Why the Alt-Right Will Eventually Fail


Spurred on by this article about 8 things conservatives need to understand about the alt-right, I want to lay down a few points that the alt-right doesn’t quite understand. Maybe they’re playing 4D chess or something. I don’t play those games because I know I am not smart enough. I do know what’s important though.

First, group identities are not set by the color of your skin or the color of your hair or even language or culture. If that were true, then Europe would’ve always been united, there never would’ve been a Western Roman Empire and an Eastern Roman Empire, and China would still be on the Xia dynasty.

Let me help you understand what I mean.

Story one: My ancestors were Scottish (among other things, of course, but I identify more with my father’s side and they were pretty much Scottish.) I had an opportunity to get to know a real Scotsman along with his wife. They explained to me carefully how things really worked and what the situation was for my ancestors and why our family records don’t include much elaboration on why we left other than “As soon as father got out of prison, we packed our things and decided America couldn’t be much worse.”

The Scottish are jerks. Royal pains in the rear end. If I were living in Scotland, I’d be looking for some other place to live rather quick. Add to that the fact that the English just couldn’t seem to keep their hands out of Scottish affairs. I mean, we have the Illuminati or the Bildebergers and such that we fear, but the Scots feared the English king and his Machiavellian schemes. You name it, they actually did it. Entire towns are gone because they decided to side with the English an the English returned the favor by committing genocide against their clan. Other towns are gone for who knows what reason.

You have two peoples living on an island for thousands of years, and after all that time, they still found reasons to hate each other and hate themselves.

Europe never was united like it is today. Not even close! The best we have is Emperor Charlemagne and his re-re-re-establishment of the Roman Empire, but even then, it was what, like 10 years and they were back to fighting each other.

You can actually follow the history of towns that share the same ancestry. I mean, you really can’t get closer kinship than among some of these European places that have fancy names but represent rotten holes in the ground where people lived in filth at the time. And yet, look at their history and you’ll see they were constantly fighting each other.

Put simply, mankind has never been united among racial lines. Never. Ever.

What we have in America is unique in the world. We’ve had over 200 years of history and we’ve only tried to kill each other once, and even with all the atrocities that we committed against ourselves, it wasn’t as bad as what happened elsewhere.

My point is this: The White People will never unite. The Black people and the Yellow people will never unite. Sure, they may have some affinity for people that look like them, but this is literally only skin deep. I work with Chinese co-workers and I used to work with Indian co-workers. They don’t like each other. Sometimes they really, really dislike each other, and sometimes it is because of history and sometimes it is because of real differences in regional dialects and culture. The better you get to know a race, the more you realize it’s pretty much same no matter where you go.

If you truly want to understand what I mean, go visit the people who are in your alt-right movement. Go find out who they really are and what makes them tick, and I guarantee you’ll probably question why you are aligning with them.

Second point: My comments about 4D chess are probably lost on you. As an actual genius (I’m not talking MENSA garbage, I’m talking I-actually-earned-a-BS-in-physics-with-a-good-grade type genius), I know how much not like geniuses even the smartest among us are. Socrates said, roughly, “The only thing I know is I know nothing.” The higher you go up in intellectual capacity, the less intelligent people think they are.

The reason why some guy like Einstein could come along and school the entire discipline of physics not just once or twice but several times is because Einstein knew the limits of human reason. Einstein is remarkable in the simplicity and clarity of his thinking. If you want to truly understand Einstein’s genius, go read his paper on Special Relativity. It’s kindergarten-type stuff. I honestly believe that anyone can grasp all the concepts of Special Relativity if they have a rudimentary understanding of algebra and read his paper carefully. Now, it won’t come overnight, and will take at least a week if not more of careful thought and reading, but anyone can do it.

The thing about geniuses like Magnus Karlsen is not that they think faster or better, but that they think with more clarity and precision. I guarantee you that if you were to peek into Magnus’s mind during a chess match, you would see that he’s playing a much simpler, easier game than you think. I bet he has everything in there sorted and organized and tagged, and he’s just looking for one specific kind of thing among all the things in there. He’s remarkable when he plays because he doesn’t always pull out the computer-defined best move, but the moves that make his opponent do more work to keep up.

Let me put it another way. When you make a move in chess, you have to consider all the possibilities. That means taking a 2D board and turning it into a list of possible move candidates. Then you have to sort through that list, trying to find the best move, quickly. Computers define the best move as “the move that will give me the best position” and so they don’t really consider how hard their opponent works. Magnus seems to not only understand the “best” move in that light, but he also includes how hard his opponent has to work to not make a mistake and so he prioritizes other moves that the computer would not. It takes chess enthusiasts days and days to catch up to what Magnus does in his games. Imagine what his opponents feel when they realize they have to work 10 times harder than Magnus to not screw it up.

Finally: Populism is a terrible ally. The problem with populism is it is popular, and the problem with popularity is it doesn’t stay popular for very long. If you think you can maintain a power base by a green frog and memes, then you are just like the guys who thought they could get elected by playing rock music at their rallies in the 70s. How did that work out for them? Or do you think you are going to be able to stay ahead of the curve and maintain your popularity? Can you name one celebrity who hasn’t faded over time, one company that has always been the most popular for a very long time?

The people don’t know what they want, and they certainly don’t know what they need. If they did, we wouldn’t need governments in the first place, and we could just let everyone play 4D chess in their minds as they worked out how it’s more advantageous in the long run to not kill your competitors. But that’s not what people are like. If you find your politics to be popular, it’s probably because you’ve messed up somehow and haven’t communicated the ideas very clearly, or worse, your ideas are bad. It’s rare indeed that the people get things right.

All that said, we’re playing politics here. Whoever gets the most votes makes the laws. And the alt-right seems to be getting some votes. So I don’t mind being their friend and ally for the foreseeable future. They’re not preaching hate, they’re not out there to kill anyone, and they’re not going to deprive people of their God-given rights. At worst, they’re going to say unkind things about people who they don’t like, including me, but I can live with that. I welcome my green-toad pepe overseers and will tolerate their worship of the mighty Kek. But I’m not going to stop telling them why they’re wrong.


8 Responses to “Why the Alt-Right Will Eventually Fail”

  1. Xerxes Says:

    So the point of the alt-right is seeing the world how it is.

    There are interests (((elites))) that are very much in favor of destroying religion, ethnic identity and race because it means the masses are easier to control.

    The elites are an out group. Out-groups rationally fear a powerful in-group identity because it would be detrimental to the out-group. To counter that, outgroups attack the in-groups beliefs and traditions in order to destroy the in-group’s cohesiveness. This allows the out-groups to flourish.

    Example: college leftist ideology. Non-stop attacks on the in group (white Christians) by Jews, homosexuals and other miscellaneous deviants. There is no morality or rationality to those attacks. The point is to attack your culture and identity so that you will not stand up for yourself and your beliefs.

    Liberalism is an attack on your culture so as to demoralize you and coerce you to live like sheep.

    You mention that you work with foreigners. Great. Your government is driving down your wages, taking money from your family and giving it to financiers and investors. You apparently consider this a win.

    I’m not sure why you refuse to see the world as it is. Free markets just mean that (((elites))) are free to operate without constraint. Of course, when times get rough the elites bail each other out and leave you high and dry.

    Why is it a win that bankers made trillions over the last 15 years then walked away Scott free? This is good? The average guy loses his house and finances, the taxpayers get stuck with the bill but Dick Fuld gets to keep his $750 million.

    That’s called a scam. A grift. A hoodwink. Not sustainable economics.

    Future political battles will be between the elites and the masses. Brexit was the opening salvo. Trump the first bombardment.

    Stop defending the elites. It’s unbecoming for man of your intellect.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Free markets would destroy the elites. Free markets mean they have to actually produce to maintain their wealth advantage. If they can’t produce better than others, someone else will eat their lunch. As an example, in the 2008 banking crisis, if the federal government had done its job and let the big banks and corporations fail, the smaller regional banks and corporations would’ve become the new national banks and corporations. Instead, the government bailed out the elites. We are living in a socialist economy where the government chooses the winners and losers. Obviously, they choose the elites to win and us to lose. The answer isn’t to turn ourselves into the elites, but to tear down the entire system and remove from the government the power to choose winners.

      Free markets mean free trade. It means I work with foreigners and I take work from foreigners. It means I participate in a world-wide marketplace where I am competing with workers all over the world but I am bidding for jobs from all over the world. Where would you likely earn more money as a computer programmer — in the middle of nowhere, population yourself, or in the middle of a city with thousands and thousands of programmers? The answer is obvious. When you’re selling a product (labor is a product), you go where the demand is highest to get the best price. That means taking your business to where all the business is.

      Free trade means that I know that the things I buy like food and clothing isn’t being artificially inflated in price to keep Americans busy doing third-world jobs like growing food and sewing clothing. I don’t mind eating food grown in South America or wearing shirts made in China. Keep the South Americans busy growing food, the Chinese busy making shirts, so we Americans can literally change the world and usher in the next generation of technology while the rest of the world is still trying to understand what we’ve been doing for the past 30 years.

      In short, the elites are either elite because they are literally better than us (like Jeff Bezos and such, who started with little but made billions from scratch) or they are elite because they’ve come from elite roots. Those who come from elite roots are living off of borrowed time and resources that their ancestors created and that they have no idea how to create for themselves. They will eventually spend themselves into irrelevancy or the economy will move right past them. Remember, the poorest among us live better than the emperors of Rome and the kings of England. If Rome had survived until today, unchanged, they would be worse than a third-world country and none of us would envy being the emperor.

  2. Jason Gardner Says:

    Here is a real world example…

    When the Soviet Union dissolved each Russian citizen was given shares in all of the state industries. Much economic turmoil ensued. Coming out of the turmoil, those that had better international financial connections (in this case Russian Jews) were able to buy those shares at distressed prices from distressed people who did not have kinship resources. Once the money came in they were able to use the government to buy the rest of the heavy industry. (Bribery goes a long way when nobody has any money.)

    Once the heavy industry was captured they moved on and bought the media. At this point (2000s) the Russian state was “captured” by several Jewish oligarchs. They controlled the money, the politicians and the media. They made the laws and controlled the loot.

    The oligarchic state did not serve the interests of the Russian people. It served the interests of the Jewish Oligarchs. Misery ensued.

    In their hubris, the oligarchs messed up and backed Putin. President Putin is an avowed nationalist, meaning that he wants what is best for the Russian people. The oligarchs didn’t believe he was serious but, one by one, they have been expelled, killed or jailed.

    Win one for Putin. Turns out he was serious. The quality of life in Russia has gone up.

    What’s the point? Well, this graphically shows in very recent times how oligarchy happens. You don’t have to be a genius to see that it has happened here as well. Example, 90% of all media is controlled by six Jewish men.

    The top donors to Hillary are basically all Jewish. Of course, we in the US are, because of the money, allied heavily with Jewish interests.

    (I use the Jewish example as it is the most obvious and easily verified.)

    Because of this capture of our government we see that our leaders find it to be a good idea to go to war with Russia. I guess to teach Russia a lesson in free market fairness. (I for one totally would send your oldest son to die in a pointless war with a nuclear superpower to defend the gains of the Russian Jewish Oligarchs. Seems pretty reasonable…)

    What’s the point part II?

    Look at a country like Norway, Japan or Korea. Korea, for instance, has a government that since the Korean war has been meddling in the Korean domestic economy. And it’s worked pretty awesomely. Korea went from a complete wasteland in the early 50s to one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

    Similar story with Japan.

    As for Norway, it’s awesome. Totally socialist. Completely an awesome place to be and live. Highest standard of living in the world. I used to go over there for business all the time and the whole place is just awesome.

    The list of countries with super high standards of living and socialism includes, Germany between 1933-1944, postwar Germany, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, etc….

    List of free market countries with high standards of living…. Somilia? Pretty libertarian there… The US a little bit… Mmmm….. Hong Kong? Not a long list.

    What’s the point part III?

    What matters is the intention of the government and the quality of the people. The governments of Japan, Korea and Norway serve the people of Japan, Korea and Norway. If given a choice, those governments would unabashedly do what is necessary to help their own citizens above all others. They reflexively favor their own workers and want the highest quality of life for all citizens.

    Similarly the quality of the average Korean, Japanese and Norwegian citizen is top notch. Good people lead to good governments and good outcomes.

    As should be painfully obvious by now, our government is not a government by the people. It does what is best for a small moneyed interest and throws some bones at the rest of the population. You are right to want to defund the government. You are wrong in advocating for free markets.

    Free markets are simply a de facto theoretical cover for exploitation of the masses. I’m not saying in theory, I’m saying by overwhelming example. The real world simply does not match your theoretical model.

    The key is to see how the world is… What’s wrong with a government that makes sure that employees have paid sick days? What’s wrong with the government making sure that all workers have time for vacation? (6 weeks minimum in France, UK, Norway, Sweden, Germany, etc..) What is wrong with the government being an advocate for the people? Making sure people are taken care of?

    I used to believe as you do but I’ve seen too much of the world to still wear those blinders. The corporations will always do ok. They are well funded and have clever people working hard for them. The average citizen, not so much. That guy needs to be protected.

    Why is it morally repulsive to hear that a government should care about its citizens? That takes a crazy amount of brainwashing to do…

    Much of our wealth does not come from free markets. It comes from rational thought. We are richer than the kings of England because people have had more time to soberly and rationally tackle everyday policies. We (Europeans) stopped praying to trees and believing in witches and, viola, we got better at solving our problems.

    As more problems got solved our lives got better. Pretty simple actually. We don’t pee in dirt holes outsider our hovels because John Crapper diligently and rationally studied the problem and came up with a good solution. The solution spread because others were willing to rationally listen to his ideas and adopt them.

    As long as we believe in stupid stuff (spirits, ghosts, Jew god, talking snakes) we will live like ignorant savages and have the quality of life of an ignorant savage. If we believe and behave rationally we will get good stuff. Very simple.

    See Somalia for an example. Markets are free as can be. Total crap-hole.

    The goal should be to improve the quality of the average American citizen. This would lead to better government and a better quality of life. The goal of the elites (seems they are always Jewish) is to degrade the quality of the average American. This leaves the door open to exploitation.

    The degradation takes the form of attacking families, attacking moral behavior, normalizing deviancy, etc. The reason the elites can is they control the media. They can push their degenerate message. The goal of the degeneracy is, of course, to weaken the fabric of the populace to the point where they are easy to exploit. (A fat, ignorant person with no sense of right and wrong is hardly able to form a defense against a well moneyed elite class.)

    You gotta start seeing the world as it is. Open your eyes man.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Your argument against free markets pretty much reduces down to:

      1. There are scary bad powerful people out there who don’t like us.
      2. So we need even scarier bad powerful people to stop them who do like us.

      I’m familiar with Korea. I lived there for several years. Korea has two economies. One is the “white” market. That’s Samsung and Hyundai and the other Chaebol companies. That’s pure socialism. The government works to keep those companies afloat, while those companies work to keep the government afloat. Amidst all this, the vast majority of Korean people are left on the sidelines. Maybe they didn’t graduate from the right college, or have the right political or social connections. Regardless, they can’t get a fulltime job.

      The “black market” is everywhere in Korea, in the open. You don’t have to work at all to buy and sell things tax-free. In the black market, the poorest of the poor can take any good or service and start selling it without nary a thought for the government. My brother-in-law started a business selling fishcakes in a public market, and did quite well. Today, he’s working manual labor jobs and making enough to afford an apartment and a decent standard of living. This is because most of what he does is not on the books.

      Now, there is a “dark side” to the black market. Gangs demand protection money, the “public, free” marketplaces are only public and free on paper, etc. etc… But here’s the thing: Despite this corruption and the lack of protection from the police (who are all bought and paid for), the poor in Korea do quite well. I wish I could take you in a time machine back to the late 90’s to show you what life was really like for the poor, how they could afford to live in one of the most expensive places in the world, how the government only existed to keep track of who lived where and throw the occasional murderer and rapist in jail where they were never heard of again.

      That’s what free markets get you. Sure, people will try to buy it up, but you really can’t raise your protection rates very high when all your victims have to do is buy a bus ticket and move to a different part of town, where there are more people anyway because there are more vendors.

      Regarding aggregate action: I fully admit that free markets do not properly incentivize aggregate action. Thus, the need for government to aggregate responsibility and action when needed. A free market requires a powerful state actor who can intervene when necessary. But those interventions are few and far between. Most of the time, people can deal with the corruption that naturally happens in a free market, and the honest truth is the government doesn’t really have to do much.

      Free markets inevitably end up corrupted. That is true. Which is why we need to understand them and defend them and always work towards free-er markets. I don’t think the idea of free markets are misunderstood. I think we are sold a bill of goods when we are given examples where it supposedly failed. In your case, you cited Korea. I argue that Korea exists as an economic power in the world because of its black markets. I simply cannot see any way that the Chaebol could possibly put the entire country to work and still make enough money to produce a surplus.

  3. Jason Gardner Says:

    Free markets are not an end goal. They are simply a means to accomplish a goal.

    The goal should be a strong nation and strong members of the nation. Healthy children coming from healthy homes and a citizenry that healthy, involved and morally fit.

    Free markets are a way to achieve some parts of the above goal. However, they are just a tool. One of many in the tool box. We don’t use a hammer for the sake of hitting things but to drive a nail. Similar with free markets. It’s not an end goal in itself but a way to achieve a larger goal.

    We have, of course, lost sight of the larger goal and view the free markets and their own virtue. Manifestly wrong. Free markets carry no virtue unless the results are virtuous.

    So we have more money than ever, buy more crap than ever and are fatter, sicker, and more morally deformed than any generation of Americans. But free markets! Yay free markets!

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Free markets are an idea, a concept. No, free markets cannot be the end goal. They are a tool. Dictators and democracies alike are free to exploit the concept for their own gain.

      The end goal is exactly as you describe. Healthy kids, a good next generation.

      If free markets interfere with that goal, I’m all for getting rid of them.

      However, and this is key, I know that no matter what happens, my sons and daughters are going to be competing with the entire world. I have no false ideas that erecting imaginary barriers will make their lives better. They had better learn how to out-compete the Chinese and Indians on their own or they are going to have a hard time living the kind of life I have right now.

  4. Jason Gardner Says:

    I though more about the problem and have the following ideas:

    What matters is governmental intention. Let’s compare two dictatorships: Nazi German and Soviet Russia.

    When the Soviets came to power there first order was revenge. They didn’t want to make the country better, they wanted to get even. They wanted others to suffer past perceived transgressions.

    For example, the Soviets had a policy of de-Kulakization. A Kulak is a basically a successful farmer. (There were tens of millions of them so it wasn’t like they were Monsanto.) One of the charming outcomes of that was that the Soviets killed some 15 million of them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization). Good times.

    Why? F them, that’s why.

    The point is that the Soviets didn’t want to make the average Russian’s life better. They wanted to tear down Russian society and make people pay. Communism, at its core, is based on hate and spite. From it’s inception till the time it was moderated by Russians in the 50s it was death, murder and starvation.

    Germany, on the other hand, did the opposite. The Nazis made sure that every German worker was treated fairly, had a minimum number of vacation and sick days, etc. They made sure every German child had proper nutrition and functioning schools. They actually had a program for this, Kraft durch Freude or Strength Through Joy.

    The government even subsidized cruise ships so that every German worker could have a proper vacation. As a bonus they drew lots on the cabins so every German, regardless of background had an equal change at getting the good ones.

    The point is that the Nazis wanted the average German to have a better life. They wanted to raise the tide and lift all ships, so to speak.

    Here is a quote from one of Hitler’s speeches: “Our social welfare system is so much more than just charity. Because we do not say to the rich people: Please, give something to the poor. Instead we say: German people, help yourself! Everyone must help, whether you are rich or poor! Everyone must have the belief that there’s always someone in a much worse situation than I am, and this person I want to help as a comrade.”

    This, to me, is a person who loves his people.

    We can definitely agree that the whole Nazi thing didn’t really work out. Certainly, if you got in old Adolph’s face your life wasn’t pleasant or long but his intentions, no matter how crudely they were enacted, were good.

    Of course, both regimes killed plenty of domestic enemies, had special camps for the undesirables, etc. Both used cruel means to achieve their goals for sure, but the intention of the two systems was 180 degrees different. The Soviets wanted to tear Russians down, the Nazis wanted to lift Germans up.

    I imagine you sense, quite rightly, that the current crop of American Marxists, aka liberals, are not interested in making your life or your children’s lives better. They want to tear you down and have you live at their level of misery. I imagine you sense their hatred for you and your values and the ridicule they send your way. They are not interested in the beautiful or the noble, only in the degenerate and crude.

    Because Marxists run the government, I’d bet that you know that they want to use your tax dollars to undermine you, normalize degeneracy, teach your children filth, etc. Because of that, you reject them and view them as the enemy.

    Rightly so. In this sense you are 100% correct.

    However, it is a mistake to say that government is bad. Government is not bad, government is nothing but an abstract idea. Marxist government is bad. A good government, that had your best interests in mind, that wanted you to live a fulfilling and moral life is the highest expression of mankind.

    I believe that you, in part, like free markets because they are at least some respite from the current Marxists who control the government. However, I believe this is only a half measure. We should not try to limit government but fix government. Remove the Marxists and institute a government that want’s to lift people up instead of tearing them down. Once the ship of government is righted, then we can debate the role of government.

    In other words, there is no size of Marxist government that is acceptable. On the other hand, a true and legitimate government that loves the people can be either large or small, depending on the occasion and will of the people.

    I would suggest re-focusing your effort on defeating those who want to drag the country down and stop fighting a rear-guard action on free markets.

    I believe this is a purposeful distraction used by Marxists to keep you from identifying the actual problem. They frame the debate as either a Marxist government that control the markets or a Marxist government that controls the markets a little less. This is a false dilemma.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You get what I am thinking.

      Hillary: Bad news. I have a real possibility of going to jail under her, because I will not shut up about homosexual marriage and the evils of transgenderism. I have a religious duty to speak out against these things.

      Trump: He doesn’t intend to hurt anyone. He wants to bring peace to the US, peace to Mexico, and peace to the Middle East and Russia. That wall will eliminate 99% of the problems we have with illegal immigration, and at the same time, keep Mexicans home in Mexico to rebuild their own country for full wages than building ours for half wages.

      My point of this post and my endless talking about free markets are to explain important ideas that are timeless. If we heed them, we will get the connected results.

      The Alt-Right is not evil, not even close. They are playing with fire, but I see a long, long road from what they are doing with identity politics and gulags. Even the most virulent white supremacists merely want to be recognized and distinguished from the other races, that’s it. The hatred, the lynchings, etc… were all politically motivated, democrats-killing-republicans from a long time ago when democrats thought they were still at war with the republicans. The Neonazis here in the US have done nothing like that, and don’t even want to. They simply want to raise their kids telling them they are white and special because of it and that’s it.

      Down the path of identity politics is a dark corner. That dark corner is when people feel justified hurting or killing others because they are different. However, there is nothing in the alt-right that suggests this. When someone does bring it up, they are immediately outed as a Hillary plant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: