LAT: The ‘alt-right’ splinters as supporters and critics agree it was white supremacy all along

I don’t see why white supremacy is any more dangerous and disgusting than other forms of racial supremacy such as Filipino supremacy, Chinese supremacy, Japanese supremacy, Jewish supremacy, black supremacy, Christian supremacy.

Every group with spirit wants as much power and influence as possible, particularly over its own affairs. Is is Jewish supremacist for Jews to have the Jewish state of Israel? Surely many non-Jews in Israel don’t like being a minority. Surely these goyim citizens of Israel would prefer it if Israel was multi-cultural with no one ethnic identity. It’s not easy being a minority. I sympathize. Minorities everywhere have it tough. That’s why there are separate countries so that people who want to live as a majority with their own kind can do so.

Every important people (such as the Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Nordics) see themselves as marked out by the will of heaven for some transcendental purpose. So what if whites organize in this fashion just as other groups do? I’m sure latinos enjoy their growing population and importance in the United States.

How come you hear often about “white supremacy” but rarely about black supremacy or Jewish supremacy? If you watch the NBA or the NFL, it looks like black supremacy to me. If you watch Wall Street or Hollywood or pundits, it sure looks like Jewish supremacy to me. Are these supremacies dangerous? Well, different groups have different interests, so it makes sense that as one group gains in power, other groups are by necessity reduced in power.

You might argue that white supremacy is particularly dangerous because of Hitler. Well, plenty of other people have carried out genocide aside from Hitler. You might as well argue that belief in equality is dangerous because of communism’s genocides.

Los Angeles Times Nov. 29, 2016:

Paul Joseph Watson, an editor for the conspiracy-minded site InfoWars, said in July that he was “in the alt-right,” but then denied it last week, going on to argue that two different factions of the group had emerged.
“One is more accurately described as the New Right. These people like to wear MAGA [Make America Great Again] hats, create memes & have fun,” Watson wrote on Facebook, criticizing mainstream media for focusing on Trump’s racist supporters. “They include whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, gays and everyone else. These are the people who helped Trump win the election.
“The other faction likes to fester in dark corners of sub-reddits” — a reference to branches of the social-media site Reddit — “and obsess about Jews, racial superiority and Adolf Hitler. This is a tiny fringe minority. They had no impact on the election.”
Some white nationalists themselves have a term for the split: the alt-right versus the “alt-lite.”
White nationalists are alt-right and right-wing sites like Breitbart News and its chairman, the new White House advisor Stephen K. Bannon, are alt-lite, according to Brad Griffin, a white nationalist who blogs under the pen name Hunter Wallace at the site Occidental Dissent.
“Steve Bannon is the most important figure in the alt-lite,” Griffin wrote. “We all see Breitbart as the premier alt-lite website which has popularized a diluted version of our beliefs.”
Breitbart News, which channels a more nationalistic form of mainstream conservatism, gained notoriety over the last year both for implicitly supporting Trump’s candidacy and for Bannon’s proud announcement to Mother Jones in August, “We’re the platform for the alt-right.”
Left-wing critics have called the site a front for white nationalism and anti-Semitism, which its staffers have vigorously denied.
Bannon and Breitbart staffers have distanced themselves from the alt-right label, which Bannon defined in a postelection interview with the Wall Street Journal as “younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.”
Bannon said alt-right supporters had “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones” that he said he disagreed with, and that Breitbart News provides “an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought,” of which the alt-right is “a tiny part.”
The heightened scrutiny of the alt-right has led mainstream institutions to draw tougher policies on addressing the movement.
After the election, Twitter banished many prominent far-right users from its service, which had been a staging ground for racist, sexist and anti-Jewish attacks against public figures and journalists.
Many supporters have since retreated to the new social-media service Gab, which bills itself as a safe space from censorship. At one point last week, at least six of Gab’s top 10 trending hashtags either referenced Trump or the alt-right.
“Gab I love you,” a user named “Deplorable Daniel” posted on Nov. 22. “But man there is a scary amount of Nazis or National Socialists. I feel like Gab may be under Attack.”

Posted in Alt Right, Nationalism | Comments Off on LAT: The ‘alt-right’ splinters as supporters and critics agree it was white supremacy all along

My Back Went Out Yesterday

So my back got all twisted in knots over Tuesday night, it got worse Wednesday, around 8 am I collapsed to the floor, had to be helped to my car. I’ve always relied upon the kindness of strangers. So the first DC examined me and said I won’t touch you without an MRI. So I went to a Network Spinal Analysis guy and he said, unless you fell out a 3rd story window, this is all emotional and has to do with identity.

Today I got some x-rays which reveal spinal bones pinching nerves in my back and some osteoarthritis.





Posted in Personal | Comments Off on My Back Went Out Yesterday

The Alt Right: Obituary for a Brand?

I guess I’m about the only person following the Alt-Right who does not think this (a few Nazi salutes at the last NPI conference and some Nazi language such as “Hail Victory!” and lugenpresse aka lying press) was a big deal.

The kerfuffle reminds me of all the PR missteps of Donald J. Trump over the past 16 months and how all the pros said this or that would end his candidacy.

If the Alt-Right presents a compelling vision for millions of people, it will triumph. If not, it won’t. Bad PR won’t kill it.

People who imitate Nazi gestures or clothing are no more likely to be genocidal maniacs than those who wear Che Guevara t-shirts and adopt languages and dress of communists (and I don’t see trendies in America as likely to commit genocide).

My proof is that not even Nazis were always hell-bent on genocide. They were in power for more than eight years before they started slaughtering civilians in large numbers. Communism in Russia turned genocidal earlier than that, and overall, communism murdered far more civilians than did Nazism.

In its first six years, the Nazi regime facilitated Jews moving to Palestine (the Haavara Agreement). In some times and places, Nazis, communists and many other groups are genocidal threats to Jews and in other times and places, they are not. Everything is time and circumstance. Most Israelis wish that all the Palestinians disappear but that does not mean Israel is likely to commit genocide against the Palestinians.

Genocide happens when you have a dramatic conflict of interest and heightened stakes in group conflict. It does not happen from adoption of rituals or dress of those who committed genocide in the past. In some circumstances, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Nazis, communists commit genocide and in other circumstances they don’t. All groups are susceptible to pressure to survive and often that means slaughtering your enemies. There are no good guys or bad guys in the universe unless you look at things through the eyes of faith, and faith, by definition, is subjective.

There are no permanent enemies or allies in the world. At some times and places, for instance, Christians are allies to Jews. In other circumstances, the two sides are enemies. The same goes for gentile nationalists and Jews.

Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents often criticizes Richard Spencer. I guess they are both contenders for leading thinkers of the WN movement.

Greg Johnson writes today:

It is ironic — or maybe just sadly fitting — that Richard Spencer, the man who launched the Alternative Right brand, may have just destroyed it. But that seems to be fallout of his speech at the recent National Policy Institute conference, which he ended with the words “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail Victory!” Spencer then raised his empty liquor glass in a toast. Some people in the audience, however, predictably responded to “Hail Victory!” (Sieg Heil) by giving Nazi salutes.

This was, also predictably, caught on video by The Atlantic, which had been invited into the conference to make a documentary about Spencer and the Alternative Right. When the video was made public, it was of course rapidly propagated. For years, the Left has been pushing the increasingly tired slur that Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Kevin MacDonald, etc. are just “suit and tie Nazis.” But Spencer breathed life into this charge by furnishing visual “proof.” There was surely rejoicing at the offices of the ADL and SPLC, as well as the Washington Post and New York Times.

Now I do not wish to split hairs about the motives and culpability for this public relations disaster, except to say that I do not believe the charge that Spencer was intentionally sabotaging NPI and the Alt Right. Instead, I wish to comment on the consequences of this affair and how we should respond to it.

First and foremost, Donald Trump, when confronted with the video, naturally condemned and disavowed it. He’s not a Nazi, after all, and he probably found it as embarrassing as I did. This is a pity, because Trump has to know that almost no mainstream intellectuals and commentators defended his candidacy and vision. But people on the Alt Right did.

Moreover, we have an enormous pool of talent and brainpower. Our public writers and activists are only the tip of the iceberg. The vast bulk of our people are secret agents, with clean public records. My hope was that during the first Trump administration, the Alt Right could start mobilizing this talent to craft policy proposals to help show that Trump’s ideas about immigration, trade, and foreign policy are morally defensible, politically desirable, and practically feasible. In fact, I rather hoped that the National Policy Institute would take a hand in crafting some of these national policies.

It was always a long shot, of course. Over the past two years, there has been a massive influx of talented people into our movement, but our organizing and fundraising have lagged far behind. We honestly don’t know what to do with all these people. We have a lot of work ahead of us if we are going to actually influence policy, and the way forward is not always clear. But when you are at a loss about what to do next, at least do no harm. Spencer really had one job: not to embarrass us or Trump, and he blew it. Now there is zero chance of any proposal coming from NPI being taken seriously.

But there is no reason why the rest of us have to share Spencer’s fate, which is why various Alt Right and Alt Light figures have distanced themselves from him. Mike Cernovich and Paul Joseph Watson have been most vociferous and strident, accusing Spencer of intentionally sabotaging the Alt Right. Stefan Molyneux recommended Cernovich’s take. Vox Day does not think Spencer is controlled opposition but that he nevertheless behaved in a self-aggrandizing manner and made a serious public relations error.

Ramzpaul declared the Alt Right brand irreparably damaged, so he is now simply going to refer to himself as a man of the Right. In an interview, Jared Taylor declared, “I was very surprised. I was very saddened by it. I think it’s a terrible, terrible pity. I don’t endorse any form of National Socialism. I think that’s a completely inappropriate and crazy model for the United States.” Peter Brimelow at VDare and F. Roger Devlin at The Occidental Observer both rejected the Nazi brand, attributing Spencer’s words and the salutes from the crowd to “juvenile bravado” and “rowdy behavior on the part of a few overzealous and partially drunken young men.”

Spencer’s defenders have been pushing the line that we should not air our differences in public (of course). But there are problems with this. First, if Spencer speaks and we remain silent, people will assume that he is speaking for us. Second, criticizing Spencer is not about changing his behavior. It is about social signaling: communicating our differences to the public we are trying to persuade. So obviously it cannot be confined solely to back channel whispers. Finally, it presupposes a false unity to the movement. Literally the only thing that unifies us is common goals (and with Spencer I am not even sure about that). But if our movement is inherently pluralistic, colonizing every niche in the cultural and political ecosystem, then the only way to establish and maintain our different approaches is to criticize one another. Of course it can go too far. And there are some people who spend all their time attacking movement people rather than our enemies. But with healthy pluralism comes healthy dissent and debate.

Richard Spencer does not speak for me either. Spencer has damaged the Alt Right brand — perhaps irreparably — by associating it with Nazism. The Alternative Right began as a particular brand, the name of Spencer’s webzine. But it quickly became a generic umbrella term encompassing a range of different alternatives to mainstream Republicans and conservatives.

But from its start, the Alternative Right webzine was an entryist tool for White Nationalists. It was a platform for outreach and conversion of people who are closer to the mainstream. It created a safe space where “normie” conservatives could encounter human biodiversity, ethnic nationalism, the Jewish question, paleomasculinity, etc. without having to adopt stigmatizing labels like “Nazism.” But after Spencer’s NPI speech, there is good reason to think that will no longer work.

What’s wrong with branding the Alt Right as Nazi? Here are a few thoughts.

  • What is White Nationalism based on? Is it based on objective facts about human nature and politics, facts that are true in all times and places? Is ethnonationalism a political system that is good for all peoples, not just the white ones, much less just the Axis nations? Or is it based what happened in Germany between the World Wars? If ethnonationalism is objectively true and universally valid, then why bring the Nazis into it at all? Particularly because:
  • Regardless of the truth about National Socialism, our enemies have invested decades of work and billions in capital in turning it into the ultimate political taboo, a toxic stigmatizing brand — the kind of brand that is seared into your flesh. If the NPI audience had broke out into cries of “Hail Satan!” we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Some of our people conclude that all these defenses must hide the enemy’s greatest weakness. I think that is silly, but even if it were true, only a fool attacks the enemy’s best defended spot, especially when they are incredibly weak elsewhere, e.g., denying the reality of racial differences, proclaiming diversity is a strength, supporting open borders, free trade, hate speech laws, etc.
  • Even if there were nothing wrong with the Nazi brand at all, it would still have been wrong for Spencer to in effect foist it on people like Jared Taylor, who choose not to use it and trusted Spencer because they thought he understood this.
  • Please don’t give me the tired argument that they’ll call us Nazis anyway, so we might as well become them. First, some of us really aren’t Nazis. Second, even if you are, we’re only fighting against the whole damn world, so why take on additional and needless burdens? Third, just because your enemies are out to get you doesn’t mean that you should make their work easier. (Compare the press coverage of the recent NPI conference to the coverage of the NPI press conference back in September, then explain to me how the saluting made no difference at all.) Finally, they’ll call you Jews, informants, and fags too. Do you want to own those labels as well?
  • Please don’t tell me that all publicity is good publicity. There really is such thing as bad publicity.
  • Please don’t tell me that Spencer’s critics are all simply trying to make friends with an implacably hostile press. First, our concern is obviously not persuading our enemies but reaching people who are sympathetic and neutral. Second, if the press is implacably hostile, why is Spencer so focused on courting it?

The great irony here is that I have published quite a bit about Hitler and National Socialism at Counter-Currents, whereas literally the only thing Nazi-like about Richard Spencer is his haircut. When I first met Spencer in 2008, he was dating an Asian woman (something now public because of an article in Mother Jones). The only foreign regime he strongly identifies with is Putin’s Russia, which is valiantly battling against “Nazis” in Ukraine. As long as I have known him, Spencer has been chummy with Jews like Paul Gottfried and Marcus Epstein. NPI, like American Renaissance, has always played patty-cake with certain Right-wing Jews. Before Spencer came on board, NPI had published Edward Rubenstein, Byron Roth, and Michael Hart. But, unlike American Renaissance, they published Kevin MacDonald as well. Spencer has continued in that vein, publishing additional books by Roth and Hart, plus Richard Lynn’s The Chosen People, and various essays and introductions by Paul Gottfried. Before long, Spencer will be back to his old tricks, which means that most of Spencer’s defenders and new-found friends will simply go silent — or be back at this throat.

Literally everything about this controversy, from Spencer’s Nazism to the press coverage to the adulation of the Nazi troll army is at best superficial and at worst fake. But that’s the stuff of which politics and publicity are made. The negative consequences, however, are real.

Now some Alt Rightists are rejoicing that Spencer’s gesture has caused Alt Light poseurs and “cucks” to abandon the Alt Right brand. But that is self-defeating. Outreach efforts only work by attracting people who don’t already agree with us. These people are only a danger if we fail to convert and assimilate them. But apparently some people don’t want to be bothered with converts.

I do want to end on a hopeful note. There is no question that the Alt Right is a useful brand, and because of that, it may well revive. But even if the Alt Right is dead, White Nationalism is still very much alive and growing. What happened at NPI was foolish and self-defeating. And there is always a danger that too much self-defeating behavior will add up to a simple defeat. But our progress has always been two steps forward, one step back. So let’s just learn from this setback and keep pressing forward.

Posted in Alt Right, Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer | Comments Off on The Alt Right: Obituary for a Brand?

10 Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters From Their Lives

Dennis Prager writes:

Many Hillary Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and even family members, who voted for Donald Trump. It is so common that The New York Times published a front-page article on the subject headlined, “Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving, Too.”
The article begins with three stories:
“Matthew Horn, a software engineer from Boulder, Colo., canceled Christmas plans with his family in Texas. Nancy Sundin, a social worker in Spokane, Wash., has called off Thanksgiving with her mother and brother. Ruth Dorancy, a software designer in Chicago, decided to move her wedding so that her fiancé’s grandmother and aunt, strong Trump supporters from Florida, could not attend.”
The Times acknowledges that this phenomenon is one-sided, saying, “Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald J. Trump.”
A number of people who voted for Trump called my show to tell me that their daughters had informed them that they would no longer allow their parents to see their grandchildren. And one man sent me an email reporting that his brother-in-law’s mother told him that she “no longer had a son.”
All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided? Why don’t we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president — “fundamentally (transform) the United States of America.”
In other words, conservatives were not one whit less fearful of Clinton and the Democrats than Democrats were of Trump and Republicans.
Yet virtually no conservatives cut off contact with friends, let alone parents, who supported Clinton.
Here are 10 reasons left-wingers cut Trump voters from their lives.
1. Just like our universities shut out conservative ideas and speakers, more and more individuals on the left now shut out conservative friends and relatives as well as conservative ideas.
2. Many, if not most, leftists have been indoctrinated with leftism their entire lives…
3. Most left-wing positions are emotion-based. That’s a major reason people who hold leftist views will sever relations with people they previously cared for or even loved. Their emotions (in this case, irrational fear and hatred) simply overwhelm them.
4. Since Karl Marx, leftists have loved ideas more than people. All Trump voters who have been cut off by children, in-laws and lifelong friends now know how true that is.
5. People on the right think that most people on the left are wrong; people on the left think that most people on the right are evil. Decades of labeling conservative positions as “hateful” and labeling conservative individuals as “sexist,” “intolerant,” “xenophobic,” “homophobic,” “racist” and “bigoted” have had their desired effect.
6. The left associates human decency not so much with personal integrity as with having correct — i.e. progressive — political positions. Therefore, if you don’t hold progressive positions, you lack decency. Ask your left-wing friends if they’d rather their high school son or daughter cheat on tests or support Trump.
7. Most individuals on the left are irreligious, so the commandment “Honor your father and your mother” means nothing to those who have cut off relations with parents because they voted for Trump.
8. Unlike conservatives, politics gives most leftists’ lives meaning. Climate change is a good example. For leftists, fighting carbon emissions means saving human existence on Earth. Now, how often does anyone get a chance to literally save the world? Therefore, to most leftists, if you voted for Trump, you have both negated their reason for living and are literally destroying planet Earth. Why would they have Thanksgiving or Christmas with such a person?
9. The left tends toward the totalitarian. And every totalitarian ideology seeks to weaken the bonds between children and parents. The left seeks to dilute parental authority and replace it with school authority and government authority. So when your children sever their bond with you because you voted for Trump, they are acting like the good totalitarians the left has molded.
10. While there are kind and mean individuals on both sides of the political spectrum, as a result of all of the above, there are more mean people on the left than on the right. What other word than “mean” would anyone use to describe a daughter who banished her parents from their grandchildren’s lives because of their vote?

Posted in America, Left, Liberal | Comments Off on 10 Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters From Their Lives

How the far right is trying to woo an unlikely ally — Jews

Washington Post:

VIENNA — Attendees gathered this month inside Vienna’s opulent Grand Hotel for an extraordinary event billed as the “New Anti-Semitism Conference.” The Israeli superspy who hunted down war criminal Adolf Eichmann flew in for the occasion, timed to commemorate the 1938 night when the Nazis stormed Jewish synagogues and businesses.

What made the event truly remarkable, however, was its sponsor: Austria’s Freedom Party — a far-right movement founded in part by former Nazis and now on the cusp of capturing this nation’s presidency.

“They are one of the most pro-Israel parties in Europe,” insisted Michael Kleiner, a conference panelist and former member of the Israeli parliament.

Newly energized by the presidential victory of Donald Trump, far-right and anti-establishment forces are pushing into the mainstream on both sides of the Atlantic. As they do, many are seeking to neutralize one of their oldest and most debilitating labels: as anti-Semites.

In the United States, top Trump adviser Stephen Bannon is fending off accusations of anti-Semitism even as a string of archconservative Jewish voices rally to his defense. Using the forum of Breitbart News — the same website Bannon ran and described as “the platform for the alt-right” — they have called him an “honorary Jew” and “a man without an Anti-Semitic bone in his body.”

In France, the Netherlands and Sweden, far-right nationalists are counter-programming decades of deeply engrained anti-Semitism in their ranks. As left-wing parties in Europe press for boycotts of Israel over its treatment of Palestinians, far-right European politicians — at least in public — are promising Israelis their full support.

Nowhere has the rebranding been more effective than here in Austria. The Freedom Party candidate, Norbert Hofer, is facing a center-left opponent in a rerun of May’s presidential election — which Hofer narrowly lost — following a successful court challenge by the far right. Ahead of the Dec. 4 vote, Hofer and his opponent are in a statistical tie. Although the job of Austrian president is traditionally ceremonial, it comes with ambiguous powers that Hofer has vowed to amp up. A Freedom Party victory would make Hofer the first far-right head of state in Western Europe since the demise of Nazi Germany.

Posted in Alt Right, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on How the far right is trying to woo an unlikely ally — Jews