An alternative right perspective of the Alternative-Right.
Readership: All
Theme: Political Shenanigans
Length: 1,400 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes
Mass Confusion about the Alt-Right
Under Identity Politics (2022-7-13), Oscar says,
“Tim Pool is “Alt-Right”? I am as confused as ever about the definition of “Alt-Right”.”
Yes, the confusion is intentional, from both the Left and the Right.
Rhe Left tries like mad to recast the Alt-Right as “White Suprәmac!sm” with all the connotations, hәll’s bells, and dog-whistles of a Naz! pogrom.
To wit,
“The Alternative Right, commonly known as the “alt-right,” is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization.”
A statement from the Southern Poverty Law Center
Even supposedly unbiased sources define the Alt-Right in terms of their stances on rac!sm and gender equality.
“(in the US) a right-wing ideological movement characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate provocative content, often expressing opposition to racial, religious, or gender equality.”
The Oxford Dictionary
Moreover, you won’t find a generous description of the Alt-Right online, due to shadow banning and leftist bias sheltered under the guise of PC-ness.
OTOH, Alt-Righters themselves won’t offer a concise description of the Alt-Right, because they refuse to be pigeonholed. The Alt-Right megaphone, Brett Stevens, wrote this.
“This brings us to the question: is the Alt-Right a movement, or a set of ideas?
Not all of the people above participate in [nor] organize Alt-Right organizations, nor do they attend demonstrations; they merely agree with its ideas. In my view, this is what makes the Alt-Right so dangerous to the mainstream: a few actors get out there on the internet or in the streets, and at home a much larger group are saying, “I’ve been waiting for someone to say this for a long time.”
As with most things conservative — because we do not have a single ideological idea, as does the Left — this audience translates into a big tent. Some agree with generalities and find certain specifics off-putting, and others agree with the totality except for some positions that they find alienating.”
Amerika (Brett Stevens): Has The Alt-Right Failed? (2018-10-17)
As you can imagine, this stance of being open to interpretation has a few pros and cons.
I’m not sure whether I would be identified as Alt-Right or not, but I do read Alt-Right articles periodically and I feel like I have a rough handle on the main attractive features of the Alt-Right, or at least what I personally find appealing about it. So since this is open to interpretation, here’s my own comprehensive interpretation of the Alt-Right.
What is the Alt-Right?
The current mass migration to the Right that is going on now as a cultural movement stretches worldwide (although some nations like Malaysia and Vietnam are lagging about 10 years behind and are still caught up in Feminism). This trend includes foreign nations of non-white ethnicities, but only Western entities use the Alt-Right branding. As such, the core values presented by the Alt-Right are not confined to the white race, and this is especially evident when we see multiracial coalitions being branded, however ironically, as “White Supremac!st” hate groups. The focus on the Alt-Right being exclusively about whites, white culture, hate, etc. is therefore a very biased, narrow, and ethnocentric concept of the Alt-Right.
More broadly, the grand majority of Alt-Right philosophies and values are more intensely concerned about cultural preservation, social capital (public trust and good will), sociopolitical efficacy and order, and the multigenerational security and welfare of one’s family and home community – values that any sane person would agree are important to the individual, to the culture, and to the nation. Reading between the lines reveals that Alt-Right personalities react strongly to anything that upsets these values, although they don’t always state this explicitly.
If I were to try to nail down the primary appeal (and the glorious aspects) of the Alt-Right, I would say that the metaphysical experiences that inspire the Alt-Right are commonly manifested in the humble comradery, In-Group loyalty, social identity, and societal stability that is found in ethnic consanguinity — a social order reminiscent of that portrayed in The Lord of the Rings.
What we observe in the Alt-Right is a collection of independent thinkers that have a strong conviction of these values. In this view, it is recognized that traditional (AKA “cis”) marriage, cultural homogeneity (i.e. ethnic, racial, language, and religious), as well as hierarchies of authority, are all strongly conducive to the beneficent ends of domestic bliss, homeland, and homestead.
But in the Woke West, Progressives see everything through the lenses of equality, gender, and race. In this view, all ante-Enlightenment values (including Biblical values) are summed up as anti-democratic, anti-PC, hateful, phobic, racist, sexist, and so on, and are therefore broadly censured, explicitly condemned, thoroughly rejected, and roundly scorned.
But outside of the Western progressive microcosm, all of the aforementioned values find appeal and continual endurance across many races and countries because most people of any race can immediately recognize these factors as a meaningful source of life and social vitality. For example, the Asian version of this set of values is called Filial Piety. Filial Piety is obviously Patriarchal and family/clan-centric in nature, and is largely accredited as the reason why Chinese society has endured for millennia.
In conclusion, I think the Alt-Right is not all about racism, etc. This is only propaganda that the PTB want sheeple to believe as a way to scare them away from discovering the ancient Truths of civilization. We should be wary of how they prioritize these narrow views to the point of being all-encompassing. We should also recognize that all the blame, shame, and fear tactics from the radical Left may very well originate from psychological projections and are thus indicative of an extremely poor willingness to establish social capital (and interracial harmony too). As Vox Day says, “Liberals always project.”
Blood is Thicker than Water
It just so happens that the majority of Alt-Right voices in a white majority culture are White and are therefore expressing the glorious joys of being as White as God made them. I think this should not be myopically interpreted as hatred towards non-whites, but rather a celebration of Anglo-Saxon culture.
It wouldn’t be surprising nor controversial at all if the majority of Talmudic philosophers were Jәwish and therefore defended the sovereignty of Israel in their writings. Likewise, if the majority of Confucian philosophers were Han and therefore espoused Han centrism. (The translated name of China, 中國, literally means “Central Kingdom”.) Also, I believe this multinational diversity is exactly what Vladimir Putin was referring to when he recently stressed the importance of having a multipolar world.
But if the majority of Alt-Right thinkers are White and therefore write from an Anglo-Saxon perspective, then we have a stellar meltdown! Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks on with bewildered consternation. “Why are (Progressive) Whites punishing themselves by denying their heritage?” When foreigners read about “White Guilt” in the MSM, they don’t know all the details of American history, so they think some whites are ashamed to be white. They immediately recognize this as a catastrophic crack in the culture.
It is unfortunate for the reputation of the Alt-Right that some of its proponents are starkly racist. Interracial hate need not be part of the basic equation of country, home, and family, but like the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s (both of which were white, mind you), violent conflict does happen. Intertribal conflict is as old as humanity itself, and this is not confined to strictly interracial conflict only. In fact, a survey of history reveals that contrasting religious beliefs are a more common source of conflict than racism.
This is one of the problems of the “Blood is thicker than water” ethical system espoused by the Alt-Right — something to be compared and contrasted against the problems of liberal democracy – one of which I’ll cover in the next post.
I will leave it to the reader to decide which social structure is closer to the Biblical ideal and therefore carries with it God’s blessings.
Related
For those readers who wish to purvey these articles, please ingest them with a grain of salt. Note the sources, beware of the respective biases, false impressions, and coded language, and have the mindset of adopting a wider frame.
- The Daily Beast: Why Young Men of Color Are Joining White-Supremacist Groups (2018-9-6)
- Amerika (Brett Stevens): Has The Alt-Right Failed? (2018-10-17)
- Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right: When Ethnic Minorities Vote For Right-Wing Populism (2020-1-14)
- The Washington Post: Black, Brown and extremist: Across the far-right spectrum, people of color play a more visible role (2021-5-16)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Pingback: Identity Politics | Σ Frame
How to know if you’re “Alt-Right.”
1) Are you a man?
2) Do you come from an at least relatively stable family?
3) Do you believe the same things about God, family and country your grandfathers believed?
If yes to all three, congratulations, you are Alt-Right.
LikeLiked by 6 people
New post re: biology. https://okrahead.wordpress.com/2022/07/13/are-you-a-biologist/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Blood is thicker than water, but faith is thicker than blood. There’s no Biblical commandment against marrying outside of ones ethnicity, but there are Biblical commandments against marrying outside the faith.
Rehab was a Canaanite, and Ruth was a Moabite, and they’re both ancestors of Jesus. Rehab married Caleb, and Ruth married Boaz. Ruth was King David’s grandmother.
That was allowed because they accepted the faith. Ruth told Naomi “your people will be my people and your God will be my God”, and even got a book of the Bible named after her (one of only two named for a woman). Rehab is eternally memorialized in the Hall of Faith (Hebrews 11).
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s not to say that faith eliminates the problems inherent to marrying outside of ones ethnicity, especially cultural conflicts.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I just realized that auto correct changed “Rahab” to “Rehab”.
LikeLike
Oscar,
Many Alt-Righters emphatically endorse racial “purity”, even to the point of shaming interracial relationships and ostracizing men who have non-white wives. This is one of the most controversial aspects of the Alt-Right that is non-Biblical in some respects, but totally Biblical in others. Let me explain a little bit.
I believe you are right that there is no Biblical prohibition against interracial marriage. In addition to Salmon and Rahab, and Boaz and Ruth, historians believe Moses’ wife Zipporah was either Black or Egyptian. On the other hand, Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 11:1-13:31 make a big deal about men marrying foreign wives, including God telling those men who had done so to “put your foreign wives and their children away” (viz. divorce them). It is also clear that the reason was because these wives were leading the men into idolatry, and since there were a large number of marriages like this, it posed a risk for the whole nation to fall into idolatry.
By juxtaposing all this information from the Bible and the analyses of the Alt-Right and drawing from my own experiences, I’ve concluded that if there are isolated cases of interracial marriage among people who have the same religion/faith, then there are fewer problems overall. But if large numbers of people of different races and especially different religions are interbreeding within a short time frame, then the culture will be rife with conflict and will soon die.
From a cultural perspective, we can see this happening when we compare different nations around the world. Countries that are homogenous in race and religion are the most stable. The U.S. appears to be the most successful in this experiment with multiculturalism. Malaysia has also been rather successful at being multicultural (roughly 60% Malay, 25% Chinese, and 15% Indian), but they have only accomplished this through defacto segregation (different school systems for different ethnicities, but all teach English as a shared language). Most other multiracial countries are rife with political turmoil. Look at what has happened in France, Sweden, and the U.K. due to unrestricted immigration. South Africa or any central American country are the worst examples of all.
From a genealogical / generational perspective, some Alt-Righters maintain that “trace admixture” taints a race and leads to problems on down the generations. I’m not sure about all their claims, but…
From a social perspective, I can plainly see that some children of mixed parentage are more intelligent and self-aware than the average, but they also have a much more difficult life, especially in terms of feeling secure in their cultural identity and their efficacy in socializing. It seems that some interracial children become successful superstars, while others can’t make the cut and become dysfunctional. The problems are extremely pronounced if the child grows up in a racially homogenous society, because everyone immediately thinks they’re an Out-Group. Lots of memes have been made about this.
I think we can agree that having a shared religion/faith is a more important factor than race. But I also think we pigeonhole ourselves by logically categorizing race as separate from faith. It would be better to look at individual couples in the context of their lives and decide whether race and religion are important factors or not for glorifying God. For example, what if we had told our wives, “I’m not going to marry you, because we are different races!” Or what if Scott had told Mychael, “I’m not going to marry you, because you’re not Orthodox!”? In these cases, having a shared race or religion was not a make-it-or-break-it factor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’d say it’s not religion, per se, but the social stability that comes from shared values. A woman who actually follows her man’s lead is no hindrance to his sense of mission. I’ve seen it before in good marriages; the woman has no particular interest either way, but is fully committed to her man’s lead. I believe that is the key to the requirement for the Returnees to divorce their pagan wives — those women were very committed to their pagan idolatry. They were nothing like Ruth.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jack,
Right. Salmon and Rahab, not Caleb and Rahab. Holy crap, I was having an off day.
Zipporah was a Midianite.
Exodus 2:16
16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters. And they came and drew water, and they filled the troughs to water their father’s flock. 17 Then the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.
……
21 Then Moses was content to live with the man, and he gave Zipporah his daughter to Moses.
……
Exodus 3:1
Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian….
The Midianites were descendants of Abraham by his second wife, Keturah.
Genesis 25:1-2
1 Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.
The African woman that Moses married was probably his second wife.
Numbers 12:1
Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman)
The Cushites (or Kushites) are a completely different people group, descendants of Noah’s son Ham.
Genesis 10:6
The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan.
The Kushites settled in what is now Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, etc.
The Israelites and Midianites were descendants of Noah’s son Shem.
Genesis 11:10 These are the records of the generations of Shem….
27 Now these are the records of the generations of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran became the father of Lot.
So, yeah, Moses married a black girl. And his siblings criticized him for it. And guess what God did to them for criticizing Moses?
Numbers 12:9 So the anger of the Lord burned against them and He departed. 10 But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous.
So, both Rahab, and Moses’ second wife were descendants of Ham, while Moses and Salmon were descendants of Shem. Totally different races, and yet God clearly approved.
Again, that doesn’t mean that cultural conflicts disappear. Those conflicts are easier to overcome if the people who get married are not too far removed. For example, I’m of German descent on my dad’s side. My last name is German. My wife is of German descent. That helped.
Unrestricted immigration is always a bad idea. It takes time for immigrants to assimilate to a new culture, if that’s even possible. Some cultures just don’t mix. If there are too many immigrants in one place, they have no incentive to assimilate. Go to El Paso, TX, for example. Spanish is more useful there than English. It’s basically a chunk of Mexico that just happens to be in the USA. That’s not good.
What about Singapore? I’ve never been there, but from what I understand, it’s pretty multi-ethnic. There’s also Switzerland and India.
Afghanistan is an example of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country that is horrendously dysfunctional (not due to immigration).
LikeLiked by 2 people
The only successful multiracial societies do have much more Authoritarian ruling styles and more prodigious use of Capital Punishment. As well as pretty strict immigration laws based on morality especially:
As is in evidence in Singapore. And its more likely those who share the same values are of the same Nation more often than not.
So because of values dissonance should pose a barrier to international marriage.
LikeLike
CatacombResident,
Since you mentioned shared values, let me say this please: Not every American has the same value or view about abortion. Since the United States is not founded on the Christian religion, it is bound that there are some religious groups that have nuanced views about abortion. I understand that several states have either banned or heavily restricted abortion.
Even now a Republican senator has blocked a bill that would protect women who want to have an abortion when they travel from a red state to a blue one for an abortion. Are any Republicans who happen to be Christians trying to force non-Christians to behave as Christians? Isn’t that similar to the Pharisees in Jesus’ day? Has not Jesus been harsh with them? Shall Jesus be harsh with us for similar reasons? The Founders and the Framers of this Constitution, a good deal of them had good views about Christianity and would oppose Christian Nationalism had they witnessed what is going on now. They were better students of history than many of us in my opinion.
I also abhor abortion. I think I abhor Christian Nationalism much worse.
Why? Has not Jesus said that this world is not his kingdom? Has not the First Amendment spoken about freedom of religion? It seems logical
that freedom of religion also includes nuanced views and values about abortion.
That is all for now. Thank you.
LikeLike
MLT,
You are speaking of values in a different context than CatacombResident.
He is saying that having shared values is more important to the success of a marriage than race or religion. I agree, and I would add that a man following his purpose in life and the woman’s submission is what makes it work.
You are saying that Christian Nationalism won’t work because Americans hold starkly conflicting values, and because government should not be used to enforce one set of values on others who don’t share those values. But in a democracy, the majority rules. If Christian Nationalism becomes a majority party, then we might expect harsher laws and penalties for various things, as you alluded to. If one holds the same values expressed by Christian Nationalism, then this might be a welcome change. But if not, then it would bring hell and condemnation en large.
Moreover, you are referring to one of the problems of democracy more than the problems of Christian Nationalism itself. This problem has been described succinctly as “the tyranny of the majority”. I’m going to cover this topic in a couple upcoming posts this month. So stay tuned.
The Alt-Right addresses the other problem of how people who share different values will always be in conflict. The Alt-Right concludes that the best and perhaps the only way to solve this problem is to have a homogenous society. It is a conclusion that is bluntly renounced by the Left because it is diametrically opposed to their sacred cow of diversity.
It’s true that Christ’s Kingdom is not an earthly political kingdom, yet we are instructed to be obedient to earthly authorities. So I suggest that the questions that Christians should be asking are these:
— Which system would be closer to God’s ideal?
— Which system can offer a greater grace, peace, and shalom for its citizens?
— Which system would allow men to obey God without disobeying earthly authorities?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Opposing murder is a Christian value. Are we forcing non-Christians to behave as Christians when we pass laws against murder? Does that make us Pharisees?
The abolitionists were Christians. Did they force non-Christians to behave as Christians when they abolished slavery? Did that make them Pharisees?
Should we allow “nuanced views and values about” slavery because of the 1st Amendment?
How about “nuanced views and values about” child sacrifice? Should we allow those because of the 1st Amendment? That’s what abortion is, after all, so why not allow it after birth?
Sorry, but that’s a ridiculous argument. Abortion is murder. Murder is evil. God ordained government to punish evil and reward good.
Every law is a legislation of morality. Every single one. There are no exceptions. We can either legislate a Godly morality that punishes evil and rewards good, or we can legislate an inverted, Satanic morality that punishes good and rewards evil. There are no neutral choices.
By the way, some governments “not founded on the Christian religion” get this at least partially right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The purpose of the bill is to make abortion appear to be normal, mainstream, accepted, and desirable. All of which would make it easier to market abortions to young women. This is the same strategy big tobacco had used to successfully market cigarettes to young women. They made cigarettes appear to be accepted, socially desirable and sophisticated. Remember the Virginia Slims ads?
The reality is no red state has passed any laws regarding restricting women from obtaining an abortion in a blue state. Rest assured, as soon as a red state passed such laws, they would be challenged in court as unconstitutional.
Thus, the Republicans are not trying to establish Christian Nationalism or force anyone to behave as a Christian, but rather are trying to prevent the Democrats from making misrepresentations about of social acceptance of abortion.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: Is Tim Pool Alt-Right? | Σ Frame