Concerns about the Alt-Right and Supremacist Ideology

[taraelizabeth21]

Hi everyone--

I understand that there are concerns regarding racism against white people in the press (for example this NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html which Stefan discussed in a recent podcast). As philosophical individuals, how do we respond to this mainstreaming of racism against white people? Do people like Richard Spencer and the Alt-Right have the correct idea? 

My hypothesis is that they do not. I believe that abandoning individualism and universalist principles for a collectivist vision of a racially homogeneous nation will contribute to racial tensions in this country and cause an escalation of hostilities between groups. I think we need to focus on ideas and not race. Looking for feedback on this, if anyone needs a primer/refresher on the Alt-Right here's a video that Gavin McInnes did a while back: 

 

[SnapSlav]

On 11/21/2017 at 4:23 PM, taraelizabeth21 said:

Do people like Richard Spencer and the Alt-Right have the correct idea? 

My hypothesis is that they do not. I believe that abandoning individualism and universalist principles for a collectivist vision of a racially homogeneous nation will contribute to racial tensions in this country and cause an escalation of hostilities between groups.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it asserts that a potential cause of increased racial tensions is the focus on the ethnostate. The reality is that racial tensions are already rising as a direct result of what's going on with the focus on leftist politics. A focus of "diversity is our strength", which is the absolute antithesis of promoting an ethnostate. Actually IMPLEMENTING an ethnostate will eliminate these racial tensions. But certainly, if the country suddenly decided to "purify" itself and become a white ethnostate, there would be roughly 100 million people being displaced and that would cause some "tensions", to say the least. But does that mean they have the wrong idea? Again, racially homogeneous countries stand as an example of peace rather than conflict.

The problem in their ideas is that there is something in-between points A and B, and many people will not like the transition. It's a question of how do you justify a preferable end when there's no optimal means to suggest to get to it.

 

On 11/21/2017 at 4:23 PM, taraelizabeth21 said:

I think we need to focus on ideas and not race.

This is kinda obvious, but sure, we should. The problem is that you're projecting a capacity to rationalize and think critically on the rest of the population, and most people lack this capacity. Smart people are the tiny minority, and confusing them for everyone else is going to lead to trouble. Most people WANT to focus on race, because they're inherently tribalistic and the most immediate example of "their tribe" is "their race" and that's where they will default. "If everyone could just stop this tribal way of thinking, we could eliminate all these racial tensions!" That's just socialist-utopianism all over again... pretending that human nature can be altered. Well, it can't. Utopia is impossible, so don't even dare to attempt it. It will only result in the worst of atrocities.

Instead, try to come up with solutions that can actually be executed within the limits of human nature, because those are our only options. The Alt-Right is at least doing that much.

I'd say we just need to culturally reinforce the value of Free Speech, so the Alt-Right can continue spreading its message, and people can respond to their message with their own messages. The disagreements can be hashed out with weapons, or with words. I prefer words. We'll figure out the "right" solution somehow only if that's what we do.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Well, this is a topic I regularly debate with myself and others because it is so fundamental with my self-called prophecies of doom and why I am almost certain I will jump ship for Russia...

...Take the wisdom and musings of a 19 year old with a grain of salt, as always. 

Let's look at it from an "Ends" perspective; what works?

Well, ethnostates and empires that do not discriminate and also self-segregate work. Racism is an unavoidable fact of life and it appears only European races (as a demographic--I know there are exceptions like the wonderful black guy that regularly calls in but I'm going to speak in broad terms and assume you all realize I am speaking of rules, which are important because in the long run the rule makes the society) are capable of overcoming racism and basing their tribal identity on values rather than blood. Historically White folks weren't really racist after the advent of Christianity because we slowly evolved to favor people based on shared values and morality over bone structure or visible racial differences. See Saint Maurice as a YUGE example of how not racist White folks have been since the 12th century (at least!). Suffice it to say it's not really in our nature to put blood over spirit unless we are being discriminated against or embittered.

I think there are two ways to cure racism: changing the national mindset to value values over race, or to let bygones be bygones and let the races self-segregate in large numbers. Think America (till 1950) for the former and Russia for the latter. Two multiethnic societies that made it work because the people coming to America had to assimilate to survive while in Russia people flocked/were born at their respective ethnostates and largely let bygones be bygones (with their unique brand of Islam certainly helping in Tatarstan).

However there are two problems (at least): America no longer has values, and even when it did Blacks largely considered their race a more significant identifier than the Whites (whom also were fairly ethnically centric but this diluted over generations whereas Blacks didn't). Therefore Christianity and Classical Liberalism only work with White races, as only White folks can be convinced to surrender their ethnic heritage in favor of a new national and cultural one. 

The latter problem is that for America to be divided into ethnostates, a civil war must necessarily ensue, and the result would most likely be far bloodier than intended. In fact I'd bet once the guns start blazing it'll be warlords who reign supreme.

But if we don't ease racial tensions (as well as ideological tensions) civil war will be inevitable. Forget Europe where they are pretty much guaranteed a Second Dark Age and a half-century similar to what the Arabs and Persians are suffering (i.e. ethnic/religious internecine fighting and foreign intervention propping it up forever). They can't peacefully resolve their problems anymore since the smart and woke are much fewer than the head-in-sanders and anti-Euros. America however does have a fighting chance if the legal system can be respected again, if the government can purify itself, and if the various races can be somehow made into values-over-blood types. 

However still, I am extremely skeptical about America averting civil war and therefore am sympathetic to the socialist Alt-Left (they aren't ALt-Right--we are, as individualists, capitalists, and Christians/moral atheists). because they understand fundamentally how unsustainable the current system is and how likely to the point inevitable how bloody ethnic cleansing wars in the image of the founding and fall of Yugoslavia with the scale of America and Europe is, and how terrible it'll be because our ancestors decided to make us inherit their conceited dream of White patronage of the world and the boomers their suicidal r-selected ambition of trying to assimilate the world into us at the cost of us existing.  

Yet in spite of my conceding the inevitability of civil war, I do not support the Spencer types or the Alt-Left because I do not think the West is worth fighting for if the end-result is status quo ante bellum (like the Alt-Lite want in many ways) or Communism/Fascism (which is what the Left wants and will get if the Alt-Lite or Alt-Right aren't victorious). 

Therefore my advice is to act is if the West is doomed and prepare accordingly. Some pockets of the West may remain integral, but are you willing to pick up a rifle to bring back the early 2000's or 2010's America/Europe or a dystopian dictatorship? I'm not. Forget that crap. I don't think our types have a chance in winning unless a Pinochet appears among the warlords, and if he does, he still has a difficult struggle ahead of him that necessitates the question "is America/Europe worth it? What has America/Europe done for me?"

And my answer is "worse than nothing, therefore forget you".

And my advice to those thinking similarly to me is to emigrate. Find a different country, one that has our desired ends more closely realized and/or has a shot at living prosperously for the next hundred years. A great example is Russia. I strongly recommend learning Russian and emigrating before they decide they've had enough Westies and build a wall. Another option might be some of the other Eastern European countries, or the Oriental countries if you're willing to sacrifice your race in entirety to assimilate into a different one.

Not easy decisions to consider let alone make, but I strongly consider ditching the mess because otherwise you'll be forced to fight (physically not verbally) for someone you probably would rather shoot than defend. I don't love modern America nor modern Europe. I love who they used to be and their ideal selves, but not who they are. They screwed up my life and generation and I am climbing an uphill battle just to fix that and make myself a respectable man. I don't intend to stick around once I am financially strong enough to get out. Russia is the new America; it's the land of opportunities and land of Christianity. It has its flaws, but they aren't anywhere as bad as the West's (which is anti-male, r-selected, pathologically altruistic, atheist, fascistic, communistic, self-entitled, welfare centric, warmongering, etc.). 

Not to mention even without a civil war we will be outbred and outvoted, and once we are, we will be hounded and exterminated like the Jews. Learn from the Jews folks, they are the smartest people in the world for a reason!

I would much rather fight for Black Christians than White atheists; however I know how it goes over time, South Africa being a huge red flag. But I'd rather go extinct than live among a race of evil, immoral, degenerate people. Either we are Christian/moral atheists or we are not at all. That's my current attitude (as someone who values morality over race). 

Again, I'm a far-sighted 19 year old basing his decisions and prophecies on the premise that things are only going to get worse--either within the next 50 years when my race is outvoted in its own country and becomes like the Afrikaners of South Africa, or like the Roman Empire a slowly rotting husk over 100-200 years. I am also a White male, which means I have a huge grudge against the older generations and the establishment and therefore want it gone not preserved or only slightly reformed. Therefore again I have a strong bias and therefore have to be take with a grain of salt.

But I have yet to hear any satisfactory arguments contradicting me. I dare anyone to try. I want someone to try. But until someone does I'm ready to abdicate my citizenship for a Russian one and let the Tsar do with me as he wills because I trust His mafia over my existing mafia. Also Russian people are quite nice compared to Americans. 

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim
Clarification edits and some typos

[lorry]

Why do we need values?

[barn]

On 11/22/2017 at 1:23 AM, taraelizabeth21 said:

As philosophical individuals, how do we respond to this mainstreaming of racism against white people?

Hello,

I'm gonna be frank and say... your post seems like 'fishing'. (I can be wrong, not afraid to withdraw or apologise but it has to be in line with

reason & evidence)

It's all optional, feel free to unwind the yet-hidden-thought-process of yours if you wish with other than catchy slogans(this one instance I am not just making personal assertions, you are broad in your wording, both the intro and reasoning - I'll put examples below).

I'd be interested to know why would you want to ask(Isn't what people with a functional brain do good enough? Are you in possession of some great arguments?... many more) , given that 'philosophical individuals' probably treat issues with reason & evidence. I certainly hope so.

[philosophy is for prevention by the way, not coercion or survival under duress - Are you suggesting there had been a greater prevention, you think that'd be better due to reason X?].

On 11/22/2017 at 1:23 AM, taraelizabeth21 said:

I think we need to focus on ideas and not race.

Please, provide an example. I know what I think in connection with what you'd referenced, but there's no marker as to why those mentioned would be intriguing to you. Just a 'negative'.

On 11/22/2017 at 1:23 AM, taraelizabeth21 said:

have the correct idea? 

My hypothesis is that they do not.

I am asking because I have no point of comparison, reference, indicator due to the word 'idea' is... well, I'm sure we both agree can mean quite a few things.

i.e.: 'common sense', 'values', 'vision'... they stand pretty straight but up close you realise... bland as an English sausage, don't they?!

On 11/22/2017 at 1:23 AM, taraelizabeth21 said:

. I believe that abandoning individualism and universalist principles for a collectivist vision of a racially homogeneous nation will contribute to racial tensions in this country and cause an escalation of hostilities between groups.

Sorry... this is a negative statement. yet again. You're saying 'what's bad' but there's no mention of 'what's better' or why it would be worth to be better.

What are your standards?

Why would you want to get in the way of life as it is now?

Maybe, probably... I hope not, the only person who is NOT seeing you in your post is me?!

I dunno.

Hope I helped.

Take it with a pinch of salt :-)

Barnsley

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by barn
grammar, spelling, extra spaces