Instead of couching the subject, I’ll be very direct. I have yet to see anything redeeming about the so called “Altright.” At best, it is a general milieu where some, though quite rare, individuals exist which have a certain predisposition to look with a transcendent eye at political events and systems. Rarer still are finding individuals who live out such ideals with any degree of élan awesome enough to be compelling. Perhaps it’s not surprising, since if such individuals still existed, they would not dare to be involved in such an amorphous and disorganized phantom.
However, most people see it as the only viable ark left. In a modern world which has no will to escape from its bourgeois or collectivist solidity, alternatives are a must—an escape is a must. The world offers, for the most part, two options of centrist or leftist policies—there is no third. To many people, a more reactionary mindset becomes the only breathing room left. But is this choice truly a different one?
The insidious nature of modernity, is that it often sets up two false poles; opposites by which it generates shocking electricity with the underlying and unconsciously cynical reality that the two opposites are not so different at all. Instead, the shock paralyzes those caught between the poles. This is most obviously seen between the choices of liberals and conservatives in most modern states which, if they are not already colluding, represent only stone-throw distances from each other. Furthermore, while the spectator is busy in the circus of right and left, he is never left to ask whether or not the contest is necessary or just at all.
Does the “Altright” fall into this same category? If it was something truly “alternative” wouldn’t it present a fundamentally different essence than its liberal or centrist counterparts? I can already hear the various objections if one were to make any sort of challenge to what the “Altright” is. “These are strawman arguments,” some might say simply because the “Altright” has no defined orthodoxy. It makes itself invincible to criticism because it shrugs off any attack on its various members as not the true essence of what the “Altright” represents. Ironically, it is this amorphous defense that is indicative of its shared pedigree with its other modern counterparts.
Any true recall to order requires organization. Organization does not simply mean the efficient rearranging of materials and elements in order to properly “function”–no, this would be “mechanization.” This kind of “mechanization” is what plenty of people see in the leftist ideologies of today. The true essence of “organization” is found in the word itself—in organs—in something living. If we projected the “Altright” phenomenon into a living thing, what would it be? It has no true head—but rather several heads talking and vying for influence with each other. It promiscuously allows any form of rebellion into itself in an attempt to destroy the present, corrupt system. In essence, a vast swell of people who are tired of the slavery of the bourgeois machine have summoned a monster to fight it. It has even come to the point where the inane, puerile, and destructive use of memes is not only defended, but celebrated as “chaos magic.”i
This point vis-à-vis the methods the movement employs is key. I have spoken before about the difference between learning how to use a gun and learning how to use a sword, but I bring it up again because the willingness of the “Altright” to use the same destructive disrespect that its counterparts employ is a sign that, in essence, it holds no interior superiority. It only simulates superiority rather than being actually superior. The movement’s use of “dank memes” is as vulgar as an adult responding to a child’s profanity with more profanity. The celebration of “chaos magic” as effective is the same revelry behind the utility of the nuclear bomb. It is ignoble and betrays just how low class the movement is if it encourages the cunning of “efficient” methods of destruction rather than the nobility of respectable warfare. It is the same mistake ISIS fighters make when they blow up churches and temples.
Because in the end, what is the underlying fundamental principle of memes? “Nothing is sacred.” This attack on sanctity, this attack on the soul for the purpose of deconstruction and laughter is the grandfather of memetic attacks. Whether or not the targets of these attacks are deserving of them or not is not the point; the point is that the man degrades himself by resorting to or defending such actions. It is not whether or not one’s enemies deserve death, but to employ cowardly and childish methods to achieve that kill is to make one’s self as dishonourable as any barbarian. It is not a question of whether or not one should fight, but the method of one’s fighting is just as important to a differentiated man. For the efficiency by which one’s fight is the trap of the machine as I’ve pointed out before; while the ferocity of hatred is the trap of the monster.
These two poles of machine and monster are just two sides of the same coin of the crisis of masculinity. In fact, these two sides are present even in individual male psyches. Jungian psychology interpreted by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette pointed this out exactly when they mapped out the four masculine archetypes: King, Warrior, Magician, and Lover complete with their polar dysfunctions.
While the “Altright” accuses the left of being “weaklings,” they tend towards being the “tyrant.” While the “Altright” accuses western civilization of destroying itself masochistically, it sadistically points out groups or individuals to be “hated.” In fact, it is indeed in the warrior/hero dynamic that the “Altright” has its immaturity hand in hand with its cowardly liberal counterparts.
Here is the sad truth about the “Altright:” the “rediscovered” chauvinism it has adopted is simply walking the psychological line from one immature state to another. It has yet to grow up. It is only truly the individuated man that finds an exit from the closed loop of left and right. It is only the individuated man that can find the “fullness” of a political pole beyond left and right.
But doesn’t the “Altright” have at least some of the proper ideas? Does it not hold the advantage? Isn’t it better to be a sadist than a masochist? Shouldn’t we prefer the Tyrant to the weakling? Couldn’t the “Altright” be pardoned as being the lesser of two evils? Look at yourself, you are speaking like moderns do. “The lesser of two evils”? Is this not what modernity has been teaching you to do? To compromise on your ideals? This kind of lukewarm state should be spat out immediately. Unfortunately, the “Altright” movement is a bastard movement. It is what happens when the pure is intermixed with the modern milieu. It takes some of the vocabulary and temperaments of the west’s traditional past and projects it through the pollution of modernity.
“I’d rather fight with something than be inactive,” someone might object. Seeing the potential end of one’s race, for example, could mean a reaction towards nationalism. It’s an understandable reaction. After all, any animal who gets hit wishes to recoil and hit back. Unfortunately, for many individuals brought up in modernity, the “hitting back” is informed only by the methods they see in the modern world—no matter how self-destructive it is. This is what could be called a “Shadow” where a defense mechanism from one’s early development is carried on into biological adulthood. A boy, for example, who was constantly hit as a child, might flinch from an embrace or find it easier to be a bully first in order to prevent any abuse onto himself. Even if this might protect him throughout his young adult life, it no longer becomes necessary as it prevents full integration of his self as he gets older. In other words, he remains a child.
The problem with the nature of the internet and modernity is that with no proper examples of mature masculinity entering into the arena of popularity (because it would shun such a thing as childish), most man-children mistake themselves to be fully developed. They abandon any spiral upwards to engorge themselves in the ouroboros of communal euphoria. Conversely, the man who seeks the truth of the matter of political systems or societies is not swayed by the modern preference to the excitement of mass action. He is not carried away by the waves and fads of dishonourable conduct.
He will never be given the joy of plunging himself in national, social or political collectivity. He will never have the blissful experience of having shared out the weight of responsibility with the multitude, and he can never fit in at festivals—or orgies—in the sense implied in the words “we French,” “we Germans,” “we Jews,” “we Republicans,” “we Royalists,” or “we communists.” The intoxication of plunging into collectivity is not given to him. He must be sober, i.e. alone. Because the pursuit of truth through synthesis—which is peace—implies prudence, and prudence is solitude.ii
The “Altright” is just another collectivist orgy similar in pedigree to the liberal social justice hordes except it has committed the double sin of being a bastard—of polluting what would be noble and traditional values with the efficiency and utilitarianism of modern weaponry. It holds itself as the vanguard of “proper” political systems but promiscuously mixes with the demagoguery of the lower classes. It extols the virtues of courage and masculinity, but lacks the courage of training itself to live well and die well hoping, instead, for material victory.
And, ultimately, this is the promise of the “Altright”–that it can provide some kind of material victory. It is willing to achieve this at whatever moral cost. “Material Victory” – the security of “life” and “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness” at whatever cost. This is just the same clash of the titans that has been repeated throughout the modern age. For, indeed, the “Altright” is no Olympian who has found the pure and elegant kingship of the what made civilizations of old “great.” Instead, it has as many heads and arms as Geryon—it is a Titan that people worship and hope in to destroy the machine of modernity.
Despite all of its failings, it can serve as a starting point. This amorphous cloud can serve, at least for the immature, as their first forays into a world that goes beyond the bourgeois concepts of politics so long as they avoid the trap of idolizing the titanic monster. Just as the “Shadow” might have protected the young man as he developed, but must be resolved, assimilated, and affirmed to make way for the “Golden Self,” so, too, must the true elite eventually break out of the closed circle of the Alternative Right and explore new domains. This is not an easy task and it is certainly reserved only for those individuals who are courageous enough to resist the temptation of “easy” weaponry; it is only reserved for the Warrior in his fullness and the King in his fullness.
ii Meditations on the Tarot, pp. 225.