via Deep Piranha
Whether “right wing” or “alt right” or “conservative” or even such right-associated terms as “libertarian,” all the label does is create a ready made excuse to:
a) Exclude Whites from the ingroup.
b) Include non-Whites in the ingroup.
c) Argue over whether an otherwise pro-White person or policy is truly “right wing” or “alt-right” or “conservative” or “libertarian.”
Fortunately, this dynamic helps to clarify things quickly. A Jew like Ben Shapiro can be “conservative” and “anti-left” and “anti-progressive” – he can even be a nationalist (which he is, he’s an Israeli nationalist, a Zionist.)
But Ben Shapiro will never be “White” and he’ll never be a “White Nationalist.” A figure like Ben Shapiro will always, 100% of the time, support Jewish nationalism while attacking White nationalism – any nationalism for Whites. Shapiro will attack immigration restriction in Ireland, Poland, Canada, Italy, and Hungary, but will always support immigration restriction in Israel.
This double standard makes it easy to see exactly what Ben Shapiro is. In theory, there could be an Ashkenazi White Nationalist, there could even be a Zionist Jew that supports White Nationalism, but what’s the point of chasing unicorns?
There are many Blacks and Asians and Arabs that are conservative, right wing, and even nationalist, but they will never be citizens – one of the in-group – in a White nation.
So all being a “conservative” or “right winger” does is to offer up ready made excuses for not being pro-White. To put “conservative principles” or “right wing ideology” above the survival of your race, your people, your family is autism in the extreme, an anti-adaptive trait.
You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms, and you can’t hug a White child with conservative ideology. Ideologies are merely words, a construct of language. People are living beings, flesh and blood. Why should words and ideals take precedence over your own flesh and blood, your own family, your own children?
Commenter Curmudgeon at TOO makes a related point:
On another note, I have long thought the term Alt-Right was a recipe for disaster. The old Left/Right paradigm is long dead, and the sooner nationalists own that label, the better. The majority of people know someone who has a family member or friend that is struggling with economic issues. It is much easier to answer the nonsensical globalist gibberish directly, by answering every statement in terms of ‘why do you care more about the well-being of someone living in a foreign country, whom you have never met, than the well-being of family, friends and neighbours’, and ‘How does immigration make your unemployed neighbour’s life better?’ The truth is, the globalists have no logical answers to these hard questions. Exposing them to folly of their own shallow answers will not turn all of them, I personally have made several unsure of the globalist rant, and turned a few.
“Alt Right” simply became a way to add “right wing” baggage into a promising pro-White movement and led to its destruction. “Neo-reaction” seems to have been created precisely to keep Whites arguing over an ideology and never make racial distinctions – especially, to prevent any mention of the anti-Whiteness of Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, NRx goes to hysterical extremes to include anti-White Ashkenazi Jews as “neo-reactionaries” while anathematizing pro-Whites who object to anti-White Jews or won’t subscribe to various hypothetical intellectual obsessions.
It’s putting the cart before the horse. Without Whites, there aren’t going to be any conservative Whites, nor libertarian Whites. So like a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it, no Whites are going to hear you signalling how principled you are about private property rights and the non-aggression principle.
Do you think any non-Whites will care what some conservative, “right wing” libertarian ideologue White thinks about anything?
I’m not White supremacist enough to think they would, or should.
Andrea Dworkin was almost right:
I think we need to ask ourselves the question why men love prostitution so much? The fact of the matter is despite the rhetoric of men on the right and men on the left, they love prostitution a lot. The global proportion of the trafficking of women indicates that men like to buy and sell women. And that there’s a special kick in sex when you can pay somebody and use money as a symbol of their servitude, not as an agent of their independence but a symbol of their servitude. 
I think that what we’re dealing with with prostitution in all of its forms is the most basic kind of power there is; it’s a core definition of power, and that is, “I want it, you do it. I want it now, you do it now. Bend over.”  And when someone has that kind of power, that’s the same kind of power that kings had in feudal societies. And now it’s the power of every man, over every woman, because of these systems of trafficking in women, that exist all over the world. There’s clearly a sexual pleasure in destroying human dignity.  There is a sexual pleasure in repeated personal invasions of a person’s body and you don’t know the name of the person and you don’t care. She’s there because she has to be. 
 Dworkin’s describing the thrill of market exchange and it’s the same thrill that a woman gets when she pays for the labor of a man to drive her, to fix her car, to massage her feet, or to build her a house.
 Dworkin, a lesbian, hated men’s sexuality, or more precisely, she hated heterosexuality – she, in fact, married a homosexual man and called him her “love” and her “life partner.” I don’t know about Dworkin specifically but it’s the stuff of common lesbian fantasy to “mentor” – i.e., seduce – a younger, less “powerful” woman. The notorious Vagina Monologues, in fact, had a woman thanking the adult lesbian who “seduced” her when she was 14. So, to lesbians, what they object to is the heterosexuality, not the power difference – in fact, power exchange is a key component of lesbian sexuality (as it is all women’s sexuality in general.) It’s one of the reason that “not the fun kind” of feminism never hit the mainstream, while the “fun kind of feminism” – “sex positive feminism” – *is* mainstream.
 Dworkin, and all radical feminists, are very similar to religious vegans and animal rights activists who decry the exploitation of animals by mankind. Humans eat animals, wear their skins, and they don’t even bother to name the animals.
What Dworkin’s feminism really is, is the same great emotional cry that all humans give when confronted with the reality that there is no “human dignity.” Humans are just animals, and the state of nature is the law of the jungle.
The irony is that there’s nothing in men’s pornography that is any worse than The Story of O – pornography for women, written by a woman. Dworkin would probably consider Ann Rice as a “handmaiden of patriarchy” but her Sleeping Beauty Chronicles was as humiliating for her male characters as it was for her female characters. It was a woman who wrote “Belinda” the touching story of a 16 year old girl in a “voluntary” relationship with an older, 30 something man. The book held no interest to men, it was written for women, from their perspective, to justify their own fantasies and sexual desires.
 Dworkin would almost certainly acknowledge that this applies to capitalism generally – and as a woman-centric feminist, she of course “centers” women as the central “good” in capitalism (not at all without good reason.)
Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It doesn’t matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle: when the sun comes up, you’d better be running.
The real irony is that Dworkin, the Jewess who said she would have been a Talmud scholar if they had let her, is literally longing for Christ. She bemoans the lack of “human dignity” and the lack of “brotherly love” (thus) that is idealized in Christianity. But the fact is, humans are incapable of “loving” each other, outside of close friends and family (and, especially, husbands and wives, which must have angered Dworkin, even though the only man she loved, she actually married, just presumably didn’t have sex with, because she was a lesbian.)
Humans, apes with bigger brains, only have 200 “empathy slots” for other human beings. You can empathize with, love, respect, and “dignify” – and remember the names of – just about 200 people. Evolutionarily, speaking, the number is a small village and extended clan (which makes perfect sense.)
There isn’t, and has never been, any inherent “dignity” for “humanity” as a whole – and Dworkin and the feminists are, of course, massive hypocrites, because women have never, throughout history, spent a single second agonizing over stepping over the bodies of “their own” dead men to find greener pastures, better food, and sexier men, on the other side of the river. Women have never afforded men any dignity, ever, but merely respected male power – and have evolved to be sexually aroused by male power. At the end of the day, what really disgusts women like Dworkin is the banality of male sexual desire. Like food, all it takes is a scent, a sight, and men start salivating. Women require a lot more indirection and need a lot more emotional play-acting, but that’s all it is – emotional play-acting. Women’s sexuality isn’t at all more “dignified” than men’s, and women are indifferent to male suffering – in fact, male suffering disgusts women.
But Dworkin – and the “not fun kind of feminists” – are completely correct about sexual power and the commodification of women. What they are objecting to is civilization and capitalism, two things they have no interest in ever giving up.
If Dworkin and the “not fun” kind of feminists ever got their wish, and civilization and capitalism were destroyed, we’d all be living in small, 200 person primitive villages, with no running water, matriarchal clan structures, parasite load, rampant STDs, and constant tribal warfare with the villages next door.
And the FIRST man who came up with something better, the FIRST man who invented a new technology that gave him a significant power advantage over his rival men – he wouldn’t NEED to “buy” any women, the women would be stepping over each other – and their own children, in fact – to get to that man, the one with the most beautiful peacock feathers.
What Dworkin is most sad about is that Jesus doesn’t love her, because there is no Jesus, and human beings – including women – have no inherent dignity. It’s all just jungle.
ICAReviews introduced me to Gearoid O’Colmain, who seems to be a French Irishman, or perhaps an Irish Frenchman, who is at least quasi-Marxist, economically leftist, but critical of much of the “left” and especially anti-natalist ideologies like feminism and homophilia, what he calls “bourgeois sexuality.” (This isn’t unique, of course, it’s standard orthodox Communism.) He’s also not afraid to openly criticize Judaism-qua-Judaism and Jews-qua-Jews, almost unheard of on the left, who essentially believe that Jews are demi-gods.
Too good to be true? Of course. Even though O’Colmain is sympathetic toward even right wing nationalism, and doesn’t seem to be anti-white, and is pro-working class, he’s a typical Opus Dei E. Michael Jones type. He does want a New World Order, just one run from the Vatican. In other words, one of these quasi-Catholic LARPers.
We’ll get a global government, whether we like it or not:
Nonetheless, I believe we will have a global super-state in time whether we like it or not. Multipolarity has not brought global peace, nor did the multipolar order of 1913 prevent the first world war.
So, the only solution is to kiss the Pope’s ring:
Only a return to traditional Roman Catholicism could offer the prospect of overcoming the challenges of multicultural Europe. For the basis of European civilisation is constituted, as Alain Soral has wisely noted, by the Greek logos and the Roman caritas which are united in Christianity. Today logos has been buried in liberal and atheistic irrationalism and pseudoscience, while we have lost all sense of the beauty and necessity of Christian compassion or charity.
And “return” (/eyeroll) to the romantic days of medieval Europe:
The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was intended by God to be the guide of humanity, a link between heaven and earth guiding all men to their salvation. It was meant to be a one-world government under God. Since the Enlightenment ( a revolt against reason rather than for it) godless elites have striven for the creation of a universal republic, a Promethean dream of humanist supremacy, a universal Anti-Church- a world government under Satan.
Because “humanism” … “humanist supremacy” … is … “Satanic.”
These dorky pseudo-Catholics always want to “return” to the pre-Reformation days, precisely because the history before the printing press is rather spotty so they can project all their romantic notions on it. There’s a hilarious comment on, of all places, that cesspool of Google-Zionist-Globalism, YCombinator’s Hacker News, suggesting that medieval knights weren’t profit-seeking warlords, even though they could have been, but held to some gentlemanly code of chivalry. This is absurd, hasn’t anyone read the actual source materials of the Crusades? Yes, of course, the Crusades were a defensive measure against Muslim imperialism against Europe, and yes, the Catholic chuch did a credible job of federating Europeans to fight off the threat. But just read the source materials. The first-hand account of the Crusades I read, likely the very first primary source, in fact, written by an actual participant, spent the first half detailing the multiple-dozens of European cities the Crusaders would attack, then demand a “market” (I’ll always remember that is the word the translation used.) The entire first half was, “then we camped around this city, and the people surrendered, then came out with the best ‘market’ we had had in weeks. Then we attacked another city, they put up a fight, but we won, and they gave us an even better ‘market’.”
“Market” of course meant the people in the city had to open their gates, then give their food, tools, and weapons (and likely daughters as well) to the invading army – those knights who “weren’t warlords” – otherwise they would get murdered. The Crusaders spent the first half of their journey attacking Europeans until they sacked the recently Greek city of … Constantinople … which was almost certainly the actual goal, before (supposedly, likely mythologically) finishing up in “Jerusalem” – really, a little village called Al-Quds.
Yes, they stopped the Muslim advance – thank Jew-sus – but the only reason these quasi-Catholics have such a hard on for that time period is precisely because the history we have is so vague, and so distorted, they can project their romantic fantasies on that time. That’s why we called it “the Dark Ages” after all. (The only thing comparable is the romanticism we project onto the Greco-Roman culture, which is similarly shrouded in primitive, essentially pre-historiography. Or, for that matter, ignorant Protestant Bible-thumpers romanticizing mythological Old Testament tales about “Israel.”)
But then the Printing Press happened, literacy appeared, and the ugly – and not nearly as romantic – history came into focus. Sorry, Catholic Europe was not at all some sort of utopia. These people reject Voltaire precisely because he had their number. The Catholic Empire was a step in the right direction, but what came after was superior in every way.
I hate to be forced to channel the “New Atheists” of the 1990s (I’m not an atheist) but they are making me: grow up. The Church is a human institution, an outgrowth of the Roman Empire’s war against the Middle East and its imperial assimilation of Oriental cultures. “God” had nothing to do with it. The Pope was never anything more than a bureaucrat – interesting, because he was an example of “soft power” over “hard power.” Interesting, because the Church had an effect on our genetics (monogamy, outbreeding, etc., pace Kevin MacDonald.)
Again, the reason these neo-reactionary quasi-Catholics romanticize this time period is precisely because they know so little about it – we know so little about it. And the reason the post-Reformation period seems so ugly to them is because, for the first time, we have a continuous, written record about the reality – and it’s just not nearly as romantic – reality never is.
I’d have so much more respect for these quasi-Catholics if they at least gave us a reasonable interpretation of the social organization that the Church promoted. You get a little bit of this from Jones, etc., not much, but a little. For instance, the economic aspects of the monastaries, the distributionism economic system, the attempts to federate the monarchies (which you can be assured the Vatican hated, as they wanted Empire, not federation, but soft power can only do so much.)
But come on, it’s 2018. “A link between heaven and earth guiding all men to their salvation. It was meant to be a one-world government under God?” These are supposed to be the alternative to Protestant Bible-thumping? It’s all mystical woo-woo, meaningless verbiage.
I posit that it’s completely empty precisely because they can’t actually make it relevant. They have all the pieces, the instincts are certainly there (natalism, compassion for the poor, federalism, etc.) But they can’t actually bridge the gap from superstition to reality, in fact, it’s precisely the superstition (and their romance of the history) that they are defending – they are NOT actually defending the decent instincts the superstitions were created to explain. Nor are they even really defending the institution (that would be a good angle, IMO.) It’s the “mystery” and the “romance” that they are defending.
Why? Because they can’t accept reality – specifically, the reality of death, I guess. I heard these religion fanatics say this all the time, if there is no “God” then human life is meaningless. Says who? You literally can find no meaning in life without resort to a “god” based on ancient superstitions – and it’s always your particular version of “god” that is the only one?
You see the smart, educated types like E. Michael Jones trying to bridge this gap with his talk of “logos” – that’s how Jones avoids sounding like a superstitious peasant. The superstitious can talk about “God” … the Sky-Father … while the more philosophical types can discuss “logos,” “natural law,” “rationality” and the “order of the universe.” But really, for E. Michael Jones, the only “natural law” that he cares about is how anal sex is gross (I agree, but it’s hardly something to create an entire metaphysics around now is it? That is what animates Jones.) The critique of usury is great, very important, very much needed, but when will they get on with it? Jones actually punts on the economic specifics, he even says, “hey the Pope just said ‘ask your priest’ because we can’t figure out all these fancy financial instruments!”
Gotta give it to the Muslims – they take anti-usury seriously and have actually created serious economic systems without usury – even the Jew bankers have had to create “halal finance” to launder all their oil money.
But also – race? Jones – and I assume O’Colmain – really believe that race doesn’t matter, that genetics don’t matter, that evolution is one of those “godless humanist” plots, and every retarded fetus with a genetic mis-development has a “soul” that must be saved. Africa would be just as technologically advanced as Europe if they just adopted Augustinian Catholic “logos” or whatever.
This is why I can’t be a “right winger” – they are liars, mystifiers, and con artists. Jones is too smart to actually believe any of this stuff – and so is O’Colmain. But they need the, er, “less cognitively evolved” on their side so they can keep up the Universalism and not be “racist.”
They want an Empire.
Isn’t anyone else ready to MOVE ON?