The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
AUGUST DIARY: the Alt Right Breakout; Hong Kong Breakaway? Etc.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Audacious Epigone tracks the increase in Alt Right exposure from being denounced by Hillary.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Alt-Right breakout. Back in the States, the big news in August was the Alt-Right breakout. A picture tells a thousand words: blogger Audacious Epigone has the picture.

This is nothing but good news. Establishment strategy for years has been to silence the Alt-Right, to seal off any outlets through which our ideas might leak out into the public square.

For example: once upon a time Jared Taylor used to appear on radio and TV, and give t alks at colleges. His American Renaissance conferences were broadcast on C-SPAN!

The guardians of our state ideology weren’t going to put up with that. They methodically sealed off all those outlets. (While at the same time striving to destroy Jared’s private career, which has nothing to do with American Renaissance or the Alt-Right.)

Yet now suddenly Jared’s being interviewed (albeit briefly and incompetently) by ABC News, and even showing up in a TV campaign ad for Mrs Clinton.

This must be wormwood and gall to Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, chief ideological enforcers over at the Southern Poverty Law Center [ker-ching!] All those years of labor sealing off every tiny crack and fissure, and suddenly the dam has sprung a leak!

I can hear their teeth grinding — a sweet, sweet sound.

nine The godless Alt-Right. An interesting not-much-remarked feature of the Alt-Right, distinguishing it from the traditional American Right, is its godlessness. The Nine Theses of Alt-Right heresy posted at (hat tip there to the Chateau) don’t even mention religion, except obliquely, in reference to “Cultural Diversity” (Thesis 6).

Most of the big Alt-Right names have dined chezDerb at one time or other. They all showed the same amused surprise at the fact that we say grace before meals. (I have to explain that it’s just a family custom we started when the kids were little, and we never felt like dropping it.)

Some of this irreligious tendency is just the slow slide away from organized Christianity among all sections of society, described with astounding prescience in the religion chapter of We Are Doomed (Chapter 8), and the frequent subject of news reports about the spiritual life of Americans.

There is a selection factor at work, too, though. Any individual human being is more or less inclined to religious styles of thought and behavior. In the Western world today, those more inclined might of course attach themselves to traditional Christianity; or they might turn to ideology.

As has often been noted, state ideologies, like the Cultural Marxism that currently holds sway in the West, key to the same social and psychological receptors as religions. Recall the late Larry Auster’s observation that blacks are sacred object s, criticism of which is received just as blasphemy used to be in the Age of Faith, and still is in places like Pakistan.

Alt-Right types — all of them, though in many different ways — are reacting against this state ideology.

What characterizes the Alt-Right is the rejection of Cultural Marxism; but while it characterizes us, it doesn’t unify us. That’s because we haven’t fled from the CultMarx pseudo-religion to some other, unifying faith. We don’t do faith.

Some people of course have done that, but they’re not Alt-Rightists. They are the dwindling rump of the old Religious Right, holding prayer vigils outside abortion clinics and such.

Alt-Rightists can’t swallow the CultMarx ideology, and we can’t swallow traditional religion, either. So an invisible sky spirit came down to Earth and impregnated a human female? This happened at some actual moment in time, at some actual place, you say? Sorry, no offense, but no sale.

The Alt-Right is populated by people whose religious impulses are feeble or nonexistent. That’s exactly why we can’t swallow CultMarx!

It’s also why there is a strong mood of empiricism, of openness to science, among the Alt-Right. We are strongly disposed to believe our own lying eyes, and the properly replicated, reviewed work of careful scientists, over the ukases of some authority figure or the social consensus. That’s why we’re race realists. The little lad in Hans Christian Andersen’s story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” grew up to be an Alt-Rightist.

I’m pretty sure about all that, but it leaves a question hanging in the air: Why aren’t there more Alt-Right scientists?

My best guess is that most working scientists are dependent to some degree on the Academy, where CultMarx is ferociously enforced. I’m open to other explanations, though, or to arguments that my entire thesis here is wrong.

What happened to Intelligent Design? Speaking of science and religion, as I just did in considering the Alt Righters, whatever happened to Intelligent Design? A dozen or so years ago we were all talking about it, and my mailbox was full with readers urging me to reconsider my attitude to Irreducible Complexity or the Cambrian explosion.

discoveryNow, nothing. The Discovery Institute is still in business, I see; and to judge by their website, they are quite active. Is anyone much listening, though? Fifteen years ago a lot of people were, and DI personnel were getting air time on cable TV. Now, to judge from the website, they are just talking to themselves.

On the other side of what was once a lively public debate, the TalkOrigins website, set up in 1996 to counter Creationist and Intelligent Design arguments, is still online with all its archived material, but looks not to have been maintained for a while. Clicking on the “What’s New” link gets you a 404. The latest entry under the “Post of the Month” link is for November 2014 (just a few months after my last column on ID). The site has, as the techies say, quiesced.

It looks to me as though the Kitzmiller decision of December 2005 killed off public interest. Or perhaps, since nobody’s mind was being changed, we just got bored with the issue.

Whatever, it’s a shame. As I said in that 2014 piece: “There are important gaps in our understanding of the world that ID, if it didn’t waste its time on far-fetched critiques of well-settled scientific topics, might have something to say about.”

darwinianThese thoughts followed my Great Courses lectures for the month of August: Prof. Gregory’s Darwinian Revolution.

I was a bit wary about buying the course, having noted that as well as postgraduate degrees in History of Science, Prof. Gregory is also a Bachelor of Divinity. In the event, I enjoyed it, and learned a lot about 18th- and 19th-century views on the origin of species. Prof. Gregory does, though, cut ID a bit too much slack for my taste. If you buy the course, buy it for the history, not the metaphysics.

Academic timidity. One depressing thing about the college campus idiocies that have been so much in the news this past couple of years, and that are being logged by websites like Campus Reform and Heterodox Academy, is the failure of academics to offer much resistance.


When students clamor to have separate bathrooms for black lesbian Muslims, or whatever the cause du jour is, why don’t their professors show up in force and tell them to get the hell back to their classrooms, or leave the campus? The reason is I suppose ultimately financial, but it speaks poorly of the courage of the average academic.

I suppose one shouldn’t be too surprised. Academics are quiet, bookish types, mostly middle-aged or older, while a lot of their students are aggressive young thugs recruited for some athletic skill.

Prof. Gregory — although, again, I quite liked his course — is a typically timid academic. You get an illustration of this in Lecture Six.

The prof. is talking about arguments over evolution in the early 19th century, long before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species came out in 1859. (If you thought that it was Darwin who first came up with the idea of evolution, go to the back of the class. Evolution was being hotly debated before Darwin was born.)

He discusses the conflicts in France between anti-evolutionist Georges Cuvier and various French proponents of the theory. Then:

The British scene reveals another reason why evolution could not gain wide support in pre-Origin years. Its supporters were often seen as radicals: not just because they embraced evolution, they frequently supported other radical causes, too — radical social causes, radical political causes, radical religious positions. Most people in polite society didn’t want to be associated with such individuals.

That went for Charles Darwin himself, as we’ll see. If you were young, it could harm your career prospects to be known as one of those “transmutationists,” as the English called evolutionists.

Science is more professionalized now than it was in the 1830s and 1840s, when the process was really just beginning; but still today, a budding young scientist would be prudent not to publicly endorse, say …

Yes? Prof., yes? — to publicly endorse … what?

… communism …


… or atheism …


… or belief in alien abduction.

For Heaven’s sake!

If they [sic] became convinced of something like this, best keep it to yourself. Yes, I know, these things aren’t supposed to matter, just an individual’s scientific abilities and productivity as measured by commonly-accepted standards; but unfortunately these other things too often do matter. [Darwinian Revolution, Lecture Six: “Why Evolution Was Rejected Before Darwin,” 23m42s et seq.]

An endorsement of communism will get you shut out of a position in scientific academia? From what I read about the Academy, it would be a positive advantage. Stephen Jay Gould‘s book The Mismeasure of Man is required reading for many college courses, including some science courses; yet Gould was as near to being a communist as makes no difference.

Does Prof. Gregory not know the kind of endorsements that would get a young researcher (or even a very old one) shut out of the Academy nowadays? Or does he know, but is too timid to mention such things out loud? Or does he know, and is willing to mention, but was warned off doing so by the managers at the Great Courses company, which is after all a commercial venture operating in the sphere of what is socially acceptable?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Gemütlichkeit in Hong Kong. August started in Hong Kong, at the tail end of the Derbs’ Far East vacation.

I expressed some personal feelings about Hong Kong in the very first of these diaries. Now, fifteen years later, that sentimental nostalgia has been much diluted by time and circumstance. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Hong Kong is now, in my mental atlas, just a place; but the electric shimmer of fond remembrance and bitter regret has faded to a mere background tint. A Hong Kong friend we were visiting with told me that Chungking Mansions is still in business. Did I want to take a look? No, I didn’t.

Visiting with friends was in fact most of what we did in Hong Kong. I have acquaintances there going back to the early 1970s, and a surprising number of Mrs Derbyshire’s college classmates from northeast China now live in nearby mainland cities: Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Guangzhou.

These bonds among Chinese college classmates who all graduated thirty-odd years ago are very strong. I don’t know whether this is a generally Chinese thing, or a thing just of their time. When they started college in the late 1970s, higher education was just getting re-started after the Cultural Revolution (1966-76). Perhaps that made for an exceptionally strong sense of camaraderie.

Whether it did or not, there was a major upside to being among those first post-Cultural-Revolution graduating classes. China in 1983 had a dire shortage of college-educated young people. Businesses, universities, state bureaucracies, the professions, all sucked them in gratefully. Now, thirty years on, a high proportion of these classmates from a small provincial college are seriously wealthy.

They are all in touch through WeChat, China’s main social-messaging app. Hearing that we’d be in Hong Kong, several came over to meet us at, of course, a restaurant banquet. It was all very gemütlich.

The localist phenomenon. Grumbling about mainland Chinese incomers has been a popular Hong Kong pastime for decades.

In the early 1960s, refugees from the Mao famine came flooding over the border into what was then the British colony, depressing wages and stressing the veryrudimentary social services of the place.

The border was more strictly controlled during the Cultural Revolution, but mainlanders got in anyway. Thousands of young mainlanders, disillusioned with all the chaos, or banished to poverty-stricken country areas in “rectification” campaigns against the Red Guards, came in by swimming the few miles of water between the two jurisdictions. In my sojourn there, 1971-73, Hong Kongers complained endlessly about how these daai-luk-jai (mainland kids) were useless for any kind of work. “All they know to do is just sit around arguing politics …”


I’d supposed that the grumbling might have faded with the rise of the New China. Not at all: if anything, it’s worse than ever. Mainlanders, people tell you, are arrogant and uncouth. The ones with money throw it around tastelessly, for show; the ones without bicker over the price of everything and leave (the taxi, the restaurant, the bar) without paying. They smoke too much; they spit; they let their toddlers crap on the sidewalk; etc., etc.

(In regard to spitting, Hong Kongers seem to have been totally cured of the habit. Forty-five years ago, when I was busily memorizing all the Chinese characters my eye fell upon, the signs on the Star Ferry from Kowloon to Hong Kong island begged 請勿吐痰 — “Please don’t spit” — to not much effect that I could see. The Star Ferry is still sailing — with some of the same boats, to judge by their physical condition — but the signs are long gone.)

The current political expression of this attitude is localism, a desire among many young Hong Kongers for Singapore-style independence. One Hong Kong friend, who lives in the precincts of the Chinese University, gave me the following striking illustration of localist sentiment.

Remember how there used to be candlelight vigils and so on every year in commemoration of Six-Four [i.e. the massacre of protestors in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on June 4th, 1989]? Students now have stopped participating in that. “Nothing to do with us,” they say. “That was a mainland affair. We’re Hong Kongers.”

The localist phenomenon is now prominent enough that The Economist ran a full-page article about it in the August 27th issue.

Localism is a no-hoper, of course. The control freaks in Beijing — especially the current Control Freak-in-Chief — will no way allow Hong Kong any more autonomy than the place currently has. The ChiComs in fact think it has too much and needs to be brought to heel, as you can see from the snarling of their paid trolls in the comment thread to that Economist article online.

The malling of Hong Kong. The main thing I noticed about Hong Kong this visit is how over-malled it is.

Elizabeth the First’s England was so well-forested, it was said that a squirrel could go from coast to coast without ever touching the ground. I swear you could go from one side of Hong Kong to the other — well, of the built-up area — without ever leaving a mall.

Every subway station, for example, comes with a mall attached. You get off your train, come out through the turnstile, and find yourself in a mall crammed with designer outlets.

Where do they get all their business? Who buys all that designer junk? I asked a couple of Hong Kong friends, and got the same response from both: a snort, a roll of the eyes, and then: “Mainlanders, of course!”

The art of the sub. Sub-editors, known around the office as “subs,” are the folk who write headlines and picture captions for newspapers and magazines. It’s work that offers much scope for creativity and wit. (Including wit of the lower sort, as witness the New York Post‘s headlines on ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner and his sexting adventures: “Weiner’s Rise and Fall,” “Obama Beats Weiner,” “Weiner: I’ll Stick It Out,” “Huma Cuts Off Weiner,” etc., etc.)

So I wrote up my review of The Transylvanian Trilogy, as advertised in my May Diary, and shipped it off to The New Criterion for their September issue. Recall that this is a big social-historical-political novel in the nineteenth-century style, about the pre-WW1 Hungarian aristocracy of Transylvania.

Concerning whom, I say in my review that:

Like the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy, Hungarian aristocrats in Transylvania held their estates in a backward, agricultural land whose people were mostly of different religion and ethnicity.

Sending in the review, I didn’t put a title on it. For one thing, I’m not much good at titles. For another, editors generally prefer to make up their own anyway.

Okay, now see if you can guess the title some ingenious sub put on my review.

Give up? Here it is. I’m still chuckling.

The New Criterion — a tribute. And by the way, Congratulations! to The New Criterion as they embark on their thirty-fifth year of continuous publication. As the editors note in the preface to this September issue:

Serious cultural periodicals tend not to be long-lived … T.S. Eliot’s Criterion, from which we take our name and whose critical ambitions we seek to emulate, had a run of seventeen years, from 1922 to 1939.

I’ve been contributing to TNC for exactly half of its thirty-four years. A couple of years into that acquaintance I wrote an appreciation of the magazine. That was in the somewhat fevered days soon after 9/11; but reading it now, fifteen years later, I must say, if I were commissioned to write it today, it would come out much the same.

Congratulations! again, TNC, and here’s to the thirty-fifth year, and the next thirty-five to follow.

And whichever sub thought up that title for my Transylvania piece, give him/her/xe a raise!

Comrade Baron. In the annoying way these things happen, I did not know about Jaap Scholten’s recent book Comrade Baron until I read a review of it in the August issue of Literary Review.

Subtitled “A Journey through the Vanishing World of the Transylvanian Aristocracy,” Comrade Baron is directly relevant to The Transylvanian Trilogy. From the blurb at

In the darkness of the early morning of 3 March 1949, practically all of the Transylvanian aristocracy were arrested in their beds and loaded into lorries. Under the terror of Gheorghiu-Dej and later Ceauşescu the aristocracy led a double life: during the day they worked in quarries, steelworks and carpenters yards; in the evening they secretly gathered and maintained the rituals of an older world. To record this episode of recent history, Jaap Scholten travelled extensively in Romania and Hungary and sought out the few remaining aristocrats who survived communism and met the youngest generation of the once distinguished aristocracy to talk about the restitution of assets and about the future.

However, by the time I spotted Scholten’s book in Literary Review, the September issue of The New Criterion was already in the hands of the printers, being pressed into cuneiform blocks and sent to the ovens for baking — too late for me even to add a footnote. Grrr.

Of course, if some kind editor would like to have a copy of Comrade Baronshipped to me in care of I’ll be glad to do a review to any required length at the usual word rates …


Math Corner. The summer Olympics came and went. I can’t claim any enthusiasm for the games as such, but I do smile quietly to myself thinking of all the Human Bio-Diversity (HBD) on flagrant display there. I also wonder, also quietly, what HBD-denialists — dogmatic nurturists — are thinking when they see, for example, an all-black set of finalists in the 100m sprint for the umpety-umpth Olympics in a row.

For an almost equally flagrant display of HBD, here are a couple of different olympiads from recent months.

First, the U.S.A. Math Olympiad for high-schoolers, this year held April 19th and 20th nationwide. Here’s a picture of the 12 top scorers. Here are their names (not necessarily in the order pictured): Ankan Bhattacharya, Ruidi Cao, Hongyi Chen, Jacob Klegar, James Lin, Allen Liu, Junyao Peng, Kevin Ren, Mihir Singhal, Alec Sun, Kevin Sun, Yuan Yao.

And then the international equivalent, which took place this year in Hong Kong, July 6th-16th. The six-member U.S. team took first place in the IMO for the second year running. Here they are: Ankan Bhattacharya, Michael Kural, Allen Liu, Junyao Peng, Ashwin Sah, and Yuan Yao.



Finally, a brainteaser.

Roll three normal dice. What is the probability of “getting a three”? That is, what’s the chance that the numbers that came up made a three in some combination: (1, 1, 1), say, or (1, 2, 4), or (1, 3, 2), or (5, 3, 1)? As opposed to numbers that don’t, like (1, 4, 1), (2, 2, 2), or (6, 5, 2)?

This should be straightforward. There are 216 equal-probability results of the throw. So you just have to count how many of those possibilities will “get” you a three, then divide that number by 216.

Yet for some reason it’s hard to get the answer right. The 16th-century genius and gambler Girolamo Cardano, who wrote the first book-length study of probability theory (and who I covered in Chapter 4 of Unknown Quantity), got it wrong. He also got the wrong answers for getting a four, a five, and a six on a roll of three dice.

Stephen Stigler, Professor of Statistics at the University of Chicago, gave this problem to his students two years running. He reports that only a third of them found the correct answer for “getting a three”; for “getting a four,” less than a quarter of students got the right answer.

I myself had a go at the probabilities for getting a one, a two, a three, a four, a five, or a six. I set up a spreadsheet with 216 lines, one for each equal-probability outcome of the throw. Then I eyeballed through, marking up each outcome that made the number I sought.

I got the right answers for ones, threes, and fours, but not for twos, fives, or sixes (though I did better than Cardano).

What’s up with this?

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjectsfor all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right 
Hide 20 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Historian says:

    You talk about mainland shoppers at Hong Kong malls. That isn’t the half of it. The ships in the harbor are unloading goods from the mainland. Mainland companies are listed on the Hong Kong stock market. Flights from the mainland fill the airport.

    Even in the bad old days of Mao, the city of Hong Kong made its living as an entrepot for mainland China. Even when the British were running the place, many Hong Kongers had their savings deposited in Communist-controlled banks!

    There is simply no economic basis for an independent existence.

    Singapore is different because it commands the Straits. Even if China didn’t exist, Singapore would still do a brisk business handling the trade for all of Southeast Asia.

  2. What characterizes the Alt-Right is the rejection of Cultural Marxism; but while it characterizes us, it doesn’t unify us. That’s because we haven’t fled from the CultMarx pseudo-religion to some other, unifying faith. We don’t do faith.

    Some people of course have done that, but they’re not Alt-Rightists. They are the dwindling rump of the old Religious Right, holding prayer vigils outside abortion clinics and such.

    Ahem. At the lower tiers of the Alt-Right, we tend to be Orthodox or Tridentine-Catholics, to my observation. But yes, the culture war has been fought and lost and most of us are realistic about it.

    I know a number of doctors and PhD-level engineers who are religious, but among PhD-hard science types, religious practice is very scarce. Historically, I don’t think much good has come of countries’ cognitive elite abandoning religious faith.

    An Alt-Right premise which I like and which, so far as I can tell, is my original verbiage, is that every People should have its own Nation, and every Nation should have its own Church (substitute “Faith” if you will.) Transcendence (versus Gnosticism) I submit is absolutely necessary to a healthy society.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
  3. jim jones says:

    Mrs.Thatchers`s biggest mistake was not letting the Hong Kongers in when we gave the place back to China in 1997. Now we have illiterate Somalis instead.

    • Replies: @Historian
  4. I only recently discovered the Alt Right. I’m not a joiner but I wish you well and congratulate you on having become famous. One word of advice. Never let a Democrat or Republican pretend to speak for you. And never take their fucking money. Oh. And stick with The Donald. He is neither D nor R and if he is not president he will be a media mogul.

  5. organized Christianity

    Is what brought Jews and Israel to power in this once-United States of America.

  6. Vasilios says:

    Hmm how are you trying to solve that equation? With a spreadsheet?? This is a simple calculation: I just took the chance of getting a not getting a 3 (2/3rds) and multiplied that 3x as we have three dice. So you get 8/27 which for 216 outcomes is 64. I think what throws people off is they are trying to use find the probability of getting a three to find the answer when the question is how likely you are to *not* get a 3. Once you have the answer to that you have your result.

  7. Vasilios says:

    Never mind I didn’t read the question right 🙂 That’s an odd one. Basically you are trying to figure out what is the chances of rolling a three natural, PLUS the chances of getting a 1 and a 2 and any other result, PLUS the 1/216 chance of rolling all 1’s. Take that # and divide it by 216 and you should have your answer. There has to be a way of doing this that does not involve a spreadsheet…

  8. JamesG says: • Website

    I describe my very first encounter with Gould: in The Axillae of San Stefano.

    El linko:

  9. FD says:

    Dear Mr. Derbyshire,

    At least one 2: there are 91 outcomes (6^3 total minus 5^3 two-less outcomes).
    At least two 1s and no 2s: something of the form 11x, where x is not 1 or 2, gives 12 outcomes (four valid values of x, and three possible permutations 11x, 1×1, x11 for each such value of x), plus one instance of 111. So you should have a grand total of 104, not 103.

    At least one 3: 91 rolls
    Instances of getting 111: 1
    Probability of getting 12x, where x is not 1, 2, or 3: 3 values of x, six permutations, so 18
    Probability of getting 12x, where x is 1 or 2: 2 values of x, three permutations each, so 6.
    So the total number of ways to get 3 is 116.

    This gets a little more involved on the higher ones to prevent counting the same outcome repeatedly (too sleep-deprived to do this without erring right now, if indeed I haven’t erred above), but the idea is the same.

  10. FD says:

    Or if you don’t care about the combinatorics, set up three nested loops to the tune of

    int combos(int x){
    int a, b, c;
    int counter=0;
    for (a=1; a<=6; a++) {
    for (b=1;b<=6; b++) {
    for (c=1; c<=6; c++) {
    if ((x==a) ||(x==b)||(x==c)||(x==a+b)||(x==a+c)||(x==b+c)||(x==a+b+c))

    return counter;

    or the equivalent in a language of your choice. Way more reliable than tallying by hand.

  11. Truth says:

    Regarding your “What Does the Alt-Right want?” Graphic; the Derbyshire household fails miserably at #1 and #6.

  12. dearieme says:

    I was told recently by a couple who are keenly interested in such things that lots of ex-pat jobs are migrating from Hong Kong to Singapore.

    P. S. “Elizabeth the First’s England was so well-forested, it was said that a squirrel could go from coast to coast without ever touching the ground.” No doubt it was said: the evidence says it is bollocks.

    The proportion of land classed as woodland was probably well below 10%, and much of that would be wood-pasture rather than land devoted to coppicing or to growing timber.

  13. @The Anti-Gnostic

    I thought John was a better strategist than that.

    Trump = Alt-right
    Alt-right = non Christian ?

  14. Vox Day is the obvious exception to Derb’s “we don’t do faith” dictum. It doesn’t seem to tame him much though.

    Speaking from the dwindling rump of the old Religious Right, I can confirm, at least anecdotally, that it is the AltRight’s race realism and general comfort with the more brutal conclusions to be drawn from controversial facts that separates the two groups. Christianity offers a bridge (however tenuos) between American blacks and whites that Religious Rightists like myself are loathe to burn on the altar of hate-facts.

    But I think this difference is better explained by a stronger relational impulse among the Christian Right than weaker religious impulse among the AltRight. It’s less about faith than it is about community, and the AltRight seems far more comfortable and content with an anonymous, amorphous online community than the Religious Right, which is still highly regional, with in-person communities in the form of churches and grassroots groups.

    Just look at the AltRight types or friendlies around the web – Vox Day is a self-described lone wolf who lives as an ex-pat in Italy; Mike Cernovich is a roving bachelor along with a lot of the men’s issue guys in the AltRight periphery; Jared Taylor grew up in Japan to a missionary family and has bounced all over the place; Derb is an ex-pat; Fred Reed is an ex-pat living in Mexico; I don’t know much about Spencer, but he seems to bounce around quite a bit as well.

    Steve Sailer is a counter-example as a lifelong Southern Californian, but he’s also one of the gentler figures of the AltRight who has argued for citizenism over white nationalism.

  15. Anonym says:

    I wonder if you got the prompt for the religious part of this diary from the exchange I had with Corvinus here:

    I suspect you did. In any case, it’s an interesting thesis – that the “not really Christian” aspect of the alt-right is due to a low registering on the religious scale. I am not sure that is really it.

    Personally, I am a fanatic. (Is it representative? I don’t know, but maybe in explaining that some truth will emerge.) Whatever I do in life, I do it with a fanaticism. I obsess. I study. I practice. I support. If Christianity was something I thought was worthwhile and intellectually defensible, I would get behind it wholeheartedly. My ancestors probably did.

    However, I find the whole enterprise to be as intellectually bankrupt as Martin Luther held the Catholic church to be. And what’s worse, the major Christian organizations see Christianity as something to extend to non-whites. Christianity is now a major promoter of cuckoldry, and I wouldn’t accept it even if God came down to earth, sat on my lawn and created an indestructible rock and proceeded to destroy it for me as a demonstration of his power. It’s wrong.

    And why is this? I guess in part because I hold logic, mathematics and science in high regard, because I am skilled at employing them, and find them very useful. I am naturally inclined to believe my lying eyes when I see bullshit. However, the fanatic impulse is stronger in myself than in most people who just “show up” at Church and don’t or can’t bother to actually do what they are instructed to do. This is natural for engineers. It’s how a lot of us are. One has to be something of a fanatic to get through an engineering degree, it is a combination of sheer bloodymindedness and the ability to do the work.

    The mirror image of the peaceful alt-right keyboard warrior is the Islamic terrorist.

    Note that they are wrong about why in the Islamic case the engineer is over-represented in terrorism. The real reason is because the Koran is a manual and if there is one thing an engineer knows how to do, it is to Read The F***ing Manual (RTFM). If you know the doctrine of abrogation, and also know the order of chapters in the Koran, it is pretty simple to figure out what Allah tells one to do. The last chapter of the Koran doesn’t say much, but it is pretty clear that the penultimate chapter tells one to slay the idolators where you find them. And if you don’t do that, you are a weak, useless and bad person. So get with the program!

    The white engineer (or the thinker who is of the sort who has engineering type tendencies) does not have something like the Koran. The bible lacks the focus of the Koran. Some of the general principles are good. For one, the lack of focus on war to the detriment of all else. It is good that the primary focus of a country with the Western ethos is not on war. This allows us to build up our economy and make something of the blood and soil with which we are gifted. This is why our countries have not become deserts with neglect. Always seeking first to take someone else’s stuff rather than fix what you have is a prescription for blight.

    In any case, the engineer sees the threat with which his genetics, his people, his children, his land is faced. It is beset by the lunacy of mainstream Christianity and the Cultural Marxist ideology most of all, amongst the opportunistic infections of other races. HBD stems from the language he can understand, The Bell Curve. He can understand Islam and what it represents because he has RTFMed the Koran. He knows that other races are threatening, and that History is far from over. This demands a response.

    However, if we take up arms, the organs of the establishment will grind us into dust and destroy our ability to raise children and in the ways that are right. On a personal level, that is as important as how our race fares in the grand scheme of things. It is wrong that our best should have to sacrifice much, except maybe if they are gay and just have no inclination for raising children. Breivik comes to mind there. But sending out our generals and colonels to die in human wave attacks is just plain dumb.

    However, we know that ideas are compelling and can exponentially replicate (and I suppose, procreate in a way – when I comment on something and contribute a new idea, other people adopt it or not) at a faster rate than DNA. In less than a human generation, the ideas have sprung from Sailer, Vdare and co in a quiet corner of the web, to bringing about Brexit and the nomination of Trump, and at least on the level of Trump and Farage have certainly found support among the majority of white people. This fertile community of thinkers has brought this about, with a fanaticism that the Jesuits or Islamic State would respect. Personally, I have been writing in comments sections and contributing to discussions for about a decade now, so that the discussions are improved in a few outposts of people who are good enough writers to be able to subsist on the crumbs people like myself give to them. Like Steve and yourself.

    I spend at least an hour a day on this, often more, while working and providing for a family. I am far from alone here. I don’t think of it as work. I do it because I am pissed off at the state of the world and I want to change it. I can’t help myself but to do it. I am compelled. And I think that every small comment, if it changes someone’s opinion, it’s worth it. Often the MSM censors but when people read a well-written comment that they feel is the truth, it persuades. And those people tend to stay persuaded and in turn become advocates. My part is smaller than that of Sailer’s and Trump’s. But in aggregate it is no less essential, and I think over the years I have contributed some useful ideas to the milieu. It is frequently remarked that people who read sites like unz value the comments sections just as much as what has been discussed in the articles. I certainly do so. Without us, this exponential growth would not have happened.

    So that is me. Is it representative? To a lot of extents, yes. We have approached the movement of the alt-right with the holy fire of religious fervor, although with humor at the same time. The memes of reddit have a lot in common with the grassroots propaganda of the Lutheran rebellion.

    And in many ways, I also see in us echoes of the American Independence movement. Ben Franklin and most of the other Founding Fathers were Freemasons, which from what I can tell is a religion of sorts. They were certainly fanatics, willing to die for their cause but with every chance of living. But not overly Christian. Could Franklin be an engineer? Absolutely.

    So to summarize, I am not sold on the thesis that the alt-right is lacking in religious impulse. If anything, we may be brimming over with fanatical religious impulse, and when we see tens of thousands at a Trump rally, this is an indication of the fervor. However, the Christianity of today is cucked. The only Christianity we could adopt is of the muscular Deus Vult! variety, and then it would largely be a nominal adherence, an adherence to the culture rather than the axioms.

  16. Chuck says:

    ” as you can see from the snarling of their paid trolls in the comment thread to that Economist article online”

    Are the Chinese hasbarists as incompetent as the semites?

  17. DB Cooper says:

    “I’d supposed that the grumbling might have faded with the rise of the New China. Not at all: if anything, it’s worse than ever.”

    You should know that the phenomenon of ‘low information voters’ is not unique to the US. Most of those so called ‘localist’ are just that.

  18. Historian says:
    @jim jones

    Mrs.Thatchers`s biggest mistake was not letting the Hong Kongers in when we gave the place back to China in 1997. Now we have illiterate Somalis instead.

    Have you seen what happened to Vancouver when the Canadians let the Chinese in? Housing prices went from $400,000 to $2 million in 15 years. It’s gotten so bad that the government just passed a new tax on non-resident owned property.

    Thatcher was right. If you think London is expensive now with Somalis, imagine how expensive it would be after a million Chinese move in.

  19. Keith Vaz says:

    You missed a major reason many of us abandoned Christianity – the complete capitulation of its leaders to CultMarx. Instead of seeing its traditionalism as a bulwark againat anti-White-Maleism, they’ve tried to appease oir (((Elites))) at everu junction.

    For example, Pope Francis kissing the toes of Third Worlders and agitating for non-Whites and Muslims to enter Europe is the very definition of a cuck. They made a massive strategic error in failing to realize just how let down and disgusted the average White man would be by their shamelessness.

  20. Anonym says:

    re: the Math Olympiad – Where is the Chinese Euler or Newton?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS