May 14, 2017
Things have changed a lot in the last few years.
We have in the West an entirely new political spectrum, but it has not really been clearly classified. The traditional concepts of “right” and “left” are all but totally irrelevant now in every Western country, and yet, everyone is trying to push people into these categories.
This has led to a weird situation where groups pushing for policies that will rapidly lead to Islamization of Western countries, and thus an end to what is classically called “liberalism” are labeled “far-left.”
Groups that are claiming the label “moderate” – whether it be left or right – are advocating what would traditionally have been considered far-left policies.
Groups that are actually “liberal” in the social sense are being labeled “far-right” simply because they are against Islamization.
NOTE BEFORE WE GET STARTED: Economics
It is important to make clear that economics are not really a particularly relevant factor anymore. I don’t mean that absolutely, but pretty much the deal is that with our current level of technology and the ease of material production, any economic system can work in a white country, while no economic system can work in a nonwhite country or a formerly white country with an extreme number of nonwhite immigrants.
No no one really talks or cares that much about economics anymore because for the most part, people are comfortable. The economic issues which do exist can be easily deconstructed as social issues (nb4 that was always the case – it is a lot more the case now).
We are very close to the point in history where labor will be free, and the entire concept of “economics” 100% obsolete.
Presently, virtually all political alignment is along social policy lines.
A Weird Mess
The anarchists and other “left-wing” progressive activist groups claim that their support for unlimited immigration is support for a multicultural hand-holdy drum-circley paradise.
However, the Moslems they are supporting have no interest in this childish nonsense, and seek to conquer us.
As such, “progressives” are footsoldiers of Islamization, period. It doesn’t matter that they also blabber on about faggots and trannies. The end result of their open-borders agenda can only be full-Islamization.
So, as allegedly “left-wing” activists, they are supporting an extreme “right-wing” ideology in the form of Islam.
The female members of liberal groups understand this, at least subconsciously, and the male members are mainly signaling because they think it will get them laid (or simply because they have low-testosterone, and believe it is morally meaningful to socially signal in this fashion).
The equation is very simple:
- Open borders of any kind mean ultimately there will be a Moslem majority (the degree to which the borders are open only changes the timeline, not the eventual outcome).
- Countries with a Moslem majority become Moslem countries, where all of the liberal dreams are crushed under the sword (scimitar, perhaps) of Islam.
Note that even moderate “left” and “right” parties support mass Islamic immigration (while also supporting bizarre social engineering agendas relating to homosexuality and feminism). Paul Ryan’s vision for America is only a hop, skip and jump behind Angela Merkel’s vision for Germany.
As such, though I am entirely opposed to the ideology espoused by the likes of MILO and the rest of the “Alt-Lite” (and most euro “nationalist parties” – Wilders, Le Pen, AfD, etc.), their logic is at least internally coherent: they wish to prevent Islamization so they can maintain their “Western freedoms,” most (or perhaps all) of which relate to sexual degeneracy and gender-role confusion (they couch it in “free speech” terminology and give it appeal by making fun of the progressive left).
I think that “Alt-Left” is a good term for these people. And it shouldn’t even be taken as offensive by them. It’s just an a good term for an ideology that is being labeled “right wing,” even while it is not.
The Various Alignments
Effectively, the entire mainstream is various shades of extreme leftism, as all support forced social-engineering programs and mass non-white immigration into white countries. I believe it is fair to classify them with the “antifa” type far leftist groups.
Then, there are two other groups.
This, as I mention above, is a form of pure kookery. Their policies lead to an end to their own policies, due to the preeminence of the concept of mass nonwhite immigration. It is not a coherent political platform, but it is promoted because it leads to the destruction of the white race. Both mainstream “left” and “right” in the modern world fit pretty neatly into this ideological paradigm (obviously, there is some difference in rhetoric and so on, but they are effectively all advocating for the same policies, just saying them in a different way).
- Pro-Multiculturalism and Pro-Multiracialism
- Anti-free speech, anti-freedom of association
- Pro-nonwhite mass immigration
- Pro-Globalism through war and trade
- The mainstream Democrat party in America, most of the mainstream of the Republican Party in America
- The mainstream political parties of Europe (both left and right mainstream)
- Antifa groups
- All mainstream media
- The Young Turks (little other alternative media)
- George Soros-funded groups
- Michael Moore
- Most Hollywood or musical celebrities
Alt-Left/Cultural Libertarian/Classical Liberal/”Patriot”
This is a group which seeks to maintain Jewish-driven cultural liberalism by avoiding Islamization and general over-browning.
- Pro-Multiracialism (mainly anti-multiculturalism, calling for assimilation of racial minorities, but also claiming “compatible” alien cultures, such as Sikhs, are welcome)
- Pro-free speech, pro-freedom of association (they believe “conservative” populations have a right to continue to live by their own value system, whereas progressives believe all people should have cultural liberalism forced on them)
- Pro-nonwhite limited immigration
- Anti-Globalism through war and trade
- Some members of the Republican Party in America, including Donald Trump (at least pre-4/6 Trump)
- Marine Le Pen
- Geert Wilders
- Most Alternative media (Infowars, Breitbart, Molyneux, Joe Rogan)
- Based Black Guys
- Everyone we call “Alt-Lite”
This is not simply the only group that acknowledges race as the defining factor of society, but the only group which promotes traditional right-wing or “conservative” social values as absolute necessity to be enshrined in law and social convention as they have been for most of human history (the Alt-Left believes social conservatism should not be banned in the way the Progressive Left wants to ban it, but also believes people should be “free” to be homosexuals, feminists, etc.)
- Anti-Multiculturalism and Anti-Multiracialism
- Pro-free speech (in the traditional sense, which excludes obscenity), Pro-freedom of association
- Anti-nonwhite immigration (on any scale)
- Anti-Globalism through war and trade
- Some supporters of Donald Trump
- Hard nationalist parties in Europe (Golden Dawn, Nordfront, NPD, Jobbik)
- Most ethnic Russian people
- Some Alternative Media (Daily Stormer, The Right Stuff, many YouTubers and Tweeters)
- Richard Spencer
- Identity Europa
- Heimbach’s Tradworkers
A Political Triangle
It is cumbersome and confusing to try to classify this new political “spectrum” as a graph.
Because it isn’t actually a spectrum.
Trying to force it into the box of a spectrum creates confusion.
While there is not going to be anyone on the line between “Alt-Right” and “Progressive Left,” there will be people on the line between “Alt-Right” and “Alt-Left,” and people on the line between “Alt-Left” and “progressive left.”
However, a single line between Alt-Right and Progressive Left with Alt-Left in the middle does not work, because the Alt-Left holds the concept of individualism that neither the Alt-Right nor the Progressive Left hold. Both the Alt-Right and the Progressive Left hold the idea of monocultures where the wellbeing of the whole is put before the wellbeing of the individual, so to place a group where the core value is that the individual is sacred in the middle of these two ideologies doesn’t make any sense.
Also, though I have already said economics are not explicitly relevant in the modern political paradigm, I believe that the economic policy of the Alt-Right should be related to “futurism” rather than capitalism, and probably, that is closer to the hardcore element of the Progressive Left’s concept of socialism than it is to the Alt-Left’s ideas of free market capitalism.
The Alt-Right would also agree with some of the stated positions of the Progressive Left, including environmentalism, government restrictions on food and drugs administration, state restrictions on multi-national corporations, and the level of desirable state control in other sectors of society – all of which the Alt-Left tends to be opposed to.
All of this is to say: my triangle makes sense in terms of ideological vision, but not in terms of individual persons or groups, because:
- There are not going to be any individual persons holding a philosophy that is half-way between the Progressive Left and the Alt-Right, but
- There are going to be certain ideological concepts which are shared or similar between the Progressive Left and the Alt-Right
Although, as far as I’m aware, I’m the first person to put this new political spectrum in this triangular form, I believe it is the only way to understand modern politics. It can be tweaked or perfected, but basically, you’re going to end up with something like what I’ve outlined here if you attempt to draw an objective analysis of the modern Western political landscape.
Much of the confusion going on, such as Antifa classifying homosexual Jews as “Nazis,” or “Patriots” attacking “Nationalists” when they are ostensibly attending the same rally for the same purpose, or the fact that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush pretty much agree 100% on any issue of real consequence to the American people, or that both Democrats and Republicans have the same animosity towards certain aspects of Trumpism, for the exact same reasons, results from a lack of proper political classification.
An Historical Precedent for a Political Triangle
It is worth noting that the Anglin Triangle is similar to the triangular “spectrum” of politics in the 20s and 30s, between communists/socialists, capitalists and Fascists/National Socialists. The fact that this was a triangle and not a two-point spectrum has led to many modern “conservatives” attempting to argue that the NSDAP was a “leftist” party, even while they were using force to maintain traditional Christian morality.
The difference is that in the 20s and 30s, during the industrial revolution, the prime issue of contention was one of economics, rather than one of social and cultural issues. Not even the most hardcore communist of the 1920s was saying that Europe should be flooded with Middle Eastern and African immigrants, and though the initial Jewish system of communism did implement bizarre cultural changes in Germany, Russia and other places it conquered, Soviet communism (Stalinism) was extremely socially conservative, in a period when the capitalist West was becoming culturally decadent and morally depraved.
You Can Rip This Off
I just invented the Anglin Triangle in the shower this morning. Much more needs to be written about it, and I will probably transform this rough essay you’ve just read into a more comprehensive, longer essay on the topic.
If anyone wants to contribute to the development of this concept, they are free to do so without referencing me or referring to it as “The Anglin Triangle.” I don’t want the development of the understanding of the modern political landscape to be hindered by the fact that the guy who came up with the breakthrough analysis of it is a “Neo-Nazi White Supremacist.”
Perhaps I should have published this pseudonymously, but setting up a fake blog and then getting people to pay attention to it is more than I have time to deal with.