Eugene Montsalvat critiques the movement known loosely as the "alternative Right" for what he sees as its failures to address the root causes of the West's contemporary problems, and which has no future in its current state.

When the broad movement now called “the alternative Right” seemed to arise around 2010, the hopes were quite high. The then-editor of The Occidental Quarterly stated that he hoped it would introduce young conservatives to things such as the European New Right, Third Positionism, the Conservative Revolution, Traditionalism, and Rightist anti-capitalism. The goal of broadening their minds and turning American conservatives away from the usual partisan quibbling towards more radical and important issues has not been met. Instead it has led to a solidification of the worst elements of American conservatism, now repackaged as something cutting edge. Instead of becoming a bridgehead for the thought of Conservative Revolutionary or New Right figures such as Oswald Spengler, Alain de Benoist, or Alexander Dugin to enter American political discourse, it has become a rallying point for those who wish to defend capitalism from low-IQ populations, all its theories being couched in the most immature terminology dredged from the recesses of the Internet. Instead of leading to a new revolutionary movement in the United States, it has simply recovered some of the most retrograde American conservative ideas from the past with an “edgier” packaging designed to attract the most juvenile elements of society. The alternative Right has failed to articulate the necessary criticisms of the current order, leaving the field of national populist ideology empty of a real and desperately needed alternative. The alternative Right in its current state has no future. It must be recast with the power to look beyond the artificial barriers of Left and Right, barriers defined by the hostile elite of American politics.

Perhaps the most unifying feature of the various currents in the American alternative Right is its focus on the biological definitions of race. Certainly, the scientific understanding of human differences has its place. However, a merely materialist definition is at best insufficient, at worst counterproductive. In the best case scenario, it is one step in the extended process of breaking a person out of the paradigm of liberal egalitarianism towards a philosophical conception of human difference. In this sense, a biological understanding of human inequality should be seen as a transitory phase. Yes, humans are indeed biologically different, yet this biological conception of difference is only a shallow understanding of essential human differences. For a more in-depth understanding of human inequality, we must move beyond pure biological materialism, which replicates an Enlightenment rationalist understanding of the world, and enter into the Traditionalist doctrine of race, as understood by Julius Evola. There is a biological aspect indeed, however we must also transcend to an understanding of the “race of the soul” and a “race of spirit.”

With “race of the soul,” we can talk about the various spiritual characteristics that define a certain people. Thus, if one abides by a Jewish morality, one could be a member of the “Jewish race of the soul” while being entirely Gentile in a biological sense. As for “race of spirit,” it defines how different people within a society relate to the divine. In ancient civilizations, different sexes and social classes worshiped different gods. The patricians of Rome represent a different “race of the spirit” than the Roman plebeians, and the Hindu brahmins represent a different “race of the spirit” than the kshatriyas. Females represent a different “race of the spirit” than men. Certainly, in this tripartite conception of race, the three aspects of biology, soul, and spirit are intertwined. However, it cannot simply be reduced to the biology from which all things flow. This obsession with scientific distinctions between races and the need to measure every biological difference (I do mean every difference) is a far cry from a deep, philosophical understanding of the distinct spiritual essences of peoples that characterized the ancient roots of our civilization. Furthermore, it’s distinctly uninspiring, since no man will charge a machine gun nest to defend an IQ study. Men die for higher, transcendent visions of being. It’s better to speak of the spirit of the nation rather than bore the common people to tears with charts demonstrating different cranial measurements.

In the worst case, the biological conception of race leads to a reiteration of liberal Enlightenment prejudices. It assumes, just as the New Atheists represented by the likes of Richard Dawkins do, that all issues can be reduced to mere scientific, rational explanations. This can lead to what is generally termed “cognitive elitism.” It assumes that IQ is the final arbiter of human value. This is absolutely disastrous for any political ideology that seeks to affirm the unique and free identity of peoples. If a certain people has a higher IQ, why should we view it as immoral if they conquer the less intelligent? If that is the case, then Hong Kong should rule the world, and no other nation should assert itself. Rather than affirming differences, cognitive elitism affirms the domination of one people to the detriment of others. Instead of asserting the right of all peoples to pursue their own ethnic identity and culture as the ideology of ethnopluralism advocated by the European New Right does, it devolves into a sort of White triumphalism where the fact that Whites have higher IQs than some peoples means that they are superior, and are thus justified in destroying other cultures. It is essentially akin to the Victorian Social Darwinism that was used to justify the rule of the British Empire. While some may look at this era as the high point of European civilization, it should be seen for what it is: a period of exploitation, both of the colonized peoples and the poor and working classes of the colonial nations themselves, which led to the globalization of society and the emergence of international capitalism as the dominant economic paradigm, issues that continue to plague us today. This sort of Victorian reasoning still finds a resonance in the American alternative Right’s economic views.

Among the major failures of the American alternative Right has been its failure to critique the capitalist system. It is seen as a just system, its flaws and errors either ignored or blamed on some other racial group. They will cite, in a Darwinian fashion, that high IQ people earn more, and that nations with a high average IQ are wealthier, thus the wealthy deserve all that they have, and any attempt to redistribute wealth is “dysgenic,” even though the vast majority of average, hard-working, patriotic people would benefit from a return even to the mild welfare state of Eisenhower’s America, a period they ironically look upon with nostalgia due to its wholesome social values. Yet, the period of White European domination by capitalism is seen as a mark of European pride and the zenith of European civilization. They consider the suffering of the vast majority of Whites under capitalism before the emergence of the welfare state in the twentieth century, as chronicled by classic authors like Charles Dickens, Jack London, Upton Sinclair, or Louis-Ferdinand Céline, as something either deserved or unimportant, if they consider it at all.

Moreover, this combination of IQ fetishism with market ideology leads to a convoluted and contradictory defense of national borders. American alternative Rightists recognize that immigrant communities from low-IQ nations tend to vote in favor of the welfare state; therefore we must control our borders in order to save capitalism. This analysis fails on many levels. First and foremost, it is American capitalists who bring in immigrants, legally or illegally, to undercut the wages of native born American workers. The strongest opposition to proposals to close the border or limit immigration comes from the American capitalist class itself. The leadership of well-known companies such as eBay, Google, PayPal, and Yahoo spearheaded efforts to convince Congress to pass laws increasing immigration. The alternative Right fails to understand that opposition to interference in the flow of labor and capital between countries has been a fundamental facet of capitalism since the time of Adam Smith and Bastiat, who opposed mercantilist protectionism. As the seminal European New Right thinker, Alain de Benoist, stated in his classic essay, “Immigration: The Reserve Army of Capital,”: “Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.” Capitalism and mass immigration are two sides of the same coin. They fail to understand that capitalism accepts no boundaries, either physically or mentally, when it comes to the pursuit of profit. If the nation-state, the traditional family, or religion get in the way, they should be dismissed. To quote Alain de Benoist again, from “This Right that Doesn’t Care for Its People”:

They still do not understand that capitalism is intrinsically globalist, because it requires the abolition of borders (‘laissez faire, laisser passer!’). By reason of its propensity for boundlessness, it cannot exist without constantly revolutionising social relations, or seeing national identities as so many obstacles to the expansion of the globalised market. The anthropological model that it bears, which is that of an individual who is always seeking the maximisation of his own self-interest, is as much at work in economic liberalism as it is in societal liberalism, and the axioms of interest and the machinery of profit are pillars of the dictatorship of mercantile values.

It was under capitalism, not socialism, that feminism, multiculturalism, gender theory, and sexual liberation found their most potent expressions. Yet, instead of the recognizing this fact, the alternative Right resorts to the theory of “Cultural Marxism.”

“Cultural Marxism” can mean many things. In one extreme interpretation, it is a highly conspiratorial view positing that the Soviets infiltrated various government, academic, and corporate organs in the United States with the goal of weakening the moral values of society in order to make it suitable for a Soviet-guided Communist revolution. In another, it can mean the influence of the thinkers of the Frankfurt School on society. We can quickly dismiss the first, considering that things like homosexuality were punished severely in the Soviet Union, and that, after an initial phase of sexual liberation, Stalin clamped down on such moral laxity, restricting divorce and abortion. In the Eastern Bloc, the “hippie movement,” where it existed, was viewed with suspicion and subjected to repression due to its American roots. The origins of this conspiracy theory tend to go back to the testimony of Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, who became a popular figure in American anti-Communist circles, where he frequently collected speaking fees to repeat what they already believed. Curiously, the alternative Right takes the statements of an immigrant filling a niche role in the American marketplace at face value. In contrast to such statements, it was not the KGB, but rather the CIA that supported modern art as a challenge to classically-inspired “socialist realism” within the USSR, and hired American radical Gloria Steinem as an asset toward this aim. Indeed, the CIA welcomed many anti-Stalin Communists into its “Congress for Cultural Freedom,” which was established in 1950 to entice Leftists into an anti-Soviet stance. Furthermore, we should note that many of the Frankfurt School figures blamed for “Cultural Marxism” in less conspiratorial iterations found a refuge from Nazism, not in the USSR, but in the United States.

The Frankfurt School is regarded as one the major bases for the development of Freudo-Marxist ideology, particularly its noted member, Herbert Marcuse. Another is the German-Jewish thinker Wilhelm Reich, who also found refuge in the United States following Nazi persecution. In Marcuse’s book, Eros and Civilization, sexual liberation is mixed with ideas about liberation from economic alienation as well. However, Marcuse modifies the fundamental basis of Marxism. History is no longer explained by class struggle, but as a struggle against repression, with modern capitalism being the most repressive type of society among them all. This deviation from classical Marxist theory shows why the work of the Frankfurt School was not welcomed in the USSR. Instead of demanding a socialism where individual desires were subjected to the aims of central planning for the benefit of the nation, he advocates a full liberation of human desires. This critique proved popular on American college campuses and influenced the radicals of the 1960s, who advocated revolution by “rock ‘n’ roll, dope, and fucking in the streets,” in the notable phrase of John Sinclair. However, the ideology of total sensory gratification was completely assimilated by capitalism. Lewdness in music, movies, and television fed into the coffers of major media corporations, not the mention the simultaneous rise of the pornography industry. In fact, this ideology fits perfectly with capitalism: the customer is always right, and hedonistic desires become yet more consumer choices to be satisfied by the market. Certainly the ideology of untrammeled sensory gratification created vast new fields of exploitation for capitalism.

Moreover, this radical New Left ideology demonstrated a malign effect on the mainstream center Left, which, while certainly not Marxist, worked in the classical domain of class-based politics, fighting for a larger welfare state and the rights of the working class (one should note the immense irony of some elements of the alternative Right hearkening back to the “good old days” of pre-1968 America, where the welfare state and the power of labor was at its zenith.) Abandoning concerns dear to the hearts of the average worker, the mainstream Left gradually adopted ideologies like feminism, pro-immigrationism, and homosexual liberation. While the working class increasingly struggles, and traditional values are erased, capitalism is as strong as ever. Yet, the alternative Right remains tightly wedded to capitalism, despite criticism of many facets of capitalism, such as usury, from a traditional European perspective going all the way back to Aristotle and the ancient Greeks, the Church Fathers, and Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, the history of conservative anti-capitalism is much longer and deeper, even in the United States when we look at figures such as Ezra Pound and Father Coughlin, than is the history of conservative cheerleading for capitalism. This apparent contradiction has failed to dawn on the alternative Right.

This unwillingness to move outside the American capitalist perspective has brought about certain geopolitical consequences for the alternative Right. While it occasionally displays a less hawkish stance than mainstream American conservatism, often tending towards paleoconservative non-interventionism, it still displays a certain Cold War paranoia regarding socialism. On a positive note, the toxic attitude toward Russia has been somewhat moderated, albeit for reasons of Putin’s apparent machismo rather resulting from serious consideration of his foreign policy. And yet by no means has Russophobia disappeared. There are many in the milieu who have been fooled by the propaganda of Banderism into aligning with the EU and NATO against Novorossiya. Moreover, the attitude of the alternative Right toward socialism in South America is still one of brazen hostility and neocolonialism. Figures such as Hugo Chávez and Juan Perón are demonized, and the ideology of socialism, rather than American neocolonial capitalism, is blamed for the sufferings of Latin America. They lionize that tool of the CIA, Augusto Pinochet, while fantasizing about tossing “Communists” off of helicopters to save capitalism. It is grossly hypocritical for a movement that claims to be nationalist to heap praise upon a man who overthrew the government of his own country with foreign support and who then turned nationalized assets over to multinational corporations that had loyalty to no nation.

Moreover, while rejecting the most egregious attempts of neoconservative nation-building and American neocolonialism in the Middle East, they mostly subscribe to the theses offered by Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, which reduce problems in the Middle East to a clash of civilizations between Europe and Islam. This completely ignores the roles European colonialism, and later Zionist and American neocolonialism, have played in destabilizing the region. Most Muslims are not immigrating to Europe for the purposes of jihad, but because they have been uprooted by capitalism, colonialism, and warfare imported from the West, and are welcomed as a useful labor supply by Western capitalists. This in turn leads the alternative Right to embrace figures like Geert Wilders or movements like the English Defense League, who attack Islam without uttering a word about Zionism or capitalism. They perversely relish lurid reports of rape or murder by immigrants. They confuse the symptoms of the issue, mainly immigration, with its root causes:American and Zionist interference in the Middle East. Some, though certainly not all, on the alternative Right have gone as far as stating that Israel is a model ethnic nationalist state and a bastion of Western civilization against Islam. However, they have not even considered for a moment what Western civilization means today. They would align themselves with feminists, homosexuals, liberals, and Zionists against Islam merely because Islam condemns these features that have been allowed to take root in the West. In this case, I would recommend they consult the radical Italian thinker Giorgio Freda, who said to those nationalists intent on defending “European civilization”:

We have spoken in terms of “European civilization,” without even scratching the surface of this expression and without verifying it, going to the depths of the problem: if there exists, in reality, a homogeneous European civilization, and what are the authentic coefficients of its meaning in light of a global historical situation in which the Latin American guerrilla adheres much more closely to our vision of the world than the Spaniard vassal to priests and the USA; where the warrior people of North Vietnam, with a Spartan, sober, heroic style are far closer to our conception of existence than the Italian digestive tract, or the French or German of the West; where the Palestinian terrorist is far closer to our dreams of vengeance than the Jewish or Judaized Englishman (European? I doubt it).

Dancing to the neo-conservative and Zionist rallying cry of “defending Western values,” the alternative Right has aligned with the most toxic elements within Western civilization, the elements emblematic of the very cultural decay they lambaste. It is absurd that the alternative Right would suddenly turn from attacking these things to defending them when they are attacked by another culture. Instead of attacking the roots of the problem, they merely attack its symptoms, and set the stage for further chaos in the Middle East and Europe.

And to top it all off, all these alternative Right positions are articulated in the most immature and crude ways imaginable. The mass influx of people from Internet message boards, such as 4chan’s /pol/, into the alternative Right milieu has given a sophomoric coloring to its discourse. Instead of well-developed arguments, memes and cheap catchphrases abound, often quite tasteless. They ridicule Blacks using the most base stereotypes, instead of trying to foster a sense of Black nationalism that would aid in the nationalist revolt against liberalism. They refer to politicians they deem insufficiently conservative as “cucks” or “cuckservatives,” referring in a fairly Freudian manner to sexual cuckoldry. The gross sexual terminology continues by referring to Leftists as “dildos” and stating that people who have gone to the liberal side are “pozzed,” referring to the contraction of HIV via anal sex. This of course appeals to rebellious kids, and extends their base of support among them, as reading serious books and developing fully articulated ideas appeals to an increasingly slim portion of the population. However, no serious intellectual can entertain an ideology based on Internet subcultural in-jokes, never mind the vast majority of the general population. How can an unemployed blue-collar worker who had his livelihood destroyed by globalization and mass immigration ever think that the ideology of this Internet clique has anything to offer him? It’s laughable that the alternative Right claims to be the voice of nationalist populism. If anything, when the alternative Right gets mentioned in the mainstream media, it is used as a cudgel by liberals to attack the legitimate concerns of working people, who of course have nothing to do with it, in relation to mass immigration by associating them with such a quixotic subculture. The long-ignored concerns of patriotic, hardworking people deserve far better self-proclaimed spokesmen than puerile teenage capitalists who worry that immigration will threaten neo-liberalism.

The alternative Right has failed to develop new and revolutionary ideas. In the worst-case scenario, it threatens to taint the cause of nationalist populism and become a bogeyman dragged out by liberals merely to de-legitimize concerns about immigration, national identity, and globalization. We must ask ourselves how we can improve the quality of the discourse. On a very basic level in the United States, we can raise awareness of the true national populist heritage, the one that challenged both societal liberalism and economic liberalism. We can refer to the old labor leaders that opposed mass immigration such as Denis Kearney, and the classic American socialist author Jack London. We can look to homegrown figures of the 1930s such as Ezra Pound and Father Charles Coughlin, who opposed usury. Moreover, we can broaden our minds by reading the work of nationalist anti-capitalist figures throughout history across the globe, which can be found among movements such as the Conservative Revolution and the European New Right. Also, we can even dare to make nationalist analyses of movements typically considered Left-wing, developing ideological syntheses and searching for common ground, thus broadening our appeal to Leftists who likewise feel the call of national identity.

Finally, we must start building serious movements and developing think-tanks that produce serious ideas rather than Internet memes. We need to start looking outside the system and outside the confines of simplistic American conservatism and the regurgitation of defunct ideas. We need to see that the restoration of national sovereignty implies the restoration of economic control to the people, not global corporations or big businessmen who can fly off to some tax haven. We need to become truly, intransigently revolutionary. We need to develop the courage to cross artificial ideological barriers imposed by the ruling class, to find the courage to cross the abyss and the willingness to engage with truly radical ideas. Liberating the nation is not an easy task. It is a task that will require immense sacrifice, a Spartan discipline, and a disregard for conventional politics. Certainly, there will be naysayers who will be content to jump on the latest electoral bandwagon in the hopes that they can legislate away our problems. There will be crowds of perplexed ideologues ensnared in the false dichotomies of the system who will react with incoherent rage when ideological lines are blurred. Yet, our grand task is at hand, and we shall not be swayed.

I would like to invite you to take part in a new initiative: the formation of the Institute for National Revolutionary Studies. Across the world, the ideology of national revolution, where a thirst for economic justice and a deep abiding sense of national identity come together, has taken many forms, yet this current remains largely ignored in the English-speaking world. It is now, at this very moment, when the survival of our people is most imperiled, that this struggle must begin. The future will be ours, or we shall have no future.

About The Author

Profile photo of Eugene Montsalvat

Eugene Montsalvat is a US-based scholar of National Revolutionary movements and has also been translating Ernst Niekisch and Giorgio Freda into English. He also does translations from the French for Right On.

  • three fingers

    A rather pathetic piece of whining, whose main argument is “everyone must focus on my pet issues, or be doomed to failure… because I say so.” It’s the mewling of a narcissistic buffoon who thinks that he and his ideas are the center of the world’s concerns, and who arrogantly declares the movement which has been responsible for the growth and the successes (such as they are) of the pro-white community to be dead because it does not march to the beat of his drum – when he’s never accomplished anything himself.

    The most obvious mistake is treating the alt-right as a single entity rather than a loose agglomeration of groups with differing ideas, who agree on enough to work together on their common aims. These common aims are necessarily a lowest common denominator, and do not include sectarian issues like those which concern the author. To equate, as he does, the alt-right with TRS is foolish. “Alt-right” is just a term for a loose internet community. It does not have any single ideology.

    The author argues that we must focus on our solidarity with third-world peoples, peoples not of our race, despite the fact that they will do nothing in return for us. What nationalist movement has ever succeeded on the basis of praise for its people’s historical enemies? None whatsoever.

    When it comes to revolution, an intellectual who fails to speak to the issues that motivate the people is a failure. It doesn’t matter how many books he’s read. It doesn’t even matter if he’s right. To begin, as the author does, with a set of priorities that guarantee that you will never be able to speak effectively to the people is to sacrifice all hope of being an effective revolutionary intellectual. Who are his prospective revolutionaries? Seemingly, they are strongly left-wing university graduates. Can anyone really hope to build a revolution out of that material? It’s about as unpromising a strategy as you can imagine: to build a revolutionary movement out of the group of people most unequivocally hostile to us.

    The author’s arrogant tone contrasts with that of the creator of the “alf-left”, who was able to articulate his own position without declaring everyone else to be defunct. The latter declared “I differ with you on these issues and think there are a lot of people who are turned off by certain of your perspectives, so I’m starting something that I think will appeal to those people.” Montsalvat said “you all suck – so join me and my totally awesome movement, which consists of a single blog post.” Which of these is more appealing should be self-evident.

  • Bronislav Kaminski

    It’s funny, when those on the Left can’t win an argument they shout “Racism!,” while those on the right cry, Capitalism!” Ultimately, the extreme Right leads to the extreme Left and vice-versa. Seriously, stfu France.

  • Andrew Jackson

    Perhaps you’ve misdiagnosed the problem. Perhaps you’ve lost the battle of persuasion. Perhaps your ideas aren’t as good as you think they are. It seems like you don’t even understand the battle lines.

  • Alternative_Right

    A rather pointless essay, the kind you skim through yawning. Extremely turgid and poorly constructed. Doesn’t state it’s point until the 16th paragraph, and then it’s point is “memes are nasty.” I can understand how a writer who takes 16 paragraphs to reach his point would be opposed to something that makes its point in under one second.

    • Howard Phillips

      Vicious Colin!

    • machiaevil

      Don’t project your own deficiencies on others, Liddle-man.

  • Ryan McMahon


  • Alternative_Right

    Anyway, the main thing wrong with this stupid article is that it resorts to cheap infighting tactics to garner attention, rather than making its own compelling case for its ragbag of Duginist, Chavezist Third Positionism and Evolian traditionalism, stuff we all know and have extracted any use from long ago.

    • demize!

      Oh stop being such a twat Colin, just stick to writing flights of lunacy and being shouted at by nationalist soundtrucks. It seems its you whos being devisive. The man wrote an article, he attacked no one, yet you take it personally. I agree with him on the right anticapitalism. Maybe Im no true right Scotsman, scotsman?

  • Dillon Francis

    This is an ok essay. He could have said most of what he wanted with less words though. A few things stuck out. 1) he downplayed the role of the so called frankfurt school in purposely working to erode traditional values in the USA via academia and later the media/publishing firms. 2) Pinochet may have worked with the CIA but he was hardly a tool of the the agency. And his Chicago Boys were able to turn things are in Chile in a matter of years. The Chilean socialists were no match for the prosperity that Pinochet brought.
    I do agree with the author that a certain lack of intellectualism exists within the Right, but I see it as a problem that is nearly as bad on the left too. But unlike the left, the Right doesn’t have major donors, private and public, whereas the left has government support in the form of state chartered universities, and foundations like those run by soros and co.

    • Howard Phillips

      I’d have to disagree that there is a lack of intellectualism within the “New/Alternative Right”. When I first was introduced to Nationalism back in my youthful skinhead days, one would be hard pressed to find any writers or thinkers of the caliber we have today. It is growing bigger everyday. new media, new artists, writers, thinkers, etc. We are blessed to have come so far in recent years.

      • Dillon Francis

        You may be correct. Will you name some of these new rightist intellectuals?

        • Ryan Andrews

          Ryan Andrews.

          • Dillon Francis

            and then you woke up.

      • Ezra Pound

        Exactly. The idea that the Alt Right is un- or anti-intellectual is a bald-faced lie and it shows that this author is a dishonest person out to stir the shit pot. His article amounts to nothing but enemy concern trolling.

    • Ezra Pound

      “a certain lack of intellectualism exists within the [Alt] Right” No, it doesn’t. It is just that intellectualism is not the entirety of what we do. Not everyone is an intellectual so to take an entirely intellectual tack is to limit one’s appeal. Memes, trolling and irreverent humor are all sledgehammers for breaking down the ghetto walls of humorless right-wing politics and reaching people who are not susceptible to intellectual appeals. I really don’t see what is so hard to get about that. The Left was able to achieve the power it has because it had operatives working at all levels of politics and culture from the intellectual through the respectable middle-brow down to the level of vulgar plebeian culture jamming. And while the culture jamming alienated the intellectuals, it won over the street activists. Likewise, limp-wristed, bloodless intellectualism alienates many potential allies of the new, dissident right: mainly the blue-collar guys who have an good instinctual aversion to the kind of condescension that almost necessarily goes along with intellectual pitches made to a less-than-intellectual audience. The plebes don’t read Evola and they get indignant when you tell them they’ve got to. That’s not going to change so we need a menu of options that suit the tastes and abilities of all our people, not just the one who arrogate to themselves the mantle superior Intellect.

      • Dillon Francis

        I hear what you are saying. However, if you re read my comment I didn’t write that lower level and non intellectual avenues are bad.
        I do believe we are living in a dark age in more ways than one, and intellectual thought in general is in decline, on all fronts of the ideological prism. Hence why we are still reading the classics and the writings of the late 19th and early 20th century authors, Evola being one of them.
        At the end of the day talk is cheap, and I agree action is what’s currently missing.

  • I wonder if the American capitalist perspective has something to do with most alt-right White nationalists being Americans. If only they could see the light of Duginist neo-Sovietism and embrace Orthodox Christianity, Turkic Islam and tradition!

    • Bro, Kim Jong Un is the Savior of the West. White Juche when?

      • Come on dude, what we really need is a American Evo Morales.

    • Ezra Pound

      Don’t fall for the bait. Whoever wrote this piece of garbage is clearly not a right-winger or a traditionalist but rather someone attempting to create divisions and dischord. Don’t let your wounded pride play into it. All these attacks on the Alt Right – ostensibly coming from the right – started after the NPI conference dust-up where we gave our enemies an in.

  • RWDS

    TL;DR, The edgy may mays must flow,it’s Dank in tha bank.

  • What is this tryhard faggotry?

    • And you wonder why you are despised as retards…

      • Yes the trve path to success on the right is constantly bashing on ideological allies and creating as many factions as possibly. That’s always been a winning strategy.

      • Ezra Pound

        Despised by whom? A handful of lonely, isolated and frustrated ex-leftists who are angry because we’re getting more attention than them? Why are you faggots being so divisive? If you don’t like what we do, fine. But keep your mouths shut about it. NO ENEMIES TO THE RIGHT. What don’t you faggots get about that?

  • It isn’t any Jew, Black, Mexican, or Native who has Western Civilization
    in the sordid fast food bathroom stall and is using it for toilet
    paper. It is White People. The Master Race needs to pull his fatty pants
    up and waddle over to the mirror so he can take a real hard look at
    what he has become. Because History is banging on the door with twice
    the Apocalypse or double your White Genocide back, and we are all out of
    soldiers and food stamps.

    • RWN

      “It isn’t any Jew, Black, Mexican, or Native”

      Any, heh. Which one are you?

      No one denies there is degeneracy, so it’s clear you’re just downplaying race. By the way, I hope you don’t think you’re one of the “soldiers” — that is a title reserved for men like Hitler. You see, they actually had success in politics. And Third Reich > Merkel’s Deutschland

  • Alföðr

    You say that a biological conception of race can lead to liberal enlightenment prejudices but that all peoples have the “right” to pursue their culture. This is most confused. Where does that right come from? Is it endowed by the Creator perahaps?

    And then you ask indignantly why we should view it as immoral for the more intelligent peoples to conquer the less intelligent ones. As if it’s some terrible thing. Why don’t you answer that question yourself and then perform an honest autopsy on that morality you hold to.

  • How to Get Traffic From Existing Right-Wing Audiences

    • TitusFlaviusCaesarAugustus

      Or, when racialists learn how to click-bait.

  • Alternative_Right
  • RWN

    “Instead of well-developed arguments, memes and cheap catchphrases abound”

    Do you deny that it has popularity? Probably more popularity than you & yours will ever have, with all due respect. You claim “no serious intellectual can entertain an ideology based on Internet subcultural in-jokes”, but these are no brutes. One size doesn’t need to fit all, anyways. We need people doing all kinds of stuff, in all kinds of ways. Diversity.

    “They ridicule Blacks using the most base stereotypes, instead of trying to foster a sense of Black nationalism that would aid in the nationalist revolt against liberalism.”

    If you want whitewashing & glorifying blacks buy a TV

  • Ciaran Reid


  • This analysis fundamentally misunderstands what the American alternative right is.

    Alt-right is not a cohesive ideology, nor has it ever claimed to be. The term is simply applied to a loose coalition of almost random right leaning spheres that associate on common interests.

    Capitalism is praised in some libertarian leaning spheres of the alt-right, but there are huge sections of it that despise capitalism. Capitalism is hated amongst a good percentage of alt-right Americans.

    I have never found any russophobia in the alt-right corners I’ve been too. I read one article on Counter-Currents cautioning against embracing Russian intervention in the Ukraine, but this was not a sentiment I found to be widespread. Maybe it’s because I’m young, but that critique totally missed the mark in my opinion.

    The reason the alt-right is filled with “immature” teenagers obsessed with memes and crude terminology is because the American alt-right is a very young phenomenon. The older generations are brainwashed to such an extent that appealing to them is nearly useless. The alt-right is a youthful crowd. They will become more mature when they actually become biologically mature (i.e. grow into adults or older adults). As they age, they will begin searching for more meaning and substance.

    There is definitely intellectual work that has to be done, but I think this critique is extremely cynical.

    • Winston_Smith

      They’re obsessed with “memes and crude terminology” because they’ve realized that rhetoric works.

  • Ian S.D.

    Spot on.

    • Ezra Pound

      But its not though. It’s totally off base and anyone even peripherally familiar with the Alt Right knows it immediately, even just by looking at the art that was selected to go with it. The article systematically distorts and misrepresents the Alt Right. The question is whether it is intentional and cynical bad faith, panicked overcompensation, or genuinely confused ignorance. What it looks like most plainly is a desperate and frustrated attempt to scare people away from the Alt Right. In any case, it is not good for Right On/Arktos.

  • Ian S.D.

    I’d recommend reading Social Credit, written by CH Douglas, to anyone coming from the libertarian camp. There were many anti-capitalist rightists in the interwar period that understood well the problems of capitalism/communism.

    • Dillon Francis

      Kerry Bolton has written about this topic in at least one of his books. I think the Swindle book.

  • Winston_Smith

    Needs an editor. It appears, though, that some of the bloviation here is meant to deliberately obscure, in particular the discussion of communism, where the conflation of Trotskyites/ Cultural Marxists (NY-based) on the one hand with Stalinists (Moscow-based) on the other can only be deliberate. The Stalinists were socially conservative; the Trots pushed the poz. One might argue an (((ethnic))) basis for this.

    It’s also a little naive to treat the US communists solely as Soviet agents, rather than as people who saw themselves as the true religion and were trying to get the heretics to reunite with them.

  • Jotun Hunter

    this sounds like a bunch of pointless whining, from someone who doesn’t like to hear ‘sophmoric’ racism or doesn’t fully grasp the full damning consequence of the IQ studies. He whines we need to react more against materialism and capitalism but offers no clear course himself. The first step would be to define and stick with a religion, which so far none of us can agree on, whether it be Nietzschean neo paganism, Gothic Catholicism or some kind of purely ‘rational’ doctrine. The alt right is a youthful, burgeoning movement that is developing and coagulating around certain ideas, and I would say, far from failing, it is gaining speed. If you want to have a big collective cry about it you you need to have solidified these ideas for yourself with strong root principles. Are you a fascist or a reactionary? Something else? What then? If this is railing against support for Trump, I think that is more foolish whining, he and the American system may be far from perfect, but the immediate future of Europe in particular and the relative difficulty in reclaiming her from aliens may hangin the balance of the next election. If you are somehow amazed that the world hasnt immediately offered us up our own Aristocratic nation then this is niavety. The ‘discourse’ of re-discovering our racial consciousness is going to be fraught with vulgar comments, humour, bad language of all sorts, class and intelligence differences within white groups will remain and we must encourage a rebellion of this sort up and down the spectrum of whites who are receptive. The ‘materialist’ IQ question remains of prime importance, as we no longer live in a gothic world ruled by the the assured absolute truths of religion, and the average racial intelligence differences account for an enormous amount of the liberal blame foisted on our people (from black prison numbers being the fault of white racism preventing them from getting jobs to the supposed evils of colonialism and the realities of native americans and other aboriginals which obscure the history and delegitimaze the very existence of white colony countries such as America, Canada, Australia). It is not a small irrelevant matter, it’s just that it hasn’t so far broken through the liberal brain wash. We have all heard before and recognize the need for transcendence, but it’s not there yet and not some easy thing to conjure up out of nothing, suggesting we are failing doesn’t help this just sounds like smart ass vanity. The IQ stuff remains, to those that are receptive, a very strong ‘opener’ to the larger ideas of Spengler and Evola, that accounts for the history, present, and future abilities of certain peoples. It doesn’t account for everything, such as asian non-creativity, but it’s an important keystone in smashing the modernist brainwash.

  • Samuel_Nock

    If the author is going to engage in attacks on his own side, he needs to state who he is talking about. The idea that the alt right is a “combination of IQ fetishism with market ideology” and people “who attack Islam without uttering a word about Zionism or capitalism” is absurd on its face to anyone familiar with the main sites. Sorry, this piece reeks of sour grapes and/or frustration that his pet issues and influences are not discussed as extensively as he wishes.

  • I’d be hard-pressed to find an image less fitting to the alt-right than the one you selected to use above your headline.

    These are clearly mainstream libertarian dullards.

    • Ezra Pound

      Yep, and it just goes to show the amount of bad faith the author poured into this garbage bag of lies.

  • Ezra Pound

    Wow, so RightOn is some kind of establishment operation meant to disrupt dissident right movements and sow dichord. Got it. Won’t be reading anything from this site anymore.

    • Kudzu Bob

      It would be foolish to give up on RightOn simply because of one badly written and slipshod article. Most of the work featured here is worthwhile, and the books that I have purchased from Arktos have been excellent.

      • Ezra Pound

        I hope you’re right Bob. But always remember that rat poison is 95% wholesome, scrumptious rat food.

        • Kudzu Bob

          Take a look at the other pieces on this site, and at the work done by people like Friberg and John Morgan, before jumping to conclusions.

  • Ezra Pound

    I think Collin Liddell put his finger on it: Artkos is a for-profit publishing business whereas the Alt Right is a free and open source meta-political community. As a result, Arktos is miffed that the Alt Right is putting out reams of quality writing and powerful memes on a daily basis for free and is basically poaching potential market share from Arktos because Arktos simply can’t compete. Arktos doesn’t want people reading free essays; they want people paying big $$$ for published books. It takes a lot of chutzpah for them to come up with this article suffused with all this ostensibly anti-capitalist rhetoric when their clandestine motivation seems to be pecuniary. I think there is a whole lot of (((projection))) going on throughout this article as to who is beholden to capitalism and who is not. And again, it takes a whole lot of chutzpah to attack the single largest group of people buying your books! Good job Arktos, I am sure your sales are not going to suffer at all as a result of this poorly thought-out and poorly-written broadside against your own audience.

  • Valandur

    Great article Eugene! Alternative righters are losers, nothing more than americans rednecks.

    • Ezra Pound

      You sound like you’re trying to convinceconsole yourself, much like the tone of this whole article.

      • Valandur

        Another alt-righter butthurt troll .The best thing you can do is kill yourself.

        • Ezra Pound

          Anyone reading your comments can tell who is butthurt here, friend.

    • We actually have a lot of urbanite SWPLs among our ranks, perhaps a majority.


  • Frans Alexander

    Instead of simplifying the AltRight as an IQ pro-market ideology, Eugene should have addressed the arguments, done in a very respectful manner, against De Benoist, Traditionalism, and Kerry Belton in these articles:

    And, just posted yesterday:

    • Ezra Pound

      I think it is a mistake to play into this idea that there is some kind of irrevocable opposition between e.g., IQ science and traditionalism (and all the similar oppositions that those two synecdochally stand for). People who push these differences and distinctions as some kind of politically existential problem that must be confronted are misguided at best (“spergs”) and malevolent at worst. Any attempt to impose ideological uniformity on the nascent dissident right is a recipe for defeat.

  • Ezra Pound

    If this is the best attack on the Alt Right that….whomever Mr. Montsalvat represents….can muster, then I feel pretty good about its future. The Alt Right tends to attract people who are willing to follow the truth wherever it leads – hence the complaints of this article: the Alt Right de-emphasizes ideology, unapologetically tips sacred cows and exudes a socially and politically impious “F— YOU” quality – so an article like this, already handicapped by its transparent and furtively wishful title, actually buoys the Alt Right. Mr. Montsalvat is either hasty or cynical (or both), but either way honest people who have had even a little exposure to the Alt Right will see that. People who have had no such exposure may be taken in by this weak tabloid pablum, but the rest of us are just bewildered by it, embarrassed for RighOn and Arktos, and further reinforced in the conviction that we occupy the moral high ground, because if we didn’t, surely you could up with something better than this, Eugene.

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    This piece is fucking nonsense.

    Let’s ignore it and move on.

    • demize!

      One ignores something by doing so, not by announcing the action they proscribe.

  • Fee-fi-fo-fum

    Five years than death?? You are wet behind the ears junior.

  • TLDR

  • Spider58x
  • I think you make a lot of valid points here. For example, it is definitely the case that alt right discourse has taken on juvenile quality lately. But I also think you’re arguing with a number of straw men here. You also put forth more than one real laugher (i.e. the notion the Huntington thesis isn’t right).

    I think more quotation could help your case. If you want to ascribe views to the alt right, you have to show people associated with the alt right actually have those views by citing their books, articles, etc.

  • Richard Fairley

    Excellent analysis! While being a National-Anarchist myself ( been through Revolutionary Nationalism and out the other side ) and consequently reject any implicit statism, your text is borne out from Alt.Right posts on Twitter and elsewhere. Indeed, the other comments here prove your thesis.

  • This garbage site should be removed from the Shitlord Hub, these fags deserve no exposure. An RoK contributer writes for this insolvent rag too, pretty obvious what is going on here.

  • The merciless parasite that has destroyed the white race is a syphilitic crack whore named Ronald McDonald. He has been plying his dirty trade with your children since the day they were born. The broken fat white castrates waddling through Walmart in a prozac haze are the natural and inevitable result. Like damaged zoo animals they are increasingly no longer even capable of breeding to replacement.

  • joe smith

    autopsy? we’re just getting started….

  • machiaevil

    Absolutely spot-on and the alt-right’s universal endorsement of Trump – a crude blowhard with zero substance – speaks volume’s about its crude and juvenile nature. Instead of indeed opening to serious debate it ended up talking “game” and measuring its tiny dick on the mirror like their hero Trump. Alt-right beta fags here got triggered.

  • The ugly reality of the Alt Right is nowhere more evident than in the current split between the White Nationalists and the Rooshists. Here we see the essential and irreducible polarity of the Alt Right: The identity politics of White Victim hood vs the identity politics of Male Victim hood.

    (This “new right” looks more and more like the “new left” every day.)

    The Racists vs the Rapists is cooking up to be the primordial split in the Alt Right, giving one the choice between joining in the internet troll fantasy of a lynching or of a gang rape. Hitler or Ted Bundy? The choice is yours… This is a predictable product of the out of control deviancy competitions between socially retarded libertarian incels that have constructed the Alt Right blogosphere.

    So my Aristocratic Reactionaries, how exactly are you going
    to build a Conservative Revolution out of racist 4chan trolls and internet
    fantasy rapists again?

    • TRV Dante

      I dunno, Donald Trump seems to be doing pretty well so far. What have you accomplished?

      • Trump is Talk Radio, not Alt Right, despite all your desperate Kool Aid drinking on his behalf.

    • barzun

      You have to go back.

  • amqsab

    You want the youth to put down sex and music in order to read Spengler and become warrior ascetics. I’ve tried abiding the notion of such a sexually atrophied movement; it’s abominable and will fail. This national revolution must be dripping with sex and power. When the youth have experienced the seduction of killing their way through a no-go zone they shall return home to the thrill of decadent and ostentatious sex!

  • White Devil Blues

    >Movement didn’t doing what I was hoping it would
    >Instead it did its own thing
    >Thus its a failure
    Wow. That’s cutting. It’s almost as if you’re the one living in reality, despite all the facts, and everyone else is just responding to wild hallucinations induced by going outdoors.

  • george

    I am happy to note that European far right generally isn’t infected by the same kind of base rhetoric despite themselves having accomplished much more then in the USA. Look at generation identity they don’t post stupid cartoons about blacks. White nationalism is a bullshit ideology anyways. It gives whites a false sense of superiority. I myself enjoy some crass humour occasionaly but it won’t accomplish anything in the end.

  • george

    The alt right isn’t a movement at all. Its really just an army of trolls who also frequent certain websites (some being of good quality like this one while other not so much). These people have definitely achieved something although i don’t know how meaningful it is.

  • demize!

    Even as it may be over-broad your critique is on the mark regarding a certain mercantile fetishism and philistinism of certain elements of the nominal alt-right. So although I say its a bit early to ring the death knell I do say bravo. I know exactly who and what you’re talking about btw. Its akin to the naive Trump hysteria, I sort of support him but reservedly. Its the same sort of lionization that Ron Paul received. I understand grabbing at a port in a storm but have a bit of discretion and be less credulous.

  • blood money

    This article is great. But obviously won’t make it in the untermensch jungle of “AltRight”. Montsalvat should understand that the “altrights” are postmodern misogynists in favour of capitalism = another brick in the wall of the “white luben”. So better shift the focus in Europe. As far as i can see, a small but strong minority in the dying Europe grows on similar views.

  • Klas2

    I think such a broad stroke critizm is meaningless. Impossible to respond to. Impossible to relate to. The author would do well by answering specific articles by people in the alt right rather than this unspecific attack all attack noone aproach.

  • Pingback: How Pepe the Frog will Save the Imperium – Right On()


  • Pingback: Google()

  • Pingback: Google()