One of the many paths to power for alt-right ideas would be to control substantial elements of the federal government. This scenario has major limitations given the Constitution and the inertia that exists in the American system due to the nebulous divisions of sovereignty it imposes. It’s also hated by purists, who think the United States has to go. And perhaps it will eventually, because there is no method of totally fixing it from within. But controlling blocs of federal power is a scenario in which executive orders, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court rulings could be made with the intention of not making things worse. Because that’s exactly how things are for us under occupation—worse every year.
This makes more people resent the system but it also… makes us worse off. We shouldn’t rule out the idea of having policy positions for the current system of government; that door is not entirely shut yet. Planning for collapse scenarios is all and well, but having policies which could plausibly be enacted tomorrow rather than the day after tomorrow has rhetorical value. It shows we aren’t just LARPing about the ethnostate and that there are short- and medium-term applications for our ideas. So here are some areas that an alt-right administration could tackle:
The United States has a history of turning away the world’s huddled masses, so yes, anti-immigration is an American value. Before the 1890s, and more so before 1880, most immigration was from places like Ireland, Germany, England, Scotland, Scandinavia and so forth. From 1880-1920, most immigration came from Italy, Poland, Russia and other non-Northern European countries, bringing with it large numbers of Jews. The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act, set up a national origins quota for who could enter the United States as a reaction to this change. The law replaced the 1921 Immigration Act, which was less strict, passing the House of Representatives by 308 to 58 and the Senate 69 to 9. The 1924 law limited entry visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census; 1921’s law referred to 1910. The quota system greatly favored Northern European countries over Southern and Eastern European countries, in addition to further restricting immigration from Asia (Asian immigrants already could not become naturalized citizens in most cases).
If Congress were to pass a new immigration act revising the (((Hart-CellerAct))) of 1965, it could also use an old census to set up a new quota system. Like the old Immigration Acts, it would also be aimed at conserving the ethnic and racial character of the United States. If we take a look at this interactive map from Pew Research, we can see how immigration changed over each decade. Here’s 2010:
Notice how this has and will continue to the change the ethnic admixture of the United States, and reflects almost nothing of the what the population resembled prior to 1965. Meanwhile, here’s 1960, based off immigration from the preceding decade, which was considered the golden age of American economic and military power:
Can you imagine a plurality or majority of foreigners in DC being German? I can’t. But it used to be that way. If we were to set up new national origins quotas based on the 1960 Census, the only countries with any substantial number of visas would be Germany, Italy, Britain, Canada, and Mexico. That wouldn’t be terrible.
The president also has the authority to block whatever countries he wants and deny entry to their nationals:
“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” —U.S. Code § 1182 (Inadmissible Aliens)
The problem with executive orders is that they can be rescinded by the next administration with the stroke of a pen. In the long-term it would be better to institutionalize immigration restrictions into the laws of the land and retain enough of a legislative majority to prevent them from being repealed. Such is the way our legal system works.
Marriage and Family
You can’t legislate behavior but you can definitely incentivize it. Our laws regarding marriage and divorce are completely dysgenic, anti-family, and anti-natal, and they need to be changed. There are two crucial reforms necessary. First, the legality of no-fault divorce must be abolished. The ability to get a divorce without having any valid reason was first introduced into the United States through a 1970 law signed by none other than California governor Ronald Reagan, who remains beloved by conservatives for some reason. By the 1980s, almost every state had enacted no-fault divorce laws, in a decade which also remains beloved by conservatives for some reason. For people who claim to care about family values, conservatives have neglected the family itself.
Intact families with replacement-level fertility rates are the building blocks of our civilization and integral to having a healthy society, and so any laws which facilitate the destruction of such families and degrade the value of child-bearing marriages are antithetical to life itself. The family is the ultimate expression of future orientation. Feminism, by “smashing the patriarchy,” has rather smashed the family, and produced broken homes and a record number of miserable childless catladies and single mothers. This is a disaster that needs to be brought under control before we permanently go off the demographic cliff. And conservatives have been complicit in it.
Secondly, we need a revised version of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) put in place and the Sanhedrin ruling that overturned it, United States v. Windsor (2013), totally dropped. Homosexual marriages, to the extent that they exist, are a parody, and even some LGBT academics reject them as being “heteronormative.” The drive for homosexual marriage is entirely the work of a lobby that plays off the nurturing instinct of women and the ideology of a regressive egalitarianism, and doesn’t reflect the reality that most homosexuals are not monogamous. In other words, it is less for the benefit of monogamous homosexuals and more to the benefit of those who want to deconstruct the ideal of the nuclear family by destroying its legal definition. It is evident that we have to prioritize what is best for childbearing couples over what is best for a minority of the homosexual minority.
Marriage is between a man and woman, and not only should those couples be entitled to the legal benefits of marriage, but couples which produce children should be given further entitlements. Just as we need to get immigration under control to maintain our society and culture, we also need our people to reproduce themselves. And while there is nothing we can do to instantly overturn the collapse of family-centric culture, we should do everything we can to incentivize its return. We need to make childcare, education, and home-ownership easier for nuclear families, who are, again, integral to the continuity of our society. We should consider even taking drastic discriminatory measures against the willfully childless, especially childless couples (without fertility issues) and single people in their thirties and onward. Nothing else we do or build will matter if it is not inherited by our people because they failed to reproduce.
The purpose of gun ownership is two-fold: to empower self-defense in a society with deteriorating security, and to promote the ideal family provider-defender role of the citizen. As the United States increasingly comes to resemble the third-world, the right to defend ourselves will only become more valuable. Hobbes said that life was “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short,”and nowhere is this more true than outside of the global north (Greater Europe and East Asia). Since 1965, most population growth in the United States has been of Third-World origins thanks to the scrapping of our national origins immigration quotas by the (((Hart-Celler Act))). You’re going to want a gun if your neighborhood looks like Brazil or South Africa. Or if you are geographically surrounded by places that look like Brazil or South Africa. And that is the future as of now—most births in this country are non-white. In vibrant New York City, 90% of violent crimes are committed by the black and mestizo population, and private gun ownership is severely restricted. More people died in Chicago from gun violence the last eight years than American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan during the same period. A gun-free future is anarcho-tyranny.
Diversity breaks down trust and social cohesion in two main ways: first it balkanizes society into competing ethnic groups, and secondly it erodes trust between members of the same ingroup, since they are accustomed to not trusting people in the first place. In a low-trust society, you need to arm yourself because you can’t count on your “fellow citizen” to behave, and you can’t rely on the police to protect you.
In terms of legislation, there should be as few restrictions on firearms ownership as possible. Ownership should be regarded as a civic virtue—to be ready to defend home, hearth, and fatherland—and there should be ongoing educational campaigns to promote gun safety and responsibility. Like marriage laws, our laws regarding guns should be aimed at incentivizing and uplifting the model citizen, not creating the model dependent. The model citizen is capable of self-defense of his family. Concealed-carry permits enable this and should be issued and valid in all states, which would require either a federal law or arm-twisting to get all states to pass permit laws (as was done with driving laws).
Much of US foreign policy is really out of the hands of the government proper and remains unchanged no matter who is elected. Revolutionary action would ultimately be needed to alter some of our foreign relationships and institutions. That said, there are things an alt-right administration could do from within Congress or the executive branch. Programs that send “development aid” overseas can be cancelled. Attempts at “developing” the entire world to Western levels of consumption are an ecological disaster waiting to happen and currently responsible for explosive birthrates in the global south, which thanks to our medical technology and the local aversion to birth control are driving immigration pressures and creating an unsustainable demand for resources. Furthermore, there are plenty of economically depressed areas in our own country which should inherently be put first and benefit from investment and infrastructure improvements.
Military bases that are irrelevant to our missile defense systems should be closed, leases cancelled, and the land returned to the countries they are located in. All military personnel not on reserved bases should be withdrawn from countries which we have not declared war against. Additionally, only countries which we are allied with in a lawfully-declared war should be eligible for military aid. That means no more billions for Israel for each year. The casus belli of “humanitarian war” should also be renounced, as toppling autocratic governments in the name of democracy is a waste of time, treasure, and blood, in addition to forcing one of the worst forms of government on populations which will be unable to weather it. Forcing democracy on the Middle East and North Africa is especially dangerous, since democracy leads to the rise of Islamist parties and religious sectarianism (see Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc.). Another important foreign policy realignment would be de-escalating the (((neocon))) standoff against Russia, which is a natural ally against the global conflict with the Islamic world, since the Russians are quite literally on the front-lines of it.
Energy and the Environment
The United States should become energy independent or limit imports to countries which are aligned with our values and civilization. We should not be making the Islamic monarchies of the Gulf rich. We should be making use of our natural resources here in the United States—such as coal, oil, and natural gas—and promoting the use of efficient, emission-free alternatives like nuclear energy. This will also create domestic jobs. If climate change predictions are correct, and predictions that change will occur regardless of how much we cut our current emissions, the sane energy policy should be to make sure our energy supplies remain secure and sufficient to meet our consumption needs regardless of global shifts, by promoting energy independence and autarkic production. Additionally, since climate change and rising sea levels would cause cataclysmic migration pressures and coastal flooding, we need to strengthen our borders accordingly and develop the technologies necessary for protecting our ports. If people actually care about the impact of climate change and our energy policies as opposed to virtue-signaling about them, they will think about the long-term repercussions and allow the government to undertake the multiple administration-spanning projects necessary to mitigate them. This is not something we can solve in one or two terms, and it won’t be solved by making unenforceable carbon-capping pacts with other countries.
We need to encourage as much domestic production as possible in order to create quality jobs for American workers so they can start and sustain families. The United States was built on the strength of its internal marketplace and having high quality exports. A country as massive as ours should not be relying on Third-World sweatshop slave labor to produce many of its most basic goods, from clothing to food to household appliances. This is unethical and spatially absurd; the product of historically anomalous free trade laws and the cheapness of exploiting overseas labor.
We will be judged by history, both for hollowing out the economic base of our own country and for supporting modern-day slavery. Why do we ship clothing all the way from Bangladesh or Indonesia to the United States? Why do we both pour money into foreign Mexican production and import Mexican workers into our domestic workforce? At some point, these countries are going to have labor laws or unionization and the costs of producing overseas will go up anyway. In terms of pure balance sheet costs alone, it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. But when we consider the costs of all the inputs in this supply chain, from feeding and housing foreign workers, to fueling the container ships, to trucking the goods to retailers and warehouses in the United States, there are huge costs not factored into the price we pay at the register. If protectionism is opposed for economic reasons by globalists, economists, and anti-nationalists, perhaps they can be convinced to support them on moral or environmental grounds. Producing locally is better for the environment and means a slave-free supply chain. Why our supposed liberals ignore this is a source of fascination to me. But for nationalists the solution is clear, to support as much domestic production as we can sustain, and this can be done through legislation.
The American education system needs a lot of work. State-run universities and federal and state student loan programs need to be rethought to serve the needs of our nation rather than being sponsors of marxist academics and producers of brain-dead, debt-laden, unemployable drones. The liberal arts are valuable when taught properly, but people should not be going deeply in debt to get a liberal arts education, especially since it’s become a source of anti-civilizational values. How insane have we become that we encourage our children to believe that college is the one true path to status and enlightenment, despite most students learning nothing of value in what have become glorified high school classes. We need more support for STEM and trade school education, not more Intersectional Feminist Basketweaving. We need the liberal arts brought under better oversight, and financing for those who wish to “study” them restricted. The electrician and the plumber build the country as much as the engineer and the philosopher. The education system in this country fills a large amount of young people’s heads with racial and gender mythology and supplies unemployed marxists at the taxpayers’ expense. This can be fixed.
You get more of what you incentivize and less of what you don’t. The tech sector says we need more scam H1B1 visas for less-expensive foreigners because there aren’t enough qualified Americans to do QA testing for smartphone apps. Why couldn’t we change that in four years? We need to figure out which policies would incentivize the best to do their best and which would channel the mediocre into less academically or scientifically rigorous, but still productive, work. Currently, we have a blindly pro-college culture and loan system of generating profits off ignorant people by leading them into debt for meaningless degrees. This has to change and it could start from the top-down. Something has to be done about student debt, because debt makes home-ownership harder and delays family formation. A society where the young have negative wealth and low birthrates is going to die. It is a testament to how wildly irresponsible, i.e., evil, the current system is that it inches us closer and closer societal collapse in the name of progress.
An alt-right administration in the United States would not be able to save the United States. The authority needed to totally save our civilization does not exist in the American system. That doesn’t mean we should reject the rhetorical value of having policy proposals. Audiences want to know what we would do, not just what our theories are. Conversely, we have to keep in mind that policy proposals are never going to be enough. But someone needs to pull the emergency brake. If we don’t do anything to change our values and way of life—or try to create conditions that would lead to change—we aren’t going to magically emerge from the rubble of its collapse better off. Accelerationists would do well to remember that. If we ever have the opportunity to rewrite the laws we should take it. Let’s make sure when we step out of the Weimerica Shopping Center, we do so from a position of strength.