Explaining the Alt-Right

There’s bee a lot of talk lately about the “alt” right.  Originally that “alt” in alt-right came from the idea that there had to be an alternative to the GOP which, really, is not right-wing at all.  It had become the “loyal opposition” to the Democrat party with the emphasis on the “loyal.”  It became painfully obvious that it was not effective in creating an alternative discourse or fundamentally new ideas.  There was nothing Alt about it, even in comparison to the Democrat party.

The Republican Party was intellectually barren. It had ceded the discourse to the Left, which includes not just the Democrat party but also the academic world, the press, and Hollywood.  There were no ideas coming from the Republic party, or even “conservatives.” Conserve what?  It was and is always something vague and nostalgic that, while perhaps better than socialism, lumbered under the weight of agreeing with the Left’s control of the discourse as evidenced when the say “I’m not racist because . . . And I’m not Islamophobic because . . . And I’m really tolerant because I like gays . . . .” It was all so ridiculously weak. It was a slower way to defeat, and not a path to intellectual vigor or rebirth.

Knowing that things weren’t quite right, but unable to express ideas in established forums including not only the mentioned Left leaning institutions above, but also the Republic party,  those ideas when online in dark and obscure corners of the web.

Not being part of that movement, I’m reluctant to say who or when or where these truly alternative ideas came to be online — there are certainly better places to research that than here.

Nevertheless, I am going to outline the core of the “Alt Right.”

The Alt Right rejects the legitimacy of the Left’s discourse.  Unlike the GOP, which seems bound (at least until Trump) by the rules the Left has established, the Alt-Right defies the Left — it refuses to play by their rules.

The Left — crafty as they are — created words that are as emotive and visceral as they are vague, and thus while no one wants to be “that word,” or any of those words, none  lend themselves to rational logical analysis.  These words are not discrete — they elude clear definition (boundaries).  In fact, that is the rhetorical strength of those words —  they can’t be refuted because they can’t be discreetly defined.

Like “racism,” and “racist.”

The Alt-Right  simply refuse to allow those term of opprobrium, hatred and ridicule  to enslave them. This outrages the Left, or course.  It is their most effective tool by far.  Controlling the discourse is to win the debate; to create “no go zones” where certain ideas must not be questioned; This wins every time.  Totally.

Faux academic credibility garbs this rude form of intellectual grappling;  these words are wielded with great authority in the Academy.   Being impressed by Professors without being well educated, the students adopt the values of their professors and carry them into their professions, like journalism, teaching and government work.

But the Professors know their work is about Power and not truth or rationality. These are old concepts on the Left.  This is not about Truth, it is about Power and that’s why the Left just screams louder when thoughtful people challenge the legitimacy and rationality of their discourse.

A white, to the Left, is a racist because he is white.  That’s the unquestioned  truth in the Academy (the universities) today.   To argue that point is to betray one’s unrepentance, ignorance and inherent racism.  That argument is, of course,  a naked choke hold on rationality — logic has nothing to do with it, it is the raw exercise of power over men to dim to understand what is being done to them.   Calling  white men a racist is an act of dehumanization — it excludes him from acceptance and denies him legitimacy;  that is the purpose of naming him thus.  For the white man to say “I’m not a racist because (fill in the blank) only makes him that much more guilty in the eyes of the Left.

To challenge this discourse is to declare oneself an enemy of all that is good and right and true.  And that’s something  the GOP was never willing to do — they needed acceptance from the Press and the Academy.

People called “racists” is the federal work place, or any academic institution, or any Fortune 500 company simply will not get promoted or even retain their jobs.

All this happens without a trial or due process because the alleged crime can’t even be defined with gross distortions of logic and consistency.

To be name a “racist” it to be guilty.  And only the Left has the power to do this naming.  The Anti-Defamation League, college professors, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are the high prophets — above questioning — who authoritatively call a person or thing “racist,” and thus subject it to public ridicule.  Repeat offenders are culled from places of employment and educational institutions.

Let’s be honest here — no one is lynching  blacks.  No one is burning Jews.

But there are real life consequences for  anyone accused of “racism.”

And this is true of the other magic words: sexist, transphobic, queer-phobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, etc.

Words are invented that will not stand up to close rational scrutiny but none-the-less wield inordinate power.

I am Islamophobic simply because I hate Islam — it is a horrible political system and I want nothing to do with Sharia law in my country.  I have a right — an obligation — to oppose Islam in this Constitutional Republic.  But that’s a rational argument; it is understandable that a Christian loyal to the US Constitution would oppose worldviews (including Communism and Islam) completely incompatible with  this Constitutional Republic founded by a Christian people.  Why would I apologize for that?

Because the Left can force me to, on pain of loss of employment or educational opportunities.

“We have zero tolerance for discrimination in this workplace,” they say, like good intellectually barren zombies who are more self-righteous than any Puritan that every walked, prayed or read their Bible.  These morally pure have zero tolerance for those who dissent from their inflexible moral code.

The Alt Right completely rejects the Left’s moral paradigm; we refuse to be bound by their inflexible and exceedingly narrow channel of discourse.  The Alt-Right demands a hearing of ideas regardless of how much the Left wraps themselves in a false morality and the shroud of victimhood.

Enough.  Let us be free men.   We will be the heretics of this age.

The louder the Left screams in outrage, the closer they are to complete intellectual collapse.   That’s not necessarily a good thing — the Left has  always made it clear that rhetoric is but one tool in their armory.  Bats, clubs and fists I expected.  But acid? Yes, they have thrown acid at those who question their religion.

Acid  is an interesting tool. It is cheap, easily accessible, and does not carry the weight of being a “deadly weapon.”  So scarring a woman’s face with acid may be simply assault, while drawing a weapon and firing is attempted murder.

The Left is not dumb; never underestimate them. They did, after all, take over China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela. And our Universities and most of the Church in the West.

This won’t come down to ballots or op-ed pages if the Right resists.

The Right is growing — men are growing their testicles back.     Moral intimidation isn’t going to force us to surrender our ideas: Molon Labe — come and take them if you dare.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply