The American Alt-Right is at an important juncture in history. America is not that far from becoming majority-minority. It is difficult to map out a set of policies that could restore the historic American nation. One could suggest a complete end to all non-white immigration; a reversal of the incorrect interpretation of a constitutional amendment that gave rise to birthright citizenship; the encouragement of mass immigration from Europe; expulsion of Puerto Rico from US control; and an end to the reception of refugees in America. One could also add bringing in official English (with all states and cities prevented from providing services in other languages); an end to positive discrimination; an end to the collection of any data on racial disparities (which data are used in Left-wing agitation); the routine use of the death penalty (without years on Death Row) in all serious crimes; and the criminalisation of the promotion of multiculturalism in any company or educational establishment. Ultimately it would be desirable (but probably unfeasible) to remove citizenship from people without European ancestry.

None of these things would definitely produce a sustainable white majority. They might delay minority status. They might ensure that white identity survived minority status, so that the white minority was able to advance its own interests over the longer term in America. But one thing is for sure: there is a relatively limited window of time to implement any of this. The significance of Donald Trump and his presidency is that it has led to the rise of a genuine sense of white identity. At the moment, whites are a majority, and a majority ethnic group with a strong identity could achieve much to cement its position over the longer term. Yet there is little sign that the AltRight, centred on the AltRight.com website, is equipped to advance a white-identity movement that can seize the opportunity now presenting itself to them.

I want to examine the AltRights attitude towards homosexuality, and its inability to keep focus on the key issue of white identity. Some parts of the AltRight trace their origins to neo-fascist organisations or other organisations that openly admire central European leaders of the 1930s and 1940s. Others have seemed to project a more modern image. Richard Spencer, in particular, comes across as urbane, presentable, and aware of the need to be able to appeal to a broader sense of white identity than simply the assorted remnants of tiny fringe parties. I admire Spencer and the tone he has taken in all of his videos and podcasts on the Internet. He is hard to smear as simply a neo-Nazi. He has also on a number of occasion expressed a willingness to work with a number of non-traditional elements on the Right, such as the occasional homosexual. I think he had to row back pretty strongly after Milo Yiannopoulos comments on his (Milos) molestation by a older man as a teenager. But before that, Spencer did appear to see the value of the work being done by Milo.

I would like here to draw a distinction between a party with specific goals on the one hand and a broader counterculture that contains varying interests and disparate groups focusing on different issues on the other. The Left is a broad movement that includes a wide range of groups, from Communists to Greens to libertarians of various stripes. Racial, sexual, gay and now transgender groups are all present. These groups may not all see eye to eye on everything. The Muslims and the transgender activists are not really on the same page. But the Left has depth in that there are a wide range of groups that all advance their own causes. The Left is not just a political party or parties, but a thriving culture, including films, TV programmes, magazines, art, captured educational establishments, etc.

A Right counterculture appears to be in the very embryonic stages of being formed. Not all elements in the Right will support each other, and ultimately if some of the wilder elements of the Right got their way there would be something of a reckoning between them. A key issue is the AltRights disdain for the AltLite, people who dont go as far as them, but have in fact done much more to create the grounds for white identity than anyone around Richard Spencer has. Let us think of who these people might be. Milo Yiannopoulos is one: as a gay man, he can fly under radar to a certain extent, making comments that a straight, white male would not get away with. The fact that certain people can say more and get away with it reflects the dominant identity politics narrative on the Left and is a major problem for us. Ultimately, it shouldnt matter who says what; what should matter alone is the quality of the argumentation.

We are confronted with an absurdity. Milo would not be welcome in Richard Spencers ethnostate. Yet he opposes Black Lives Matter, controls on free speech and the nonsense of feminism much more effectively and with a much greater public profile than anyone on the AltRight. The AltLite and Milo in particular have played a vital role in expanding political space for wider discussion. One approach would be to accept the role of such people on certain issues as part of the wider counterculture, but not to accept that these people are or could be part of a white ethnostate. But Milo is white. Why wouldnt he be admitted to the white ethnostate if he chose to move within its bounds and submit to its regulations?

A number of other people with colourful sexual orientations are prominent in the counterculture. In the US context, you could cite Jack Donovan, a gay man who has rejected the gay culture. If I understand it correctly, he would still be someone who likes men (an androphile), but not someone who will be told which hairstyle and pop music he must like, and not someone who would approve of gay marriage either. Greg Johnson, the editor of Counter Currents, has come in for personal attacks by the AltRight for publishing on homosexuality, including the book The Homo and the Negro. It is stated on AltRight forms that he is gay, although Im not aware that he has put his sexuality into the public domain, and I cant think of a reason why he or anyone else should feel they have to do so. In Europe, there are analogues. The flamboyant gay politician Pim Fortuynmurdered for opposing the Islamisation of Hollanddid more to create a movement against Muslim immigration than any neo-Nazi, and ended up being smeared as far-right by all and sundry himself too. The English gay historian, David Starkey, has often upset black groups by making truthful comments on TV. Another English gay, Douglas Murray, is also personally doing much to oppose immigration and Islamisation as deputy editor of the Spectator. In Germany and France, Alternative fr Deutschland (AfD)and Le Front National receive considerable support from homosexuals reluctant to fall under Islamic shariah law. The AfD is led by a lesbian, and an Irish lesbian recently fairly narrowly failed to win the leadership of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) on an anti-Islam platform.

We can also cite involvement in Right-wing politics by those not classifiable as white Christians. Paul Gottfried, a Jewish academic, in fact invented the term alternative right, and has written many articles about the vindictive tone of organised Jewish groups (note: I do not say all individual Jews, and Im always careful to treat people as I find without prejudging them) towards white identity. The admirable Jewish speaker Ben Shapiro is one of the best speakers of the AltLite, making campus visits across the country and speaking out on issues such as gay rights, transgender rights, Black Lives Matter and gun control from a perspective that many Right-wingers could not fail to agree with. American Renaissance, led by the splendid Jared Taylor, also hosts Jewish speakers at its conferences. Other podcasters, such as Stefan Molyneux, appear to have to work overtime to conceal some Jewish ancestry to retain a hearing on the Right. The Jewish Stephen Miller is also doing what he can to defend Americas borders from within the Trump administration. Jared Taylor was recently interviewed by a great black lady, who goes by the name of Tree of Logic on Youtube. She appears favourable to white identity politics. An Iranian man, Jason Reza Jorjani, was until recently on the board of AltRight.com and argued for a bizarre plan to realign Iran with Europe.

It is in the nature of any broad counterculture that it will allow participation from many groups. I wouldnt reject allies where they can be found, particularly as there are only a certain number of years left in which to build support for policy changes that could reverse demographic transformation in America (and many other European nations). Nevertheless, the reality is that many of these AltLite figures will always cleave closer to the mainstream than much of the AltRight. Their participation may serve to dilute the Right or to wean it away from its principles. We saw this recently in the Jorjani episode, when the Iranian kept promising money from anonymous monied backers, before flouncing out and denouncing the whole thing because he was not allowed to control the AltRight corporation. I dont know whether Greg Johnson is gay or not, but an article on AltRight.com claimed he wanted to control Arktos media publishing, and attacked Daniel Friberg, who ended up in control. There seems to be a degree of turmoil in the cricle around Richard Spencer on AltRight.com, and Im not sure any account on that site will be accurate. If Johnson is gay, a Rightwinger could infer a gay hissy fit in his behaviour. Or possibly an attempt to recruit the AltRight and turn it into the AltLite. Certaintly, the argument in The Homo and the Negro that somehow gay men are central to the revival of the West appears aburdly overstated. Johnsons own views are not notably centrist (he appears more rightwing than the AltLite as such)he recently stated on camera that Jews in America should be deported en masse to Israeland his falling out with the AltRight may reflect, not an attempt to water down the AltRight, but rather frustration with the domination of the AltRight by people failing to focus on the key racial/demographic issue.

To varying degrees, the incorporation of non-traditional Rightists into the alternative right will rub up against an unwillingness of many on the Right to modernise their views on some issues in order to focus on the main task at hand. Here we face a difficult problem: what to do about more extreme groups that the media will realise are part of the Right, and whose presence simply holds everyone back. To a certain extent, everyone who is opposed to immigration will realise that extreme acts by some young Rightwingers are an inchoate response to a situation contrived by the Left, that of our national dispossession. We can think of people like Anders Behring Breivik in Norway and James Alexander Fields in the US (who knocked down a woman after the Charlottesville protest). But while these peoples crimes are a response to a situation the Left had no right to bring about, these people are poison to the movement. We have to face the fact that a small number of mentally imbalanced people can play an outsized role in discrediting opposition to immigration. If Richard Spencer and the AltRight want to accomplish anything at all, they have to focus on creating a movement that can realistically achieve something. This means rejecting the participation of the few real extremists. Yet their website has recently insisted that Fields may be innocent. AltRight commenters argue the woman he knocked down may have deserved it because she was obese. Against this background, it is understandable that more rational voices have sought to rein in the AltRight on to more defensible territory.

There is much discussion on the Right of the left-wing habit of refusing to punch left. The Left refuse to condemn Communists, or the Alt-Left, or Antifa. It is suggested that we should refuse to punch right, and thus not be cornered into condemning neo-Nazis and the like. I would argue refusal to draw a line at criminal acts such as murder is both bizarre and wrong. For a start, the Left is in power, and their refusal to punch left is glossed over by the authorities. A failure to be clear on our part that murder is not what we are seeking will only be seized upon with glee by the media and the courts. Some point out that multiculturalism may in fact be pushing us towards civil warEnoch Powell made this pointbut that is not to say that this is a desirable outcome. We need to be clear that we advance immigration restriction to prevent this outcome. In a real civil war, the extremists might make themselves useful, as a civil war becomes a thuggish free-for-all, but how much better to adopt policies that provide for long-term political stability!

This unwillingness to break with the (very, very small) groups of real extremists who hold the movement back marks something of a dividing point between the AltRight and the so-called AltLite. There are people on Gab and the Daily Stormer (Andrew Anglins Hitler-admiring organ) that openly celebrated the death of Heather Heyer at Charlottesville. I will agree the Unite the Right should have been allowed their rally, and that the Charlottesville police and Virginia governor conspired to foment violence on the day by pushing the AltRight into the arms of Antifa, waiting with baseball bats and pepper spray. As far as I know the AltRight gave the Antifa more than they bargained forand why not, in self-defence? But those who celebrate the knocking down of a woman have some kind of problem mentally or psychologically. Those who condemned the murder are not cucks or normies, but decent human beings.

I would argue the AltRight should not dally with extremism, and should welcome the contributions of all the groups I have mentioned above, including gay men, Jews, blacks and others. They are all part of a counterculture that can create space for a white identity. Whether, in the very unlikely event that an ethnostate were created, all of these groups would be welcomed to join in is another question, and really one that cannot be answered right now. For a start, should an ethnostate be 100% white? or would a small and stable minority of around 1% of traders and restaurant-owners be accepted? Would it be North Korea (with no interaction with the outside world) or somewhere like China (an ethnostate that trades globally, with small numbers of foreigners allowed in on extendable business visas)? It may be that small and stable numbers of well-disposed members of the ethnic minorities (enough to staff ethnic restaurants, teach language skills and facilitate international trade, and no more) would be allowed, but in any case we are not in the position to draw up the constitution of a state unlikely to ever be built. Even those on the Right who are obsessed with the role of organised Jewry should put their prejudices aside and accept any contribution by people like Ben Shapironot on every issue, but on specific issuesat least to the extent of being prepared to talk to the guy. Such people are proving useful, and that should be recognised. Right-wing websites like Vdare.com, which I greatly admire, also host articles by a variety of well-disposed minority writers, including Paul Gottfried and others (I recall an American Indian who used to write there). We should be clear that nationalism is about valuing our race and traditions, and not hating others as such.

When it comes to white homosexuals, the argument for seeing a role for them on the Right is even stronger, as they are part of the white race. Note that Im not ignoring the fact that homosexuals are said to be less than 2% of the population, with relatively few of even them willing to come all the way over to the Right. Yet individual gay men can prove rather impervious to strictures on speech, weaponising flamboyance in order to breach speech codes. As pointed out above many gay men do say the unsayable on cultural/racial issues. The few who are genuinely making a clear contribution in discrete areas (Milo et al) are often much more culturally significant than their numbers indicate. It doesnt make any sense to refuse to see such people as part of the wider culture were trying to create.

I have to agree that there is a problem with people like Milo, in that he fails to maintain public decorum and frequently speaks of his love for black cock. In my view, it is unpleasant to hear someone speaking in this smutty manner at public gatherings. The fact that he meets black men for sex is for me a non-issue; the fact that he loves to taunt audiences with this is. Although he may be accepted as part of a broad and deep counterculture along with the AltRightas a broad counterculture will include elements we dont fully agree withhe couldnt really be AltRight until he accepts that such smuttiness is not acceptable. His recent gay marriage also rules him out of the AltRight as such, although he can still serve as a useful idiot expanding the bounds of what is sayable on other issues. Important requirements for genuine membership of the AltRight ought to be opposition to gay marriage; opposition to gay adoption of children; and opposition to employment tribunals to police discrimination against gays. Children should not be exposed to gay propaganda in schools. There should be no sex-change operations. Toilets and other changing facilities should always be single-sex. If a homosexual man agrees with all of that, he is potentially AltRight. A white ethnostate ought not to be governed by a version of shariah law. Private behaviour in the bedroom should not be policed.

There is a good reason why the family has to be the centrepoint of national survival. We have a culture that doesnt wish to survive. Homosexuality, abortion, feminism and divorce work together to promote a culture of hedonism and low birth rates. While the English have less than 2 children, their Pakistani neighbours have 5 or 6. They have a culture that is set to survive and flourish and even overtake ours. For this reason, a man who can be straight would be best advised to be straight and to have English children. Im not sure it makes any sense to tell men who are strongly on the homosexual end of the spectrum to get married and have children: would that be fair to the wives? But those with ambiguous sexuality who could cope with a relationship with a wife should reproduce.

We understand male sexuality better than when we were under strict Christian laws. A recent survey in England showed that only 46% of 18-24-year-olds claim to be exclusively heterosexual. There is only a small number of exclusively gay men, but a continuum of bisexuality in between. While it is true to say that homosexuality is not the norm, neither is being exclusively heterosexual a statistical norm either. Most men are mainly attracted to women, with some limited degree of attraction to men: that is the norm. Having said that, there is much to be said for the view that homosexuality is a barren lifestyle that is a dead-end for the individuals concerned and for their nations. Anecdotal evidence shows that gay men in his 40s or 50s are likely to be single, often without ties to their biological families, without any connection to younger gay men, and with no children and grandchildren. Propaganda about gay pride aside, they will be aware of the essentially sad and unfulfilling nature of the sexuality they have espoused. Gay sexuality is a young mans culture, in other words, a culture whose negative side unfolds itself gradually over the decades of a mans life, until he is left in his old age in a nursing home with no visitors.

Homosexuality is thus a microcosm of what is happening to white culture more broadly, as our societies choose not to survive. Nevertheless, to the extent that a man with a colourful sexual past accepts the primacy of the family and chooses to work for the survival of his nation (albeit a nation that will survive without his descendants among them), it would be counterproductive to reject his service. particularly in the case of an individual who (unlike Milo) maintains decorum in public. This is because many gay men are highly motivated and intelligent propagandisers. Gay men are not normies in the sense that they have already stepped outside social norms, and are often willing to reject the liberal pieties on race and culture. A question arises as to the availability of leadership roles on the Right to men who dont have families. The role of Jorjani shows that non-traditional fraternisers of the Right can be a problem. What has been written of Greg Johnson by the AltRight is also presented as another example of the potentially disruptive nature of involvement by gay men. I think it only natural that gay men have to prove themselves in the nationalist movement.

However, none of us knows who the gay and bisexual men among us are. If they are truly 54% of the whole (when people who are marginally bisexual are included), then the idea of imposing a sexuality test on the right becomes absurd. The chances are greater than even that any individual member of the AltRight will have some degree of attraction to men. We have traditionally been able to provide social roles for homosexual men (e.g. as priests), suggesting there is something artificial about advocating a restoration of a form of white culture that never really existed. In mediaeval England, homosexuality faced penalties administered by the church, but some researchers have claimed the punishments were trivial, on a par with those handed out for being drunk. The reality is that this form of behaviour was largely regarded for centuries as a foible. In a moral sense, a man who cheats on his wife is risking an impact on the lives of his children, and if homosexuality is to be banned, then should not adultery/fornication be regarded as even more worthy of proscription? Adultery is much more nation-destroying than homosexuality. Yet we do not read of any attempt by the AltRight to drum fornicators out of their ranks. In fact, appetite for a restoration of Christian morality appears very low in all the European nations.

A much more sensible approach would be to focus on the main issue of demographic survival. All who are willing to work for that are genuinely part of the Alternative Right, if not part of AltRight.com. Those who oppose propaganda on feminism, sexuality and transgender issues are working for the survival of our nations. This amounts to a broader understanding of what it means to be Right than is common among the remnants of the Klan and tiny neo-Nazi grouplets, but one more likely to be able to take root in the newly more favourable environment for white identity. How can I emphasise the point? Gay rights is not an issue that is consistent with the survival of the Western nations, but in the end, white men are part of their white nations. Racial survival means exactly what is sounds like: all white men should be able to rally to that standard. If Richard Spencer, in a bid to deflect accusations that he has engaged in homosexual behaviour, cannot keep focus on the main demographic issue on AltRight.com, then I think he is failing to modernise the alternative right in a way that would be clearly marketable to a wider swathe of the American white population. The alternative right may be in danger of becoming large enough as a subculture to provide a comfort zone or zone of enjoyment for its leaders, a subculture large enough to allow its leadership to coast and enjoy their lives doing so. The trick now is to move the national question out of a subculture into the mainstream white population.

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:

Can the AltRight be a modern alternative? Immigration ...