Jack Donovan has called for a rag-tag alliance of right-wingers, Richard Spencer for a coalition against bad things. Both can serve a function, and I agree with the project. Still, the direction of events has been against us for a long time so something more is needed.

Health-care and immigration "reform" show the problem: for years we've been playing a series of sudden-death overtimes against disaster. According to the rules, our losses are enduring but our wins are only temporary because they're just followed by another sudden-death overtime.

It's obvious that we have to change the direction of events in some basic way. The difficulty of doing so doesn't change the situation. It's the only way we can win.

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.

Alternative Right—being the magazine of “radical traditionalism” that it is—carries with it tendencies that are inherently reactionary and backward-looking. And with good reason! The modern world has been marked primarily by cultural decay, uprootedness, and the elevation of the worst aspects of humanity. The answers to most of man’s problems may indeed be found in the classical reactionary and anti-revolutionary works of the West.

So if we adopt the term “reactionary” without fear, as Evola recommends, we need to have some sort of idea what we are looking back towards. And because many answers are to be found in pre and post Christian Europe, it seems tempting to extend this impulse to pre- and post- Christian spirituality, represented most prominently by Neopaganism.

Inclusiveness is radically inconsistent with free thought and speech. The problem is quite fundamental. To question the principle of equal inclusion is to put some people's standing in question and ipso facto to exclude them from full equality with those whose standing is not in question. A regime of inclusiveness must therefore suppress questioning of its principles if it is to exist at all.

More generally, every system needs standards and restrictions, and doing away with some makes others more important. For that reason, expanding some aspects of diversity means limiting others. In particular, making ethnic and sexual diversity a supreme value means limiting permissible opinion quite radically. If it is unshakable dogma that group differences never cause problems, and they obviously cause problems, there are going to be severe limits on thought and discussion so the problems can't come up.