The Wayward Axolotl

The alt-right began as an internet discussion space where people gathered to talk about heretical ideas. The key heresies were race realism and sex realism, but cultural and social issues were also frequently discussed. It was an intellectual space, mostly populated by obscure right-wing bloggers who were critiquing aspects of the leftist/humanist worldview, such as racial egalitarianism, feminism and democracy. There was no specific point in time when this space emerged, but I discovered it in 2013, so I’ll use that as the starting point of the story. There was no name for the space, but the term “Neoreaction” was one of the more popular labels floating around. At the time, “Alternative Right” was the name of a specific website, which was part of that larger space. The Alternative Right website was run by Richard Spencer, who later became a central figure in the alt-right, but Richard Spencer did not create the alt-right. The alt-right was not created by anyone. It just happened.

Most ideologies have a moral narrative that is essentially the plot of “The Lion King” movie. It can be summarized as follows: The story revolves around two dichotomies: US | THEM and GOOD | EVIL. There is an initial, natural state of things, which is good and proper. In this initial, natural state, we (the good guys) are in control and all is well. Then they (the bad guys) interfere in this natural order in some way. Typically, they seize power from us. They take what is rightfully ours. There is a period of suffering and struggle, during which we overcome our moral, spiritual and physical weaknesses. We attack them. After an epic struggle, we defeat them. Good triumphs over evil, and the natural order is restored. That is the basic plot structure of thousands of stories, including a huge percentage of all Hollywood movies. You have probably been exposed to thousands of examples of it. You have subconsciously learned that pattern from experience, and you will s

I left a few stones unturned in the last post, so I'm going to circle back and talk a little more about Ryan Faulk and his paradigm shift from white nationalism to what he calls "first worldism". Specifically, I want to turn over the following stones: 1. The "Japan argument" for WN. 2. Ryan's attempt to save face by claiming that this is a minor change in his worldview. 3. Ryan's obsession with maps and sorting. 4. The real lesson of the European revolution. The Japan Argument Okay, so let's start with the Japan argument for white nationalism. The argument is basically "Look at Japan. They're ethno-nationalist, and they're doing fine. Why can't we be like them?" First, I should say that this doesn't have anything specifically to do with Ryan's former or current views, but I want to talk about it because it is one of the most persuasive arguments for white nationalism. It is empirical and pragmatic, not idealis

I am a race realist. In other words, I believe that race is a meaningful and useful way of categorizing human genetic variation, and that race differences in social outcomes, such as income and crime, are largely or wholly due to genetic differences. Race realism is often associated with racial nationalism, racism, and white supremacy, both in myth and reality. Leftists will scream "racist" at anyone who has race realist views. On the other hand, such views are often used to justify racial nationalism or racial hatred. In both cases, there is a leap of logic. Race realism does not imply racial nationalism or race hatred. I don't hate people of other races, and I am not a white nationalist or a racial separatist. Race is relevant to political and social issues, but in a complex way. Ryan Faulk is a well-known race realist who also was, until recently, a white nationalist. He has been a racial nationalist for at least 5 years, as far as I know. He has been fairly influe

Lately, I’ve noticed a pattern of the left-wing/establishment media appealing to patriotism. This has come up in various contexts. For example, during the 2018 World Cup, several left-wing media sites published articles linking the success of the English, French and Belgian teams to their high level of “diversity” (mostly black players). This was a cherry-picked interpretation, because the Russian and Croatian teams were also successful, and they were not racially diverse at all. So, it was typical propaganda, of course. But it struck me as odd that they would use success in team sports to promote diversity. Why should a man of French ancestry support his country’s team, if it consists mostly of people who aren’t French? Why would he identify more with the French team than, say, the Croatian team? The Croatian team was white and Catholic, as France used to be. Why should he care if “his” team wins a competition, when his only connection to it is the social construct of citizenship

Alex Jones was recently banned from several important internet platforms. The stated reason was “hate speech”. I’m pretty sure that Alex Jones was not in violation of “hate speech” policies, although he might have violated other policies. “Hate speech” is just a conveniently vague justification. So, what was the actual reason? Why did they ban Alex Jones? One possibility is that they genuinely perceive Alex Jones to be an ideological threat: that they think he is propagating dangerous ideas, and that he is an important propagandist of the new right, and thus a threat to leftist cultural hegemony and the “New World Order” of mega-corporations and mega-bureaucracies. If so, they are fools. Alex Jones is not taken seriously by most people on the right, and his conspiracy-theorizing is more harmful to the right than helpful. Also, by banning Alex Jones, they draw attention to him and expose new people to his ideas. However, I wouldn’t entirely dismiss this possibility, simply because

I am making this post to speak out against a particularly vile form of racism that is being promoted at the highest levels of our society. This disgusting xenophobic bigotry is shamelessly displayed at major news agencies such as CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times. I am speaking of Russophobia: the irrational fear and hatred of Russians. Every day the "mainstream" media expose us to a barrage of anti-Russian propaganda. Supposedly Donald Trump has conspired with Vladimir Putin to take over the United States. Not only is this fake news, it is hate-speech and literally an act of violence against the Russian community. Russophobia is basically Nazism. You know who else hated Russians? Adolf Hitler. Do I have to explain that Russians are human beings? News editors at CNN and NYT, educate yourselves. Stop viewing everything from your bigoted and ethnocentric perspective, in which the United States is always the good guy. Stop pushing this racist notion that Russians are scar

It can be useful to think about society and culture in terms that are normally reserved for physics. Flows of money, people, resources and manufactured goods are analogous to flows of air or water along pressure gradients. People tend to flow from regions with a lower quality of life to regions with a higher quality of life, in the same way that air flows from a region of higher pressure to a region of lower pressure. Resources tend to flow from areas of resource abundance to areas of resource scarcity. Manufactured goods tend to flow from places where they can be produced efficiently to places where they can be sold at the greatest profit. Financial capital tends to flow to where it can get the highest return on investment. These flows have two important things in common with thermodynamic flows. One is that they increase entropy overall. They erase differences between places. The wind moves air from high pressure to low pressure areas. By doing so, it tends to equalize pressure

Back in 2013, I spent some time arguing against the MGTOW ideology. Then I laid the topic to rest and moved on. However, recently several people have been promoting the MGTOW ideology in my general vicinity, and so I decided to revisit the topic and clearly present the case against MGTOW. First, I should define “MGTOW”. The term is an abbreviation of “Men Going Their Own Way”. It can refer either to an ideology or to the people who believe in the ideology. By “ideology”, I mean a system of ideas that functions as a social identity. Belief in the ideology implies membership in the community of believers. An ideology has a shared value or values that the members rally around. It gives them a sense of belonging and a shared identity. As an ideology, MGTOW is the rejection of the sexual contract, on the grounds that it is oppressive to men. In practical terms, this means rejecting marriage, children and long-term relationships with women. The shared positive values of MGTOW are

Remember “new atheism”? It seems like such a long time ago. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, new atheism was an important part of the cultural landscape, especially on the internet. Books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens inspired a movement to actively oppose religion in the public square. These days, it has been eclipsed by other issues, but there was a time when atheism versus theism was the biggest debate raging on the internet. The main difference between “old” and “new” atheism was one of attitude. The new atheists were aggressively opposed to religion, and they brought the debate into the public square. They were also effective early users of social media, such as Twitter and YouTube. The standard atheist claim is that religion is irrational: that it is not supported by evidence, and that many religious beliefs are logically or conceptually absurd. In addition to the standard skeptical critique of religion, the new atheists also claimed that relig

I just visited the place where I did my undergraduate degree about 20 years ago: Simon Fraser University, aka “SFU”. It is located on top of a small mountain in the Greater Vancouver area. It is in Burnaby, which is part of the metropolis consisting of Vancouver and its satellite cities. SFU is a beautiful place, with great views of the city to the south and the mountains to the north. The architecture is unusual. It was built in the 1960s, in a style that I guess could be called “brutalist” or “hypermodern”. It’s blocky with a lot of exposed concrete. Some people find the architecture to be gloomy or oppressive, but I like the retro-futuristic aesthetic. The interior has some equally strange features, such as ribbed rubber flooring and odd little nooks and crannies in the concrete. It is a unique place. So, that’s the setting: a weird university on a mountain in the metropolis of Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, in the year of 2018. Walking around the campus, I

The van attack of Alek Minassian in Toronto has suddenly pushed the concept of “incels” into mainstream consciousness. Most of the jabbering class are responding in a predictable way. They are defending status quo assumptions by portraying incels as dangerous misogynists. In this narrative, incels are sexual losers who blame their failure on society, when it is their own fault. Incels are portrayed as disgusting, evil, ugly monsters who are fully responsible for their plight. Despite this predictable spin, the discussion of incels is raising awareness about the sexual problems of the modern world. A large number of men have no access to love and sex. This was not supposed to happen. Sexual liberation was supposed to create a sexual utopia. Instead, it has created a sexual dystopia in which many people are denied love and sex. The existence of a large sexual underclass poses problems for the left and the establishment. Incels are have-nots. Supposedly, the left is about helping