The Weev Strategy

To most people, Andrew Auernheimer, better known as “Weev” is nothing more than a raving racist, a troll, and a lunatic. As a contributor to Neo-Nazi websites like the “Daily Stormer,” and having recently advocated killing all non-whites, this is a natural, and superficially believable position to hold.

The truth is, in my opinion, far more sinister.

Weev is not crazy. He is a relatively successful coder and hacker, and is not just sane, but rather intelligent. What you are witnessing, when you see him say something like “filthy fucking jew communist, gas him with the others,” is not just a raw expression of how he feels, but a refined rhetorical strategy.

Marketers use a technique called “A/B Testing” to determine the optimally effective message for influencing viewers. They will draw up two different forms of a message, and present it to two different audiences. The one that persuades the larger audience, either to click an ad, or to vote for a candidate, is accepted as the superior formulation, and can be refined itself in turn.

Weev’s extreme language is not the outburst of a delusional white guy. It was decided upon, consciously, as a result of Weev’s own rhetorical A/B testing. You can listen to his interviews from several years ago, and he sounds fringe, but not particularly extreme. In his interview with Christopher Cantwell, however, he sounds positively deranged. Not, of course, because he is, but because he’s found that the more extreme you are, the more persuasive you are.

In other words, Weev isn’t the crazy one. We are.

Broadly speaking anyways.

It is hard to actually tell what Weev’s personal politics are. He may genuinely believe everything he says, or he may be a relatively moderate racial nationalist, similar to Greg Johnson or Richard Spencer. We just can’t know. Sincerity isn’t the language Weev is speaking.

As a metapolitical question, this insincerity – or, to be more fair, the ineffectiveness of sincerity – should be far more concerning than Weev’s overtly stated views. To put the politics themselves in perspective, Weev and the extreme right are the least of America’s troubles. Radical feminists and racial activists like #BlackLivesMatter have been using similar, absurd statements to extraordinary persuasive effect. The strategy or extreme language is the problem, and pointing it out won’t solve it because it is effective.

There are two reasons why this is a poor strategy in the long run, however. I will grant all of the short-term benefits of shifting the Overton Window through the linguistic equivalent of hard-power, but I still hope that most people, on both sides of the aisle, will reject the strategy, not because it is immoral (which it is), but because it is ineffective on a long timeline.

First, the quality and duration of the persuasion will be low. To persuade more intelligent people, for longer periods of time, persuasion by reason will be necessary, and unnecessarily exaggerating your actual position will justifiably make both your reasoning and your motives appear suspicious to perceptive people. Emotion may get larger numbers of people, but on the whole, they will be dumber, and easier to convince away again.

Secondly and more importantly, keeping track of one’s lies, exaggerations, and rhetorical false-positions quickly becomes an impossible task. To put a finer point on it, it is extremely difficult to keep you actual beliefs and your rhetorical tricks and lies separate, in your own head. Very often, people will rise to positions of prominence, only to fall because “they believed their own bullshit.” Worse still, the habituation of lies, to whatever degree, can be hard to keep compartmentalized in only one area of your life. The pattern of justification and ex post facto rationalization is a slippery slope.

Weev says that “you can’t argue with statistics,” but that depends greatly on the time horizon that the statistic is analyzing things on. You could, for example, look at the statistics wealth and socialism. In the moment, a complete wealth redistribution would actually solve economic disparities across societies. By definition, the data will support this conclusion. The data, however, doesn’t look at the corrosion of economic incentives such a policy would have, nor would it account for the necessary character qualities by which value is generated in the first place. Such a “data-based” solution would be inherently short-term, and by sacrificing one’s values for momentary statistics, it would ultimately defeat the ostensible intended purpose of for which the redistribution was executed in the very first place.

Principles, being products of very, very long periods of time, and the intuitive observations of ancient people, are extremely difficult to “prove” by metrics. Our lived experiences, however, bear out their truth. History also demonstrates the persistent hierarchy of virtues and principles. Statistics can sometimes be used to demonstrate these principles, but when they are selectively foisted for short-term gain against the wisdom of well-known moral principles, we are right to be suspicious, perhaps not of the individual, but at the very least of the efficacy of their proposed strategy.

I actually share a fair bit of political views in common with Weev. His appreciation of opera, and of the finer arts, is something that few other people can honestly brag about, and his knowledge of them demonstrates a sincerity at least of that. In short, I do not actually think he is a bad person. Given his background, I will even go so far as to say he’s done quite well for himself. His proposed strategy for political persuasion, however, must not be accepted. It is doomed to fail in the long run, likely to corrode his character in the process, and opens the worst kind of Pandora’s Box even in the short run. Will Weev seriously be able to control people if they take him at his word (which some invariably will), rather than the more reasonable and achievable goals he once espoused?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people out there who unironically believe that gassing the Jews, and otherwise killing off all the non-whites in the United States and Europe, is a good idea. Forget the morality of that, for a moment. Even if this didn’t bother you in the slightest on humane grounds, is that sound strategically?  Do you think that “minorities” and other enemies in positions of power aren’t going to use these quotes as moral leverage against you, and as legitimate justification to defend themselves? The best way to defeat an enemy, according to Sun Tzu, is to make them into a friend. All nations, races, and cultures are eventually diluted and destroyed by globalism, (yes, even the Jews). Declaring potential allies against a common enemy, and for a common cause, to be natural enemies makes zero sense from a purely strategic sense. The moral argument against this, I think, speaks for itself.

Obviously, this is not to say that everyone can be a friend. But it is an argument against unnecessarily multiplying one’s enemies for rhetorical effect.

The far better approach we might call the “Hitchens strategy.” You can mingle your arguments with humor and wit, and formulate them in creative, perhaps unorthodox forms, but never, ever lie. You will not convert as many people, and probably won’t get as many “unique engagements” with your audience. But those you convince will be of greater value than a thousand times the number of lesser converts brought in through appealing to their respect and then withdrawing it, to emotionally force an agreement, as the R.A.C.E. method does. These strong converts may, in turn, create converts of their own. And unlike those brought in by Weev and those who follow his strategy, converts brought in through good faith will not one day wake up and realize they had been convinced into a position by lies and emotional manipulation. Many of woke up from our own “default-liberal” slumbers through such unpleasant revelations. If you can remember what that recognition felt like, bear the suffering in mind before extending it back from the opposite side of the aisle.

After all, you presumably came to hold your own political position by reasoning. Don’t lose faith so quickly in others’ ability to do the same. Even if it takes a little while.

The Death of the Father

In my ongoing interrogation of the Nietzschean criticism of Christianity, I can’t help but go into Nietzsche’s own personal life. His criticism is framed in a very personal manner, both his criticisms generally of those captured by a slave morality, and those of the priestly class in particular. “Why so personal?” is an important question. It is also a personal question, and the answer may more holistically frame the entirety of Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity, and may provide an introduction to my eventual, complete answer to The Antichrist, which I have summarized and written about elsewhere.

I accosted a Catholic priest in a McDonalds a few months ago, offering to pay for his meal if he would answer a question I had. He refused the money, but happily asked what was troubling me.

I told him that I had been having difficulty with hatred and theology (which was true; the morality is much simpler than the theology), and asked what the Catholic doctrine was on the subject. I gave him the normal verses that for me, threw some ambiguity on the subject: Psalm 139 and Ecclesiastes 3.

What followed was a wonderful 10 minute conversation. Needless to say, the priest had a different interpretation on the morality of the emotion than I did, but for the sake of listening, I kept my mouth shut and merely asked follow up questions to tried to dig deeper theologically, rather than argue with the old man.

One of the points he made, in defense of his claim that hatred is never justified towards another person, is that when we hate someone, what we are really hating is the weakness that the other is exposing in ourselves. It was, curiously, a sort of Nietzschean position of sorts.

He elaborated further, arguing that in this way, many people – lacking the abstract comprehension necessary to ascertain the nature of God – project their own father’s nature and personality onto God the Father. Much atheism, in his view, comes about from disillusionment with the power and wisdom of their own father, which gets displaced , or blurred in the conceptual translation, onto God.

It is a well-known fact that Nietzsche’s father, Carl Ludwig Nietzsche, was a Lutheran minister, whom the young Friederich loved very much. Carl died when Friederich was only four or five years old, and most accounts claim that the young philosopher spent years mourning his father’s death.

Might it be possible that the philosopher famous not for the line “there is no God,” but that “God is dead,” is anthropomorphizing and projecting? Intrinsic in the ability to claim “God is dead” is the notion of the kind of God that is capable of dying, one that is both metaphorical, (a preview of Campbellian or Jungian notions of the divine), and yet mortal, human. In Nietzsche’s case, all too human. A meta-categorical identification of God, as we can see from Campbell, Jung, and even a little bit from Aquinas, transcends the possibility of cessation, because it transcends categorization by time. To fall away from this kind of God would mean a rejection of the usefulness, or meaningfulness, of the idea. By definition, it could not mean that God had “died.”

For Nietzsche, God was cultural in nature. Like Tinkerbell in Peter Pan, God died only when people stopped believing in him, and living by him. If new philosophical understandings dug the foundations out from underneath the intellectual edifice of Christianity, than it was only a matter of time before the cultural acceptance of God would collapse. Like Tinkerbell, God would spark, sputter, and fade away.

Yet the intellectually-grounded God – the God of Jesus, of Augustine, and Aquinas – is not the sort of God that is dependent upon massive cultural acceptance. Jesus began with 12 disciples only, and told his followers to expect persecution and rejection by the world, which was fundamentally of the devil. The sort of God that Christians have always believed in was not dependent upon the cultural hegemony it happened to maintain throughout the Middle Ages.

It seems far more likely that Nietzsche’s claim, that “God is dead,” and the sorrowful manner in which he tells that story in The Gay Science, comes from his own personal life. That Nietzsche’s father is dead, and that God had killed him.

The merciless anger directed upon the weakness of the priestly class, and upon Christianity, reads more aptly as a generalized condemnation of the weakness that killed his father. It would have been a far more attractive idea to the young Friederich that the religion his father had devoted his life to had somehow infected him with weakness, and that that weakness might somehow be cured by escape from Christianity. Tragically, for Nietzsche, this seems not to be the case. Carl died at age 36 from a brain ailment of some sort; Nietzsche, despite all of his praise for the virtue of strength, also died of a brain ailment, at age 55.

As Augustine argued in City of God, devotion to God may not save you from marauding Goths, or the ravages of unfortunate genetics, but hunting for the old Gods won’t save you either. Fending off foreigners, and fending off ailments, are the prerogatives of military and medical science, respectively. They are not questions of the relative strengths and weaknesses of one’s faith.

Historically speaking, the only civilization that can remotely compare to European Christian civilization is that of the Chinese. The Greeks don’t compare, powerful as they were for their time, and even the Pagan Romans don’t compare to their Christian Byzantine brothers, in cultural strength and sustainability. The Romans may have had their moment in the sun, but their thirst for conquest made them flare like a firework before crumbling away, under the strain of an over-extended, multi-ethnic empire. Under Christianity, men have become stronger, smarter, safer, and more successful than under virtually any other rule of governance. One can speak of the “pagan spirit” still lying beneath a Christian veneer in the days of Beowulf, and even (though perhaps less believably) in the early crusaders. But one can hardly make this claim of the Prussian military orders and the Polish winged-hussar, or of the hard-working industrialists, the scientists, and the explorers, that dominated the medieval ages, the enlightenment, and the Renaissance.

Whether this came about because of Christianity is irrelevant. It happened under Christianity, and was performed predominantly by Christians. The hypothesis that Christianity erodes the will and culls the Thumos from man is historically unlikely.

That the hypothesis stems from a refusal to accept the death of the father seems comparatively more so.

“Who is My Neighbor?”

Vox Day and Red Eagle observed, in the theological chapter of their excellent book Cuckservativehow many churches seem to have veered from Christianity proper. Classical theology is being replaced with a kind of philosophy of social justice, cloaked in Christian language. Vox and Red called this “Churchianity,” or “Good Samaritanism,” as the doctrine of Christianity to these Christians appears to have become the simplified ideal of the Good Samaritan for them.

The truth is that even Vox Day and Red Eagle’s healthy injection of sanity actually doesn’t quite cover the depth of the misunderstanding of the parable. Culturally, the meaning of the story of the Good Samaritan is that we are obligated to help those in need, and that everyone is our neighbor. I will walk through the entire passage, which is Luke 10:25-37, in stages, in order to demonstrate that both of these assumptions are false:

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

Already, it is clear that the questioner is not being sincere, but is attempting to test Jesus. They attempted this same kind of Socratic, questioning sophistry later, on the question of taxation, to which Jesus famously pointed out that the coins had Caesar’s likeness and therefore belonged to Caesar, before saying that they should “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Such an answer brilliantly dodged the trap that they had attempted to put him in, between Roman authority on one hand, and legitimacy in the eyes of the Jews on the others: if he told the Jews that they should not pay taxes, he would have become a criminal, yet if he had told them directly that they should, he would have been going against the Jewish Zealot position that the poll tax constituted a kind of slavery under Roman rule.

All three accounts describe the pharisees as attempting to trick him in some way: how they might “entangle him in talk,” in Matthew; how they could “catch him in his words” in Mark; in Luke, they are described not as scholars, but as spies “which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.”

These are the same sorts of people confronting Jesus with the question about legal definitions. Remember, loving your neighbor is not just a spiritual injunction, but a cultural law. Against such questions, we should already be preparing ourselves for a layered and nuanced answer.

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

From what perspective is this story being led? The Samaritan has not yet been introduced, and yet Jesus is already presenting the lawyer with a character in whose place he is to imagine himself by analogy.

It should be amusing that Jesus casts the two callous travelers as a priest and a Levite (one of the tribes from which priests are trained).

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Truly going the extra mile with assistance. Was Jesus advocating that everyone behave as the Samaritan did though? To answer this question, we can look to Jesus’ own example. When confronted with a woman in need, Jesus initially told his followers that “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” When the woman herself asked him for help, Jesus curtly said “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.”

Ultimately, of course, Jesus had mercy, and helped her. But does this say that the Canaanite woman is his neighbor? Or does it merely describe something about our nature as humans? Our legal scholar provides Jesus with the answer

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

The critical question is about the last sentence. Is it to be read as a literal injunction? Or is it a tongue in cheek response to uncharitable, mendacious tricksters? If we are to take this sharp response literally, it would mean that the scholar’s answer to his own question — that only the Samaritan is the beaten man’s neighbor — was wrong. But Jesus’s response was an affirmative, however tacit.

It is easy to assume that since the Samaritan was the only one doing something in the tale, the phrase “go thou and do likewise” would of course refer to the Samaritan’s actions. But the question was not about how one ought to act. Remember, we are still to imagine ourselves as the beaten man. “Go thou and do likewise” makes far more sense when understood to mean, essentially, go and live by the laws agreed upon, with the understanding that perhaps two out of three people are not your neighbor, even if they are of your tribe or ethnicity.

In light of Matthew 15, and of Jesus’s teachings and the Bible as a whole, a literal and binding interpretation of “go, and do thou likewise,” in which everyone is your neighbor, appears to be logically impossible, theologically contradictory, legally unhelpful, politically stupid, and contextually nonsensical.

It would make Jesus a strange kind of man, out of tune with the emotive nature of natural conversations, and at odds with his deep emotional nature as displayed by his righteous wrath in the temple, and his deep despair at Gethsemane.

The parable of the Good Samaritan does not say that everyone is your neighbor, and that we must emulate the Good Samaritan (though it certainly doesn’t argue that we shouldn’t). It says that some people are naturally kind, and that those who treat you extraordinarily well are your neighbors. It says that those who leave you broken on the side of the road are not your neighbors.

And it says that if you’re trying to trick people up in legal and theological word traps, you’re probably a lying hypocrite that needs to get your priorities straightened out, and maybe to give those who are saving the world a little bit more charity.

Death of the Nation-State?

I was listening to a fascinating debate between Vox Day and Jack Murphy on the subject of the Alt-Right and the viability of ethnic nationalism in America, and there was an interesting point that Vox Day brought up, regarding the advent of 4th Generation Warfare.

4th Generation Warfare (4GW) is characterized by a blurring of the traditional lines between warfare and politics. It is highly decentralized, usually fought through a combination of terrorism, propaganda, and litigation, the goal being to operate in the fog between moral legitimacy and the raw exertion of power, and in doing so, make your side more difficult to identify and to hit.

In answer to one of Jack Murphy’s questions (about the possibility of “CalExit“), Vox Day pointed out that since the advent of 4GW, the monopoly of state power with violence has significantly eroded:

The ironic thing is that the U.S. has gone to war several times to protect the self-determination of peoples. It is ironic that they would use violence to prevent self-determination on the part of American citizens.

I am not saying that Jack is wrong, I think that might be the case, but the reality is that it will not be too long before that option disappears.

It will not be too long before the proliferation of genetic weapons and other WMDs are going to nullify the overwhelming power of the central state.

One of the books we publish, the 4th Generation War Handbook with Lind and Thiele, talks about how the state loses most of the wars that it fights now. In the last fifty years, the regular military forces have lost almost every encounter with populace forces that they have fought.

It is a valid point on the subject of California alone (or Texas and Cascadia, for that matter). But technology rarely sits in one place for very long. 4GW and the types of technology to which Vox is referring could undermine the monopoly of force held by the state to wage wars and to enforce law. In other words, we may see the death of the nation-state as a model for human organization within the next century.

It is often forgotten just how modern an invention the nation state is, particularly in its current political trappings. Prior to the 18th century, in fact, the nation state almost did not exist (with a few notable exceptions, like Japan). Small tribes, like the Cherusci and the Cherokee; city states like Sparta and Athens; feudal kingdoms like Northumbria and Bavaria; multi-ethnic empires like Rome and China. All of these existed, but not nation states as we see them today. There was no “France,” or “Spain,” merely a variety of groups within the boundaries of the regions that we today call “France” and “Greek.” Some of these spoke French, some spoke Greek; others spoke Latin, Arabic, or even Gaelic. Dorians Acheans, Aeolians, Ionians, Persians, and various North African peoples have variously occupied the Hellenic archipelago. In France, the Franks, Celts, Visigoths, Saxons, and even Vikings have variously passed through and settled. Each of these groups had their own government, or more likely, loose alliance between a collection of clannish governments.

As Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. points out in The Common Law, the origins of our modern judicial system arose out of a desire to minimize the damage caused by inter-tribal blood feuds. The right to the monopoly of force was ceded to a wise king, who could arbitrate disputes and enforce his rulings with overwhelming power if necessary.

Armies, by contrast, began through alliances between tribes that shared a temporary common interest. The Achaean alliance against the Trojans, as reported in the Iliad, is one such example. If you voluntarily grant to a king the monopoly of violence over your people, you may as well grant military power abroad as well. Thus the foundations for the “night watchmen state” were laid. Today, it has certainly grown beyond this libertarian core, into something of a leviathon of collective philanthropy. But without the power of overwhelming violence at its core, the state loses both its moral and practical legitimacy.

4GW fundamentally undermines this moral and practical foundation. The technology and organizational strategies that make 4GW possible are unanswerable to the State. This is because the state is necessarily organized by explicit laws that constrain its power… without these explicit constraints, the difference between a voluntary granting of the monopoly of force and the involuntary subjugation of a people under a ruling class fades away.

At first, this may sound as if it only applies to liberal democracies. But more authoritarian nations are far more susceptible to 4GW psy-ops than liberal democracies are. Historically speaking, the possibility of absolute power over a group always proves to be more attractive to the greedy and the corrupt than to those more suited for ruling, if it doesn’t corrupt those already holding the office. A nation divided from within is easy to invade and conquer, especially when a large part of its population is desperate for some semblance of order.

It is impossible to know exactly what form of government will follow the nation state. Perhaps it will be a collection of loose tribes, each insular and distrusting of outsiders, but willing to quickly and fluidly combine forces to defend against common threats (if such combination is even needed; with 4GW, the cost of invasion is much higher than before). Perhaps it will be some kind of technologically-enabled collection of direct democracies, with a Wikipedia-style body of common law, enforced through algorithmic digital sanctions. Such a techno-state could exist without actual geographic boundaries; who knows. Perhaps the only safe option will be to avoid the web, and follow the example of the demographically-exploding Amish peoples–off the grid, and building barns with hammers and horses. At this point in time, the possibilities are so multifaceted and unexplored that we can only speculate.

It will have to be something though. Between the rising debt, the increasing difficulty of even defining — let alone enforcing — the law, and securing national borders, the modern nation state is failing to preserve the nations it was purpose-built to protect. On the subject of immigration, for example, the problem is as much legal immigration as it is illegal, if not more so. Our modern state seems ill-equipped to handle such distinctions, as foreign peoples are finding ways — with the help of technology previously unavailable — to invade and exploit foreign nations before heading back home, if they do not simply remain and turn their new home country into a version of their homeland.

I have gotten the crazy look from friends for suggesting that civil war was coming to the United States within the next 10-20 years. But within the 4GW model, the war isn’t coming: it’s already here. In case you aren’t aware, war has been declared on you. By Muslims from ISIS now living in your home country; by blacks in #BLM who believe whites to be genetically inferior and ought to be enslaved or killed off; by La Raza Cosmica, who want to take over the South West of the United States and perhaps more after that. Even by other people who share your race, but who hold different values and different political ideologies. They will not launch terror-attacks, lawsuits, and propaganda campaigns against you in the future: they are already doing that right now.

And the Nation-State won’t protect you. It can’t.

In Defense of Hatred

The concept that began as a short video just over 14 months ago (a gut-response to the terror attacks in Paris), is finally published and up for sale.

You can purchase it in paperback here. Kindle version should be up soon.

The deracination of hatred is a subtle, insidious thing; more a function of mindset and programmed associations than anything else. Yet I still believe that most people, deep down, know that hatred is a moral, righteous emotion, and response. It is right to feel “disgust towards mind,” and to flee, face, or fight the existential threat which induces it.

I hold no illusions about my book single-handedly knocking down the moral superstructure that modernity has built up around hatred. But it should be a start.

If my work provides readers with the confidence in their own convictions, and the ability to laugh away–rather than explain away–the people who criticize their ideology for being “hateful,” than I think the book will have served its purpose.

Read it, and if you enjoy it, please leave a review. Even professionally-published books depend on good reviews, and us self-published authors need it more than them.

Alt-Right, Alt-White, Alt-Lite

Sargon of Akkad has already accurately reported that the Alt Right is not an ideology, but an idea space, containing a variety of many different, and even incompatible views. But it would be a mistake to view the idea space as existing for its own sake. The Alt Right was, and remains, a response to the failures of the “old right,” conservativism proper. Its goal has been to create a new political ideology, something like a “party,” but perhaps without the bureaucracy and trappings of what is very possibly a technologically out-of-date model for social organization.

People on the left, like Sargon, might look at the Alt Right’s current state of division, and view this as “civil war” within the movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. The division represents not the death-rattle, but the final struggle of a group first contemplating their views and priorities on thousands of issues, then dozens, and now three. The sub-groups represent solidarity on everything else within the Alt Right, from the importance of religion and nationalism to the rejection of equality and liberalism… with the exception of the Alt-Lite.

So allow me to introduce the final contenders in this deliberation: the Alt-Right proper (or “Alt-West,” as it is sometimes called), the Alt-White, and the Alt-Lite:

I. Alt-West

Identifiers: Rejects liberalism and “equality.” Emphasis on Western civilization. Ethnic identity without necessarily ethnic nationalism. Confronts racial differences, but usually sees other groups as allies against globalism, rather than as enemies.

Popular members: Vox Day, Stefan Molyneux, Takimag, Fred Reed

II. Alt-White

Identifiers: Rejects liberalism and “equality.” Emphasis on White civilization. Views ethnic nationalism as logical conclusion from ethnic differences in nature and values. Sees other groups as de facto enemies to be distrusted, though potential allies against a larger enemy. Particularly aware of danger of Jews and Jewish influence. A few actual, self-professed Neo-Nazis exist within this group, though they are not a majority and do not dominate the political goals of the group.

Popular members: RedIce, Radix Journal (Richard Spencer), Counter-Currents (Greg Johnson)

III. Alt-Lite

Identifiers: Classical liberals, usually libertarian or conservative. Emphasis on Western Civilization. Views ethnic nationalism as unnecessary and/or impossible, and ethnic identity as a generally bad thing. Sees primary enemies as political, academic, and media establishments

Popular members: InfoWars (especially Paul Joseph Watson), Breitbart (especially Milo Yiannopoulous)

What is ironic is that it with the exception of Richard Spencer in the wake of “hail-gate,” it has largely been the Alt-Lite that the media has gone after for being Neo-Nazis, racists, and everything else under the sun. This, in spite of the fact that the Alt-Lite wasn’t originally a component of the Alt-Right. They did not even join the group, as many other Alt-West/Alt-Right members bitterly complain, but were more or less put there by the left. The Alt-Lite is simply the component of classical liberalism that grasps that the old tactics of the Right don’t work, and have a new method of culture war that makes them superficially similar to the Alt-Right.

This is not to say that the Alt-Right, in both its “West” and “White” forms, and the Alt-Lite don’t share some common values. There is, in fact, a fair bit of overlap. In his 16 points on “What the Alt Right is,” Vox Day throws a bone to the Alt-Lite in points 4, 5, and 6, and gives a clear dog-whistle to the Neo-Nazis and the Alt White with point 14. Many in all three camps are Christian, are libertarian, and/or share an aesthetic of what a good society should look like.

The point is that there is a continuum between these groups, rather than a line in the sand, and the division and conflict is not a struggle for power, but a struggle for ideological clarity and focus. This means that the Alt-Right will be more prevalent and popular in the coming years, not less. It is not dying, but consolidating and organizing.

And to make matters worse for the Alt-Right’s detractors, critics, doomsday-prophets and haters, I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of Alt-Liters making the leap to the Alt-Right proper. I’ve spoken about why and how before, but I didn’t expect the speed and viciousness of the doubling-down by the progressive left. I think the speed and solidarity in the growth and consolidation of the Alt Right will mirror this. Whether it is ultimately the Alt-West or the Alt-White that eventually dominates, only time will tell.

Prepare for a new political paradigm. The hand-wringing liberals at FOX news are out, and identity politics for the right-wing is back in town.

Audacity’s Price

In the world of annoying and meaningless titles, it is hard to beat Obama’s semi-autobiographical book The Audacity of Hope. Hope is well and good, but in a world of social media and moral posturing, audacity has become highly overrated. Where it is not dangerous (thanks to the efforts of others), it is at least still humiliating.

I would like to take a few minutes to highlight and underline the humiliation of a number of these audacious people. Hopefully you are not among them, but if you are, take this as an opportunity to avoid deep, personal humiliation in the future.

For the following list of beliefs, sift through your head and try to honestly gauge whether you once held this belief, or who among your friends held this belief:

The above list is far from exhaustive, but is a baseline of predictions which have been dramatically, unbelievably, audaciously, wrong.

If you hold these beliefs, ask yourself where you got them from. If someone else holds them, where did they get them? Were they influenced by the same people who dismissively, audaciously, asserted the above “truths?”

The below list is less concretely disprovable, as it relies to some degree upon subjective interpretation.

  • Donald Trump is a racist/sexist/xenophobe
  • Brexit was motivated by racism/xenophobia
  • Donald Trump is a rapist
  • Russia hacked the U.S. Election
  • Black Lives Matter is a religion of peace

Bear in mind that none of these claims has been proven, and none of them are falsifiable. In other words, they carry the two trademark characteristics of conspiracy theories.

I take it as a personal obligation (and I perform it with a smirk) to point out that it is the same people who repeatedly, audaciously, recited the first list of beliefs, who have been yammering on about the second list. Self-righteously. Indignantly. Moronically.

To be clear, it is not wrong of you to have believed any of these things in the past. There were very legitimate reasons to distrust Trump, and there still are (NSA surveillance, disagreements in economic policy, concern about cultural divides, etc). It should be noted that the above two lists do not include those reasons.

What is wrong is to believe these things with such unwarranted conviction, such vicious condescension and dismissal, such audacity, that you would not take seriously someone with a differing opinion.  Opinions that would be proven out in time, as all of the items in the first list have been.

This should be an opportunity to reflect upon the sources of your information and political commentary.

Stefan Molyneux is absolutely correct when he says that Trump is a litmus test for how people think about politics. If you go about your ordinary life, largely unconcerned about politics but assuming certain unproven and non-disproveable theories–or worse, overtly disproven theories–you are acting like a moron.

From me, and hopefully from everyone who reads this article, if you act like a moron, you will be treated like one, if you continue. Let me tell you in advance how I will do it:

  1. I will point out what you said in the past.
  2. I will point out how you were absolutely wrong, and how your sources are either liars or stupid.
  3. I will conclude, to your face, that there is no reason I, or anyone else, should take your opinion seriously on any matter relating to politics.
  4. I will point out that, from Plato to the present, uninformed people audaciously claiming an unearned right to being taken seriously in politics–like you–have been the sole, necessary, and sufficient, groundwork for the rise of a fascistic, totalitarian, or failed state (the kind you claim to bravely oppose).
  5. I will exhaustively list the history, political theory, and modern examples that prove 4 to be true.

Consider this election cycle as a relatively light lesson in humility, the opposite of the over-praised audacity. Invest some time in learning about the issues–from media sources besides the nightly news. Learn to evaluate sources yourself. Consider which echo chamber you shout your audacity into. Because if you do not learn humility, I will teach you humiliation, and encourage others to do so.

This may sound harsh, vicious, self-righteous even. But my motive is far more serious than any of that. If I wanted to have a good time, I’d simply ignore the idiots spewing their opinions on the internet, or in parties. But all of this matters because of the real-world consequences of political participation. The alternatives to humiliation include things like surveillance states, unchecked immigration from countries full of people who hate you and your culture, civil war, nuclear war with a foreign state, or economic disaster.

The price of audacity in a democracy knows no limit.

Historically speaking, the only way to realistically curb such habits is through preemptive civil-war. In certain circles, there is already gleeful talk about forming right-wing death squads. And if you listen, they are not nearly so excited to kill people as they are terrified of the damage being unwittingly wreaked on their country.

Like Phaethon, the progressives demand what they cannot possibly manage, and are rewarded with death at the hands of unwilling butchers.

I do not believe this is necessary yet, and certainly not desirable. However, to someone who has not studied history, who does not grasp the seriousness of politics, and doesn’t understand the scale of what can go wrong, it is hard to convey that civil war is not the worst thing that can happen. Nor is it easy to show that it is very clearly on the horizon. People who have been very closely following current events, and who have been very accurate in their predictions (unlike the mainstream media, and whoever else was trotting out list one), are increasingly of the opinion that civil war in America is either very likely or inevitable, in the near future. Vox Day, Stefan Molyneux, and Sargon of Akkad, are all on this list. If you haven’t already, I suggest you switch over to following them, and not CNN, MSNBC, or FOX.

If this is shocking to you, I can understand. If you are outraged, that is totally normal. But if you are incredulous, returning to liars and ideologues that play to your own preconceptions will only assuage your incredulity, and leave you wildly unprepared for the war that you yourself have created.

If you find yourself among the people who were incredibly wrong in 2016, you must, like an Alcoholics Anonymous member, admit that you have a problem. You have to admit to yourself that politics is a subject about which you had no particular interest or expertise, and your demonization of others based on their different opinion had no legitimacy. You have to admit, to yourself, how unbelievably and unjustifiably cruel and vicious you were to others, without any knowledge of the relevant subject-matter.

Your sources were wrong. Audaciously wrong. You were wrong. You have no right to be taken seriously, or even respected, if you do not start to apologize to and seriously listen to those who you demonized and mocked, but who were right. And if you follow the lead of others on the left into 2017, then I, and everyone else I can convince to follow me, will be absolutely merciless in humiliating you.

It is, in the totality of time, the most merciful thing we can do.

Consider yourself warned.