins is less than what the academic establishment would let on?
If we admit that our society’s institutions are corrupt, should that perhaps cause us to weight our own intuitions more strongly over the consensus of these institutions?
I will follow with more specifics in a subsequent post, but suffice to say that each of the questions above could be answered in the affirmative on issues concerning the broadest areas of agreement among the Alt Right. The academic consensus (as reported to the public) is that race is not meaningful. The academic consensus is that Jewish people are never at fault for historical anti-Semitism and always suffer as innocent victims. The academic consensus holds that the historical beauty of Western cultures and peoples is not real, a mere manifestation of arbitrary privilege and abusive power.
Would it be possible that the most red pill truth of all is that the degeneracy of our society is objectively, eternally and absolutely at odds with the specific will of an intelligent agent behind the beauty we observe?