THE RISE OF THE RADICAL RIGHT: THE ALT RIGHT NEOREACTION AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN


The Rise of the Radical Right: The Alt-Right Neoreaction and the Trump Campaign
By Jakub Jankowski
(29th August 2016)

Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilisation is precious. This is the Alt-Right.

 – Millennial Woes

Hillary Clinton’s newest offensive against Donald Trump’s campaign involves the vilification of a political movement that until recently was reputedly hiding in the ‘far reaches of the internet’ from which ‘dark conspiracy theories’ are allegedly being forged. This denunciation was aimed at an increasingly popular congregation known as the ‘Alternative Right.’ This crowd was recently labelled as ‘Trump’s Shock Troops’ by the BBC in an overt reference to Nazi Germany, and as ‘white supremacists’ as well as ‘a paranoid fringe group’ by Clinton herself, during the speech she gave in Reno, Nevada. How close is Clinton to the truth – is the ‘Alt-Right’ really solely composed of racist, intolerant, neo-Nazis and of other non-kosher superficial labels? Warm, hot, cold!

The ‘Alt-Right’ is a term commonly thought to be coined by self-described ‘Identitarian’ Richard Spencer, founder of the ‘Alternative Right’ blog and president of the National Policy Institute. This, however, is not accurate, as the first person to coin the term in relation to developments within American politics was Paul Gottfried (although, admittedly, Richard Spencer popularised the term). Meanwhile, the movement itself is an amalgamation of all ‘alternative’ right wing views that are today considered heterodoxy. This means that the views of one person who considers himself to be part of the ‘Alt-Right’ can be, though do not necessarily have to be, radically different to another. These views can range from disillusioned libertarians who previously supported Ron Paul, but upon becoming ‘race realists’ have adopted cultural conservatism (more specifically, Hoppean Paleolibertarian views); to traditionalists; to ethno-nationalists; to European nationalists; to fascists; to ‘neo-nazi’ types who gleamingly partake in ‘Alt-Right’ discourse as it fits their racial and fascist agenda; to edgy teenagers and young adults who want to ‘troll’ liberal left types by gratuitous displays of right-wing rhetoric and create controversy. All these folks have their place in the Alternative church of the right. All of them have a use when combating ‘the Cathedral’, the ‘Alt-Right’ term for everything left-wing and mainstream, through many political dimensions. This philosophy is not quite as simple as Hillary makes it out to be in her speech, and contrary to popular opinion, is not just a rowdy mob of ‘hateful bigots.’ Although she is right about one part – it is a growing threat to the political status quo of the West.

Though many mainstream media outlets seem to imply that the popularity of the ‘Alt-Right’ arose through Trump’s campaign, their political thought was already present before Trump. In fact, they were the de facto precursor to Trump’s rise. It was the ‘Alt-Right’ that breached the membrane of obscurity into mainstream politics by breaking down the message and political thought of its forerunner philosophy (which we will get to later) into soundbites, memes, ironic humour, and simple educational infographics about race, culture, sex and IQ differences. It was the Alt-Right who discovered and chose Trump as their ‘mascot’ for this election, not the other way around (although, there are rumours of Trump’s campaign officials reading Alt-Right sites and even partaking in the discussion).

Despite the presence at some level of dissonance and incongruence in the multitude of ‘Alt-Right’ beliefs, which can cause division within the movement – often with harsh criticism and trolling of other ‘sections’ of the Alternative Right, with the more National Socialist inclined elements calling the Libertarians ‘lolbertarians’, and in return the National Socialists are called ‘Stormweenies’[1] – it is generally agreed that there are certain overarching ideals that all on the ‘Alt-Right’ subscribe to. These include: the disgust with politically correct culture; the recognition of cultural Marxism’s effect on western society; and the continued destruction of Occidental civilisation. This is what unites the various factions into the Alt-Right.

Indeed, the philosophical incompatibility between the separate groups seems to be disappearing, with the libertarians of the Alt-Right appropriating certain elements of fascism via the embracing of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and twisting Hoppean thought. These libertarians enjoy making memes about ‘physical removal, so to speak’ (A reference to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s statement about the necessity to separate and remove ‘communists and democrats’ from a libertarian society), ‘free helicopter rides’ (Pinochet’s preferred method of executing communists), and ‘unleash the cops’ (a reference to Rothbards piece on ‘Right-Wing Populism’ where he proposes radical social and economic reforms).  Alternatively, there are some libertarians who adopt more traditionalist Catholic beliefs: distributism, monarchism and aristocratic ideals.

3

An example of a meme about Hoppe, Pinochet and Rothbard ‘physically removing’ Paul Krugman.

What compelled the Alt-Right to subscribe to Trump’s campaign?
It is no secret that the Alt-Right has become enamoured by Trump, but is it the distinctive charismatic persona, policies or something else? Albeit Trump’s ‘strongman’ character certainly is a major part of his appeal, particularly to the fascist cohort of the Alt-Right, and a major factor that distinguished him from the other Republican candidates; he also appeals to many libertarians. This is proven in part by his endorsement by major libertarian figures such as Walter E. Block and Dr Donald Miller, who created Libertarians for Trump, which aims to ‘mobilize [sic] major support for Donald Trump in the libertarian community’ and by popular blogger Stefan Molyneux. The libertarian support stems from his rejection of neoconservatism, putting ‘America First’, rejecting globalism, alongside his seemingly less-hawkish stance on foreign policy than Hillary Clinton, who already has a record of recklessness, evil and unlawful behaviour in office as Secretary of State. Moreover, for true libertarians, the Libertarian Party is no alternative; true libertarians rejected Gary Johnson, who has been christened ‘Sad Sack Johnson’ by writers at The Liberty Conservative. Johnson seems to be lukewarm on traditional libertarian policies like support for gun ownership, freedom of association, and low taxes. At the same time, his VP-running mate is a gun-grabbing neoconservative, and they both love mass-immigration. Hence, the libertarians have no choice but to abandon the party, loathe its leadership and raise banners for Trump. The white-nationalists were won over by Trump’s promise to build ‘The Wall’, deport illegal immigrants, and limit immigration. Meanwhile, the edgy contrarian types were hooked by Trump’s unanimous hatred from the left with soundbites such as ‘Build that wall!’, ‘Get him out of here!’, ‘Who’s going to pay for it? Mexico!’ etc. As well there is Trump’s easy trans-mutability into humourous memes – which spread like wildfire across the various Alt-Right blogs, forums and imageboards – and his continuous ‘dog-whistling’ to the Alt-Right, once describing them as his ‘internet people’.

Fundamentally, the Alt-Right sees within Trump the fulfilment of the American Dream – of ‘Making America Great Again’ – and as a heroic last stand – an Ordon’s Redoubt – against fading away of the American white identity, which they consider all-important to preserving the true meaning of America.

According to the Alt-Right, if Trump’s policies were to be fulfilled, it would preserve America from demographic Armageddon for a while longer, certainly longer than under Clinton. This is as the Alt-Right sees the demise of whites as the majority demographic as the leading cause of downfall of the US and as a future contrary to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. They are, in essence, correct. For, if Trump does not win this election, white demographics will continue to decline, blacks and Hispanics will continue to grow in number and this, in turn, means the continued expansion of the state, more welfare programs, more cultural Marxism, more degeneracy, but most importantly, the inevitable inability of the Republican Party to ever win elections ever again. Trump is so important to the Alt-Right that he was even described as the ‘Napoleon of the Current Year’, that a persona like him has been ‘a long time coming’, and that the “Trump phenomenon can only be understood as an expression of white American’s growing awareness of their demographic displacement, erosion of their security and power and influence, and the cutting-off of their future” at the National Policy Institute’s 2016 Winter Gathering,

Trump’s rise is not, however, solely the responsibility of the Alt-Right. His rise is principally due to the emergence of the silent majority within the Republican Party, which pounced on Trump like a starved wolf. This happened because Trump appealed to those virtues which really matter to the white working and middle class of America – “He [Trump] is just saying what’s on everyone’s mind” as Clint Eastwood put it. Trump does also make use of verboten rhetoric, often to create controversy, often to have the naïve lugenpresse jump on it thinking they’ve finally ‘caught him out.’ In other words, they think they have ‘stumped the Trump’ yet all they are really doing is amplifying Trump’s dog whistle and signal to his silent majority electorate.

To witness the glee of the Alt-Right at Trump’s candidacy (or just to see Jared Taylor playing the saxophone) watch this.

The truth is, that, the Alternative Right is simply a less intellectual counterpart of its lesser-known ‘Neoreactionary’ and European New Right forerunners. I will largely pass over the European New Right as this article is describing the Alt-Right in relation to Trump. The neoreaction, its adherents being known as part of the ‘reactosphere’, is a body of thought that is largely based on the rejection of Enlightenment principles (hence its alternative name the ‘Dark Enlightenment’) and on the endorsement of anti-Enlightenment principles; namely:

Radical Traditionalism
An idea developed by Italian philosopher Julius Evola, French traditionalist Alain de Benoist, theoretician of the French New Right Guillame Faye and American Hitlerite-sympathiser Francis Parker Yockey. This involves the complete rejection of modernity in all its forms: from the industrialised society, degenerate lifestyles, all forms of egalitarianism, to democracy; followed by the patronage of the rebirth of a ‘natural order’ within society, a thought penned originally by Edmund Burke (see his Vindication of Natural Society), but expanded on by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Hans-Hermann Hoppe among others. To some of these thinkers, this would mean the revival of full social Darwinism and the adoption of Nietzschean virtues of heroism, strength, and hierarchy, a subject often touched upon by Jonathan Bowden. Commonly, this also means the rejection of capitalism and socialism, although only in so far as they are of the globalist kind which are at present embed within the state and which the reactosphere believes acts as a corrosive agent to traditional cultures.

“The present dominant values (xenophilia, cosmopolitanism, narcissistic individualism, humanitarianism, bourgeois economism, hedonism, homophilia, permissivenes, etc.) are actually anti-values – values of devirilising weakness, since they deplete a civilization’s vital energies and weaken its defensive or affirmative capacities.”

― Guillaume Faye, Why We Fight

Political Authoritarianism
Neoreactionaries believe that to preserve the natural order, tradition, ethnicity and race, it is necessary to return to more authoritarian modes of government. Monarchies and feudal systems are preferred options as they are seen as more traditional forms than dictatorial or totalitarian regimes. However, the more fascist sects of the reactosphere may idolise and favour dictatorial and totalitarian regimes. Even so, most neoreactionaries adhere to monarchy due to its legal succession, whereas dictatorships and totalitarian regimes are succeeded by those who have the most influence and power. Due to the mechanism of a ‘natural order’, eventually, within a society a ‘natural elite’ will arise, in other words, an aristocracy, whether by pure force of will, or will of force, or by voluntary recognition on account of “popular recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, superior judgement, courage, and taste, [these individuals] will rise to the rank of [a] natural, voluntarily acknowledged elite.”[2] The ‘natural elite’ fulfils the Nietzschean aspect of the neoreaction, but moreover, it does not have to arise through force, inasmuch as people are unequal; the ones with the best traits can rise above the crowd, thereby fulfilling another tenet of the neoreactospheric creed, social Darwinism.

The neoreactionary disdain for democracy has two-fold origin: firstly from principle, secondly from utility. Democracy is an inherently egalitarian system on some level. Even if only two people had the franchise, it would be unacceptable as inherently no two people are equal, and therefore democracy is doomed to fail. Korwin-Mikke raises the Bum-Intellectual controversy, wherein within a democracy, theoretically, the bum and the educated intellectual both have the same say in matters of government. Moreover, Korwin-Mikke raises another fatal conceit of democracy: Its tendency to have what is called the ‘inevitable shift to the left.’ Korwin-Mikke explains this succinctly: “What happened to the Ancient Athenians in the past, and what is currently happening in America, is a dangerous memento.” Even in Switzerland, around 40% of the citizens vote in the referenda how their ancestors would never have voted. In twenty years, 60% will vote this way. Within this text, Korwin-Mikke also denotes the fatal conceit of limited government. As Moldbug explains “Limited government simply has no motivation to stay limited. And so it doesn’t.” Indeed, Hoppe also harshly criticizes the concept of constitutionally limited government in the final chapter of his text ‘Democracy: The God That Failed’ even going so far as naming it ‘On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospect for [a Libertarian] Revolution’.

“Today, the mere idea of aristocracy is incompatible with the dominant ideology. But every people needs an aristocracy. It’s an integral part of human nature and can’t be dispensed with. The question then is not ‘For or against aristocracy?’ but ‘What kind of aristocracy?”

― Guillaume Faye, Why We Fight

As Hoppe also points out, both Plato and Aristotle firmly believed that eventually democracy would metamorphose into despotism. Indeed Hoppe also argues that most of the Founding Fathers of America were not, in fact, democrats, and that instead, they were proponents of an aristocratic republic. Thomas Jefferson expressed his distaste of Democracy to John Adams, calling the ‘natural aristocracy . . . the most precious gift of nature’. John Adams himself was not wholly in favour of democracy stating ‘democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavour to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel.’ Moreover, according to Hoppe, Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist. Robert Morris had strong monarchist leanings. George Washington expressed his profound distaste of democracy in a letter to James McHenry. James Madison, in a letter to Jared Parks, complained of the difficulty of ‘protecting the rights of property against the spirit of democracy.’ Therefore, it can be argued, that the Alt-Right is indeed a renaissance of true American political virtues.

“The [British] Empire had to die not because it didn’t work, but because it worked too well. The quality of imperial rule was starting to present evidence against democracy herself.”

 – Mencius Moldbug

Ethnic Nationalism
In contrast to civic nationalism, which espouses nationhood based on citizenship, the neoreactionaries define ‘nation’ in terms of race, civilisation, national identity. This is seen as a necessity in order to ensure the continuity of the race, ethnicity or nation.

In the case of the Alt-Right, the Americans have transfused the idea of ethnic nationalism based solely on white racial identity. Indeed, Americans have no other choice but to resort to white nationalism as they have no other European identity to which they can turn to; whether English, German, French, Polish, Irish, or other. None fits as the US is a melting pot of white identities, with many migrant waves arriving ever since its conception. The alleged difference between these waves and the current waves of immigration is that the ones who came before integrated into the American way of life, meanwhile many of the current ones are hostile, preserve their own identity and through the willingness of the liberal state, are eroding the core of Americanism.

“Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group.”

– Jared Taylor

Traditional Catholicism
The neoreaction is sympathetic towards traditional Catholicism, so much so that Mencius Moldbug conclusively proved that Richard Dawkins is not an atheist but a cultural Catholic. The philosophy is sentimental to the Catholic aesthetic, liturgy, and theology seeing it as the epitome of Western Civilisation. They do not, however, subscribe to the Church in its modern form. Instead they are advocates of the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council, wherein in many aspects the Church was radically changed to be more ‘welcoming’, they believe that Catholicism has lost its way in becoming ever more tolerant of decadent attitudes.

Adoption of The Austrian School of Economics and Political Theory
In spite of the neoreactionary and Alt-Right disdain for materialism, it should not come as a surprise to those acquainted with the works of Von Mises, Von Hayek, Rothbard, Walter Block, as well as non-Austrians such as Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand (yes fascists of the Alt-Right, they’re all Jews, so what?) that the Austrian School of Economics was absorbed into the neoreaction. Indeed, Moldbug, the founding father of the neoreactionary dogma, was heavily influenced by Austrian thought. Not only is the Austrian School itself heterodoxy within economic discourse making it an alternative right-wing economic thought, its political conclusions are almost entirely reactionary. Rothbard viewed multiculturalism, diversity and ‘social justice’ as a revolt against nature and vehemently opposed it. Moreover, the Austrian School’s critique of democracy has been a staple of Austro-libertarian circles, as was covered earlier in the section about political authoritarianism. Likewise, Von Hayek proved that civilisation, culture, nationhood et al do not derive from social engineering, but from spontaneous voluntary cooperation, that honour, customs, holy days, churches and religion do not derive from the state or conscious acts but through thousand-year processes of voluntary cooperation to create working social structures which reason, the human mind, cannot fathom and which the left-wing intellectuals and politicians are trying, consciously or unconsciously, to deconstruct, dismantle and replace it with an anti-civilisation.

Rejection of Multiculturalism
Despite seemingly obvious hostility to multiculturalism, the neoreactionaries are not opposed to it on an a priori basis. Indeed ethnic nationalism is the greatest tool for preserving the great human biodiversity found across the world. If we allow the entire world to mix, as in a globalist wet dream, we would not be promoting multiculturalism but monoculturalism. If all the races of the world mix, we are left with one single culture, one single race, one single mass of people with no distinctive characteristics, no differences – no uniqueness. We would, however, be equal in our misery through lack of personal identity. The Alt-Right movement is not necessarily a supremacist organisation, it proposes for each identity to have its own homeland, a place where each person truly belongs in his community – for the sake of the preservation of each identity.

Rejection of Feminism
As traditionalists, neoreactionaries believe that the role of men and women in society are biologically determined to be different, in contrast, the left-wing intellectuals and their sympathisers claim that gender roles are just a ‘social construct.’ This is why the neoreaction as well as the Alt-Right depend on Austrian political theory, as I have shown previously, Von Hayek has just proven why we should not socially engineer society – each element has purpose, even if it is seemingly irrational. If a feminist asks you to rationally argue for the preservation of the traditional family it is the equivalent of asking you to ‘prove that celebrating the Sunday is rational.’ For you cannot ‘prove’ these customs using reason; they came organically as a product of billions of years of evolution and thousands of years of civilizational development. Fundamentally, the neoreaction is not chauvinist out of choice but out of biological and cultural necessity. Feminism erodes the traditional family and distorts normal gender relationships. Arguably, feminism is the leading cause of low demographics among whites, of high divorce rates, unhappiness among women and the decadence in western society. Therefore, it harms the entire organism as it becomes a societal cancer.

On a similar note, female enfranchisement is also a gangrenous condition. Shortly after completion of the First World War, universal enfranchisement was given to British women, not long after, the downfall of the Liberal Party began, which subsequently led to the rise of the Labour Party and the consolidation of socialism in British politics, and so the decline of the West began.

Rejection of Liberalism
At its core, the Alt-Right and the neoreaction are antithetical notions to liberalism; a philosophy which rejects Enlightenment principles cannot, in any way, be accepting of principles that come as a product of liberal Enlightenment philosophy, whether that is the belief in universal human rights; the liberal thesis on the human state of nature, radical individualism, the idea of humans being born as a tabula rasa – a blank slate (an appeal to equality) – or that we are heading towards a utopian ‘end of history’ of the Whigs and Fukuyama, or in social contracts which result in propositional nations.

A ‘propositional nation’ denotes any nation that affirms a universal proposition: equality, democracy, or the rights of man, instead of a tangible historical order based on place, custom and kin. The word itself is a reference to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address wherein he implied the false suggestion that the American Founding Fathers were ‘dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal’, when, in fact, as I explained in the section about political authoritarianism, this is contrary to what they truly believed in.

Ultimate Goal of the Alt-Right or Neoreaction
The general goal of the neoreactionaries is the restoration of all culturally European countries to their pre-liberal, pre-democratic, pre-feminist, pre-multicultural state – to the state of Europe prior to the enlightenment. The current goal of the Alt-Right (a largely American phenomenon) is to get Trump elected as the President of the United States; to enter mainstream political discourse without ideological dilution; restore America as an ethnically white nation; fight decadence and cultural Marxism in all dimensions of society, and put ‘America First’ by ending globalism, unnecessary foreign wars, and international aid to developing countries.

“[Conservatism is] a fight for keeping these qualities that made us move unceasingly.”
Janusz Korwin-Mikke

Neoreactionary metamorphosis into the Alternative Right
Exactly how the neoreaction managed to transform itself into the Alt-Right is something of a mystery, currents of it existed much prior to the actual coining of the term, with similar thoughts being put forward by the American Renaissance, Taki Mag and the Old Conservative Monday Club which later morphed into the Traditional Britain Group. However, the popular surge only came about as a result of the internet, therefore, In brief, I will try to describe how this happened: Neoreactionary thought began as a series of online blogs and journals, this thought spread to Youtube and began being evangelised to 4chan, an infamous online imageboard, when it added a new sub-forum called ‘Politically Incorrect’ – a safe haven for all politically-dissident opinions; libertarianism, traditionalism, national socialism, fascism, white nationalism etc.  Afterwards,  began the creation and evolution of memes which furthered the ideas of the proto-Alt-Right, the perfect example of which is Pepe. Pepe is probably the most famous Alt-Right meme, it has become not only the symbol of the Alt-Right – it is the movement’s spiritual embodiment. The smug amphibian has come to epitomise their defiance of the dominant liberal-left dogma. Afterwards, many denizens of the ‘Politically Incorrect’ forum migrated to 8chan in fear of censorship. Meanwhile, Youtubers like Millennial Woes, RamZPaul, Murdoch Murdoch, Black Pigeon Speaks, Morrakiu, Walt Bismarck, and arguably, Davis Aurini, among others, began widening the philosophy through the video medium. Then came the culmination, Trump announced his candidacy, immediately, memes were being made in his homage, Pepe was overhauled into a Trump meme, ‘Can’t Stump The Trump’ and other slogans were made to deride his opponents. We have now reached the present day, the neoreactionary geist still lurks behind the façade of the ‘Alt-Right’ and the term enters the mainstream lexicon, Jared Taylor and his ilk are reported on in The Guardian – pandemonium!

Why isn’t there something akin to the ‘Alt-Right’ in Britian and Europe?

There is, it’s just the Beeb and Grauniad haven’t reported on it. The Traditional Britain Group is the British equivalent of the American Renaissance but the current relative shortfall of the TBG in comparison to their American counterparts is not due to any kind of fault of the organisation itself, but rather, that Britain itself is not yet primed for the return of the real right. Arguably, the Traditional Britain Group, (many of whom are also part or affiliated with the Libertarian Alliance) and its members do not consider themselves part of the ‘Alt-Right’ – and rightly so; the Alternative Right is an almost exclusively American idea, while the Neoreaction is not. Nevertheless, there have been numerous ‘Alt-Right’ volk who attended the conferences or even gave speeches (think: Richard Spencer), and there should be no shame on the side of the TBG for associating or even affiliating with a growing popular crowd which espouses many of its tenets. Moreover, there are many other Britons who openly espouse Neoreactionary views, one such notable person is the Youtuber Millennial Woes, who is considered to be the hearth fire of the British Alt-Right, having recorded many commentaries on the movement and its beliefs. Let us also not forget that the milquetoast interpretation of the Alt-Right was largely being popularised by the infamous Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, who should not entirely be shunned by the more radical elements on the Alt-Right. Indeed, he provides an outlet for the more down-to-earth Alt-Right and Trump sympathisers, whether it be through his university tours, the creation of the Young British Heritage Society which aims to fight leftism on campus and promote free speech, or through his constant mockery of feminism and the left.

On the European mainland, the most significant ideological counterpart is the French ‘Generation Identity’ a pan-European socio-political movement that started in France in 2002. The Identitarians finds their roots in the Nouvelle Droite – the European New Right, ancestor-philosophy of the Alt-Right. They describe themselves in their manifesto ‘We Are… Generation Identity’:

“Generation Identity is a fighting community which brings together young men and women from across French-speaking Europe… We call upon young people to raise their heads high: in the face of foreign riffraff, in the face of those who want to police our lives and thoughts, in the face of the homogenisation of nations, in the face of the tidal wave of mass immigration, in the face of a school system which hides the history of our nation from us to prevent us from loving it, in the face of a pretended coexistence which is becoming a nightmare…”

They assert that the street is their permanent headquarters:

This adventure essentially takes place in the street. Of course, new technologies offer us the capability to present a wonderful ‘shop window’ to the world, and new ways of relaying our ideas. But the street remains and will remain the principal place where we express ourselves… in the streets they organise public demonstrations.”

Although, recently, they seem to have moved from protesting on streets to protesting on top of national monuments.

1

As demonstrated here, if Trump were to lose the US presidential election, and the acolytes of the Alt-Right were to whittle away, the movement would not die, it has philosophically similar counterparts all across Europe and the Anglosphere, The Alt-Right, therefore, is not an ephemeral uniform body that only arose due to Trump’s surge in popularity, and which will simply whittle away and leave the political scene with a whimper – it will continue growing.

Is there a place for the left in the Alt-Right?
Yes and no. The left did have influence on the way the Alt-Right came about. The left-libertarian author Keith Preston was an early speaker at the American Renaissance and a contributor to the old Alternative Right blog. He penned his own left-anarchist critique of the Frankfurt School, and his own Anarcho-pluralism stance opposes mass-immigration. His leftism opposes the corporate state. His anti-imperialism and anti-interventionism means he lines up with the Alt-Right on foreign policy. The goals of the radical right and left were bound to meet at some point, for the fruitful benefit of both movements! This is not to say that there are many, if any at all, self-ascribed leftists amongst the Alt-Right, that would be an error by definition, yet the example needed to be pointed out.

Finally, what about the Libertarian Alliance?
The writers for the LA are all different and unique, moreover, they do not always have to agree with each other; yet, the LA is a dissident-right group, and therefore by definition it is also an alternative political outlet – in that, its writers hold very few mainstream beliefs; in many ways, a number of those on the LA Committee would agree with many central doctrines of the Alt-Right or the Neoreaction: traditionalism; rejection of globalism, feminism, multiculturalism; traditional Catholicism, and, of course, the adherence to the Austrian School of Economics. Most would, however, not agree with the more radical notion of political authoritarianism, as it seemingly contradicts the fundamental commandment of libertarianism – the Non-Aggression Principle –  or rather, that frankly, fascism is a leftist ideology. Yet, yours truly, the author, begrudgingly agrees with this core Neoreactionary canon; political authoritarianism – and strictly only political – is necessary to preserve a libertarian (or otherwise) order, and more will be spoken of this in an upcoming piece. Ultimately, the LA is not ‘Alt-Right’, but it does look forward to the further successes of this fledgling movement.

There is, however, an absence of conservative libertarianism in the United Kingdom, while there exist chapters of the largely Paleolibertarian Ludwig von Mises institute all across the world, the British are starved of a Paleolibertarian outlet – or rather they would be, had it not been for the Libertarian Alliance. Nevertheless, the Libertarian Alliance, over the years providing sanctuary to souls of such an inclination, has, I believe, not affirmed itself, it may be time to shed the husk and allow the kernel to sprout.

In the end, all that Hillary achieved through her desperate screech is – as part of the Streisand effect – a surge in the ranks of the Alt-Right and, hopefully, a resuscitation of the real, true, right-wing back into mainstream political discourse and the shift of the Overton window to the right – much to our delight! There are however legitimate fears that come from this sudden populism, as Millennial Woes so aptly points out in his more recent recordings, there is potential for dilution of what it means to be ‘Alt-Right’, and ironically, the loss of the movements identity. This is done by ‘Alt-Lite entryists’ into the movement who think that it all about the gamergate conspiracy, fighting social justice warriors and advocating freedom of speech on university campuses – this isn’t incorrect, it’s just not accurate, these compose one front of the war.

Hopefully, I have managed to exhaustively clarify what the ‘Alt-Right’ is, what its radix is and what the movement hopes to achieve in the years to follow.

2.jpg

Notes

[1] A reference to the Stormfront forum, first major racial hate site on the internet.

[2] Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, pg. 106

Advertisements

36 comments

  • “This crowd was recently labelled as ‘Trump’s Shock Troops’ by the BBC in an overt reference to Nazi Germany”

    When did “shock troops” magically become a Nazi reference?

  • One of the best studies of the alt-Right’s ideological origins so far. Fine work. Congrats from across the Pond.

  • Well, I’m not a Catholic, or any kind of political authoritarian. If I had to describe myself, it would be as a conservative whig. I’m an empiricist and a sceptic and a fan of the Enlightenment. I like this country’s traditional mixed constitution. I don’t regard all-male sex or recreational drug use as “degeneracy” I believe in the goodness of scientific and technological progress.

    Does that put me on the Al Right?

    • No Sean, you certainly aren’t on the Alt-Right, let alone a neoreactionary, it puts you exactly where you say you are. However, Catholicism isn’t a requirement, treat it more akin to a subscription, there are many atheists, pagans and other heretics on the Alt-Right, most of whom just call themselves ‘Cultural Christians’. Technological and scientific progress is not something disavowed by the reactosphere, one strain I omitted for the sake of simplicity was transhumanism.

    • I think I am an authoritarian in the sense that Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was. I believe in government, not statism. I believe in as much freedom as is possible and as much government as necessary. But by government, I mean a government based not on fear, but on authority, that is, one based on interior force and not exterior force. In short, I believe in a natural order. The word “authoritarian” is one of the most useless words in the English language. If it means “bossing people around”, then let us have authoritarianism – there’s no way of avoiding it. The only legitimate point of debate is over who does the bossing around. An aristocracy of wealth, talent, virtue, or land? I’m for the last of these.

      • Keir,

        I’m interested in the distinction between statism and government. When would you say statism took hold in this country as a practical reality?

        • Good question. A long gradual process began with the Reformation. There was an overt period of it with Cromwell. By the time of the Restoration, the age of government by legitimate authority was coming to an end. The Bloodless Revolution brought this to its logical conclusion, with power then seized by a parliamentary oligarchy of rich men, including the great aristocrats, the more yokel of the squires, and the more urban of the merchants. From 1689 onwards there developed a centralised state, with increasing taxes, expenditures, and debt, and rule took on the character of the modern “management” as opposed to the pre-modern “leadership.” That said, things weren’t too bad until the late nineteenth century, and they have only become progressively more awful since the 1914 war.

          The distinction between government and statism is simply this: government is necessary, whereas statism is not. Government means someone “governing”, i.e. making and enforcing the rules; any society needs this. Statism isn’t even a form of government, because it is not about protecting life and property, but about protecting those presently in control of the state. Statism has a centralising tendency, whereas good government generally adheres to the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. rules being enforced at the most local level possible. The two words seem to me of an entirely different character.

          • Doubtless, we shall settle our difference over the Glorious Revolution by trial by combat in Bodrum. I suggest who can hold his breath longest under water.

            • You win hands down if we do that.

              Instead, I suggest an actual trial by combat, but I reserve the right to nominate a champion. I claim Andy Duncan before anyone else.

  • Meyer's Fusionist

    Having read this, I know I am not a follower of the Alt-Right but it is interesting that followers of this movement come from a wide range of different schools of thought including Paleolibertarianism, Nationalism, Right-Wing Populism, Anarcho Conservatism, Traditionalism, Identitarianism, Culturalism, Radicalism and Single Race Preservationism.

    I find it worrying that the Alt-Right would want to do away with democracy and replace it with the ‘natural order’ as this could descend into chaotic anarchism. I know democracy is not perfect but it is the only way of preserving law and order whilst guaranteeing freedom of speech, thought and way of life.

    What I can’t understand is how you can bring and preserve laws protecting life and liberty in a stateless society?

    • Meyer,

      As you know, social order was achieved without mass democracy for most of history. In my view, mass democracy is a result of capitalism, which in the early industrial phase created a large, landless working class dependent on labour-power to make a living. Giving people the vote was a way of controlling them by creating an illusion of participation. Resources were (and are) in the hands of much the same people, regardless of who we ‘vote’ for. Although under capitalism, there was a shift in some economic power and control from the aristocracy to ‘capitalists’, the characteristics of the system remained essentially the same: a very small owning class and a very large non-owning or nominally-owning class.

      I think the point being made by rightists and paeleo-libertarians is that in a different form of political economy, mass democracy as we know and understand it would become less relevant or even redundant.

  • You need to get on twitter to understand and keep pace but it seems to me that white people have, by and large, become immune to the accusation of racism [‘subconscious’ or otherwise] sexism and ‘imperialism.’
    Key figures who have not been mentioned are Chuck Johnson, Mike Cernovich [his book Gorilla Mindset is a must read] Pat Condell, Paul Joseph Watson, & Lauren Southern.
    In concert with Wikileaks these people have exposed – live on periscope in some hilarious instances – the absolute lies and BS of the Left and the MSM – so much so that even small girls now regard them as contemptible- see LtCorbis.
    Politics has become fun once more!

    • I am not sure who the others are, apart from PJ Watson and Pat Condell, but they certainly not alt-right. Pat is more leaning towards the counter-jihadi movement, along with Paul Weston of LibertyGB, Pam Geller, Gates of Vienna and so on and so forth. Much like the EDL were never British Nationalists, the counter jihadi are not alt-right. PJ Watson and Info Wars are not either. I am sure they are all grist to the mill, they all do their thing and our paths sometimes meet, but I think their roots and agendas are on a very different page to what has been described in the above article and to what I, after some 15 years in this game, have come to know.

      • Neither is Milo – but that didn’t prevent him from being labelled as such by Hillary Clinton.
        You don’t have to be a fascist to be labelled as such – or treated as such in law – by the enemy class – Watson and Cernovich are having their data scrutinised by the state as I write.
        This is how the state currently treats Tommy Robinson:

  • I suspect the message of the Alt Right upsets a lot of people because it invokes what terror management theorists in psychology call “mortality salience,” namely, reminders of vulnerability, failure and death. Look up terror management theory and see the experimental support it has – you will see human behavior in a new light once you absorb the theory’s implications.

    Specifically, people have finally started to wake up from the make-believe world of the Radical Enlightenment in the 18th Century. This sweeping social experiment – based on pseudoscience about equality, democracy, feminism, human fungibility, the mind as a blank slate, cosmopolitanism, borderlessness, mass immigration, miscegenation and trying to erase the biological distinctions between men and women – has come crashing down around us because it conflicts with man’s nature. “Social progress” can never happen because human nature doesn’t change; and “social justice” remains forever beyond reach because society’s losers, misfits, kooks, weaklings, defectives, scolds, utopians and degenerates have conflicting grievances that they can’t reconcile, especially when it comes to dividing up the shrinking pile of spoils produced by generations of white people’s labor.

    In other words, the Alt Right has rediscovered and articulated for our generation the essential tragedy of the human condition. It has become the voice of wisdom and maturity in a world full of delusions that we can no longer sustain. I have my doubts as to whether Donald Trump has really stumbled across this perspective, much less that he knows what to do with it. But thanks to the inadvertent attention he has drawn to the Alt Right, American politics in the 2020’s could look radically different from the nonsense that has damaged the United States for the past few generations.

    • Excellent insight, Mark. This should go on the front page IMO.

  • I thought this was a good article, thanks for sharing it. I don’t have much I could add to it. I think it is pretty accurate and a good introduction to something I have been involved with for quite a number of years, coming from the ‘ethno-nationalist’ ‘white nationalist’ side of things.

    Liberalism and globalism is finally showing signs of fatigue, and the more they push in desperation, the more emboldened and determined the alt-right will become to rescue their races, their nations, their futures.

    They cannot put the cat back in the bag. It is not a fad, or a “Trump” thing. It is the reaction to the false choices and false societies being erected around us, to our detriment. For every action has to have a counter-reaction…and seeing as traditional conservatism has had 70 years of failure and slippage to the “left”, there was nobody or no entity to act as the salvage crew, so one has been created, and now it is gaining notoriety.

  • Reblogged this on and commented:

    Possbile the best essay I have read on the Radical Right rise in a long while.

  • I also forgot to mention Stefan Molyneux, Sargon of Akkad and Ramzpaul who have all been very damaging to the cucks [ cuckold conservatives] the MSM presstitutes and the regressive left etc..

    • I used to watch Sargon, although he denounced the Alt-Right. Nevertheless, he too has done a good job with gamergate, sjwism on camps and the like, none of which really concerns me, but it’s still praiseworthy.

    • Sargon, unfortunately, isn’t particularly solid when he isn’t attacking the left, much like Ben Shapiro (who possibly due to his background is intrinsically opposed to it). Molyneux, by contrast, has gotten steadily better on the topic, e.g. this recent video:

      He also did a good video recently with Jared Taylor of AmRen.

      I’d say Milo Yannopoulos is more solid on the topic than Sargon. As are The Alternative Hypothesis, another Youtube poster, who maintains a very good blog.

      • “intrinsically opposed to it” = alt right

        He doesn’t even like Ron Paul, whom he accuses of “anti-semitism”, a clearly ludicrous charge.

  • Here, for example, is a typical reaction to accusations of racism – far from being shamed they regard such accusations as a source of amusement.

  • Mr Jankowski

    I must take the time to thank you for penning this article, since obviously a lot of research went into it. It is perhaps the best ‘diagnosis’ of the AltRight from outside the AltRight that I have read, which makes it no surprise that it would not appear in a well-known news outlet.

    A couple of points I think could augment a more ‘full’ analysis of the situation.

    NeoReaction didn’t really become the AltRight, although it certainly influenced it. NRx still exists today as a seperate entity to something like AmRen which while entertaining Reactionary thought, is not explicitly reactionary in the vein of Maistre (another big influence). It would be fair to say that the truly intellectual contingency of the AltRight is Reactionary, but much of the Trump-mania, meme-brigades are not exactly intellectuals of any stripe, rather the disenfranchised and dispossessed of young white males
    Anti-feminism has also been infused by the rise of the ‘Manosphere’, and its many controversial websites. Those involved with this overlapped into Gamergate and subsequently into AltRight activity, becoming more hardline themselves.
    The religious angle also transcends the AltRight itself. There has for a while been a contingent of hardline Roman Catholic blogs who are critical of Pope Francis, in fact just recently they received the scorn of a Canadian cardinal (I can’t remember his name). Again, these have overlapped somewhat with the AltRight because they are dissident, and have never felt at home in the American ‘religious right’ which has been a haven for philosemitic snakehandlers and Mormons who think the constitution is a divine document. The ‘Orthosphere’ and the late Lawrence Auster’s blog are examples of hotbeds of far right religious thought.
    There is a strong current of compliment towards Russia within the AltRight, and it is reciprocated. Not only is there a growing interest in the recalcitrant nature of Eastern Orthodoxy, but also in the geopolitical theories of figures like Aleksandr Dugin, whom Spencer was set to speak alongside in Budapest a couple of years back. There is a shared goal between the far right and the increasingly illiberal Russia, that of the destruction of the American embassy project, Soros-backed ‘color revolutions’, the end of the left wing EU, etc. A ‘multipolar’ world is desired by all, in contrast to the one-world government vision of the Liberals. Viktor Orban of Hungary is doing for that country what AltRighters hope Trump will do for America.

    The phenomena of the ‘AltRight’ is hard to define, hard to tease apart for sure, but that only belies the fact that is is more a useful descriptor than an organization or brand. I’d probably prefer to think of the ‘AltRight Renaissance’ as a historical period in metapolitical discourse, that being when ‘Conservatism’, ‘Constitutionalism’ etc. lost their appeal to naturally conservative people, and a re-emergence of truly anti-Liberal thought once again bubbled to the surface. I’m sure you are aware of the ‘German Conservative Revolution’ that took place during the Interwar period, figures like Oswald Spengler, Edgar Julius Jung, and Othmar Spann (a teacher of Hayek by the way) promoting an alternative to Modernity. Now, imagine if they had not been swept aside by the National Socialists. I feel that today’s renaissance in rightist thought is the equivalent of this, bejewelled for the internet age.

    One thing I have found truly remarkable about these spheres since entering them is the level of discourse here, the sheer amount of material being produced. This is much richer and deeper than the goose-stepping Hitler worship of yesteryear’s neo-nazis. The esoteric theories of Rene Guenon are debated, the works of Cortes are poured over, the vision of national rebirth esposed by the relatively obscure Romanian Iron Guard is celebrated. There is nowhere more interesting to be than this sphere, and one learns something new every day. If Hungary and Russia serve as forerunners, come what may with regards to the Trump candidacy, the new right which is in fact the old old ancient right will be a potent political force this century.

  • Pingback: Alt-Right: A Reply to Jakub Jankowski | The Libertarian Alliance Blog

  • Good article, Jakub. The alt-right is actually better than Trump. We don’t actually know if Trump has any real plans. As an end to multiculturalism is the key to liberty, all other issues are subordinate to it, and so the alt-right is something libertarians can support.

    • Agreed; it’s especially compatible with paleolibertarianism.

      Trump is merely a means to an end.

  • Pingback: The Rise of the Radical Right: The Alt-Right and the Trump Campaign - VIDEO - Knights Templar International

  • On the Austrian school; unlike the other economic schools, it really hammers in the point that value is subjective, and therefore not solely economic in nature – in fact, it is psychic (mental) in nature. Its thinkers are therefore less hostile to the notion that one could place a premium e.g. on group identity and less likely to dismiss it as ‘irrational’. There are some outliers who are more Chicagoan in their views and tend to exclude anything not aimed at the maximisation of economic value as ‘irrational’ (a term which is only sensible in relation to definitions endogenous to the neoclassical Chicagoan viewpoint.) Having Rothbard, Hoppe and a few others as examples of paleolibertarian thinkers in its midst does help bolster its appeal to the alt-right crowd, I suppose.

    On: “whether that is the belief in universal human rights;”, I take it this is referring to the modern “liberal” interpretation of the doctrine, rather than a limited set of rights derived through interpretations of Aristotelian natural law (e.g. as developed by Douglass Rasmussen & den Uyl)? Curiously enough, I don’t think the NAP itself is a “rights” doctrine, so much as a justifiability test, especially if you take Hoppe’s approach to it.

  • Interestingly, the disinformation outlet known as the Washington Post has joined the fray: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/02/where-did-donald-trump-get-his-racialized-rhetoric-from-libertarians/?utm_term=.1c6a6f663aa5

  • Pingback: The Rise of the Radical Right: The Alt Right Neoreaction and the Trump Campaign « Attack the System

  • Thank you for a very illuminationg text. It is really excellent.

    May I ask, does the alt right protect the limited liability company? Huge concentrations of property will subvert any system. But fighting against it with rules, violence in essence, will warp society, well, we saw where the Bolsjeviks went. But alot of these problems would be solved by only protecting private ownership. Suddenly all ownership gets a face. People will have to take responsibility. And biology has a way of breaking up propertyconcentrations with time. One oligarch has alot of children. Another has only one that is inept. Etcetera. Im just interested in a discussion of this.

  • Can you really have an aristocratic society without war? It seems to me that alot of our problems comes from technological sophistication has made war so destructive that our nations had to seek other goals after ww1. But war is at the core of an aristocracy. But if we reintroduce huge wars, the very effort to fight them will recreate socialism and destroy any aristocracy. I guess in a way this dynamic makes it understandable that the germans tried national socialism after ww1. But ns is an extremely destructive ideology to any society that adopts it, imho. The corporativism eats society from within until it becomes an empty husk.

  • Pingback: The Alt Right « Amerika

  • It is not Krugman in the picture, but Lula, brazilian ex-president, so to speak.

  • Pingback: How Will the State Respond to Growing Antifa/Alt-Right Violence? « Attack the System

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s