Why Define a Consensus on what’s been Settled? To move forward with our proper focus, the destiny of Western civilization. To distinguish between the legitimate revisiting of old assumptions and the distracting rehashing of old arguments. When were those Questions Settled? Between 2008 and 2013. The great debates on male-female dynamics, race, and the future of … Continue reading The Alt-Right’s Settled Debates
Legendary commenter and now blogger PA enumerates the “baseline consensus” of the admittedly sometimes far-flung “Alt-Right” (some still can’t even agree to the title). I don’t think there’ll be much demurral on the points he identifies: his characterizations are formulated with an ecumenical consensus in view, which means on certain points he expresses himself with a polite circumspection where I know he can (and has) argued positions more staunch than the ones expressed above. Though of course in a mordant way “Islam: don’t let it in” pretty much sums up everything that needs to be said on that score!
But I hope to come back to these and think up how I might sum my own thoughts under these headings, or what other headings we can attempt to identify a consensus upon (or else, as in the case of Christianity, admit the absence of a unified stance across the movement).
In any case, I think these may indeed be safely taken as settled positions, and it’s encouraging to have the substance of a creed set forth. And again, though PA has long distinguished himself as one of the more capital-R Romantic figures inside the Alt-Right (his melancholic spirituality and firsthand ruminations on life inside the Late Warsaw Pact make a needful counterweight in discussions where otherwise we might devolve into some sort of Evo Psych technocrats), he displays an acumen here for setting forth these points in a crisply unemotional way, making this a good model for perhaps introducing these truths into the stream of “polite discourse”.