It is the height of irony that a Paki Muslim “Conservative” Raheem Kasaam had Richard kicked out of CPAC. Yes, some doofus who owes his entire career to the absurd and exotic notion of Kasaam being “Anti Immigrant Ex Muslim Conservative.” If Kasaam was named Tommy Robinson and was Methodist rather than Muslim, nobody would give a fuck about him or his milquetoast ideas.
Once again, this provided great optics for the Alt Right, just like when Richard punked Jeffrey Tucker and some Lolbertarian Wizard/American Muslim larper.
Great Work Richard.
Those idiotic conservatives would rather have some Paki street-shitter in their group than a charismatic, fashy guy like Spencer? Who the hell needs them?
Cucks are the only ones who believe all the “colorblind” bullshit, hence cuck is the perfect name for them.
Cucks love to virtue signal, always at our expense, in order to impress our leftist anti-White enemies.
After I watched all this, I came away with the feeling that Mr. Spencer is like an expert Jazz musician walking on stage –
A clear idea about what, in the general sense, he would like to achieve, but, in the specifick sense, unclear about how that will come about.
Who/what was that green whatever sitting on Richard’s right?
Though Daniel Schneider meant it as an insult in designating the Alt Right as ‘liberal fascism’ or ‘leftist fascism’, I think there is a kernel of truth to the observation, and the Alt Right should play with it.
There IS a leftist element in Alt Right, but then, leftism was a key component of fascism from its inception.
The West embarked on the idea of progress. Even though the true worth of ‘progress’ in many areas is debatable, it has been incontestable in science, math, medicine, and technology. One can objectively say advances in sciences constitute real progress. One can prove that a more advanced math formula is superior to ones before. We can say it was progress in astronomy to replace geocentrism with heliocentrism. And Darwin and Wallace achieved great things in science.
Outside science and math, one can’t be entirely objective in defining what is right or wrong. Still, given our understanding of human nature, it is roughly true that free market economics of supply-and-demands works better than slavery or serfdom.
Also, given our natural desire for freedom, we want a society that offers a degree of freedom for every person. History proves that freedom is infectious. Even though communist nations promised justice and equality, almost no one moved there because everyone wants to be free.
Also, the idea of basic human rights has great appeal. Each of us, as an individual, wants to decide what is right or wrong. We don’t want to be forced into agreement. We prefer being free to be wrong than being forced to be right. Creationism is bogus, but we want the freedom to believe in it if we choose. We don’t want Richard Dawkins and his ilk forcing all of us to renounce religion as false and become atheists even if they are right about life and science.
Also, the Golden Rule of morality follows a rational logic. Obviously, if we don’t want others to steal from us, we shouldn’t steal from them. If we don’t want the other side to rape our daughters, then our side shouldn’t rape their daughters. Also, justice should be blind in punishing transgression. So, if a rich person commits murder, he should face same kind of justice as a poor person who commits murder. We take these ideas for granted, but prior to leftist struggle for people’s rights, much of justice was determined by inherited privileges.
Rules of progress may be contested, but there is no doubt that the West made great social, political, and moral progress in the modern era. It becomes clearer when we compare the West with other civilizations that remained stagnant and made little or no progress due to dogged conservatism.
Did the West make more progress because its foundational principles were closer to human nature, reason, and truth? Maybe, maybe not. There is no doubt that the Hellenic and Hebraic sources of Western Tradition — rational & empirical search for the ultimate truth + spiritual & moral search for higher truth — played a key role in the development of the West. But then, Byzantine Empire had access to the same ideas — even more so than the Western Empire that suffered collapse — , but it failed to make the progress that eventually came to the West. So, maybe there were other factors as well.
Anyway, the ideologically driving force of progress, especially since the Age of Reason, has primarily been on the Left. The Left was more likely to push for science, expanded rights, concern for the masses, humane conditions for workers. intellectual freedom, and etc. than the right. True, the left could become overly radical and unduly tyrannical, as with the Jacobins and others.
But the Left was coming up with the big ideas and making the big push. Opposed to the Left were the kings, noblemen, and the clergy. Kings were born into power, and many were idiots or mediocrities. Noblemen, also born into privilege, were more interested in costume balls and silly affairs than serious matters. And the clergy had become bastion of anti-science, superstition, and ignorance as obedience & virtue. In many cases, the clergy was corrupt and served their political masters.
Therefore, much of the revolutionary energy was to be found on the Left. The Left was divided between two groups: the bourgeoisie(later bunched with the right) and socialists. Karl Marx recognized the bourgeoisie as the most revolutionary force that ever existed. (Marx hated capitalism but never saw it as a force of conservatism. If anything, he was disturbed by its ultra-revolutionary power to transform society without allowing breathing space for humanity.) No economic system was as uprooting and tranformative as capitalism. But, capitalism would exacerbate class conflict by producing a super-rich class of capitalists lording over increasingly impoverished proletariat. Nevertheless, it was capitalism that would create mega-productivity and industrial society. And it would create the conditions of its own demise, whereupon the working class would inherit what the capitalists envisioned and engineered into being. Capitalism was seen as revolutionary and transformative but volatile and unstable. It was like a hurricane, flood, earthquake, and fire rolled into one. It changed society more fundamentally in a 50 yrs than all of history had been changed in the previous 5000 yrs. Alas, it would eventually create conditions for its own downfall.
Of course, not everyone on the left saw it that way. Some on the left(classical liberals were originally seen as leftist) saw capitalism as the best economic system devised by mankind. In their eyes, capitalism led to more wealth, more productivity, more goods and services. It led to creation of big cities via mechanization of agriculture. Once urbanized, modern folks could be free individuals with access to education, culture, arts, and leisure. They didn’t see capitalism digging its own grave but improving itself and fueling genuine progress of mankind. Also, capitalism offered expanding freedoms and rights that would allow the system to reform and save itself. (As for the social-democrats, they believed that a gradual peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism would be possible without violent upheavals.)
So, the Left had split in two. Capitalism and Communism. (If we count social-democrats as a third element, they were between capitalism and communism.) Both were committed to progress and a better world for the people. Capitalism argued that, while free markets did to new class divisions, the pie would grow bigger for everyone. And the evolution of capitalism would lead to more economic freedoms and choices, the very basis for other freedoms because all true freedoms must have material basis. (It’s like the freedom-to-travel is meaningless unless there are cars and roads, the material means that make travel possible and not just an ideal). Also, capitalists argued that economic liberty of capitalism was intrinsically linked with individual liberty in social and cultural spheres. After all, without the concept of private property and property rights, the State or the Monarchy can use its power to confiscate the property of anyone. Without property, one’s freedom is just an abstraction. After all, suppose the state said “you have freedom of speech but no property rights.” So, the state can take away your computer, your pen and paper, your desk, and all other material means of communication. Now, what good is your freedom of speech if you have no property(tangible means) with which to express your views? Or suppose you started a publishing company that sells books. Suppose the state or the ruling monarch takes away your property while maintaining that you still have freedom of speech. But without your company, how will you publish the books to get your ideas across? Freedom without material property is just an abstraction. It’s like ‘free healthcare’ in a nation that has no hospitals and no medicine. It’s like free food in a nation without food. It’s like having the right to move around but being paralyzed from neck down.
So, capitalists argued that property rights are central to freedom. Unless individuals could own property, they would have no means to get their views and ideas across. The state or ruling monarch would monopolize all material means and use them for its own self-serving purposes.
In rebuttal, the communists argued that capitalist democratic freedom was all just a ruse. True, individuals can own private property in a ‘liberal democracy’ that operates on a capitalist basis. So, any individual has the right to start and own his own newspaper or publishing house. However, since most of the wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of the few, capitalism really leads to oligarchic rule and only the useless illusion of freedom. The capitalists eventually gain monopoly over all media. And with their vast wealth, they buy up all politicians and gain control of all higher institutions filled with people trained by academia controlled by the bourgeoisie. So, it creates the ruse of freedom, but it’s just another form of piggish elite rule whose main agenda is preserving the class interests of the rich and powerful.
It especially seemed that way in the late 19th century and early 20th century because the newly risen bourgeoisie often purchased aristocratic titles and/or affected aristocratic manners. Since the aristocrats had dominated elite privilege for so long, the newly risen bourgeoisie — even as they usurped the aristocratic class — adopted the manners of the long-pedigreed nobility. And the aristocracy, feeling the pinch from the rise of the bourgeoisie, decided to salvage their privileged status by making a social pact with the bourgeoisie and marrying with them. Having increasingly less in material wealth, they still held aristocratic titles or class prestige, something that the nouveau riche of the bourgeoisie wanted to be associated with.
(It’s like the declining Wasp elites in the US decided to marry and merge with newly rising Jewish elites.)
Of course, the super-rich capitalists in current times have an easier time fooling the hoi polloi that they are like everyone else. With aristocratic styles having faded long ago, the super-rich today dress and talk like regular people. Some even put on hipster attitudes, as if they’re starving artists or penniless bohemians.
And some, like Donald Trump, shamelessly swagger in the style of the vulgar rich that has appeal to the hoi polloi who don’t mind the fancy but can’t stand the snobby.
If early bourgeoisie seemed like the New Boss because they adopted aristocratic manners, today’s super-rich seem less overbearing because they seem and sound so ‘normal’. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett dress and act like any other American. And even the British Royal Family has adopted Pop Culture as their culture of preference. In a way, it seems like social progress toward greater equality, but it’s also a more effective ruse to fool us into thinking that class doesn’t matter in the modern world. Thus, it has a more pacifying effect on the masses.
Communists called for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communists argued that both the Old Order(of monarchs and aristocrats) and the New Order(of capitalists) didn’t really address the problems of the people. The Old Order hogged all the power to maintain inherited, unearned, and undeserved privileges.
The New Order concentrated all the REAL wealth and power in the upper bourgeoisie who used their advantage to serve narrow class interests. Even if capitalism upheld ideas about freedom and rights for all, in actual practice it was about the rule of the New Boss.
In contrast, the dictatorship of the proletariat would concentrate all the wealth, productivity, and property in the State committed to the good of the people. Communism would rid the world of inherited & unearned privilege. Communism would also rid the world of capitalists who monopolize wealth and means, thereby making a mockery of basic rights because, after all, rights without material means of representation, are just an abstraction. It’d be like having an idea of a homeland without having an actual homeland. (Jews should understand this since they had an idea of a homeland for so long without having any real dirt under their feet to call their own.) In contrast, communism would concentrate everything in the State that is ideologically, intellectually, and morally committed to serving the people. As it turned out, George Orwell was right about how that kind of system turns out in ANIMAL FARM.
Anyway, both capitalism and communism were outgrowths of the Left. In contrast, what did the Right have to offer throughout much of the late 18th century and early 19th century: monarchy, aristocracy, and clergy. Snobby, spoiled, uninspired, entitled, stagnant, pompous, petty, sanctimonious, hypocritical.
Even though communism proved to be a disaster and capitalism produced as many problems as offered solutions, it must be said that the driving force of history mainly came from the Left beginning with the Age of Reason. Even Edmund Burke was a kind of leftist, one who believed in brakes and maps. A more cautious leftist who nevertheless believed in and welcomed progress. He was not a reactionary who just clung to the status quo or the past. He saw the need for change. He just thought the French radicals were moving too fast in untested waters.
But there was one problem with the Left. In its over-emphasis on materialism, individualism, freedom, and justice, it ignored the rich, deep, dark, and mysterious realm of emotions, myths, poetry, and spirituality(the living form as opposed to ossified teachings of the Church). And this led to the rise of Romanticism that can’t be characterized simply as left or right. It defied both. Romanticism unleashed the power of the daemonic, creativity, and vision-thing. It could flow from the urge for liberty(leftist) or passion for the mythic(rightist). Because Romanticism was about emotion than mere ideas, its ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ went far beyond petty social or political categories. In the music of Richard Wagner, the emotions, passions, and the breadth & depth of vision cannot be contained within a single political agenda. They derive from rare genius. It is the nature of genius to be more than what is intended. Indeed, even when a genius artist has a narrow political agenda in mind, his imagination goes far beyond the stated ideology. This is why even the great works of a rightist artist resonates with leftists and vice versa. The Soviet works of Sergei Eisenstein have power beyond ideology.
Romanticism deepened meanings and broadened the scope of human potential.
It was a revolution in passion and restored the prophetic element as the living instrument of the genius artist and visionary. Prior to Romanticism, the stakes had been narrower and shallower.
To the monarchy, the ‘right’ meant preserving its caste prerogatives. To the clergy, the ‘right’ meant Christian orthodoxy and church authority. To the bourgeoisie(accused of being the New Right by the socialists and communists), the ‘right’ meant having the proper manners of respectability to compensate for their ‘crass materialism’.
But the romantic vision of the Right connected modern man to something deeper than class or social norms of the present. It connected man to the ‘line of my people’, to an imagined space even before the rise of civilization. Romanticism connected the Right with nature and biology, a sense that, at some root level, nan is part of nature. Romanticism connected man to a vision of spirituality beyond established dogma. If the Church insisted on Biblical truth, the romantic right discovered within their hearts & minds the power to create gods. In a way, Nietzsche’s idea that God is dead was really a declaration of the birth of a million gods. It was the discovery that man has the vision, genius, and poetic imagination be a prophet and create his own god, possibly even to be godlike. This was heady but dangerous stuff. At any rate, Romanticism expanded the boundaries of ideological discourse, of what was possible. The Right used to be restrictive and repressive within a narrow framework of social reality, tradition, orthodoxy, or class interests. It defended a neatly assembled collection of ideas, manners, and attitudes. And one was supposed to stick with them like a stuffed-shirt.
In contrast, Romanticism gave licence to modern man to go beyond social & political strictures and delve into mythology, archaeology, biology(and nature), creativity, and psychology as the deeper source of discovering his true identity and what he wants to fight, kill, and die for. Go on a Vision Quest, like in those primitive nature tribes. Or one must search for one’s own holy grail. It was no longer enough just to receive wisdom and ready-made truths. One had to search for them on one’s own. This was the spirit of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell.
Romanticism offered something for the Left as well as to the Right. Besides, a leftist was more likely to cast off the chains of tradition, orthodoxy, and status quo to search for something new. There was a vibrant leftist aspect to Romanticism.
But the problem was that the Left had a dogma of its own that cut them off from the deeper wellspring of being. The Left, being so sure of the better future, tended to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it came to the past, tradition, and heritage. It was one thing to cast out the repressive and tyrannical legacies of the past. It was another thing to become blind to all the wonders, treasures, and wisdom of the past.
Romanticism was about reaching for the sun, but it was also about drawing water from the dark mysterious depths of the soil. If the reactionaries clung to the wooden orthodoxy that everything new is bad, the left-revolutionaries reached for the crutch that everything old is bad. So, anarchists got into the habit of smashing everything deemed old. And when communists came to power in Russia and China, they went about demolishing so many cultural artifacts and texts in their blind conviction that a New Beginning required that the Old be destroyed and forgotten forever.
Such arrogance, high on sniffing the ideological glue, went against the spirit of archaeology so intrinsic to Romanticism in the 19th century. There was scientific archaeology whereby lost civilizations and cultures were recovered and revered anew. And there was spiritual and poetic archaeology, most powerfully expressed in the music of Richard Wagner, that recovered and reconnected with the Germanic pagan soul that had been buried under centuries of Christian dogma. And yet, it needed not be a rejection of Christianity that had had done so much to ennoble and sanctify the West. In the music of Wagner, especially in PARSIFAL, there is the synthesis of pagan virility and Christian transcendence.
Anyway, Romanticism was like the great tree of Germanic mythology: Yggdrasil. It stretched from the deepest recesses of the dark soil to the brightest reaches of heaven. And in a way, the Modern Right was better suited to represent its potential than the Modern Left was. The Left, in its sheer contempt for tradition and past, didn’t have much appreciation for the roots of history and mystery of culture. Leftism could be intellectual, but its emotions could be very shallow. Today, its notion of justice is synonymous with the latest fads. The ‘leftist’ of the ‘current year’ cannot conceive of any moral truth beyond the dictates of fashion. So, today’s so-called ‘leftists’ cannot think of justice apart from ‘gay marriage’.
But the traditional right, in its lack of vision and imagination, could not conceive of any possibility other than tradition & customs OR any truth other than pat principles like ‘free trade’ and ‘muh constitution’. Most leftists and rightists are fixated on either ideology or tradition. They have little sense of truth, meaning, or justice beyond their pat slogans, narrow sensibilities, or ideological conceits.
They have no sense of humanity as being interconnected with biology, psychology, mythology, and history. Even when the try to connect history with ideology, we get stuff like “Because America’s past was tainted with slavery, we need to have ‘gay marriage’ as atonement.” According to the Left, all of history exists only to justify the current ideological fad. Or, all the sins of history can only be partially absolved by all of us adhering to the latest ideological concoction from elite institutions and media that are mostly controlled by Jews and their minions, the homos.
As for the current ‘right’, they are still defined by bourgeois obsession with decorum and respectability. So, its members haven’t the guts to give offense to whatever happens to be deemed ‘respectable’ in the Current Year. Since homosexuality has been made the New Normal, we have so many Conservatives, such as Charles Murray and Ross Douthat, going along because they fear being labeled as lacking ‘respectability’. Now, it’s good to be respectable, but we also need to ask WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISN’T RESPECTABLE? Since the Power decides, it means that even things that deserve no respect can be made respectable. Those with genuine sense of respectability have a core sense of right and wrong. But those without core conviction merely conform to the rules of respectability as defined by others. Since most ‘conservatives’ are cowards and wussies, they haven’t the guts to conceive of right-and-wrong in defiance of The Power that is dominated mostly by Jewish Globalists. So, if the most egregious smear according to The Power is being labeled a ‘racist’, ‘anti-semite’, or ‘homophobe’, today’s weak-willed Conservatives will grovel by means necessary to prove that they are respectably free of such attitudes.
Anyway, despite the problems of the Left, there is no doubt that the Left has been the driving force of much change and progress — much of it good — since the Age of Reason. And this is something that Nietzsche recognized as well. After all, he was no fan of the moribund reactionary forces who clung to tradition and/or orthodoxy. Benito Mussolini began on the left, and despite his ideological transformation, his spirit and drive were carried over from his leftism. Mussolini never wanted to be a dull, boring, and predictable rightist of old(like what Franco was, which is why, as soon as he died, Spain turned totally in the other direction). He didn’t want to be a reactionary. He accepted the need for progress in all fields: science, arts, technology, society. Where he deviated from the Marxist & Anarchist Left was he no longer believed that you can just create something new by destroying all that is deemed ‘old’ or ‘atavistic’. Also, Mussolini realized that Reason alone couldn’t serve as a guide for humanity. Indeed, communist claims of ‘scientific materialism’ was belied by their sanctification of Marx, Engels, and Lenin(and their quasi-religious rites and rituals), which demonstrated that man doesn’t live on intellect and materialism alone.
The Right without the Left favors stasis and orthodoxy.
The Left without the Right favors amnesia and dogma.
So, fascism developed as a fusion of the left and right. It hooked up the propulsive & restless engine of the Left to the grand edifice of the Right. Fascism was left-rightism as opposed to right-rightism(that lacked vision and imagination) and left-leftism(that lacked reference and reverence). Fascism was about holding onto what is sacred and revitalizing the power of myth to enrich a world of material and social progress. Ataruk and Putin could also be seen as part of this mindset: An acceptance of change and progress BUT without a war of desecration on heritage(not least at the behest of Jewish globalists and homo degenerates whose idea of power revolve only around their own supremacist vanities).
And the case of Israel illustrates how a fascist-democracy is possible. If any order is a liberal fascism, it is the Jewish State of Israel. It is democratic in having elections. It is liberal in allowing individual freedoms and choices. But it is also fascist in being founded and defended on the historical, religious, spiritual, racial, and mythic themes that bind the Jewish People to the Holy land in a sacred and almost mystical way. Jonah Goldberg all-too-conveniently left out discussion of Israel as the premier liberal-fascist nation in the world.
Now, both Danny Schneider and Jonah Goldberg meant ‘liberal fascism’ in a derogatory way, but those on the Alt Right should take it in stride because the designation suggests, even if unwittingly, that liberalism and fascism are not incompatible. Israel, the liberal fascist nation-state, is proof that a socio-political order can be premised on fascist themes — a people united by history, myth, race, and pride of place — AND also allow individual freedoms and have elections.
I like elements of liberalism and I like fascism. I would like to live in a society where my individual rights are guaranteed and protected by the state. The state is the hardware and needs to operate according to a certain software. I would like one of the software to be liberalism at least to the extent that I’m guaranteed the freedom of speech, conscience, and assembly. On the other hand, people on the Alt Right understands that people don’t live just for freedom. Most people want freedom to be attached to meaning, sense of duty, and sense of destiny. After all, a child has a duty to remember his or her real parents and ancestors. Even if one has the freedom to pretend that one’s own parents are not one’s parents and that OTHER people are one’s parents, what kind of freedom would this be? If one were to deny one’s own father and pretend that another man is one’s own father, it would be freedom divorced from truth and meaning; it would be preference for fantasy over truth.
We want to be free, but in the end, our freedom must connect us to the truth of what we are and to the reality of human nature. A white person who pretends to be black and to have black parents is free to feel that way, but it would be a crazy moronic waste of freedom, like with Rachel Dolezal.
After all, we are free to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = 100, but the fact is only 2 + 2 = 4 is the truth. Freedom is good, but it’s not enough. In the end, what really counts is what we decide to do with our freedom. Do we decide to use our freedom to arrive at what is true, right, and meaningful or what is shallow, stupid, and meaningless? When we see young girls today with blue dye in their hair and rings through their noses, it’s obvious they haven’t been raised to appreciate and use their freedom in a meaningful way. Their desperate attempts to have an identity — even with blue hair and ugly tattoos — shows that humans, being social creatures, feel a strong need to be a part of some culture and community. Since meaningful identity has been denied for whites under Jewish control of academia and media(and due to corruption of religious institutions), we have white people seeking membership in made-up communities based on fads and fashions.
Anyway, if some(especially on the Establishment Right) tries to accuse the Alt Right of being ‘fascist’ and ‘leftist’, the Alt Right should keep the exchange going. It’s like a game of tennis. The opponent hits the ball to your side as a form of attack, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hit it back because it was intended as offense. You should hit in back in the way that it becomes an effective counter-volley. Thus, what was intended against offense against you becomes your power of offense against them.
So, the point is this: Even though Schneider and others like him attack the Alt Right by launching a volley that is meant to tarnish the Alt Right as ‘left fascist’, this accusation could easily be spun and hit back as an advantage for the Alt Right.
Yes, the Alt Right should argue, there is a leftist element in the Alt Right. The reason why the West advanced well ahead of the rest had something to do with its leftist element of progress, change, reason, and transformation.
Just like even the neo-pagan or atheistic champions of Western Civilization accept Christianity’s profound role in shaping the West, even Alt Rightists must acknowledge the role of the Left in the Age of Reason and the Spirit of Revolution. Indeed, even prior to the Age of Reason, there was something about the West that was more adventurous, individualistic, curious, and bold. It was no accident that the West decided to explore the world. It is no accident that Russia decided to take Siberia whereas China only looked inward.
So, in a way, the leftist strain in Western Civilization was an ideological manifestation of the Will to discover new world or create new orders. It could be violent and disruptive. Heaven knows that the Western enterprise of settling the New World led to much violence and havoc. Likewise, capitalism and communism came to turn the world upside down. But with the great violence and upheaval, there was also much positive progress and development.
But then, no race, culture, or social order survived for long by only embracing the cult of change and revolution. There must also be the culture of continuance, linkage, sacred memory, and reverence for the past. After all, what distinguishes man from animal is animals have no historical memory, no identity based on culture and legacy. In contrast, man’s power of language, memory, and community has created an identity and culture that goes far beyond the here-and-now. Jews would be NOTHING without historic memory. And this goes for Greeks, Chinese, Persians, and etc.
So, the Alt Right should have no problem with tapping into the source of Western spirit and energy that once used to energize the left(before it grew so childish and decadent with homomania and nonsense about trannies). Alt Right must adopt the best of the leftist spirit as well as the essence of rightist romanticism that goes much deeper than Conservatism Inc that only cares for ‘muh constitution’ and respectability. Alt Right must delve into the biology, mythology, and psychology of race and culture.
The Modern Right had a real chance of defining the 20th century, but Hitler came to dominate Europe and turned reduced the themes of the Modern Right into pathological dogma. Hitler failed to understand that culture is like a germ. It’s like yogurt isn’t possible without lactobacillus. You don’t create culture by freezing milk and killing all the germs. Culture is a germ-play. Nazism’s antiseptic approach to culture produced the rigid frozen semblance of beauty and strength without the organic component of life, growth, and metamorphosis. Spengler understood history and culture as something organic and alive. Hitler’s ideal of utopia was frozen in concrete and steel. Its rigid Racialist Idealism became as dull as Stalin’s Socialist Realism. The problem was the agenda of freezing the superior man into cast iron lacking in wider, richer, and deeper sense of what it means to be human. Still, there were good things about National Socialism, and the pity is that the good became tainted by its association with the horrific.
It will be an epic struggle for the Alt Right. A very difficult task, but then history is most interesting when the labor is herculean. It will require creativity, conviction, vision, suppleness, flexibility, opportunism, sense of timing, preparedness at every moment, knack for forecasting, reinterpretation, and prophecy. And like Danny says in GREASE, it’s only the beginning:
Here’s an idea for subversion: The Democrats have abolished their annual “Jefferson and Jackson Dinner”, because both of those great men were white and southern (and, of course, slave-holders, but that was really just an accident of history). Some group of populist Republicans should start their own “Jefferson and Jackson” dinner. Afterall, Jefferson’s party started out as the “Democratic Republican Party”. The Democratic party of Tomas “Conquistador” Perez and Keith “Allahu Ahkbar” Ellison no longer want to claim Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson? Fine. We can claim them. They would be disgusted with what became of their party anyway. They belong to us now.