Alternative Left Getting Some Airplay

Hunter Wallace mentions me and the Alternative Left.

Wallace is a White nationalist. I am not exactly pro-White nationalism, but I would rather ally with those folks than these neoliberal Cultural Left Freakshow types on the so-called “Left”.

Neoliberal corporate globalist economics and the Cultural Left combines the worst of both the Left and the Right. This is today’s DNC Democratic Party. There literally is nothing here for any progressive person in my opinion.

The Left is about economics, or it is about nothing. Basing Left politics on culture is absurd. At best the Cultural Left is a sideshow, a distraction. At worst it is deculturalization as bad the McDonaldization of the globalists. There is nothing “progressive” about man-hating women, promotion of homosexuality, 31 flavors of sexual weirdness and gender-destroyers. What is even slightly progressive about any of this celebration of freakiness?

The Republicans are the same thing minus the Freakshow.

Marie Le Pen said, “There is no more Left and Right. Instead, there are globalists and nationalists.”

Chalk me up with the nationalists, in my case, leftwing nationalists (I know how nuts that sounds). What’s weird is Wallace et al on the Right are nationalists too, so they and I are now in some weird alliance against the Globalist Corporate Right, DNC Left and the Cultural Left. All three of these  are in bed with each other. They are all pushing deculturalization, deracination and what boils down to the dismantling of nation-states.

In this odd alliance, hopefully Wallace’s folks and I are for de-emphasis if not outright hostility to the Cultural Left, preservation of the wisdom or ages (your grandma was right), anti-gender feminism, anti-Gay Politics, anti-laissez faire capitalism, pro-men’s rights, pro-equity feminism, pro-tolerance but anti-celebration on sexual orientation, gender orientation and sexual freakism, pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment, pro-people and most of all pro-community. And for me of course, the preservation of the nation my motto is distinct national cultures and traditions, of course national economies and welfare states. My motto is “Without the Homeland, there is nothing.”

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

4 thoughts on “Alternative Left Getting Some Airplay”

  1. The New Left that started in the mid-twentieth century believed that whites were comfortable enough that they no longer needed the Marxist emphasis on class, so now the new frontiers of progress would be lifting up minorities and tearing down sexual and religious taboos. They were pretty much the spoiled, solid middle class kids. They didn’t even believe it’s possible for whites to struggle financially, and when it became obvious that this happens, they figured those whites are just unworthy losers who could have succeeded if they wanted it.

    I think there was stealth class warfare going on in the 60s between the white middle class and the white working class. The white working class was making huge gains in the post-war era and the middle class had to figure out a way to keep them down and beneath the middle class, so as to preserve their own status. So they latched onto New Left hedonism and identity politics and threw class struggle out the window. The right also got on board with New Left identity politics, at least insofar as disliking the white working class, because it gave them an excuse to offshore manufacturing and import cheap labor. Nowadays the establishment conservatives are so on board with one-worldism that their biggest enemy isn’t the Democrats, but Donald Trump.

  2. This is why I wanted you to check out Paul Treanor for a coherent set of contrasting opinions to yours.

    Treanor believes that being gay has no value, that the world would be better off without gay people, and in fact a cure for homosexuality will probably be found:

    https://politicalaspects.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/being-gay-has-no-value/

    On the other hand, he thinks no countries have a right to exist, and all countries should be destroyed. One reason for this is the existence of present countries is racist, self-justifying, and limits possibilities for the future:

    http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nationstate.html

    “Nation-states are ethnic entities.

    “The only logic of the existing nation-states, – the only reason why a state with these borders has been formed – is the nationalist ideology itself. The states are formed by ethno-national groups, which call themselves ‘nations’ or ‘peoples’, and the national territory is defined as their ‘homeland’. No other justification for their existence is given: nationalists think this model is self-evident and self-justifying. It is not.

    “Within the present generation, all nation-states transfer citizenship on biological grounds. If a child is born on the national territory, and its parents belong to the nation, then it belongs to the nation. Different nations have different rules for other circumstances, for instance if one parent is non-national, or if the child is born outside the nation. However, all nation-states transfer citizenship by parentage, and almost all citizens of nation-states acquired their citizenship in that way. Most treat adopted children on the same basis as natural children, but in no case can a childless citizen give a gift of citizenship to non-citizens (which might save their lives if they were starving). Immigrants without citizen parents can acquire citizenship by naturalisation, but the numbers are relatively small, and the conditions are often restrictive. Biological descent will continue to be the prime route to citizenship. No non-national can ever claim citizenship as a right, it is always ‘granted’ – as a privilege.

    “Nations define themselves through ancestry and biological descent: inevitably, racism and discrimination are integral to the nation-state. By definition, a nation-state is for one nation, or one cluster of national groups. By definition, membership of the nation is restricted. If immigration to a state was completely free, and citizenship automatic for all immigrants, that would not be a nation-state, in the nationalist view. Most nations have restricted ideas about who belongs to the nation, and derive their citizenship policies from that narrow definition. The child’s inheritance of citizenship excludes, by definition, other persons – on biological grounds. Nation-states do treat citizenship as if it was a genetic superiority of a population group. Their policies on this issue are racist in the original 19th-century sense, implying a belief in racial superiority. Zionism is racist is this sense, because it implies that Jews possess a quasi-genetic superior quality, namely the right to live in Israel. But Palestinian nationalists say exactly the same about Palestinians, and Irish nationalists about the Irish, and French nationalists about the French, and German nationalists about the Germans. Zionists are racists, but they have company: all nationalists are racists.”

    1. That’s some real pie in the sky. The only conceivable alternative to the nation-state is the cosmopolitan imperial state in which a rootless upper class wields power over a multi-ethnic realm. In these states, status is based on wealth and prestige gained through commerce and military exploits rather than on kinship, so the class divide is necessarily much stronger, since the classes aren’t even connected by a shared culture.

      The nation-state is natural insofar as it is the large-scale extension of tribal society. The imperial state, on the other hand, is a governing structure imposed upon organically developed cultures by a foreign group that has to become foreign even to its own group if it’s to maintain its holdings for long.

      The one-worlders want to create a single global culture, but I won’t be holding my breath for that, since it would take many centuries at least, if not millennia, to eliminate existing differences in religion, race, custom etc. And if every group needs to define itself against an “other,” then even if all these differences dissolved it would be impossible to create a single global group.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *