This is very incendiary. The “alt-right” as applied by liberals is a disparaging term for a wide range of conservative views, and even though the following “manifesto” is not racist per se, his comments about immigration could feed the racist accusation. My comments appear at the end.
From “The Flight 93 Election“, by Michael Anton (Publius Decimus Mus), December 5, 2016: “How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals (named for the team that used to travel with the Harlem Globetrotters for the purpose of losing) of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.
“All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their ‘opposition’ may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 ‘genders,’ elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, ‘Islamophobia,’ and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.
He now talks about 3 ways the “deck is stacked against conservatives (underlining mine): “First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on ‘cis-genderism’—formerly known as ‘nature’—and on the supposed ‘white privilege’ of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased.
“Second, our Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. Lenin is supposed to have said that ‘the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.’ But with an opposition like ours, why bother? Our ‘leaders’ and ‘dissenters’ bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them.
“Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.
“Oh, right—there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater ‘diversity.’ The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the ‘conservatives’? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of ‘racism.’ For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General can take the court—much less cash his check—with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit. But for the former, this priestly grace comes at the direct expense of their worldly interests. Do they honestly believe that the right enterprise zone or charter school policy will arouse 50.01% of our newer voters to finally reveal their ‘natural conservatism’ at the ballot box? It hasn’t happened anywhere yet and shows no signs that it ever will.”
I have cut a considerable amount of text from the letter, but not because I disagree with any of it. In fact, I recommend you read the whole letter, here. flight 93 election I have to comment on the previous paragraph. I do believe in the value of immigration, IF we are allowing or inviting immigrants that meet ALL of the following criteria:
- They want to come to the U.S. for the right reasons: greater economic opportunity, and/or safety from persecution because of their ethnicity or religion, and/or escape from the violence of wars (including drug wars);
- They believe in our values (as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence) and our political system (in the U.S. Constitution). If they haven’t read both documents, they should be required to before being eligible to emigrate here;
- They want to assimilate into our culture (the “melting pot” idea);
- They want to work and contribute to our nation AND they have the skills or knowledge or willingness to labor to make a positive contribution.
I also strongly believe that any of the following reasons should be sufficient to bar potential immigrants from the U.S.:
- They have committed violent crimes in their country (other than in self defense);
- They are a drain on their own country and want to come here for freeloading;
- They have been a member of or identified with any group on our terrorist watchlists;
- They are hostile to our values and freedom, and do not want to assimilate.
Naturally, the subjective stuff is difficult to ascertain and a lot of vetting will be required. Notice that I have not mentioned: race, origin, religion, sexual preference. I don’t believe those factors should play a role. As to whether or not an immigrant is in this country legally, before making that a necessary criteria, I would want to see our immigration mechanisms become more efficient first. I am not a policy wonk; all of the above are my beliefs, whether currently practical or not.