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.