For those of you wondering why I’m writing anothercolumn about the alt-right, the reason is simple: Every time I do, people comment to explain why I’m wrong. Those people, some of whom I used to know, are starting to buy what the alt-right is peddling. Some of them are brazen enough to inform me that I, as an active social conservative, should be “smart enough” to realize that “the Jews,” whom they somehow believe to be a homogenous and monolithic group, are responsible for all of the evils Western civilization faces. One of these people even wrote that Richard Spencer had “opened his eyes.”
For those of you who are fortunate enough not to have heard of him, Richard Spencer is the neo-Nazi who runs AltRight.com and has been attempting to hijack the conservative movement by cheerleading Donald Trump while promoting the same weird racial theories that gave rise to the Third Reich. He showed up uninvited at the Conservative Political Action Conference, palled around with Milo Yiannopoulos before Milo’s comments excusing man-boy sexual relationships (which were apparently too much for even him), and recently released a video bemoaning the treatment of The Blaze’s Tomi Lahren, the supposedly courageous commentator who conveniently chose The View to do an about-face on abortion.
In the video, Spencer mused that Lahren might be the alt-right’s “hope,” since many conservatives have turned on her over the abortion issue—and, he couldn’t help but point out, she was blond. Spencer then launched into a monologue on abortion, which should forever silence those conservatives who feel the bizarre temptation to flirt with the alt-right and smash the asinine idea that any compatibility exists between these two ideologies:
I think that some people who are…in the alt-right want to believe that the anti-abortion crusade is just inherently traditionalist, that it is about making women take responsibility for their children, that it’s going to make women become mothers whether they like it or not…I am a bit sceptical of this view that abortion would have inherently traditionalist consequences. I think when we think about abortion we often think about these careerist women who otherwise would be part of families but are instead having abortion out of pure selfishness and greed. The fact is that it isn’t like that. Those highly intelligent career women will have abortions on occasion, but to be honest they’re using contraception and they’re avoiding pregnancy, is what they’re doing…The people who are having abortions are generally very often black or Hispanic or [people] from very poor circumstances, to be honest.
In case you missed it, Spencer can’t be opposed to abortion in all circumstances because he quite likes the idea that a lot of African Americans and Hispanics are having abortions. This is a common idea on the alt-right—Alymer Fisher wrote a long column warning his fellow alt-righters against succumbing to “the pro-life temptation” for precisely this reason. It’s not families we care about, he warned—it’s white families. Back to Spencer:
And so the anti-abortion crusade becomes this ‘human rights’ crusade. And if you look at the writing of people like Ramesh Ponnuru (of National Review) it is directly associated with this…that every being that is human has a right to life and so on. Well that’s not how we think as identitarians, to be honest. You are part of a community, you’re part of a family, you’re part of a collective. You do not have some human right, some abstract thing give to you by God or by the world or something like that. You’re part of a community and that’s where you gain your meaning or your rights. The anti-abortion crusade is often associated with family, the traditional family, but to be honest it’s descended into not just a human rights dogma but a kind of dysgenic “we are the world” dogma.
If it weren’t all so grotesque, it might actually be funny that hardcore far-right kids are getting sucked into the alt-right, considering that Spencer’s trash theory simply replaces Marx’s utopian collective with a racial collective. Communists gave us the gulags and fascists gave us the concentration camps, with plenty of overlap. Richard Spencer has handily highlighted one of the most overlooked aspects of alt-right ideology: In their view, you have no rights. Human rights don’t exist. God doesn’t, either, for that matter. (Dysgenic, by the way, refers to promulgating undesirable traits by allowing “lesser specimens” to reproduce, in case you weren’t clear on what Spencer’s opinion of non-white people was.) Spencer goes on:
The most popular propaganda line for the pro-life movement is about “black genocide,” how this is “destroying black communities” and indeed is a racist plot by Margaret Sanger and so on. This gets to something that I think is a bigger point, and that is that the alt-right or identitarians, we can’t think about these issues in this kind of good or evil binary. We actually have to think about an issue like abortion…in a complicated manner, something that that issue deserves. Lothrop Stoddard talked about contraception, not so much abortion but contraception, as a potentially world-changing—for the good—technology, or something that could change the world for the worse. In a way he was absolutely right and I think contraception has to a large degree changed the world for the worse. Intelligent people will engage in family planning because they naturally have long time horizons, they think ahead. They aren’t just going to go run and have sex with someone without a condom and get them pregnant and so on…In a way, contraception has been terribly dysgenic in the sense that it is only the smart people that really use it. Smart people are not using abortion as birth control. Smart people are using abortion when you have a situation like Down Syndrome or you have a situation where the health of the mother is at risk. I would say that it is the unintelligent and blacks and Hispanics who use abortion as birth control, as a kind of late-term birth control
Lothrop Stoddard, in case you were wondering, is a long-dead eugenicist and Klansman who felt that “coloured people” posed a danger to “white civilization,” and is now resurrected so that neo-Nazis like Spencer can fangirl him. When Spencer does have a problem with abortion, as with contraception, it’s only because the wrong people are using it. White people, apparently, are so smart they’re not replacing their own population, which is of great concern to those obsessed with the promulgation of certain pigmentations. Spencer warns that this is doing great harm to the “white race”:
We need to recognize this potential for both good and evil or good and bad within contraception itself, that this is something that can be a great boon for our people, for our race, or it can be a great detriment. Contraception has been a great detriment because precisely the people who shouldn’t be using it are using it. We want smart people to have more children. I sometimes want smart people to be a little more reckless. Don’t plan. Don’t use a condom. What I’m saying basically is the abortion issue is just a much more complicated issue than this kind of “good or evil” binary that the pro-life movement and the Christian movement want to use. We need to be more adult than they are.
I just want to point out, for the second time, that the alt-right is incompatible with Christianity. You don’t even have to take my word for it, take Spencer’s. He finishes off his little rant with a welcome repudiation of the pro-life movement:
We should recognize that the pro-life movement—this is not the alt-right, this has nothing in common with identitarians, and I think we should be genuinely suspicious of people who think in terms of human rights and who are interested in adopting African children and bringing them to this country and who get caught up on this issue. We want to be a movement about families, about life in a deep sense, not just “rights” but truly great life, and greatness, and beautiful, flourishing, productive families. We want to be eugenic in the deepest sense of the word. Pro-lifers want to be radically dysgenic, egalitarian, multi-racial human rights thumpers—and they’re not us.
Amen to that—we most certainly are not. Spencer’s little rant is valuable, because it is brutally honest. Those who adopt children of a different race are race traitors. Those who believe in human rights cannot be part of the alt-right because some humans will have to be sacrificed for the good of the white collective. And just as in Nazi Germany, not even all white children will be safe, because the alt-right believes in eugenics—as Spencer mentioned earlier, smart people abort children with Down Syndrome. What Spencer has just described here is basically the Nazi idea of an Aryan super-race. It’s hard to accuse someone of being a Nazi when they own the title so thoroughly.
I hope this reveals, yet again, why conservatives can find no common ground with the alt-right. I hope this explains why I find it so reprehensible and disgusting that commentators like Gavin McInnes are willing to give Richard Spencer a platform—and multiple times, too. Conservatism is going through a time of upheaval, and we have to be extraordinarily vigilant. The alt-right is attempting to infiltrate the mainstream, using people like McInnes, and Milo, and others. If they manage to do it, conservatism is going to need chemotherapy.
42 thoughts on “This is the alt-right: Richard Spencer’s horrifying abortion rant”
A.N.H. says:
Thank you for boldly proclaiming to the conservative population, namely the Christian conservatives, the wicked core within the alt-right. As a fellow Christian, deeply pro-life and also conservative, I steer far from anything alt-right like, which means that I may actually miss the great depth of evil within the ideology and be unprepared to defend the truth in conversation. I recall defending the truth as a teenager to a man I would now describe as part of the alt-right. I stubbornly held to Biblical principles I knew, but I was unprepared to stand agaInst his ideas and logic in any specific way. So I held fast, but could not convince him of anything. The onlookers laughed at me. I appreciate your voice to conservatives. You are helping prepare young people like me. Thank you!
How evil for white people to take their own side! How evil for white people to not believe in Hebrew babble! How evil for white people to look after other white families! I can’t even!
“How evil for white people to take their own side! How evil for white people to not believe in Hebrew babble! How evil for white people to look after other white families! I can’t even!”
If “race rights” are superior to individual rights, individual rights would have to stand back, if the protection of the “race rights” makes it necessary.
For example, if the government concluded, that the “race rights” of the “race A” the government is endangered by another “race B” that seems to follow a pattern of trying to control the “race A” by inflitrating important positions inside the society of “race A”, then the government would be justified to do the following things in order, which each next step being legally justified, if the previous seemed not sufficient:
– spy on “race B” members
– remove “race B” members from influential positions
– confiscate property; limit their economic/professional activity
– expel them from the country
– imprinson them
– kill them.
Everything legal, cause the supposedly endangered “race rights” of “race A” are of greater importance than the individual rights of the B members negatively effected.
I do not know, whether you might deny the holocaust; but i hope you understand that if the holocaust happened, it is starting from a ideology considering “race rights” to be supreme, absolutely not suprising.
Especially, if you consider the following possible confounding factor:
The government just errs about “race B” endangering “race A” and causing problems for A.
What will then happen?
The first “mild” steps will not reduce the problems, cause “race B” does not cause them; hence, the government will take more serious steps; which again will not help; and so on; all the way to Ausschwitz.
(And no, that does not mean, that making an ethnic a minority by illegal immigration encouraged by those sworn to stop illegal immigration is anything buy criminal; it’s just a wrong does not always make another wrong right)
I’m simply stating a view, that a multi-racial society is not viable. But the issue is, I shouldn’t be shamed about having to take my own side,or protect my child’s future with all of the “white privilege” propaganda poisoning his mind. Being taught “tolerance” while being bullied in school because of slavery. And for you to bring up Jews being forced to labor camps because they boycotted German goods, is pathetic.
“I’m simply stating a view, that a multi-racial society is not viable.”
Even if it would be true, that is no justification for abondoning or diminishing human rights.
The right course of action – if that would be true – would be to acknowledge, that while human rights are equal independent of culture or ethnic, that unfortunately the cultures/ethnics in a certain area/country must not be too divergent as otherwise breakdown of public order is the expectable longterm result.
As this would include very serious violation/infringement of human rights, in seriousness far beyond the comparably rather mild infringement by the government trying to control/steer immigration towards having mostly culturally/ethinically compatible immigrants, the government is justified to regulate immigration – including admission of refugees to some extent – such that the negative longterm result is avoided.
And even in case you argue, that a certain government in question is so staffed with braindead idiots, who are unable to process the argument without crying “Nazis”, that the government is independent of elected party incapable of regulate immigration in such way, this does not justify diminishing human rights. If only justifies laws like “Till we have all these idiots out of government, which is to be evaluated yearly by a commission consisting of …, all immigration is completely halted unless as specified in the following: …”
Such a drastic incompetent government unable to enforce immigration laws such that the potential horrible outcome is avoided might justify such a step, even if the step would include some discrimination, as discrimination to avoid public breakdown can be justified.
But dropping human rights is never justified. Just never.
name says:
Thank you for opening my eyes.
Not that i was realy in for the alt-right; but i was just sceptical, whether its just hyperbole to call them Nazis.
But i read large part of “Mein Kampf” and this:
“that every being that is human has a right to life and so on. Well that’s not how we think as identitarians, to be honest. You are part of a community, you’re part of a family, you’re part of a collective. You do not have some human right, some abstract thing given to you by God or by the world or something like that. You’re part of a community and that’s where you gain your meaning or your rights.”
is not reminiscent of Hitler’s thoughts, it is Hitler’s thoughts.
Put that passage in “Mein Kampf” and nobody would have the slightest chance to detect from context, that it is inserted and not originally from Hitler.
Hitler also believed first in rights of what could be called ethinic or racial groups and human rights were subordinate to these group rights; exactly as Spencer also seems to do.
Between a strong alt-right of that type and the left, ProLife would be between a rock and a hard place.
What good are human rights, without first ensuring your own groups survival? How can a distinct human group, with a distinct culture, traditions and history possibly survive, without putting at least some uncompromising barriers around race?
Nothing in human rights excludes ensuring your own groups survival. That is only a stupid leftist interpretation.
Think about it, the human rights declaration of 1948 was thought up after WW2; the people doing the thinking were a bit unhappy about all the slaughter done by the Nazis, also about their slaughter vs specific ethincs/groups.
In the same year practically the same people decided to declare genocide, so the intentional extermination of a specific ethnic/group to be one of the or maybe the worst crime.
Hence, it would be completely unreasonable to assume, that those 1948 declaration completely excludes that one is allowed to protect the own group/ethnic vs extinction.
One just should do it with the human rights of the people potentially dangerous to the own group survival in mind; and that means, one has to use at least the mildest measure; and one should be espacially careful if the one endangering the own group individually are not aware about this, so acting without guilt; and also especially if the threat to the own group is rather vague and therefore the chance for error is not neglible.
Again, what do human rights mean, if we do not protect our group? If that one group does not have exclusive land for their own? Any ideals you might have, mean nothing if you don’t exist. And to constantly bring up the nazis is a pathetic argument. Jews were put into labor camps, they were not systematically exterminated. The holomodor was genocide, but no mention of that of course. No mention the u.s turned half of Europe to communist butchers who raped and murdered millions. No, it’s more those evil nazis! Tell me, name one thing positively the world gained saving communism from fascism? ONE!
Human rights are impossible to protect, without first preserving a modern civilization. Multi-racial societies are not made up of different individuals, but different groups. Millions and millions of different people, fighting for land, resources and advancement, under the same government? This egalitarian utopia is simply not possible. All it ensures is a world with no distinct people, lands, traditions, even history. Why would you want that? Where is the “human rights” for those who can create and sustain? Where do they fit within this moral imperative you have presented?
“Human rights are impossible to protect, without first preserving a modern civilization.”
Correct.
But human rights mean, that the preserving of a modern civilization should be done while at best not violating human rights or at least try to keep the violation minimal.
E.g. if groups E, I and J exist and experience shows that group I mixed with either E or J leads to chaos, but mixing E with J works mostly fine, just as E or J all by themselves; I on the other hand is even problematic even if by themselves; then a predominant E country attempting to avert the chaos has no justification to limit the rights of members of J; cause its no problem, if their numbers increase; but they might have justification to do something about I.
That is compatible to some extent with human rights, cause chaos must be averted so that continued protection of human rights is possible.
In your worldview on the other hand, the goverment could also act against J on the basis, that E must have their own turf even although sharing with J works fine. So the rights of J members get limited although it is not necessary to avert any danger; they just get limited due to the group E having rights superseding individual rights; group J gets targeted although there is no good reason to do so.
(And if that is too abstract, take E as European, I as Islamic and J as Japanese; mixing Japanese with Europeans seems to work mostly fine; mixing with Islamic seems to be problematic often).
“No mention the u.s turned half of Europe to communist butchers who raped and murdered millions. No, it’s more those evil nazis! Tell me, name one thing positively the world gained saving communism from fascism? ONE!”
Communism being evil or even being more evil than Nazism does not make Nazism good.
Communism also disregards human rights; on the face only the right to property, but the others are guarenteed to follow just like the thumb follows the falling of a rock being dropped.
Ty says:
You are merely a collectivist-statist, at the core no different from any Marxist in denying the primacy of the individual. You believe so strongly that grouping together with people who look like you will keep the big bad world from making life difficult for you, or at the very least you will all be able to blame the people that don’t look like you when it does. Your fear of standing tall and claiming your own agency as an individual is sad and pathetic.
I was replying to “Dean”, whose irrational ideology appears to be in lockstep with the subject of your article. No, your Christian perspective I agree with. Good article, I came here via ‘Liberty Memes’ Facebook post.
Tying of opposition to abortion to opposition to human rights and “racism” continues to ignore a major problem. If abortion is innately tied to racism… why are the states where Jim Crow was practiced typically more pro-life, and the New England states that were at the center of the abolition movement, and have forever hounded their Southern neighbors over being racist, the most rabidly pro-abortion? The South has a long tradition of questioning egalitarianism, yet something in their culture makes them very receptive to pro-life views.
If Hitler had such sensible thoughts, maybe it’s time you reopened his book and see how his ideas might apply today. His analysis of the political situation in the polyglot empire Austria-Hungary fits the United States like a shoe. Only he WOULD have deleted the “by God” part. He wasn’t an orthodox Christian by the time he wrote Mein Kampf, but God according to a more transcendant, fatalistic understanding continued to play a role in his political philosophy throughout his life.
This is the insanity again of the alt-right position. You cannot possibly advocate for the strength of Hitler’s ideas without endorsing or at least dismissing the orgy of murder and genocide that proceeded directly from them–not only 6 million Jews, but also orthodox Christians. Hitler himself said that he was keeping an eye on the Christians, because he recognized their faith as a threat to the society he wanted to create. Those who spoke up were killed.
I am not horrified by Spencer’s words but encouraged by them. We have had decades of dysgenic breeding encouragement by goverment policies and foreign aid. Look at the African population projections, can the planet handle 4 billion Africans in 2100? Is it really better morally to doom child to a life of suffering than to try to encourage more eugenic breeding? The reason why abortion is so high in the Black community is because we cannot have honest and needed conversations about it. Maybe instead of thinking Blacks are identical to Whites and need the same solutions, we could tailor policies to reduce unplanned Black pregnancies in the first place (thereby making aborion not needed at all). The Alt Right is not conservative nor is it Christian in its focus. It is not Conservatives + it is a radically different ideology that is fighting against momemental forces that threaten the very foundation of the West, its originators. Call me a racist, a fascist, whatever you want, but that will not change the coming disasters if the Right in the West does not wake up the realities of race and dysgenic breeding.
I would say we can handle 4 billion Blacks, even if we might not like to; but we need to entirely close off White countries from would-be African immigrants so they do not destroy our civilization as they have already done in Detroit, Chicago, South Africa, Haiti, etc.
This is precisely the problem with alt-right ideology-it ignores history. In America, African-Americans were brought over forcibly as slaves. Same thing in Haiti. And in South Africa, incidentally, they were there first.
“[Spencer] quite likes the idea that a lot of African Americans and Hispanics are having abortions. This is a common idea on the alt-right…” No, this is a common idea on the far left—precisely what Margaret Sanger had in mind when she founded Planned Parenthood.
I don’t like Margaret Sanger either. Keep in mind that while tied to the eugenics movement, she was also influenced by Jewish anarchist Emma Goldman, a fellow birth control advocate. She would hardly fit into the alt-right today.
I am currently re-reading Inferno and also reading Survival in Auschwitz because of the passage in which Levi translates Canto 26 into French for a fellow prisoner of the extermination camp. I deployed to Iraq in 2009 with the Army. I remember seeing Rush Limbaugh on a TV in a chow hall on Camp Adder. I looked at him and regretted that by fighting the enemies of America, I was also defending him and all the other racists cowards who are Americans.
Look, there is no conspiracy to infiltrate conservatism, nobody wants it. Your day is over. The left continues to import non-whites who reliably vote anti-white, which means putting leftists in power and your ilk aids and abets them in this program. You have committed suicide, not in the name of ideology, but simply because you couldn’t stand the establishment calling you racist. It’s not ideology or morals that drive you because it’s quite clear that many groups practice identity politics but you only object when whites do it. (BTW, do you think multicultural, white minority Canada will be more or less hospitable to your anti-abortion views? If the answer is less (and it is for reasons Richard Spencer alluded to) then what are your real priorities? It’s Ironic but you’d have a better chance of banning abortion in a country that Spencer prefers than the one you’re helping to build. But we must prioritize!)
What’s happening is the natural reaction of whites to becoming a hated minority in their own homeland and that homeland becoming a third-world dump. Either they’ll come together, develop group interests, and resist the anti-whiteism that has ruled and ordered Western society for the last half century or they’ll be robbed to death. It isn’t a conspiracy it’s a natural reaction to the system, and it’s inevitable.
I couldn’t care less what the establishment thinks of my views. Canada is extremely hostile to anti-abortion views, although we find many family-oriented immigrants to be very receptive to our message.
I am glad these non-Whites support Christian ethics. It doesn’t really work out that way though. Under apartheid abortion was restricted in South Africa. If opinion polls are to be believed, Black South Africans are even more socially conservative than their Afrikaner fellow countrymen. Yet after they came to power, the government duly lifted most restrictions on abortion, not to mention legalizing homosexual “marriage”.
Yes. That’s because the government was extraordinarily left-wing. What history has shown us for the last century is that when people get rid of one oppressive government, they don’t necessarily replace it with one that’s any better.
Thank you for pointing out that the white race is not replacing itself, and when whites adopt children of other races they are advancing the schedule of an agenda that leads to “No More White Kids.”
Ever considered the idea that maybe people adopt kids just because they want to, not because they’re part of some nefarious conspiracy to wipe out white kids? Sheesh you guys are paranoid.
I agree with Richard Spencer on many points, but it’s a mistake to treat him as “Führer”. Note that he begins: “I think that some people who are… in the alt-right want to believe that…”; far from saying Christians can’t be alt-right, he is saying he is arguing against abortion opponents already WITHIN the alt-right, an internal quarrel within the movement.
The alt-right is a heterogeneous group, and while it includes many cultural pagans like Spencer and Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents, it also includes lots of serious Christians, like Matthew Heimbach of the Trad Worker Party, Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent (who has written a good reply to this post on that website), and Rabid Puppies leader Vox Day, who would uphold the Church’s teachings against abortion. A good place to see the religious mix on the alt-right is 8chan’s /pol/ (Politically Incorrect) board, which often has religious arguments and debates on abortion and other moral issues. The alt-right is not homogeneously Nietzschean.
The alt-right sees itself as radically realist. We view Conservatism, Inc.-style conservatism as ineffective because it is unwilling to seriously consider that not all humans have equal intellectual, etc capabilities, and its refusal to consider that Jews engage in ethnic networking, and often act collectively to better themselves at the expense of the majority where they live (yes, some on our side are dogmatic in refusing to see good Jews but, especially among those in power, the good Jews are… exceptions. Last November American Jews voted Democratic about as frequently as LGBTQ degenerates). We also disagree with the conservative deference to liberal ideology, in particular the embrace of feminism (this is especially bad in the pro-life movement, which lionizes Susan B. Anthony, when almost the entire modern women’s movement is adamantly for abortion).
Before the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, Christendom was deeply patriarchal. It was these very revolutions by the anti-clericals that introduced the “human rights” dogma, which Christians now celebrate as if it were in the Gospels. Human rights are not the same thing as loving good and hating evil, opposing wrong and pursuing right; all too often “rights” are used as a shield for criminals, as the UN/NGOs are doing when they protect the drug trade in the Philippines from Duterte. Concerning abortion, all that need be said, is: “It is wrong to purposefully kill an innocent human being.” No rights language required. Like readers here, I as a Christian and alt-rightist am also appalled by abortion, and of Down syndrome babies in particular, because I believe that having fewer capabilities doesn’t eliminate human worth. Rather than using liberal rights language, why not try arguing, with alt-rightists as well as liberals, that even disabled or unwanted children have inherent worth, with whatever approach you desire? The vast majority of liberals and establishment political philosophers probably aren’t wrong about their ideology of rights, democracy, and equality implying that narcissistic parents are justified in killing their offspring; instead of parroting their language, why not help us deconstruct liberalism?
The goals of the alt-right to ensure continued White majorities in White countries can be met without abortion, contraception, or eugenics. Strict immigration controls, like those used in Israel, can be used to ensure European countries stay European. Incentives can also be used to encourage Whites to have larger families, or in the last measure non-Whites can be deported. That probably wouldn’t even be necessary, as cut-offs in welfare, ending affirmative action, and draconian law enforcement would be enough to send many non-Whites heading for remaining cucked countries like Sweden or Germany. Is that too much? It isn’t nearly as harsh as what the Lord has Israel do under Moses, Joshua, and the later judges in securing the Promised Land from the Canaanites. Reading Joshua and Judges can be hard for moderns, but as Christians we can’t say God was wrong ordering such bloodshed for His ends (which happened to enjoin making Israel a homogeneous ethnostate to ensure no syncretism), can we? Numbers 36 even allows for restrictions on intermarriage between the tribes of Israel (who has equal standing in God’s eyes), so that one tribe would not grow powerful at another’s expense. This seems to justify Jim Crow, Apartheid, and the Nuremburg Laws.
I remain a conservative. What passes for conservatism nowadays is a hidebound ideology when it is supposed to be an anti-ideology, the tenets of which forbid them from recognizing the most clear and universal patterns, such as why liberal Seattle is so much nicer than liberal Detroit, or again why Costa Rica is better off than Nicaragua. It refuses to consider that race and ethnicity has any impact on culture, and that conserving one’s own race and ethnicity might be a good (albeit not the only good). While right and wrong can never be understood simply by measuring an action against an ideology, today White nationalism, Identitarianism, the Alternative Right, all that good stuff… seems a whole lot closer to the truth than liberalism or its opposition shill “conservatism”.
You don’t need to “join” the alt-right. That, of course, is but a label (which many people whom others would clearly view as alt-right, such as /pol/ posters, reject out of distaste for Spencer and other media-appointed leaders). But you might want to consider some of the ideas that fall under that label seriously as you think on the problems confronting European post-Christian societies.
It is precisely because some of the ideas advocated by the alt-right are shared by traditionalists and conservatives that I pay attention to the alt-right. My concern is that common ground not rooted in principle is dangerous because some frustrated conservatives could be tempted to “join” the alt-right due to shared concerns and similarities in certain positions while ignoring the fundamental incompatibility of the views of people like Spencer with Christianity.
“It was these very revolutions by the anti-clericals that introduced the “human rights” dogma, which Christians now celebrate as if it were in the Gospels.”
Thats wrong, human rights stemming from human dignity is a Christian idea; it just got copied and perverted.
“Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.”
That is a declaration of the right to liberty, property and indirectly life for every single member of the human species (cause when one gets killed, enjoying one’s liberty gets difficult).
“[Dated: May 29, 1537]”
About 200-250 years before politics caught up to the idea at least formally.
And if one accepts theological arguments and deduction it can be traced even earlier.
There is nothin un-christian about human rights in itself.
Remind me again where the “social conservative” stops and the average leftist liberal starts? Why not actually engage with the arguments that Richard Spencer has presented here instead of resorting to eerily similar tactics to those of the establishment left – liberal use of pc sign-post expressions as ad hominem. His invocation of Stoddard – who was a Harvard man – and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Klan – unlike Sanger – regarding contraception is quite accurate.
Most Catholic Westerners use it – in spite of the Church’s teaching, which I do believe is faltering at the highest levels (another great triumph of social conservatism, I imagine) – because as far as they are concerned it makes more economic sense to do so (so they put the end product of coitus in fertile males and females off through contraception to pursue careers, if they are female or they put it off because they’d like to spend more money on themselves once the tax man has taken his share and ploughed that money into some form of State mandated involuntary wealth redistribution or another.
Whatever the specific motivation it generally lies in economic considerations.
Economics – more specifically – affluence, or lack thereof, certainly is an indicator for a propensity towards “unwanted pregnancy” and since it is readily available in the West – abortion (another triumph of social conservatism, I trust?) . This is certainly the standard explanation offered up by the left. That and some sob story regarding past transgressions by white men. As if whites were never slaves or can never be the victims of oppression or are all involved in a conscious plot to subjugate the rest of the human species. “If only we – hard hearted white devils – gave these people more of our hard earned tax money (which we could otherwise invest in … oh, I don’t know , one more child as opposed to the standard one or maximum two), then all of these problems would be solved.” Well, it is sixty something years and counting and we’re waiting. Things don’t seem to be getting any better. At least in no way that is not accounted for in the studies I already mentioned.
What is more the social conservatives of yesteryear have not done a great job of defusing this obvious campaign of race baiting by the left. More often than not you played into their hands and marginalised your own – who were hardly as “radical” as Mr. Spencer – to ultimately fit leftist moral standards. Then you apologised to people who are more privileged than you. Perfect act of submission.
Then you wonder why these characters are so influential all of a sudden.
Or it could simply be an additional symptom of a more fundamental cognitive problem. There is plenty of evidence nowadays – specifically emanating from the field of genetic science – that points to a profound statistic correlation between race and mean intelligence. Gender – male or female – and age play a subordinate role also.
Since Roman-Catholics don’t have to believe in the inherent equality of human beings like humasit atheists do beyond their having all been created by God, since we are not supposed to be pelagianists either, and since we ultimately hold fast to the notion that it is the inter-play of free will and the eternal call of God to each and everyone one of us to live according to his precepts (so ably demonstrated by Christ himself) that ultimately leads to salvation of the soul we need not be nearly so hostile towards all that Mr. Spencer has discussed here or elsewhere.
Indeed it would be better if we engaged with the material on an intellectual level and came to our own authentic conclusions and not those of the establishment left. The Alt-Right movement is far more complex than this editorial gives it credit. As is the modern day West (specifically the American Anglosphere) with which it is intrinsically linked. It is also one of the few political movements in the West that is enjoying any kind of success in the field of meta-political warfare, (which was hitherto dominated by the left) and that is reaching young people and getting them back into a conservative frame of mind that goes beyond worrying about whether one is seen to be as “nice” and a schizophrenic obsession with inflation.
I am not in favour of abortion. For anyone. As far as I am concerned the sound theological reasons the Church has put forward are reason enough. But embracing leftist polemic against the Alt-Right – an organisation filled with people who are ultimately trying to restore the West through a re-connection to its history and tradition – plays into the hands of the enemy – the political left.
In the same token it does not do the Church any good if the West’s population is replaced to a great extent by third world populations. Especially since they are hardly Catholics themselves now, are they?!
Instead why not act as missionaries to the Alt-Right. This is what we should have been doing since the war. Instead we watched legions of Catholics disappear into the miasma of the suburbs – where they atomised like all the rest.
The average leftist has made it clear who his master is and pandering to them – or imitating them – will simply serve to drive away the smarter young Catholics who can figure out it is not raining when you are peeing on their heads.
So do them a favour and grow a pair.
Sixty plus years of so called “social conservatism” has done nothing but make the Church militant into a “nice” and “inclusive” marketplace for liberal and leftist ideas. You have given away the inheritance of the West as a whole – specifically Europe (which is a far more fundamental sacrifice) to legions of violent and ignorant thugs under the banner of ideas created by the effeminate left to effeminise the Church and the bulk of its followers (its only actual credible and real opponents) – the heart, soul and conscience of all Europeans for over a Millennium.
So no. Neither you or Richard Spencer are entirely right in your approach and I’d dare say neither you or her are entirely acting in our best interests. Less ideology and more realism. Please. Time is short.
Thank you for boldly proclaiming to the conservative population, namely the Christian conservatives, the wicked core within the alt-right. As a fellow Christian, deeply pro-life and also conservative, I steer far from anything alt-right like, which means that I may actually miss the great depth of evil within the ideology and be unprepared to defend the truth in conversation. I recall defending the truth as a teenager to a man I would now describe as part of the alt-right. I stubbornly held to Biblical principles I knew, but I was unprepared to stand agaInst his ideas and logic in any specific way. So I held fast, but could not convince him of anything. The onlookers laughed at me. I appreciate your voice to conservatives. You are helping prepare young people like me. Thank you!
How evil for white people to take their own side! How evil for white people to not believe in Hebrew babble! How evil for white people to look after other white families! I can’t even!
I only publish comments like this because this sort of hateful garbage proves my point. Carry on.
So wanting to exist is “hateful garbage”? Funny..funny stuff
It wasn’t hateful.
As an attempt:
“How evil for white people to take their own side! How evil for white people to not believe in Hebrew babble! How evil for white people to look after other white families! I can’t even!”
If “race rights” are superior to individual rights, individual rights would have to stand back, if the protection of the “race rights” makes it necessary.
For example, if the government concluded, that the “race rights” of the “race A” the government is endangered by another “race B” that seems to follow a pattern of trying to control the “race A” by inflitrating important positions inside the society of “race A”, then the government would be justified to do the following things in order, which each next step being legally justified, if the previous seemed not sufficient:
– spy on “race B” members
– remove “race B” members from influential positions
– confiscate property; limit their economic/professional activity
– expel them from the country
– imprinson them
– kill them.
Everything legal, cause the supposedly endangered “race rights” of “race A” are of greater importance than the individual rights of the B members negatively effected.
I do not know, whether you might deny the holocaust; but i hope you understand that if the holocaust happened, it is starting from a ideology considering “race rights” to be supreme, absolutely not suprising.
Especially, if you consider the following possible confounding factor:
The government just errs about “race B” endangering “race A” and causing problems for A.
What will then happen?
The first “mild” steps will not reduce the problems, cause “race B” does not cause them; hence, the government will take more serious steps; which again will not help; and so on; all the way to Ausschwitz.
(And no, that does not mean, that making an ethnic a minority by illegal immigration encouraged by those sworn to stop illegal immigration is anything buy criminal; it’s just a wrong does not always make another wrong right)
I’m simply stating a view, that a multi-racial society is not viable. But the issue is, I shouldn’t be shamed about having to take my own side,or protect my child’s future with all of the “white privilege” propaganda poisoning his mind. Being taught “tolerance” while being bullied in school because of slavery. And for you to bring up Jews being forced to labor camps because they boycotted German goods, is pathetic.
“I’m simply stating a view, that a multi-racial society is not viable.”
Even if it would be true, that is no justification for abondoning or diminishing human rights.
The right course of action – if that would be true – would be to acknowledge, that while human rights are equal independent of culture or ethnic, that unfortunately the cultures/ethnics in a certain area/country must not be too divergent as otherwise breakdown of public order is the expectable longterm result.
As this would include very serious violation/infringement of human rights, in seriousness far beyond the comparably rather mild infringement by the government trying to control/steer immigration towards having mostly culturally/ethinically compatible immigrants, the government is justified to regulate immigration – including admission of refugees to some extent – such that the negative longterm result is avoided.
And even in case you argue, that a certain government in question is so staffed with braindead idiots, who are unable to process the argument without crying “Nazis”, that the government is independent of elected party incapable of regulate immigration in such way, this does not justify diminishing human rights. If only justifies laws like “Till we have all these idiots out of government, which is to be evaluated yearly by a commission consisting of …, all immigration is completely halted unless as specified in the following: …”
Such a drastic incompetent government unable to enforce immigration laws such that the potential horrible outcome is avoided might justify such a step, even if the step would include some discrimination, as discrimination to avoid public breakdown can be justified.
But dropping human rights is never justified. Just never.
Thank you for opening my eyes.
Not that i was realy in for the alt-right; but i was just sceptical, whether its just hyperbole to call them Nazis.
But i read large part of “Mein Kampf” and this:
“that every being that is human has a right to life and so on. Well that’s not how we think as identitarians, to be honest. You are part of a community, you’re part of a family, you’re part of a collective. You do not have some human right, some abstract thing given to you by God or by the world or something like that. You’re part of a community and that’s where you gain your meaning or your rights.”
is not reminiscent of Hitler’s thoughts, it is Hitler’s thoughts.
Put that passage in “Mein Kampf” and nobody would have the slightest chance to detect from context, that it is inserted and not originally from Hitler.
Hitler also believed first in rights of what could be called ethinic or racial groups and human rights were subordinate to these group rights; exactly as Spencer also seems to do.
Between a strong alt-right of that type and the left, ProLife would be between a rock and a hard place.
What good are human rights, without first ensuring your own groups survival? How can a distinct human group, with a distinct culture, traditions and history possibly survive, without putting at least some uncompromising barriers around race?
Nothing in human rights excludes ensuring your own groups survival. That is only a stupid leftist interpretation.
Think about it, the human rights declaration of 1948 was thought up after WW2; the people doing the thinking were a bit unhappy about all the slaughter done by the Nazis, also about their slaughter vs specific ethincs/groups.
In the same year practically the same people decided to declare genocide, so the intentional extermination of a specific ethnic/group to be one of the or maybe the worst crime.
Hence, it would be completely unreasonable to assume, that those 1948 declaration completely excludes that one is allowed to protect the own group/ethnic vs extinction.
One just should do it with the human rights of the people potentially dangerous to the own group survival in mind; and that means, one has to use at least the mildest measure; and one should be espacially careful if the one endangering the own group individually are not aware about this, so acting without guilt; and also especially if the threat to the own group is rather vague and therefore the chance for error is not neglible.
Again, what do human rights mean, if we do not protect our group? If that one group does not have exclusive land for their own? Any ideals you might have, mean nothing if you don’t exist. And to constantly bring up the nazis is a pathetic argument. Jews were put into labor camps, they were not systematically exterminated. The holomodor was genocide, but no mention of that of course. No mention the u.s turned half of Europe to communist butchers who raped and murdered millions. No, it’s more those evil nazis! Tell me, name one thing positively the world gained saving communism from fascism? ONE!
Human rights are impossible to protect, without first preserving a modern civilization. Multi-racial societies are not made up of different individuals, but different groups. Millions and millions of different people, fighting for land, resources and advancement, under the same government? This egalitarian utopia is simply not possible. All it ensures is a world with no distinct people, lands, traditions, even history. Why would you want that? Where is the “human rights” for those who can create and sustain? Where do they fit within this moral imperative you have presented?
“Human rights are impossible to protect, without first preserving a modern civilization.”
Correct.
But human rights mean, that the preserving of a modern civilization should be done while at best not violating human rights or at least try to keep the violation minimal.
E.g. if groups E, I and J exist and experience shows that group I mixed with either E or J leads to chaos, but mixing E with J works mostly fine, just as E or J all by themselves; I on the other hand is even problematic even if by themselves; then a predominant E country attempting to avert the chaos has no justification to limit the rights of members of J; cause its no problem, if their numbers increase; but they might have justification to do something about I.
That is compatible to some extent with human rights, cause chaos must be averted so that continued protection of human rights is possible.
In your worldview on the other hand, the goverment could also act against J on the basis, that E must have their own turf even although sharing with J works fine. So the rights of J members get limited although it is not necessary to avert any danger; they just get limited due to the group E having rights superseding individual rights; group J gets targeted although there is no good reason to do so.
(And if that is too abstract, take E as European, I as Islamic and J as Japanese; mixing Japanese with Europeans seems to work mostly fine; mixing with Islamic seems to be problematic often).
“No mention the u.s turned half of Europe to communist butchers who raped and murdered millions. No, it’s more those evil nazis! Tell me, name one thing positively the world gained saving communism from fascism? ONE!”
Communism being evil or even being more evil than Nazism does not make Nazism good.
Communism also disregards human rights; on the face only the right to property, but the others are guarenteed to follow just like the thumb follows the falling of a rock being dropped.
You are merely a collectivist-statist, at the core no different from any Marxist in denying the primacy of the individual. You believe so strongly that grouping together with people who look like you will keep the big bad world from making life difficult for you, or at the very least you will all be able to blame the people that don’t look like you when it does. Your fear of standing tall and claiming your own agency as an individual is sad and pathetic.
Not collectivist-statist, Christian. An identification that transcends the crude race-politics of the alt-right.
I was replying to “Dean”, whose irrational ideology appears to be in lockstep with the subject of your article. No, your Christian perspective I agree with. Good article, I came here via ‘Liberty Memes’ Facebook post.
Ah, yes. Thank you!
Tying of opposition to abortion to opposition to human rights and “racism” continues to ignore a major problem. If abortion is innately tied to racism… why are the states where Jim Crow was practiced typically more pro-life, and the New England states that were at the center of the abolition movement, and have forever hounded their Southern neighbors over being racist, the most rabidly pro-abortion? The South has a long tradition of questioning egalitarianism, yet something in their culture makes them very receptive to pro-life views.
If Hitler had such sensible thoughts, maybe it’s time you reopened his book and see how his ideas might apply today. His analysis of the political situation in the polyglot empire Austria-Hungary fits the United States like a shoe. Only he WOULD have deleted the “by God” part. He wasn’t an orthodox Christian by the time he wrote Mein Kampf, but God according to a more transcendant, fatalistic understanding continued to play a role in his political philosophy throughout his life.
This is the insanity again of the alt-right position. You cannot possibly advocate for the strength of Hitler’s ideas without endorsing or at least dismissing the orgy of murder and genocide that proceeded directly from them–not only 6 million Jews, but also orthodox Christians. Hitler himself said that he was keeping an eye on the Christians, because he recognized their faith as a threat to the society he wanted to create. Those who spoke up were killed.
Thank you.
The Alt-Right is a human skull, nothing more…redolent of death, and empty of brain.
I am not horrified by Spencer’s words but encouraged by them. We have had decades of dysgenic breeding encouragement by goverment policies and foreign aid. Look at the African population projections, can the planet handle 4 billion Africans in 2100? Is it really better morally to doom child to a life of suffering than to try to encourage more eugenic breeding? The reason why abortion is so high in the Black community is because we cannot have honest and needed conversations about it. Maybe instead of thinking Blacks are identical to Whites and need the same solutions, we could tailor policies to reduce unplanned Black pregnancies in the first place (thereby making aborion not needed at all). The Alt Right is not conservative nor is it Christian in its focus. It is not Conservatives + it is a radically different ideology that is fighting against momemental forces that threaten the very foundation of the West, its originators. Call me a racist, a fascist, whatever you want, but that will not change the coming disasters if the Right in the West does not wake up the realities of race and dysgenic breeding.
I would say we can handle 4 billion Blacks, even if we might not like to; but we need to entirely close off White countries from would-be African immigrants so they do not destroy our civilization as they have already done in Detroit, Chicago, South Africa, Haiti, etc.
This is precisely the problem with alt-right ideology-it ignores history. In America, African-Americans were brought over forcibly as slaves. Same thing in Haiti. And in South Africa, incidentally, they were there first.
“[Spencer] quite likes the idea that a lot of African Americans and Hispanics are having abortions. This is a common idea on the alt-right…” No, this is a common idea on the far left—precisely what Margaret Sanger had in mind when she founded Planned Parenthood.
The fringes happen to resemble each other.
I don’t like Margaret Sanger either. Keep in mind that while tied to the eugenics movement, she was also influenced by Jewish anarchist Emma Goldman, a fellow birth control advocate. She would hardly fit into the alt-right today.
Actually I think she’d fit in nicely, since her ideology was based on the supposed inferiority of other people.
I am currently re-reading Inferno and also reading Survival in Auschwitz because of the passage in which Levi translates Canto 26 into French for a fellow prisoner of the extermination camp. I deployed to Iraq in 2009 with the Army. I remember seeing Rush Limbaugh on a TV in a chow hall on Camp Adder. I looked at him and regretted that by fighting the enemies of America, I was also defending him and all the other racists cowards who are Americans.
Do you have the link to the video?
Look, there is no conspiracy to infiltrate conservatism, nobody wants it. Your day is over. The left continues to import non-whites who reliably vote anti-white, which means putting leftists in power and your ilk aids and abets them in this program. You have committed suicide, not in the name of ideology, but simply because you couldn’t stand the establishment calling you racist. It’s not ideology or morals that drive you because it’s quite clear that many groups practice identity politics but you only object when whites do it. (BTW, do you think multicultural, white minority Canada will be more or less hospitable to your anti-abortion views? If the answer is less (and it is for reasons Richard Spencer alluded to) then what are your real priorities? It’s Ironic but you’d have a better chance of banning abortion in a country that Spencer prefers than the one you’re helping to build. But we must prioritize!)
What’s happening is the natural reaction of whites to becoming a hated minority in their own homeland and that homeland becoming a third-world dump. Either they’ll come together, develop group interests, and resist the anti-whiteism that has ruled and ordered Western society for the last half century or they’ll be robbed to death. It isn’t a conspiracy it’s a natural reaction to the system, and it’s inevitable.
I couldn’t care less what the establishment thinks of my views. Canada is extremely hostile to anti-abortion views, although we find many family-oriented immigrants to be very receptive to our message.
I am glad these non-Whites support Christian ethics. It doesn’t really work out that way though. Under apartheid abortion was restricted in South Africa. If opinion polls are to be believed, Black South Africans are even more socially conservative than their Afrikaner fellow countrymen. Yet after they came to power, the government duly lifted most restrictions on abortion, not to mention legalizing homosexual “marriage”.
Yes. That’s because the government was extraordinarily left-wing. What history has shown us for the last century is that when people get rid of one oppressive government, they don’t necessarily replace it with one that’s any better.
Thank you for pointing out that the white race is not replacing itself, and when whites adopt children of other races they are advancing the schedule of an agenda that leads to “No More White Kids.”
Ever considered the idea that maybe people adopt kids just because they want to, not because they’re part of some nefarious conspiracy to wipe out white kids? Sheesh you guys are paranoid.
Brendan said, “when whites adopt children of other races they are advancing… an agenda…” He is talking about cause and effect, not motive.
You can’t advance an agenda without motive.
I agree with Richard Spencer on many points, but it’s a mistake to treat him as “Führer”. Note that he begins: “I think that some people who are… in the alt-right want to believe that…”; far from saying Christians can’t be alt-right, he is saying he is arguing against abortion opponents already WITHIN the alt-right, an internal quarrel within the movement.
The alt-right is a heterogeneous group, and while it includes many cultural pagans like Spencer and Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents, it also includes lots of serious Christians, like Matthew Heimbach of the Trad Worker Party, Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent (who has written a good reply to this post on that website), and Rabid Puppies leader Vox Day, who would uphold the Church’s teachings against abortion. A good place to see the religious mix on the alt-right is 8chan’s /pol/ (Politically Incorrect) board, which often has religious arguments and debates on abortion and other moral issues. The alt-right is not homogeneously Nietzschean.
The alt-right sees itself as radically realist. We view Conservatism, Inc.-style conservatism as ineffective because it is unwilling to seriously consider that not all humans have equal intellectual, etc capabilities, and its refusal to consider that Jews engage in ethnic networking, and often act collectively to better themselves at the expense of the majority where they live (yes, some on our side are dogmatic in refusing to see good Jews but, especially among those in power, the good Jews are… exceptions. Last November American Jews voted Democratic about as frequently as LGBTQ degenerates). We also disagree with the conservative deference to liberal ideology, in particular the embrace of feminism (this is especially bad in the pro-life movement, which lionizes Susan B. Anthony, when almost the entire modern women’s movement is adamantly for abortion).
Before the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, Christendom was deeply patriarchal. It was these very revolutions by the anti-clericals that introduced the “human rights” dogma, which Christians now celebrate as if it were in the Gospels. Human rights are not the same thing as loving good and hating evil, opposing wrong and pursuing right; all too often “rights” are used as a shield for criminals, as the UN/NGOs are doing when they protect the drug trade in the Philippines from Duterte. Concerning abortion, all that need be said, is: “It is wrong to purposefully kill an innocent human being.” No rights language required. Like readers here, I as a Christian and alt-rightist am also appalled by abortion, and of Down syndrome babies in particular, because I believe that having fewer capabilities doesn’t eliminate human worth. Rather than using liberal rights language, why not try arguing, with alt-rightists as well as liberals, that even disabled or unwanted children have inherent worth, with whatever approach you desire? The vast majority of liberals and establishment political philosophers probably aren’t wrong about their ideology of rights, democracy, and equality implying that narcissistic parents are justified in killing their offspring; instead of parroting their language, why not help us deconstruct liberalism?
The goals of the alt-right to ensure continued White majorities in White countries can be met without abortion, contraception, or eugenics. Strict immigration controls, like those used in Israel, can be used to ensure European countries stay European. Incentives can also be used to encourage Whites to have larger families, or in the last measure non-Whites can be deported. That probably wouldn’t even be necessary, as cut-offs in welfare, ending affirmative action, and draconian law enforcement would be enough to send many non-Whites heading for remaining cucked countries like Sweden or Germany. Is that too much? It isn’t nearly as harsh as what the Lord has Israel do under Moses, Joshua, and the later judges in securing the Promised Land from the Canaanites. Reading Joshua and Judges can be hard for moderns, but as Christians we can’t say God was wrong ordering such bloodshed for His ends (which happened to enjoin making Israel a homogeneous ethnostate to ensure no syncretism), can we? Numbers 36 even allows for restrictions on intermarriage between the tribes of Israel (who has equal standing in God’s eyes), so that one tribe would not grow powerful at another’s expense. This seems to justify Jim Crow, Apartheid, and the Nuremburg Laws.
I remain a conservative. What passes for conservatism nowadays is a hidebound ideology when it is supposed to be an anti-ideology, the tenets of which forbid them from recognizing the most clear and universal patterns, such as why liberal Seattle is so much nicer than liberal Detroit, or again why Costa Rica is better off than Nicaragua. It refuses to consider that race and ethnicity has any impact on culture, and that conserving one’s own race and ethnicity might be a good (albeit not the only good). While right and wrong can never be understood simply by measuring an action against an ideology, today White nationalism, Identitarianism, the Alternative Right, all that good stuff… seems a whole lot closer to the truth than liberalism or its opposition shill “conservatism”.
You don’t need to “join” the alt-right. That, of course, is but a label (which many people whom others would clearly view as alt-right, such as /pol/ posters, reject out of distaste for Spencer and other media-appointed leaders). But you might want to consider some of the ideas that fall under that label seriously as you think on the problems confronting European post-Christian societies.
It is precisely because some of the ideas advocated by the alt-right are shared by traditionalists and conservatives that I pay attention to the alt-right. My concern is that common ground not rooted in principle is dangerous because some frustrated conservatives could be tempted to “join” the alt-right due to shared concerns and similarities in certain positions while ignoring the fundamental incompatibility of the views of people like Spencer with Christianity.
“It was these very revolutions by the anti-clericals that introduced the “human rights” dogma, which Christians now celebrate as if it were in the Gospels.”
Thats wrong, human rights stemming from human dignity is a Christian idea; it just got copied and perverted.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
“Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.”
That is a declaration of the right to liberty, property and indirectly life for every single member of the human species (cause when one gets killed, enjoying one’s liberty gets difficult).
“[Dated: May 29, 1537]”
About 200-250 years before politics caught up to the idea at least formally.
And if one accepts theological arguments and deduction it can be traced even earlier.
There is nothin un-christian about human rights in itself.
Remind me again where the “social conservative” stops and the average leftist liberal starts? Why not actually engage with the arguments that Richard Spencer has presented here instead of resorting to eerily similar tactics to those of the establishment left – liberal use of pc sign-post expressions as ad hominem. His invocation of Stoddard – who was a Harvard man – and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Klan – unlike Sanger – regarding contraception is quite accurate.
Most Catholic Westerners use it – in spite of the Church’s teaching, which I do believe is faltering at the highest levels (another great triumph of social conservatism, I imagine) – because as far as they are concerned it makes more economic sense to do so (so they put the end product of coitus in fertile males and females off through contraception to pursue careers, if they are female or they put it off because they’d like to spend more money on themselves once the tax man has taken his share and ploughed that money into some form of State mandated involuntary wealth redistribution or another.
Whatever the specific motivation it generally lies in economic considerations.
Economics – more specifically – affluence, or lack thereof, certainly is an indicator for a propensity towards “unwanted pregnancy” and since it is readily available in the West – abortion (another triumph of social conservatism, I trust?) . This is certainly the standard explanation offered up by the left. That and some sob story regarding past transgressions by white men. As if whites were never slaves or can never be the victims of oppression or are all involved in a conscious plot to subjugate the rest of the human species. “If only we – hard hearted white devils – gave these people more of our hard earned tax money (which we could otherwise invest in … oh, I don’t know , one more child as opposed to the standard one or maximum two), then all of these problems would be solved.” Well, it is sixty something years and counting and we’re waiting. Things don’t seem to be getting any better. At least in no way that is not accounted for in the studies I already mentioned.
What is more the social conservatives of yesteryear have not done a great job of defusing this obvious campaign of race baiting by the left. More often than not you played into their hands and marginalised your own – who were hardly as “radical” as Mr. Spencer – to ultimately fit leftist moral standards. Then you apologised to people who are more privileged than you. Perfect act of submission.
Then you wonder why these characters are so influential all of a sudden.
Or it could simply be an additional symptom of a more fundamental cognitive problem. There is plenty of evidence nowadays – specifically emanating from the field of genetic science – that points to a profound statistic correlation between race and mean intelligence. Gender – male or female – and age play a subordinate role also.
Since Roman-Catholics don’t have to believe in the inherent equality of human beings like humasit atheists do beyond their having all been created by God, since we are not supposed to be pelagianists either, and since we ultimately hold fast to the notion that it is the inter-play of free will and the eternal call of God to each and everyone one of us to live according to his precepts (so ably demonstrated by Christ himself) that ultimately leads to salvation of the soul we need not be nearly so hostile towards all that Mr. Spencer has discussed here or elsewhere.
Indeed it would be better if we engaged with the material on an intellectual level and came to our own authentic conclusions and not those of the establishment left. The Alt-Right movement is far more complex than this editorial gives it credit. As is the modern day West (specifically the American Anglosphere) with which it is intrinsically linked. It is also one of the few political movements in the West that is enjoying any kind of success in the field of meta-political warfare, (which was hitherto dominated by the left) and that is reaching young people and getting them back into a conservative frame of mind that goes beyond worrying about whether one is seen to be as “nice” and a schizophrenic obsession with inflation.
I am not in favour of abortion. For anyone. As far as I am concerned the sound theological reasons the Church has put forward are reason enough. But embracing leftist polemic against the Alt-Right – an organisation filled with people who are ultimately trying to restore the West through a re-connection to its history and tradition – plays into the hands of the enemy – the political left.
In the same token it does not do the Church any good if the West’s population is replaced to a great extent by third world populations. Especially since they are hardly Catholics themselves now, are they?!
Instead why not act as missionaries to the Alt-Right. This is what we should have been doing since the war. Instead we watched legions of Catholics disappear into the miasma of the suburbs – where they atomised like all the rest.
The average leftist has made it clear who his master is and pandering to them – or imitating them – will simply serve to drive away the smarter young Catholics who can figure out it is not raining when you are peeing on their heads.
So do them a favour and grow a pair.
Sixty plus years of so called “social conservatism” has done nothing but make the Church militant into a “nice” and “inclusive” marketplace for liberal and leftist ideas. You have given away the inheritance of the West as a whole – specifically Europe (which is a far more fundamental sacrifice) to legions of violent and ignorant thugs under the banner of ideas created by the effeminate left to effeminise the Church and the bulk of its followers (its only actual credible and real opponents) – the heart, soul and conscience of all Europeans for over a Millennium.
So no. Neither you or Richard Spencer are entirely right in your approach and I’d dare say neither you or her are entirely acting in our best interests. Less ideology and more realism. Please. Time is short.