The blogger Doxometrist has a substack post (Alt-Center Pill) in response to my series on Alt-Centrism (The Alt-Center revisited and on proposed Alt-Center philosophy and policies). Doxometrist puts forth an excellent and accurate summery of the Alt-Center, that breaks up my proposals into bullet points. He starts with the Alt-Center’s political tactics such as “uniting the politically homeless,” “acknowledging the need to tap into deep psycho-social needs and desires,” “counter-elitism as a path to power,” and the synthesizing of a variety of influences while having core principles not to get lost.” Descriptive positions of the Alt-Center include a “rightwing / realist view of human nature that is tribal and hierarchical, not egalitarian,” and a “rejection of the blank state.” Prescriptive positions include being “ more progressive concerning the types of solutions given to social and political problems… [being] 'pro science' on climate change, vaccination and HBD, and economically distributist, for small scale capitalism.” The alt-center defines itself in opposition to “radical individualism, radical egalitarianism, 'LARPing based rightwing politics, civic conservatism, woke multi-culturalism, one size fits all solutions, inequality, gatekeeping and moralistic censorship, managed decline, reaction/ traditionalism (Retvrn to the old past), and IDW/ classical liberalism (return to recent past).”
I review these points in my recent interview with blogger Apex (check out his substack) about the need for a centrism that can address, with core principles, the arguments from detractors on the right such as the slippery slope fallacy and the O’Sullivan’s First Law which states that "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing." Apex and I both come to the conclusion that one can embrace certain leftwing policies but only if they reject the philosophical framework of the left, including egalitarianism and radical individual autonomy. For instance a non-liberal case can be made for, not just certain leftwing economic policies, but also for socially liberal policies such as gay rights, drug legalization and prison reform. The prerequisite is that we must accept that humans are part of tribal units and that all politics are identity politics. Thus tribalism is needed to protect civil liberties, as radical individual autonomy leaves one vulnerable to those who understand power dynamics.
In proposing economic policy, Alt-Centrism must go beyond just being a fusion of capitalism and socialism, or even decentralization for the sake of decentralization. We must reject grounding policy in a flawed moralistic dichotomy where socialists say that capitalists are greedy and in turn capitalists say that leftist are just lazy and envious. In order to create an economic, political, and social system that provides people a decent quality of life we must accept that market power as well as incentivization and reciprocity are more important than supply and demand and idealist goals of equity.
Doxometrist’s Alt-Center Pill post describes Alt-Centrist policies and philosophical concepts including True Freedom, Smart Socialism, The Great Class Swap, and Pan-Enclavism. I put forth my own lexicon to further describe these concepts, all of which intersect upon certain core principles, even if some are thought experiments. For instance Smart Socialism is the policy that is aligned with the philosophical thought experiment of The Great Class Swap. I would add that Pan-enclavism could achieve many of the same objectives as the Great Class Swap, in that it would decentralize wealth and ease demographic pressures. There is also the ideal of true freedom with an enclave that fits all one’s needs.
True Freedom is not simply being free from the state or other institutional mandates but rather the freedom to live in, or at least pursue the kind of society that fits one’s needs and desires. True Freedom accepts that different groups of people have different and specific needs and works for the aim of all to pursue this objective.
Origin: Robert Stark and Alt-Center sphere
Smart Socialism believes that state intervention in the economy should prioritize the efficient allocation of resources, specialization based economic policies, and investing in those with the most potential rather than redistributing downwards form the most to the least productive, which could also include absentee ownership. Even if certain policies may require some top down power, these principles apply to more decentralized models such as pan-enclavism and neo-tribalism.
Smart Socialism could have a controversial slant towards positive eugenics, such as a taxation policy based upon incentivization of fertility patterns, but has the objective of granting as many people a role in society with specialization based economic policies that embrace diversity and the specific needs of different groups. Smart Socialism rejects one size fits all solutions from both the egalitarian left and capitalist right and could also be described as rightwing socialism or Aristocratic Socialism.
Origin: Unknown but referenced by Giovanni Dannato’s call for a Smart Socialism, Lion of the Blogosphere’s proposal for subsidized enclaves for the intelligent but poor, policies that the blogger Jayman advocates for, Elon Musk basically endorsing smart socialism in a tweet, and Oscar Wilde’s advocacy for socialism based upon Aristocratic rather than egalitarian values.
Retro-Futurism is the ideal that the future we should have exists on an alternative timeline and that political models should look to that ideal as a guideline and also embrace retro-futurist aesthetics to compliment the politics.
Origin: Retrofuturism is an aesthetic and cultural genre but Robert Stark has proposed incorporating it into politics.
Post Americanism is not anti-Americanism but rather accepting the reality that America is an inward facing Empire rather than a traditional nation state. It rejects Americanism as an ideology but not it’s lands and peoples. Post Americanism calls to adapt to the reality of many nations within America and rejects both loyalty to one mass American society and the rightwing copes about taking back America for the “True Americans.” Post-American political solutions include Pan-enclavism.
Rightwing multi-culturalism embraces the idea that many groups can coexist and respect one another while maintaining their own identities and a degree of autonomy. It is in line with Post-Americanism in that it accepts and embraces the reality that we must adapt to the inevitable multi-cultural future. It is pro-diversity or at least at peace with diversity rather than, in the American context, trying to maintain one cohesive homogenous society, as it celebrates diversity in the true sense. It is a Multi-Culturalism that is in favor of freedom of association and enclavism, and which opposes Critical Race Theory, liberalism based upon mass society, regressive double standards of multi-culturalism that excludes Whites, and neoliberal homogenization under an open society, or one blended humanity under centralized institutions and a corporate monoculture.
Origins: definition above coined by Robert Stark
Pan-Enclavism calls for a serious of homogenous and semi-autonomous communities that are part of a broader multi-ethnic and multi-cultural patchwork. It encourages neighborhoods to think of themselves as a people with shared bonds and it celebrates and supports existing ethnic and immigrant enclaves. It also calls for those who don’t currently take part in enclavism to emulate diasporas in creating their own enclaves, for building communities based on an identity, for freedom of association as the main principle, for the creation of opt-in groups, places value in people having these groups to help fulfill their personal needs, and opposes primary loyalty to mass society. These enclaves could be based upon an ethnic background but are flexible in that they could be multi-ethnic communities of people with shared values, such as politics, religion, culture, or aesthetic preference. It calls for thinking in terms of an area as a community that serves its residents rather than just a place to live and work with the added benefit of a balance in political and economic power. There are some similarities to Ethnopluralism.
Origin: Pan-Enclavism coined by Robert Stark but enclavism has been used to describe enclaves that act apart from mass society or a policy of dividing up territories into separate enclaves.
Neo-tribalism, like with pan-enclavism, embraces the idea that people are part of a tribe rather than just individuals and that America is made up of many tribes rather than one nationality. Neo-tribalism is also a sociological concept that believes that human’s are biologically wired to live in tribes and that newer social networks and subculture are fulfilling that role. Like with pan-enclavism, neo-tribalism calls for people to find their tribe which could be ethnic or inclusive of different ethnic groups but based around certain shared traits or values. It emphasizes that these tribes are needed to fulfill material and psychosocial needs that are not met by mass society such as offering patronage networks for employment and social services.
Origin: first used as a sociological concept by French sociologist Michel Maffesoli with arguments supported by American political scientist Robert D. Putnam. Proposed as politics by blogger Giovanni Dannato (Alt-Center neotribalism)
Alt Urbanism is an Urbanist school of thought that looks at urbanism through the lens of a realistic understanding of human nature, including HBD. It is pro-urban middle class, but also supports policies to improve the suburbs. It brings together all these other concepts, such as smart socialism, pan-enclavism, rightwing multi-culturalism, into urbanist thought. While it aligns with the YIMBYs as far as calling for an increase in the housing supply to ease costs it stands apart from much of the urbanist sphere, as far as the Productivist mentality, a lack of respect for enclavism and communal needs, and politics that fail to understand human nature such as woke urban policies. It is a politics that is pro-urbanist but without all the woke baggage attached that has harmed urbanism.
Origins: coined by Robert Stark
Aesthetic Socialism or aesthetic based politics is the idea that aesthetics are a form of wealth for society and a signifier of wealth and social status. Thus Aesthetic production needs to be incentivized and aesthetics must be allocated amongst society. Aesthetic distributism might be a more accurate name than aesthetic socialism but it is not as catchy. Aligning with pan-enclavism, it cultivates local styles and aesthetics to create identities, a Larping on small scale that is palatable such as in theme parks but upholding the True Freedom principle. Aesthetic Socialism addresses the aesthetic qualities in populations, cities, and things, rather than just monetary wealth with the ideal that most can, in effect, be wealthy if everything is aesthetically pleasing. It recognizes the role of aesthetics to incentivize economic production, to lift spirits and morale, and as a key part of a high quality of life. A spirit of exceptionalism and radical creativity.
Origin: coined by Robert Stark. Wide variety of influences including Oscar Wilde.
The Great Class Swap
The Great Class Swap acknowledges the social problem that too much wealth is concentrated at the top while too much population growth is at the bottom with both trends squeezing out the middle. It is just a thought experiment, but in the Great Class Swap wealth would be redistributed from the top down to the masses while the genetic makeup of the upper bracket would also be redistributed downwards. While this is more of a thought experiment it is important to have a fundamental understanding of how these problems impact politics and how society functions.
Origin: coined by Robert Stark
Aristocratic Individualism looks at how those who rise to the top do so by winning over the largest number of people as consumers and political supporters rather being the best in a “true elite” sense or by what they create. Aristocratic Individualism is not individualistic in a libertarian or classical liberal sense but rather a philosophy that identifies individuals as a caste based upon the most talented and the principle of radical creativity. The idea being that society has an obligation to these people. The concept emulates the ideal of Plato’s Guardians as a cast rather than the classical liberal ideal of the meritocracy or lefty ideas about subsidizing the arts as a charity. The concept of natural elites could be a cope for some, but it is important for individuals to be able to decipher where they stand in the hierarchy in a true sense and their relations with society.
origin: unsure but influenced by Alistair Crowley, Nietzsche, and Oscar Wilde.
Counter Elitism offers an alternative to populism by proposing alternative elites as a solution to current elites whose interests are at odds with the people and the problem of elite overproduction where there is extreme competition for a limited number of spots at the top. To decentralize power but also provide more economic opportunities through Alternative institutions such as in finance, tech, and education. It is practically impossible to rise of and change current institutions or elite structures but the future will have to be more regional, ethnic based, and focused on tribal elites rather than the hordes of those striving to make it within existing elite institutions.