* I’m wondering what reach [Richard] Spencer actually has given how much press he receives.
Lawrence Auster laid into his site when it first came out, and it seemed to me that it would only have very narrow niche appeal. In short, I suspect that most of Spencer’s readers read Steve, but not vice versa. But I haven’t checked out the site since its debut and maybe totally wrong about all of this.
Jared Taylor and American Renaissance is another story, predating Steve’s internet adventures.
Steve Sailer is the central figure of the Alt-Right. He organized it, gave it its character, and remains its central voice with his originality, creativity, and intelligence. I’m not sure why the media is focusing on people who exist alongside Steve (Brimelow, Taylor), but especially the focus on the remote outer reaches of Steve’s influence confounds me: twitter trolls, 4chan, angry manosphere types like Forney, etc.
It’s probably for the best, haha, but most of the writing on the alt-Right is boring. Until I see a focus on Steve Sailer, with mentions of Gregory Cochran, Ron Unz, and, Lord have mercy, “Agnostic”, I’m not interested.
* In 2005, when Muslims were attracting attention for rioting in Paris and intellectuals were busily excusing them, French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut got a lot of heat for observing that “anti-racism” will be in the 21st century what communism was in the 20th century–a source of violence and war. Sadly, he buckled under the pressure.
Here are his “problematic” comments:
In France, they would like very much to reduce these riots to their social dimension, to see them as a revolt of youths from the suburbs against their situation, against the discrimination they suffer from, against the unemployment. The problem is that most of these youths are blacks or Arabs, with a Muslim identity. Look, in France there are also other immigrants whose situation is difficult – Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese – and they’re not taking part in the riots. Therefore, it is clear that this is a revolt with an ethno-religious character. These people were treated like rebels, like revolutionaries. This is the worst thing that could happen to my country. Why? Because the only way to overcome it is to make them feel ashamed. Shame is the starting point of ethics. But instead of making them feel ashamed, we gave them legitimacy. They’re `interesting.’ They’re `the wretched of the earth.’ “Imagine for a moment that they were whites, like in Rostock in Germany. Right away, everyone would have said: `Fascism won’t be tolerated.’ When an Arab torches a school, it’s rebellion. When a white guy does it, it’s fascism. I’m `color blind.’ Evil is evil, no matter what color it is. And this evil, for the Jew that I am, is completely intolerable.
Moreover, there’s a contradiction here. Because if these suburbs were truly in a state of total neglect, there wouldn’t be any gymnasiums to torch, there wouldn’t be schools and buses. If there are gymnasiums and schools and buses, it’s because someone made an effort. Maybe not enough of one, but an effort.” I think that the lofty idea of `the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th century. A source of violence. Today, Jews are attacked in the name of anti-racist discourse: the separation fence, `Zionism is racism.’ This is really a bigger problem: We’re living in a post-national society in which for everyone the state is just utilitarian, a big insurance company. This is an extremely serious development.
* Jerusalem Post: “From the US to Europe to Israel, Soros has implemented a worldwide push to use immigration to undermine the national identity and demographic composition of Western democracies. The leaked emails show that his groups have interfered in European elections to get politicians elected who support open border policies for immigrants from the Arab world and to financially and otherwise support journalists who report sympathetically on immigrants.
Soros’s groups are on the ground enabling illegal immigrants to enter the US and Europe. They have sought to influence US Supreme Court rulings on illegal immigration from Mexico. They have worked with Muslim and other groups to demonize Americans and Europeans who oppose open borders.
In Israel as well, Soros opposes government efforts to end the flow of illegal immigration from Africa through the border with Egypt.
The notion at the heart of the push for the legalization of unfettered immigration is that states should not be able to protect their national identities.
If it is racist for Greeks to protect their national identity by seeking to block the entrance of millions of Syrians to their territory, then it is racist for Greece – or France, Germany, Hungary, Sweden the US or Poland – to exist.”
* Most of the time, when people say that Jews want to do away with nationalism in order to prevent another Holocaust, they are exaggerating, but I think in Soros’s case, this may literally be true.
Soros BTW is no hypocrite – he wants to get rid of Jewish nationalism just as much as any other kind.
Soros grew up as an Esperantist – Esperanto was supposed to be a universal language not associated with any nation or race. In Soros’s dream future, there are no longer any national boundaries . We are all citizens of planet earth and we all speak Esperanto with each other.
* We’re living in a post-national society in which for everyone the state is just utilitarian, a big insurance company. This is an extremely serious development.
This is exactly why Khan was selected as a DNC speaker. Maybe 90+% of American Muslims view the US as a big cash register but here were a father and son who took the US Constitution seriously and were willing to die for it. In the Democrat’s false narrative, if you can find even 1 Muslim who believes in American nationalism (even his own distorted version of what it means) then he symbolically stands for and negates the narrative of all the millions of Muslims who clearly don’t give a damn, who are indifferent at best and at worst actively seeking our destruction.
Then when Trump (in his admittedly awkward way) tried to point this out, HE was attacked for being mean to Gold Star mothers, etc.
Modern leftists are very skilled at manipulating popular images until their fictional version becomes the accepted narrative – more real than reality. The image of gay men is that of a married couple and not that of gay males who have hundreds of anonymous partners. The image of blacks is of some Dr. Huxtable type exemplar and not a ghetto thug. The image of Hispanics is of some striver college student and not a rapist. The image of white cops is that of people who shoot blacks for no reason. The image of white frat boys is that of racists and rapists. These propaganda images get pounded into us relentlessly. And not in crude Soviet propaganda fashion, but using the most subtle techniques known to Hollywood and marketing science. Every once in a while (well actually most of the time), the poster boy turns out not to be as advertised – Trayvon is not really an angelic 12 year old boy, Haven Monahan is a catfishing avatar and not even human, but this doesn’t stop them from trying again. The Jackie story was false try #2 at the white boy rapist narrative after Duke lacrosse but if at first you don’t succeed….
* If immigration isn’t the question of the 21st century, why are the forces arrayed in the defense of borderlessness so hysterically desperate themselves in their attacks on those who question it?
Why did Brexit cause such angst in the elites? Why do the nationalist parties in Europe do so? What is so crucially and obviously important about massive immigration that any challenge to it is greeted with smears employing the most toxic labels available – “bigot”, “nativist”, “racist” — in today’s society?
Why do these elites presume to declare that we must support boundless immigration because that’s “Who we are”?
But, most importantly, why is it wrong for a citizen of the US to seek for the US to pursue the goals of fellow US citizens, and not those of unknown and uncountable legions of others?
And why, when these elites talk of nationalism, do they always pretend that it leads to Hitler, instead of, say, Eisenhower?
If Trump and what he represents would aim to take our society back to the nationalistic mindset of the Eisenhower days in our very own US of A, why is that an unspeakable evil, to be fought by throwing out all norms of accuracy and fairness?
* Kudos to Steve, for his continued Steveness; kudos to Weigel, for feeling along the edges of the Overton Window without having a freak-out. This is progress.
* A couple minor things stood out to me…
*He included Matt Forney (sp?) comments alongside yours. Forney has within the week gone after Weigel in a personal way, no substance I could discern, acidly attacking his looks. I’m kind of dismayed that he would have you within the same paragraphs as Forney who was so personally hateful to the writer. I know very little about Forney, but you two don’t belong in the same article, let alone side-by-side.
*That killer last sentence was given to you, “But then Hillary had Colonel Gaddafi raped and killed, and the tidal wave across the Mediterranean started up again.”
* John Derbyshire used to say that the immigration issue was a $100 bill lying on the sidewalk for anyone to pick up. The problem was that any candidate who might have thought of picking it up was offered $1,000 not to.
* It’s weird to read Weigel, et al., write about the “alt-right”. Perhaps to long-time readers here, too?
To me, the “Steveosphere” is central, the core of which is Steve, some of the GNXP guys (Greg, Agnostic, and to a lesser extent, Razib) and Ron.
Am I wrong in thinking that Steve and the aforementioned have far more influence than the other people commonly mentioned in these articles?
* Weigel wrote a good article yesterday on “race realists”–changed in the headline to “racialists.” I consider it a minor victory that they didn’t default to “racist.”
* Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot and Ron Paul all have very different personalities from Trump and from each other, and they all led populist uprisings of a similar nature. The question is why Trump went further. Could be a fluke. Maybe the mood is riper now. Maybe it’s just Trump being a successful showman who has an instinctive feel for what TV viewers want, which implies that his old nemesis Rosie O’Donnel could one day become the Dem nominee.
* Dave Weigel is a self-proclaimed “libertarian” who voted for Barack Obama.
Oh yeah, he’s also a Journo-list member. He regularly coordinates with other Lefties in the media to present a unified message designed to push a Left-Wing agenda, and then, when caught red-handed, tried to deny he was part of such propaganda-disguised-as-news.
Absolutely zero credibility. Why did you talk to him?
* To get his ideas out there. Weigel actually let him state his point of view at length. Some liberals still believe in freedom of speech, and some others may be secretly hoping for a soft reaction against immigration that avoids a race war. We also know at least some lefties read Sailer; Yglesias has admitted to it, and Brooks actually cited him by name once in a NYT column.
* The ‘Steveosphere’ is the intersection of the alt-right with HBD bloggers. Guys like JayMan and Pumpkin Person are HBD but not alt-right, for example. Lion of the Blogosphere would be alt-right if his ancestors ate bacon.
* I think it’s time for at least some people to start thinking what to do in the event of a Hillary victory. It’s not my role to lead the movement, but some thoughts you can take or leave:
-You have to think long and hard about whether you want to try to secede and establish a pure Euro homeland or find a way to pull enough Hispanics and Asians into a coalition.
-Similarly, you can try to play down explicit racial rhetoric to achieve goals you want such as limitation of immigration, or try to advance white identity politics as a legitimate thing-in-itself. Again, pluses and minuses to each.
-You might want to be careful about how you define ‘welfare benefits’–everyone’s really fond of Social Security and Medicare, and Trump saying he was going to leave those alone was part of what made him attractive to downscale whites to begin with.
* A lot of alt-righters seem to view the Trump election as our last chance to do anything.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see him win, and think he still can.
But I disagree that its all over he doesn’t. Political movements tend to build up over time. If you look back in time, the left’s civil rights accomplishments took place over quite some time. NAACP is over 100 yrs old, for instance. There has been a growing opposition to illegal immigration for some time. You see it stirring in the Tea Party, and more directly in Prop 187, for instance. On several occasions in recent years, the masses raised enough hell to stop amnesty efforts by the government.
In our case, we are also fighting against a decreasing share of the republic. But we currently have considerable power and numbers in white America. Don’t forget, poll after poll shows most whites are against liberal ideas like amnesty for illegals, reparations, increasing welfare benefits, etc- This despite constant daily indoctrination for liberal causes. All it really takes is a spark to unite whites, and a lot can be accomplished in a short time. Demographic projections are not set in stone. End illegal immigration, deport illegals, etc. and major changes can be effected that will continue.
* I was having this exact same argument with my wife this morning after CNN had come on and the talking-head anchor (Ashley Banfield?) was in the process of grilling some waxy-skinned, Dixiecrat Trump Supporter about the supposed absurdity of deporting 11 million illegals “humanely”. I pointed out that 3-4 million had already self-deported last time the economy crashed. She hit me with a pillow.
Sometimes branding is everything, though. Don’t call it self-deporation. Call it “enabling their homecoming.”. Watch liberal heads explode trying to refute this phrasing when from every conceivable angle it is true.
* When a man criticizes a woman in some dry, technical, impersonal subject, the woman often fights back by saying that the man is obsessed with her in a stalker-like fashion. They take everything personally, relating to the impersonal, abstract world the way that a math-textbook two-dimensional man relates to the third dimension of depth.
* Today’s coalition-of-the-fringes has its days numbered. You have to remember that Asians (of both the Eastern and Southern variety) are currently free to indulge in their Harold/Kumar-ish micro-aggression resentments to their hearts’ contents while still paying taxes at rates that are, by modern standards, at near all-time lows. As the number of people who are net-tax liabilities explodes, rates will have to go up, at which point the principled, public-spirited, color-blind policies of today’s GOP might hold more appeal. Or they could simply decide to engage in massive tax fraud.
Hispanics, on the other hand, are starting to intermarry with the white working class in increasing numbers. Who they will then turn-to/turn-against will be an increasingly interesting question.
* To be fair Trump is doing the leg work, that if he were a democrat, would certainly get him into office. The guy is putting himself out there making two or three appearances per day. He flew to Louisiana to highlight the plight of the flood victims. All things that would get him kudos if he were the democrat.
Rush played some clips of Obama the Senator slamming Bush for not caring to show up and offer comfort to the people affected by Katrina. He played an old Hillary clip of her saying the president didn’t even know the hurricane victims existed.
Now the roles are reversed and the media tries to make Trump look like an opportunist for going to Louisiana. No matter what he does, it will be reported negatively, or perhaps ignored if it can’t be twisted. Just remember the baby that Trump threw out of his rally which never happened, but was reported that way.
Meanwhile Hillary takes several days off from making any public appearances. And when she does appear, it is only for fundraisers among the 0.1 percenters. If Hillary were the republican, the media would skewer her for this.
* When Trump delivered his speech on June 16, 2015 immigration crisis in Europe was still 1-2 months away. People were talking about immigrants but mostly the ones from Libya via Italy. But Orban was planning his fence. Still the invasion from Turkey via Greece did not start yet but it was already planned. By whom? For these reasons I always believed that Trump had a very good intelligence source. I do not believe in accidents. Find out who planned the invasion and made it happen you will know who is really running Trump.
The traction the immigration issue is getting in the US now is not because of Mexicans but because of Muslims Americans saw on TV marching towards Germany. Mexicans are familiar and not threatening. But Muslims are unfamiliar, abstract and thus can assume any form and shape in people’s minds.
* 1. VDare has never (I believe) published certain of the more high-profile or committed neo-reactionary or white nationalist people (Milo, or Richard Spencer), suggesting that it is not really a “clearinghouse.” I believe that it only publishes such writers insofar as their work bears on immigration.
2. VDare also publishes a number of (quasi-)mainstream pundits (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham) who are arguably not “hard-right or white nationalist.”
3. VDare also (I believe) publishes writers whose focus is solely on immigration and who are not very (or not at all) hard-right or white nationalist: Norm Matloff, Allan Wall, Brenda Walker. In fact, Wall and Derbyshire are married to non-white women (Mexican and Chinese, respectively) and for that reason distrusted by white nationalists. Derbyshire is also accused of being insufficiently anti-Jewish by other white nationalists.
4. VDare also publishes exchanges, pro and con, on white nationalism (see Jared Taylor vs. Steve Sailer, Kevin MacDonald vs. Eric Kauffman).
5. With writers such as Taylor and MacDonald, VDare tends to publish their material that bears on immigration, whereas their more generally “nationalist” material appears at their own sites.
6. VDare’s few staff writers (Fulford and Kirkpatrick), focus mostly on immigration.
7. VDare’s “About” page, etc., present the site as an extension of Brimelow’s book on immigration, Alien Nation.
8. VDare is happy to publish non-white writers (Yeagley, Malkin) in support of its views.
Altogether, this says to me that VDare would be more accurately described as “a clearinghouse for patriotic immigration reform, which does not discriminate against white nationalist or hard-right intellectuals when they agree with its views.” Just to take our host for example, Sailer is on the record (against Taylor) in support of “citizenism” against both Taylor’s white nationalism, and the “leapfrogging loyalties” of the globalist elite.
* One difference between then [1992] and now is because we are very close to losing forever the ability to control our destiny via the democratic process. Once we get to less than a practical 50% of white voters willing to vote for the one party, the only way to resist tyranny is via armed revolution. We are closer to that than when Buchanan ran.
* My observation is that the offspring of an interracial marriage identify with the non-white parent, due to Steve’s “flight from white” factor. Obvious example being Obama. Also, parents who adopt non-white children often immediately identify more with that group; they to are expressing their flight from white.
* Mexican and Central American immigrants are non-threatening in the same way that flood waters that are still below knee level aren’t threatening. Those I see around me look nice enough. But the flood is rising, and we will be inundated by their sub-mediocre capabilities.
Muslims make themselves threatening. They seem determined to do so. They set foot on your land as an invading army in the flush of victory. Look at Khizr Khan, railing at us from the podium at the Democrat Convention. Go home, Khan, your opinion is not wanted.
* The article was a plus for our side. The views of the alt-right are generally not aired in the MSM, and in this article they were. Many may find them frightening, but some will think, “I’ve never heard this before, but oddly enough it makes more sense to me than what I’ve been reading on the editorial page. Maybe I should look into it.”
