‘Alt Right / Alt Universe’ – What If Germany Had Won the War?

There’s alternate music, an alternate Right, also potentially – alternate worlds.  Any connection?  One thing I point out in INVESTIGATING THE ALT RIGHT – a whole industry of ‘alternate history’ has opened up in academia, taking in many serious historians.  They wonder, ‘if Germany had won the war, what then is postwar “history”? (And then one can ask – would it give rise to ideas, such as Richard Spencer’s?)

…I am very interested in ‘many worlds theory’ and ‘multiverse theory,’ but unfortunately, I have tended to think these would not be popular topics and so have not paid as much attention to the major names in Philosophy as I might.  Sometimes the physicists offer us philosophical themes of causation between multiverses, but I cannot say what the major articles here.  If anyone has some good leads, let me know.  We do get some more humdrum theorizing from Scientific America (concerning causation from a parallel universe):  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/ Likely, Vonnegut would also be a good source, but there are more academic sources out there – somewhere!

It is possible to maintain, for certain critical junctures, both possible events ‘happen.’  However, physicists are notorious for failing to explain their ideas of ‘happen.’  What does ‘happen’ mean? Does it mean, there is a self that experiences, D-day succeeded, and a near identical self, that experiences that it failed?  Or does it mean, D-day succeeded and this is experienced, but also it failed though this is not (directly) experienced?  What could ‘happen but not directly experienced’ mean in a case like this?

Also one can hold, alternate ending in critical junctures, have effects on the chains leading from the near-to-hand ending.  I do not know what the evidence could be, as for example, ‘an inch is as good as a mile,’ i.e. one does not feel sore from almost getting hit by a car. Or at least – not usually.  Maybe we ought to ask Richard Spencer about these kind of things?  I guess he would be the sort of person who would know….

We imagine our bodies, practically speaking, are in only three dimensions of space, and that we all live in one space.  Then minds are affected by changes to the sense organs in this one space.  Leibniz of course offers a totally different model, which fits the available evidence, just as well.  To decide for the ‘three dimensions, one space model,’ is not supported by the evidence.  There is then a question of how ‘happens’ and ‘experience’ relate, since different individuals might experience different things, though both are effected by an event to have particular experiences.  If you (or ‘you’) experience, hitting someone with a car and also just missing them, and another experiences that you just missed them but also strange pains, then we might say, two alternate events ‘happened’ but as giving rise to experiences not seeming to fit the model, of three dimensions and one space.  There is an alternative present, where you experience collision but the other does not directly experience this.

So, things are potentially especially complex, as not only is there a possibility of alternate ‘happenings,’ but also even our own happenings, we do not really understand.  We have a model of bodies in one space, but also we could say, there is simply an ‘experience machine’ present for all, etc., with rules of commonly inhabiting one space, a mere Newtonian approximation.

The upshot seems to be, if someone experienced Germany winning the war, that does not imply it is a ‘hallucination’ if not all alternate selves did….

Then, too, as I suggest, we have a more mysterious case, of an alternate happening, that is just not directly experienced at all, a kind of black whole in human reality.  Black_Sun_2.svgA tree falls in a forest, but no one is around.  Later, a lumber jack comes across the fallen tree.  There is no direct experience of the falling, but still an indirect one….

It is difficult that global society, has not reconciled itself to the possibility of Axis victory.  What happens in such a victory?  …Would the Russians all be hiding out in Siberia?  One imagines, things might go particularly poorly for Russia.  Then, too, look where Russia is heading, with the land so often poisoned, fertility dropping, etc.  Will Russia one day look back, and say, it is just as if Germany had won the war, only, we never experienced this?

Is it going to be ‘alt right’ for them? 😊 Who can say.  I doubt things will be too pleasant, but then I am sure, the Russians (collectively) are prepared for a bad time after Khrushchev, etc.

As to our own situation – obviously, there is very little evidence, recent ‘happenings’ of, e.g., a Clinton Presidency, have much reality to them.  Why believe, the effects on parallel universes, will be notable for those universes?  And as to our experiences – who knows what is ‘happening’?  Indeed, what lies behind experience?  Tradition counsels, took look back to causes in the three dimension of a common space. Yet tradition is another thing than evidence.  It is very hard to know (in a philosophical sense of the term) where experiences are heading.  This may be a source of hope, but also – regardless of how absurd Clinton was – of fear.

Then too – new directions! – with death, I see no evidence, it brings an off button for ‘the machine.’

At least not for everyone.  But of course, these are matters, we cannot bring into our ethical calculations.  They seem to play very little role, e.g., in the outward discourse of the Roman Catholic Church, which tends to imagine, all people are equal in experiencing after death.  Yet – I remain, as ever, rather sceptical of this outward discourse, significant though it has been.

…Philosophy is a strange pursuit, yet it seems in the end to lead to these questions, of whether one can believe, anything one is told.  Perhaps philosophy is not the best pursuit, after all?

Alt Right vs. Libertarian

I notice the ‘alt right’ Radix Journal offers some attacks on libertarians so I thought I ought to reply.

First off I ought to note, as my Essay on Pragmatic Libertarian suggests, my interest in libertarianism is empirical and (thus) contingent in character.  However, I doubt this is atypical of those seen as having ‘libertarian’ interests.  Still, I wonder if I ought to call myself a ‘libertarian.’  This could be a confusing label for some.  And yet, since I advocate – for all currently existing nation-states – a very small night-watchman state with no spending on education or other welfare, I think it must be an apt label.

Radix offers, in a review of Hawley’s RIGHT-WING CRITICS OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM, some extended criticism of libertarianism.  …But before we get to this, also I ought to note, I see Hawley has a book coming out in September, MAKING SENSE OF THE ALT RIGHT, which looks like it has quite a lot of overlap with my INVESTIGATING THE ALT RIGHT:  RICHARD SPENCER IN AMERICA.  However, I fear there may be a bit too much credulity toward the media present in Hawley’s work, a kind of ‘we are all the Establishment’ sentiment.  Sorry, Hawley – the New York Times, etc., is not an appropriate source for academic writing any longer.  Then too with Hawley, I see he does some interviews with ‘alt right’ figures, which I am sure will be valuable as Hawley, all things considered, seems a smart cookie.  But I do wonder how he can write an entire book about the ideology of the ‘alt right’ movement.  I guess we will have to wait and see.  Personally, I have found much of the story here to be, the media’s own story about AR, and then too the opportunity that people such as Richard Spencer give us, to reflect on basic questions regarding, why we engage in political activism at all, given how bizarre our culture is….  I don’t know how AR could be a sufficiently defined label to sustain a book-length, ‘political science’ treatment, as opposed to a mix with Philosophy and media studies, etc.  But of course, new interviews could do much….  We will just have to wait to September.

Anyway, back to Radix.  Gregory Hood writes many negative things regarding libertarianism, and to much of it I would respond – hey, buddy, perhaps we cannot get all the way to libertarian ‘pipe dreams’ but cutting spending is always progress, cutting regulations is always progress, and this is not true in the other direction, when it comes to getting real gains for meaningful socialism, etc.  Libertarianism is happening all the time, and we see useless programs and regulations cut all the time.  True, government does grow rather a lot, yet its growth is not unstoppable.

Hood: ‘It’s questionable whether libertarianism can ever really be a movement for itself as opposed to either a phase in a person’s ideological progression. After all, groups like Students for Liberty now proudly proclaim they don’t care about freedom of association, because homosexual rights, and fighting nationalism is the most important thing.’  A lot of libertarians are nutters.  But the same is true of conservatives, far-right ‘alt right’ thinkers, etc.  So what?  Personally, I find things end with libertarianism much more than progress through it.  However, in saying this, I would add – but this is only because politics can barely matter today, when, e.g., there is no democracy at a national level.  If things were more ‘serious,’ then perhaps Hood would have more of a point.  Libertarianism is not a very satisfying resolution, but then practically speaking, nothing but libertarianism with border controls is useful today.  –And if so-called ‘libertarians’ deny freedom of association among citizens, then they would seem to reject a core libertarian idea.  I doubt they in fact do have, very libertarian politics, whatever they call themselves.

I do not know how we can discuss a more substantial set of possibilities for political change, as they are not present.  True, different empirical circumstances would argue away from libertarianism and would also be more engaging for ‘mature’ culture.  But as these possibilities are not present, what is the purpose now of attacking libertarianism?

Hood goes on: ‘But as Richard Spencer argued, libertarianism itself was a kind of mask on white identity for some time. That is being abandoned as we get closer to the real thing. Those libertarians who put egalitarianism first, like Cathy Reisenwitz, eventually just become SJW’s. The majority move in our direction.’

Is libertarianism just a mask for white identity?  Of course not. The free market offers jobs and liberties for people of all colours, and many of these merely think they benefit from socialism and government-based, anti-white revanchism.  The same is true of many, e.g., Mexicans’ interest in open borders.

If white identity were the only interest for white libertarianism, some other position might be more attractive, e.g. State-based genocide.  In any case, there are many ways to express one’s ethnic interests, and how would most white libertarians see libertarianism as the only way?  And isn’t libertarianism just their calculation of what is best for their interests, taking into account they have special concerns for some others? How is it notable for politics to express national interest?  That is not a ‘mask,’ that’s an assessment of what is best for groups that concern one, using reasons also endorse-able by all groups interested in utility and fairness.  There’s nothing deceptive or ‘mask-like’ involved, except insofar as abstraction is always about a bit of occlusion.  What is the evidence libertarians think libertarianism is best for ‘whites’ but not other groups?  Today, it’s best for everyone.

Libertarianism is boring… or it can be boring.  That is true, it is hard to sustain this theme.  Our time is boring.  Better, our world did not exist.  However, in terms of real success for libertarian aims of cutting spending and regulations…. there is little impact.  The ‘movement’ is powerful.  It will not go away.  Capital loves control through government more than generating yet more capital, true.  But capital does love more capital….  Less government is a proven route to increasing growth, so long as property rights can still be protected.  Capital likes libertarianism, even if it has other loves it does not talk about….  (Capital is so shy!  It barely even recognises its tryst with political correctness!)

Review of Time-Travelling Zombies

Review of Time-Travelling Zombies by Lance Snyde, CreateSpace, 2017

41Tr5Y-8zhL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

Time-Travelling Zombies is a post-apocalyptic tale about a staple of science fiction, the mass zombie ‘turning.’  The idea seems to be to find the most common themes of science fiction and mix them together, as it eventually emerges in the novel, that time-travel is also a theme, and there is a struggle to intervene temporally to stop the catastrophic zombie outbreak.

The ‘zombie’ is described in terms of an unfeeling creature.  Also it turns out, zombies can be commanded with the right technology, and were developed by the Soviets.  Thus the novel centers on an attempt to harness the Soviet technology in a post-Soviet era – and, of course, on this added dimension of using time travel to control the zombie technology.  Sort of Stephen King meets Dr. Who.  The work seems suitable for juveniles, but of course the line between juvenile adventure novels and ‘adult’ science fiction is a bit hard to draw.

The political backdrop for the novel involves several elements:  an out of control Federal government; a newly seceded, Christian Texas; and a Russia that has been further divided after the fall of the Berlin Wall, along new North-South ethnic lines.  Russia is basically toast in the novel, but then there are all those Russian zombies….  It does not go well for Texas.  Some of the Christian folk there do volunteer for ‘zombification,’ as part of a process of going back in time as zombie information devices, but it is not clear how that turns out for them…. Or at least, I do not want to give away the plot.  Anyway, the Christians, the Feds, and the Russians are all fighting.

The Russians apparently developed a complex system of ideological and technological controls, to keep the Revolution – and the zombies! – going long after the patriots of the Revolution died.  Even Ukrainians and Poles are recruited to be zombie handlers, but this process of allowing humans to communicate with zombies through radio waves, has some unpleasant effects on the Warsaw Pact patriots.  The account of the Soviet technological and ideological research, seemed the most interesting part of the novel, pointing to many lost Cold War issues and taking things a bit past the ‘generic,’ zombie meets Tardis setup.

L. Snyde has been known to me for some time as a fellow native of California, though now he has moved further east….  I think I have encouraged him to publish on CreateSpace, but in any case, the book is available for $8 on Amazon.  Approx. 170 pages, 6 x 9 paperback.  I found it a rather gripping narrative, but it is definitely something only for the fan of the SF genre.

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travelling-Zombies-Lance-Snyde/dp/1546690808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1495307652&sr=8-2&keywords=lance+snyde

Essay on Pragmatic Libertarianism

donttread

See:

Pragmatic Libertarianism Essay pdf

 

In this essay (above), I argue that appealing to natural rights is not the most attractive way to defend libertarianism.  As Bentham puts it, natural rights are ‘nonsense on stilts.’  That is going rather far, but still it is obvious, many ask, ‘Where are these rights?  Were they there at Auschwitz?  Were they there when the Soviets invaded?’  Whatever the truth of the matter – and, indeed, is does not make ought – there is a rhetorical issue present.  Can we not appeal to something besides rights, in defending the free market?

On the other hand, much of the specifically philosophical appeal is lost when natural rights go, and, indeed, I am no opponent of Revolution, etc.  I offer no universal defense of ‘liberty.’ But still some philosophical questions remain to the pragmatist, and I argue that a concern for utilitarianism with side constraints still leads us to accept a very full-blooded libertarianism.

I mention side constraints of:  1) concern for a stable property order, and 2) a concern to avoid, arbitrary inequality.  Then I suggest a la Mises, that even if we value very much, equality, still we see in socialism, many self-defeating attempts to achieve this goal.  Equality is no objection to libertarianism, if the available non-libertarian systems lead to greater de facto levels of inequality in power, and only very marginal gains for economic equality.  Libertarianism is the only viable political form today.

I argue for the ‘minarchist’ position, with government courts, police, armies, and roads, but reject a place for public schooling, UBI and other non-educational welfare spending, etc.  I suggest, there is no available justification for bans on:  face veils; heroin; private racial discrimination in employment and housing, etc.

In grounding my notions of side constraints or ‘fairness,’ I appeal to Aristotelian traditions and divine command theory tradition.  I point out, natural rights theories and utilitarianism, are only two of many possible philosophical bases for ethics and political life.

The Left’s New Racial Hatred

paul-weston-are-you-racist.jpg

What I have found in trying to promote my book and discuss what is wrong with the ‘alt right,’ is that many Democrats are living in a fantasy world.  One begins with a simple point such as, ‘white in California are now a minority,’ and they begin to ask:  is this really true?  Is that not a ‘conspiracy theory,’ aka the ‘white genocide theory’?  As is if it much matters whether one labels the relative numerical decline of the white races as ‘genocide’ or ‘suicide.’  In any case, it is steep, steep decline.  This is no conspiracy theory.

A freshman at Yale discusses some of the basic issues, but these are apparently too ‘radical’ for the geriatric Dem populations that the activists want to dupe into supporting Center-Left spending.  His article is called ‘White Europeans:  An Endangered Species?’: http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2008/02/27/white-europeans-an-endangered-species/

‘Europe is a dying continent. I say this not as a criticism, but rather as a statement of fact. In Europe, an acute failure to produce the next generation has created a looming demographic crisis.’

Why not face this statement of fact?  Whites tend to be less supportive of ‘Obama Care,’ if they believe immigration might be a more significant issue.  Solution:  ‘there really aren’t so many immigrants.’  That’s just crazy talk, that whites will be nearly extinct by 2100 if current trends hold.  Can’t be true.

It is the most brutal racial hatred possible:  the Center-Left’s simple denial of the reality of other racial groups.  What does not fit the ‘white mythology,’ is simply denied.  But if you do not live in this world, why do you vote it?  (Worse yet – why do you talk at me?)

There is a kind of dream that the ‘white’ 60’s will last forever.  But in fact, all things comes to an end.  Some really hurt….

I will admit, the U.S. government is deceiving the people.  For example, it tried to hide much with counting Mexicans as ‘Hispanic Whites,’ etc.  It does not offer numbers in a readable format, in an act of obvious panic-control.  It does not – any longer! – offer projections of the non-Hispanic white population share past 2050.  But it does predict, whites, i.e. those who are ‘non-Hispanic white alone,’ including many Middle Eastern peoples not commonly termed ‘white’ – will be a minority by 2044:  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/census-whites-become-minority-in-2044-hispanic-population-twice-blacks/article/2557393 While the shocking news must obviously be controlled to stop world-wide panic, i.e. voters turning GOP, anyone with a calculator and some free time can see, whites will barely be a force in the country by 2100, absent some very implausible social changes.  And in Europe, projected trends also see minority status for whites and/or greatly shrunken national populations.  Whites are going way – and I thought everyone knew this.  But I guess not.

Then too, the government is lying, as the statistics are all lies, and in fact, there are many fewer white births than reported…. But that’s another story.  The ‘official story’ tells you much of what you need to know, at any rate.  The decline of whites is not a myth, whether you call it genocide or something else.  I merely assumed, Democrats believed caring about the colour of the children of the future, was racial hatred….  But it looks like many have some ‘working through’ to do.

 

 

‘Europe is committing suicide…. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide… As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.’

 

Book Done

Well, the book is finally done, and is available on Amazon.com both as a paperback and on Kindle.  See the link to the right, or just search at Amazon on ‘Marcus Verhaegh.’

book.jpg

“What is the ‘alt right’ or ‘alternative right’? Today there is much discussion of a new ‘alt right’ philosophy, but how new is this movement? And is it very philosophical? It develops that various figures in white nationalist movements are key to the concept of the ‘alt right,’ including Richard Spencer, Kevin MacDonald, and Jared Taylor. However, investigation soon makes clear that Spencer stands above all others as central to the movement. But who is this individual, and also then what is the role in the movement of his ex-wife, a Russian Heidegger scholar? Above all else – why has Spencer jumped to the fore of media attention, such that he is now linked with the White House Chief strategist, Steve Bannon? The world of the alt right is a shadowy one, but soon it emerges, something even darker is happening in the newsrooms paid to report upon it, where it is no longer clear whether they have contact with reality or only Nazi illusion. One tries to investigate the alt right but in discussing the alt right, the press makes the main story – itself and its prejudices. The alt right’s interest in the philosophy of Husserl and Heidegger provides a Leitfaden for unfolding this disturbing situation, taking us to the inescapable question: do reporter and reader share the same world? Reporters offer their supposed experiences of the alt right, but a phenomenological analysis of this reveals, the phenomena have an uncertain relation to objectivity. Richard Spencer is a man of ‘identitarian movements,’ but how can we discover his own identity and potential ties to National Socialist and Klan movements, if the political Right has eliminated objective reporting?”

https://www.amazon.com/Investigating-Alt-Right-Richard-Spencer/dp/1546340858/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494611491&sr=1-2&keywords=verhaegh

 

PS Montana is great!

Far Right Africa

Far Right Africa – Seeing a Future that is ‘Right and White!’

I am a bit surprised…. But from sunny Montana, I read of some activity in far away Africa that is ‘to the Right.’

I am surprised as I thought by now, there would be mostly just silence….

The South African site is called praag.co.za .  It offers a mix of ‘news’ and opinion.  Also it publishes ‘letters to the editor.’

Pierre Fouche then writes a letter, ‘Will to power or will to suicide?’  http://praag.co.za/?p=43714

‘Why did the majority of citizens in the second Boer Republic decide for war in 1899, in order to maintain their political independence, while but a century later, the majority decides for suicide?’

‘Hoekom het die meerderheid van die burgers in die twee Boererepublieke in 1899 besluit om die krygsplig op te neem vir hulle politieke onafhanklikheid; maar een eeu later, het die meerderheid besluit om te stem vir selfmoord?’ 

This seems like a very disturbing question of suicide.  But is it not much the same question we face today in asking why first the Bear Flag is raised, and then a century and a half later, whites in California – still voting Democrat, even – find they have become a minority?

One thing I complain about in INVESTIGATING THE ALT RIGHT The evidence supports as the most probable explanation, a theory of white vampiricism, i.e. that Third World blood is simply needed by the Vampire Klan Leaders….

Sadly, I did not really have time to go into this in the book – wouldn’t you guess? – but perhaps here on the blog, there is greater freedom to discuss ‘Klan’ activity….

Of course, with SA it is a more confusing matter, as it is not an immigration question.  (I think the theory may be confounded…..  But it could be an anomaly.  SA could be a special case.  I merely speak of probabilities, after all.)

In any case, Fouche’s thinking indeed takes an international and, well, ‘heroic,’ turn:

‘The chance for striving and heroism is greater than it ever has been in the history of our race.  From these chances, legends can be born!  If we are successful, it shall spread like lightning through the world, from South Africa to Sweden, and our brothers and sisters in Europe shall gain courage unlike any they have yet had.

Youth of South Africa:  the future is Right and White!’

‘Die kans vir strewe en heldedom wat ek nie dink al ooit so groot was in ons ras se geskiedenis nie. Uit óns kan legendes gemaak word! As ons suksesvol is, sal dit soos ‘n weerligstraal deur die wêreld weergalm, van Suid-Afrika tot Swede, ons broers en susters in Europa sal moed kry wat ek nog nie dink hulle het nie.

Jeug van Suid-Afrika: die toekoms is Regs en Blank.’

Gouche continues, moving to close off his letter:

‘You may end up in Australia, New Zeeland, America, or Canada, but you will not escape this struggle here.  This is indeed international.’

‘Miskien kom jy uit, na Australië of Nieu-Seeland, of Amerika of Kanada, maar jy sal nie hierdie stryd ontsnap nie. Dit is werklik internasionaal.’

 

So, in the end, the intent is prosaic, being an idea of ‘stay, do not go.’  Yet the rhetoric is for us, extremely confusing, as from Montana – it is not so easy to say what might be happening in South Africa.  And it’s just pretty darn hard to say, how the future could be ‘Right and White.’  I hope it’s not too Right, as then likely the rich will begin eating the poor, which might not be pretty (more vampiricism…).  In any case, I cannot say where they can go from here and from what Thomas Piketty has described.

za-logo