Who Is The Alt-Right?

Posted on March 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

In the light of Breitbart’s big essay on the Alt-Right, here is my list of the most important people of the Alt-Right in rough order of importance:

* Steve Sailer
* Jared Taylor
* Kevin MacDonald
* Richard Spencer
* F. Roger Devlin
* Greg Johnson
* William Johnson
* Tom Sunic
* David Duke
* Daily Stormer
* Heartiste
* Gregory Hood
* Stefan Molyneaux
* Don Black

Honorary Associates:

* Richard Lynn
* Paul Gottfried

According to Wikipedia:

The alt-right (sometimes referred to as alt-conservatism) is an umbrella term for the designation of right-wing ideologies in the United States presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in its national politics.[1][2][3] The alt-right has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump,[1][4][5] opposition to multiculturalism and immigration, opposition to feminism, and rejection of egalitarianism.[1][6] Although there is no official ideology associated with the alt-right, some have said the alt-right includes beliefs such as neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, business nationalism, and identitarianism.[1][2][7]

Since 2010 the term was been popularized by Richard Spencer’s website Alternative Right; critics identified it as a movement in 2015, and it was criticized by Republican strategist Rick Wilson in January 2016 on MSNBC, during a discussion of his opposition to candidate Donald Trump.[1][4][8] In this period of time, the membership of the alt-right is demographically younger than mainstream conservatism.

The term “alternative right” or “alt-right” was used sporadically in 2008.[9] and 2009[10][11] It has been used more frequently since self-described “identitarian” Richard B. Spencer founded Alternative Right in 2010, a journal described by neoconservative Tim Mak as “sexist and racist”,[12] and by the Southern Poverty Law Center as far right and racially focused.[13] Jeet Heer of The New Republic identifies the alt-right as having ideological origins among paleoconservatives.

The alt-right includes beliefs such as neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, national capitalism, identitarianism, white nationalism, antisemitism, racialism, white supremacism and American secessionism.[1][2] Commonalities shared across the otherwise loosely defined alt-right include disdain for mainstream politics, strong support for the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, and anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist views.[5][15][16] Adherents view mainstream conservatives with ridicule and have been credited for originating and using the term “cuckservative”,[1][2] a neologistic epithet described by some as racist.[17] Sources such as Newsday and the Cornell Review note the alt-right’s strong opposition to both legal and illegal immigration, and their hardline stance on the European migrant crisis of 2015–2016.[5][7] Ethan Chiel, writing for Fusion, has described members of the alt-right as “identity-obsessed”.[18] Members of the alt-right use social media and the internet to organize and share their beliefs, particularly on the /pol/ of image boards such as 4chan and 8chan.

In 2010, Greg Johnson, then-editor of The Occidental Quarterly, wrote a positive review related to Spencer’s launch of Alternative Right, explaining why he believed it filled a gap in mainstream conservatism:

“I hope that Alternative Right will attract the brightest young conservatives and libertarians and expose them to far broader intellectual horizons, including race realism, White Nationalism, the European New Right, the Conservative Revolution, Traditionalism, neo-paganism, agrarianism, Third Positionism, anti-feminism, and right-wing anti-capitalists, ecologists, bioregionalists, and small-is-beautiful types.”[20]

In a 2015 article in Buzzfeed, reporter Rosie Gray describes the alt-right as “white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times”, sayiing that it uses “aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs”, and notes that it has “more in common with European far-right movements than American ones.” Gray notes that the alt-right is largely based online, and supports Donald Trump’s candidacy while benefiting from his coattails. Gray quotes a prominent alt-right figure, 52-year-old vlogger Paul Ramsey, as saying that the alt-right are not neo-Nazis. But some hold similar beliefs, such as Holocaust denial, which they also identify as historical revisionism.[1] Proponents are said to use culture jamming and memes to promote their ideas. Some adherents refer to themselves as identitarian, and criticize National Review and William F. Buckley for not openly supporting white nationalism or similar ideologies.[21] Professor George Hawley of the University of Alabama noted that the alt-right may pose a greater threat to progressivism than the mainstream conservative movement.[22]

The alt-right has been praised by Benjamin Welton of The Weekly Standard, who described the group as a “highly heterogeneous force” that refuses to “concede the moral high ground to the left”.[2] Although some conservatives have welcomed the alt-right, others on the mainstream right and left[7] have attacked the movement as racist or hateful, particularly given the alt-right’s overt hostility towards mainstream conservatism and the Republican party in general.[1][2] National Review, for example, attacked the alt-right as “wanna-be fascists … tweeting from their mom’s basement” and bemoaned their entry into the national political conversation.[19] Another National Review writer, Jay Nordlinger, attacked the alt-right for their use of gallows humor, social Darwinism, artistic homoeroticism, and accused them of embracing Nietzscheanism in place of Christian values.[23] Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate, such as through Milo Yiannopoulos.[2][24][25]

Michael Dougherty writing in The Week describes the alt-right as radical working-class white people who are dismayed by globalization and contemptuous of “permanent members of the political class”.[26] However, Rick Wilson, an opponent of Donald Trump, rejected this distinction, calling the alt-right “crazy … childless single men who masturbate to anime,” and who have “plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons.”[27][28] Similarly, Cathy Young writing in Newsday called the alt-right “a nest of anti-Semitism” inhabited by “white supremacists” who regularly use “repulsive bigotry”.[7] Likewise, Chris Hayes on All In with Chris Hayes described the “alt right” as a euphemistic term for “essentially modern day white supremacy.

From Breitbart:

There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.

The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right.

The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought.

Alongside other nodes like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American Renaissance, AlternativeRight.com became a gathering point for an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another. All of these websites have been accused of racism.

Steve Sailer, meanwhile, helped spark the “human biodiversity” movement, a group of bloggers and researchers who strode eagerly into the minefield of scientific race differences — in a much less measured tone than former New York Times science editor Nicholas Wade.

Isolationists, pro-Russians and ex-Ron Paul supporters frustrated with continued neoconservative domination of the Republican party were also drawn to the alt-right, who are almost as likely as the anti-war left to object to overseas entanglements.

Elsewhere on the internet, another fearsomely intelligent group of thinkers prepared to assault the secular religions of the establishment: the neoreactionaries, also known as #NRx.

Neoreactionaries appeared quite by accident, growing from debates on LessWrong.com, a community blog set up by Silicon Valley machine intelligence researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky. The purpose of the blog was to explore ways to apply the latest research on cognitive science to overcome human bias, including bias in political thought and philosophy.

LessWrong urged its community members to think like machines rather than humans. Contributors were encouraged to strip away self-censorship, concern for one’s social standing, concern for other people’s feelings, and any other inhibitors to rational thought. It’s not hard to see how a group of heretical, piety-destroying thinkers emerged from this environment — nor how their rational approach might clash with the feelings-first mentality of much contemporary journalism and even academic writing.

Led by philosopher Nick Land and computer scientist Curtis Yarvin, this group began a gleeful demolition of the age-old biases of western political discourse. Liberalism, democracy and egalitarianism were all put under the microscope of the neoreactionaries, who found them wanting.

Liberal democracy, they argued, had no better a historical track record than monarchy, while egalitarianism flew in the face of every piece of research on hereditary intelligence. Asking people to see each other as human beings rather than members of a demographic in-group, meanwhile, ignored every piece of research on tribal psychology.

While they can certainly be accused of being overly-eager to bridge the gap between fact and value (the truth of tribal psychology doesn’t necessarily mean we should embrace or encourage it), these were the first shoots of a new conservative ideology — one that many were waiting for…

For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe. Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters. The natural conservative tendency within the alt-right points to these apotheoses of western European culture and declares them valuable and worth preserving and protecting.

Needless to say, natural conservatives’ concern with the flourishing of their own culture comes up against an intractable nemesis in the regressive left, which is currently intent on tearing down statues of Cecil Rhodes and Queen Victoria in the UK, and erasing the name of Woodrow Wilson from Princeton in the U.S. These attempts to scrub western history of its great figures are particularly galling to the alt-right, who in addition to the preservation of western culture, care deeply about heroes and heroic virtues.

This follows decades in which left-wingers on campus sought to remove the study of “dead white males” from the focus of western history and literature curricula. An establishment conservative might be mildly irked by such behaviour as they switch between the State of the Union and the business channels, but to a natural conservative, such cultural vandalism may just be their highest priority.

In fairness, many establishment conservatives aren’t keen on this stuff either — but the alt-right would argue that they’re too afraid of being called “racist” to seriously fight against it. Which is why they haven’t. Certainly, the rise of Donald Trump, perhaps the first truly cultural candidate for President since Buchanan, suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the western European and American way of life.

Alt-righters describe establishment conservatives who care more about the free market than preserving western culture, and who are happy to endanger the latter with mass immigration where it serves the purposes of big business, as “cuckservatives.”

Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.

The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.

You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.

The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.

Some alt-righters make a more subtle argument. They say that when different groups are brought together, the common culture starts to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Instead of mosques or English houses, you get atheism and stucco.

Ironically, it’s a position that has much in common with leftist opposition to so-called “cultural appropriation,” a similarity openly acknowledged by the alt-right.

It’s arguable that natural conservatives haven’t had real political representation for decades. Since the 1980s, establishment Republicans have obsessed over economics and foreign policy, fiercely defending the Reagan-Thatcher economic consensus at home and neoconservative interventionism abroad. In matters of culture and morality, the issues that natural conservatives really care about, all territory has been ceded to the Left, which now controls the academy, the entertainment industry and the press.

For those who believe in the late Andrew Breitbart’s dictum that politics is downstream from culture, the number of writers, political candidates and media personalities who actually believe that culture is the most important battleground can be dispiriting. (Though Milo is trying his best.)

Natural liberals, who instinctively enjoy diversity and are happy with radical social change – so long as it’s in an egalitarian direction – are now represented by both sides of the political establishment. Natural conservatives, meanwhile, have been slowly abandoned by Republicans — and other conservative parties in other countries. Having lost faith in their former representatives, they now turn to new ones — Donald Trump and the alternative right.

Posted in Alt Right, Steve Sailer | Comments Off on Who Is The Alt-Right?

Only Trump Can Win

Posted on March 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ann Coulter writes: The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.

If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.

A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.

Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”

Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)

Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states — Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).

Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.

If Trump wins only the same states as Romney, but adds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois — where Romney’s white vote was below his national average — Trump wins with 280 electoral votes. (Romney wasn’t an ideal candidate in the industrial Midwest.)

Trump could lose any one of those states and make up for it by winning Minnesota and Wisconsin — where Romney actually lost the white vote. Or he could lose two of those states but add victories in places outside the Rust Belt, where Romney’s white vote was also below average, such as Colorado, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. (In 1992, Ross Perot came in second in Maine, beating George Bush.)

I haven’t even mentioned Florida, where Trump recently trounced Stuart Stevens’ dream candidate, Marco Rubio, a sitting senator — and a Cuban! — in a 20-point rout. Republican primary voters outnumbered Democratic primary voters in that election by more than half a million votes.

If Trump wins Florida, he needs to win only two or three of the 10 states where Romney either lost the white vote outright or won a smaller percentage of it than he did nationally.

Stevens’ analysis assumes that there will be no new voters — and, again, there isn’t a mammal on the North American landmass who knows less about winning presidential elections than Stuart Stevens.

It’s as if we’re only allowed to divvy up the pile of voters from 2012. Unless you voted in 2012, you can’t vote in 2016! Use it or lose it, buddy.

That’s not how it works.

Trump is saying he’ll bring in lots of new people, as he has throughout the primaries. In the Florida GOP primary, for example, Trump got nearly half a million more votes than Romney did in 2012 — and about half a million new people voted. Trump may be wrong, but it’s insane to say that it’s impossible for him to bring out new voters.

What’s impossible is for any Republican candidate, other than Trump, to win a single state Romney lost. Ted Cruz’s corny speaking style is creepy to anyone who doesn’t already agree with everything he says. He’s the less likable, more hard-edged version of Romney. Every other Republican is, one way or another, a less attractive version of Romney.

Maybe 50 years of Third World immigration means it’s too late, and even Trump can’t win. But it’s an absolute certainty that any other Republican will lose.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Only Trump Can Win

Ashley Rae Goldenberg: ‘So this was a thing I guess.’

Posted on March 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

She posts this picture with Alt-Right vlogger Ramzpaul on March 5 from the latest NPI conference:

Cc1r5qVW4AAKuh7

From her Twitter bio: “Ashley Rae Goldenberg, AKA Communism Kills. Jew with an econ degree who works in the media.”

She posts about Jewish stuff and she’s a proudly identifying Jew.

Normally, 99% of white nationalists hate Jews and vice versa so the two groups don’t mix much.

BuIeFBPc

Twitter comments:

* You two will make beautiful Kosher African trans vegan babies together.

* eww, he’s old enough to be your dad! Gross!!

* Oh jesus christ. At this rate the alt right will have more jews and gays in it than the SPLC.

* Hey Ashley, since small government is all that matters, what do you think of Socialist/collectivist Israel?

* Was that at CPAC or NPI? All Jews need to go. Zionism= cosmopolitanism for whites, Nazism for Jews.

* Ashley: My name is in my bio. I post about challah bread, Yiddish, God. You’re kinda dumb if you have to make “connections” to “prove” I’m Jewish.

I’ve been Facebook friends with Ashley on Facebook for about five years. I remember her posts as solid conservative. I didn’t realize she was Alt-Right. When did this happen?

About a year ago, I posted a link to an article on Matthew Heimbach and Ashley Rae, who rarely posts on my threads, wrote that he was not a good person and he did not deserve publicity.

ce9tacqwwaezh5i

I also remember her posting around this time that she was getting divorced and that her ex-husband was a loser who didn’t work hard.

Goy: “You should look into the phenomenon of Jewish honeypots and write about it. For example it seems that Communism Kills became a honeypot to RamZPaul and his ideological purity quickly collapsed.”

From Rightpedia:

Ashley Rae Goldenberg✡ is Jewish dissident in the alt right who goes by “Communismkills”/”Communism Kills”, which is the name of her blogs. The blogs’ names refer to the Red Holocaust. She also writes articles for several newspapers and blogs.

Education
She was an economics major at George Mason University[1][2] and graduated in 2014.[3]

Politics
Her politics tends to be conservative, libertarian, and nationalist.

She supports Donald Trump and her Twitter photo is a picture of herself wearing a hat with his slogan, “Make America Great Again.”[4]

She has criticized Michael Brown with a poem, although the poem was nowhere near as funny as Morrakiu’s song Violent Mike.[2]

She is a Zionist who defends Israel.[5] However she has less of a mainstream view where the thinks stopping US foreign aid to Israel would strengthen Israel and it is the case that many times foreign aid weakens its recipient country.[6] Unlike her, most Jews think that without foreign countries (especially the USA) to protect Israel, then the angry Muslims would overrun and conquer Israel within days and the surviving Israeli Jews would fire off the Samson Option in revenge.

She has defended Ann Coulter.[7]

Persecution by Marxists
Ashley started her Tumblr blog Communismkills in 2011. Yes it was on Tumblr of all places, which is full of Cultural Marxists/SJWs. The Cultural Marxists stalked up the personal information of Ashley’s entire family, posted it everywhere, and engaged in a real life harassment campaign against her. She cannot even have her phone turned on because of the sheer amount of harassing phone calls. They also posted her school, work, parent’s home and work, and more all of them getting harassment. She and her entire family receive frequent threats of being raped, burned, tortured, and/or murdered. Some Cultural Marxists even do physical violence just like old-fashioned Communists in the 20th century. SJWs will target anyone of any race who disagrees with them.[8]

Dating a white nationalist
From 2011 through August 2012, she dated Matthew Heimbach. This was when Matthew Heimbach was only alt right. The two shared believes in the alt right of opposing Marxism, opposing Cultural Marxism, supporting Nationalism, supporting smaller government, and conservative beliefs. Heimbach also had a gentile girlfriend at the time and his relationship with Goldenberg was not that serious. They eventually broke up. During the few weeks leading up to the first semester of his senior year, Heimbach grew jew-wise and white nationalist. Despite him having a strong dislike of jews as a whole, the two remained on friendly terms although never in a relationship again.[9]

She also went to a Nationalist conference with Ramzpaul and took a photo. Ramzpaul was criticized because she was a Jew.

References

  1. ↑ https://insomniaclibertarian.wordpress.com/category/ashley-rae-goldenberg/
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/conservative-blogger-racist-ferguson-poem/
  3. ↑ http://fffcuk.tumblr.com/post/103857296417/7453409-ashley-rae-goldenberg-daughter-of
  4. ↑ https://archive.is/20160403075652/https://twitter.com/Communism_Kills
  5. ↑ “Genocide, apartheid and theft?”—debunking Israel’s harshest critics
    by Ashley Rae Goldenberg on July 21, 2014
  6. ↑ How ending American foreign aid to Israel would strengthen Israel by Ashley Rae Goldenberg February 25, 2014
  7. ↑ http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/in-defense-of-ann-coulter-ashley-rae-goldenberg/
  8. ↑ How Social Justice Warriors Are Creating An Entire Generation Of Fascists by Joshua Goldberg (Joshua Goldberg who wrote it is a Jewish neo-national socialist who has written articles for The Daily Stormer and was the Jew who first began altering Ben Garrison‘s artwork into being antisemitic)
  9. ↑ Streicher’s Ghost. Matthew Heimbach pursued a Jewess [undated] Destroy Zionism. January 19, 2014. Accessed April 22, 2014.
  10. ↑ http://www.dailystormer.com/antifa-protesters-create-effigies-of-richard-spencer-ramzpaul-and-kevin-macdonald/
  11. ↑ White Nationalism is a Cult
  12. ↑ https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/706447852462071808

280px-Communismkills_mocks_Mattress_Girl_Emma_Sulkowicz
Ashley mocks Mattress Girl, Emma Sulkowicz✡, who is a con-artist who sent a gang of Cultural Marxists to sexually harass an innocent man because he broke up with her.

280px-Ashley_Rae_Goldenberg_and_Ramzpaul
Ashley with Ramzpaul at an alt right conference in March 2016

120px-Communismkills_doing_a_Hillary_Clinton_Happy_Merchant_impression

Ashley doing her impression of Hillary Clinton doing a Happy Merchant pose as seen here and here.

88px-Communismkills_on_feminism

Ashley does a bit of mocking of feminism. “I need feminism because having STDs should be a badge of honor not a stigma.” This image has been sent around the internet like she was serious when she actually opposes feminism. The bottom photo in the image is her being serious.

Posted in Jews, Matthew Heimbach, Nationalism | Comments Off on Ashley Rae Goldenberg: ‘So this was a thing I guess.’

An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right

Posted on March 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Breitbart: A specter is haunting the dinner parties, fundraisers and think-tanks of the Establishment: the specter of the “alternative right.” Young, creative and eager to commit secular heresies, they have become public enemy number one to beltway conservatives — more hated, even, than Democrats or loopy progressives.

The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous movement. Some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set. They’re wrong.

Previously an obscure subculture, the alt-right burst onto the national political scene in 2015. Although initially small in number, the alt-right has a youthful energy and jarring, taboo-defying rhetoric that have boosted its membership and made it impossible to ignore.

It has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press, always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown these young readers and voters to the wolves as well.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right

What Causes Terrorism?

Posted on March 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments:

* The common denominator is Islam. That is the take home message. No Muslims, little or no terror. So let’s not waste time trying to figure out who among the Muslim population is likely to blow people to bits. Instead, focus on keeping them out of our countries and repatriating those who are already here back to their ancestral desert kingdoms. My God, we dropped an atomic bomb on a civilian population in Japan. How morally difficult would it be to send the Muslim population back home safely?

* I’m late to this thread but IMO this reporter is putting his very career on the line by writing consecutive paragraphs like this:

“When researchers do come up with possible answers, the government often disregards them. Not long after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, for instance, Alan B. Krueger, the Princeton economist, tested the widespread assumption that poverty was a key factor in the making of a terrorist. Mr. Krueger’s analysis of economic figures, polls, and data on suicide bombers and hate groups found no link between economic distress and terrorism.

More than a decade later, law enforcement officials and government-funded community groups still regard money problems as an indicator of radicalization.”

That is way way outside the box of NYT thinking, far beyond the pale of what is acceptable to progressives. They could dump him in a heartbeat for that alone, notwithstanding the protective camouflage of the rest of the article.

* Chris Patten, the chancellor of Oxford University, told students campaigning to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes in January that they might like to “think about being educated elsewhere”.

Roger Scruton’s latest piece in the Spectator is in the same vein:

“To show real respect for our Muslim citizens is to hold them to the same standard as we hold ourselves. And to those who seem to reject that standard we should put the vital questions: do you wish to belong to a civilisation in which women are in the public arena on equal terms with men? Do you wish to live under a shared rule of law, with those whom some of you regard as infidels? And what does your faith tell you about women and how they should be treated? Those questions should have been asked a long time ago and our welcome should have depended on the answers. But that is no reason not to ask them now and respect for our Muslim fellow citizens surely demands that we do so.”

* Scruton has gone full cuck. There was a time when he used to at least hover around the edges of race realism. What’s wrong with saying we like our country the way it is, and don’t want people who will change it? Non-whites will always change it, even if they promise “to live under our shared rule of law”, etc. First it was Americans that bought into this proposition nation nonsense, but now Europeans are also denying that their heritage has anything to do with race.

* Now take a look at the readers top pick, and note 167 Facebook recommendations.

Mark B Toronto 1 day ago
This article clearly — and painfully —avoids the elephant in the room. To say that there are no clues to uncovering potential terrorists is completely disingenuous. We know who *not* to be worried about.

Should we be worried the Amish? Jains? 5-year-old Icelandic girls? No, no, and no.

Most terrorists today are jihadists. 100% of jihadists are Muslims who really believe in doctrines such as martyrdom and Paradise. Beliefs are what matter. Not education, wealth, nationality or skin color. Beliefs.

Is it really so difficult to be this intellectually honest?

Posted in Islam, Terror | Comments Off on What Causes Terrorism?