The Rise and Fall of the Alt-Right

Yet even before the debacle took place, some white nationalist groups knew what they were up against. Michael Hill, the co-founder of the League of the South and a former history professor at Stillman College, declared three months prior to the event:

“The League of the South will be participating in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on 12 August…I want an excellent turnout of Southern nationalists for this event. Antifa, BLM [Black Lives Matter], et al will be there to greet us! Don’t miss out on the fun!”[2]

Obviously, the event didn’t turn out to be fun. We all know that whenever Antifa and BLM are present, violence and bloody retribution will inevitably follow.[3] In fact, one can say that the rally was essentially chaos, and violence turned into tragedy. Two police officers, Berke M.M. Bates and H. Jay Cullen (ages 41 and 48), eventually died in a helicopter crash. One counter-protester lost her life and numerous others were injured.

But it must be emphasized that the rally, which was organized by the Alt-Right movement, was the culmination of an ideological or cultural war in the United States. In fact, it can easily be argued that the Alt-Right movement itself is largely a reaction to the oligarchic rule which has come to dominate much of the political spectrum in America and Europe.

Most Alt-Right advocates saw that they were facing some kind of cultural and political dispossession. They observed an avalanche of cultural Marxism, the degradation of their historical values and treasures such as the statue of Robert E. Lee and the University of Virginia (which by the way was founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819), and the marginalization and demonization of people who were once considered America’s heroes.

The media and even professors at elite universities have invented weird things like “white privilege” or “white guilt” in order to polarize decent people and distract Americans from the main issues, which always revolve around sodomy and usury. And we all know that Jewish revolutionaries have a history of supporting both.[4]

It was Jewish historiographer Heinrich Graetz who declared that “A love of twisting, distorting, ingenious quibbling, and a foregone antipathy to what did not lie within their field of vision, constituted the character of the Polish Jews.”[5] Usury is a form of distortion and deception, and Polish Jews, according to Graetz, “found pleasure and a sort of triumphant delight” in that “deception.”

Alt-Right advocates also saw that they have been squeezed out by subversive movements like multiculturalism[6] and political correctness virtually everywhere, and “Liberal” and “Conservative” advocates were not willing to take their cause seriously.

In fact, elected officials like Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump were in cahoots (in one way or another) with oligarchic rulers like the Israel Lobby and Goldman Sachs. And political pundits like Ann Coulter were no better. In fact, Coulter herself has said: “I wish we could have Netanyahu as president.”[7] These people are all puppets of the regime which never ceases to crush the average American.

As Emmanuel Spraguer of the Alt-Right website has recently put it,

“The people who rule over us don’t care what we think, they don’t care what we do, they don’t care how we vote, they don’t care, at all really. They do whatever they want, which is basically what their oligarch masters tell them to do.

“There was a study published a few years back by two professors, one out of Princeton and the other out of Northwestern, showing that public opinion had almost no measurable impact on public policy, that only the opinions of powerful elites mattered, that America was not really a democracy at all, but an oligarchy. Can anybody really deny that at this point?”[8]

Spraguer moved on to say that Trump, who once was viewed as some kind of a savior for many Alt-Right advocates, hasn’t changed a damn thing. Spraguer lamented:

“Public policy hasn’t really budged even a tick with him in office. What do we actually have to show for it? I mean, is there anything, anything at all? A budget-busting mega-bill that pays for walls in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Tunisia, but allocates not one cent for a wall along our own southern border?

“How many millions in aid dollars to China, a nation with a booming economy and a GDP that surpassed ours a year or two ago? A massive tax giveaway to the rich, written by banksters and oligarchs? John Bolton and the resurrection of the Bush regime? Nothing meaningful has changed. Nothing meaningful at all. It’s a sheer black pill.

“The level of detachment, of complete insulation and disregard for the will of the people in Washington, is astounding. The imperial government in Washington is a juggernaut, its course seemingly unalterable. We, peons, are just along for the ride, looking out the window in horror at the hellscape our overlords are driving us into. The Founding Fathers would have been shooting at these psychopathic Cultural Marxist sons of bitches on Capitol Hill decades ago…

“The U.S. Government, at virtually all levels, is more interested in punishing dissent than wrongdoing. It doesn’t govern, it controls. It exists to perpetuate itself. That is the only reason this government exists.”[9]

Spraguer’s meditation is understandable, and it resonates with the vast majority of Americans who are still being ground to dust by the oligarchs in Washington and elsewhere. Therefore, Alt-Right advocates realized that their only recourse was to fight back. By any means necessary. They came to the conclusion that they had to resist the oligarchic system, which again is in bed with the Zionist ideology in America and Israel. Spraguer continued:

“There are so many globalist parasites, foreign lobbyist groups, domestic lobbyist groups, special interests, military contractors, Deep State entities, civil rights activists (white haters), and swamp creatures of every morphology whispering lunacy into their ears, standing between us and them, that I’m not sure there is any hope for us ordinary folk to reach our supposed moral and intellectual betters. And make no mistake about it, that is precisely how they view our relationship, as one between masters and slaves.”[10]

Spraguer has said elsewhere that the “globalists” are “an extractive, parasitic, oligarchic group of disconnected elites. They don’t understand ordinary people and they don’t care to… To the globalists, you see, nothing is holy, for a nation is but a market to exploit, its people but commodities to buy and sell and trade and throw away. Our tragedies are not their tragedies, our losses are not their losses.”[11]

In short, many Alt-Right sympathizers came to the conclusion that if waving a Nazi flag at a rally or protest in places like Charlottesville will rescue them from cultural or political oblivion, then so be it. To them, a Nazi salute is far less harmful than being obliterated altogether by a powerful force that vehemently opposes virtually everything they stand for. If saying that “a white ethnostate” will rouse a crowd and move them to action, then they will do it. Spraguer himself has said:

“This is why the white ethnostate is no pipe-dream. This is why the white ethnostate is so vital, as a vision, as a goal. Americans are past the point of being fed up, as they should be. The unconscionable but now conventional (mis)behavior of the parasites in Washington is a daily red pill for most Americans….

“Americans are ready to disgorge this criminal, corrupt government, which makes the 15th Century Vatican look scrupulous by comparison. They just need a spark and some guidance, and though I don’t know what it will take to get there, get there we shall, by whatever means necessary. We can do better than this for ourselves, my white brothers and sisters. Much better.”[12]

Throughout the Unite the Right rally, the crowd kept chanting things like “White lives matter!”, “You will not replace us!”, and “Jews will not replace us!”[13]

To some extent, these were again reactions to the ideological war that the Unite the Right crowd viewed as vital to their existence, which now has been challenged by an onslaught of Communists and Marxist ideologies. Those ideologies are the bedrock upon which violent groups like Antifa are based.

As the Jewish Daily Forward reported last summer, Antifa was essentially a group of Jewish mobsters and thugs who allegedly attempted to fight Nazis and whose “preferred tools of persuasion were not logic and reason, but baseball bats, brass knuckles, rubber-coated pipes, and the occasional stink bomb.”[14]

Antifa was so violent in places like Berkeley that even Nancy Pelosi called them out, saying that they “deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”[15] Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin called them “a gang. They come dressed in uniforms. They have weapons, almost like a militia, and I think we need to think about that in terms of our law enforcement approach.”[16]

But chanting things like “Jews will not replace us” immediately created an uproar, which turned out to be extremely violent. First, the counter-protesters began to say obscene things like, “Fuck you, Nazis,” and the Unite the Right crowd returned the favor by saying, “Fuck you, fucks!”[17] Counter-protesters: “We’re here, we’re gay, we fight the KKK”; Unite the Right: “Fuck you, faggots”; counter-protesters: “No Trump! No KKK! No fascist USA!” Unite the Right: “Too late, you fucks!”[18]

Chris Cantwell, one of the voices of the Unite the Right crowd, said after he was maced at least twice: “We’re not non-violent. We’ll fucking kill these people if we have to.” There is no evidence that Cantwell did get into numerous acts of violence, despite the fact that he threatened his rival groups numerous times. Antifa, however, did get into real violence during the Berkeley debacle, which also took place in August of 2017. This is from the Washington Post:

“A pepper-spray-wielding Trump supporter was smacked to the ground with homemade shields. Another was attacked by five black-clad Antifa members, each wind-milling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself. A conservative group leader retreated for safety behind a line of riot police as marchers chucked water bottles, shot off pepper spray, and screamed, ‘Fascist go home!’

“All told, the Associated Press reported at least five individuals were attacked. An AP reporter witnessed the assaults.”[19]

Berkeley Police’s Lt. Joe Okies said that thirteen people were arrested, but not a single name of those people was made available. Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín said that those people were even “throwing smoke bombs.”[20]

Five months before the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Antifa was again creating chaos at Berkeley as well:

“In February, 150 similarly black-clad agitators caused $100,000 worth of damage when they smashed through Berkeley protesting a University of California at Berkeley speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Portland, Ore., has been the scene of street battles between Antifa members and white nationalists this summer.

“White nationalist Richard Spencer was sucker-punched by a protester in a January video that went viral. And Inauguration Day 2017 in Washington, D.C., was marked by violence when masked protesters burned vehicles, smashed windows, and clashed with police, leading to 231 arrests.”[21]

The oligarchs obviously loved the fiasco. They saw that these violent protesters could be used to discredit the entire Alt-Right movement altogether because they failed to send out a strong police force in due time to stop the brutal reaction which ensued right after the Unite the Right crowd and members of Antifa began to hurl imprecations at each other. Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Unite the Right rally later said that the crowd was “forced into a chaotic situation. The police were supposed to be there protecting us and they stood down.”[22]

In a similar vein, Richard Spencer declared: “I never before thought that I would have my country cracking down on me and on free speech. We were lawfully and peacefully assembled. We came in peace, and the state cracked down.”[23] The Washington Post acknowledged that the police did stand down:

“People in combat gear — some wearing bicycle and motorcycle helmets and carrying clubs, sticks, and makeshift shields — fought one another on downtown streets, with little apparent police interference. Both sides sprayed chemical irritants and hurled plastic bottles through the air.

“A large contingent of Charlottesville police officers and Virginia State Police troopers in riot gear were stationed on side streets and at nearby barricades but did nothing to break up the melee until about 11:40 a.m. Using megaphones, police then declared an unlawful assembly and gave a five-minute warning to leave Emancipation Park.”[24]

A seventy-year-old observer by the name of David Copper declared: “The worst part is that people got hurt and the police stood by and didn’t do a goddamn thing.”[25] David Toscano, minority leader of Virginia’s House, “praised the response by Charlottesville and state police.” Toscano said he could not comment on why the police stood down but gave an ambiguous answer: “They trained very hard for this, and it might have been that they were waiting for a more effective time to get people out.”[26]

Perhaps the police force was intimidated by Jewish professors like Michael Isaacson, co-founder of the Antifa organization Smash Racism D.C. Isaacson once twitted: “Some of y’all might think it sucks being an anti-fascist teaching at John Jay College but I think it’s a privilege to teach future dead cops.”[27] When he was confronted to give an explanation, Isaacson declared: “I don’t have a problem with individual police officers — I mean, I teach them — but I don’t like policing as an institution. Police officers are agents of that institution.”[28]

If Antifa and Unite the Right get into a bloody duel, the oligarchs seemed to reason, then much of the world would see that the end result of the Alt-Right movement is violence and chaos. Members of the Unite the Right rally fell into the trap, and it was obvious to many that the rally at Charlottesville was a resurrection of some Neo-Nazi event. But even before the debacle, Alt-Right advocates and supporters were banned from Paypal, Facebook, audio hosting sites, crowdfunding sites, etc.[29]

Some Alt-Right advocates had a lot of rethinking to do after the Charlottesville debacle, during which a thirty-two-year-old counter-protester by the name of Heather Heyer was struck by a car and died. The man who was accused of driving his Dodge Challenger “at a high rate speed” into the crowd was James Alex Fields Jr. Fields was just twenty years old and had a history of indulging in domestic violence against her own disabled mother.[30]

The incident also injured thirty-six victims, according to Charlottesville Police Detective Steven Young. But Young testified in court that Fields felt really sorry about what happened right after the incident. When he was told that someone had died, Fields “appeared shocked and sobbed.”[31] A reporter who witnessed the incident said:

“It was probably the scariest thing I’ve ever seen in my life. After that it was pandemonium. The car hit reverse and sped and everybody who was up the street in my direction started running.”[32]

Chris Cantwell did not help the Unite the Right crowd by saying that the death of Heyer “was more than justified.” Heyer and others, said Cantwell, could have avoided the brutal incident by just getting out of the way of Fields’ car.[33]

One member whose future political career is probably ruined by the event was Peter Cvjetanovic, a 20-year-old student at the University of Nevada, Reno, whose picture was displayed virtually all over the media. In the picture, Cvjetanovic is obviously angry and is holding a tiki torch during the rally.

But Cvjetanovic was not a violent man. In fact, after the violent incident at Charlottesville, Cvjetanovic articulated[34] his views quite modestly[35] and was more rational than the Antifa crowd which clearly created mayhem throughout the event. Yet that incident or picture will eternally be tied to Cvjetanovic’s name, making it almost impossible for him to pursue a political career in the United States.

The Unite the Right rally was a low blow for the Alt-Right movement. Cantwell posted a video in which he indirectly felt a little remorse for the violent reaction,[36] but that was when he realized that there was a warrant for his arrest. Cantwell sobbed:

“When I come down here for a permitted demonstration, championed by the ACLU, where the police are supposed to be clearing our enemies from our path, and then I find myself involved in a riot facing 20 years in prison, I got emotional, shockingly enough. One minute I’m a fucking white supremacist terrorist and the next minute I’m a fucking crybaby?… I’m a goddamn human being.”[37]

Cantwell was charged with three felonies and eventually went to jail.[38] The Traditionalist Worker Party, as we shall see, was quickly disbanded and evaporated into the political cloud. Some of the people who participated in the rally were even fired from their job.[39]

But the loss of cohesion didn’t start with a particular location such as Charlottesville or even Berkeley; it started with a categorical error that is foundational to the Alt-Right movement itself. As we will argue, the Alt-Right movement is metaphysically incoherent and philosophically worthless.

The Moral and Intellectual Problem with the Alt-Right

Let’s begin with Richard Spencer, who is said to be the founder of the Alt-Right movement. He unequivocally declared in his “meta-political manifesto for the Alt-Right movement” that race is at the root of his entire system: “Race is real. Race matters. Race is the foundation of identity.”[40]

This new ideology has its roots not in metaphysics but in a swamp of internal contradiction. Moral character is now being substituted by empty categories such as race or biology, which to Spencer and others is the determining factor of a “white, ethno-state.” Spencer largely got this idea from Madison Grant. As he argued in his Radix Journal:

“Grant turns historiography on its head (almost in a way comparable to Marx): History is no longer to be understood merely in terms of the actions of ‘Great Men’ or the ‘culture’ bestowed on peoples by kings, artists, and churches; to the contrary, what is called culture, morality, and society are the outward effects of millennia of evolution.”[41]

First of all, if Spencer is correct in saying that “Race is the foundation of identity,” then how did Donald Trump move from criticizing the Deep State to imbibing the very ideology that makes up the Deep State? Was there a genetic or racial change? If biology is the metaphysical substratum of behavior, as people like David Duke believe, then what was the name of the gene that caused Trump to shift positions on so many issues—from saying that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9/11 attack to selling military weapons to the same terrorist state?

We all know that whatever happens genetically also happens automatically. In that sense, if race and not morality are the foundation of identity, then Spencer shouldn’t be worrying about Trump supporting the Deep State on numerous issues. Spencer shouldn’t have been “pissed off”[42] when he found out that Trump was bombing Syria shortly after he ascended to the Zionist throne in the White House. If Trump was doing something “heinous and stupid” then, was that part of his racial or genetic makeup? In the same video, Spencer made a special plea to Trump saying:

“Let me make a direct appeal to Donald Trump…Do not allow these people [warmongers] to destroy your presidency. That is exactly what they will do.”

Was that plea really necessary if Trump’s genetic makeup is rooted and grounded in “whiteness”? What, then, are the logical parameters? And if there is no serious logical explanation, then is there a gene that caused Donald Trump to go to Syria and bomb the Assad government?

Furthermore, why would Spencer be railing against Trump for listening to the war machine? Couldn’t Trump respond by saying that “my whiteness” or “my genes made me do it”? On what basis should we convince people like Trump to act differently? By reasoning with them, as Spencer was desperately trying to do? And if we do think that reasoning with them is the way to go, aren’t we implicitly saying that the fundamental issue boils down to morality or practical reason and not race or biology?

Those are the questions that do not get serious answers because they fundamentally ruin the ideological force of the race crowd. And whenever these issues are raised, people like David Duke usually compare humans with other animals such as hedgehogs to buttress the point that genes and behavior are concentric circles. Those animals “need to do whatever they need to do in order to survive,”[43] we are told.

But people who say incoherent things like this never stop thinking about what they are really saying. Somehow they cannot see that animals are not moral agents! When a lion jumps into a poor deer and slaughters it, do we call that murder? As William Lane Craig rightly puts it,

“When a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra, but it does not murder the zebra. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it forcibly copulates with her but it does not rape her — for there is no moral dimension to these actions. They are neither prohibited nor obligatory.”[44]

Murder and rape only apply to human beings and not animals. Therefore, it is really invalid to compare humans and animals when it comes to survival because we are mixing apples and oranges.[45]

And if humans “need to do whatever they need to do in order to survive,” how can these people really say that companies like Goldman Sachs aren’t doing exactly that? Why are those people moaning and wailing virtually every single day saying that “Jewish supremacism” is killing America and much of the world?

If there is a “genetic drive for species and subspecies to preserve or even sacrifice themselves to survive,” can we really say that Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t doing that? Hasn’t the Israeli regime been liquidating the Palestinians for more than sixty years in order for the state of Israel to survive? And aren’t these people implicitly supporting Darwin’s survival of the fittest?

We cannot take these people seriously unless they address these issues in a logical manner. But so far no one has even made an attempt to unpack the internal contradictions which are incessantly being perpetuated as gospel truth. This is honestly frustrating because these people give the impression that they are pursuing truth and abiding by the rules of logic and “science.”

But whenever you raise those types of questions and challenge the race crowd to focus on the fundamental issues, then they resort to either name-calling or staying silent, or even bringing straw men and red herring to the debate.

All these people have to do is pick up a copy of Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and they would stop making irresponsible and intellectually vacuous claims about human nature. I honestly think that Kant would have had a hard time understanding what these people are saying.

Spencer and Intra-Racial Squabbling

Spencer indirectly got involved in undermining his own mine by saying:

“As brother nations, Europeans have competed with one another, and even hated and killed one another. We can no longer afford the luxury of intra-racial squabbling. ‘Brothers wars’ gain us nothing, and directly lead to our collective downfall. Europeans must come together as a family.”[46]

Well, what then does Spencer mean by “white” if there has been a history of an “intra-racial squabbling” among Europeans? And what were some of the causes of these conflicts? Were people like Marquis de Sade, Rousseau, Shelley, Sartre, Camus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Foucault, among others, white? Were the people who got screwed by the oligarchs who were partly responsible for the Irish Potato Famine white?[47] Weren’t the Rockefellers viciously attacking and persecuting Catholics throughout much of the twentieth century?[48]

As E. Michael Jones puts it, what did Madison Grant mean when he said that only the Teutonic race and not the Alpine or the Mediterranean strains should come to America? Was that conducive to “whiteness”? Why did the law in the United States, as Spencer himself has said, consider the European Alpine and the Mediterranean strains “intrusive elements”?[49] Kevin MacDonald himself has written: “Puritans waged holy war on behalf of moral righteousness even against their own cousins.” He moved on to say that:

“The Puritan moral fervor, and its tendency to justify draconian punishment of ‘evildoers,’ can also be seen in the comments of the Congregationalist minister at Henry Ward Beecher’s Old Plymouth Church in New York, who called for ‘exterminating the German people . . . the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the woman.’”[50]

According to the prevailing vision of white identity as perpetuated by the Alt-Right, weren’t the Puritans and Henry Ward Beecher “white” as well? How does the sterilization of 10,000,000 Germans and the extermination of their women fit with “white identity”? Is there a “biological root” for believing that millions upon millions of Germans should be exterminated? What’s the psychological explanation for this?

If we move the argument into further territories, why did Darwin “endorse the ethnic stereotyping so characteristic of mid-Victorians,” who disliked “the Irish Catholic working classes”?[51] And doesn’t that weaken the “white” ideology that Spencer and others are now incessantly and incoherently propounding?

In a recent debate with Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh, Spencer argued that “all aspects of life are racial to some degree.”[52] He then moved on to expand on “group evolution”—clearly a reference to Kevin MacDonald’s idea. Then Spencer went on to make the outrageous claim that “We evolved ethics itself.”

MacDonald made the same claim in a written exchange with E. Michael Jones way back in 2012. This is obviously a clear indication that Spencer and others do not understand Darwin and the fundamental principles he was propounding. Darwin himself said that if ethics “evolved,” then there is no way that it can be objectively binding.

Darwin agreed that if we were to replay the panorama of human evolution, moral values could have evolved very differently, which is another way of saying that moral values or ethical principles are not and cannot be objectively universal or obligatory. Here is Darwin at his best:

“If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering.”[53]

Put simply, it is impossible to derive morality or ethics from evolution. If we are still evolving, then ethical values will almost certainly be very different twenty or thirty years from now. In other words, Spencer’s ethics will become obsolete and irrelevant.

During the same debate with Adam Kokesh, Spencer complicated things even more by saying that “Survival is the highest morality. There is no morality without that will to survive.”

Here again, Spencer is departing from Plato, Aristotle, and even thinkers like Kant, who posited quite convincingly that morality, not survival, ought to be in the highest order. Kant argued that for an action to be good, “it is not enough that it should conform to the moral law—it must also be done for the sake of the moral law.”[54] Here Kant basically deconstructs the entire edifice of the Alt-Right and the ideology of its founder.

Moreover, if “survival is the highest morality,” then we are in deep trouble because it is another empty category. Joseph Stalin wanted to use survival as his highest morality; Mao wanted to use survival as his highest morality; Ho Chi Minh wanted to use survival as his highest morality. Mao in particularly defined morality in terms of the survival of his gangs, murderers, and ethnic cleansers. He declared:

“Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others. Some say one has a responsibility for history. I don’t believe it. I am only concerned about developing myself…I have my desire and act on it. I am responsible to no one.”[55]

Since Mao wanted his gangs to survive, he ended up liquidating at least forty million people.[56] Stalin did something similar.[57] As I have said in the past, Darwinism as an ideology did not have any influence on Stalin or Mao, but it is incorrect for Spencer to say that “totalitarian regimes of the 20th century were based on the very opposite of Darwinism.”[58]

Stalinism, Maoism, and Darwinism were all operating outside the moral order. In that sense, they were concentric circles because they were all trying to “survive” by extirpating “dangerous species.” The twentieth century alone tells us much about the dark history of Social Darwinism.[59]

In short, history has proven time and again that mere survival is not a substitute for what Kant calls the categorical imperative. Spencer does not seem to understand that, and that is understandable because his intellectual father, Charles Darwin, did not get it either.

At the urging of a lady by the name of Frances Power Cobbe, Darwin reluctantly read Kant’s Metaphysics of Ethics, but he could make neither heads nor tails of it. In fact, he admitted:

“It has interested me much to see how differently two men may look at the same points, though I fully feel how presumptuous it sounds to put myself even for a moment in the same bracket with Kant—the one man a great philosopher looking exclusively into his own mind, the other a degraded wretch looking from the outside thro’ apes & savages at the moral sense of mankind.”[60]

British historian of science Janet Browne says: “By now Darwin was reluctant to grapple with any of the great European thinkers unless he was chivvied into it or persuaded that he would find something directly useful for his work, much preferring to hear about philosophical systems in colorful synopsis of Huxley.”[61]

Darwin later quoted Kant to buttress his own ideas that a sense of duty itself is biological.[62] By this time, Darwin began to use “science” to smuggle irrational and incoherent ideas into the West. According to historians of science Peter J. Bowler and David Knight, Darwin

“was trying to turn morality into a branch of biology through the proposal that our instinctive behavior can only be understood as a product of natural processes that have adapted us to a particular way of life-based on the family unit as a means of raising children.”[63]

Darwin’s intellectual children and what Adrian Desmond has referred to as “the Darwin Industry”[64] are still clinging to biology in order to explain morality,[65] a philosophically vacuous enterprise that always locks them into an intellectual mumbo jumbo.

Spencer and Nietzsche

Spencer is an avid reader of Nietzsche. Kant declared that it was David Hume who woke him up from his “dogmatic slumber.” Spencer could probably say the same thing of Nietzsche. Spencer remembered: “You could say that I was red-pilled by Nietzsche.”[66]

Spencer was “red-pilled” after reading Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, which “shattered” his “moral universe.”[67] The standard worldview among many sociologists on religion is that it “functions to sustain the moral order.”[68] Nietzsche understood that, and because he was against the moral order, he had to formulate an attack on religion as well.

Nietzsche focused his attack on one particular religion: Christianity. In fact, he called himself the anti-Christ.[69] Nietzsche advocated that since God is dead, then something else has to take his place. For Nietzsche, it is “the will to power,”[70] an idea he picked up from Arthur Schopenhauer.[71] What we can say about Nietzsche is that he knew the metaphysical implications of his worldview. He was cognizant of the fact that by making morality irrelevant, then any meaning and value will inevitably become obsolete.[72]

Nietzche, as a militant nihilist, wanted to eradicate the moral foundation of the West and replace it with the transvaluation of all values. But he understood that Darwin and others were implicitly trying to do the same thing while maintaining some form of morality. For Nietzsche, you cannot cut off the metaphysical root of morality and at the same time say that morality exists. Analyzing Nietzsche’s critique on Darwin, Will Durant put it this way:

“If life is a struggle for existence in which the fittest survive, then strength is the ultimate virtue, and weakness the only fault. Good is that which survives, which wins; bad is that which gives ways and fails. Only the mid-Victorian cowardice of the English Darwinians, and the bourgeois respectability of French positivists and German socialists, could conceal the inevitableness of this conclusion.”[73]

Darwin and his followers were brave to reject the metaphysical nature of morality, said Durant, “but they did not dare to be logical, to reject the moral ideas, the worship of meekness and gentleness and altruism, which had grown out of that theology. They ceased to be Anglicans, or Catholics, or Lutherans, but they did not dare cease to be Christians—so argued Friedrich Nietzsche.”[74]

Well, Nietzsche certainly nailed it. The Alt-Right is suffering from the same malady. Kevin MacDonald, quoting Tomislav Sunic, is petrified because the United States is “heading down a volatile path—a path that leads to ethnic warfare,”[75] but MacDonald cannot tell his readers that ethnic warfare is exactly what Darwin predicted and approved. In fact, according to the Darwinian paradigm, warfare leads to “fitness.”[76] MacDonald writes:

“Cooperative defense by tribal peoples is universal and ancient and it is bound to have boosted the genetic fitness of those who acted to further the interests of their group. Under such circumstances, it would be odd indeed if natural selection did not mold the human mind to be predisposed to ethnocentrism.”[77]

Is it possible, then, for natural selection to mold the Israeli regime “to be predisposed to ethnocentrism”? If the answer is yes, then what’s the fuss about the Israelis wiping out the Palestinians? Why can’t these people take time to address the blatant contradiction that exists in their own weltanschauung?

Durant continued to say:

“Darwin unconsciously completed the work of the Encyclopedists: they had removed the theological basis of modern morals, but they had left that morality itself untouched and inviolate, hanging miraculously in the air; a little breath of biology was all that was needed to clear away this remnant of imposture.”[78]

Well, Darwin’s intellectual children seemed to have found what they were looking for. They have now replaced morality with race and biology. Morality was once viewed as a rider on a horse. Now it is race that ought to be placed at the summit of everything. In that sense, the Alt-Right was bound to implode morally and philosophically. As E. Michael Jones put it to David Duke in 2015:

“Is Europe Nietzsche or St. Thomas Aquinas? Is it Mother Teresa or Lazar Kaganovich? According to an account I read in the German magazine Stern on my way to Tehran, 50,000 Europeans have joined forces with ISIS in Iraq, where they are now beheading both Christians and Shi’a Muslims.”[79]

Proponents of the white ideology never bother to answer those questions in a satisfying way because that would force them to think logically. This is why the movement is failing in the heat of its own contradiction. The practical reason was never the central focus at all.

This is why people like Spencer embrace Darwin and never even question their incoherence. Spencer’s “peaceful ethnic cleansing”[80] is certainly congruent with Darwin’s survival of the fittest.

Keep in mind that Darwin specifically chose “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” for his book The Origin of Species. It is therefore pretty silly for Spencer to say in the forward of Madison Grant’s The Conquest of the Continent that “Darwinism does not favor or justify any one group or desired outcome.”[81] Darwin unequivocally declared:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated…The Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”[82]

Darwin previously said in the same book, “With highly civilized nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless, the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of natural selection.”[83]

At the end of his life, Darwin triumphantly declared:

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is!

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”[84]

British biographers Adrian Desmond and James R. Moore explain:

“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.”[85]

Desmond and Moore argue elsewhere that Darwin set the groundwork for “imperialist expansion,” which is “the very motor of human progress.”[86] Darwin, Desmond, and Moore argue, that “biologized” genocide, despite the fact that he had antislavery views. According to Desmond and Moore, Darwin saw genocide, invasion, and struggle for existence as “the honing process, the crucible” in the evolutionary scale: “the victorious ‘destroyers’ survived to breed, while they further adapted to their new-won terrain.”[87] For Darwin,

“Extermination was an axiom of nature—‘strictly applicable to the universe’—he said. Nature herself moved forward, crushing skulls underfoot. ‘The varieties of man seem to act on each other; in the same way as different species of animals—the stronger always extirpating the weaker,’ he wrote in his journal.

“Natural selection was now predicated on the weaker being extinguished. Individuals, races even, had to perish for progress to occur. Thus it was, that ‘Wherever the European has trod, death seems to pursue the aboriginal.’ Europeans were the agents of Evolution.”[88]

Desmond and Moore document that Darwin’s own Diary and Journal were littered with theories that propound the view that natural selection is the engine by which the “weak” would be replaced by the “fittest.” To ignore or dodge or wiggle out of this historical evidence without serious examination is certainly intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who think that Darwin was just producing “scientific” theories.

Spencer Meets Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

Spencer continued to demonstrate his lack of understanding of Darwin by saying that “natural selection does not even favor what one might call the strongest, most beautiful, and most intelligent.”[89] His evidence for this claim? A “2005 science fiction comedy” called “Idiocrasy”![90] Is this the kind of intellectual argument that these people are propounding to their naïve followers?

According to Spencer, “Darwinism offers a compelling and rational justification” for people like himself “to act on behalf of their ancestors and progeny and feel a shared sense [sic] of destiny with their extended kin group.”[91]

But as staunch Darwinist Daniel C. Dennett himself points out in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life:

“Darwin explains a world of final causes and teleological law with a principle that is, to be sure, mechanistic but—more fundamentally—utterly independent of ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose.’ It assumes a world that is absurd in the existentialist’s sense of the term: not ludicrous but pointless, and this assumption is a necessary condition of any non-question-begging account of purpose.”[92]

Dennett continued:

“I do suggest that Darwinian thinking helps us see why the traditional hope of solving these problems (finding a moral algorithm) is forlorn. We must cast off the myths that make these old-fashioned solutions seem inevitable. We need to grow up, in other words.”[93]

So is Spencer really serious when he says that “Darwinism offers a compelling and rational justification” for purpose and meaning? What we are seeing here is that Spencer is obviously trapped in a topsy-turvy world, and this world represents the intellectual and philosophical death of the Alt-Right and its devoted followers.

Either Spencer has not thought through the fundamental implications of Darwinism seriously, or he is intellectually not prepared to follow Darwinism’s bitter conclusions. Or maybe he just doesn’t care: he is comfortable with living in contradiction and does not have the courage to tell his followers that contradiction is the ideological substratum of the Alt-Right itself.

I have realized over the past few months that many people who defend Darwin and his internal contradictions don’t really care about logic and following the truth. Some of them shockingly believe that Darwinian principles are just abstract concepts that are permissible in the jungle but which are “morally” wrong in the real world.

Spencer and others find themselves in a Darwinian universe that tells them that ultimate purpose and meaning is a lie, but Spencer wants his followers to have ultimate purpose and meaning. How anyone can believe this mumbo jumbo is beyond comprehension.

The contradiction still exists because the founding principles of the movement are based on faulty assumptions. And this is why some in the Alt-Right movement found it congenial to sleep with other people’s wives. For example, Matthew Heimbach, the head of the Traditionalist Worker Party, was literally caught with his pants down.

“On March 14, police in his Indiana hometown arrested Heimbach after he allegedly assaulted TWP spokesperson Matthew Parrott during a fight over their wives, both of whom Heimbach was allegedly sleeping with. Heimbach’s wife is Parrott’s stepdaughter.”[94]

Parrott discovered that Heimbach was sleeping with his wife, Jessica, and in order to verify his suspicion, “arranged to ‘set up’ Heimbach and Jessica in a trailer” on his property “to catch them having sex.”

“Parrott stood on a box outside the trailer and watched Heimbach and Jessica have sex inside, according to a police report. When the box broke under Parrott’s weight, he entered the trailer to confront them. Heimbach allegedly choked him and chased him into a house, where Parrott threw a chair at him. Heimbach hit back, choking him into unconsciousness, according to the police report.”[95]

During the fight, it was reported that “Heimbach choked Parrott several times, causing him to lose consciousness.”[96] When police arrived at the trailer, they saw both Heimbach and Jessica outside. Jessica declared that she was just a neighbor and left the premise. Then

“Heimbach went inside and sent his own wife out instead, telling her ‘to send the police away and tell them everything was fine,’ the police report reads. Heimbach ‘began to raise his voice at her and I heard scuffling and [Heimbach’s wife] yelling,’ an officer wrote.”[97]

We are told that “The incident occurred in front of the Heimbachs’ two children, a 2-year-old and a 7-month-old.”[98] When Heimbach’s wife couldn’t agree to send the police away, Heimbach went berserk. His wife said: “He kicked the wall, and then grabbed my cheeks, making them bleed, and threw me…on my face onto the bed.”[99]

Heimbach was obviously arrested on the spot. Other members of the Unite the Right rally were arrested for similar incidents.[100] After the Heimbach debacle, Parrott lamented: “I am no longer involved in the movement, and I have no stake in all the stupid shit going on in it.”[101] He also said:

“People have lost faith in the party on every level…. I guaranteed that all our membership data was destroyed because of a lot of concern with people’s information being caught in this white trash circus.”[102]

Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, ridiculously declared that the problem with the Alt-Right started with the Charlottesville debacle. Not so! The problem started with the movement’s foundation, which is not rooted and grounded in practical reason but in what E. Michael Jones has called “white ideology,” which is “an empty category.”

Lucian Wintrich of the pro-Trump tabloid the Gateway Pundit seemed to have seen things in a similar light. He said that the term Alt-Right:

“was adopted by libertarians, anti-globalists, classical conservatives, and pretty much everyone else who was sick of what had become establishment conservatism. Then Richard Spencer came along, throwing up Nazi salutes and claiming that he was the leader of the alt-right. He effectively made the term toxic and then claimed it for himself. We all abandoned using it in droves…. A lot of us are still frustrated that Richard Spencer ruined the term for the rest of us.”[103]

Paul Gottfried has said that he and Spencer “co-created” the term Alt-Right, but Gottfried probably didn’t know what Spencer was going to do it with. Gottfried declared back in 2008: “We have attracted, beside old-timers like me . . . well-educated young professionals, who consider themselves to be on the right, but not of the current conservative movement.” The New Yorker reported:

“Gottfried did not utter the phrase ‘alternative right’ in the speech—he used the term ‘post-paleo’ instead—but his remarks were later published on the Web site Taki’s Magazine, under the headline ‘The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right.’ The headline was written by Spencer, who was then an acolyte of Gottfried’s and an editor at Taki’s.”[104]

Two years after Gottfried delivered his speech, “Spencer registered alternativeright.com, which now redirects to altright.com…”[105]

The Alt-Right and Eugenics

There is no doubt that proponents of the Alt-Right have adopted a sanitized version of eugenics. Here are their arguments:

“Not only is the pro-life movement dysgenic, but its justifications rely on principles we generally reject. The alt-Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like ‘equality’ and ‘human rights,’ especially as bases for policy. The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community. If it is not even wanted by its own mother, criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group.”[106]

The illogical implications of these premises are too great to ignore here. The interesting thing is that these are the people who keep complaining that they are being replaced by a hostile culture! And to be quite blunt, what if the mothers of these people aborted them? Would they be talking about these issues today? And what if the “well-born” start having abortions and using contraception, will the Alt-Right advocates appreciate that? As E. Michael Jones historically documents in Libido Dominandi, the “well-born” and the elite were the ones who were using abortion and contraception in the twentieth century in America.[107]

You see, there is no way that these preposterous ideas can be congruent with what Emmanuel Kant calls the categorical imperative precisely because they can never be universalized. If these people have not even heard of Kant, perhaps it is high time that they pick up his treatise on the metaphysical foundation of morality. And the fact that these people are not looking at those issues on moral terms means that the Alt-Right itself, at the bottom, is either amoral or immoral.

Furthermore, these people seem to have no clue of the implications of what they are propounding,[108] and they are utterly oblivious of the scholarly literature on many of these issues.[109] Alt-Right proponents declare that “Although there was great interest in eugenics throughout the West in the early 20th century, there is now a strange and powerful taboo against the field.”[110] But these people can never produce a fair and historical account of eugenics because that would ruin their ideological underpinnings.[111]

The Carthaginians,[112] Mary Shelley, Ernst Haeckel, Paul Planshard, Margaret Sanger, Havelock Ellis, Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, the Rockefellers, Alfred Kinsey, Harry Hay, and the entire oligarchic rule in America would all agree with the Alt-Right on abortion and contraception, which are a form of eugenics.

Finally, by implicitly promoting abortion and contraception, the Alt-Right movement plays into the hands of its own enemy.[113] So, can the Alt-Right really survive with an existentially repugnant and morally groundless ideology? If Kant and Hegel are right, then the answer is no.

First published on April 10, 2018.

• [1] Thomas Fuller, Alan Feuer and Serge F. Kovaleski, “Antifa’ Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right,” NY Times, August 17, 2017.
• [2] http://leagueofthesouth.com/league-will-be-at-unite-the-right-rally-12-august-charlottesville-va/.
• [3] See for example Malini Ramaiyer, “How Violence Undermined the Berkeley Protest,” NY Times, February 2, 2017.
• [4] For studies on similar issues, see Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York and London: New York University Press, 2014); Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012); Nathan Abrams, “Triple-exthnics,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004; E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014).
• [5] Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol V, 4-6; emphasis added. Jones documents this in Barren Metal.
• [6] On multiculturalism, see E. Michael Jones, “Jewish Nazis,” Culture Wars, April 2011.
• [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGqyXUrbb4A.
• [8] Emmanuel Spraguer, “Destructive of These Ends,” Alt-Right.com, March 25, 2018.
• [9] Ibid.
• [10] Ibid.
• [11] Emmanuel Spraguer, “What Really is a Globalist?,” Alt-Right.com, March 13, 2018.
• [12] Ibid.
• [13] Joe Heim, “Recounting a day of rage, hate, violence and death,” Washington Post, August 14, 2017.
• [14] Mark B. Williams, “The Original ‘Antifa’ Was A Jewish Anti-Nazi Militia,” Forward, August 24, 2017.
• [15] Valerie Richardson, “Nancy Pelosi condemns Antifa for first time as radical leftists wear out welcome,” Washington Times, August 29, 2017.
• [16] Tom Porter, “Berkeley Mayor calls for Antifa to be classified as crime gang after clashes at weekend protest,” Newsweek, August 29, 2017.
• [17] Heim, “Recounting a day of rage, hate, violence and death,” Washington Post, August 14, 2017.
• [18] Joe Heim, Ellie Silverman, T. Rees Shapiro and Emma Brown, “One dead as car strikes crowds amid protests of white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville; two police die in helicopter crash,” Washington Post, August 13, 2017.
• [19] Kyle Swenson, “Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley,” Washington Post, August 28, 2017.
• [20] Ibid.
• [21] Ibid.
• [22] Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Brian M. Rosenthal, “Man Charged After White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville Ends in Deadly Violence,” NY Times, August 12, 2017.
• [23] Joe Heim, Ellie Silverman, T. Rees Shapiro and Emma Brown, “One dead as car strikes crowds amid protests of white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville; two police die in helicopter crash,” Washington Post, August 13, 2017.
• [24] Ibid.
• [25] Ibid.
• [26] Ibid.
• [27] “John Jay professor placed on administrative leave for tweeting he’s proud to teach ‘future dead cops,’” NY Daily News, September 15, 2017.
• [28] Ibid.
• [29] Matt Pearce, “Squeezed out by Silicon Valley, the far right is creating its own corporate world,” LA Times, August 12, 2017.
• [30] Jonah Engel Bromwich and Alan Blinder, “What We Know About James Alex Fields, Driver Charged in Charlottesville Killing,” NY Times, August 13, 2017; Steve Almasy, Kwegyirba Croffie and Madison Park, “Teacher, ex-classmate describe Charlottesville suspect as Nazi sympathizer,” CNN, August 15, 2017.
• [31] Sarah Rankin, “Suspect in Charlottesville car attack faces new first-degree murder charge,” Chicago Tribune, December 14, 2017.
• [32] Stolberg and Rosenthal, “Man Charged After White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville Ends in Deadly Violence.”
• [33] William Cummings, “Neo-Nazi featured on Vice News cries in fear in online video,” USA Today, August 17, 2017.
• [34] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU_k_ZpbgVk.
• [35] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMXmjgvdyHs.
• [36] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAk6szYQ-bM.
• [37] Tim Marcin, “Christopher Cantwell, the Charlottesville ‘crying Nazi,’ wants your sympathy from Jail,” Newsweek, August 31, 2017.
• [38] Ryan Grenoble, “Christopher Cantwell Stuck In Jail After Surrendering To Police,” Huffington Post, August 24, 2017.
• [39] “Charlottesville white nationalist marchers face backlash,” BBC, August 14, 2017; Veronica Rocha, “Cole White, man photographed at white supremacist rally, is out of a job at Berkeley hot dog eatery,” LA Times, August 14, 2017.
• [40] Richard Spencer, “What It Means To Be Alt-Right,” Alt-Right.com, August 11, 2017.
• [41] “Madison Grant and the American Nation,” Radix Journal, October 8, 2016.
• [42] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAbWhErsY_A.
• [43] https://davidduke.com/dr-duke-dr-slattery-discuss-the-realities-of-race-in-both-humanity-animals-and-how-to-win-our-people-to-the-fight-for-our-existence-and-the-future-of-our-children/.
• [44] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/navigating-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape/.
• [45] For a technical work on animal pain and suffering, see Michael Murray, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
• [46] Ibid.
• [47] For historical studies, see E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 975-989.
• [48] See E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000); The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2005).
• [49] “Madison Grant and the American Nation,” Radix Journal, October 8, 2016.
• [50] Kevin MacDonald, “Americanism and the Jewish Experience,” Radix Journal, December 14, 2017.
• [51] Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery, and the Quest for Human Origins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 368.
• [52] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4XJ-nqp-Gg.
• [53] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd edition (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1909), 100.
• [54] Emmanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (New York: Torchbooks, 1964), 390.
• [55] Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story (New York: Random House, 2006), 13.
• [56] Frank Dikotter, Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-62 (London: Bloomsbury, 2010).
• [57] Jean-Louis Panné and Andrzej Paczkowski, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010).
• [58] “Madison Grant and the American Nation,” Radix Journal, October 8, 2016.
• [59] Richard A. Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Decline of Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990); Robert C. Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979); Peter Watson, The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper Perennial, 2002); Paul A. Lombardo, ed., A Century of Eugenics in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011); Nancy Ordover, American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003); Ian Robert Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1997); Edward J. Larson, Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Robert Whitaker, Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill (New York: Perseus Publishing, 2002); Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985); Caroline Elkins, Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya (New York: Henry Holt, 2005); Wendy Kline, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001).
• [60] Quoted in Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2002), 297.
• [61] Ibid.
• [62] Ibid., 342.
• [63] Peter J. Bowler and David Knight, Charles Darwin: The Man and his Influence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 183.
• [64] Adrian Desmond, The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).
• [65] See for example Frans de Waal and Stephen Macedo, Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006); Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Penguin Books, 2003).
• [66] Graeme Wood, “His Kampf,” Atlantic, June 2017 Issue.
• [67] Ibid.
• [68] Rodney Stark, Why God? Explaining Religious Phenomena (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2017), 49.
• [69] Friedrich Nietzsche, Nietzsche: The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols: And Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
• [70] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power (New York: Vintage, 1967).
• [71] See for example Grace Neal Dolson, “The Influence of Schopenhauer upon Friedrich Nietzsche,” Philosophical Reviews, Vol. 10, No. 3 (May, 1901): 241-250; Christopher Janaway, ed., Willing and Nothingness: Schopenhauer as Nietzsche’s Educator (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
• [72] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515–516.
• [73] Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1926 and 1961), 162.
• [74] Ibid.
• [75] MacDonald, “Americanism and the Jewish Experience.”
• [76] Bradley A. Thayer, Darwin and International Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2004). I have discussed the flaws in this book here.
• [77] http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WhiteEthnocentrism.pdf.
• [78] Durant, The Story of Philosophy, 162.
• [79] E. Michael Jones, “Ethnos Needs Logos: or Why I spent Three Days in Guadalajara trying to convince David Duke to become a Catholic,” Culture Wars, June 2015.
• [80] Daniel Lombroso and yoni Appelbaum, “’Hail Trump!’: White Nationalists Salute the President-Elect,” Atlantic, November 21, 2016.
• [81] Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent or the Expansion of Races in America (Abergele: Wermod & Wermod Publishing Group, 2013), xxxix.
• [82] Charles Darwin, Descent of Man (New York: Penguin, 183-184), 201.
• [83] Ibid., 169.
• [84] Quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1962), 319.
• [85] Adrian Desmond and James R. Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991), 1.
• [86] Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery, and the Quest for Human Origins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 150.
• [87] Ibid.
• [88] Ibid., 151.
• [89] Grant, The Conquest of a Continent, xxxix.
• [90] Ibid.
• [91] Ibid.
• [92]  Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 153.
• [93] Ibid.
• [94] Kelly Weill, “Less Than a Year After Charlottesville, the Alt-Right Is Self-Destructing,” Daily Beast, March 29, 2018.
• [95] Kelly Weill, “Neo-Nazi Group Implodes Over Love Triangle Turned Trailer Brawl,” Daily Beast, March 14, 2018.
• [96] Weill, “Less Than a Year After Charlottesville, the Alt-Right Is Self-Destructing,” Daily Beast, March 29, 2018.
• [97] Weill, “Neo-Nazi Group Implodes Over Love Triangle Turned Trailer Brawl,” Daily Beast, March 14, 2018.
• [98] Thomas Novelly, “White nationalist Matthew Heimbach arrested after trailer park fight over alleged affair,” Louisville Courier Journal, March 14, 2018; see also Marwa Eltagouri, “White nationalist leader Matthew Heimbach arrested for domestic battery,” Washington Post, March 14, 2018.
• [99] Weill, “Neo-Nazi Group Implodes Over Love Triangle Turned Trailer Brawl,” Daily Beast, March 14, 2018.
• [100] Erin Corbett, “Inside the Alt-Right’s Violent Obsession with ‘White Sharia War Brides,’” Vice, April 3, 2018.
• [101] Weill, “Less Than a Year After Charlottesville, the Alt-Right Is Self-Destructing,” Daily Beast, March 29, 2018.
• [102] Kelly Weil, “Neo-Nazi Group Implodes Over Love Triangle Turned Trailer Brawl,” Daily Beast, March 14, 2018.
• [103] Andrew Marantz, “The Alt-Right Branding War Has Torn the Movement in Two,” New Yorker, July 6, 2017.
• [104] Ibid.
• [105] Ibid.
• [106] Aylmer Fisher, “The Pro-Life Temptation,” Alt-Right.com, March 19, 2017.
• [107] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2000).
• [108] https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2014/02/04/blood-on-our-hands-the-case-against-abortion-and-killing-of-innocent-lives/.
• [109] For a moral and philosophical approach on these issues, see Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
• [110] “The Case for Eugenics,” Alt-Right.com, October 19, 2017.
• [111] Richard A. Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Decline of Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990); Nancy Leys Stepan, “The Hour of Eugenics”: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1991); Philip Reilly, The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991); Paul A. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010); Paul A. Lombardo, ed., A Century of Eugenics in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011); Nancy Ordover, American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003); Ian Robert Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1997); Edward J. Larson, Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995); Diane B. Paul, The Politics of Heredity: Essays on Eugenics, Biomedicine, and the Nature-Nurture Debate (New York: State University of New York: 1998); Wendy Kline, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001); Dan Stone, Breeding Superman: Nietzsche, Race and Eugenics in Edwardian and Interwar Britain (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2002); Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, Eugenics and the Welfare State: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2005); Denis R. Alexander and Ronald L. Numbers, Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010); Gerald V O’Brien, Framing the moron: The Social Construction of Feeble-Mindedness in the American Eugenic Era (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 2013); Alexandra Minna Stern, Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America (Oakland: University of California Press, 2016); Thomas C. Leonard, Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016); Judith Daar, The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017); Marouf A Hasian, The Rhetoric of Eugenics in Anglo-American Thought (Atlanta: University of Georgia Press, 2017); Molly Ladd-Taylor, Fixing the Poor: Eugenic Sterilization and Child Welfare in the Twentieth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2017); Robert Jarvenpa, Declared Defective: Native Americans, Eugenics, and the Myth of Nam Hollow (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2018).
• [112] See Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Caesar and Christ (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1944), 41-42.
• [113] See E. Michael Jones, The Jews and Moral Subversion (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2016), chapter 3. Jones documents: “Although Protestants were involved, Jews were the vanguard in the abortion movement as they were the vanguard of Bolshevism in Russia and of pornography in the United States. The movement to overturn abortion laws in New York was an essentially Jewish movement that saw itself as a revolutionary force against the darkness of Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The movement was certainly not exclusively Jewish, but it could not have survived or succeeded without Jewish leadership. The abortion rights movement was a quintessentially Jewish revolutionary movement that mobilized the coalition of Jews and Judaizing Protestants that America inherited from the English anti-Catholic wars of the 16^th century.”