The Alt Right is an eclectic mixture of white nationalists, who appear to be exerting an increasing influence on the newly energised conservative youth movement of late, particular via the internet.
Alt Right has been described by The Associated Press as:
“…a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasises preserving and protecting the white race in the United States in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes and strict law-and-order. The movement has been described as a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism, it criticises multiculturalism and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race.”
Alt Right is a revolutionary movement to counter the effects of Liberal Progressivism. It has been accused of harbouring Neo Nazis in its ranks. However, many in the Alt Right would claim that their concern is with preserving ethnic and racial biodiversity and not promulgating ethnic cleansing or genocide. To achieve its aims, however, would require at least mass deportation based on racial profiling. It similarly denies the charge of white supremacism, but it is clear that some of the Alt Right consider the IQ (or at least the creativity levels) of the “White European” race generally to be higher. They often point to the technological achievements of western civilisation to prove this. Some of its adherents are, then, cultural supremacists, and by this indicator racial supremacists, even though not all contributions to western civilisation have been by “Whites” exclusively.
As “nationalists” and “conservatives” Alt Right have publicly supported Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again campaign. Richard Spencer, the leading spokesman of the Alt Right, has described the new President as a “great leader”, chiefly due to his Executive Orders to deport illegal criminals, his extreme vetting procedures, and his desire to build the wall on the southern border. In respect to this, President Trump’s Executive Order seeks a temporary ban on visa holders from seven identified countries with strong ties to terrorism. It is not a Muslim ban, but has been described by Spencer as a “Muslim ban”, and a step in the right direction, but also one that is too “weak”. His stronger measures are outlined in this interview.
Spencer, the “President” of the National Policy Institute , essentially calls for a stronger stance from Trump and thus a stronger “Muslim” ban. Trump, however, has been highly critical of the “Alt Right” and has said during his campaign that he disavows and condemns them. His so called “Muslim” ban is not a ban on Muslims per se, but strictly on terrorists. Forty seven other Muslim countries are not banned. People from the seven countries are banned, if they have proven links to terror, irrespective of faith or race.
Recently Alt Right has merged with a number of other organisations, most notably Red Ice Creations and Spencer’s publication arm Arktos.
Red Ice appears to be something of a recruiter for the Alt Right, but in this it largely recruits from the conservative youth, or those who are “patriots” in the best sense. Many of these young people are Trump supporters with strong national values, opposed to open borders and globalisation and generally critical of Liberal Progressivism and the ideas of the Left. The presenters of Red Ice who invite them on the show appear not so much to be wanting to explain specific NPI issues, as much as quell any reservations and lead them with questions to certain broad positions in line with their own. Other than this, they counter criticism or arguments that might arise in the alternative media and popularise Alt Right generally with a chat room type atmosphere. Red Ice, then, generally creates a space to communicate and spread their ideas unopposed. Their chief concern with more ambivalent guests, not in the inner coterie, often focuses on trying to persuade young conservatives with some overlapping concerns that they are not “Neo Nazis”. The fact Red Ice has now joined with Spencer more formally suggests its presenters might in fact be more extreme than they present themselves. Alternatively, they might be being duped themselves, or just simply reflective of the Alt Right’s fairly broad church.
The worrying problem concerning the Alt Right is the subversive influence being exerted on the minds of the conservative youth, who ordinarily would be more constitutional and patriotic in their values. In this, there are any number of subverting influences. Many of these are racist, or avowedly anti-Semitic, whilst others also espouse more collectivist, statist, totalitarian ideologies.
The disingenuous use of labels particular the traditional ones of “Left” and “Right” in this are largely used to sway, but are increasingly irrelevant. Influences that have helped shape the movement have originated from both Communism, fascism, anarchism and National Socialism, and there is a great debate as whether these specific ideologies are actually of the Right or Left. Mindful of this, it is best to proceed impartially with a simple analysis of how these movements have influenced Alt Right. This will require showing clear links to these movements to determine this.
Whilst it disavows the “Neo Nazi” tag, Alt Right’s publication arm Arktos has clear connections to Aleksandr Dugin’s Neo-Eurasian movement. This has called for a “consistent fascist fascism” for countering the threat of “western liberalism”. Arktos has it claims:
“…established itself as the principal publisher in English of the writings of the European “New Right” school of political thought (including original translations of works by its luminaries Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye and Pierre Krebs). We have also issued the first translations into English of the prominent Russian geopolitical thinker Alexander Dugin, who has served as an adviser to Vladimir Putin, as well as several works by the noted Italian traditionalist philosopher, Julius Evola.”
This link with Dugin also became evident in 2014, when the think-tank, together with supporters of the Russian Dugin, co-sponsored a “pan-European” conference in Budapest; although the Hungarian government deported Spencer and denied Dugin a visa.
In this association, then, Dugin uses the Alt Right to spread his ideas in the West, whilst simultaneously the conservative youth are somewhat unwittingly being influenced by them as they are drawn to the “Alt Right”. They are drawn to it because Alt Right have claimed to be supporters of Trump, and in this Dugin has voiced strong support of Trump in turn. In one recent interview with Remi Tremblay however, Dugin notably asserted:
“Eurasianism works with different groups who are against liberalism, North American hegemony and Modernity as a whole. These groups can be right or left. It is most important to be against liberalism and Atlanticism. But Eurasianism is not nationalistic—it is a Fourth Political Theory, ideologically similar to the European New Right of Alain de Benoist.”
The influence of Neo-Eurasianism on the Alt Right
Although Dugin in the 1980s was a dissident and an anti-communist (by 1988 he had joined the nationalist group Pamyat) he yet helped to write the political programme for the newly refounded Communist Party of the Russian Federation under the leadership of Gennady Zyuganov.
Dugin was amongst the earliest members of the National Bolshevik Party (NBP) and convinced Eduard Limonov to enter the political arena in 1994. Some hard-line nationalist NBP members, supported by Dugin, split off to form the more ( so called) “right-wing”, anti-liberal, anti-Kasparov nationalist organisation, National Bolshevik Front. After breaking with Limonov, he became close to Yevgeny Primakov and later to Vladimir Putin‘s circle.
By 1997 his views had become crystallised more clearly in his article “Fascism – Borderless and Red”, where Dugin proclaimed the arrival in Russia of a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism”. In this Dugin claimed that it was:
“by no means the racist and chauvinist aspects of National Socialism that determined the nature of its ideology. The excesses of this ideology in Germany are a matter exclusively of the Germans. Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true change.”
Dugin soon began publishing his own journal, Elementy, which initially began by praising Franco-Belgian Jean-François Thiriart, a supporter of a Europe “from Dublin to Vladivostok”. Consistently glorifying both Tsarist and Stalinist Russia, Elementy also revealed Dugin’s admiration for Julius Evola and his ultra fascist, aristocratic views of racial superiority and political leadership. These ideas are summed up in an interview with Remi Tremblay called “Against Universalism”.
“We need to have some fully independent Great Spaces (Grossraum)—North American, South American, European, Islamic, African, Russian-Eurasian, Indian, Chinese and Oceanic—that could be allies or foes, depending on the concrete situation. We are totally against uni-polarity and North American hegemony, as well as a bipolar system. The strategically centralized poly-cultural hyper-state is called Empire. Empire should be strong first of all in its ideology, and that ideology cannot be loose or liberal. It should be strong and based on the new aristocracy or ideocracy (as Eurasianists used to say). So, not only an Emperor but also an imperial ideology of a strong idealistic type is needed to grant cohesion to the whole system. I presume that Orthodox Christianity, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Islam are of such types. But they need the spiritual revival. The tri-functional Indo-European model studied by G. Dumezil should be the main platform for the societies of Indo-European origin. The society should be created not from below but from above. The meaning of the State is its spiritual mission. The aristocracy should consist of “Platonic Guards,” philosopher-warriors, that grant unity to the different ethnic groups representing the supra-ethnic elites, as was always the case in historic Empires. But instead of one liberal, decadent North American financial Empire, there should be different Empires with different imperial visions. The Russian vision is obvious—it has its roots in our organic Orthodox tradition and Russian Eurasian Empire. I presume that the future of Europe lies in the restoration of the Charlemagne heritage and of the eschatological anticipation of the return of King Arthur. Possibly some would hope for the new Roman Empire professed by Virgil, who thought that Apollo would return and this time for eternity. “
Dugin disapproves of liberalism and the West, particularly in respect to American hegemony, which he views as a direct threat to Russia. It is this opposition which strengthens his claim to be a “conservative” and “nationalist” who seeks to preserve Russian culture, faith and civilisation from the western, primarily US liberal threat. In this, however, he makes no formal distinction between Constitutional America and its more national values to preserve its independence by minding its own business (primarily within its own borders) and the anti Constitutional, neo Conservative and Democratic corporate socialists, that have subverted the Constitution and held sway for so long. It is these political movements that have promoted unilateral and multilateral military excursions to promote US hegemony abroad, and in turn Liberal Progressivism via globalism. His critique of “Liberalism” in this, then, is generally too broad and he completely fails to distinguish between Classical Liberalism and Liberal Progressivism sufficiently. He often, as a consequence, speaks only of the “western” threat, or the “US” threat, without drawing subtler distinctions. Whilst he overtly claims to support Trump, who might tend to a more constitutional approach, it is notable also that he does not see the threat as dissipating in respect to Russia anytime soon.
Dugin’s proclaimed ideas on “conservativism” and “nationalism”, like his ideological forefathers, appear not to be concerned with the constitutional merits of limited government and individualism. They focus, rather, on the corrupting influence of US corporatism and the rather bourgeois globalism that could subvert Russia: its political, religious, social and cultural values. His universal opposition to “western liberalism”, however, is cast very much in terms of the threat it poses to Russian hegemony in turn, and this is suggestive not just of simply wanting to preserve its own nation and culture, but of Russian supremacism and empire building.
Dugin ‘s 4th political theory claims multipolarity and the right for all his newly formed “great spaces” to co-exist free from interference. However, the sincerity of this is very much open to question, and it appears very much to be on Russia’s own terms. He often even speaks of Eurasia as the “Russian Eurasian” space interchangeably. In respect to this too, he often quotes Mackinder’s theory of Heartland as a region the “Russian Eurasia” will govern. In Mackinder’s “Democratic Ideals and Reality (p.150) he asserts:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.”
Dugin has often quoted this in his work and in interviews and it is significant. It suggests a Russian Eurasian “empire” bent on world domination. Any power controlling the “World Island” would control the planet and well over 50% of the world’s resources. At the turn of the 19th century the Heartland’s size and central position made it the pivotal region to control the “World Island”. In 1904 the Russian Empire ruled most of the region from the Volga to Eastern Siberia for centuries and it held a clear advantage. It is clear Dugin wants to restore and achieve full control of this important region once more.
The conservation and preservation of Russian culture, which Dugin has claimed will largely oversee the political rule of Eurasia (a large space that reclaims old Soviet territory and might well include Poland and large parts of Eastern Europe) is largely considered to be preserved and defined by a government centric Russian state. This Russia centric, state centric approach, heavily influences the individual and the family in turn and their identity and culture is largely determined by it.
This perspective is, therefore, quite distinct from US constitutional values of limited government and its ideas of individualism, liberty and natural rights. Its views focus on the idea of rights originating from the government, not from “Nature’s God”.
His ideas, therefore, are very distinct from the more constitutionally based ideas of Classical Liberalism: the largely Christian values that informed US Constitutionalism, and which shaped the (paleo) conservativism that arose from it in turn. As he asserts:
“We, conservatives, want a strong, solid State, want order and healthy family, positive values, the reinforcing of the importance of religion and the Church in society. We want patriotic radio, TV, patriotic experts, patriotic clubs. We want the media that expresses national interests.”
This might seem innocuous enough, until one realises his assertions about what entails “patriotic” nationalism show that he still likes Stalin and the Soviet Union: “We are on the side of Stalin and the Soviet Union” he has claimed Иван Зуев (31 October 2012). Александр Дугин: Уроки религии – это великая победа над русофобами (in Russian). Nakanune.ru.
Nationalism for Dugin is, then, defined only in terms of what the government determines it should be. It is a political definition, more reflective of a Stalinist General Line programme determining culture and society. Liberty is not vouchsafed in the idea of natural rights and Nature’s God, nor in the idea of limited government, but determined by a state government that wields authoritarian power. He even offers (like Mussolini and other fascists of old) a political, state-centric notion of personal identity. This principle runs throughout his work, irrespective of the evolving ideas it might inform.
The influence of the European “New Right” on the Alt Right
The Alt Right’s other significant intersecting influence, which Dugin himself also often refers to, is the European New Right (ENR).
The ENR began in France in the late 1960s and then spread to other European countries as an initiative to rework fascist ideology, largely by appropriating elements from other political traditions—including what they termed “the Left”—to offer an alternative means of implementing human equality.
The ENR championed “biocultural diversity” against the homogenisation brought about by liberalism and globalism. They argued that true antiracism requires separating racial and ethnic groups to protect their unique cultures.
European “New Rightists” dissociated themselves from traditional fascism in various ways. In the wake of France’s defeat by anticolonial forces in Algeria, they advocated anti-imperialism. Thus, expansionism centred more on a federated “empire” of regionally based, ethnically homogeneous communities, rather than a big, centralised state spreading its influence. Furthermore, instead of organising a mass movement to seize state power in a coup, they advocated a “metapolitical” strategy that would gradually transform the political and intellectual culture. This was a precursor to transforming institutions and systems. This cultural incremental struggle was very much a Gramscian or “cultural Marxist” type approach.
The Neo Eurasian and New Right ideology might appear at loggerheads, rather as classical fascism’s big state authoritarianism and Neo-fascism’s decentralised polities are, but Dugin has worked to create a more consistent perspective in his evolving ideas of 4th Political theory that now combines elements of both. They intersect most obviously in the acknowledged influence of Julius Evola, Ernst Jünger and Carl Schmitt’s political writings.
ENR ideology began to get attention in the United States in the 1990s via paleo-conservativism, notably in its shared concerns about the problems of open borders, the negative effects of multiculturalism, and the dangers of globalism to nation state democracy. On other issues, the two movements tended to be at odds: European New Rightists were not simply ignorant, but openly hostile to Classical Liberalism, ideas of individualism and laissez faire capitalism, and many of them rejected Christianity entirely in favour of paganism, or more accurately Neo-Paganism.
The influence of anarchism on the Alt Right
National-Anarchism, which advocates a decentralised system of “tribal” enclaves, was propagated in the 1990s by Troy Southgate, an advocate of British Neo Nazism. Over the following years, National-Anarchist groups formed across Europe, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. The first U.S. affiliate, BANA, began in 2007, and Southgate formally launched the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) in 2010.
National-Anarchism is a White nationalist ideology. Like Identitarianism, it draws heavily on the ENR doctrine that ethnic and racial separatism is needed to defend so-called “bio-cultural diversity”. The N-AM Manifesto declares that race categories are basic biological facts, and some people are innately superior to others. National-Anarchists also repeat classic antisemitic conspiracy theories and, like many Neo Nazis, promote Neopaganism. But National-Anarchists reject classical fascism for its emphasis on strong nation-states, centralised dictatorship, and collaboration with big business. Instead, they call for breaking up society into self-governing tribal communities, so that different cultures, beliefs and practices can co-exist side by side.
As part of its project to bring together a range of dissident voices, AlternativeRight.com published articles by self-identified anarchists Andrew Yeoman of Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA) and Keith Preston of the website Attack the System (ATS). National-Anarchists have not had a significant presence in the Alternative Right since BANA disbanded in 2011, but self-described “anarcho-pluralist” Keith Preston has continued to participate in Alt Right forums: for example speaking at National Policy Institute conferences and on The Right Stuff podcasts.
Preston is a former anarchist of the Left, who then moved to the “Right” in the 1990s before founding the “American Revolutionary Vanguard”. This group gave birth to the Attack the System website. ATS brings together a number of movements: National-Anarchist, White nationalist and Neo-Eurasianist, but Preston’s own views are distinct from these.
Like the National-Anarchists, Preston advocates a decentralised, diverse network of self-governing communities. Authoritarian and supremacist systems would be fully compatible with the anarcho-pluralist model, as long as they operated on a small scale. But unlike National-Anarchists, Preston frames his decentralist ideal in terms of individual free choice, rather than tribalism, and he is not a White nationalist. He has echoed some racist ideas in his work, such as the claim that non-European immigrants threaten to destroy western civilisation, but his underlying philosophy is based on a Nietzschean “ubermensch” elitism that is not ethnically specific. While Preston himself is white, several of his closest colleagues in the Attack the System coterie are not.
Preston has offered several reasons for his involvement in the Alt Right. He sees the movement as an important counterweight to what he calls “totalitarian humanism”: i.e. state-enforced progressive values, or political correctness. He regards the Alt Right’s foreign policy of non-interventionism and economic nationalism as superior to what the Republican or Democratic parties advocate, and he shares again the Alt Right interest in those “critics of liberal capitalism and mass democracy” Evola, Schmitt and Jünger.
Preston’s approach to political strategy echoes third position fascists, who denounce both communism and capitalism. He and ATS call for a broad revolutionary alliance of all those who want to destroy U.S. “imperialism” and the federal government. Within U.S. borders, this would involve a “pan-secessionist” strategy uniting groups across the political spectrum that want to carve out self-governing enclaves free of federal government control. To achieve this, ATS supported a series of North American secessionist conventions to formulate a common strategy. This brought together representatives of the neo-Confederate group “League of the South”, the Reconstructionist-influenced “Christian Exodus”, the libertarian “Free State Project”, advocates of Hawaiian independence, the left-leaning “Second Vermont Republic”, and others.
Other fringe ethno-nationalist literary associations
AlternativeRight.com developed ties with a number of other White nationalist journals, which eventually became associated with the term “Alt Right”. These have included Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance, whose conferences attracted anti-Semites; The Occidental Quarterly and its online magazine, The Occidental Observer, currently edited by prominent antisemitic intellectual Kevin MacDonald; and Counter-Currents publishing, which was founded in 2010 to “create an intellectual movement in North America that is analogous to the European New Right” and “lay the intellectual groundwork for a white ethnostate in North America.”
Some conflicting concerns of the Alt Right
The mix of influences and ideas will most likely mean the Alt Right will splinter once its long awaited manifesto of principles is officially formulated. This will raise the issue of whether it will modify its ideas and work within established political channels in an attempt to preserve its popularity, or tread an increasingly esoteric and radical path. Presently Alt Right followers have been moving from one position to another. Richard Spencer, for example, argued in 2011 that “the GOP could unite a substantial majority of white voters by focusing its platform on immigration restriction.” This strategy:
“would ensure that future Americans inherit a country that resembles that of their ancestors.”
But two years later Spencer appeared to reject the Republican Party entirely and called for creating a separate White ethnostate in North America because:
“the majority of children born in the United States are non-White. Thus, from our perspective, any future immigration-restriction efforts are meaningless.”
Spencer also argued that simply “restoring the Constitution” in its truly originalist sense (going back to an aristocratic republic run by property-owning, slave owning Caucasians) as some White nationalists have advocated, would only lead to a similar situation, or worse. This is presumably because he opposes the assumption of the Declaration that there are such values as equality and this universal truth of what natural rights entails is “self evident”.
It is clear Spencer is confused about whether to work within or against the existing system. One approach has been to propose working within the system in order to weaken it, advocating changes that sound more mainstream, but require radical change. This is a version of the Trotskyist transitional demand strategy. Ted Sallis, for example, urged White nationalists to:
“demand a seat at the multicultural table, represented by real advocates of White interests, not grovelling patsies.”
This would require using the language of multiculturalism, as an example, to complain about “legitimate” cases of discrimination against Whites, or members of other dominant groups. The aim here would not be “reforming the System”, but “using the contradictions and weaknesses of the System against itself…”
The Alt Right offers a vision of the state that is both authoritarian and decentralist. It upholds classical fascism’s elitist, anti-democratic views on how society should be governed. At the same time, the Alt Right has a goal of breaking up the United States into ethnically separate polities, and simultaneously seeks to replace nation-states with a federated “empire”. The centralised authority of the empire controls the numerous ethnically determined regions, but rather appears to contrarily need to enforce a collective political identity as a consequence: this overrides cultural and national distinctions. This might well cause conflict with any specific ethnic values of what culture and society might entail. It is an inconsistency not satisfactorily addressed.
Basic philosophical problems of the Alt Right
The Alt Right philosophy has been summed up by Alfred W. Clark in Radix as an ideology that recognises human biodiversity; rejects universalism and wants to reverse Third World immigration into the West. Generally, Alt Right rejects free trade and free market ideology; opposes mainstream Christianity from a variety of religious perspectives, and generally (but not always) supports Donald Trump.
Lawrence Murray in his 2016 appraisal in The Right Stuff believes Alt Right ideology necessitates the acceptance of inequality of both individuals and populations as “a fact of life”, where “races and their national subdivisions exist and compete for resources, land and influence”. White people are being supposedly repressed in this and “must be allowed to take their own side”; men and women have separate roles and heterosexual monogamy is crucial for racial survival; “the franchise should be limited”, because universal democracy “gives power to the worst and shackles the fittest”. For Murray, “Jewish elites are opposed to our entire programme.” Whereas Clark is more ambivalent in some respects, noting that Alt Rightists disagree about the “Jewish question,” but generally agree “that Jews have disproportionately been involved in starting left-wing movements” over the last 150 years.
Clearly there are moral objections that can be readily identified as racist associated with the Alt Right, but some basic logisitical problems can be summarised in the ethno supremacist theory that underpins it.
Probably the unifying principle in the Alt Right is the desire for an all white state, but it is an ethnically determined New World Order which is difficult to actually implement. Besides a ban on immigrants of non white racial profiling, ethnic cleansing and mass deportation would be required of those non white and even mixed race citizens already settled for generations. In this, however, there appears only a very arbitrary idea of what is acceptable racial profiling. How for example are white Jews, or mixed races that appear to be white to be treated? How are different tribes to be determined within a nation itself, when bloodlines too are so intermixed?
Alt Right speaks of the need to preserve “White European” values. It considers these to be under threat via miscegenation, or just mass influx of non white aliens. This threat is identified as negatively impacting on the Whites in both Europe and North America, which is seen as the cultural and racial inheritor of Europe. Yet this notion appears to be very rooted in an “Anglo Saxon” idea of what the “White European” ideal should be. It does not, however, account sufficiently for what different “European” races or ethnicities themselves might entail (see Joseph Deniker) and on this there is no clear consensus. By extension, too little is made of a European influx into a particular European nation state itself causing cultural and ethnic or racial change: e.g. the influence of Slavs into Britain has begun to effect the national culture, as EU immigration has shown. It does not, therefore, account sufficiently for the European threat itself undermining specific national cultures within it. The argument is therefore inconsistent, even accepting the premise of their own argument.
Alt Right consistently maintains ethnic or racial identifiers determine national culture. If for example you replaced all the British in Britain with Pakistanis, it would no longer be British. But it is clear that the definition of what exactly constitutes ethno-national identity is too arbitrarily defined. It is defined either in increasingly broad geopolitical terms, or contrarily non political, racially specific terms, These cannot be clearly identified and tend to lead down a slippery slope of unending bigotry. It is either defined as German for the Germans, or Britain for the British, etc, when these nations were politically and not racially determined. Or it is defined as “White European”, which implies a mono-racial continental identity when it might not necessarily be so (see Joseph Deniker). More generally it is defined in national terms: e.g. as “British”, when this too is not necessarily homogenised, or even indicative of one national culture or race, or ethnicity, even historically speaking.
White Britain for example comprises of Scots, Welsh and English as a minimum, it also entails White British Jews. This is over and above the black British Asian or black British Afro Caribbeans settled for generations. These too also consider themselves “British”. This, then, raises problems in determining what precisely is “British”, if this political/national term is used within the context of a limited racial idea of identity.
It appears Alt Right have ideas of nationality based not simply on ethnicity or race, but one generally based on skin colour. But this determinant is often too simplistic and limited to an Aryan idea of whiteness. They speak of the European in these terms, but this raises a universalism – ethnic specificity clash of what kind of “whiteness” is entailed. They often speak of national identifiers to soothe the qualms of the patriot, but tend also to more broadly speak of continental identifiers that are not necessarily homogenous. They often speak of the European as representing a particular idea of what constitutes acceptable culture, but it is one that tends to favour an exclusively uniform idea of European ideas and values. This dichotomy also runs parallel with their conflicting ideas of a centralised and decentralised, authoritarian and non authoritarian political vision.
Much is made of racial “purity” in Alt Right’s vision of how to implement their political and ethno-national programme to preserve the “White race”, but what exactly determines its perimeters? If it is simply skin colour, this clearly overlooks cultural and national dissimilarities between white peoples themselves. For example the basic problems of Corpus Juris and Habeas Corpus practised by the British and the French. If these are to be retained as national polities, how are these to be integrated into a more centralised pan “European” white political authority that unites but supposedly determines the idea of the “White European”? Which interpretation and authority exactly is to be deemed acceptable if they have opposing value systems?
Often Alt Right speak of keeping Britain for the British, France for the French and Germany for the Germans, etc. Britain, however, is a political construct created in 1707. Previously it consisted of separate countries. It was initially identified as Britannia by the Romans who knew little of the warring tribes that comprised the land mass island itself. So too with Germania and even Palestine. But these Roman defined regions in modern terms too are and have been primarily politically defined, not simply racially determined. Germany wasn’t created politically until 1872. Palestine wasn’t created until 1920 under the jurisdiction of the British.
Logistical problems exist considering the various ethnicities that comprise even “White” Britishness. Indeed “purity” entails a shifting, prejudiced notion, when Britain itself from its inception consisted of a mixture of tribes: Angles, Britons, Saxon, Scots and Celt. The influence of the French Normans and Vikings was considerable too. As a consequence, smaller and smaller regions might need to be formed based on past alien influences: the Nordic or French Norman blood line influences on the “British” indigenous that could hardly be determined accurately, but might well be considered as foreign, placing the viability of the nation state itself under threat, and preventing the formation and functioning of even regionalised communities themselves. The ideal appears positively divisive, and an increasingly narrow and difficult vision to achieve. It logically entails a process of continual deconstruction, bordering on a nihilism even of the nation state and the local communities within it.
Alt Right believe if Whites cease to be a majority in the US, the character of the country too will change. Whiteness is not specifically defined, but appears to reference the English and French influence, as they were the prime movers in the founding of the US republic. As a consequence, however, even Italian and Irish immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries might well be deemed to have diminished the pure “White” values of the US.
Filling the US with Central Americans will make the US more like Central America they argue, and thus they seek to restore “purity”. “Purity” would then require a determination of who were the acceptable “whites”, suggestive of genocide of particular ethnic groups.
Even if this unpleasant, ill defined aim of “purity” was achieved, we should not necessarily expect that an all-white state would necessarily mean a return to more “conservative” or “nationalist” values as they are traditionally defined. This is particularly so if many of these whites were in fact socialists, progressives and liberals. White people have been conditioned for generations to oppose nationalism. Ethno nationalism and its associated values, therefore, could not be guaranteed simply by race, unless white socialists or white globalists were also purged. But this invites only the pogrom and the gulag as of old, even against those who are deemed “racially pure”, but who are nevertheless politically incorrect.
Ethnic cleansing would be required to kick start the Alt Right vision, but would most likely trigger civil and global war. Alt Right would need state secession for white regions to be formed, or the collapse of the United States completely. It would require ethnic cleansing, or mass deportation, which would trigger chaos and war on a global scale. Of course they want this, and work to initiate it in some of its circles, but it is clear that, even if they were formed, these regions could not be easily defined, or determined, or governed successfully without an overriding authoritarian power to organise their needs. Trade and cooperation would also be required, as there is no guarantee communities or polities could be self-sustaining. Ethnic mixing in this would be inevitable, precisely as it was in the early days of trade and commerce. A phenomenon that very much created and feeds the current progression they now oppose in the first place.
The realisation of their ideas is unlikely to happen in any case, particularly considering the US has a strong well armed “militia”: a well armed citizenry opposed to its values of separatism and segregation, consisting of many racial and ethnic mixes, a strong military and Police. A more likely scenario is that the US will evolve into a surveillance state, with strong border security to protect its citizens from the illegals, undocumented criminals and mostly Muslim terrorists that are currently being allowed into the country. Non of these measures would use unconstitutional racial profiling to implement the measures, but will be based on whether someone observes the rule of law and acts as a legal and model citizen. This is largely a case of honouring a contract, but adherence of subversives keen to break the rule of law for their own goals and aims could never be successfully guaranteed just because they are citizens. Eternal vigilance is therefore required.
Alt Right highlights problems and many conservatives might well sympathise when they are framed in a friendly way by Red Ice Radio’s attractive, intelligent presenters. Problems such as how the too speedy current immigrant influx shows a continued failure by the elected politicians to address the lack of assimilation, and the dangers of multiculturalism that this invites. Admittedly the problem of assimilation, even in a nation with a history of strong constitutional values, is now under strain, and social problems are becoming increasingly evident. Illegal immigration is rife too, and poor immigrants tend to engage in criminal activity. The Alt Right often highlights these problems correctly. However, in order to fully implement their objectives for a “White national” majority, a civil war and ethnic cleansing would certainly be required. The open border ethos, if it continues, will inevitably lead to enclaves, no go zones, social breakdown, civil strife and war anyway they complain. There are alternative strategies however, and these could be implemented in more measured terms. President Trump seeks to address all this far more sensibly.
A real and more “conservative” solution requires stronger borders, an emphasis on the values of national citizenship, irrespective of race, creed and colour, increased immigration control standards and more extreme vetting of terrorists generally from identified countries that pose a threat. This is the most prudent and, therefore, the most constitutional and best way to achieve “national survival”.
Trump clearly has the right balance and a traditional, more constitutional approach, that supports the idea of natural rights originating form Nature’s God. He is trying to implement the security measures necessary to protect the nation and the American people. He is deporting illegals and criminals who break the law. He is imposing extreme vetting on terrorists that pose a threat to law, order, security, peace and prosperity. He is tightening immigration requirements generally, so that professionals are encouraged, and less skilled workers are limited. These measures have nothing to do with race or faith. They are based on whether people can demonstrate their eligibility, whether they can fulfil the requirements of citizenship, and are prepared to be good citizens of a secular republic, based on following the rule of law.
In Britain, multiculturalism has led to cultural separatism, a loss of a national identity and a dissipation of Britishness in the traditional sense. This progression is a form of cultural nihilism and soft genocide too, but only in the more qualified sense, inasmuch as it invites change. All cultures and races have been subject to change however. Political authoritarianism in turn is no guarantor of survival: the Romans now no longer exist. Racial and cultural transformation is an inevitable phenomenon of life. It has characterised the rise and fall of empires and civilisations throughout recorded history.
Alt Right proposes stopping more races and ethnicities mixing with Whites in order to recapture a more preferable past, or produce a new classically influenced golden age empire of the future. This, however, cannot be achieved without the madness of ethnic cleansing, or genocide of non Whites that inhabit regions presently desired in turn. They might claim deportation is all that is required, but what if they refuse to leave? Mass immigration has ensured that the genie is already out of the bottle, it cannot simply be replaced.
The future on the present progression in Europe (unless prevented) will lead to a new racial demographic majority by the turn of the 22nd century. Mass importation of largely Middle Eastern and African blacks is already occurring. It is most likely being facilitated by open borders globalists in governments across Europe and the US sympathetic to the ideals of humanism. This is largely done also for political and economic reasons. In respect to Europe, the elite hope this influx will lead to a peaceful interbreeding into a new, assimilated, mixed European race. A new source of cheap labour might be the prime motivator, but cultural and social cohesion whatever the reason is being sacrificed.
Besides the racial component that invites change, the influx is largely Muslim. Islam is a religion not a race, but it invites social and cultural change nevertheless. As the majority influx are Muslim, and sharia and political Islam historically have sought either submission or dhimmitude of the indigenous non believers, not necessarily a peaceful coexistence, the future scenario does not bode well. Even if peaceful Islamisation occurs, any idea of Europe retaining its old values, its racial profiling, existing faiths and cultures, unaffected by all of this is highly unlikely. Assimilation of Islamic values into a homogenised European culture seems unlikely without Islam being reformed, due to the recalcitrant nature of sharia and Islam’s largely absolute, theocratic value system.
In this, Trump is demonstrating the correct approach, whilst not advocating Alt Right’s absurd proposals. This requires a truly conservative ethos and a proactive, brave approach. Paleo-conservativism in this isn’t to retreat or submit in the face of inevitable change: it is to preserve what is best about traditionalism, whilst being open to improvements and safeguarding the future. We need to preserve, but make the best of what we currently have created in order to strengthen our societies and our evolving civilisation. We should not simply seek to restore the past by seeking to destroy the current order. This is not what “conservativism” should be about. In this, then, “Constitutionalism” and the implementation of laws within its limitations create the bedrock of what civilised and humane government entails.
If conservativism is to continue to grow in popularity, the dangers of subversives using the terms “conservative” and “nationalist” have to be highlighted. The problem with the current wave of conservativism is most likely a number of 5th column movements associated within it that are seeking to channel the current popularism of the message in more radical, so called “new” and therefore supposedly more “relevant” directions. They do this by calling themselves “Alt Right”. This tendency unfortunately is already well established.
In this, the so called Alt Right movement more generally is taking many conservative nationalists and patriots and shifting them to Identitarian political issues that have in turn increasingly been taken over and subverted by fascists and anarchists (collectivists and statists) calling themselves “conservatives” and “nationalists” in turn. They use these terms in radically different ways, and in ways many young conservatives might not be fully aware of. The risk to the conservative youth as a consequence is that they may be unduly influenced and become anti Constitutionalists, anarchists, race haters, or political subversives. This poses a very real threat to the very fabric of any western nation, an aim they contrarily claim they primarily seek to preserve. The possibility of total immersion in these extreme ideologies through incremental brainwashing too is very real.
The good news might well be that the Alt Right is already at war with itself by virtue of its eclectic intellectual influences. The idea of decentralised ethnic regions is rather at loggerheads with ideas about pan Eurasian authoritarian empires. This in turn brings up questions of whether cultural identity will be preserved, or simply rebranded, based on political or racial determinants. It might well require both, but how are these to be identified and reconciled? Another related issue is the idea of culture being safeguarded by ethno nationalism, but which appears to be at loggerheads with the more universal ideas of what “White European” culture and “White western civilisation” supposedly entails. Philosophical problems abound within Alt Right, which may well trigger its demise, or prevent it from ever producing a consistent manifesto that its followers will collectively support in the future.
The more immediate danger, however, is that many decent conservatives are being duped by extremists. They do this by using false labels to promote their own more totalitarian and racist ideas in the intellectual space the popularist movement has created.
One example of this is Aleksandr Dugin, who has said in 2012 that he is a “nationalist”, whilst he also claims 4th Political theory avows nationalism. His support of Russian nationalism appears fairly clear however, but it is as a “former” national Bolshevik professing himself to be “on the side of Stalin” in which his definition of “nationalist” raises real concerns. His new 4th political theory claims to transcend these old definitions, but his Russian mind-set often means his theory is rooted in the old state-centric Soviet and Imperial Russian values nevertheless. Neither is it clear how Russian nationalism is to tolerate other nation states that might not want to be part of what the new Eurasian empire entails, nor how other non Russian races that are deemed less preferential to it are to be treated, as his statements have been rather contradictory in respect to this evolving theory. It is not one that provides any hope of peace and mutual cooperation if he does indeed favour the values of Stalin.
If one was charitable, one might see Dugin as simply a misguided intellectual, with a half baked academic theory of what is required to solve the problems posed by western liberalism. Confined to an ivory tower, he poses no threat, but the fact he has connections in the Kremlin makes the likelihood of political implementation and military confrontation a very real danger.
Some in the Alt Right have praised Dugin as a visionary. He is claimed to be someone who rightly criticises political correctness, and who champions the conservative and nationalist cause of the “Whites” and their need to preserve their unique cultures. It is usually best not to accept labels on face value however, but analyse the principles, as far as possible, free of value laden clichés. This is required, even if they are less readily accepted. Clearer examples of the contradictions then become more evident. In Dugin’s case, a simple series of contradictions can be provided that reveal his deceit, suggesting he cannot be trusted. They reveal him as a very dangerous extremist posing as someone more philanthropic, well meaning and moderate.
The broad contradictions are these. Dugin calls himself an Orthodox Christian, but elevates Heidegerrean nihilism and the superiority of “Eastern” religions over his own professed faith. He uses these preferences to formulate a philosophical response via his 4th Political theory, and it is this which largely determines what must occur in the military, geopolitical and cultural arena. His philosophical theory, however, does not simply favour nihilism and Eastern religions over Christianity, he actively seeks to destroy its basic principles in turn. In this, he supports an anti Logos (and therefore anti Christ) pro Chaos agenda. He justifies this to bring about a rebirth of mankind, but it is one effected by men, rather than by God. He even calls for the use of pre-emptive military action. A position in contradiction to Christ’s teaching in the Beatitudes. It is a goal that appears positively anti Christian in itself, but is justified to supposedly hasten the Armageddon or Apocalypse of the End Times. An event prophesised in the Bible. His objective, he claims, will usher in a supposed rebirth of civilisation, with the ontological and metaphysical resuscitation of mankind’s Being through the worship of Chaos. A goal which appears positively satanic in its aims, and which will inevitably require the death of the logo-centric civilisation that has been the foundation of western civilisation since the birth of the philosophical age in Ancient Greece.
Philosophical vagaries and contradictions aside, the practical implementation of his ideas are just plain dangerous, whatever one thinks of the intellectual rationale, as they justify pre-emptive war. He even considers cannibalism and genocide as justifiable in the midst of this battle to overcome the western threat! These aims are hardly the laudable values of an Orthodox Christian preaching the gospel of peace!
Dugin’s genuine fascist fascism claims not to be racist, but he has contrarily called for the massacre of Ukrainians because they are a:
“race of degenerates that has crawled out of the sewer. Genocide is in order.”
Views such as this led to him temporarily losing his academic post a few years ago, as he called for them to be massacred “without mercy”.
Similarly he has sought to pit blacks against whites, supporting blacks and other non white races, whilst yet contrarily supporting Alt Right ideas of “Whiteness”.
As he claimed in 2002:
“I am a supporter of blacks. White civilisation- its cultural values and false dehumanising model of the world, built by them- there were no benefits. Everything is leading to the start of anti White pogroms on a planetary scale. Russia is saved only by the fact that we are not pure White. Predatory multinational corporations, oppressing and suppressing everyone else, besides MTV gays and lesbians, this is the fruit of White civilisation, which it is necessary to get rid of. So I am for reds, yellows, greens [political Islam or Muslims?] and blacks, but not for Whites. I’m wholeheartedly on the side of the people of Zimbabwe.”
Clearly, then, this is a very dangerous divide and conquer strategy of global destruction. Any means is justified to stop the threat of “western liberalism”, without distinguishing sufficiently between its classical and progressive forms. It makes no distinction either between different ethnicities that might come under the rubric of the “White race”. It sees “Whites” only in their entirety as a danger. Yet it is prepared to recruit any anarchic and radical influence in turn, if it can hasten war and racial confrontation, by claiming it supports Alt Right values of preserving “Whiteness”.
In this, then, while Alt Right is indeed eclectic, it is always wise to analyse exactly whose ideas the spokespeople at the top actually promote. The use of the term “conservative” (which has been similarly exploited like the word “nationalist”) to harvest unwitting recruits, is a misnomer and disingenuously used. While Spencer himself might very well disavow its use to describe the Alt Right in any case, it is clear than many in the movement still strongly identify themselves as such, but would be horrified if they knew more fully of the subversive influences and extremist ideas being promoted with the false use of such terms.