The Slow Red Pill: My Journey from Libertarian to Alt-Right

When I was about sixteen I was reading everything I could find that was considered “classic literature” because I was dissatisfied with the curriculum in my honors American Lit and British Lit classes. We were only reading excerpts from “great books.” In the Nicomachean Ethics I read of a concept called Eudaimonism , sometimes translated as well-being or happiness. This has been the center of my ideological life ever since and it is what has motivated my search for a political home that puts human happiness at the center of its ideology.

At about that time I found a copy of Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead at my local used bookstore. The young man stocking the shelves told me how great Rand was and how deep and philosophical Atlas Shrugged was but suggested I start with something less challenging. He ensured me that fifty years after its publication that Atlas Shrugged was still one of the great books of the twentieth century.

So like many young libertarians, Rand was my introduction to the ideas of individualism, free markets, liberty and the potential they held to bring about happiness. I was never a full blown Objectivist, even after reading and agreeing with many of her “philosophical” (I hate calling her a philosopher in retrospect) works.

At college I became even more interested in libertarianism. It was a rebellion from my leftist professors. It was edgy and cool. I was reading Reason and telling anyone who would listen how big government was suppressing them and taking away their rights and they didn’t even know it! How smart was I! Smarter than those sheeple, or so I thought.

And my classes seemed to justify my individualist take on society. I believed that everyone in my physics and math classes should be judged on their own merit. A view I still hold today, to be sure. But when the black students in my classes flunked tests and the Asian students received A’s I was left to wonder why the black students didn’t study harder or try as hard as the Asians. I worked hard, and earned B+ and A- in my classes and figured that if I could do it anyone could.

So I continued on in my undergraduate libertarianism reading about Capitalism (Freidman, Meises, and Hayek were part of my self-created curriculum) and telling young ladies at the coffee shop how great NAFTA and GATT were going to be for Americans, as we would be so happy once we were able to buy cheaper goods made in Mexico. Just think of how happy we all were in the ‘90s. There was no terrorism, the Soviets had been defeated, and there was no more crappy hair metal.

My own grades in physics and astronomy were good but not great, so I eventually switched to the more qualitative geology, gaining a specialization in geophysics. I was able to handle Snell’s Law much better than quantum mechanics and partial differential equations. I was afforded the opportunity to do undergraduate research as a McNair Scholar. I presented a co-authored poster at the Seismological Society of America, and took a number of trips to conferences with grad students and professors. But when I applied to graduate geophysics programs, I didn’t get in to the top programs.

After some soul searching and honest discussions with faculty from my undergrad, and a rediscovered love of reading, I decided to pursue graduate studies in history instead of geophysics. And you know what? I graduated with a 4.0 from my MA program and was accepted into a great PhD program. (Which I later dropped out of, then went back to, then got an MBA, then went back to the PhD program, that is its own story one largely driven by fear of the academic job market and the very real bias against right-wing academics. Check out 100 reasons not to go blog and the Frankfurt School for more on that). But most of all I became happy. I was a lot happier than I was in the sciences. Maybe my IQ wasn’t high enough to work for JPL, but my exceptional memory and understanding of human psychology and philosophy derived from my two to three book a week reading habit led me to a fulfilling study of history.

Over the years I’ve travelled all over Europe and Asia, learned to speak three languages, read books that shaped the modern world, and interrogated ideas that many of my leftist professors told me were off limits. Seeing these different cultures and people I began to understand that American/libertarian individualism is not the only solution to life’s problems. Freedom doesn’t necessarily equate to happiness. Indeed some of the happiest people I’ve ever met lived in countries like Vietnam, Hungary, and China. The libertarian solution of “more liberty” is unsatisfactory for some. And I started to ask myself if liberty was the root of happiness.

Meeting those people were the first serious challenges to my libertarian world view.

In the fall of 2005 Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. I began to wonder why people turned to the government for help when private aid was available. As a libertarian I believed that it was not the federal government’s right or responsibility to help. Maybe it was the state, or maybe the city itself should help, but not FEMA.

But that isn’t the world the victims of Katrina were faced with. It’s a denial of human nature to see our fellow man suffer and not want to “do something.” In fact, it’s probably psychopathic. And while private help is important, talking to family that lived in the New Orleans area and eventually to others who suffered displacement, I began to understand that “more liberty” or blaming five decades of Democrats wasn’t the solution to their immediate problems. Their happiness at the time, and indeed years later, hinged upon things like rebuilt schools (which they’ve done a good job of), a returning tourist industry, and investors willing to take a chance on devastated communities.

Talking to victims of Katrina created the second cracks in my devotion to libertarianism.

And then there was 2012. Ron Paul was running. I was excited. I’d read his books and watched him on YouTube. He was saying things that I, and a lot of other young people, agreed with. But because the establishment preferred the patrician Mittens to the anti-establishment Paul, they worked against us at every step of the way. This culminated in Paul delegates being banned from the RNC.

I began to see that the GOP was beholden to the Neoconservatives, and as long as they held power, there would be no meaningful change in the American right. I became angry. This was my next step away from libertarianism. The libertarians in the GOP failed to take on the establishment. They were too busy arguing about esoteric policies, slippery slopes, and engaging in reductio ad absurdum arguments to challenge the status quo.

Watching the garbage fire that is Obama’s tenure as a president, seeing people around the world happy without individualism, seeing people suffer from Katrina, and after seeing the mistreatment of Ron Paul by the GOP, I realized that libertarianism was impotent. At best it was the loyal opposition, at worst it was actively enabling many of the policies I opposed. Then I began to think about why I had never been fully committed to and intellectually satisfied by, libertarian solutions to suffering and happiness. And I realized that libertarianism requires two unrealistic requirements. Libertarianism and the “more liberty” solution requires that everyone in a free group possess perfect information and perfect responsibility.

First let us talk about perfect information.

Even if we believe that people can make the best choices for themselves, and I generally agree that we can. Making those choices requires information. Making good choices, choices that lead to happiness, requires a lot of information. It requires good, honest, and reliable information. Let us take up a non-controversial subject: mandatory vaccines for children.

There are some who believe these vaccines cause Autism. I don’t believe it. But there are some that do. Do they have better information than I do? Possibly. Maybe they are right. Maybe big pharma is suppressing information. The criminalization of kratom certainly seem suspicious at the least. But in deciding whether to have your child vaccinated or not the parent must have perfect information about the vaccine. This is impossible. In the real world there isn’t enough time to acquire all available information, and if there was, few people outside physicians and pharmacologists have the expertise to analyze it in a meaningful way. And even if one possessed all these things science is subject to change. That is what makes science different from dogma: it can change.

So when faced with the decision to vaccinate what should the parents and society do? Well, the libertarian answer is that it should be the parents’ choice to vaccinate. I disagree. I believe that we should defer to the experts in the group and assume they are honest until proven otherwise. From their testimony it seems that the benefits to society outweigh the dangers to the child. And if you are a parent and choose not to vaccinate you are putting others’ children at risk. So society, the collective, the tribe, has a duty to mandate that your child be vaccinated – for the greater good.

That’s something that would have been anathema to my libertarian brain. “The Greater Good” has been used to justify all sorts of horrible violations of individual rights. And that’s true, it has been used to violate individual rights. But I no longer believe that the individual has a right to jeopardize the survival of the group. Thus the individual without perfect information cannot be allowed to use their individual right to violate the individual right of another, or the group. Liberty for parents isn’t a viable solution when you take into account the rights of others. And maybe the parents of the forcibly vaccinated child are unhappy, but those whose children do not acquire measles will certainly be happy.

When I realized that libertarianism requires perfect information I took another step towards rejection of the ideology.

Additionally, libertarianism requires responsibility. I will not deny that the rights embodied in personal freedom are rooted in the responsibility of the free. I don’t think any serious libertarian, or conservative, would. But libertarianism requires more than personal responsibility, it requires what I’ve started to call perfect responsibility.

Perfect responsibility is the assumption of responsibility not just for the actions of the individual, but for the imperfections, and the resulting failures, of the individual. Now most people on the right generally agree that humans are imperfect and a lot of them agree that in this world we are incapable of perfection. I’m not going to get into a religious discussion here, but I do not believe that we are ultimately responsible for our imperfections which lead to our individual failures.

So where will we turn for an example? How about the libertarian favorite: drugs dude!

To take this off the table, marijuana is generally harmless to adults, and I agree that it should be legal for medial and recreational use. I don’t condone it, but neither do I condemn it or the people who use it. In practice marijuana is not that different from alcohol. If used in moderation it poses little danger to society or the individual using. But I’m not talking about weed.

So what if someone decided, as my younger brother did, to use meth? Who then should be responsible for the results of the ongoing use of a genuinely destructive narcotic? Perhaps it should be the dealer who first got my brother, at seventeen, to use? Maybe we should charge him with my brother’s legal and medical bills. Maybe my brother’s death was due to the person who got him using? Should he be charged with assisted manslaughter? Or maybe it was due to the people he used with. Maybe it was due to my mother who repeatedly gave him money for drugs after he claimed his dealers were going to kill him.

The libertarian in me believed that none other than my brother himself was responsible for his meth use. And indeed personal responsibility is a strong argument.

No one made him use initially, and he did have the opportunity to quit. My grandparents offered to pay for rehab. But he didn’t go. He kept using. And eventually, to finance his addiction, he sold some meth to an undercover police officer. At eighteen he was arrested. To me being a young libertarian I looked at this as an injustice of the state. The war on drugs had come home. I believed that if he was happy being on meth that he should be allowed to use it. I was wrong.

He did eventually kick meth, but he substituted it with alcohol. This ultimately killed him at age thirty. He drank himself to death. At the end of his life he was drinking a bottle of vodka or whiskey a day.

Was the state responsible? The war on drugs did him in, or that’s what I thought for years. But then after contemplation and some distance, I realized that I believed in, what I would ultimately call, perfect responsibility.

I had believed that if he found happiness in drugs and alcohol and that as long as he didn’t hurt anyone we shouldn’t interfere with him. He was responsible for his own actions.

But I didn’t know that he was a deeply disturbed individual. I didn’t know, until after his death, when my mother told me he talked to trees and called the cops on his Christmas ornaments, that he was schizophrenic. After years of listening to Dr. Drew and Adam I knew he was likely using drugs and alcohol to self-medicate. He wasn’t happy at all. And then I began to understand the nature of responsibility and the imperfect nature of man. So who was responsible? Should society hold a schizophrenic man responsible for his imperfections? I don’t think so, anymore.

Because libertarianism turns a blind eye to the effects of individual behaviors on society, and yes it does, I find it wanting. I cannot in good conscience say that we should allow people to destroy their lives, as long as they are responsible for their own actions or not hurting others. My brother did hurt others. He hurt the people he sold to. He hurt my parents, my grandparents, and me. He hurt society with his medical bills.

And the notion that abolishing public financing of medicine will solve this is unrealistic and to me at least demonstrates how out of touch with America some libertarians are. “If only we could convince them” doesn’t cut it with me anymore. We’re not going to convince anyone to abolish Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid or any of the numerous state and local support systems that exist for publicly subsidized healthcare. We may “repeal and replace” Obamacare, but that’s not a major topic in 2016.

After taking to heart my evolving understanding of human happiness, namely that Epicureanism was not Eudaimonia , and I saw the unwillingness of libertarians to surrender the “more liberty” fetish and accept that many people are happy with limits to personal freedom and indeed sometimes those limits are necessary, I realized that I could no longer be a libertarian.

(Now to be honest, GamerGate did influence my thinking in ways I’m still not totally sure of. But GamerGate was no right-wing movement. In fact most of the people in it were liberals who simply didn’t want politics in their games. It was a consumer revolt and a rejection of the corrupt games media. I’m not exactly sure it moved me away from libertarianism, but I think it helped.)

After my departure from libertarianism I began to look for something else. And then one day circa 2014, after reading some SJW nonsense and googling for a response, I found the website I stayed up all night reading articles. This led me to other sites, and authors. I didn’t know the name yet, but I had stumbled upon the alt-right.

These were people who talked about the correlation between race and success, which I had witnessed first-hand, but was afraid to speak about for fear of being labeled racist. And they were labeled racist, but they didn’t care. They fought for their beliefs in the face of overwhelming leftwing opposition. They talked not just about the threat of “radical Islam” but the threat of Islam and immigration in general. They talked about things like the Islamic invasion of Europe. And being a European/military historian, and a fan of Europe and Western Civilization in general, this greatly disturbed me. I made the connection that if the European people disappear so too will their civilization. And if the root is destroyed how can the flower (America) continue to bloom?

When I read click-bait articles about how whites are becoming a minority in America and Europe I was upset to say the least. The alt-right gave it a name, #WhiteGenocide and talked openly about how the left had planned, through immigration, to make whites minorities in their own countries. In 2015 Ann Coulter, probably not alt-right herself but certainly an ally, wrote in her book Adios America of Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act, and the left’s plan to establish a permanent majority through making whites a minority.

The alt-right was not apologizing for the fact that Western Civilization is the best civilization. I’ve made this point several times in grad seminar classes. One professor told me “I’m deeply offended by that statement.” He may have been offended, as the left often is, but he didn’t challenge it. After all, he was an immigrant from a third world country. If his civilization was so great, why not stay there? The alt-right were nationalists (often ethno-nationalists) not globalists and unapologetically proud of America and when European, their European nations.

The alt-right was actively opposed to the left. They were not just the “loyal opposition” they were the enemies of the SJWs, the cultural Marxists, the sensitivity police and the leftists who come for your job if you cross them or speak out against their crybully tactics. But they were also openly critical of the right, the neocons, and the Bush legacy. They, just like Ron Paul, were critical of war that had destabilized the Middle East in the name of a lie.

And all this resonated with me. When I read solutions some on the alt-right propose to social or individual problems, I see solutions focused on finding happiness. The alt-right incorporates individualism yes, but it also thinks of the tribe. We don’t need social engineering, or equality or liberty fetishes. We don’t need to pretend that groups, culture, heritage, and race don’t matter. And it’s blindness to pretend science and history are irrelevant in achieving a happy life. In attempting to prove that perfect liberty is the only solution to suffering and when implemented will bring about happiness, libertarians miss the point.

It’s the journey not the destination that provides fulfillment and happiness. That’s what I saw in Asia and Europe.  The “pursuit of happiness” is a fundamental thread of American life. To the libertarian that means “free minds and free markets” as Reason magazine says. But free minds and free markets are predicated upon perfect information and perfect responsibility, both of which are impossible for man to achieve.

What I’ve learned is that happiness comes from the search for happiness. It’s weird, but it’s true. If you focus on making the woman you love happy, you will be happy by making her happy. If you dedicate yourself to your children’s happiness you will be happy as well. There is no destination on the happiness train, but if you get off you will surrender to misery and suffering. And the pursuit of happiness doesn’t require unlimited personal freedom or unrestricted free markets. Indeed, policies implemented in the name of those two libertarian ideals have led to unhappiness for many in recent years including young women and blue collar workers.

So that’s my move from libertarian to alt-right. I wanted to share it because I think there are a lot of libertarians who are dissatisfied with the movement right now and are unsure of where to turn. The libertarian moment has passed. The leadership squandered the opportunity to become a major force in American politics. Currently Gary Johnson is polling at around 5-8%. He may win more than any Libertarian Party presidential candidate since the party’s founding, but as many, including Paul Joseph Watson pointed out: he’s not a libertarian. And now, neither am I.

Individualism, Collectivism and the Alt-Right

So Charlotte is burning. A black cop shot a black man with a gun and black people rioted, blocking the highway, destroying property, and hurting people. As of this writing, I do not believe anyone was gravely injured in the riots. At the heart of this is a very civil rights era American question, are we to judge an individual by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin? But what are we to say when character/behavior is dictated by the color of his skin? Is there a solution that will preserve individual judgment while taking account of the tribal nature of the riots? I believe there is. But it requires that we hold two ideas in our minds simultaneously.

These are deep questions which we will need to address in a coherent manner if the alt-right is to be taken seriously as a political force I the United States. For now I want to address two aspects of individualism and collectivism that are at the heart of much unrest: public policy and legal justice.

Public Policy

Since MLK’s famous “I have a dream” speech America has slid leftward in its approach to public policy. From desegregation of schools to the absurd modern requirements of Title IX funding for university sports teams. (There is a reason why women’s field hockey exists yet no one attends.) It has even, under the Obama Administration, taken on the topic of rape – now called “rape culture” because the absurd “1 in 4 women will be raped on a college campus” narrative doesn’t hold up.

This is a mix of individualism and collectivism in the formation of public policy, largely along lines of “historical victimization” or to use the more academic terms hegemon (those with power) and subaltern (those without power). And simply put, our public policy is “a tangle of thorns.” So I am going to propose a solution, public policy should be made using the best available science, incorporating historical understanding, and created for a collective or tribal view of society. What does that mean in practice?

Let us look at the educational field for insight.

Currently, in the education we have many policies that were instituted to make sure minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics, succeed just as whites and Asians succeed without the policies. We have affirmative action, “no child left behind,” head start pre-schooling, various scholarships for minorities and now some universities are even giving minorities their own housing. But isn’t this collective or tribal policy? No, I would argue that it isn’t. Indeed these policies are intended to create an equal outcome for individual minorities but were formed without the input from science and history.

I’ve been in higher education for most of my adult life, and I’ve seen the effects of these policies on the people they were intended to help. Some people, usually whites, Jews and Asians, are opposed to affirmative action because of the effects on their own admission to top universities. There is some merit to this argument, but really we have more students in higher education today than at any point in history. Universities are businesses and will make room for you and your student loan money. I promise.

I’m opposed to affirmative action because it is an individualist solution to a collective problem. It admits many unprepared individual minority students to universities they have no business attending. They can’t cut it. I’ve seen this, first hand, for over a decade. But I don’t dare bring it up to my faculty advisor or write about it in our school newspaper. I have seen many black and Hispanic students struggle at our university simply because they do not have the learned skills (from their family, culture, and heritage) for academic success at this level.

Affirmative action students are routinely put into remedial reading and math classes. They come to my class unaccustomed to the level and intensity of reading (about 75 pages a night) required for success. They lack the analytical skills acquired through high school courses designed to prepare one for university success. Though this is mostly a failure of public education, which is a similar problem. In short, I oppose the individualist approach to solving the problem of minority underperformance because the solution actually harms those individuals it was intended to help.

So what would be a collective approach to solving minority underperformance? Well, first we need to actually address the fact that black and Hispanic families do not often emphasize education to their children. (There are many on the left trying their best to disprove this, but from personal experience, it is true.)

Many minorities have told me over the years that they believe schools should prepare their children for higher education, often failing to realize that education is not something which should be confined to school. It requires homework. It requires families that can help their children learn the skills necessary to succeed at the highest levels. And from what I’ve seen from my academic career, this often does not happen. It’s cultural, and since culture is derived from heritage, it is in part racial. To ignore the notion that it is black and Hispanic students falling behind is to plug your ears and pretend we should admit these students as individuals and expect them to succeed as individuals.

Instead we should encourage the current generation of minority students to find success in fields that do not require a college degree. Many Hispanics already do this. Indeed many whites do this as well. There is no indignity in honest work. As a society we look at plumbers, electricians, welders and mechanics (to name a few), as lesser jobs, or at least less prestigious jobs. We should use high school to prepare less academically gifted (meaning average or low IQ) students for a successful life without a college degree. And there is nothing wrong with not having a college degree. Neither of my parents went to college, and both were successful for many years. (The necessity of a college degree is a topic for another post.)

So this is where the collectivist public policy prescription comes into play. IQ testing has been shown to have racial correlations. There are many science deniers who object to this, just read the article I linked (the researcher doesn’t want the research pursued), and resort to ad hominum attacks such as calling the proponents racists. But that does not negate the fact that IQ testing is a necessary factor in determining who should go to college, what colleges they should go to, and what they should major in. Indeed,many on the left are insisting on ignoring the SAT and ACT for the sake of diversity.

So I propose that we use IQ testing to determine, from perhaps first grade on, which students will be placed in rigorous classes. Yes there will be individual black and Hispanics placed in these classes. Few would doubt that Ben Carson has a very high IQ. But in truth, we would see a large portion of the black and Hispanic students put in more slowly paced classes. And in high school we should encourage students with low IQs to take classes that will prepare them for working class jobs.

This is not a bad thing. Indeed, I believe much of the anger in the black community today results from the broken promises of the left’s equality fetish. For at least fifty years blacks have been promised success on par with whites, if only blacks were given the same opportunities as whites, and have not achieved it. The left claims it is because of “systemic racism” rather than owning up to the fact that IQ and race matter. And when we as a society have a limited amount of funds available for education, we should not squander it on social justice motivated equality projects.

So this is just a look at one instance of collectivism, as embodied by IQ scores, as a public policy prescription. What then of individualism? Well I believe in individualism. Perhaps it is a hangover from my libertarian days, but I think (and I do believe I left room in my collectivist public policy above for exceptional individuals of all races) we should enforce our public policies from an individualist perspective.

Legal Justice

Legal justice is policy enforcement. At its best it is individualist, though much like contemporary American public policy, we’ve muddled individualism with collectivism in legal enforcement. For example, see the recent Brock Turner case for evidence that the legal system for some today (in this case a male) was used to punish an individual for the perceived crimes of many (other men who’ve gotten away with rape).

Many women who claimed rape at college have been shown to be liars (Duke La Crosse, UVA, mattress girl). And men are not taking it anymore. This greatly embarrasses the feminists and SJWs who push the narrative of a college rape. For them Brock Turner was the proof they’ve been looking for. If he was guilty, so also was every man accused of rape. The difference? Turner was convicted. But for the leftists, feminists, and SJWs his conviction was not enough. In their rush for collective justice they went after the judge for who did not give him a sentence worthy of a million-bajillion rapes.

I propose that for a more just and content society we should disentangle the two and rely upon individualism for the enforcement of our collectivist public policies.

Back to education for a detailed discussion. Allow me to use a personal story to illustrate my point.

From the time that I was able to read I’ve been fascinated with space and NASA. My life goal was, like many who grew up in the ‘80s, to be an astronaut. When I was in high school I took all the honors classes I could. I struggled in math and physics, but excelled in history and literature. It was enough to get me into a good (but not top) university.

I began as a physics major with a minor in astronomy. But the truth is, I only made it through about two years of this course before my grades began to suffer. I was not talented (or smart enough) for the differential equations used in quantum mechanics. I busted my ass for a B+ in Newtonian Mechanics (and I’m still proud of how hard I worked). But by the end of sophomore year I was hoping for a future at JPL (NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and I intended to get my foot in the door with an undergraduate research project/internship.

But then I didn’t get it. It wasn’t because of my lack of hard work. It was because I was competing with people whose IQ’s and specific talents are more suited to physics than mine. I was competing with minds from MIT and Caltech for the precious few spots available. But I did get an internship: at an oil company. And it was interesting, and unexpected, and more suited to my mind.

So I changed my major to geophysics. As a physics major I earned two scholarships, just enough to keep me afloat financially. But as a geophysics major I earned many scholarships. So many in fact that I was able to graduate from this university debt free, despite coming from a working class family.

This brings me to one scholarship that in particular that I earned: the McNair Scholarship. At the time this was a scholarship open to any first generation university student with an excellent GPA and SAT score, and an interest in a PhD program. At the time it was open to men and women of any race and background, as long as you were a first generation college student. And it was mostly populated with whites, about three-quarters of us were male. But that’s not the case anymore. Now they take into account race and gender in determining who gets the scholarship. I disagree with collectivism in public policy enforcement.

But wait, am I not being contradictory? Above I advocated accounting for race in determining public policy. Why shouldn’t the government account for race in administering scholarships to help minority students succeed where whites and Asians already have?

Because that’s not individualism. I advocate for collectivism in the formation of public policy. We should put an IQ requirement on public scholarships. But that enforcement will not prevent high IQ individuals of any race or gender from obtaining those scholarships. Generally speaking, it may not be conducive to creating a mass of black mathematicians at NASA, but it will create a society where people succeed with their innate skills. Again, in terms of enforcing public policy I am in favor of individualism not collectivism.

So this is where we are as a society. We have an entangled mess of public policy and public policy enforcement. If we are to solve our problems, we must disentangle those twin ideas. As Americans we are often lectured about “rugged individualism” being the reason for America’s greatness, at least by conservatives and some libertarians. The problem is that this ignores emerging scientific and historical truths about groups, women and men, blacks and whites. Liberals tend to look at groups and then proceed to engineer social justice policies that will ensure the equality of the groups. This results in a regression to the lowest common denominator, punishing the exceptional individuals of any group. Neither solution is satisfactory, and neither leads to individual happiness.

The simple fact is that we must draw our public policies and legal enforcements of those policies from two different ideologies. It will be hard for some to accept this. It goes against what we are taught through the public indoctrination programs, the media, and entertainers.

But what of the alt-right and individualism? Many of the alt-right will rightly look at the collective interests of a group and understand that individuals will identify with a group/race/gender and then advocate for the interests of that group. But we, as a movement, must begin to establish a rigorous ideology that accounts for both group interests and individual exceptionally, without fetishizing either.

I will no doubt talk about this further in other posts, as individualism and education are dear to my heart. But for now this is where we start.

Thank You Chris Metzen, for Giving Me More Time With My Brother


Chris Metzen has announced his retirement. I’m not shocked, but I am happy for him, and thankful for the role he played in my life.

I’m a gamer, and have been since I was about five years old when my mom left my brother and I to play arcade games at Mr. Gatti’s Pizza. My mom worked for a computer manufacturing company called Texas Instruments and one Christmas she bought us a TI Basic. We had a ton of  fun playing that thing. But we had consoles, we got an NES in 1986 and that kicked off our obsession with gaming. In 1994, the year I graduated from High School my mom bought me a desktop without much power. It was supposed to be for writing college essays and so she reasoned, it didn’t need much in the way of a processor or a graphics card.

I upgraded quickly.

Gaming in the 90s was awesome. It was the wild west in terms of what was available. Doom was one of my favorites. Then I discovered a game called Starcraft. My obsession with Blizzard had begun. I played for hours on end, only taking a break to read my assigned books or do homework. I had several frustrated girlfriends who complained about how they could never call me because I was always online playing Starcraft or later Diablo II and the xpac Lord of Destruction. Then came Warcraft III and The Frozen Throne. These were wonderful games that filled my imagination with things I had only ever read about in the great fantasy novels of my youth. It was as if someone had, by force of will, brought Middle Earth into my life.

I was alone a lot growing up, with the exception of my brother. We were close until he was thirteen and started doing drugs. I think in hindsight, and after many years of therapy that his drug and alcohol addictions were him self-medicating for schizophrenia. After his death my mother told me he spoke to dead relatives, called the cops because his Christmas tree was attacking him, thought he had been abducted by aliens among other things. I never knew this about my brother. I simply cut him out of my life when he was about fifteen because I could not take his drug and alcohol use.

Then in 2005 I went to visit him for Thanksgiving and he introduced me to a game he had been playing called “World of Warcraft.”

He let me roll a toon on his account to see if I liked it. I made a Night Elf priest and stayed up all night spamming star shards and smite at nightsabers and owlkins in Darkshore. I love it. When I got home I subscribed and created a gnome mage. We played Alliance because my brother just had to play a sexy female paladin and at this time pallies were ally only. We quickly leveled and got into a great raiding guild. We were farming MC and BWL in blues and some greens. (I remember kind of skipping Z’G except to get a few items for people who would not shut up about it). We got into the top guild on our server and opened AQ40 together. We pvp’d in Altrac and Arathi and Warsong and had so much fun. (To say nothing of Southshore – I miss world pvp). I would pew pew and he would follow me and heal me.

Burning Crusade was even better. We plowed through content eventually earing a spot in our server’s top guild. Server firsts were normal. We were respected and I made a lot of friends in guild. This at a very isolating time in my life. I was working on my MA and was surrounded by shitlibs. So it was nice to have friends I could talk to. But most of all it was nice to have my brother back.

But there was a dark side to it. My brother had a severe alcohol problem. He had kicked the coke and meth years before, but he was drinking a bottle of vodka a day. His health got worse and worse as time went on. He would fall asleep during raids, or fail to show up at all. I became an officer in our guild handling recruitment, and stalled on finding a replacement (shortly after server transfers were allowed). But I didn’t want to replace my brother. I knew without WoW he would have little to nothing in his life. He would be gone.

One day the other officers sat him down and asked him to leave since I refused to get a replacement. He understood and accepted their decision. I was right. Two months after leaving the game he was admitted to the hospital with severe liver problems. Then Wrath dropped. He would not be able to level fast enough to get into a good guild. So I stopped playing for a while and took the opportunity to spend time with my brother. We bonded again out of game and because of the game. We were at each others throats over his drug and alcohol problems for about a decade. But WoW and Chris Metzen helped heal old wounds.

My brother died of complications due to liver and kidney failure in February of 2009.

I miss him every time I log into WoW and see the bags he made for me that say “Made by Cyannide”

But I am thankful for the time I got with him. Metzen helped heal old wounds. He gave me a lot of good memories of my brother. I’ll never forget watching my brother, OOM, spam heal our MT on Vashj as I shot fireballs at her trying to bring her down. We were the only three left standing when we got that kill.

So Chris Metzen is moving on to spend time with his family. I respect that. He’s accomplished more than most of us ever will. But most of all, he built an imaginary community of friends, and brought my brother back to me. Even if it was only for a little while. Thank you Chris.

Alt-Right Entryism and a Lesson from Metallica


When I was in elementary school some friends and I got ahold of Metallica’s “Ride the Lightning.” This was the beginning of my love of metal. Eventually I became a musician playing in metal bands in my hometown and even opening for some big name bands. Life was fun. I had friends, not too many, and I wasn’t going to win any popularity awards, but most people knew me and I knew them as well.

Then in 1989 Guns ‘n Roses released Appetite for Destruction. Suddenly there were all kinds of kids, preppies and grits, we used to call them, that were interested in our music. We gave them pointers, taught them how to play guitar or drums, introduced them to people like Steve Vai, Joe Satriani and Eric Johnson to name a few.   But the Metallica dropped what would be known as “The Black Album” and overnight the preppies and grits were wearing Metallica shirts and learning the intro to Enter Sandman.

For those of us who had been into metal since the 80s it was shocking. Really shocking. These people who didn’t pay any attention to us now wanted to be our best friends. They wanted to come over to our houses and play Metallica covers. They wanted us to give them guitar lessons. In short, they wanted to be “in” with the new cool kids. But most of them didn’t realize that a lot of us were into metal because it expressed the rough childhoods many of us had. It spoke to us. They didn’t realize that.

And when we started to invite them in, we suddenly realized they didn’t want to be in because they loved what we loved, they wanted in so they could change what we loved. So we ultimately rejected them. Then the Metallica moment passed, and grunge became the undisputed genre of the 90s.

Was it a good idea to keep the preppies at arms length? I don’t know. In hindsight I suspect we could have taught them to love what we love, but we didn’t. We wanted our culture and our music to be pure. If you weren’t there at the beginning you had not place.

And this is what brings me to the alt-right today. There has been a lot of discussion on what constitutes alt-right, so I won’t go back over it. Voxday and among others have attempted to define the alt-right. But I’m concerned in this article about entryism. There is a bit of a paradox at work here, not unlike the preppies getting into Metallica. The alt-right is kinda cool right now. It’s young and energetic and has a lot of controversial issues. And people are willing to move to the alt-right. The catch is they must be Red Pilled so when they join our ranks, they are not infiltrating us with the intention of changing our core beliefs.

Recently I saw Milo on CNBC talking about the alt-right. Needless to say he got much of it wrong. He seems to think that the core of our values: white nationalism, stopping white replacement (White Genocide) and establishing white rule in white countries, is at the fringe.

It’s not.

So over the next few days I’ll be going over some of the groups that are attempting to claim alt-right and analyzing what their motive may be and how important it is to stop them. I’ll also address the notion that while many can’t be alt-right, they can be allies.


Hillary’s best Marie Antoinette Impression


It was inevitable, what with her failing health and the rumors that she is suffering either from Parkinson’s Disease or Alzheimer’s, that Hillary Clinton would fail to keep her mouth shut and let the MSM cover for her until November. Some pundits have claimed that the “basket of deplorables” comment was her 47% moment, echoing what Mitt Romney said about Democratic voters during the 2012 election cycle.

Her comment shows her disdain for Americans who’ve not bought into the DNC lies. It demonstrates how little respect she has for people whose interests she cannot pander to while keeping her divisive coalition of minitories, gays, single women, and the over-educated all content. This is the age of identity politics, and the left is terrified that the alt-right has started to play, only with a much larger team. Hillary can’t make inroads with whites or men, or white men, without alienating the base she convinced are being victimized by whites and the patriarchy.

The feeling in America right now seems to me, to be what a Frenchman would have felt in the last days of the French monarchy. We don’t have the mass starvation but we do have threats to our employment. Hillary favors TPP and her husband passed NAFTA and GATT. They are globalists interested in the power and money they can bleed from the American working class (whites and males). The Democrats are out of touch.

There are movement by traditional Democratic voters, blacks and hispanics, to vote for Trump. Recently “Latinos for Trump” held “Operation Taco Bowl” in Orange County. It was an attempt, not sure how successful, to gin up support for the Republican candidate in a blue state among blue voters. Black Men for Bernie have switched sides. They are traveling across America’s rust belt trying to convince blacks to give a fair hearing to Trump. And Trump, more than any GOP nominee in my lifetime, is courting the black vote. He won’t win it, but he will win more than Romney and McCain combined. Because he is not lecturing, not telling the black community “the democrats are the real racists” and not promising hand outs. He is listening. He understands that he doesn’t understand, yet.

Hillary and the Democrats have traditionally owned the LGBT vote as well. And while they will probably win it in 2016 there is evidence to suggest that young gay men and women are starting to reconsider their allegiance to a party that is being bankrolled by Saudi investors. Saudi Arabia has an abysmal record on gay rights. Indeed gays are regularly murdered with impunity in the Kingdom. Witness “Twinks for Trump.” Indeed, in the UK gay men and women recently voted for the Tories, much to the shock of the left, who proceeded to call those gays traitors. Could we see a similar phenomenon in the US? Possibly. After the Supreme Court guaranteed gays the right to marry many moved to the next phase of their lives: planning a life with someone they love. That entails things like paying taxes, looking for good schools, and maintaining a middle class lifestyle. All those issues speak to gays in the same way they speak to straights. And in the next few years we will see many gay and lesbian former Democrats coming to the GOP.

Again, the GOP is not going to win the gay vote in 2016, but they are laying the groundwork for a future where the gay vote is up for grabs. This terrifies the left. The coalition they’ve created is breaking apart amid the new identity politics advanced by the right, specifically the alt-right. This is, I think, what pressured Sick Hillary into speaking about Americans who disagree with her as a “basket of deplorables.” Her coalition is breaking apart. Trump isn’t going to win blacks, hispanics or gays. But he will do well with all of them. Better than any Republican in my life. And that terrifies the left.

And so under the pressure of a failing coalition, low energy crowds at her rallies, and polls being rigged to show Trump either tied or slightly ahead in swing states, Hillary cracked. She can’t take the pressure. Marie Antoinette never said “let them eat cake” but the legend persists because she, like Hillary, was so out of touch with the people she governed that she could not see the gathering storm.