This is the first part of a 4-part series on a new term. These are the four parts:
1 – Deep Skepticism of Group Narratives2 – Secular and Theistic Worldviews as Mere Masks of Group Identity3 – The First and Third World Archetypes and reality (an effortpost with sources)4 – First Worldism
This four-part series will not be meant to be a stand-alone, but the end point of the book “Now Comes the Hard Part”, which assumes normalized views on slavery, colonialism, segregation, and assumes both thin and thick racial heredetarian views.
The purpose of this is two-fold. First, it is to solve a language problem that I, and I know many others, have, when someone asks “what are you politically?”. Alt-Right has too many people, and can mean Milo and can mean Andrew Anglin. Perhaps this is valuable, maybe it’s good to be a bit of a chameleon in that way, I don’t know. But I want my views to be clear, and the reasoning to be clear.
At the outset, Richard Spencer was intentionally vague with alt-right so as to create an “idea space”. As a result, you’re seeing something that happened to “anarchism”, with a battle between the people who made the original term and new people who are making new definitions of “true anarchism” and “true alt right”. And like Spencer, the original anarchists didn’t want to rigidly define anarchism, because they didn’t want to restrict people. And so then they got anarcho-capitalism, something the original anarchists would consider an abomination, just as the original alt-right considers Paul Joseph Watson and Milo to be abominations.
But the horse has left the stable now, and there was a last-ditch attempt to reclaim and standardize the meaning of alt-right with this article and energetic but scattershot individual attempts to correct alt-lite calling themselves alt-right. But I don’t see it working any more than classical anarchists trying to remove an-cap. The model needs to be Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. While anyone can go around and lie about what Marx and Rand believed, the fact is that both are defined by the writings of a person, which can be cited to settle disputes. It’s not just there in the air as “anarchism” and “alt right” currently are.
And the second purpose is to come up with a new term for the people who call themselves “leftists”. Because “leftist” is vague, and it doesn’t get at the root of what they are all about. And what they are all about is the third world: they support both third world government policies and third world genetics. Either they are third-worlders themselves, or they are dupes of the third-worlders. Either way, they are third-worldISTS.
It also focuses them into the deeply racial nature of what they advocate, cutting through the BS about “equality” and sidestepping dumb cuckservative attempts to pathologize “the left” as having something to do with being “against judeo-christian values” or some crap about taxes and hard work. By calling third worldists “leftists”, you allow the user of the term to focus on things other than race as whatever they imagine to be the essential values of “the left”. Which, as most readers here should know, is stupid, as all policy disputes are going to be decided by racial majorities.
This isn’t ready for prime time just yet. Right now I’m quickly going to bang out these posts, which means no sources for a while; but it’s all pretty simple history stuff so if I say something incorrect it should be fairly obvious eventually….[ ]