Has the Alt-Lite Embraced the [North American] New Right?

Lawrence Murray
Atlantic Centurion
January 6, 2017

Since the Alt-Right tends to be a little extreme for the average pro-Trump blogger or supplements salesman, the loose collection of civic nationalists and cultural libertarians we’ve taken to calling the Alt-Lite or Alt-RINOs has started grasping for a label to give itself. Lately that seems to be “New Right,” as opposed to what they presumably regard as the pre-Trump “Old Right,” i.e. (((neocons))) and cuckservatives.

Does anyone have the heart to tell them? Are the r/TheDonald crowd really ready to go out of the frying pan and into the gas chamber?

New Right is already in contemporary use, referring to Europe’s identitarian movement(s), as well as our local derivation, the North American New Right. Now, presumably these Alt-Lite types neither know what the New Right is nor care how the label is used by others. They’re not the most politically well-read people—many such cases!

From the European New Right comes this set of beliefs:

• “History is cyclical, and its prevailing current is downward, declining from a Golden Age through Silver and Bronze Ages to a Dark Age.”
• “We live in a Dark Age, in which decadence reigns and all natural and healthy values are inverted.”
• “Even in the depths of the Dark Age, there are hidden Golden Age counter-currents: survivals of the past Golden Age that sustain the world and serve as seeds of the Golden Age to come.”
• “It is not futile to think and live according to Golden Age principles in the depths of the Dark Age. Indeed, those who do so play an important role in the passage of the Ages.”

And from the North American New Right, these:

• “We believe that racial and cultural diversity within the same society inevitably leads to hatred and violence, and that nationalism is the most practical way to ensure peace between peoples.”
• “We believe that all peoples should have sovereign homelands where they can live according to their own lights, free from the interference of other peoples.”
• “We believe that such a world can be achieved through gradual and humane programs of territorial partition and population transfer.”
• “We believe that these aims can come about by changing people’s consciousness, i.e., by persuading enough people in positions of influence that everyone has a stake in ethnonationalism.”
• “The promotion of political change through the transformation of consciousness and culture is what we call metapolitics.”

But let this be an invitation to think: Let them read Arktos and Counter-Currents. Send them Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight and Greg Johnson’s New Right versus Old Right. 2017 is as good a current year as any to make use of the game preserve that’s been created for—and to some extent by—us. Where were the Alt-Lite a couple of years ago? Grumbling about Obama, video games, and feminism? Now they’re talking about borders, immigration, and terrorism. Where they go next depends on who they talk to and what they are talking about.

The Alt-Lite are our hunting ground. It is here that we will find people who want to move the Overton window right and have been moving right themselves, people with a sense that something has gone horribly wrong in “the West,” and people whose worldviews are only partially formed (owing to a mix of reactionary sentiment and a lack of exposure to better ideals).

The problem is not just “Islam” or “political correctness.” And the solution isn’t repealing Obamacare. On some level they must figure that out for themselves, but we do ourselves a disservice to neglect our fellow intellectual stragglers in the Dark Age. The Alt-Lite needs a dialogue if it is to move forward. It can frustrating at times to deal with people who are skittish around the phrase “White identity” and prefer to call themselves “Western chauvinists,” who are only opposed to illegal immigration on the grounds that it is unfair to them (while not seeing the unfairness of our legal immigration policies towards the historical American nation), or who think Islam is a problem because it is anti-feminist and against homosexual marriage.

But what is the Alt-Lite’s civic nationalism if not a watered-down, incomplete system of ethno-nationalism? What is their libertine-ism but a reaction to a leftist managerial state that seeks to pathologize whatever illiberal or local sentiments they have in the name of a uniform therapeutic globalism? It is one thing to reject the paradigms of powerful people who tell you that you cannot have a country and that you cannot believe in or do certain things. But it is another thing to have your own set of paradigms ready to go right out of the gate. For many of the Alt-Lite types, I think they are in the process of forming those paradigms. They are quasi-normies who probably did not give politics much thought until Trump won the Republican nomination. And for lack of information, exposure, and indeed in some cases boldness, I think they have not yet reached an identitarian mindset. The Alt-Right and its New Right antecedents will play a leading role in this change. But without this transformation, Greater Europe (the European homeland and her settler colonies in the Americas and Oceania) will not survive.

It’s all and well to want to have a country and to have an American identity. But if that for you means holding a set of values about liberty and democracy and equality then who is to say the Swedes or the Japanese are not Americans? Your nation and its values are a product of the people who make it up, biologically, environmentally, and culturally. The occasional outsider among us can be brought into the fold, sure. But what nationalist movement, what identity-driven movement, seeks to defend a tribe comprised of whoever happens to wander in and swear a rather undemanding oath?

This is not an easy sea change to go through. Several generations of Europeans and Americans (and Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders) have been gaslighted into believing the only unique traits of Western civilization are being “free” and “democratic,” and that tribalism is wrong (but only for White people). We are not a grade-school level social studies course. We are an assortment of peoples with histories spanning thousands of years. We should not give that up for a quick buck and a dopamine hit from the virtue-signaling that comes with articulating the politically correct viewpoints to our peers and overseers. You can’t bring a civilization back once its been morally disarmed and all of its stocks replaced.

I am all in favor of making the Alt-Lite into the New Right (whether they want it to happen or not). And I think it will be easier than you might think. The next four years will be filled with outrage against Trump and against White people who are identified with his policies and ideologies. Look at what happened in Chicago.

So, tell us, are you going to cave to a bunch of shrieking traitors and invaders, or will you take a stand for ourselves and our posterity? Does the Alt-Lite care about anything more than 2016?