Defenders of multiracialism never cease to amaze me, despite their having a long and well-established record of wilful ignorance, dishonesty, hypocrisy, disingenuousness, muddled thinking, and outright inanity. After reading Cleo Brown's yapping in the Hip Hop Republicans' website, I have to wonder whether even the most powerful electron microscopes would be able to detect a brain inside some of these multiracialists' prognathous skulls.

Brown's "rebuttal" to Alternative Right magazine is yet another - and, as usual, spectacularly incompetent - iteration of the old, tired, lazy, clichéd, fallacious, always tedious, and never convincing argumentum ad Hitlerum, riddled with errors and laden with the usual dysphemisms and non sequiturs. After a protracted whine about being denied a doctorate twenty-six years ago and about her subsequent (failed) complaint about her having been victim of "discrimination", she proceeds to characterize the present website as a venue for "White Supremacy" and the website's contributors as being "obsessed with Arian [sic] Superiority".

As you would expect from someone who cannot tell the difference between Arian (to do with the theological teachings of Arius) and Aryan (to do with the Aryan race), Brown has not read the website very carefully. Had she done so, she would have found the argumentum ad Hitlerum already rebutted in my blog of 15 March, where I wrote:

The respectable right is respectable because it accepts the principles of liberalism and can't offer serious resistance to liberal conclusions.

That's why a less respectable "alternative right" is needed. But what is the alternative that would do better? People have been looking for a good way to resist liberalism for a long time, and judging by results they haven't gotten very far.

Liberalism has a lot of staying power, so there must be something in it that goes rather deep. If that's so, it's not going to go away because fashions change, and dealing with it effectively is going to require thought and correct diagnosis.

FrumForum's latest attack on me and AlternativeRight, "Richard Spencer's Nordic Supermen," is notable in that its author, Alex Knepper, has moved beyond the ho-hum "guilt by association" accusations we've come to expect from such people. Earlier he had attempted "guilt by dramatization" and now has tried the exceedingly difficult "guilt by the recounting of an anecdote that reminds the author of the person he's trying to smear." Bold! Knepper's article makes SPLC tactics seem tame and boring in comparison.

The young Alex speaks of his fascination with the esoteric and the fringe, and tells a tale about how he attended a Nordic Pride festival (where, we're not told) and met some Odinists. These rough-and-tumble folks, who wore Thor's Hammers, discussed kith, kin, and bloodlines, and talked about rearing warriors, clearly offended Alex's delicate sensibilities. Alex hints that they're anti-Semitic, but the portrait he paints doesn't lead me to believe that these people have done anything wrong. Our world is full of groups that desire a sense of roots and "Us-ness" -- for proof, Alex might try to join the National Council of La Raza.

I don't have any problem with Pagans, but these people are supposed to be my Nordic Supermen? Really? For nowhere in the article does Alex claim that, say, I was there, that I'm a member of their group, that I even know any of these people, etc. etc. etc.

For further evidence (as if it were needed) of my Nordic supremacy, Alex cites the title of an AltRight article ... by Robert Weissberg, the good-natured, Manhattan-dwelling cosmopolitan who, I'm afraid, is about as far from "Odinic" as you can get.

I have read with some amusement the attacks on Richard Spencer and his present project, which over the past few days have multiplied on the internet like microbes in a culture. I note that Spencer’s enemies share two salient characteristics: a religious belief in human equality and a Borg-like collective consciousness: they have all articulated identical criticisms (e.g., Spencer and other Alternative Right writers do not mind discussing the existence and consequences of human biodiversity) and two of these critics, exasperated by the absence of tattoos on Spencer’s visage, have faithfully reproduced what strikes me as an obviously apocryphal story. As is often the case with attacks from mainstream quarters, they reveal more about the nature of the attacker than about the target. In evidence are obtuse, conformist minds that take pride in their willful ignorance; slow, dull brains of negligible cubicage and low neural density; mean-spirited souls whose likely response times in IQ tests would need to be measured in geological eras.

What is ironic whenever these politically correct ninnies scream about ‘racism’ is that in doing so they lay bare the illogical and contradictory nature of their position. If one is a champion of diversity, one celebrates the evidence of its existence. Yet, these anti-racist nupsons who so vehemently and ridiculously object to our analyses declare themselves champions of diversity only to then wail in horror and undo themselves in invective, whining, and vituperation each time evidence of diversity is acknowledged in oral or written communication. To my mind, this is indicative of hypocrisy: the aforementioned anti-racists claim to be one thing, but are, in fact, quite another. Beneath their fine, universalist rhetoric and celebrations of multicuturalism lurks a totalitarian heart, yearning for total homogeneity: their ideal world is a grim ball of mud, where all humans look the same, think the same, speak the same, and earn the same, in conformity to the Left’s delirious visions of universal equality – a brave new world of gray cities and cement office blocks, filled with polyester carpets, neon lights, Formica surfaces, and rows upon rows of identical cubicles. Does not equality necessitate homogeneity? Does not diversity necessitate heterogeneity? Is not the former predicated of sameness and the latter on difference? If so, then, why is human biodiversity such a problem?

Jim Kalb is certainly correct that "Alternative Right" is an ambiguous monicker -- and one could, of course, interpret it in a host of crazy ways: alternative-lifestyle conservatives, "Conservatism for punks" (as Todd Seavey jokingly titles his blog), etc.

When I first started using the term Alternative Right a couple of years ago, I certainly wasn’t referring to a unified intellectual movement, one in control of think-tanks, publications, and an army of staffers and lobbyist.

If only!

I was pointing instead to a group of bloggers and writers (many under 35, but not all) who were noticeably right-wing but who were discussing things that American conservatives didn't want to hear, or which generally couldn't be squared with their favorite movement slogans. "Human Biodiversity" is the most obvious of these issues, for we operate in an intellectual climate in which Liz Cheney has informed all that it's wicked to even notice Barack Obama's skin color. But beyond HBD, there will be much more at AltRight that will greatly perturb and confuse the conservative establishment.

"Alternative Right" could mean a great many things. That's the reason for the name: if you knew what it was you wouldn't call it "alternative," you'd tag it with something more substantive.

Still, you have to say something more definite than "whatever" about what you're doing. I suppose that's one reason this website bills itself as "an online magazine of radical traditionalism."

That description suggests one understanding of the alternative right. On the other hand, the Executive Editor is also happy with this description:

"Alt Right was designed to appeal to a younger audience who reject the Left, but who don’t fit in on the stuffy or banal Right either.

"The 'post-paleos' tend to be more secular than their predecessors. They are more willing to challenge multiculturalism and political correctness; more libertarian on economic and gender issues; more opposed to third world immigration and affirmative action; more interested in men’s issues; more willing to flaunt [sic] racial taboos."

And the impossibility of conservatism.

It’s 1964. A stranger approaches and tells you two political movements will arise in the near future, the New Left and the New Right. One of these movements will dominate American politics for a good quarter century. Indeed, political scientists will define the entire period in terms of the ascendancy of this group; historians will write books naming this age after the movement’s most successful leader. Politicians, scholars, and activists on right and left will go so far as to call it a “Revolution.”

Imagine then that you could look at the America (such as it is) of November 5, 2008, at the end of this era.