Sunday, August 28, 2016
No, Vox. No...
Voxday has a list up on his blog of his definitions of the Alt-right. As I’ve pointed out here numerous times the alt-right, for all the good it can do, is far too broad a gateway for its own good. Or maybe it would be best described as inviting the undecided to boldly sit on the fence. In the early days of the Alternative Right blog (now called Radix) there were articles by everything from jewish “transhumanists” and jewish “intellectuals” to robe wearing neo-pagans, to, I believe, an injun.
This was asinine. There is so little White advocacy that to invite non-Whites into one of the few fortifications is contra reason to the nth degree.
Vox himself likes to say that he is part indian and mexican. I’m guessing that though that may be technically correct (a small percentage of Mexicans are White and “Indian Princess Syndrome” is notorious) it is done mainly to troll/deflect accusations of racism. Which itself is unwise. As I’ve pointed out before, there is literally no such thing as racism, and that is the best tact to deal with those who sling the word. But that’s another topic.
Back to the list,
Number 4 on Vox’s list is fundamentally problematic, and contradicts some of his other points. It states, ‘The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.’
Problem 1: “Western Civilization”. Now I’ve used the expression myself, but the fact is that Western Civilization is hard to define. Most east-Europeans (historically Orthodox) don’t think of themselves as Western. Most of us in the U.S. use the phrase as synonymous with White people, but Russians, for example, certainly do not. Catholics like to claim that catholic christianity created Western Civilization and yet the vast majority of Protestants don’t see catholicism as christian.
Another problem with “Western Civilization is that it connotes a phase of the White man’s history, not its totality. Europeans have been around for tens of thousands of years. What historians usually classify as Western Civilization didn’t begin to come into existence until around 7th and 8th centuries A.D., and then slowly moved north and north-east over the next 500 years (the Northern Crusades). And many would argue that it ended with WWI, while others claim it ended with the onset of the Enlightenment.
Referring to ‘The West’, as in the direction -the western part of the old world, is fine, but confuses many.
Western Civilization, as it is thought of historically and culturally, is more like bell-bottoms or the mullet: a fad. The better expression is ‘European Civilization’ -that which is inherently created by Europeans wherever they are, in place or in time, be it 2000 A.D., or 20,000 B.C.
Problem 2: “Pinnacle of Human Achievement”. No! Absolutely bad understanding. If you want to argue it was the pinnacle of European achievement, fine. But Africans, Asians, jews, hispanics, Arabs, etc, have their own conception of accomplishment and civilization. Their idea of family, community, order, law, form & function is fundamentally different from Whites. It's valid for them, but we have our own. Our pinnacle is not their pinnacle. What Polar Bears consider paradise is hell for alligators.
As for the Three Pillars,
Christianity is a toxic mix of three of the worst elements of antiquity: Roman politics, Greek Philosophy and west-Asian Monotheism.
Rome was a blight on Europe -a cartel king-pen’s mansion surrounded by favela-level slums, filled with garbage, disease and crime. It was a manifestation of the same globalist multi-cultural gulag/slum that we are fighting against today. But it did promise the potential for the conquered to become citizens of the kingdom.
Greek Philosophy was nothing more than an attempt to conceptualize distinctly European traits, such as altruism, as some sort of universal virtue/imperative. Once articulated and written down it could be ‘preached to every creature under heaven’. Behind every cuck there is an Aristotle.
Oriental Monotheism is the inevitable outgrowth of natural Asiatic despotism and west-Asia’s historically complex sexual socio-politics. Which, to thumbnail, is: Yahweh/Jesus is the Sheik and the “Brides of Christ” are his harem.
Once again, Jesus would have been a brown, Asiatic midget from the deserts of west Asia. He was a jew -jews are Asians. He wasn’t a god and he sure as hell wasn’t one of us.
Put the three elements together and you get anti-Europe. Europe has survived in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Just as it survived in spite of Rome and the bullshit that came out of Greece(1).
The 2nd pillar, European Nations, is obvious, as nation means ethnic group. It’s Europeans, not “western civilization” that we are fighting to protect and preserve.
The 3rd pillar, Rule of Law, needs to be further understood as the rule of law as Europeans know and experience it. The other races have their own inherent understandings of law, order and morality. And each is valid to each race.
In other words, beneath the surface of Vox’s number 4 is the beast of universalism. I suspect point 4 was conceived of as an attempt to save and rehabilitate christianity. And in so doing it contradicted some of his other points (such as 6,7 & 9) and undermines the whole project.
Remove 4 and the list is okay.
Note (1): Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and the rest of those Greek philosophers did not represent Greek thinking. They represented the pontifications of a small clique. We really don’t know much about what the average Greek (or Roman, for that matter) thought or believed about the world about them. We only know what the George Soros and Angela Merkel-types of their day thought.