Faux Right

Alternative Right has continued to make waves around the blogosphere. The site has generated more attention than I expected. I thought Spencer would launch the site and it would quietly attract a niche audience of racialists, libertarians, and paleos. It seemed reasonable to expect that Alt Right would get the silent treatment like the rest of our websites.

That hasn’t happened. The Frumbots lashed out. Imagine 2050 and Red Jeffrey piled on. I’ve addressed them all in previous posts. Some idiot called E.D. Kain (who no one knows) wrote another hit piece yesterday evening. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs chimed in last night. The house negro at Republicans United whined about racism. I felt his pain.

More of this is coming down the pike. This is good news for a brand new website! Alt Right’s enemies have inadvertently created a lot of buzz and publicity for Spencer’s project. I know it is a cliché by now to point this out, but conservatives are reliably stupid. The smart thing to do would have been to enforce “dynamic silence” and contain the brush fire to the racialist community. Maybe Alt Right would have died a quiet death in obscurity.

The temptation to respond proved irresistible for several reasons: 1.) In the introduction video, Richard Spencer twisted the nose of David Frum, and the bots were ordered to respond. 2.) The VDARE connection was fodder for left-wing conspiracy theories. 3.) Red Jeffrey religiously follows our sites and would have commented anyway. 4.) Alt Right is aesthetically superior to other “hate sites.” 5.) Charles Johnson is obsessed with sniffing out fascism in the conservative movement and this fits into his ongoing narrative of right-wing evil. 6.) Alt Right uses a discourse unfamilar to braindead liberals and conservatives who have been living in a bubble for the last twenty years.

A cursory glance at the negative reviews leaves me convinced of the superiority of the “Alternative Right.” This is a genus larger than Spencer’s website. Tim Mak, for example, doesn’t seem to know that we have never called ourselves “racists” and “sexists.” These are terms of abuse imported from the left. Imagine 2050 thinks Alt Right is Peter Brimelow’s website and that Chronicles is a “White Nationalist” magazine. E.D. Kain and Charles Johnson ramble on about “human biological diversity” (read: “human biodiversity”) and reveal their total ignorance of the subject.

A common charge from the Faux Right is that Alt Right uses a “politically correct terminology” to whitewash “racism.” Terms like “human biodiversity,” “evolutionary psychology,” and “sociobiology” have been around for decades. Scholars like E.O. Wilson have written important books in the natural sciences about these subjects. “Racialism” dates back to the early twentieth century and was in use years before “racism” appeared in the 1930s. A subscriber to “human biodiversity” believes the average differences in racial groups are partially attributable to heredity, but such a person is not necessarily a “racist,” as HBD does not imply a vertical hierarchy of “superior” and “inferior” races. Most HBD types are libertarians, not White Nationalists. This distinction is lost on Beltway conservatives whose worldview was formulated on a diet of trash like Comeback: How Conservatives Can Win Again or How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must.

There is a large group of – how should I put this, young men of the right – who were intelligent enough to see through this garbage many years ago or never bothered with it. I stopped reading Ayn Rand when I was 21 years old. There is little of interest in the American conservative canon. Most of the best titles (admittedly, there are a few classics worth reading) were written decades ago and have no relevance to the neocon dominated Beltway conservative movement. Libertarianism has a stronger intellectual tradition, but like so much of philosophy, it is ultimately nothing more than empty sand castles in the air based on allegedly “self evident” axioms like the non-aggression principle. Try running that one by the Neanderthals.

There is no “one true system” of social science analogous to the laws of physics. The liberal arts and social sciences like political science, sociology, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and history can collect data, discover patterns, and inform our actions with practical advice, but they will never prescribe the “one true model” of human behavior. The Enlightenment and Christianity have sent us on this fool’s errand. At the end of the day, human behavior is still largely governed by custom, habit, and tradition.

Even more primordial forces are at work. Human behavior is far too predictable to be learned. We eat, drink, sleep, blink, breathe, fuck, fight, marry, reproduce and much else without giving much thought to our actions. We experience a range of emotions that produce instant value judgments. Humans evolved these behaviors because they were adaptive to our survival in the real world. Traditions persist across generations when they are adaptive to present environmental conditions and foster reproductive success.

This concept of adaptiveness gives us a measuring stick which we can use to analyze competing intellectual traditions and behaviors. We can see right off the bat that feminism, homosexuality, abortion, and birth control do not foster high birthrates. Expressive individualism leads to high divorce rates and low parental investment. Excessive materialism is a strong deterrent to family formation. Third world immigration floods Western nations with hostile aliens who do not share our heritage or ethnic interests. The guilt cult of multiculturalism doesn’t inspire confidence in our civilization and its future.

Let’s travel further down this road. High taxes punish young White families and depress birthrates. Affirmative Action takes jobs away from White males in their reproductive years. Transfer payments to non-Whites (welfare and government healthcare) take money away from White families and disproportionately redistributes their wealth to hostile fecund minorities. Whites are forced to subsidize inferior public schools for negroes and Hispanics and pay again for schools for their own children. Whites pay inflated prices for housing in distant suburbs to avoid the costs of non-White violent crime. Free trade and outsourcing suck highpaying American jobs overseas and force potential mothers into the workforce. Dysgenic foreign wars to “spread democracy” abroad kill off the most heroic and masculine White males in their prime.

The “Alternative Right” cannot be accused of intellectual vacuity or inconsistency. Our worldview is based on a careful analysis of the American cultural and political scene from the perspective of self interest. We reject flighty universal abstractions in favor of visceral concrete ideals – blood, soil, nation, and faith – that produce adaptive behavior in the real world. We endorse customs, habits, traditions, and public policies that work for us. We want to lift the minds of America’s deracinated White youth out of gutter and give them a sense of purpose.

What does the Faux Right have to offer the American majority? In his response to Richard Spencer, E.D. Kain talks about “respect for tradition,” but never explains what is meant by this. He says in the comments of his article that John Derbyshire is “deserving of the ash heap of history” for his rejection of feminism! Kain also wrote to Charles Johnson - the deranged leftist proprieter of Little Green Footballs – to encourage him to attack Richard Spencer. There is a seamless transition between the far left and the neoconservative right. They are one of the same force. The Charles Johnson-Frum Forum connection proves it.

The sole purpose of the Faux Right – Frum Forum being a prime example – is to introduce retreads of the most crazy leftist ideas from twenty years ago into the conservative movement and push the national political spectrum to the left. The whining and crying about “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “nativism,” and “reactionaries” reflects their leftist agenda. I suppose a secondary purpose would be to provide careers in politics for useless Beltway hacks who cannot contribute to society in a more productive way.

The Faux Right doesn’t believe in racial, national, or cultural preservation. They are not carrying on any discernable American tradition. These people despise pre-MLK America. They seek to “transform” the United States into a nation that reflects progressive ideals (read: a minority-majority country). To his credit, Charles Johnson has at least openly stated his allegiance to the left, which somewhat limits his effectiveness. The neocons at Frum Forum share his radical anti-White agenda, but are smart enough not to discuss it openly.

Charles Johnson is right about one thing. White Nationalists are on the march. We’re going to smash the Faux Right in Washington one way or another. The future existence of our people demands it.

Occidental Dissent, March 14, 2010