Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
So fixed is mainstream political discourse in the “Left” vs. “Right” paradigm that many dissidents and identitarians, notwithstanding their protestations that these concepts have lost all meaning, still find it hard to relinquish their ideological attachment to this same terminology – hence the emergence of the “Alternative Right” and the “Neoreaction”. The fact that so many race-realists and alt-righters identify so strongly as “the Right” and insist that “the Left” is the cause of civilization’s downfall is to some degree indicative of the fact that so many participants in the struggle retain a vestigial Republicans-vs.-Democrats (or, for the neoreactionaries, a monarchists-vs.-Jacobins) mentality. Erstwhile Aryan Skynet contributor Thrasymachus, for example, titled his blog Deconstructing Leftism – the implication being that “Leftism”, an ideology, constitutes the single most important problem facing the world.
Matt Forney, in the above video, insists on the legitimacy and the primacy of the “Left” vs. “Right” dichotomy in the struggle for civilization. The ideas of “the Right” – the unassailable “free market” and uber-alles opposition to hated “government regulations” included – are, Forney asserts, a bulwark to be defended against the depredations of “the Left”, which, he further avers, is wholly responsible for the various wrongs visited on Europeans – or “men”, as Forney insists on limiting his audience. He challenges his auditors, furthermore, to produce a single instance in which “the Right” has been responsible for the introduction of “evil” public policy. Absurdly, he cites Zionist gangster and military-industrial stooge John McCain as an example of a man of “the Right” whose crime is not “active evil”, but merely “failing to fight the Left” and “refusing to fight evil”.
Where true identitarians differ with “the Right”, much of the “Alt-Right”, “Neoreaction”, Christian fundamentalists, and “conservatives” of every stripe – “trad”, “paleo”, or other – is in their understanding that tribe trumps all ideology. John McCain is the enemy not because he fails to “fight the Left”, but because he is a traitor to his race. True identitarians are nationalists, with “nation” and “race” understood to be interchangeable concepts in this context. Widely recognized white nationalist heroes – men like Francis Parker Yockey or Revilo P. Oliver, for instance – are remembered as figures of “the Right”; but nationalism in its best and purest expressions has always been a synthesis of ideas and positions. Goofy though their antics are, it is instructive that so many Republicans make such a show of their self-abominating conviction that Hitlerism was unadulterated “leftist ideology” in practice.
Amerika’s Brett Stevens avers that “realism […] is what all non-Leftist movements including neoreaction and the alternative right share,” his implication being that “the Left” distinguishes itself by its uniquely unrealistic ideas; but is this necessarily an accurate assessment? Is “the Left” always wrong? One traditional truism for those on “the Right” is that birth control is a crime that paved the way for saturation depravity. Incog Man, for instance, after rightly identifying the disproportionate number of Jews active in reproductive rights advocacy, calls abortion “just another part of the Jewish supremacist agenda to destroy their enemy, the Goyim,” while Andy Nowicki deems it “a much graver matter” even than mass Third World immigration. It is not necessarily this writer’s intention to suggest that the Roe decision was good; but is abortion all bad, and is no more nuanced position available? Again, the Republicans’ ludicrous harping on the theme of fetus-flaying death camp system Planned Parenthood’s “genocide” of black babies is unintentionally instructive.
Forgotten by many – but not by Republicans! – is the fact that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a horrible white supremacist who associated with the Ku Klux Klan and that eugenics was popularized not in the Third Reich, but in the Progressive Era, and that the idea was promoted by notable socialists H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw, tax-and-spend economist John Maynard Keynes, as well as anarchist Emma Goldman and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Eugenics, according to Discover the Networks, a site advertising itself as “a guide to the political Left”, “was wholly compatible with the progressive era’s faith in science, the future, the regulatory potential of the state, and human perfectibility.” Should those racialists claiming to be “the Right” abhor eugenics if only because of its radical provenance? No, says Patrick Le Brun in an excellent article at Counter-Currents:
What would America look like with a Catholic social policy? According to the CDC, there have been 13 million abortions conducted for African American women since Roe v. Wade. There are more black fetuses aborted than are born, and every year about 5% of reproductive age black women have abortions. There are no reliable statistics on how many White women who procure abortions are pregnant with Black babies. Currently about 2% of births issue from Black-White mixed parentage. If we were to conservatively assume that 2% of abortions by White mothers in 1990 were of Black babies that would raise the Black abortions by over 20,000 and increase their total by 4%.
A back of the envelope estimate shows 6 million black children would be of reproductive age had they not been aborted, not including mixed race births. They would almost certainly be raised in poverty. Whether analyzing impoverished communities in developed or undeveloped countries there is a direct trade-off between family size and exiting poverty. So these 6 million adults, with no abortion access and living in poverty, therefore reproducing at the rate of poor Blacks, would have contributed at least 18 million new children to the Creedal Nation by now. That is the equivalent of 40 more Detroits!
Thank God for abortion!
— Richard B. Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) December 8, 2015
What about the divisive proposal for a raise of the minimum wage? Surely, no self-respecting man of “the Right” could lower himself to countenancing such communist nonsense? Conventional conservative “wisdom”, as this writer’s neocon coworker recently admonished him, teaches that this will only put more labor out of a job; but is this true? Paul Craig Roberts, one of the founding fathers of Reaganomics, once espoused such a conventional viewpoint, but has since that time become more open-minded about increasing the minimum wage. Ron Unz has also come out in favor of a higher minimum wage, arguing that public assistance programs for underpaid workers function as de facto corporate welfare, shifting much of employers’ burden to taxpayers; whereas, if workers were permitted to earn a living wage, they would lose eligibility for further assistance, with the economy also receiving a genuine and distributive stimulus. Steve Sailer, thinking outside the bogs, adds:
Why not a $15 per hour minimum for non-citizens?
Why not a $6 per hour minimum for teenage citizens? And a $9 per hour minimum for 20 to 22 year old citizens?
A high minimum would only seem to work when tied into effective job-site enforcement of immigration laws. But, put them together and you might really have something.
Of course, the worst solution would be the inverse result where huge numbers of currently employed American citizens get squeezed out by a higher minimum wage and get replaced by new illegal aliens working off the books for less than the nominal minimum.
— Richard B. Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) October 21, 2015
Most strikingly, the Alt-Right has tended to distinguish itself from the ruling duopoly in its opposition to needless war. “In a foreign-policy context, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ don’t have any real meaning and never have,” argues Andrew Bacevich of The American Conservative. “Present-day Left and Right are distinguished by which elites they prefer, not by a fondness for, or hostility to, elites in general,” posits John Derbyshire, who adds, “The world is way more complicated than it was in 1789, and the concepts Left and Right don’t capture all that complexity.” This, however, has not stopped some on “the Right” from attributing to their opponents a loathsome “leftist” foreign policy worldview. Cis Scum of The Right Stuff dismisses the “leftist/libertarian/anarchist” bluster of those with the nerve to suggest that the September 11th attacks were anything but the dastardly deeds of remedial Arab flight school students – this despite the fact that leftists and anarchists like Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky overwhelmingly excoriated these same “conspiracy theories”.
Many on “the Right” have entertained a parallel disdain for independent investigation of the September 11th psyop partly because they retain vestigial Republican prejudices and make the mistake of interpreting the mere suggestion that “radical” Muslims could be blameless in the attacks as a manifestation of carcinogenic political correctness. Notwithstanding the fundamentally non-partisan nature of the search for truth in any undertaking, many self-described reactionaries would benefit from reading, if not the “Fake Left” identified by News Junkie Post, then the authentic and conscientious Left represented by such figures as James Petras and Michel Chossudovsky. These men, whether despite or because of their committed anti-colonial and socialist credentials, know more about the forces shaping world events than 99% of those on either “the Left” or “the Right”. Two of the best sites for keeping abreast of world events as these encompass war and economic machinations are Non-Aligned Media and Global Research – the latter site, maintained by Chossudovsky, presenting a markedly eclectic forum that finds space for writers as varied in background as Stephen Lendman and Paul Craig Roberts.
Most people's shrilly held political convictions appear to be rooted in emotional trauma. Get over it and start thinking.
— AnnKSterzinger (@AnnKSterzinger) January 22, 2016
Aryan Skynet encourages identitarians not to confine themselves to their own neighborhoods in obtaining their news and analysis. Read Global Research, News Junkie Post, CounterPunch, TeleSUR, and Axis of Logic. Much of the content on these sites, particularly as it touches on race, will be imbecilic garbage; but readers will also encounter valuable commentary not to be found at Radix Journal, The Right Stuff, The Occidental Observer, The Daily Stormer, or Alternative Right. How many Trump Train tools continue to make fools of themselves for failing to grasp the following insights offered by Gilbert Mercier and Dady Chery at News Junkie Post?
In most of the world, and especially the US, elections are staged, with the primary goal being to let off steam from targeted sectors of the population. A secondary goal is to make a rigged political process appear believable and give the impression of a free exchange of ideas. The candidates are presented as caricatures that trigger an emotional identification in specific groups of people. In the US in 2016, the mean, misogynist and racist ugly American stereotype is served well by Donald Trump for the right. On the other side, the reincarnated Occupy leftist champion of social justice is played by Bernie Sanders. Nonetheless it is Hillary Clinton’s turn to win. Trump and Sanders serve to keep the elections in the news and to make Clinton the only supposed pragmatic choice. […]
The fake left poaches the narrative of the real left so as to kill it. Outright plagiarism and abundant appropriations and rewrites are hallmarks of the fake left. Since it lacks a heartfelt leftist rhetoric, it must continually borrow one, ironically, to excoriate it so as to present a superficial version of it. Any critical examination will show that the self-proclaimed firebrands of the left have, for decades, never moved the revolutionary dial an iota. If books like Noam Chomsky’s Occupy or Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, or Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco’s Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt had been genuine, they would have brought people to the barricades in the streets, and there would surely have been attempts to suppress them. Instead the books have been celebrated and glorified by the media establishment, because these pseudo-radical manifestos have not brought action but paralysis. The latest offering by Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything, will, by design, change absolutely nothing at all, except the balance of her bank account.
Those few of us who are genuinely trying to change the course of events sometimes wonder how we can compete against this powerful new machine that appropriates our message, twists it, and then blasts a degraded version of it through countless bullhorns. Doesn’t the public realize that wealth and fame are not the normal trappings of revolutionaries? Don’t people know that revolution is never easy, and that if it appears to be, it is not real?
— R. Chlodwig von Kook (@icareviews) January 23, 2016
None of this is to suggest that the identitarians of “the Right” ought, as Richard Spencer bravely proposed, to go full Che-shirt and rebrand white nationalism as a phenomenon of “the Left”. Aryan Skynet’s Hipster Racist recently called for the recognition of a position that he terms “Alt-Center”; but, sound as his reasoning might be here, “Alt-Center” just has a cold porridge ring to it. This writer, raised as a Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Starr-era Republican, will probably always feel an instinctive revulsion at the utterance of the syllable “Left”, and likewise will probably also retain a residual fondness for the cruel Alex P. Keaton sensibility of the stereotypical “Right”; but this is a reaction of the heart – the sentimental plaque in the coronary arteries – and not an assessment by the mind. Ultimately, it is not the name of the movement that matters, but its openness to powerful ideas irrespective of the political brand.