Christian Ethics & Dysgenics

The New Testament’s approach to charity is fairly restricted.  Paul tells us that those who do not work should not eat.  Paul also goes through great pains to delineate which widows in the church were worthy of support – they had to be old (young ones should remarry) and blameless, holy women.  There is no specific provision made for the social welfare of anyone else beyond widows and orphans, and absent such commands, none can be reliably inferred from Scripture itself.

Nevertheless, most Christians see charity of some sort as an obligation, and it has always been appropriate to give alms to the “worthy poor.”  Prior to the modern era, charity was by necessity local, limited in scale and voluntary, due to the general scarcity of resources. When occasional crises like famines came, there simply was not enough excess production available to help everyone.  Charity, then, was not a social welfare program so much as a prophylactic for the wealthy and powerful to avoid destructive overconfidence, to acknowledge the role of Providence in their position by showing consideration to the poor.

Christian charity as historically practiced was not dysgenic.  Caring for widows, for example, usually involved supporting women who were formerly married, had children and were no longer able to care for themselves – the impact on dysgenics was zero.  The care of orphans was likewise not dysgenic, as the ancient world featured a lot of random death from disease – orphans were children whose parents were taken by this randomness, and as a group their genetic quality was no different from the general population.

The Christian practice of saving infants from exposure was likewise non-dysgenic, as the vast majority of these cases were not due to actual deformity, but rather due to a preference for male children or fewer children.  The Greek historian Polybius describes the depopulation of Greece:

For instance, take the following case. In our own time the whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth-rate and a general decrease of the population, owing to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit, although there have neither been continuous wars nor epidemics. If, then, any one had advised us to send and ask the gods about this, and find out what we ought to say or do, to increase in number and make our cities more populous, would it not seem absurd, the cause of the evil being evident and the remedy being in our own hands? For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence that they did not wish to marry, or if they married to rear the children born to them, or at most as a rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, the evil rapidly and insensibly grew.  For in cases where of one or two children the one was carried off by war and the other by sickness, it is evident that the houses must have been left unoccupied, and as in the case of swarms of bees, so by small degrees cities became resourceless and feeble.

The emphasis is mine, but the scholarly consensus is that Polybius was censoring the Greeks for killing their children simply for their own convenience.  Christian efforts to save exposed children would be positively eugenic in a time of population decline.

Only in the last 100 years has human ingenuity risen to a level where all people could theoretically be cared for, with cheap food, energy and housing from a general rise in technological-fueled productivity.  It is not Christian charitable ethics, but rather the capability to care for large numbers of non-productive people at scale, that is the root cause of dysgenics today.

There is a valid argument, I believe, to the idea that our unprecedented productivity ought to be put to use to better the human condition through certain socialistic practices.  I’m not sure where I fall on this issue, but Huey Long’s appeal to share the wealth of our industrial abundance does not sound crazy to me.  This might seem particularly just in a place like Denmark where everyone is closely related – the state, arguably, simply formalizes and enforces (against cheaters) social norms that members of one’s extended family ought to be supported in their sickness and old age.

Among the Alt Right, there is some support for this sort of socialistic enterprise in a future ethnostate, but we are also aware of the externalities of such a situation.  The nations of Europe, for example, have collapsed their birthrates, partially through spiritual decline, but also partially due to a change in incentives.  When the state provides cradle to grave care, no one has motivation to make the sacrifices necessary to have children to in turn care for them in their old age.  Human children, particularly in the high investment European culture, represent 20 years of voluntary slavery.  Why bother if other people will pick up the tab for your old age support?

The Alt Right recognizes that these policies have externalities that must be fixed.  In particular, productive citizens need to be highly financially incentivized to have children.  So far, modest efforts to encourage native reproduction in Europe have been somewhat successful, but none to the point of raising the fertility to the magic 2.1+ children per woman level necessary for population stability.  If and when a nationalist party holds complete power in a nation of Europe, hopefully experimentation with policy will reveal whether financial incentives are sufficient to induce childbearing.  My guess is that they will be partially effective, but the overall trend towards dematerialization will tend to depress any merely economic (as opposed to spiritual) efforts to increase births.  It is an unfortunate fact that many Western women are so spiritually impoverished that no amount of money could induce them away from Instagram, the clubs and their smartphone.

Most contemporary Christians would support pro-child policies, and indeed have historically supported eugenic policies like the Child Tax Credit.  The more immediate problem, however, is the dysgenic effect of the welfare state.  We have a lot of time for spiritual renewal and policy experimentation to encourage child-rearing among the productive, but lowering the overall quality of the gene pool through incentivizing the less productive to reproduce cannot be easily reversed.

I think many Christians would see the logic of my argument, but cringe at taking any action to address the problem.  While positive incentives seem just, negative actions, such as sterilization, seem unjust.  Let us look at the ethical questions involved.

It is important to recognize that the vast majority of welfare recipients are not legitimate causes for Christian charity.  Despite cucky pastors’ rhetoric, a single mother who becomes pregnant through her own promiscuity, and shows bad judgment in mating with a man who will not support his child, is not a widow and her child is not an orphan, if the words of the Bible have any objective meaning.  Her life will be hard, no doubt, but the hardships she will endure as a natural consequence of her sin may be the only thing that can shake her out of her vanity and cause her to repent.  It’s important to recognize that we as a society have made a choice, a choice we are not ethically obligated to make, to show mercy to such individuals and go beyond the strict requirements of equity to care for the truly infirm and fatherless.  Since we are not obligated to help the single mother ethically, it would be proper for us to put conditions on that aid, particularly when the conditions are necessary for the system of aid to continue.  In short, a society that continually encourages the non-productive to reproduce will eventually destroy not only itself but also the very system of aid that comes from the abundance of a productive society.

Most Christians understand that giving cash to the homeless is irresponsible, as much of it will go to enable sin.  Similarly, giving aid to the single mother without requiring her to take action to prevent the destruction of the system of aid that benefits her is irresponsible.  As such, I believe it is entirely within the realm of Christian ethics to require, as a condition of aid, that single mothers be sterilized.  This would not apply to widows with legitimate children of a dead father (and I’ll note here that the conflation of bastardy and widowing is a profound insult to widows, who are entitled to the aid of the church).  For single mothers, they can choose to meet the condition and receive aid, or may choose to not meet the condition and not receive aid.  There is no coercion, simply an exchange of promises, a covenant if you will, that those who receive extraordinary mercy must take extraordinary measures.

I have often, as a Christian, been annoyed by some of the atheist Alt Right’s embrace of abortion as a supposed eugenic practice.  Proper rationing of charity, however, would ethically address this concern without the need to assault the dignity of motherhood with the availability of abortion.  Irresponsible parents would be “one and done,” ensuring that their share of the population steadily decrease by natural attrition rather than unjust violence towards infants.


Tom Wolfe’s The Kingdom of Speech, A Review

With little fanfare Tom Wolfe has released another of his non-fiction narratives, this time dealing with the history of the Theory of Evolution and the problem of the origin of human speech.  Wolfe, surprisingly, flirts extensively with the idea of Intelligent Design, particularly evolution’s inability to explain certain properties of human beings.

The overall theme of Wolfe’s book is that we severely underappreciate human ability in relation to animals, the huge gulf between the simplest human and the most advanced apes, and all of this is enabled by human language.  Wolfe claims language is an artifact of humanity, not an instinct, and emerged as a type of mnemonic to help our early ancestors remember the things around them.  I find this a little fuzzy, and he avoids the biological issue of the necessity of the human brain to produce such an artifact.  The obvious question is if speech is the artifact that enables all other artifacts

Wolfe took a lot of chances with this book, and his takedown of Noam Chomsky is particularly rich.  His summary of Daniel Everett’s experiences with a primitive Amazon tribe that lacked any concept of time, complex sentences and produced no artifacts beyond the bow and arrow, and constructed no permanent dwellings is a treat for connoisseurs of human biodiversity.  Everett’s field work destroyed Chomsky’s Freud-like pseudoscience in linguistics, and the tension between them (Everett being a highly goyish outdoorsman, former Christian missionary from a flyover town) is particularly rich.

The first half of the book includes some critiques of evolution that are never quite taken to a conclusion, likely because Wolfe either doesn’t want to think about their implications or doesn’t want to “out” himself as a theist in his old age.

I would rate the book a 3/5 but Wolfe is such a damn good writer it’s a 4/5.

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Five: Practical Steps

As mentioned previously, I think it a common error among infrequent or non-church-attenders to consider themselves disqualified from being a part of a community of faith because of their difficulty in believing all of the claims of Christianity.  The extreme individualism of Americans has infected our church experience.  Church is not primarily about individual reason and beliefs, but rather experiential and communal.  We do not have to reason ourselves into faith, we merely have to get reason out of the way, to consider the possibility of religious truth, and then allow our experiences and intuitions to shape our faith over time.

The Alt Right vision of enlightened nationalism is a universal moral position.  We do not need to go beyond good and evil, for our ordinary categories of good and evil are sufficient to defend our position and ensure our survival.  We declare that each people has a right to a homeland without interference from others.  We declare the objective evil of aggressive war in interfering with those boundaries and killing off the best of our young men too often in service of private gains for a privileged group of elites.  So many of us are like hipsters, ironically detached from the positions we hold, afraid to truly take our own side in the argument.  Moral universalism is an extremely powerful motivator for humans, particularly whites, and our ideas are just, right universal moral principles.  We need not be afraid that embracing an objective morality will ensure our doom.  To the contrary, the bravest and best motivations for the preservation of anything, particularly the beauty and glory of Western Civilization, contain within them the idea that something is inherently, objectively, universally good.  Few men are willing to die, or even live, for arbitrary configurations of matter.  We feel in our souls that we are more than matter, that the world of immaterial forms is the prime reality and that goodness, truth and beauty are more real than the material forms that represent them.  Christian religious faith is a particularization of trusting these intuitions over the pessimism of materialism.

Christianity also focuses on the concept of sin.  Sin is the commission of an act at odds with natural law, and Christian theologians universally testify that sin is always against our broad self-interest at the group level.  Lying and cheating in business dealings, for example, may benefit one in the short-term, but writ large results in the backwards, crushing poverty we observe in low trust societies.  Materialism has no explanation for the human tendency for self-destruction, the “death drive” as it is called, something we do not observe in animals.  Whether beautiful white women marring their angelic skin with morbid tattoos, or the situation in Germany, where many whites welcome third world rapists with open arms, self-destruction is a powerful force in humanity’s behavior.  The theology of sin explains this, in that it posits a flaw in our wills that needs divine correction.  Perhaps this is true for you, but I certainly have areas in my life where I do things that are entirely self-destructive for no good reason.  My faith practice has helped me reduce these areas over time, but the process will be lifelong.  At my best, I am motivated not by guilt, but by the realization that I need help and grace infused into my soul to overcome my own worst tendencies.  The sanctifying work of Christianity is properly directed towards personal areas of failure, and perverted when used to stoke societal guilt.  The theologian R. J. Rushdoony elucidated this perfectly in his masterpiece, The Politics of Guilt and Pity:

The reality of man apart from Christ is guilt and masochism. And guilt and masochism involve the unshakeable inner slavery which governs the total life of the non-Christian. The politics of the anti-Christian will thus inescapably be the politics of guilt. In the politics of guilt, man is perpetually drained of his social energy and cultural activity by his over-riding sense of guilt and his masochistic activity. He will progressively demand of the state a redemptive role. What he cannot do personally, i.e., to save himself, he demands that the state do for him, so that the state, as man enlarged, becomes the human savior of man. The politics of guilt, therefore, is not directed, as the Christian politics of liberty, to the creation of godly justice and order, but to the creation of a redeeming order, a saving state. Guilt must be projected, therefore, on all those who oppose this new order and new age.

Finally, I will bring up perhaps the most practical consideration, which is the challenge of reproduction outside of religious faith.  Child-rearing, I can attest, is a form voluntary slavery.  I have never observed, and I challenge anyone to disprove me, above-replacement fertility in a non-religious population.  Having 3+ small children is very difficult – sleep deprivation, lack of ability to focus, negative effects on the body, etc.  Without the certainty that one’s life and reproduction has objective meaning, it is very difficult to bear the burden of above-replacement fertility.  It’s much more comfortable to blackpill and remain childless, which is unfortunately one of the dominant messages emanating from the “red pill” men’s rights oriented part of the Alt Right.  Without an objective good to one’s sacrifice, the ready offer of comfort is compelling, if we are but undirected arrangements of matter with no ultimate meaning.  The red-pill black-pill is both correct and incorrect at the same time.

It is practically correct in the sense that the risk of divorce theft is very real.  I also think it is correct to say, as Tucker Max did, reflecting on his past degeneracy, that the pickup scene consists of men with mommy issues interacting with women with daddy issues.  We live in a culture where a striking percentage of the adults now are children of divorce, so it is not surprising that being an aloof jerk would be attractive to many women.  Many of the “game” concepts are valid beyond that, particularly the analysis of what men vs. women find attractive, and the important of sexual polarity.  The blackpill part is the insistence that all marriages are best avoided.  There is even an acronym to mock those who point out exceptions – NAXALT (“Not All X Are Like That”).  It is true that NAXALT is not a valid counterargument to broad statistical truths, whether talking about the need for society-wide divorce/alimony reform or the case for restricting non-white immigration.  However, to mock the idea that one can find exceptions and solutions in the midst of otherwise bad situations is suicidal.  The same black-pillers advocate economic independence, despite the fact that small businesses are more likely to fail than marriages.  The irrationality is akin to a person owning a gold mine who complains that the ore is 99% base metals – the 1% gold is the point, not the overall distribution.

Statistically, there are many factors that can reduce the odds of divorce to a reasonable level.  In our degenerate society today, the only attractive women who are constraining their sexuality are those with a moral pre-commitment, and those women are largely found in the churches.  I observe it all the time: beta men marrying attractive women and producing beautiful families.  It still happens, contrary to the blackpill pessimists, and it happens in communities of faith.  The women in these communities outnumber the men, and the men who are there are very beta.  An Alt Right man showing masculine confidence in such a community would have his pick of Christian women.  Many of the men in charge of these institutions are so weak, as evidenced by their constant public cucking, that taking over the leadership of the churches would be fairly easy in many cases.

This is not to say that one should go around faking belief for the social benefits.  If there is an overarching theme to this series, it is that churches are as much about and for people who desire faith, and to deepen their faith, as they are about those who are firm in it.  The church is a community, a body of those following that intuition of objective truth, goodness, and beauty, and believing as much as they can while accepting the grace offered for remaining unbelief.  All Christian flavors of theology make allowances for doubt, and you will not be isolated or castigated in a church because you struggle.  We all struggle, we all seek, we all wish these mysteries could be made more clear.  God knows the mind he gave you, and the skeptical mind, the independent thinker, that which characterizes the Alt Right, is not excluded from the community of faith.  We are to believe, and obey, and fulfill the good, beautiful and true as best we are able.  In an age of lies, it is no coincidence those who are least able to delude themselves would be at the forefront of defending all of those things for which the Christian faith provides objective value.

Faith provides hope in the darkest of struggles, and there is a reason despair is considered among the worst Christian sins.  Throughout history, it appears as if some thumb has been on the scale, saving our people at the last moment.  If we can achieve faith that the arc of history has direction, that the things we defend are real and not perhaps, in our despairing moments, an evolutionary cul-de-sac destined to be ground to powder by a pitiless Darwinian mill, then the temptation to despair will be overcome.  Bertrand Russell honestly captured the unyielding despair of atheism when he said,

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair can the soul’s habitation be safely built.

Though he struggles to end on a note of optimism, the fruits of atheism are well-known.  Cut off from meaning and salvation, as a group they seek it on earth, voting for the enemies of our civilization.  Fertility rates are the lowest of any identifiable religious view.  Two centuries of atheist thought have yet to build a scaffold sufficient for the atheist to overcome his unyielding despair.  For the act of having children, particularly many children, is an act of optimism towards the future, and optimism is irrational to the atheist worldview.

As an Alt Righter, you struggle for things of objective value.  You are torn, I believe, by a perception of Christianity that causes you to believe it weakness, that morality must somehow constrain our ability to survive.  You are among the few who can face despair and struggle on in spite of it, for the good of our people.  Faith is not weakness, but strength to carry on no matter the odds, of hope that the struggle is never lost.    I hope you will consider struggling for faith, and perhaps as you behold your own children, your flesh and blood, you will be confirmed in your intuition that there are things of infinite and eternal value, that this material world is but a shadow of things beyond.  The flower of Western Civilization points to it, another world of forms and perfection, hidden in plain sight.

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Four: Critiques of Christianity

Alt Right critiques of Christianity come in two prominent varieties.  The first is the Nietschzian view that Christianity is a “slave religion” that teaches pathological altruism.  The second is that the Bible, and Christianity itself, constitute jingoistic Jewish propaganda.

Pathological altruism is self-evidently one of the biggest problems in the West today.  The question is whether Christianity causes pathological altruism.  There are a few logical ways to test that.  First, we might form a hypothesis that post-Christian whites would be less pathologically altruistic than Christian whites.  That hypothesis is false because atheists and agnostics are the most ardently Democratic voting bloc, moreso than Jews.  What we do find is that religious, red-state whites are more personally altruistic, giving more of their income to charity than blue state liberals, but less pathologically altruistic in supporting massive transfers of wealth through government redistribution.  This observation is exactly what an Alt Right defender of Christianity would expect.  Going further, a Christian theologian would also predict that those who abandon Christianity will become more driven by guilt, as the essence of Christianity is forgiveness by free grace not based on merit.  If Christianity is true, men will have natural guilt in their hearts.  And what we find is that post-Christian Europeans feel “white guilt” more strongly than Christian Europeans.

Second, if Christianity causes pathological altruism, we might form the hypothesis that as society has become less Christian, it has engaged in less of it over time.  Again, we observe this to be false.  The more ardently Christian eras were marked less by altruism and more by enlightened co-prosperity.  Colonialism was materially beneficial first to the Christian West but also to those it helped civilize. While the Alt Right today recognizes colonialism as a mistake, because of the corrupting influence of cheap labor and the internationalism it engendered, nevertheless we do not see massive, pathological transfers of wealth to the Third World until the post-Christian era.

The choice is whether to assess Christianity as Nietschze caricatured it, or as it is actually practiced.  The Marxists believe Christianity to be a legitimizing myth for exploitive hierarchy (“slaves, obey your masters” and all that), whereas Nietschze believed it to be a religion that elevated weakness.  It cannot be both.  The more fair synthesis for Christianity is that it is a comprehensive, balanced moral system that provides dignity for people regardless of their position in life.  Such a system will affirm a benevolent hierarchy, curbing both the abuses of tyranny and rebellion, and this is the system we observe in Christian societies in history.

The second critique is that Christianity is but an extension of Judaism, which is itself a vile, propagandistic religion of a genocidal desert god named Yahweh, the claims of which serve to validate the “Chosen’s” claims and blind our people to their own self-interest.  Let’s take these one at a time.

First, Christianity is most definitely not an extension of Judaism.  Christ’s entire ministry, as recorded in the gospels, can be understood as the antithesis of Judaism.  The founding fathers of Judaism are not the Old Testament patriarchs but rather the first century Pharisees.  The claim of the Pharisees is that the Old Testament was but the minor part of God’s law, and that the more important part was given orally to Aaron, who transmitted it orally to his descendants and then to the Pharisees themselves.  The Talmud, the governing document of Judaism, consists of the writings and debates of the Pharisees, who used the purported existence of this unwritten law to undermine and amend much of the written law of Moses.  The few Jews who reject the Talmud are considered a fringe cult by mainstream Judaism.

So if Judaism is not the same faith as the Old Testament Israelites, we must still answer this claim that the Old Testament is a narrow, ethnocentric religion for Jews, that Christianity merely co-opted.  I suppose the objection some Alt Rightists would have with such a religion is not the ethnocentrism, but rather the fact that it is someone else’s ethnocentrism – and, of course, a narrowly ethnocentrist religion promoting one people is likely to be objectively false since it obviously serves propaganda purposes for elites in that society, who would have an incentive to invent it.  So is the Old Testament fundamentally ethnocentric?

In a certain sense, yes, in that it tells the story of one particular people as it narrows its focus from Adam to Noah to Abraham and his descendants.  But in the more important sense, it is not, for the entire history of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament is not one of glory, promoting the Israelites over all people, but rather a story of Israel’s faults, failures and unfaithfulness.  Abraham is portrayed as a liar and coward, Jacob as a trickster and deceiver.  The Israelites themselves are portrayed as the most ungrateful, whiny, cowardly, bitchy group of people imaginable.  After being liberated from slavery in Egypt, and witnessing the supernatural parting of the Red Sea, within days they are complaining about having to rough it in the desert.  After taking posession of Canaan, they immediately degenerate into all kinds of lawlessness and chaos.  King David is a coward, adulterer and murderer, a weak man, unwilling to take decisive action, whose loyalty to his rebellious son, Absalom, and contempt for those trying to protect him, nearly becomes his undoing.  David’s son, Solomon, despite an early period of wisdom, proceeds to idolatry to appease his foreign wives, and then nearly bankrupts the kingdom through his building projects, such that the short-lived Kingdom of Israel splits in two upon his death.

The Old Testament is unlike any piece of ancient literature, in that it tells the history of one particular people, but mostly shows how feckless and worthless they are despite God’s condescending to favor them based on promises to their fathers.  An entire book of the Old Testament, Hosea, is dedicated to God’s calling of a prophet to literally cuckold himself by marrying a whore, a bit of “performance art” to show the unfaithfulness of Israel.  What precedent is there for an “ethnocentric” work to compare the people it supposedly lauds to an adulterous whore, an offense punishable by death in the ancient world?

The needle is threaded in the New Testament, where Christ consistently speaks mostly positively of the Romans, declaring the Roman centurion to have greater faith than all of Israel.  Pilate is portrayed as a sympathetic, tragic figure, caught between his desire for justice and a gaggle of troublemaking, scheming Jews demanding the death of an innocent man.  Christ himself declared that had his miracles been performed in Gentile cities, they would have immediately repented.  Consistently, the Pharisees are portrayed as power-hungry schemers completely uninterested in actual evidence.  The Christians taught that God dramatically demonstrated his love for humanity in picking the most contemptible part of it, the Israelites, as his own, before dramatically revealing himself universally at the coming of Christ:

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. – Matthew 21:43

Ancient and historical Christianity defined itself as fundamentally anti-Jewish.  Alt Right critics point to modern Christians’ support for Zionism as evidence of the tainted roots of Christianity in undermining our people’s sense of their interests, a sort of false consciousness to borrow from Marx.  This is very easy to explain: first, this is a very American affliction.  Christians in Europe, West and East, are not particularly Zionist.  Americans are afflicted by this due to the influence of the Scofield Bible, which popularized the near-heretical doctrine of dispensationalism.  Whereas the universal testimony of Christianity prior to Scofield was that the Church had replaced Israel as God’s Chosen (or had really been God’s chosen all along), Scofield affirmed the opposite, that the “church age” was a temporary pause in Biblical history before God would resume his plans for the Jews.

The United States has always been the breeding ground for various cults, and the cult of Zionism is no exception.  While those who adhere to dispensationalism are Christian in an essential sense, they are completely out-of-line with the historical Church and its teachings.  I agree that Christian Zionism is a form of false consciousness, but to ascribe its defects, the result of the American religious fever swamp, to Christianity as a whole, historically, is not logical.

In the next and final installment of this series I will recommend practical action for Alt Rightists considering the merits of Christianity.


An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Three: Evidence, Intuition & Faith

In the previous post, I led the reader through my process, as a non-expert on the controversies, for interpreting the various arguments for and against theism.  I will note that readers may definitely logically reject the Intelligent Design arguments while remaining convinced by the cosmological fine tuning argument (and, the argument of the necessity of a Creator due to the universe’s having a definite beginning at the Big Bang).  I would encourage every reader to read Stephen Meyer’s books and the books of the best popularizers of evolution, such as Dawkins, and see which arguments you find most intuitively compelling.  In a society such as ours, this may be the best we can do, given the levels of political corruption in academia.  We cannot simply trust experts in any age, but especially in this age.

We began this series with a reflection upon the sensitivity to aesthetics common to many in the Alt Right.  It is my hope that a review of the scientific controversies might open a crack in the door for the possibility of theism.  Combined with my intuition that beauty, goodness and truth are objective realities, this possibility enables me to have faith.  Faith, as I experience it, and I think for many other thinking Christians, is not absolute certainty in the claims of Christianity, but rather a devotion to a community where one’s confidence grows over time.  I myself struggle with the existence of evil and the notion of eternal hell.

In these matters, I have faith, because of my intuition about the objective good – that why good is mixed with evil in this world might be a mystery, but if good weren’t objective, I would not recognize evil.  I have a hard time accepting the doctrine of eternal hell, because it seems to me disproportionate.  At the same time, as an Alt Righter I know people have extremely high time preferences, and such a punishment (which many intuitively feel is real, see for example the fear of death and hell among the protagonists in the novel The Godfather) may be the only thing that can adequately restrain evil among men.  Nevertheless, I am content to have many of these things be mysteries, as the sort of being that would be a God is a vastly superior to myself.  I have no more chance of fully comprehending his purposes, his ways or his mysteries than my family’s dog does of ours.  Scripture itself says we “see through a glass, darkly,” which to me means that the full revelation of God, when it comes, will be as different from what we expect now as Christianity was different from the expectations of the Israelites.  If it follows the same pattern, it will be broader and more comprehensive to the same degree the New Testament was compared to the Old, in ways we could never anticipate.  Many surprises are guaranteed.

There is evidence for Christianity that only Alt-Righters might appreciate.  Practically speaking, in this age, Christianity teaches a form of dualism not that different from the beliefs of our Indo-European ancestors.  While Christianity has an optimistic view of the future, the Indo-European view tended towards pessimism (the doomed but noble struggle of Ragnorok) or nihilism (the Hindu idea of the burden of the self ceasing with achieving the state of nirvana).  In the present, however, the Christian idea is a sort of dualism, a narrative of an unseen spiritual war between the forces of good and evil, light and darkness.

I’ve often joked with Alt Right friends on the religious question that you would think a religion that preached that “God came to Earth and the Jews murdered him with perjured testimony and corrupt political pressure” would be appealing to people on our side.  The practical atheist view is that both Christianity and Judaism are cults based on fairy tales.  Yet, these happen to be the two belief systems constantly at each other’s throats throughout Western history.  On the one hand, Christianity produces the highest quality, lowest time preference culture in the world, the most noble works of art, the most advanced mastery of the physical world.  On the other, a people who literally define themselves as anti-Christs are behind much of the evil in the world.  This is not a joke: official Jewish policy is that a Jew can have any religion, or no religion at all, but cannot be a Christian and remain a Jew.

Jews are so obsessively anti-Christian that rabbis have serious discussions about whether Jews should drink scotch, Scottish whiskey aged in sherry barrels.  For very strict Jews, it is forbidden to drink wine from a winery owned by a non-Jew because of the possibility that some portion of the wine produced might have been used for “idolatrous” purposes – notably, it might be used in Holy Communion.  That is, the fact some wine might have been used in Communion pollutes the entirety of the winery’s production.  American Bourbon is kosher because it is always aged in new, charred barrels, whereas Scotch is not because it is aged in sherry casks, and sherry is made from wine, which might have Christian cooties because the winery might have been owned by a non-Jew who sold some of it for use in a church.  Serious Jews literally behave like vampires, obsessively avoiding any relic of Christianity lest it sap their power.

If Christianity and Judaism are simply derivative cults of the same primitive Semitic religion, why do they play such outsize roles in the world?  What happened to the other cults crushed by the Romans?  Is this an accident of history, or is it possible something else is going on, as the Bible claims, a spiritual war between light and darkness?

I encourage any Alt-Righter to read the Bible for himself.  The idea that Christianity is a Jewish plot to subvert Western Civilization is simply laughable.

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
—John 8:44

“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.”
—Matthew 27:24-25

“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”
—Titus 1:10-11

“For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.”
—1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”
—Revelation 3:9

In Part Four, I will address common misinformed critiques of the Bible often promulgated by some in the Alt Right.

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Two: Heuristics for the Plausibility of Theism

In the previous post, I posited the existence of a hostile social background against the idea of theism, both in the usefulness of atheism to the regime and the eagerness of regime members to virtue signal their ideological distance from heartland whites.  I also shared my own best idea as to origins, and in this post I will share several heuristic examples that might be useful in thinking about theism.

In the practice of law, a key concept is something called an “admission against interest.”  The courts know that humans tend to shade the truth, particularly when they have an interest in doing so.  As such, a certain degree of skepticism is smart when any witness claims something to his benefit.  However, there are times when a witness, perhaps in an unguarded moment in response to an unanticipated line of questioning, admits or discloses something against his interest.  Such an admission, if not simply due mispeaking due to confusion, is regarded with a high degree of reliability, as humans are most truthful when they are most disinterested, and only in moments where the natural tendency to obfuscate is interrupted does someone admit to something against his interest.

The scientific consensus is formed by individual scientists, and each has a huge interest in distancing themselves from enemies of the regime, notably white, Christian Americans.  Their stated position is that science is the realm of testable, falsifiable hypotheses, and that considerations of the supernatural are by definition outside the allowable scope of science.  However, on the question of origins, there are many respectable hypotheses promoted by eminent scientists that are as equally untestable and unscientific as the most simplistic appeal to authority by a Bible-thumping preacher at a sweltering mid-summer Missisippi tent revival.

In the field of cosmology, there is a almost universally acknowledged concept called the anthropic principle.  Physicists now know of hundreds of precisely-tuned, arbitrary constants (such as the weak nuclear force) that if slightly altered would make the existence of life, and particularly intelligent life, impossible.  Some of these constants are tuned to an unbelievable precision, on the order of 10^-100 or greater.  It appears that the universe is deliberately designed to support life, and the degree of fine-tuning would require a superhuman level of intelligence to pull off.  The simplistic counter-argument to such a theistic conclusion is that of course we notice this fine tuning because we exist – if the universe were not fine-tuned for intelligent life, we would not be here to observe it.  This argument begs the question, of course, of why the universe appears fine-tuned.  200 years ago, it was a plausible hypothesis, and common among atheists of the time, to believe that life was fairly simple, the universe had always existed, and the emergence of life would be inevitable, like gravity or any other physical law, in any given eternal universe.  That we have discovered that none of those assumptions are true should make us question the atheistic hypothesis, or at least give the theistic hypothesis some credence.

More thoughtful scientists, those who recognize the significance of the fine tuning, have either become theists themselves or else embraced the theory of the multiverse.  In this view, our universe, and all that we observe, is but one in an infinite number of possible universes that exist outside of ours, with the physical constants varying randomly among them.  Thus, since the probability of something, no matter how small its positive probability, if repeated infinite times becomes certain, the existence of the fine tuning of our universe is not a surprise.  After all, we live here, and we would only exist in a universe that happened to be randomly fine tuned to our needs.  A signicant fraction of cosmologists hold to the idea of the multiverse.

The multiverse hypothesis is plausible and well-respected in the scientific community.  However, it also happens to be non-falsifiable, since by definition we cannot observe and further by definition we cannot apply the scientific method to something outside our universe.  The multiverse, then, is a supernatural belief, in that it posits the existence of something beyond our natural, material world.

The other major area of faith among secular scientists concerns the origin of life.  The further we get from Darwin, the more we learn about the complexity of even a single-celled organism.  The details are beyond the scope of this post, but among some scientists who study the issue there is a belief in panspermia, the idea that, as far as we can tell, the early Earth was hostile to life, so it must have been seeded by alien life, either by a meteor containing simple life, by accident, or perhaps, by intelligent life.  This too, is unfalsifiable.  If we cannot observe the creation of life, or even use historical states of the Earth to build hypotheses about the origin of life, then we again have an article of faith, a belief in the pseudo-supernatural, to explain what we cannot prove happened naturally.  Panspermia, in my view, is simply a superset of possible explanations of the origin of life that includes God.  For what is God, broadly defined, but an alien, an intelligent, non-human form of life?  Star Trek imagines this possibility, albeit along the model of the human-like pagan gods, in the character Q.

Hopefully now the reader is picking up on the gist of my reasoning.  As a non-scientist, I am hopeless to pick apart the evidence in a credible way.  I also understand that there is incredible political pressure on scientists, in service to the regime, to deny the possibility of the existence of God, and thus moral absolutes (especially the non-pozzed sort of moral absolutes in historic Christianity).  What I can do is observe which non-scientific theories are otherwise tolerated in the scientific community.  Intelligent Design, which explicitly posits an intelligent creator, is largely (but not completely) anathema.  Because ID proponents refuse to adhere to methodological naturalism in their hypothesizing, they are considered by many to be non-scientists.  Yet, we also can observe respected hypotheses that also eschew methodological naturalism, that involve non-falsifiable and non-observable explanations, such as the multiverse and panspermia.  Thus, methodological naturalism is not a common denominator but rather what appears to me an arbitrary exclusion of the possibility of a very specific sort of panspermia, an alien humans have historically referred to as God.  When we see evidence or ideas excluded based on arbitrary criteria, we can infer a political motivation having primacy over truth, something every Alt Righter agrees is happening today in many areas of our society.  The global warming hoax is another example of a scientific consensus with no basis in reality, borne out by its failed predictions (such as complete disappearance of arctic ice by 2016).

Intelligent design does fit the traditional notion of science in that it can be used to make predictions.  ID proponents had, for twenty years, said that so-called “junk DNA” would be found to be functional, because ID assumes that features of life are designed.  Evolutionists had hailed non-coding DNA as evidence of a blind process, of outdated instructions accumulating over eons for no good reason other than the lack of an intelligent force that would have trimmed unnecessary information.  It turns out that instead of only 1% of DNA being functional, and the remainder junk, at least 81% of DNA now has known biological function, specifically in gene expression.  If the coding DNA is the piano and its notes, the non-coding DNA is the music (and, in life, the blueprints for the piano), arranging the notes, building the piano and by its nature necessarily more complex than the piano itself.  Many scientists assume that further experiments will show nearly all of the genome having functionality of some sort, and the percentage of true junk being very low.

All of this is to say is that I believe theism is a plausible position not incompatible with reason – but elements of faith will always remain.  The current state of science, and perhaps all future states, make it impossible to prove theism.

In my next post we will begin moving towards an integration of the plausibility of theism with faith and practice.

Coda: one obvious specific objection I will address is the argument that speciating evolution appears to be true because humans share so much of their DNA with lower life-forms.  This could be evidence of evolution, but it might also be evidence for design.  We would not be surprised to see Apple, for example, re-use components and code across multiple products and even platforms.  No rational designer would re-invent where unnecessary, especially since many problems have one best solution.  The existence in the fossil record of convergent evolution, where two animals independently evolve the same exact feature present in no common ancestor, would tend to bolster the design hypothesis.  It is unlikely a non-teleogical process would provide the same solution across indepedent lines of development.



An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part One: Foundations

Practical atheism, as described in my last post, is a vaguely held sense of agnosticism or atheism due to a belief in the consensus of science that a god is not necessary, or even plausible, in the universe we observe.  The Alt Right, to its credit, is for the most part not a set of rabid atheists.  Spencer, RamZPaul, Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, etc., are not particularly hostile to Christianity like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.  If anything, as believers in a hierarchal society, in power the Alt Right might have a sort of noblesse oblige orientation towards religion, seeing it as a necessary check upon the high time preferences of the lower classes.  Even if an Alt Right elite could not believe, he might see it as part of his obligation to adopt the outward trappings of belief for the benefit of the group, to support those whose lower self-control was enhanced, and fitness increased, by belief in the supernatural.  This support of course presupposes that the political triumph of the Alt Right would eventually result in a restoration of the church’s traditional support of hierarchy and non-pozzed traditional morality.

The question I posed in my introductory post was whether it was possible that the scientific consensus, the supposed certainty against theism, was possibly biased in a useful way towards the Establishment.  I think many in the Alt Right would agree that the destruction of objective morality, through an attack on theism, would be useful to the regime.  This, of course, is no proof of theism.  It simply opens the possibility of questioning the scientific consensus.  Once you’re red-pilled on any issue, you realize that the Establishment of our times is hopelessly corrupt and cannot be trusted to present evidence fairly when it is in their interest not to do so.  If one were to engineer a scientific consensus most useful for propaganda purposes for the Synagogue, one could hardly do better than a) practical atheism to undermine traditional morality combined with b) left creationism that holds all humans to be practically equal beyond superficial differences like skin color.  We know that proposition (b) of the scientific consensus, as presented to laypeople, is misleading and false.  We should be open, at least, to the idea that (a), and its presuppositions, might be false as well.

Unfortunately for those of us not well-versed in the Ph.D. level of physics or molecular biology, the untangling of (a) will prove to be most complicated.  Disproving the equality of human beings is much easier, as we can simply find repeatable experiments, easily hidden in plain sight in the literature of psychology.  For questions of origins, it is in the very nature of the problem that the phenomenon might not be repeatable.  Certain things can be observed, to which we ought to give the highest credence, but others cannot.  And where we cannot observe directly, we must choose between hypotheses that best explain what we can observe, and to do so requires a knowledge of the hard sciences beyond most of us, and indeed likely beyond any one individual.  Gone are the days of the Renaissance Man, who could master all of the world’s knowledge, as even the most specialized of fields now require a decade of postsecondary education to understand fully.

Agnosticism, given these difficulties, is certainly intellectually respectable.  Many if not most thinking Christians have a degree of agnosticism about them, in that we do not believe in the elements of our faith in the same way or quality that we believe in the existence of things we can directly observe.  Our belief is of a more tenuous quality, the essence of faith being an intuition about something that can neither be definitively proven or disproven to statistical certainty.  To the intellectually honest practical atheist, perhaps the greatest misunderstanding of Christianity is that its adherents, at least the smarter ones, must be absolutely certain of their beliefs.  We are all taking Pascal’s wager to some degree.

Through long study spanning decades I have come to the conclusion that practical atheism is untenable.  I will not embarrass myself by attempting to get into the nitty-gritty scientific arguments.  The best in the business for that is The Discovery Institute and Reasons to Believe.  In particular, I highly recommend the works of Stephen Meyer and William Dembski.  Instead, in this and the next post I will share a few useful heuristics that may aid the non-scientist in thinking about these issues.

First, I should disclose my own beliefs.  I am an “Old Earth” creationist, in that I accept the cosmological observation that the universe is billions of years old, and believe the Scriptural creation account to be compatible with these observations.  For the origin of life, I believe that there were multiple specific creation events occurring across the geological ages of the Earth.  The latter is my own belief based on reviewing the best arguments of evolutionists (of both the secular and theistic orientations) and intelligent design adherents.  I am ok with some ambiguity here, as theistic evolution (Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project is in this camp) is certainly within Christian orthodoxy.  In reading the work of Collins, and other evolutionists, I find there are still too many unknown, implausible gaps to account for the origin of life, as even the simplest single-celled organism is vastly complex.  I tend to find the arguments of Intelligent Design, particularly Stephen Meyer, more convincing.  Regardless, both ID and theistic evolution adherents both hold that life required information inputs in its history to account for the amazing biome we observe on Earth today.

I should also clarify that I believe strongly in evolution within a species.  Often called microevolution, this is the only type of evolution relevant for arguments of human biodiversity.  Even “Young Earth” creationists believe in this, which is why their attacks on Darwin as a proto-Hitler are disingenuous.  They should know that microevolution, within the human species, is sufficient to explain the observed differences among human groups, and that their belief system provides no true defense of human equality, making their pathetic virtue signaling illogical.

The Young Earthers are typically lower-church red state white Americans, the group most hated by our elites, and they are lumped in with the more subtle Intelligent Design and theistic evolution proponents.  We should not be surprised, then, that scientists, even if presented with possible evidence of a creator, would resist its implications so as to not harm their social status by association with the perceived mouth droolers of flyover country.  As Sailer has taught us, the liberal conviction is that while IQ doesn’t exist, my IQ is way higher than those people.  As those of us on the Alt Right understand the motivations behind status signaling against our fellow Americans, this is evidence we can cite in support of considering the theistic argument – even if it were reasonable, very few scientists would risk association with flyover whites by admitting it.

Having hopefully convinced the reader of the possibility of theism against the social background of our times, in the next post I will give specific heuristics that have been useful to me in forming a reasonable faith in theism.




The Alt Right, Aesthetics & Practical Atheism

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?

What Is the Alt Right?

As a long-term supporter of Alt Right organizations, I believe the recent competitive efforts to define the Alt Right are evidence that its influence has finally broken into the mainstream.  We cannot dismiss the possibility that opportunists are seeking to steer the movement for their own purposes.  Those of us who are its most credible supporters, those who supported the antecedents for this breakout movement, must seek to define boundaries to separate the legitimate latecomers (who we welcome into the fold) from those seeking to subvert it.

The essence of the Alt Right is a combination of enlightened nationalism and edgy, transgressive rhetoric.  Enlightened nationalism is a rejection of globalism that defends the right of each people to control their own destiny, with hegemonic control of their homelands, politically, culturally and demographically.  Unlike neo-Nazis, the Alt Right is not obsessed with matters of racial purity, but rather seeks a pan-European, nationalist alliance of the various Western peoples to both protect their unique expressions of culture and their common civilization against external threats.  Perhaps most importantly, the Alt Right, unlike the petty nationalisms of the past, seeks a multi-century Pax Europa.

We have learned through hard experience that European man has certain weaknesses.  The very beauty of European culture, its seeking of true universal values, makes it vulnerable to those who would, on the pretense of intellectual good faith, introduce false values to undermine our people.  European man also has historically had a tendency for bitter, bloody wars among brothers – a trait shared by most of humanity, but made especially potent because of European man’s mastery of technology.    Many European wars, and some of the bloodiest, were fought over competing systems of universal values, whether Protestantism vs. Catholicism, or the crusades for mass democracy in the world wars of the 20th century.

European civilization, therefore, is akin to a highly elaborate, formal garden.  Its beauty is striking but fragile, and the political objectives of the Alt Right and European New Right are designed to protect its beauty and maintain order from threats both external and internal.  The Alt Right then has a threefold program: to preserve European peoples through demographic hegemony, to purge the false values introduced by our enemies that have created a degenerate culture, and seek peace and co-prosperity among the kindred nations of our people.

This political program pre-dates the cultural phenomenon of the Alt Right.  The Alt Right is supportive of this political program, but its true strength is the adoption of new approach to influencing the broader culture.  In the pre-Alt-Right days of the white nationalist movement, there was an ongoing debate between the vanguardists and the mainstreamers.  The vanguardists tended to be more working class, neo-Nazi or Klan types who not only took more extreme positions, but insisted that those positions be exposited in their most unfiltered form.  The mainstreamers, perhaps best epitomized by Jared Taylor, took an opposite approach, relying on winsome rhetoric and an appeal to scientific authorities and reasonableness rather than extreme language.

The weakness of the vanguardist approach was one of style and an overarching seriousness that appears to many a modern mind as evidence of mental illness (an instinct not completely at odds with reality with many of them).  The working class style of the vanguardists was also read as indicating low social status, rendering the message ineffective.  The mainstreamers also had their weaknesses, in that by seeking to be reasonable within limits of dissent, they ceded moral authority to the Left, and the very reasonableness, scientific coldness and gentility of the message came across as stodgy and boring.

The genius of the Alt Right is a sort of synergy between the vanguardist and mainstreamer approaches.  By adopting some vanguardist language semi-ironically and more importantly, comically, in clever ways that mock the Establishment, the Alt Right both desensitizes the mainstream to the typical Leftist angles of attack (anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews and the like) and avoids the overly serious, “try hard” tone of the vanguardists.  As a mostly young, intelligent and white collar movement, its adherents can effortlessly shift gears from the ironic vanguardist, comedic voice to discussing our issues with all of the logical force of the best of the mainstreamers.  It is an analog to the New Left of the 1960’s, whose transgressive humor and cultural influence mainstreamed stodgy Marxist doctrines into the very fabric of our society.

Like the New Left, the Alt Right is future-oriented, abandoning the Boomer nostalgic obsession with turning the clock back to the 1950’s.  We have no memory of that world nor any attachment to it.  To use Richard Spencer’s phrasing, we indulge in a “nostalgia for the future,” and his 1980’s-inspired logo for the Alt Right is a testament to that, the only memory many of us have of an America with white hegemony and looking to a future technological golden era.  We cannot dismiss the Trump phenomenon either, as gasoline on the fire.  Winning begets winning, and the energy of the Alt Right movement has most definitely benefitted from the Trump victories.  Whether he is elected or not, he routed the cucks and traitors in the Republican Party, and we now have a home for our political ideas and influence in one of the two major parties.

The major debate at the moment about the Alt Right is whether its rhetoric is actually ironic (the position promoted, at least publicly, by Milo Yiannopoulos) or is actually deadly serious.  The answer in my view is subtle.  The Alt Right is not “literally Hitler” in any meaningful way.  People seem to forget what Hitler actually advocated.  His objectives were the acquisition of lebensraum for the German people, to be taken from fellow Europeans, the Slavs, who he considered to be almost subhuman.  The Alt Right, if anything, is the most pro-Slavic force in the Western European world today.  We admire Putin, we think it’s great that Trump has a Slavic wife and we respect the non-pozzed nature of the Slavic world.  Given that the Slavs are the only human beings today that can launch men into space, it is clear that Hitler was not only objectively wrong but that “literally Hitler” is the opposite of what the Alt Right actually believes.

Don’t get us wrong, popular ideas of Hitler, who plays the role of Satan in the secular cult of equality, are great agitprops for tearing down the moral authority of the Left and shocking the neo-puritan cat ladies.  But anyone who actually supported Hitlerian policies of stealing land from one European people for another would be an outcast from the actual Alt Right, whose primary goal is the peaceful co-existence of the various European peoples under a united alliance against the threats of the non-Western world.

Spencer, perhaps the most extreme public figure of the Alt Right, cites the peaceful population transfers between Greece and Turkey after World War I as a model for how the ethnostate could come about without massive carnage.  In terms of foreign policy, probably the area where Trump’s stated policies are most congruent with ours, the Alt Right is easily the most pacific of all mainstream views in America today.  If the Alt Right were in charge, Dubya’s wars for democracy would have been avoided, and millions of brown people would be alive and better off today.  In terms of domestic policy, the policies of the Alt Right would be beneficial to our own domestic minorities, who, along with working class whites, hurt most from globalist wage deflation efforts and the dysgenic influence of government largesse and a toxic, degenerate culture.

The Alt Right, then, is best described as semi-ironic.  The memes are designed, sometimes, to shock, and we understand the necessity to rhetorically burn down the moral authority of the Left, including their efforts at enforcing taboos that control our people.  But we really are serious in that we want to preserve our people and civilization.  What we offer, at the moment, is a detente with our enemies if they will accept it and allow the preservation of our people by peaceful means.  Many of us are motivated by a desire to avoid violence, to take political, peaceful actions now to avoid risky violent scenarios that will inevitably come as European homelands darken.

The histrionics of the Left towards the Alt Right is not because we are Hitler, but because for the first time they have a legitimate opposition not intimidated by their name-calling, moral condemnation and threats of violence.  We are, like Trump, deal-makers, willing to take extreme positions at the bargaining table for negotiating leverage, but genuinely wanting to make a deal that preserves our people and avoids a Mad Max dystopian future.  Unlike the cuckservatives, we will walk from the negotiating table if a deal cannot be made, for while our desire is peace, our commitment is survival.