Indiana white nationalist called ‘the next David Duke’ isn’t stopping with Charlottesville

Robert King writes:

Three weeks ahead of the coming apocalypse, Matthew Heimbach knew that violence was a real possibility in Charlottesville, Va.

A prominent white nationalist who’d squared off with leftist counterprotesters before, Heimbach said the group he was leading into Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park would be prepared: helmets and shields. And a security wing of his fringe political party would openly carry weapons.

Standing in the middle of an Indiana forest where he sometimes films propaganda videos, Heimbach cast himself and his cause — the defense of white heritage — in the most romantic of terms.

“I know — and my wife knows — whenever I go to an event, like the ancient Spartan wives used to tell their husbands, come back with your shield — or on it. And my family knows this will likely cost me my life or freedom in this system we are fighting.”

…A portly, bookish man with a jet-black beard and rimless eyeglasses, Heimbach’s appearance is less of a Spartan warrior than a member of a college debate team.

The story of how Heimbach arrived in Charlottesville — and how he’s come to peddle his ideology from a home base in Indiana — reveals much about members of the white nationalist movement. And it also helps explain why they are no longer content to vent their anger solely online, but feel emboldened to parade their anger through the middle of American cities.

Aug. 12, which some white nationalists have come to refer to as the Battle of Charlottesville, was to be a date when they made a stand. And in the middle of it was Heimbach, dressed in black, wearing a Nazi-style combat helmet, about to enter a street fight with counterprotesters from the extreme left.

Heimbach wasn’t a main organizer in Charlottesville, but he was among a short roll of leaders scheduled to speak. More broadly, Heimbach is considered a leading figure in the movement. Recently, the Anti-Defamation League listed him among the Who’s Who of the alt-right. And at least one observer has likened Heimbach to a man who was the face of white supremacy a generation ago.

“He’s the next David Duke,” said Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project. Duke is a former imperial wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Today’s “movement” has several faces, and Heimbach’s keeps showing up more than most.

“Matt Heimbach is the constant glad-hander of the radical right because there is not an organization that he is not associated with or rubs shoulders with or sought to build alliances with,” said Lenz.

“He kind of bridges the gap between the intellectual racists and the neo-Nazis. And he’s done that for some time,” said Marilyn Mayo, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism…

Alt-right. White nationalist. White supremacist. The terms are overlapping, if not interchangeable. At the heart of them all, says George Hawley, author of “Making Sense of the Alt-Right,” are two things: A devotion to white nationalism and an intense antipathy toward Jews.

Both criteria apply to Heimbach.

Heimbach wants to end racial strife in America — and arguments over history and heritage — not by bringing people together, but by separating them further apart. He dreams of an America carved into separate ethnostates. Whites, perhaps, would occupy the upper South, the Midwest and Appalachia. Blacks would occupy the deep South. Hispanics would be in the Southwest. And those from biracial families or interested in multicultural living could have the coastal areas and the big cities. In these “ethnostates,” the schools, churches and workplaces would be racially monolithic. Police forces would look like their communities.

Where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of children of different races seated together at the table of brotherhood, Heimbach would prefer they lived in different time zones. “Obviously America has failed,” he says. “One size fits none. Nobody is really happy. This isn’t just for whites. This is for everyone.”

As much as he sees race as a problem, Heimbach is just as quick to point the finger at Jews. He sees Jews as manipulating the controls of American finance, politics and media. He blames Jews for pushing America toward a pro-Israel foreign policy that leads to foreign wars and, at home, for pushing civil rights, gay rights and abortion rights. Jews, Heimbach said, “are against the best interests of my people.”

Heimbach’s distrust of Jews extends to the Holocaust. He doesn’t accept the historic fact that 6 million Jews died under the rule of Nazi Germany. Heimbach puts the number at less than 200,000, and says most died from disease and hunger. “So what I would say about Adolf Hitler,” he says, when asked, “is that he is the most lied-about man of the 20th century.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Indiana white nationalist called ‘the next David Duke’ isn’t stopping with Charlottesville

If Milo is New Face of American Right We’re in Trouble

Paul Gottfried writes:

As a historian of the American conservative movement, I dove into Milo’s book because I was interested in what it conveyed about the Alt-Right, but my interest quickly dissipated after I read the relevant remarks. I would gather that there used to be an original Alt-Right, which “was the most exciting, dynamic and effective right-wing to emerge since the Tea Party.” This creation was so good that even an “Israeli-supporting former Tea Party member was in those days just as likely to be drawn to it as a Richard Spencer-devotee.” Unfortunately it’s never made clear what this wonderful thing was before Spencer and his confrères ruined it by identifying the Alt-Right with white nationalism and even Holocaust-deniers. In fact it’s hard to figure out much of anything about the movement that Milo credits himself with having founded—and which apparently his well-heeled patrons thought was super. For those who are curious about Milo’s topic, I would urge them to read George Hawley’s Making Sense of the Alt-Right. Unlike Milo, Hawley has studied the subject of his research and doesn’t bother to explore the contributions made by the author of Dangerous, whose formative influence on Hawley’s subject was less than negligible.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on If Milo is New Face of American Right We’re in Trouble

Jason Reza Jorjani writes:

I corporatized the Alt-Right because a corporate structure allows for both outside investment and hierarchical governance. The key was to have a real brain installed at the pinnacle of the hierarchy. I was supposed to be the conduit for a major investment during the formative phase of the Alt-Right Corporation, and thereby assume its leadership – at least as far as fundamental questions of ideology were concerned. After listening to my explanation of who my potential backers were, and of what capabilities they had (which I urge him, even now, not to disclose for his own sake), Richard agreed that granted such an investment would be forthcoming I would be on point. What was especially compelling to him was the promise of direct engagement, through me, with people inside the White House such as Steve Bannon – something my backers suggested that I could, and should do, but that would not be possible with Richard at the helm. (Bannon, an avid reader of Julius Evola, is consequently familiar with Arktos, one of the only two English language publishers of Evola’s writings.) After this meeting with Richard, I went on to discuss this scenario with every single core board member of our company, including Arktos CEO Daniel Friberg. In February of 2017, during another Identitarian Ideas conference in Stockholm, where the lead-in to my speech on “The Failure of Democracy” hinted at my central role in forming the Alt-Right Corporation, Daniel and I even shook on this deal.

That policy speech, in February of 2017, just a few weeks after the formation of the Alt-Right Corporation in late January, was supposed to be a prelude to the investment that I was promised would come later the same month. Well, the investment did not come in February. I was told that the funds would certainly be available by March. Then it was explained to me why there would have to be another delay until May. Meanwhile, Daniel Friberg had moved from a 53% shareholding in Arktos Media to 82%. This was never supposed to happen. I was promised the funds to buy out troublesome shareholders at Arktos and become Daniel’s partner, rather than his employee.

I am afraid that I cannot disclose the reason for the repeated delays without also revealing the precise source of the funding and classified information about the particular persons involved in securing it. Suffice it to say, consulting open source material in the mainstream media will inform you that beginning in February of 2016, there was a sustained campaign by Neo-Cons and Neo-Liberals to derail the Trump Train. This began with the dismissal and threatened prosecution of General Michael Flynn, and continued with the sidelining of Steve Bannon. (Eventually this ended with the train-wreck of Bannon being forced out in August, the month I resigned from the Alt-Right.)

In addition to losing my opportunity to acquire a major shareholding in Arktos, Richard and Daniel increased their shares in the Alt-Right Corporation at my expense by making a deal involving what Richard admits was “monopoly money.” Richard “sold” his website to the corporation, while Daniel made his website Metapedia a joint holding as well. At a board meeting on May 9th, Richard and Daniel came up with arbitrary monetary values for their websites, $10K and $15K respectively, and gave themselves 25% and 30% of our corporate shares, reducing my shareholding to 10% in the process. Initially, we had a ‘knights of the round table’ share structure, with each partner as an equal shareholder, a provisional arrangement arrived at as we awaited the funding that would have established me as the majority shareholder. If I were to apply the same principle that they did with their “monopoly money” deal, the scale of investment that I was supposed to bring in to the Alt-Right Corporation would have left me with something like a 95% shareholding.

Moreover, once the ownership of was officially handed over to our board, during a board meeting Tor Westman, who I insisted be brought onto the board in the first place (against Richard’s objection), suggested that not everyone on the board should have access to the domain account information. Daniel added that not everyone on the Arktos Board had access to the Arktos website domain information (he meant me), and that it should be handled on a “need to know” basis. While this discussion, which took place with me present, was couched in terms of a suspicion of Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice, who was absent, Richard rightly understood Daniel’s remarks as aiming to exclude me and agreed by replying, “I don’t think Jason would go in and change anything, but…” He didn’t need to finish the sentence. He only added that after restricting the access to Richard, Daniel, and Tor, the passwords should be changed.

What is worse is that in the long months of the Spring of 2017, as I waited for funding to materialize, I watched the corporation that was my brainchild turn into a magnet for white trash. Exactly the kind of people who were supposed to be sidelined by my centralization and corporatization of the Alt-Right were cultivated by Richard as the populist base for ‘his’ movement. I was sorry to see Daniel’s Arktos affiliated and European-centered Right On journal, which had been in the business of publishing serious intellectual content when John Morgan was editing it, merged into an news and ‘perspective’ platform that has about as much perspective as a tabloid. The comments sections of our website devolved into a cesspool filled by the most despicable pond scum, former 4-chaners who would routinely pile on in trolling attacks against me every time I published something with a bit of intellectual content. “Iranians is brown poo-poo people” kind of sums it up. I decided to stop contributing until the investment came in and I could really clean things up. When Daniel and Richard agreed to lazily use Daniel’s “Points of Orientation” from his pamphlet, The Real Right Returns, as the basis for an ideological statement to appear on the website, consulting the serious philosopher on the board to help edit it was only an afterthought to them.

In May, at a meeting in London, I was assured by the investors that the obstacles had at last been cleared and I could expect our collaboration to begin in June. When I reported this to Richard at a New York lunch at the end of the same month, he thoughtlessly and angrily dismissed a plan that the investors had shared with me for creating an economic and security corridor from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and across to the Caucasus. This “Neo-Scythian” Ukraine-based approach to the long-term revitalization and liberation of Europe – linked to a future, post-Islamic Greater Iran via the Caucasus – offended the Russophilia that has been fostered by his wife.

So I cannot say I was surprised when the backers ultimately failed to follow through with their long-promised investment. By late June the movement was long past its embryonic stage. A deformed creature, a mindless Frankenstein’s monster had already entered the world. Of course this would not have happened if, between February and May, the angel investors had made good on their promises. Even though they are now responsible for my being libeled in the New York Times, potentially at the cost of my career in academia, I will not reveal their identities. It would catalyze a mainstream media scandal that none of us want to see. I am not interested in testifying before Congress, because the truth I would have to tell is stranger than fiction.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on

Portnoy’s Complaint

Philip Roth: “What I’m saying, Doctor, is that I don’t seem to stick my dick up these girls, as much as I stick it up their backgrounds – as though through fucking I will discover America.”

In other words, shiksas are for practice.

* “The radio was playing ‘Easter Parade’ and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin ‘Easter Parade’ and ‘White Christmas.’ The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ — the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity — and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit them.”

— Philip Roth, Operation Shylock

* From Roth Unbound: A Writer and His Books by Claudia Roth Pierpoint (no relation):

* Roth may have had an all-American childhood, but he had come to suspect that he had never known any real Americans in Newark. The stories he wrote at Bucknell were about real Americans, and so he saw no place in them for Jews at all.

* …Roth now suspects it was the aspect of the [Portnoy] book that Jews found most upsetting, in its revelation of “Jewish rage, and in particular Jewish rage against the Gentiles.”

* But his biggest problem in writing about England was that “I don’t hate anything here.”

Posted in America, Jews, Philip Roth | Comments Off on Portnoy’s Complaint

Does The Iran Deal Show That The Israel Lobby Is Not All Powerful?

Ten years after their book The Israel Lobby, professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt reflect on WBEZ 91.5 FM Chicago.

Stephen Walt: “AIPAC went all out against the deal, spending as much as $30 million to defeat it. The Israeli government was dead set against the deal and the Obama administration got it through. That illustrates something that we said in the book — the Israel Lobby is not all powerful. It doesn’t control every aspect of U.S. Middle East policy. When big strategic interests are on the line, especially when issues of war and peace are on the line, U.S. presidents can stand up to [the Israel Lobby]. AIPAC is not all powerful.”

John: “When we wrote about the Lobby, the Lobby didn’t have big disagreements… You are beginning to see a big divide opening up within the Lobby and within the American Jewish community. This will only get worse with time.”

“You can’t put meaningful pressure on Israel if you are an American president. What’s interesting about Donald Trump is that he realizes that and he’s given up. Why is Prime Minister Netanyahu such good friends with Donald Trump? Their attitude to the two-state solution. Donald Trump doesn’t give a hoot one way or another if you have a two-state solution or not.”

Posted in AIPAC, Israel | Comments Off on Does The Iran Deal Show That The Israel Lobby Is Not All Powerful?