Whenever I read something on your site, it seems to me that you find it easy to oppose White Nationalists, but you advance no real plan to oppose globalist multiculturalists.Firstly, I agree that there is an existential battle for civilisation going on. It's been going on for at least 100 years so I guess that there is no point of disagreement there.
There is an existential battle for civilization ongoing.
You appear to be on the side of the Jews and against the Whites.
If it is otherwise, you might want to spend more time explaining yourself and less time attacking the Alt-Right.
Secondly, as regular readers of this blog will know, I am opposed to multiculturalism but where I and the Alt-Right differ are our the reasons.
As I've said before, Richard Spencer with help from the Mainstream media, has now co-opted the name Alt-Right in the minds of public and has achieved semantic association with his brand. So when I use the term Alt-Right it represents the ideas of Spencer & Co. i.e.
(1) The Alt-Right is hostile to Christianity.
(2) The Alt-Right believes in Genetic Calvinism. (It's understanding of the the human person is, as Trotsky would say, grounded in "Zoological Materialism")
(3) The Alt-Right believes in the ideas associated a with Ariosophy.
(4) The Alt-Right is irrationally Anti-Semitic and this irrational focus on the Jews cause it to chase the mote instead of extracting the beam in its own eye.
(5) The Alt-Right is historically revisionist.
(6) The Alt-Right as defined by Spencer is objectively Fascist--as defined by Griffin--represents a series of ideas which represent a conscious departure from the "traditional ideas of European civilisation" and replace them with a Modernist volk based nationalistic palinogenisis.(7) It rejects truth if it conflicts with its own understanding of things.
(1)(5) and (7) and partially (6) are common to Socialism. (4)(5) and (6) are common to Nazism. (3) is a New Age religion based upon end of 19th Century romantic navel gazing which came about with the abandonment of Christianity. (1) and (7) it also shares with the Neocons.
The Dissident European Right believes in;
(1) The subordination of any preconceptions to the Truth.
(2) The truth of empirical observation.
(3) The truth of Christianity or at least it's possibility. (I'm not going to go into this into detail now as I have covered this before.)
Now its obvious that Christianity and the seven points listed above are incompatible, both in values and in their metaphysical metaphysical underpinnings. It's these ideas and their metaphysics which seperate it from the ideas which made up the "Old Europe". The aim of this blog, and those who are in sympathy with it, is to restore the "Old Europe". But it's clear from an analysis of history that the "Old Europe" had problems which for a variety of reasons (Hello Traditionalists) ensured the birth of Modernist movements which are currently in the process of destroying her.
While my analysis is still incomplete the problems with "Old Europe" were primarily cultural and religious. Namely;
(1) A false anthropology which ignored the instinctual nature of man and over emphasised his rationality.
(2) A morality which gave too little acknowledgement to instinct. (this is important with regard to multiculturalism)
(3) A morality which expected instinctual override without due understanding of the consequences of this failure.
(4) A morality which failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of the erotic dimension of human nature.
(5) A failure to appreciate the consequences of the massive increase in population in the 19th Century.
(6) A failure to appreciate the consequences of the transformation in society bought about by technology in the late 19th Century.
(7) (1) set up the legitimisation of Democracy, (5) ensured that the franchise was extended to everyone and (2) meant that practically, societal control shifted from the rational to the instinctual.
How does this all apply to my differences with the Alt-Right?
Returning to multiculturalism when the Alt-Right criticises multiculturalism it does it through the understanding that other people are hostile elements with regard to the realisation of its potential. "Become what you are" is only possible if the darkie is kicked out of the group. The other practicle problem is what to do with the suboptimising elements. "Ovening" them might be "ironical" but given the materialist conception of the human person, it might be a bit "yucky" but its pretty convenient. As a side note, while its true that Nazi Germany did not like the Jews it initially had no plans of "ovening" them, but as the war progressed and without an ideology of moral limits, as the options became limited it became a "good" idea given the circumstances. Aryanism v2.0 turns you into a bastard who everyone hates.
On the other hand a Dissident Right opposition to multiculturalism would rest up the notion that human being are instinctual and that homophily is one of the strongest and most easily observable human behaviours. Trying to make people live against the grain of instinct is possible but its hard and the requires a strong government hand. It's "entropically unstable" with terrible consequences if the guiding hand is lifted in any social crisis. So it is best for people to live in their own groups with their own customs. Christianity would assert that all people have a human dignitiy and therefore any manner of social reorganisation needs to be humane and done with dignity to all parties concerned. There's no "ovening."
Oh but Slumlord, the Christians have been vicious to other peoples in the past! It's true, but it in the past it was understood that what the Christians did was bad and therefore the Christian system tended to self correct limiting the evil. On the other hand, the Nazi's and Communists that murdered were considered good by the ideology and therefore the murder kept multiplying.