Alt-Right

I've heard the description that Kek is similar to the god Crom [Conan, R.E.Howard].
Crom does not answer prayers and disfavours weakness.

So he does not speak to anyone and nobody is instructed by him.
Looking at the development of the deities of man, I think he is similar to very old deities.
Or anyway, a deity for which man is not the center of the universe.

That way there is also no authority on who or what Crom of Kek is.
So how could anybody know that Crom disfavours weakness? - That expresses itself in the world, like the harsh environment of Cimmeria.
Would make sense in that way.

As for darkness, 'dark' feelings are those urges which are not conforming with the present ideals.
And when you say that there is a wariness of shills, of new '-isms', then that's a wariness of new idols.

At first glance, something like an "Emperor Trump" meme looks like it's making an idol out of him. But it's part caricature and I think that's not something you do of things you unquestionably idolise.

The superiority of 'Anonymous' in creating an internet culture is due to their ability to take advantage of obvious stereotypes and appearances, simplifying their messages and their efficiency in distributing information.

The Tyrant must always limit the scope of what constitutes 'acceptability'.* This means that their messages must always be 'Politically Correct', meaning that they are forced to present information with lengthy and long-winded newspeak when they need to communicate more distinct messages. They cannot utilize stereotypes which lend credence to 'racial' or 'sexual' or any other kind of distinction. They cannot laugh about it. Blacks eating watermelon and fried chicken? Nope. Asians being bad drivers? Nope. This is important, because they cannot then combine those very stereotypes to deliver a message. The Anons are 'free communicators' about actual problems, where the Tyrant/Left can communicate 'freely' but not substantially (noumena without reference to phenomena). Meaning, they become ineffective problem solvers.

This 'Punch a Nazi' mantra/chant/tribal speak is a result of their inability to compete in the cultural arena with simplified messages that may propagate more easily. They cannot, because it would betray the very imagined 'society' which they wish to establish. As a result, when they do stereotype and use simplified messages, they're forced to be done within a violent context and not one which utilizes the cooperative power of communication. All they can do is shout a very limited amount of buzz words and they cannot distinguish between friend or foe as easily because of the radicalization which comes with the simplification/stupefication of their language. This is why you see the Left consuming itself - even physically attacking itself in one incident. That incident being the one where a white protester attacked an Asian protester who were both on the 'same team' and the Asian man thought it was a 'racist' attacking him, so he shot the white attacker.

For some more reading, an interesting article about the current information war between the 'Deep State' vs. 'Trump': [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

*(Side note: Today, the "White Supremacist" Anons are those who are breaking all the rules of the civilization which had turned against them for the sake of profits - an ultimatum that if they will be disenfranchised from the society they were set to inherit (being robbed from them by the means of slander and lies), then they'll simply collapse all of it. "Current Year" Anon culture arose from this cultural rebellion, because physical fighting wasn't as effective.)

Tolerance Trolling (like 'Concern Trolling')

This is when someone allies themselves with you and, toward some other group (enemy or otherwise), falsifies confidence and power against another group. Characters that do this are generally portrayed as ignorant in literature or as actually having done so out of ignorance.

An example would be if a midget joined a band of mercenaries and, feeding from the success of his comrades, got a false sense of power and then taunted a commander of a military with assertions of how superior their (smaller in comparison) band of mercenaries are to his men. The result of this midget opening his mouth and professing the superiority of his band, got all of them killed.

The so-called Alt-Right is a movement against the tolerance trolling of the white race.

Slaughtz wrote:

The demand for tolerance becomes a demand for weakness when its fulfillment nullifies the capacity for intolerance.

White men are taunted whenever they express that they might not be able to tolerate their own genocide, as being 'weak' for recognizing their limits. Other white men, who believe in a nihilistic perspective of the world, that genocide of Europeans is an impossibility (somewhat helped by the assertion that the 'white' race doesn't even exist), help prop up the boasters of 'white tolerance'. Hypermasculinity, then, becomes a weakness as white men are supposedly flattered with the virtue of abandoning their own racial identity while others increasingly embrace their own. However, it is less a flattery than an intimidation, since when a white man abandons the flatterous and nihilistic position, they are immediately equated to the lowest scum of humankind - as 'weak children', by the same flatterer.

Nice guide to the alt-right.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As an aside, DailyStormer is probably the least cucked site out there.

AutSider wrote:

Nice guide to the alt-right.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As an aside, DailyStormer is probably the least cucked site out there.

I agree. Aside from some very minor disagreements, that article is the most comprehensively accurate explanation of the Umman Manda I've seen.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Eh, I gotta say this is the first relevant disagreement I have with the writers on the Daily Stormer. Female sexual choice is good, provided there are certain limitations to it. For example, enforcing monogamy and strictly punishing adultery (especially cheating females) is a good start, as well as allowing only relationships within one's race.

I suppose that the alternative to female sexual choice they'd argue for is that women should be the property of their father, and that their father can give them (usually in exchange for something else, basically sell them) to whomever he wants to. I find this objectionable because it would most likely select only for material wealth and disregard other traits - masculinity, charm, intelligence and others which females naturally also select for, alongside resources of course. This is objectively bad for the gene pool, and if I am to be honest, subjectively bad for me. There are more important things to nurture and develop than one's bank account.

The problem is that I dislike sticking my nose into other people's business but at the same time I recognize that without some sort of a system limiting people's (mostly women's) behavior it is impossible to get birthrates above 2.0 and preserve the group.

AutSider wrote:

I find this objectionable because it would most likely select only for material wealth and disregard other traits - masculinity, charm, intelligence and others which females naturally also select for, alongside resources of course.

In an environment where the balanced expression of those traits are allowed to be expressed/rewarded by an institution, material wealth perhaps could be a eugenic selective proxy.

A limit/punishment would also need to be imposed on potential misers who attempt to compensate for their lacking, not just through money, but through any excess of a quality. (I.E. Dumb Strong men/ Smart Weak men).

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

In an environment where the balanced expression of those traits are allowed to be expressed/rewarded by an institution, material wealth perhaps could be a eugenic selective proxy.

You mean some kind of system where the rewards an individual gets are directly proportional to their energetic contribution to the system, to how much work they actually do? That's more or less what nature is. Society is inherently prone to being manipulated by the Jewy types who create money out of nothing and amass wealth without having produced anything tangible, possibly even being destructive to the system and its people. Another type are the actors, sportspeople, musicians etc. who also produce nothing tangible but get very wealthy. They too may promote degeneracy with their art/music/whatever and still receive money and resources from the system, this is the worst case scenario. There are ways to limit their influence in society though, see Satyr's timocracy for an example.

Quote :

A limit/punishment would also need to be imposed on potential misers who attempt to compensate for their lacking, not just through money, but through any excess of a quality. (I.E. Dumb Strong men/ Smart Weak men).

What do you mean by that? Should we punish big and stupid people and weak and smart ones just for being what they are, even if they're not destructive to the system?

The most important goal for the alt-right and WNs should be to remove the corrupt elites and (((them))) and focus on retaking the country's police and military by redpilling as many fighting age men as possible. We only really need healthy, strong red-pilled men to achieve political goals. Women are not the problem, many of them will naturally fall into line and the feminists will either be forced to submit and stop spreading their memetic disease or be killed. To focus on converting them is pointless. Once other, more important and more difficult issues are taken care of the women problem will be easy to solve, at least in terms of physical enforcement. The biggest problem will be, again, persuading the white-knightey alt-righters and WNs, not women themselves. Women only do what men let them. Once the corrupt people on the inside and women are dealt with, we can start re-building and focusing on external threats.

AutSider wrote:

What do you mean by that? Should we punish big and stupid people and weak and smart ones just for being what they are, even if they're not destructive to the system?

They're not destructive in themselves but you know as well as I do, that these types are the first to form the ranks of the armies that fight for the chosen, especially today.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Helots in Ancient Sparta tended to be Bigger due to their focus on farming and agriculture?

Im also going to go out on a limb and say that the Athenians, were more of the latter type, who managed to be seduced by intellect, erecting walls to mask a hidden decay.

These types must be kept in check, lest they forget their place in the world and come to dominate through sheltering.

This is what happens when memes enslave culture. Minds go mad branching off into a rampant superficial categorizing of equally superficial ideas as a form of adaptation to sheltering environments.

Labels, political parties and stances, lies, half-truths. All symptoms leading to a form of inevitable cynical fatalism displayed here.

These modern Rightists....they live in the delusion that Aryan paganism can be rekindled or subsist somehow in modernity or leftism. And it is this cancerous delusion that will always lead to them being duped or disappointed or aggrieved. This is why they share the mimetic bloodline with their fellow liberals. Why they are half breeds. A unique brood of modern times.

They must be convinced, beyond all popular doubt, that the system they are in is not representative of their interests and that there is no moral 'evil' to promoting their own interests. They do not trust themselves: their own intuition, judgment and rationality. They still require a popular consent. I know this because I've been ill in this regard. My attempts at a cure (for myself) in this regard has been to try and make modern nihilism come full circle and expose itself.

That is what I think 'meme culture' was originally trying to do, as well. If the 'elite' of the world are going to insult all culture with its egalitarian and capitalist bullshit and they have power but refuse to listen to reason, then cultural anarchy is seen as the only solution. That is, pushing the extreme and radical end of multiculturalism into the fore. This method has had some success, as it's made those 'elite' declare a cartoon frog as anti-Jew.

As the old holders of American culture fade away and die, there is a weight being lifted - but it is a weight that's kept the peace: a white giant mass of people that is currently withering away. What will fill the vacuum can only be war and genocide because that same mass of Europeans are too easily seduced by what they want to hear and won't react.

There is also an underlying sort of martyrdom, which is that: if you are going to murder and genocide my race, then genocide everyone of our race whom are capable of any amount of integrity. That is, if you will kill the noble, kill every noble. Making sure your future is robbed of the kindness and honor which comes from the best individuals of a race. A sort of resentful vengeance which seeks an ultimatum: leave our race alone or face living with your own deceptive kind, all alone without any other race you can get your rocks off from tricking into being slaves.

Of course, rich whites do not care for such white nationalism because they believe they are going to be unaffected. They only care about green and will gladly kill off their own race for its sake. There is, if not due to being blatantly non-white, probably a resentment for their own race held by the rich whites. Despite that same culture and ethnic nation providing the basis for their power, they cannot overcome injustices of the past - and they easily find a scapegoat in 'white racism' and Hitler. This is also part of the hypermasculine culture of Anglos, who prefer to scapegoat others rather than reflect seriouslyand humble themselves. The connection between hypermasculinity, vanity and Anglos (post-Civil War England) is worthy of exploration.

Part of what white support for Trump was, was a shit-test of Anglo culture, if it can actually achieve what it promises: and Trump is the personification of that vanity. It would be symbolically very interesting if a white nationalist were to be the one who assassinates Trump.

The guys laughter sounds forced and creepy.
Something wrong there....
Don't know him enough to figure out what it is.

Some of what he says is correct.
Biggest threat to the (((Nihilistic))) establishment is China.

China has not been conquered by Caucasian/European peoples before, unlike the rest of the world.

It is the last unconquered stronghold (from European crusaders).

For them, their ideas of nobility are awash with the same modern dogshit of tolerance. In other words, they have no standards, and will give respect to anyone whether it is a fat butch feminist with a shaved head, or a black transgender with paraplegia. As long as they endorse Donald Trump in some way, or watch and support their radio shows or agree that race is real and political correctness is dumb, than they treat them as equals and accept all their other modern delusions of equality because they share the same ones.

It's manifested into a competitive game of institutionalizing.

This is what makes them liberals. Deep down anyway. A trend of sympathizing with Christianity is also emerging in their camp. Another warped sentiment they have latched onto in reaction against establishment oppression. Christians, for them, are being persecuted beneath the tyranny of communist leftism and therefore must be given support and favor. Caring nothing to understand where Christianity came from and that it gave birth to one of its many children, Catholicism; the sect they demonize for its insidious connection to the hated leftists and the corrupt Pope. Alex Jones preaches like a televangelist every now and then on his show; a very obvious sign what's going on here. Bottom line, it's all cheer leading for them now. Whoever and whatever, works for the establishment, are the bad guys and whoever and whatever is against it, are with us.

They don't care about exploring the origins of their ideas, whether it be the ones they favor or hate, they only know, from their anarcho-capitalist perspectives, that Globalism is growing to proportions of insuperable geopolitical power and supplanting any quality of their precious individualism and 'sovereignty'. And they are right about this. But, their methods of fighting back, are based in the same shared principles of liberalism that brought it to this phase in the first place. Based on the same sources of weakness and delusions of grandeur and self-actualization that Mitchell Heisman spoke about that was the chronic disease that began with the civil wars of ancient England.

I agree, this guy does make good points, as do many others in the alt-right, but it fails to save him and them from their real problem, which is that they are genetic inheritors of liberalism. Like a normal intelligent person who suffers from asthma. He is, also a product of the tainted right which is modernized and made sick by liberal undercurrents and undertones. Him saying he likes "free speech" is an example of his traditional feelings toward liberalism; "free speech" being an illusion of freedom and only a political trifle which doesn't mean anything.

They are coming to terms with their mistakes they are now realizing they made with believing in Trump as their savior. And as Trump continues to descend further into becoming another hypocritical and corrupt president, which he is doing everyday, what will they do then? They all seem to be growing more disgruntled with Trump as time goes on. What happens if they denounce and turn on him completely? I'd be interested to see Trump hold a support rally at this point.

Not the first video I have seen with him talking about the rise of the far right.
In another video he also talked about resentment.

I think he himself is actually thinking within the boundaries of ressentiment.
(Which doesn't mean that ressentiment isn't also present among the alt-right in parts)

So the argument is - "How can you be for nationalism if you say at the same time that you don't like the current state?" That's a contradiction to him.

It's like, if you don't like your enemies killing you, you must also think that you should not kill your enemies. Why? Because that's 'principled'. The principle being that if you don't like your own oppression that you have to be against all oppression. If you don't like some particular authority then you have to dislike authority of any kind.

If the birds of prey hunt sheep then the sheep tell themselves that the best sheep is the one which is nothing at all like a bird of prey. Meek and tender flesh.

Anfag wrote:

... if you don't like your enemies killing you, you must also think that you should not kill your enemies.

A deceptive group protects themselves from being seen as distinct, but when they are caught, they say that you shouldn't blame them because of their sad 'past' and (if that fails) they say they're doing nothing wrong because you'd do the same. This is like an invader telling you that you'd do the same in their position and therefor you shouldn't protect your city. Or a traitor saying that, in their position, you'd have done the same and therefor you have no right to be 'upset' about it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's only after you've exposed their deceit, utilizing truth and morality for a deceitful end, that they immediately switch gears into a 'mode' in which they are completely amoral. Specifically, they take morality and apply it to an amoral appreciation/observation of some event. Trying to qualify this behavior within a principled framework has always been difficult for me.

If I was a cow, I'd eat grass. This is just plainly obvious. If I was you, I'd do what you did. This is plainly obvious in the manner of it being said. If I was a deceptive and bottom-feeding piece of garbage, I'd do what you did. The amount of utter rage this kind of deceptive behavior should induce is just inhumanely large.

I said elsewhere, at least for me, that it is simply dumbfounding in its audacity, to the point you can no longer properly respond to the threat. It is so insulting to the intelligence and agency of the person it is being said to, that it's otherworldly. It's somewhat like immediately changing the subject by just stating a truth, in order to disarm and distract from what you were caught doing.

What are the principle axioms?

The axiom is that I am part of the chosen people.

Or the axiom is to do no harm which makes my enemies point out that I have to kill myself because I'm taking up space which is harming the expansion of other organisms.

Or the axiom is equality which makes me cut and hamper myself whenever somebody complains that I am in some aspect superior to them.

Silly axioms.
Duplicitous.
Reality denying.

Yes, specifically in regard to the first axiom. They've exempted themselves from universal morality whenever they see fit, but utilize it freely as an argument/dialectical/political cudgel.

They are like some exotic reptile in nature which would have an uncanny ability to bend light a certain way such that they cannot be detected by certain mammals and so can slip by and grab one of their young for a snack - but if they were ever noticed they would be ripped to shreds. Except, it is with human senses/sociality and not that of some exotic reptiles in distant lands interacting with each other.

The only thing, we know deep down, that stops them from being murderous is that they're physically weak and might be caught. If you're ever dragged into the shadows with one of them, where no one could ever witness a thing, we'd expect them to be the most malicious and sadistic of individuals we've ever known.

There is a certain level the common human will not sink to even in bad circumstances that their duplicity tells/shows that they'd do so without a second thought.

"All scorpions are not bad, if i sting you on the way, i will die for i do not know how to swim. Now the frog saw enough reason in the scorpion's statement, and agreed to carry him across the river."

Reason is the tool the scorpion used against the frog. Why do we worship reason and rationality so much when our attitude towards existence is irrational and emotional?

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Reason is the tool the scorpion used against the frog. Why do we worship reason and rationality so much when our attitude towards existence is irrational and emotional?

Excellent question.

When reason becomes obsolete in the face of intellectual impoverishment, it becomes romantic. Schopenhauer reasoned that pain and suffering is the impetus that gives life fulfillment because it requires a cost of living, a hardship that makes the spirit more resilient to the brutality of the universe; rather pleasure/happiness produces a kind of void, a lacking of effort, which results in a languish decadent state where the spirit has nothing to strive for. Therefore Man needs suffering to live meaningfully. A society that nurtures comfort and happiness then becomes a society where everything that makes life meaningful such as, values, character, goals, family, ideas, etc, take on a quality of reverence because they are absent from the civilized constitution of the individual. The demented glorification of violence or psychosis in modern times is a case in point.

Romanticism of violence is a phenomenon that derives from a repressed need for conflict and a subconscious desire for purpose. Modernity is the decline of spirit or the elevation of it to be something unrecognized. If violence in western Americanism is exalted as an attraction then this only proves that there is a subconscious need to not necessarily be violent or savage, but to regain some feeling of power over oneself and assert it onto the world. To feel some hint of self-worth in the form of expression of carnal nature.

Reason has become an attractive ideal in modernity, because of how degenerated it has become; how lost it has become. The need to exalt it than manifests. Same thing goes for the worship of books and reading in modernity. Nobody cares to read anymore, at least not seriously or for good intellectual wealth, so the love of books becomes a romantic longing to surround oneself with what they do not have: knowledge, wisdom. They long for what they do not have, and they are drawn to it viscerally.

The entropy of instincts also plays a role. That most moderns are so out of touch with themselves, or so dumb, that they fall prey to the seduction of reason, they surrender to it, rather than use it for themselves.

The idea of progress relies on tolerance. That is, the non-destruction of the thing tolerating the 'progress' which is had. "Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."

The assertion of white nationalists is that liberalism and the philosophy of individualism will die with their race's extinction - and that their way of life cannot survive a multicultural country; so it ceases being tolerance and becomes weakness. The artificial austerity of multi-culturalism becomes inflicted degeneracy.

The assertion by anti-whites is that those who say it cannot be tolerated, are 'weak', (despite their silence and little revelation of what would be a moderate measure of that 'weakness'). A pathological and radical idea of 'tolerance' and 'strength' is demonstrated from the lack of declared ideological limits to the project, which the lack of makes the white nationalist believe it will cause real harm. It is from the absence of these conditional limits that it can be said limits were never considered on the anti-white's part. In fact, discussion of what those limits might be is considered 'racist' and 'hateful', which is what makes the 'conversation' actually genocidal.

Where those limits might be seen clearly, there are continual attempts to undermine and 'gaslight' about those conditional limits existing. Hate crimes against white people are not declared hate crimes due to skin color; even if the perpatrators yell "Kill white people" while they scalp a disabled white person on camera.

The destruction of the Western patriarchy, under the guise of it being "misogyny", opens it up to invasion by foreign patriarchs - who are not criticized as misogynist because it threatens the possibility of the West preventing their entry, even with the "feminist" ideological justification that they should be prevented from doing so until the patriarchy at home is solved and the foreign elements can be assimilated.

All of what I've said, should not have to be said... Does a sane person give up on an identity without first being reassured others will, as well? The West seems determined to destroy its own identity completely as indistinguishable from all other identities.

Winners of war do not cease attacking their enemies until the enemy has declared peace and demonstrated surrender. It would be foolish to, from a position of strength, give up an identity and then allow others to use your previous association with that identity as a means to discriminate against you with impunity.

Where the egalitarian argument failed in this, there was always an appeal to intimidation, status quo and a declaration of white disenfranchisement actually being to the benefit of whites. Without the perceived power of the institution, they had to become increasingly radical in their denial of everything natural to instinct because of their lies.
They never broke. Never showed shame. Always were confident they were doing the right thing for everyone, when they only did what's right for themselves. The psychopaths, as parasites of the social commons, win. Even to the humanist ideals they espoused, they refused. The higher ideals of their enemy, whites, was used a cudgel merely to bludgeon them with. The "Jewish innocence" a cover for their anti-white and ruthlessly ethnocentric behavior.

White nationalists see: even if we give up on the white identity and attempt to change over to something merit based, the historical enemies of 'whiteness' will not be satisfied until the whole of the heritage of Europeans as any group is erased. That is, all tribal identities, if the majority of the people who occupy it had white skin, are to be utterly destroyed, forgotten and maligned. Even if there were a group which hated whites and targeted them for being white, whiteness must be so completely out of the conscience of white people that they would fail to recognize the hatred for what it was. Every attack against them, would have to leave them in confusion and without understanding. It would have to be unfathomable to them, to the point of DENIAL, that anyone could hate them for their skin color, at all.

This is what guides the Jewish left. This is what is tolerated by the whole of the Left. While the Left concerns itself with their fringe 4chan internet meme enemies, they have no compunction tolerating within their own ranks the filth I outlined above.

Links sent to me by Lyssa...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Slaughtz wrote:

Quote :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The advancement of Kekism as a counter to Truthism is an accelerationist practice which exposes the irrationality of nihilistic meme which a host takes seriously and depends on, to the masses.

That is, it works to help the connection of words with world by pushing absurdity to its limit and leaving the host frustrated with the mockery of their words being destroyed through the same methods they employed to take comfort in them.

There is:
Grounded Words + Mockery
or
Ungrounded Words + Anger

In the former, one connects words with the world and then mocks those who have a different definition.
In the latter, one rejects all connection of words with world and then expresses anger when there's an attempt made to connect them.

Kekism uses the latter method, rejecting labels as a practice by Anonymous people. It's mystique is its strength and weakness. It is a more natural, emergent and spontaneous outcrop of Alinsky methods within a society with a goal of totalitarian newspeak.

When people crave novelty, 'orderliness' begins to become boring and they start openly seeking chaos for its own sake. That, or the lie of chaos posing as orderliness, becomes repugnant and they begin to seek chaos anyway, as the natural path of least resistance, than fighting a stubborn lie that 'all is well'. Unfortunately for the truly chaotic lie posing as order, it must continue to adapt and say it is orderly - or else the people behind it will be quickly exposed. Robbing the populace to the point of it having nothing to lose, they will openly seek chaos, and there they will find a representation that offers no promise, being sincere. Those that control this representation, are behind its honest expression, will serve as the heirs to the new 'order'. Telling the truth reciprocally, winning in the long run.

The liars today will not take ownership of chaos, because of the consequences. Those who actually provided order, are fine with taking ownership of either, because they know their own power is responsible for even the liar's.

This fuckhead is one of the best encapsulations of the feminization of the new modern right i've come across so far. His mocking tone of voice, classical cynicism, and subtle admissions of liberal sentiment, not to mention the very title of his video, all points to the same disorder of modern intellectual impoverishment.

Another alt-right moron who advocates for the status quo that involves a form of acceptance to multiculturalism, while still claiming to retain his European identity like a souvenir to keep in a closet.

"Right-Leaning Libertarian". Yeah. Sounds like something the donut-puncher Yiannopoulos would say.

This is how it turned out:

Not a fan of the entire alt-right movement.
It gathers all sort of misfits and Neanderthals that have no clue what they believe in or why....and give fodder to the degenerates to belittle and dismiss everything that contradicts their naive delusions.

But this is the problem when confronted with quantities that have to be resisted with an equal amount of quantities.
In a world with no frontiers quantities, masses, drown-out qualities, burying them under avalanches of agitated bodies - reasoning is silenced with emotional screams.

Alt-Right is simply the best current option that is somewhat successful. Kind of like what Trump was. Definitely not ideal. The important thing is that it helps push the overton window.

And yes, it's a mass movement, which means there will have to be a dumbed down version of it to appeal to the average person, but that's true of pretty much every political ideology ever. The core principles and the philosophy behind them can still remain intact.

Also, Alt-Right is perhaps the first far-right movement in the last century or so (except a few temporary regimes around the time of the WWII) to have any mainstream success at all without compromising its principles.