Fightin’ Words 1

By Rachel Haywire

Faithful members of the far right fringe, do not despair!

You think it’s game over. You’re losing hope. You just can’t ride that tiger anymore, and your entire movement has been infiltrated by hipsters and libertarians. This is more than the death of the west—it’s the death of your personal achievements. What in the dying world are you going to do when someone named Rachel fucking Haywire is writing for Alternative Right?


The KKKrazy Glue That Holds the Obama Coalition Together 1

By Steve Sailer

We are constantly told that the GOP is doomed because it’s the party of straight white men. That may well be true, but few have asked: How can the diverse Democrats hold together? How can special interests as different as blacks and gays be kept in sync?

The answer appears to be: The Obama coalition can stay together only by stoking resentment—and, indeed, hatred—of straight white men. This naked animus is rationalized by projecting the hate felt by the victorious Democrats onto the losers:


Yes, Pinochet Really Was an Asshole… 1

…no matter what some “libertarians” think.

By Gavin McInnes

With the passing of Hugo Chávez, we got a lot of crocodile tears from liberals claiming we had “lost a friend” who “lifted the poor and helped them realize their dreams.” Jimmy Carter told us that he “never doubted Hugo Chávez’s commitment.” The Nation lamented that “he wasn’t authoritarian enough.” I haven’t seen this much love for a Latin American tyrant since Che Guevara became a T-shirt.

But if we’re going to perform oral sex on every despot who can’t pronounce the letter “J,” why not Pinochet?


Peril from ‘patriots’ Reply

The LA Times is pissed.

GunsDemonstrators rally outside the Capitol in Albany, N.Y. to assert their right to own firearms and to denounce recent gun-control efforts. (Tim Roske / Associated Press / January 19, 2013)

Related photos »

Anthony Gregory Gets It Reply

Good post from Anthony on a FB forum.

“I think bourgeois Americans are not as conservative as Hoppe assumes that are in some of his writings. Even with today’s dominant social values, most Americans would not want to live by rules as strict and culturally rightwing as he implies would be common.

I heard Hoppe say in a talk once that the drug war would be impossible without a state. Conservatives might support a drug war with socialized costs, but they won’t incur the costs themselves to wage a crusade against this personal activity. I think without a state, social oppression is possible but the costs become much more personalized. For social oppression to thrive without the state requires authoritarian pressures running through the culture. It is possible but exhausting. The more these authoritarian currents are softened through free trade, migrations, social interactions, the internet, the media, and so forth, the harder it is to maintain voluntary authoritarianism of the kind we see some rightwing libertarians advocate. A covenant rule against homosexual activity, for example, is possible in a small community, but has a limit to its enforceability, especially insofar as the other values of a free society thrive in the community.

I predict that if we abolished the state today, there’d be private communities with more conservative social pressures than I would personally favor, and probably even a few that we might consider anarcho-fascist. But I think they would be on the fringe, and they would tend to liberalize over time. If there are covenants that don’t allow gays or whatever, they would be few and far between even in modern conservative America A society as free as it would need to be simply to let go of the state would tend toward authoritarianism breaking down on the local level as well. If the truly oppressive social relations were stubborn in this regard, I and other libertarians would probably agitate for peacefully encouraging a move away from reactionary social norms.


The Slave Morality Of Social Justice – Part One 2

By Legionscatz

To provide a quick background to the slave morality/master morality dichotomy. Firstly, this concept was described by Friedrich Nietzsche to explain a dichotomy between deontological ethics and consequentialism in relation to how Nietzsche viewed aspects of human behavior.

To Nietzsche  master morality was the morality of the powerful. It emphasizes individual autonomy, hostility toward the mentality of the herd, the will to live for this life instead of an abstract afterlife and also a sense of  self-improvement which had little regard for the lower born. As a “morality of consequences” (E.g. that of consequentialism), intentions counted for little among those practicing master-morality because results were ultimately all that mattered. Those who practive master morality seek to transcend their  oppressors and do not simply seek to transform their oppressors into slaves who are in the same position as themselves.

Slave-morality, on the other hand, was the morality of the slaves and the herd. It emphasized duty, collectivization, herd-conformity, and was the morality of the weak. As a deontological ethical system (E.g. one focused more on duty than results), it was chiefly focused on a persons intentions and often meant seeking justice and rewards in the next life than this one as rewards for “good moral conduct”. Those practicing slave morality do not seek to transcend oppressors, but to simple transform them into slaves in the same position as themselves.

The various branches of the social justice movement place a great emphasis upon equality. In a sense, equality is presented as an ethical obligation on an axiomatic basis. What is rarely ever questioned however, is whether it is *always* desirable from a pragmatic  analytical perspective in terms of its consequences.


Leftists and War Reply

By Khadijah Umayyad

I myself am an ardent reader of and have spent untold hours listening to the Scott Horton show. As my initial post on WWI historical revisionism might indicate I take war-revisionism, historical and theoretical, to be of great importance to breaking down a primary buttress of the nation-state ideology: “national defense”. That being said I see very little of use coming from the left on antiwar, simply because most of them are basically more-radical social democrats and liberals who will simply toe the popular line in a modified form. Liberal-tarians like Glenn Greenwald are rare, perhaps even rarer than right-wing anarchists, and they continue to be surprised when the readership of Salon and Mother Goose immediately stops calling things ‘fascist’ when a Democrat is doing them. I think if they could really grasp the nature of politics and political reasoning – as power gaming, social signaling and mating rituals – they would abandon political leftism altogether and simply become anarchists. Look at Paul Gottfried’s excellent article Is a Left-Right Antiwar Coalition Possible? for an evaluation of the possibilities.

I think there is some possibility for a coalition of interests with the left, but not within or oriented toward the existing political and ideological paradigms. Only the anti-liberal left displays serious discontent with the politics of the American state and its anti-racist/anti-sexist totalitarian agendas, and they are a marginalized minority within leftist circles. So long as the left remains staunchly liberal they will remain staunchly useless and counter-productive.

Am I a Right-O? Reply

By Khadija Umayyad

If you’ve been reading this blog [i], you’ve probably noticed that I am fairly critical of the left, especially the liberal and ‘rights’ oriented left. You might wonder if I’m some kind of right-winger. Well, some people might say so, but I don’t think so.

My approach to things is a mix of nihilism and pluralism. I do not believe that everyone is required to be friendly, respectful, and un-bigoted. I do not believe that life is inherently superior in leveled societies. I do not believe that there is really any reason to seek to remake mankind, and certainly not to make everyone in the image of Yankee metrosexual social democrats, not even of the anarchic variety. I don’t believe that race or class solidarity are necessary for the success of the anarchist project, and I do not believe that religion or Anglo-Saxon family values have anything in particular to recommend them to this entire planet. Plenty of people get along fine being homosexual druggies, and plenty of people seem to manage living in Amish communities. Different strokes for different folks.


Progressive Managerialists vs the Common Man Reply

by Bill the Butcher

“The world was full of cravens who pretended to be heroes” ―George R.R. Martin, Game of Thrones

Malcolm X holding an M1 Carbine

“Progressive” liberals fear the average gun owner, and, convinced of their superior moral quality, they want everyone else to fear gun owners, too.

But gun-fearing progressives are not exactly gun-hating saints. For instance, the Democratic Party’s leadership is guarded by guns, they sell assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels, our taxes for welfare programs are collected at gunpoint, and the progressive’s dinner was shot with a gun. More…

War and Democracy – a Review: Bringing democracy to the world and other stupidities Reply

Brett Stevens reviews Paul Gottfried

The bullshit is stronger than the bullet and the ballot.

We have always been fighting the Revolution. This is the thesis, in a more complex form, of Paul Gottfried’s War and Democracy, a collection of essays centered on the instability of modern liberal democracy after the “end of history,” and how it has launched us into an unending series of wars for ideological objectives. In exploring that, Gottfried also uncovers the neurotic and confused nature of modern existence.


Pushing gun control a problem for red state Democrats Reply

By David Lightmari

AR-15 guns croppedHigh-end rifles in a gun shop in Arizona in 2011 | Will Seberger/MCT

More on this Story
By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — For members of Congress from big cities, the West Coast and the Northeast, gun control has jumped to the top of the agenda. For those elected in red state America, the issue is regarded very differently.

That could cause Democrats big political problems, complicating the quest for new laws in Congress and perhaps threatening Democrats in the 2014 congressional elections.


Why Anarchism+ Is A Conservative Movement Reply

By Legionscatz

As someone who has typically placed themselves on the left of the anarchist movement, a common trend I have noticed emerging among my so-called “comrades” is that much of the left’s philosophy is becoming indistinguishable from the socially conservative movements that most anarchists have traditionally opposed.

Ironically, instead of being based upon infiltration by jingoistic traditionalism of the Neo-Conservative variety, anarchism’s descent into social conservatism is born of a preoccupation with social justice, and idealistic desires to eliminate anything and everything that is deemed to be “harmful”, “oppressive” or “anti-social” and could potentially interfere with the typical anarchist goal of a utopian society.

Totalitarian humanism is now the left’s equivalent of Neoconservatism.

The motives may indeed be different and the methods employed can often vary but the conclusions and consequences of this philosophical outlook can often be no different to those of Neoconservatism or any other conservative pro-state movement in terms of its ideas regarding how to approach controversial social issues such as pornography, prostitution, hard drugs and so forth. If put into practice, then the outcome would ultimately be the same: The imposition of moral values upon people who do not agree with them and have no desire to conform to a rigid ideal about how humans should behave.


A Woman’s Work? Behind a Gun Reply

(Previously posted at Mere Anti-Statism)


Two days ago, the Stateside military lifted its ban on females assuming combat roles. According to The Guardian, Pentagon Defence Secretary (and civilian-assassination-endorsing piece-of-shit) Leon Panetta, together with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, scribbled away the 1994 prohibition in the ostensible interest of equality, no doubt eliciting cheers from feminists and “gender egalitarians” everywhere.


The Ghastly Idea of ‘Equality for All’ 2

By Kirkpatrick Sale

Equality is a pernicious and dangerous political policy, but that’s exactly what Obama declared in full voice in his second inaugural speech as the cause and preoccupation of his government for the next four years.

He explicitly promised equality for women, gays, illegal immigrants, the middle class, “the growing many [who] barely make it,” the poor, and, by suggestion, blacks – or what the Associated Press’s lead story called “the wider struggle for equality for all.” He began by declaring, in a decidedly Lincolnistic fashion, that “what makes us American is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: