Alt-Right

"The holodomor didn't happen, Stalin was based, cultural Marxism is irrelevant, the Kalergi plan is fake, zionist dictated foreign policy is now "American imperialism", Marxian socialism + Nationalism is the 3rd position, we need a red-brown alliance with Bernie bros" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Arminius (@ArminiusThe) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Alt-Right 2020 campaign summary [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— SP fan account (@ReadLinkola) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jarno wrote:

Keith have now at least temporarily deactivated his twitter account because of all the heat. It could be that he has not been held accountable for the things he has said before.

My take on it was that he is just a inexperienced young guy who has not actually met his supporters in real life so he has gotten a bit misguided by others weebs. And he doesn't realize how submissive/weak his views and supposed alliances are. And of course he got too much attention too quickly so a lot of people think he doesn't have any merit.

Anfang wrote:

I don't see a problem with Keith's statements because I sense no subversive energy/motive behind them. You can say a lot of things, the important part is how you argue and how you defend your views. Are you willing to accept rational arguments made in good faith or are you falling back to "win" the argument with rhetorical BS.

As for the charge of "Duginism", whenever that is brought up I think it's done in bad faith. That's rhetorical garbage. "Hey, you must defend yourself against my charge of Dugin-ism. No, I don't argue against what you say, I just call you a Dugin-ist and now you must defend yourself and show me that you have nothing in common with Dugin, like drinking water, eating bread and the likes..."

Next someone will say that you can't organise collectively as a group because that's communism or maybe it's Fascism, maybe it's zionism. It's whatever I don't like, or maybe if I am clever, it's whatever I think you don't like or your audience doesn't like and has negative emotional responses to the word. BS talking points for light-switch brains, 0/1 thinkers.

Who even knows what Dugin is about, who talks about Dugin, where is this even coming from?
But suddenly this charge is creeping up everywhere, looks to me like a gay-op.

ppl say the accusations of the "alt-right" being Duginist/pro-Marxist subversion arent honest

so here's quotes from alt-right figureheads

Arktos:
1st to publish Dugin's work in English. argue for synthesis of Evola with Marxism. (Evola would fl*y you alive for suggesting that) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— SP fan account (@ReadLinkola) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

who posts "if they were r*ping your kids en masse that's even more reason to support them" ? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— SP fan account (@ReadLinkola) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jarno wrote:

who posts "if they were r*ping your kids en masse that's even more reason to support them" ? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— SP fan account (@ReadLinkola) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jarno wrote:

He is implying that there are only 2 choices, either give these people displaced by the Zionists their own lands or we just have to take them in. Why would we in the first place need sympathize or ally with people who were do crimes against us if they were living amongst us. Either you support Palestinians or you are a Zionist/Fed.

Anfang wrote:

I guess the idea is to unify those Europeans who can be swayed away from liberalism, no matter if coming from the left side or the right side of the k0sh3r sandw1ch. But all of that began long before people were talking about Dugin this and that, neither positively nor negatively.

Alexandar Dugin wrote:

If we begin with fascism and National Socialism, then here we must definitively reject all forms of racism. Racism is what caused the collapse of National Socialism in the historical, geopolitical, and theoretical sense. This was not only a historical, but also a philosophical collapse. Racism is based on the belief in the innate objective superiority of one human race over another. It was racism, and not some other aspect of National Socialism, that brought about such consequences, leading to immeasurable suffering on both sides, as well as the collapse of Germany and the Axis powers, not to mention the destruction of the entire ideological project of the Third Way. The criminal practice of wiping out entire ethnic groups (Jews, gypsies, and Slavs) based on race was precisely rooted in their racial theory — this is what angers and shocks us about Nazism to this day. In addition, Hitlers anti- Semitism, and the doctrine that Slavs are‘subhuman’ and must be colonised, is what led Germany to go to war against the Soviet Union, which cost us millions of lives. It is also true that this resulted in the Germans themselves losing their political freedom and the right to participate in political history for a long time, if not forever. Today they are left only with their economy and, in the best case scenario, with a concern for ecology. The supporters of the Third Way were left in the position of ideological outcasts on the margins of society. It was racism — in theory and in practice — that criminalised all other aspects of National Socialism and fascism, causing these worldviews to become the object of curses and vilification.

As one of its essential features, the Fourth Political Theory rejects all forms and varieties of racism and all forms of the normative hierarchisation of societies based on ethnic, religious, social, technological, economic, or cultural grounds. Societies can be compared, but we cannot state that any one of them is objectively better than the others. Such an assessment is always subjective, and any attempt to raise a subjective assessment to the status of a theory is racism.

…Today, we reject and criticise fascism for its racial component, but we forget that this ideology is also built on the ideas of progress and evolution, just like the other two political theories of modernity. If we were to visualise the essence of Nazi ideology and the role of progress and evolution in it, then the connection between racism and evolution would become obvious to us. This connection — in a concealed form — can be seen in liberalism and even in Communism. Even if not biological, we see cultural, technological, and economic racism in the ideology of the free market and in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Alexander Dugin wrote:

Liberalism must be defeated and destroyed, and the individual must be thrown off his pedestal. Yet, is there anything that we could take away from liberalism — from this liberalism that is hypothetically defeated and has lost its axis? Yes, there is. It is the idea of freedom. And not just the idea of ‘freedom for’ — that same substantive freedom rejected by Mill in his liberal program, which concentrated on the ‘freedom from’. We must say ‘yes’ to freedom in all its meanings and in all its perspectives. The Fourth Political Theory should be a theory of absolute freedom, but not as in Marxism, in which it coincides with absolute necessity (this correlation denies freedom its very core). No, freedom can be of any kind, free of any correlation or lack thereof, facing any direction and any goal. Freedom is the greatest value of the Fourth Political Theory, since it coincides with its centre and its dynamic, energetic core. The difference is that this freedom is conceived as human freedom, not as freedom for the individual — as the freedom given by ethnocentrism and the freedom of Dasein, the freedom of culture and the freedom of society, and the freedom for any form of subjectivity except for that of an individual. Moving in the opposite direction, European thought long ago came to a different conclusion: ‘man (as an individual) is a prison without walls’[97] (Jean- Paul Sartre); that is to say, the freedom of an individual is a prison. In order to attain true freedom, we must go beyond the limits of the individual. In this sense, the Fourth Political Theory is a theory of liberation, of going beyond the prison walls into the outside world, which begins where the jurisdiction of individual identity ends.

Alexander Dugin wrote:

We note a positive attitude toward the ethnos, an ethnocentrism directed toward that type of existence which is formed within the structure of the ethnos itself, and which remains intact throughout a variety of stages, including the highly differentiated types of societies which a people may develop in the course of their history. This topic has found deep resonance in certain philosophical directions of the Conservative Revolution] (for instance, Carl Schmitt and his theory of ‘the rights of peoples’, in Adam Müller, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, and so on) or the German school of ethnic sociology (Wilhelm Mühlmann,[86] Richard Thurnwald,[87] and others). Ethnos is the greatest value of the Fourth Political Theory as a cultural phenomenon; as a community of language, religious belief, daily life, and the sharing of resources and goals; as an organic entity written into an ‘accommodating landscape’ (Lev Gumilev);[88] as a refined system for constructing models for married life; as an always-unique means of establishing a relationship with the outside world; as the matrix of the ‘lifeworld’ (Edmund Husserl); and as the source of all the‘language-games’ (Ludwig Wittgenstein). [89] Of course, ethnicity was not the focal point either in National Socialism, or in Fascism. Yet, liberalism as an ideology, calling for the liberation from all forms of collective identity in general, is entirely incompatible with the ethnos and ethnocentrism, and is an expression of a systemic theoretical and technological ethnocide.

Marxist ideology did not pay much attention to the ethnos either, believing that the ethnos is overcome in a class-based society, and that no trace of it remains in a bourgeois and, even more so, a proletarian society. Based on the latter, the principle of ‘proletarian internationalism’ becomes absolute. The only place where the ethnos received any kind of attention is in dissident, Third Way currents which were rather marginal in relation to the political mainstream, even though Nazi orthodoxy blocked the organic development of the ethno-sociological subject area with its racist dogma. Whatever the case may be, the ethnos and ethnocentrism (Wilhelm Mühlmann) have every reason to be considered as candidates for the becoming the subject of the Fourth Political Theory. At the same time, we must again and again pay attention to the fact that we view the ethnos in the plural, without trying to establish any kind of a hierarchical system: ethnicities are different, but each of them is, in itself, universal; ethnicities live and develop, but this life and this development do not fit into one specific paradigm; they are open and always distinct; ethnicities mix and separate, but neither one nor the other is good or evil per se — ethnicities themselves generate the criteria by which others are judged, each time in a different way. We can draw many conclusions based on this point. In particular, we can relativise the very notion of ‘politics’, which comes from the normative values of the city, the polis, and, consequently, of the urban model of self-organisation within the community (or the society). As a general paradigm, we can review what Richard Thurnwald c a l l e d Dorfstaat — a ‘village-state’. The village-state is an alternative view of politics from the perspective of the ethnos naturally living in balance with its environment. This view is not reflective of the city (projecting its structure onto the rest of the country), but is that of the village or the province. It comes from the standpoint of those regions that have been peripheral in classical politics, but which are the centre of the Fourth Political Theory. However, this is only one example of all the possibilities that open up if we accept the ethnos as the historical subject. Yet, even this shows the possibilities inherent in transforming even the most basic political concepts, and how drastic the revision of an established dogma can be.

What AIDS shows us is nature itself, risen up with terrible force to mock our delusions of knowledge and control. AIDS, above all, forces nature back onto the agenda of sex theory. (VT 1994)

— CamillePagliaQuotes (@PagliaQuotes) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yesterday, Richard Spencer disclosed he was involved in the publication of Aleksandr Dugin’s book. He recommends reading Dugin's book and examining Dugin's thought. He describes Dugin as a fascinating person whom he respects and will never denounce under any circumstances. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Ard Rí Boru (@ardriboru) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]