Divisions In White Nationalism

I just caught this podcast on Youtube.

Host: “What causes these rifts? A lot of it is class. Boots vs suits. Then there are the wonks vs trolls. We’re doing right-wing journalism and winning the internet every day.”

“There seems to be a real network in Europe and it’s a lifestyle. It’s more of a lived breathed reality.”

Richard: “Nick was such an extreme ethno-nationalist that he was one of my parodies of ethno-nationalism. For instance, he hates Swedens. He said, ‘The Swedes are next to niggers.’ I’m all for poking fun at people, but if you think that, I’m not sure we are on the same page.”

Host: “That’s a joke. He says, ‘Behind every Jew, there’s a Swede.’ It’s not real.”

I was just checking out the Youtube channel Alt-Right Andywhere I found this Richard Spencer podcast. They also offer the David Duke show, Stormfront, Daily Shoah, Grandpa Lampshade, and Thirty Minutes in the Oven, Season One, Episode Eight.

Richard: “He felt I was down on working class guys. I’ve not talked about this publicly, I invited the League of the South leader, Michael Hill. I had done a podcast with him. I invited Michael Hill to be a speaker at the [June 2015] NPI conference. He was excited. Then he said, I can’t share the stage with a known homosexual, i.e. Jack Donovan. I said, Jesus would probably share the stage with a known homosexual and he did not take that well. He was also saying things like Guillaume Faye is a Zionist. Look, Guillaume Faye has made some comments that he understands the idea of a Jewish homeland. He also lives in Europe where there are laws about what you can say.”

Host: “I heard people say he was a sell-out because he believes in the Holocaust and he can’t not say that or he’ll go to prison for five years.”

Richard: “Everyone has a limit. I don’t talk about the Second World War at all. I have my own doubts about mainstream historical consensus, but it is not my thing. I’d rather not talk about that. I don’t need one more thing. I’ve never denounced someone on that. The idea of calling someone a coward if they don’t go all the way.”

“The reason I disinvited [Matthew Heimbach] was not because I was trying to suppress anti-homosexual views. I don’t know if you have seen that [Nightline] interview he did where he dressed up as a Klansman…”

Host: “He’s writing checks that the movement has to cash.”

Richard: “He laced up jackboots on camera. Why? You’re being American History X.”

Host: “Isn’t that exactly what the enemy wants?”

Richard: “Unfortunately, in the United States, we don’t have the lifestyle thing going. It’s an online lifestyle… There’s something more authentic in Europe. There does seem to be a tendency to going into tribalism and ethno-nationalism, and if you see other white people as the enemy, that’s a problem.”

“I think the Civil War was 100% about race. It was two white people killing themselves over the race question.”

“[From the northern side:] We want free white people tilling the soil, not these massive plantations with hundreds of negros and all the danger that brings.”

“I don’t have a dog in this fight… I look back at the whole thing as deeply tragic.”

“The essence of conservatism is conserving something — a people, a race, a class, a way of life.”

“I am curious if people can find earlier uses of the term [Alt-Right].”

Paul Gottfried wrote for Takimag Apr. 7, 2008:

A Paleo Epitaph

Even now an alternative is coming into existence as a counterforce to neoconservative dominance. It consists mostly of younger (thirty-something) writers and political activists; and although they are still glaringly under-funded, this rising generation is building bridges on the right.

Richard Spencer: “There was a conservative revolution in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s… We have a lot of their ideas. I don’t think anybody called them the Alt-Right but there was language like that.”

“That got my wheels turning. I wrote in a blog Aug. 6, 2008: ‘The intellectual bankruptcy of neo-conservatism as well as the stagnation of movement conservatism should give paleos, traditionalists and anyone else on the Alternative Right some cause for optimism.”

Based on a speech he gave about ten days earlier, Paul Gottfried wrote for Takimag Dec. 1, 2008 (with Richard Spencer as his editor composing the headline):

The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right

We have youth and exuberance on our side, and a membership that is largely in its twenties and thirties. We have attracted beside old-timers like me, as I noted in my introductory paragraph, well-educated young professionals, who consider themselves to be on the right, but not of the current conservative movement. These “post-paleos,” to whom I have alluded in Internet commentaries, are out in force here tonight. And they are radical in the sense in which William F. Buckley once defined a true Right, an oppositional force that tries to uncover the root causes of our political and cultural crises and then to address them.

And when I speak about the postpaleos, it goes without saying that I’m referring to a growing communion beyond this organization. It is one that now includes Takimag, VDARE.com, and other websites that are willing to engage sensitive, timely subjects.

Radix Journal:

THE ALT RIGHT AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONSERVATISM

This essay [by Kevin DeAnna], which has been lightly revised for clarity, was first published at Taki’s Magazine on July 26, 2009. The author had recently founded a right-wing youth group called Youth For Western Civilization.

Hence, Youth for Western Civilization[9], despite mostly being funded out of what’s left of my salary (post condo fees), has garnered huge headlines and controversy, even though we don’t have a single employee. Thus far, YWCers can’t even really be placed on the “Alternative Right,” as we are essentially just echoing standard conservative rhetoric on immigration, multiculturalism, and American identity. (The difference is that we actually mean it.) But even this moderate approach is too much for leftists. Calls to completely transform the structure of the American economy meet far less opposition than suggesting that we enforce existing immigration laws. This tells us what the real forbidden issues are in America today and where the Left really sees the battle lines falling. (Hint: they don’t really care about monetary policy.)

Richard: “We’re over Ron Paul.”

“I was always radical. I was interested in German idealism. I was not interested in Paul Kirk. I got into graduate school by writing a paper on Carl Schmitt.”

“I got red-pilled intellectually by Jared Taylor. I was against the Iraq War… I grew up in a bubble. We had a token black in my class in high school. In college, UVA, it’s a bubble. There are some blacks but everyone self-segregates. I always tried to avoid race for the reason it’s icky and people are going to call you a bigot.

“Reading Jared Taylor, I was like, oh wow, you can think about this sanely. It opened up a whole world.

“I didn’t change that much. When I was writing in 2008, 2009, I was in that paleo and libertarian milieu. We were trying to get out of conservatism. That’s why I like the saying, ‘Become who you are.'”

“The Alt-Right banner now is for people who are racially conscious, skeptical of conservatives, and aware of the Jewish issue and you take that seriously.”

“We are not like Ted Cruz, who believes that we are not conservative enough. This let’s go back to the Constitution, let’s have free markets, lets fight for freedom around the world.”

Host: “Gottfried’s Future of the Right — willingness to make friend/enemy distinctions, defending Western Civilization, masculinist and violent.”

Richard: “The Alt-Right style is a willingness to confront the enemy. Willing to use harsh language. There’s also the Alt-Right ironic trollish style.”

Host: “We were trained by humiliation to be cucks and we’re using humiliation to break the conditioning.”

Richard: “Part of being Alt-Right is that we are coming out of this catastrophe.”

“If your starting point is that America is the greatest culture ever developed, then I can’t really talk to you. This is not. This is a catastrophe that we are living through.”

“There is something inauthentic about cucks who say America is the greatest culture created. They’re LARPing.”

“The definition of friend-enemy must be on a racial basis… France can’t decide to declare war on Germany.”

“The Paleos missed their moment. Tom Fleming at Chronicles alienated every young person with any talent. He has minions. They went in goofy directions. They weren’t doing things that challenged the system. They became irrelevant. A liberal could almost read Chronicles and think, these radicals, what will they do next? Hahaha.”

“They’re sitting on money but money can’t buy you influence. Ricky Vaughn has 1000x their influence and he is doing it all for free.”

Southern Poverty Law Center:

On Thursday, ABC’s Nightline ran a revealing profile of Matthew Heimbach, founder of the White Student Union at Towson University in Maryland and a rising star on the white nationalist scene. Nightline tagged along with Heimbach as he tried to recruit college students to his cause and sought allies in unexpected quarters.

Heimbach is positioning himself to be the next David Duke – with Duke’s blessing. When asked by Nightline if he sees a young version of himself in Heimbach, Duke responded immodestly: “If you combine honesty, sincerity with intelligence, I think he has the potential to be quite an effective leader for these ideas.”

Hatewatch has documented Heimbach’s radicalization and embrace of Klansmen and neo-Nazis. It’s no surprise then that he told Nightline that the races must divide up the United States into racially pure enclaves. In his vision, there would be trade among the enclaves and visas would be required for cross-border visits.

Heimbach told Nightline’s Byron Pitts that racial separation could happen without violence, but he is prepared for whatever comes. “God willing it won’t, but some things are worth fighting for,” he said.

While Heimbach’s recruitment efforts appeared to yield few results, he did find an ally of sorts. Speaking with Reverend Mmoja Ajabu, a radical black nationalist, Heimbach suggested they could hang “a couple bankers” to strike a blow against their common foe. “I think we’re finding common ground,” responded Ajabu.

Heimbach later told Pitts that he’d rather work with black nationalists than white traitors. He “sees only one place for them.” “And that is?” inquired Pitts. “In a ditch.”

From Southern Poverty Law Center:

About Michael Hill

Ironically, Hill was a professor for years at a historically black college before establishing the League of the South in 1994 as an institution devoted to reviving Southern heritage and, eventually, pushing for secession. As Hill spurred the group to become increasingly racist and militant in the late 1990s, most of the other academics who joined in 1994 fled as racial extremists took their place in a much-diminished institution. During the first decade of the 21stcentury, the group grew increasingly radical, talking about a coming “race war,” forming a paramilitary unit, and talking increasingly of weapons.

In His Own Words

“The destruction of states rights in the South was the first necessity leading to forced policies undermining the cultural dominance of the Anglo-Celtic people and its institutions. [Arch-segregationist Alabama Gov. George] Wallace rightly identified the enemy and fought it until the attempt on his life in 1972.”
— Southern Patriot, 1998

“[T]he evil genie of universal ‘human rights,’ once loosed from its bottle, can never be restrained because rights for women, racial and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc., can be manufactured easily.”
— Essay posted to Dixienet.org, 1999

“In part, [the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] spring from an ‘open borders’ policy that has for the past four decades encouraged massive Third World immigration and thus cultural destabilization. Hence, these acts of violence were also the natural fruits of a regime committed to multiculturalism and diversity, hallmarks of empire rather than of nation. … [T]his is America’s wake-up call to forsake its idolatry and to return to its true Christian and Constitutional foundations.”
— Essay posted to Dixienet.org, 2001

“If the scenario of the South (and the rest of America) being overrun by hordes of non-white immigrants does not appeal to you, then how is this disaster to be averted? By the people who oppose it rising up against their traitorous elite masters and their misanthropic rule. But to do this we must first rid ourselves of the fear of being called ‘racists’ and the other meaningless epithets they use against us. What is really meant by the [multiculturalism] advocates when they peg us as ‘racists’ is that we adhere to ethnocentrism, which is a natural affection for one’s own kind. This is both healthy and Biblical. I am not ashamed to say that I prefer my own kind and my own culture. Others can have theirs; I have mine. No group can survive for long if its members do not prefer their own over others.”
— Essay posted to Conservativetimes.org, 2007

“Yes, the South has a ‘black’ problem. It also has a ‘yankee’ problem. But our biggest problem—and one even Christian members within our own ranks refuse (or fear) to acknowledge—is the ‘Jewry’ problem. Indeed, organized Jewry has been at the root of most of the South’s troubles for the past 100 years.”
— On an internal League of the South Facebook group

“We Southern nationalists do not want a race war (or any sort of war). But if one is forced on us, we’ll participate. … Southern whites are geared up and armed to the teeth. … So if negroes think a ‘race war’ in modern America would be to their advantage, they had better prepare themselves for a very rude awakening. White people may be patient, but our patience does have a limit. You do not want to test that limit.”
— “A few notes on an American race war,” May 6, 2015

“Never underestimate the perfidy of the organized Jew. He is craft enough to manipulate both sides in a conflict for his own advantage. From my experience and studies, I have come to the conclusion that his main enemy is European man—the inheritors of Christendom—and his main weapons against us are the various Third World peoples (including Muslims) he employs as his street-level foot soldiers, debt, propaganda, and our own guilt. If we are to survive, we must combat these weapons, and soon.” — On an internal League of the South Facebook group, December 8, 2015

Background

Sporting a white beard intended to give him the look of a Confederate Army officer, native Alabamian J. Michael Hill has done more than anyone to create a new, racially tinged Southern secession movement. Ironically, Hill taught British history for decades as he developed his thinking about the nature and religion of the South at historically black Stillman College in Tuscaloosa, Ala.

Hill was always an oddity at the school, roaming the campus wearing a Confederate flag pin and waxing nostalgic to his mostly black students about the “War Between the States.” In 1996, Hill told columnist Diane Roberts that his black students adored him; what he didn’t say was that he apparently did not share their warmth. In a 2000 posting to the invitation-only AlaReb E-mail list, Hill mocked his former students and co-workers. “A quote,” he wrote, “from a recent affirmative action hire: ‘Yesta-day I could not spell ‘secretary.’ Today I is one.'” He continued: “One of few benefits I got on a regular basis from having taught for 18 years at Stillman College was reading the class rolls on the first day of class.” He went on to list several “humorous” names of his black students, ending with, “Where do these people get such names?” Hill resigned from Stillman in 1998. Although school officials never said so publicly, The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education reported that Hill had become “an embarrassment” to the administration.

Hill began to develop his ideas about a new Confederacy in the 1970s, while studying under Grady McWhiney and Forrest McDonald, two extremely conservative history professors at the University of Alabama. His mentors wrote Cracker Culture, a book that argued that the South was settled primarily by “Anglo-Celts,” while in the North it was British Protestants who predominated.

Expanding on his old professors’ controversial claim that the South was different from the North because its population was “Celtic,” Hill published two books on Celtic history in the early 1990s. In 1994, he became an activist and put his ideas into practice, creating the Southern League, which was later renamed the League of the South (the original name was a takeoff on the separatist and anti-immigrant Northern League of Italy, but had to be changed after a baseball league of the same name threatened to sue), or LOS. The LOS envisioned a seceded South that would be run, basically, as a theocratic state marked by medieval legal distinctions between different types of citizens, with white males at the top of the hierarchy.

Started with 40 people, the LOS initially included four men with Ph.D.s on its board, along with Jack Kershaw, who was once active in the segregationist White Citizens Council in Nashville and who remained on the board as late as 2009.

Hill’s LOS started out complaining about the media treatment of white Southerners but quickly developed into a racist group calling for a second secession, attacking egalitarianism, describing antebellum slavery as “God-ordained,” opposing racial intermarriage, and defending segregation as a policy designed to protect the “integrity” of both the black and the white races.

An early sign of the League’s underlying racism came in 1995, when Hill set up a student chapter at his alma mater, the University of Alabama. Within months, its members began to verbally attack gays, and chapter president Thomas Stedman wrote to the student newspaper to claim that “blacks did not invent … anything of note anywhere in the world.” Hill also praised extremists like the Holocaust-denying and immigrant-bashing Jean-Marie Le Pen of France, calling for “others like Le Pen to arise.” The “ravages of multiculturalism and so-called diversity,” Hill said, are anathema to him. Hill described the Pledge of Allegiance as “nationalist propaganda [meant] to indoctrinate” children with socialist ideas about government.

In 2003, Hill led an attempt to resuscitate the Southern Party, another neo-Confederate organization. And he attacked the Supreme Court after its ruling in July of that year striking down anti-gay sodomy laws, saying the court was helping to advance what he called the “sodomite and civil rights agendas.”

In 1998, just after he left Stillman, Hill claimed that the LOS had some 15,000 members. In 2000, the Southern Poverty Law Center added the organization to its list of hate groups based on its white supremacist ideology. Four years later, Hill’s former mentor, Forrest McDonald, who had attended the first meeting of the LOS in 1994, denounced him, telling the Intelligence Report that Hill’s racism had destroyed the group. By 2009, the League of the South could only draw a handful of participants to its events, and its publications were produced sporadically.

But as Hill saw his academic support flee and his organization’s membership dwindle, his rhetoric grew more extreme, his racism more explicit. The Civil War, he says, wasn’t about slavery. It was the imposition by godless Yankees of a materialistic, capitalist industrial system on a South that embodied the only surviving remnant of “orthodox Christianity.” He decried the “evil genie of universal ‘human rights,’” and called egalitarianism a noxious “Jacobin” doctrine. America’s traitorous “elite masters,” he complained, had allowed it to be “overrun by hordes of non-white immigrants.”

In a 2012 essay, he claimed that white people are endowed with a “God-ordained superiority.” Whites of “honor, genius and principle” left us with a “glorious heritage,” while black people “have never created anything approximating a civilization.” Slavery, he wrote, was “successfully defended from a Biblical standpoint” until “the institution’s legitimacy was systematically undermined in the name of ‘equality’ and misappropriated ‘Christian ethics.’” He also waxed nostalgic for the Jim Crow system of racial oppression.

Particularly alarming was Hill’s growing penchant for inciting his remaining followers to violence. At a March 2011 LOS meeting in Georgia, he urged members to stock up on AK-47s, hollow-point bullets and tools to derail trains. That summer, at the League’s annual conference, the leader asked, “What would it take to get you to fight? The mantra [that] violence, or the serious threat thereof, never settles anything is patently false. History shows that it indeed does settle many things.”

This increasingly vocal militancy brought the LOS’ ideology and goals closer and closer to those of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement. In a January 2012 email, Hill declared the federal government an “organized criminal enterprise” led by “domestic terrorists,” and told his followers to prepare for a fight.

Hill even took ideas straight from the playbook of the Posse Comitatus, a racist, anti-Semitic group that raged through the Midwest in the late 1970s and 1980s. Adherents of the Posse, which was the precursor to the contemporary “sovereign citizens” movement, believed that sheriffs were the highest legitimate law enforcement officials in the country. In addition to self-defense, Hill advised his followers to use their county sheriffs “as bulwarks against the criminal class. … He can lawfully tell the feds to ‘Go to Hell’ and stay out of his territory.”

The year 2013 saw another major shift in strategy for Hill and the LOS as it adopted new rhetoric against “Southern demographic displacement.” The LOS deemphasized its longstanding objectives of a second southern secession and society dominated by “European Americans” during public events in order to portray a more moderate, conservative image. Under this new strategy, protests began focusing on more traditionally conservative themes such as opposition to immigration and same-sex marriage. Attendees were also required to follow a dress code at LOS demonstrations. Most remarkably, the group banned the usage of the Confederate battle flag at its events, much to the anger and chagrin of many of its members, in favor of a new “southern nationalist” flag.

This shift in the LOS’ policy also led to Hill’s expulsion of Matthew Heimbach, one of the organizations most visible young members, after photos surfaced of Heimbach performing a Nazi salute at events with the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement and the Imperial Klans of America. “Matthew Heimbach, a former member of The League of the South, has apparently decided to cast his lot with Nazis and others who do not represent the traditional South, the Southern Nationalist movement, and The League of the South,” Hill wrote on the Facebook page for an upcoming League event in Tennessee. “Neither he nor his friends will be welcome at our demonstrations.”

But Hill apparently underwent a change of heart less than a year later, readmitting Heimbach and promoting him to a leadership position as LOS training director.

The LOS’ more radical elements returned to the forefront shortly thereafter with the formation of an armed, paramilitary unit dubbed “the Indomitables” by Hill and the LOS’ leadership at the group’s 2014 national conference. The unit was tasked with advancing a second southern secession by any means necessary and embodied the increasingly extreme rhetoric of the group. “The primary targets will not be enemy soldiers; instead, they will be political leaders, members of the hostile media, cultural icons, bureaucrats, and other of the managerial elite without whom the engines of tyranny don’t run,” wrote Hill on the League’s website. He concluded the essay by quoting Psalms: “Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.”

In May 2015, Hill published what was probably his most provocative essay yet, pontificating about the possibility of an American “race war” and warning black Americans of “a very rude awakening” if such a war developed.

Perhaps even more surprising was the appearance of an essay by Hill in The Barnes Review, one of the most well known historical revisionist and Holocaust denial publications. Hill’s essay titled, “The Politics of Provocation: Spiraling Out of Control,” capped more than a year of increasingly anti-Semitic postings in internal LOS Facebook groups.

In the months leading up to the publication of Hill’s article, he regularly posted remarks such as, “Organized Jewry does its reputation among decent people no good by being neck-deep in pornography, the sex trafficking trade, and the homosexual agenda,” for LOS members to fawn over.

In December of 2015, when responding to a question about non-religious individuals joining the LOS, Hill told an inquiring LOS member that, “The League is not the church. Though most of us are Christians, one does not have to be to join our ranks. We do not allow Muslims or Jews, however. Both have proven themselves, as organized groups, to be against our heritage and interests. We will take no chances with them. Your friend is welcome if he is neither a Muslim nor Jew.”

Under Hill’s leadership, LOS members participated in 35 of the 364 Confederate battle flag rallies that followed the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the state house grounds in South Carolina and Alabama in the wake of the massacre at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, during the summer of 2015.

Posted in America, Holocaust, Homosexuality, Nationalism, Richard Spencer | Comments Off on Divisions In White Nationalism

Big-headed babies are brightest

Phrenology is real. Big heads correlate with big brains which correlate with high IQ.

People with big heads typically don’t run fast because their body shape must change to support their big heads, so their hips get wider and then their legs angle in and it is not as efficient for running.

That’s why cornerbacks and other players at speed positions don’t tend to be as bright as quarterbacks and offensive linemen.

REPORT: The size of babies’ heads at birth is strongly linked to their future success, with larger head circumferences and brain volume associated with higher intelligence, scientists have found.

The finding is among the first to emerge from data gathered by UK Biobank, in which 500,000 Britons are being studied over the long term to discover the links between their genes, their physical and mental health and their path through life.

A key target for the research is unravelling the complex links between brain function and DNA — one of neuroscience’s great challenges because so many genes are involved.

Posted in IQ | Comments Off on Big-headed babies are brightest

Why Carl Schmitt Became A Nazi

From Reinhard Mehring’s Carl Schmitt: A Biography:

schmitt

schmitt1

schmitt2

Wikipedia.

Posted in Carl Schmitt | Comments Off on Why Carl Schmitt Became A Nazi

I Wonder Where The Washington Post Stands On Donald Trump?

From this afternoon:

post

post1a

Posted in Washington Post | Comments Off on I Wonder Where The Washington Post Stands On Donald Trump?

Constitutional Theory

From page 191 of Reinhard Mehring’s Carl Schmitt: A Biography:

Schmitt defines the state as the ‘political unity’ of a people and interprets the ‘positive’ constitution as the ‘complete decision over the form and type of the political unity.’ Every people with a political will decides for itself about its ‘form of existence’ and gives itself a legal constitution. A people with a political will (to the self assertion of its political unity) Schmitt calls a ‘nation.’ A nation makes a ‘state.’ This concept of the constitution aims at the ‘homogeneous’ national state.

Pg. 218: “I also believe that the Jews ‘of the tribe’ are not liberal; but their concrete situation among the other peoples forces them nevertheless to declares the ideas of 1789 as sacrosanct. Any minority must insist on the sanctity of liberal principles.”

Pg. 224 reveals Carl Schmitt had an affection for the Luke Fords of the world: “Maybe some quick and flexible individuals will succeed in performing the trick of preserving their freedom between the many powerful groups, the way one jumps from one ice floe to the next.”

Pg. 396: “There is no doubt that Schmitt considered genocide and the Holocaust as crimes. But he would remain silent about it through his life.”

411: “Thus, it was personal outrage over Schmitt’s turn to National Socialism which led to his detainment. It was his Jewish acquaintances from the Weimar period who made sure that Schmitt was considered and treated as a perpetrator after 1945.”

Posted in Carl Schmitt | Comments Off on Constitutional Theory

NYT: Hillary Clinton’s Supporters, Once Certain of Victory, Now Racked by Doubt

New York Times: Beside the olive display at Zabar’s, that iconic hub of lox and neurosis on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Linda Donohue was trying to talk herself down.

Surely the polls she tracked anxiously were not to be trusted, she said. Surely Donald J. Trump, the man with the garish golden tower across town, would not be allowed to reach the White House.

“We have to have more faith in the American public,” said Ms. Donohue, 61, a longtime New Yorker now living in Seattle.

A man behind her could not suppress a loud snort.

Then Cathi Anderson, who was shopping with Ms. Donahue, mentioned yet another distressing poll, this one from Ohio, which showed Mr. Trump ahead. Ms. Donohue nodded grimly.

Just in case her faith in the American electorate was misplaced, Ms. Donahue said, she had retained her Irish citizenship.

For both parties, every election can feel like the most vital of a lifetime, the one day standing between a still-proud nation and its imminent demise. Among liberals, there is an especially rich tradition of “bed-wetting,” as even some practitioners call it, at the faintest sign of shakiness from their candidate.

But as Hillary Clinton lurches toward Election Day, her supporters at times seem overwhelmed by a tsunami of unease, exacerbated by Mrs. Clinton’s bout of pneumonia and a slow-footed acknowledgment of the illness. They are confronting a question they had assumed, just a few weeks ago, they would not need to consider in a race against the most unpopular presidential nominee in modern times: Could Mrs. Clinton actually blow this?

“It’s like someone dropped ice water on the head of America,” Julie Gaines, the owner of Fishs Eddy, a home goods store in Manhattan, said of Mr. Trump’s increased odds. “Everyone sobered up. This could happen.”

The creeping dread has accelerated in recent days, reaching critical levels even by Democratic standards.

Mrs. Clinton became sick. Several polls tightened to the margin of panic, with Mr. Trump overtaking her in surveys in Ohio and Florida. And even as Democrats hoped on Friday that Mr. Trump’s latest gambit — seeking to distance himself from his long history of “birtherism” — would backfire, there is a fear that no scandal can sink him.

A cartoon in The New Yorker captured it best: A woman sits in her psychiatrist’s office, perspiring in distress. The doctor scribbles on a pad. “I’m giving you something for Hillary’s pneumonia,” the caption reads.

dc091216-1000

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on NYT: Hillary Clinton’s Supporters, Once Certain of Victory, Now Racked by Doubt

Trump is doing everything right—including letting Jimmy Fallon mess up his hair

Jake Novak writes on CNBC:

I suppose people have had better months than Donald Trump has had so far in September… maybe that guy who’s won the Florida lottery seven times, or that baseball star who’s engaged to Kate Upton. But Trump’s surge to the lead in several national polls plus a clear softening of his image in the media seems almost impossible to fathom, even for his most ardent supporters…

And the pièce de résistance happened Thursday night on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon.” Trump not only cracked jokes and seemed self-deprecatingly likeable, he even (gasp!) let Fallon mess with his hair! Video of that hair tussle is already going viral on Internet, (“Jimmy Fallon” has been #1 trending on Twitter since), making the image something akin to Bill Clinton playing the sax on the old “Arsenio Hall Show” in 1992. Yes, both scenes are similarly intellectually meaningless, but they’re still politically potent. And because Trump has been such a media punching bag and pariah, this moment could be even more helpful than Clinton’s was 24 years ago.

Ten-point surges don’t just happen overnight. It’s much more likely that Trump’s relative weakness in the earlier polls was a result of voters leaning towards him, but not being ready to say so… even to anonymous pollsters. But Trump’s softened messages, Clinton’s “deplorables” comment, and her medical scare with frightening video of her looking totally immobilized to go with it have all provided those voters the excuse to finally “come out” for Trump. This phenomenon is well named by Dilbert cartoonist and blogger Scott Adams, who calls these events the “fake because.” They’re “fake” because the voters were always going to vote a certain way, but highly visible episodes make it possible to say: “well, now I’m voting for candidate X because…”

This is more bad news for the Clinton camp, because this means the Trump surge is not the result of some kind of ephemeral or fickle trend. Instead it’s more like the gates of a dam opening that cannot be closed. And it makes sense from another historical/logical point of view. Hillary Clinton has essentially had 24 years in the national spotlight to close the deal with the majority of the voting American public and she’s never done it. Even at the zenith of her polling fortunes earlier this summer, she never broke into truly unbeatable territory on her own. She had been simply skating on the extreme unfavorable impressions for Trump, and now that we’re seeing that erode, Clinton may be trapped for good.

Sure, the polls may fluctuate again and the polling experts like Nate Silver and Larry Sabato are not yet convinced of a Trump victory. But that seems likely to change soon. With every story about Trump’s poll strength that comes out, more on-the-fence supporters are likely to come out to support him.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Trump is doing everything right—including letting Jimmy Fallon mess up his hair

Ann Coulter’s IN TRUMP WE TRUST Explains Trump’s Appeal

Washington Watcher writes:

Ann Coulter America’s foremost polemicist, is most recently in the news for (1) unflinchingly enduring unbridled Leftist abuse at a Comedy Central “roast” for someone called Rob Lowe that, if it were anyone else, would have been called misogynistic [‘Roast’ Writers: Ann Coulter Hurt Our Feelings! By David Cole, Takimag, September 15, 2016]; (2) a long interview on POLITICO [transcript] that among other things cited this great quote from David Frum about her book Adios America!: “Perhaps no single writer has had such immediate impact on a presidential election since Harriet Beecher Stowe. ” [Ann Coulter, doyenne of the deplorables, by Glenn Thrush, September 13, 2016].

But, just two minutes ago, the Big Story was that Ann Coulter’s brilliant new book In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!had been stepped on by her favored candidate. In the book, Coulter says “there’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.” But as the book was released, Trump appeared to be open to doing just that—saying he might “soften” his position on immigration and let some illegals stay if they paid “back taxes”. [Donald Trump, Wavering on Immigration, Finds Anger in All Corners, by Maggie Haberman & Michael Shear, New York Times, August 25, 2016]

Coulter quipped: “this could be the shortest book tour ever if he’s really softening his position on immigration.”

In fact, however, reportedly in part because of Coulter’s warnings, Trump doubled down on his patriotic immigration reform agenda with his fantastic immigration policy speech on August 31.

This sequence of events further validates In Trump We Trust’s two primary arguments: that patriotic immigration reform fueled Trump’s rise; and that the GOP is doomed if it does not become a “New Trumpian Party” centered around this policy.

For good measure, Coulter peppers her polemic with accurate and hilarious barbs at the Main Stream Media and the consultant class who have failed to both understand and defeat Trump.

…Coulter, of course, predicted Trump’s victory three days after his announcement.

But as with Cassandra, the MSM and the political Establishment still continue to mock her despite her being proven right time and time again.

They will make another great appendix to Ann Coulter’s next bestselling book.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Ann Coulter’s IN TRUMP WE TRUST Explains Trump’s Appeal

Regression to the Meme

James Taranto of the WSJ writes:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has published a parody of Vox, the liberal news site for young adults. Headline: “Donald Trump, Pepe the Frog, and White Supremacists: An Explainer.” Subheadline: “That cartoon frog is more sinister than you might realize.”

It seems that both Trump adviser Roger Stone and scion Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a “meme” (a picture with a slogan) the other day. It depicts a row of gun-toting, black-clad male bodies with faces superimposed over them. They are labeled THE DEPLORABLES. Front and center is Donald Trump père; to his immediate right is the face of Pepe, drawn with a Trumplike mop of yellow hair.

“Please explain,” writes Elizabeth Chan of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, in the voice of an imaginary questioner. And does she ever:

Here’s the short version: Pepe is a cartoon frog who began his internet life as an innocent meme enjoyed by teenagers and pop stars alike.

But in recent months, Pepe’s been almost entirely co-opted by the white supremacists who call themselves the “alt-right.” They’ve decided to take back Pepe by adding swastikas and other symbols of anti-semitism and white supremacy.

“We basically mixed Pepe in with Nazi propaganda, etc. We built that association,” one prominent white supremacist told the Daily Beast.

That Beast story, which ran in May, turns out to be “more or less a complete troll job,” according to an extensive investigation by Jonah Bennett of the Daily Caller. Its main victim was author Olivia Nuzzi—but even she didn’t get trolled as ridiculously as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign did.

The “prominent white supremacist” Chan describes is one “Jared Taylor Swift,” whom even Nuzzi knew better than to describe as prominent. She called him “an anonymous white nationalist who claims to be 19 years old and in school someplace on the West Coast.” (He told Bennett those were lies; he is neither 19 nor on the West Coast.) There is a white-nationalist author named Jared Taylor. We wouldn’t describe him as “prominent,” but we suppose one could argue that in the small pond of white nationalism, he is a big frog. Taylor Swift, a 26-year-old pop star, definitely is prominent.

“Jared Taylor Swift” not only is obscure; he tells Bennett he is no white nationalist:

“I think the most ridiculous thing is that a random guy on the internet who trolled a journalist once is now a ‘prominent white supremacist.’ I mean, the only accurate part of that is the ‘white’ part,” Swift told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “And my Italian ancestry means that even that is disputed!” . . .

“Basically, I interspersed various nuggets of truth and exaggerated a lot of things, and sometimes outright lied—in the interest of making a journalist believe that online Trump supporters are largely a group of meme-jihadis who use a cartoon frog to push Nazi propaganda. Because this was funny to me,” Swift told TheDCNF.

Nuzzi based her stories on interviews with “Jared Taylor Swift” and “another anonymous white nationalist, @PaulTown_,” who “estimated the broad #FrogTwitter movement to consist of about 30 people but said 10 core members helped plot it out over drinks in late 2015.”

Apparently that was a hoax too. Bennett: “ ‘There was no “plot” to take a cartoon frog and make it a symbol of white supremacy,’ Paul Town told TheDCNF. ‘That’s absurd on the face of it.’ ”

The trolls also boasted to Nuzzi that they had turned Taylor Swift into an “Aryan goddess”:

When several publications (Broadly, Slate, and The Washington Post) this week reported on the alt-right’s fixation on the pop star, #FrogTwitter was somewhat triumphant. “I never thought that would work,” @JaredTSwift said, “but they finally noticed.”

Bennett concludes on a cautious note: “The stewards of this Twitter world are notoriously capricious and trolltastic. They could even retract this mea culpa of sorts.” That is, maybe the revelation that Frog Twitter was a prank is itself a prank. It also could be that some Trump supporters who actually do hold invidious views were among those fooled by the prank, so that some of the ugly Pepe memes were created unironically.

“Either way,” Bennett writes, “this is almost certainly the case: A journalist with a clear lack of healthy skepticism and an added dose of internet dopiness got duped.”

Put that down to confirmation bias. As “Swift” tells Bennett: “The idea that every major Trump supporter online is secretly a neo-Nazi, for one. I mean, it’s just not true. But it’s the kind of thing that a journalist will readily believe.” So too, it appears, will the most qualified man, woman or child ever to seek public office anywhere.

Matt Furie, the cartoonist who created Pepe the Frog back in 2005, has a healthy perspective on the matter. “I don’t take it too seriously—I just try to take it in stride,” he tells London’s Guardian:

I didn’t know what white nationalists were until, like, yesterday. And the alt-right or whatever? It’s all very new and very strange and definitely not something that I support.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Regression to the Meme

Comment Section Eviscerates Economist Editorial Against Alt-Right

Comments at Economist.com:

* “Their numbers are hard to gauge, since they mostly operate online and, as with most internet bullies, anonymously…”

Kind of like the writers of The Economist…..

Or am I missing something here?

* Thanks for letting us in on the diabolical frog symbol. I had no idea that it signaled white supremacy. While we’re at it, did you know that the Morton Salt logo is a symbol of witchcraft, Teletubbies are an undercover gay marriage campaign, heavy metal album covers contain secret messages, and KISS means Knights In Satan’s Service?

* I honestly wonder whether this article wasn’t a joke. It displays a serious failure to understand the origin of memes and internet culture in general. The clear lack of original and insightful analysis compels me to believe that the article was copied from similar ones that appeared in other publications recently. I never thought I would ever be saying this, but The Economist really needs to get its act together. It’s credibility among readers who have had even a shred of exposure to internet culture has been dangerously undermined.

* The Economist used to report the hard facts and news without fluffy, leftist PC commentary. Such a pity the Economist has, since its new ownership and editor of a few months ago, fallen to this. Chasing readership numbers and profits, I guess? Its becoming just another Huffingtonpost type spewing stuff out. Its a tradjedy. So we are forced to scroll the internet for hard and straight forward news.

* I follow the meme’s on twitter with great amusement. The cool kids are definitely on the alt right. It was the democrats in 08′ with Jon Stewart but now there are wittier warriors like Ricky Vaughn and others. The elites miss the point of the alt right and the right wing twitterspere, these people are not dangerous just trolls reacting to globalization, multiculturalism and illegal immigration overrunning our towns and school systems. These are all legitimate concerns and this snarky movement has propelled these issues forward, no longer brushed under the rug. If the readers of the economist haven’t learned anything from the outcome of the Brexit vote you should consider cancelling your subscription because the magazine isn’t teaching you anything.

* Europe has been drifting leftward ever since fascism was defeated in ’45, but the US never succumbed to either of those extremes.

So when I say the Economist is a left-wing publication, I am speaking from an American perspective, just as my mainstream American conservative views are far right by European standards.

The reason the Economist is so stridently pro-Hillary is that she, shorn of her corrupt career, reflects the norm of the European mainstream center.

Now that ‘centrist’ ideology is under attack in Europe because of the invasion of the muslim immigrants and the European governments’ doubling down despite the rampant crime and long-term threat of terrorism these immigrants represent.

The fallacy of governments like Germany is that these immigrants are not refugees, they are not fleeing from violence by the time they get to Turkey, and certainly not when they get to Greece, yet still Merkel lets them come. The right’s resurgence is simply sanity being restored.

In the US, the left is faltering and collapsing with the health of Hillary and the non-stop revelations of her extreme carelessness, ineptitude and lack of wisdom, coupled with her corruption exposed by the revelations of her emails and the rejection of such poisonous ideas as the importation of muslims carrying the totalitarian ideology of Islam.

The Economist’s stabs at the deplorables, alt-right and mainstream right in America is just its attempt to impose its European views on America.

That went out of style in 1782 and isn’t coming back any time soon. Europe installed slavery in America. Europe invented fascism, communism and socialism. America definitively rejected them all.

Europe has nothing useful to teach us about proper political discourse or ideology, it gives only lessons in what not to do.

* Two or three weeks ago Mrs. Clinton denounced the “Alt-Right” in a campaign speech and, so help me, I thought she was referring to a new computer command!

The first time I saw this green frog business was this past Monday and I had no idea what it “symbolized.” It just seemed as though Kermit had really let himself go.

I have many acquaintances, albeit most of them are from an older demographic, and my classroom is filled with high-school students who spend their waking moments on the web and not one person has ever mentioned Alt-Right nor have I seen a frog sticker on a book bag (the first place that youthful rebellion is manifested.)

Thirty-odd years ago a prankster created a mild brouhaha when he, quite successfully, started a rumor in NYC that the livery horses that tramp so disconsolately around Central Park South would now be required to wear diapers. (The PETA types were, predictably, outraged.)

Out and about in the world everyday, chatting constantly with my friends and my students and a longtime reader of newspapers and magazines of all political shades and hues, I can only wonder how Alt-Right can be a dangerous mass movement if there is no mass and no danger.

Perhaps Alt-Right is just a fraternity prank which aims to provoke “Get off the lawn!” outrage from the usual suspects on the Left. And, it may also be that Alt-Rights defenders are also unaware that the whole business may be a send-up that the ever-vigilant Left has stirred to life by the vivifying lightning bolt of its habitual verbal over-kill.

Regardless, the Left is locked and loaded as a target for Grand Guignol political ribaldry. Many, many Americans no longer pay much attention to, much less are intimidated by, the Left’s constant braying about racism, micro-aggressions, the “War on Women” and similar shopworn and tattered moanings from liberals of all stripes.

Lex, you’ve bought the Brooklyn Bridge. Again.

* “extreme right of the 1930s, fuelled by rabid nationalism.”

You must be talking about Israel.

Why is the Western Jewish controlled MSM silent on Israel’s rabid nationalism & ethno-religious centrism. But if the US, or Denmark or Hungary or any other Western country wants to do the same thing, that very same MSM will scream vitriol & anti-White racism.

The Economist would be wrong just to dismiss them as crackpots. Their rantings, ignorance and anger are no different from the extreme right of the 1930s, or to the ongoing tactics of Israel to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Arabs.

* Literally shaking as I read this ignorant xenophobic trash from the Clinton campaign, and I can now barely type. Does she know any actual Pepes? I do, and they’re nothing like what she describes. The Pepe community, despite being marginalized and demeaned by bigots like Hillary Clinton, is a group of good hard-working honest Americans, and it works closely with law enforcement to identify any rare Pepes that might be at risk to do these types of things Hillary talks about. Hateful Pepephobia like Hillary’s is the root cause of any antisocial behavior by what are indeed very rare Pepes. We should not judge the actions of all Pepes by the unfortunate memes of a few poor, misguided Pepes. You’re playing right into the hands of radical Pepes. It’s 2016, is it not? Educate yourselves! Ignorance kills!

* I love it how The Economist gets all acerbic and froths at the mouth when discussing racism in America and Antisemitism among non-Muslims. Trump may be a bully and unqualified, but saying that he’s endorsed by self-identifying Nazis is no more relevant than saying that Hillary is endorsed by America’s Communist Party. You’re pursuing the wrong tack if you expect to shame the Alt-Right into submission like a schoolmaster – they revel in your hatred. Why not convince conservatives who are appalled at Trump’s ridiculousness as much as they are at Hillary’s scandals to consider Gary Johnson? He endorses the same classical liberalism which has been the darling of The Economist’s editorial policy since your publication helped repeal the Corn Laws.

* The Economist has lowered themselves to the same level as Islamic publications in going after cartoons! Remember the last time what happened — Charlie Hebdo and eleven dead. Just as decrepit Islamist tried to rally their masses against cartoons, the Economist and its Globalist fellow travelers think they can stop Trump, Brexit, Marine Le Pen, etc. by attacking a cartoon!

This also reminds me of a generation ago when do-gooder Church people called heavy metal “Devil Worshipping Music” and forbade their children from listening to Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, or The Rolling Stones! Instead of being shamed by the devil worshiping slur — defiant young people turned to their parents and yelled HAIL SATAN! With the alt-Right it will be the same, you will not be able to keep ideological hegemony over the youth of today by called them racists!

* Time for a point by point rebuttal.

Much of the Alt-Right’s output will seem indecipherably weird to those unfamiliar with the darker penumbras of popular culture. It has its own iconography and vernacular, derived from message boards, video games and pornography.

It must seem indecipherable to you as well, since you seem so apt at misrepresenting it.

Its signature insult is “cuckservative”, directed at Republicans supposedly emasculated by liberalism and money.

Are you honestly trying to claim, AT BEST, modern conservatives haven’t lost every single cultural battle their constituencies cared about? At worst they’ve actively sold them out and these aren’t isolated incidents. This is the rule, not the exception.

and the man himself, circulating the Alt-Right’s memes and hoax statistics

Trump retweeted one image, one time with statistics. While they were incorrect, 2 out of the 3 statistics weren’t far off.

To most Americans, the purposes to which these gimmicks are put will seem as outlandish as the lexicon. One of the Alt-Right’s pastimes is to intimidate adversaries with photoshopped pictures of concentration camps

Literally have never seen this, but lol. All this focus on the Jewish aspects makes me think the author of this article might have (((parenthesis))) around his name.

Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, an extremist website, dismisses these antics as “youthful rebellion”.

He’s right. We’re just messing with you. Much of the alt-right are just old school nerd trolls mixed with American nationalism. We’d do whatever gets a rise out of you. Milo even told you how to beat us, but you blithering idiots are too dense to get it.

Mr Taylor is also involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which Dylann Roof cited as an inspiration for his racist massacre in Charleston last year.

Literally has nothing to do with anything, just your feeble attempt at casting guilt by association. Why bother refuting what Mr. Taylor (don’t even know who he is tbh) says, when you can just use a negative association. Here I know:

“Omar Mateen (the Orlando shooter) was a life long member of the Democrats and cited ISIS as his inspiration, you don’t want to be in the same party as an avowed ISIS terrorist do you?!” I mean how transparent and pathetic can you get?

But the substance behind the sulphur can seem difficult to pin down. The term Alt-Right..

There’s no such thing as the alt-right, it’s just a way of grouping and disparaging the individual conservative currents and a way of writing them off by associating them with unsavory currents or characters.

Yet from the quack ideologues

[citation needed]

to the out-and-proud neo-Nazis

Oh and just like I said you’re trying to put us all in this huge umbrella so that you can write us off by associating us with bad elements. KYS

It repudiates feminism with misogynistic gusto.

People aren’t equal. If women need artificial structures in order to compete at the same level as men, they aren’t equal and this disproves one of the most basic tenants of feminism. I, and many young people bought into a dream about equality. We believed in tabula rasa, but it’s not true. Your LSD addled generation lied to us, in the hopes of the lie becoming true. We traded what worked, for what sounded good. Ultimately it’s about letting people do what they’re good at. Women have biochemical, morphological, neurochemical, neurostructural differences, pretending they don’t and having them act like imperfect men is not a celebration of the feminine but rather a crass rejection of it. Do you ever wonder why all the hardcore (3rd wave) feminists all look like men and are filled with hate? They hate women and the feminine. I love women and embrace the feminine. If that is misogyny, then I suppose I am guilty of this charge.

It embraces isolationism and protectionism

And your problem with that is? Our recent intrigues across the Middle East have went so well right? We didn’t lose a ton of jobs to Mexico, India, China and so on? We don’t have a huge trade deficit with every single trade partner?

Above all, it champions white nationalism

WRONG. It champions white tribalism. As in whites need to recognize every other group looks out for their tribal interests and so should we. Blacks do it = good, Hispanics do it = good, Jews do it = good, Asians do it = good, Whites do it = OMG YOU’RE A RACIST NAZI BIGOT THAT HATES WOMEN AND MINORITIES. F**k you and your intellectually dishonest attack on my tribal interests.

If any other group does it, it’s okay. Honestly this is what drew most of us to this thinking, we got tired of being told we were part of the patriarchy, or we were holding the black man down, or that we have some collective guilt for slavery, or the holocaust. You can only call us racist or sexist so many times before it loses all meaning.

This article ticks off all the checkboxes of mainstream media bewilderment and obsolescence.

The alt-right’s rise is the counter product of the progressive left’s descent into a stunning display of doublethink; narcissism + self-loathing through victimhood which is proudly celebrated and rewarded by the government and media for their advocacy of the following:
* Additional speech regulations to protect peoples’ subjective feelings that can change at a whim and are not grounded in fact –> undermine the need for the 1st Amendment through social intimidation, “hate speech”/thoughtcrime laws
* Dissolution of borders out of a naive and suicidal hatred of their own countrymen because of a narrow, warped view on historical grievances –> acquisition of foreign workers conditioned to receive less pay
* Welfare state bred from the insatiable Western consumerist mentality –> people indentured to the state

“It repudiates feminism with misogynistic gusto.” you write without nuance. The modern feminism movement, also known as intersectional feminism, is an ideology meant to pit man against woman by using the proposition that a problem exists (ex// women are oppressed because more men are in a management position than women) as proof of its continued existence (circular logic) and extreme exercise of power in society. The major battles for women have been won in the West and what little remains requires precise campaigning, not shotgun tactics. But as those who’ve achieved power rarely relinquish it out of kindness, feminism has devolved into serving as a means of acquiring social prestige in circles of authority.

Feminism holds no monopoly on the concept of “equality.” It is an ideology, one that has become supremacist in nature despite its insistence to look at dictionary definitions. It is the subject of ridicule from the alt-right, and classic liberal left, because of its ridiculous victim complexes and enormous amount of ideological “feature creep” in its efforts.

You cite the SPLC and ADL as if they’re trustworthy organizations, when in fact they both have an extreme anti-right bias and have smeared organizations as “Nazis(!)” if they’re deemed a threat to the political establishment (advocacy of citizens’ rights, media watchdogs, etc.)

I’ve heard enough from the mainstream media these past few years. All I see now are propagandists who have failed to adapt to the information age. Those that have adapted still peddle the same outdated nonsense that made us all turn off our televisions in the first place and have caused public trust in the media to plummet (reference: see recent Gallup poll).

All you’ve left in your arsenal are buzzwords: sexist, racist, misogynists, white supremacists, bigots, Islamaphobic, conspiracy theorists, manchildren, cisgendered males, and the constantly repeated list goes on and on. There is no logical substance to any of this. Where are the arguments? This has gone on for decades now and has come to a head these past few years due to a number of real world events and your continued smug self-righteousness through all of it. People aren’t buying into your demands to exercise self-flagellation as you get away with the lies by omission.

The alt-right is a product of your arrogance and solipsism. You supposedly report the news, yet the sources you cite happen to fall under the same media umbrella network of nepotism. Wikipedia inadvertently shows the lot of you as nothing but a circular loop of propagandists in an echo chamber citing each others words as “truth.”

You don’t even know there’s a civil war in the left, do you? Despite my defense of the alt-right, I’m one of those classical liberals who won’t be batting an eye when Trump goes after your kind with the libel laws. Traitors of the people go first.

Also, nice way of weaseling Russia into the article. No one’s going to buy a war with them as your means of distracting from the collapse of the DNC. Adding The Economist to the hosts blocklist so I never stumble upon this site again by accident. Suggest others do the same. Just look up the instructions on how to do it.

* Ah yes, the venerable ADL; who so venerably denied the Armenian genocide for decades in the name of geo-political concerns, who so venerably harassed a poor couple over a neighbour’s feud, who so venerably campaigns for the erosion and eventual destruction of 2nd amendment rights, and who so venerably defends Israeli nationalism from even the slightest criticism with a paranoid fervour whilst slandering or (dare I say) defaming every single other self-determination/nationalist/patriotic movement in the west.

I hold their venerable opinion on just about everything in high regard for sure.

* This is truly the greatest 4Chan prank in history… MSM outlets and the Democratic candidate calling Pepe a neo nazi… If you told me this a year ago, I would have died laughing. It would have been unthinkable that a semi-obscure imageboard could have a major impact on the US election. Random sh*tposting and ironic post-postmodern edgy internet humor that pokes fun at post-postmodern society has suddenly become a factor in mainstream American politics that is capable of influencing global economics and geopolitics.

MSM has consistently completely failed to understand any of these memes or the alt-right (which doesn’t even exist as a coherent movement at all) or 4Chan or internet culture in general. I can tell you that the vast majority of people who would be characterized as ‘alt-right’ have never even heard of any of these so-called leaders of the alt-right mentioned in the article, and nobody on /pol/ ever used ((())) until it was widely reported in the MSM.

tl;dr: the entire planet is getting trolled hard by 4Chan and it’s probably the funniest thing that has ever happened in the entire history of human civilization.

* A 173-year old magazine, known for its rational arguments and highly-educated readership, staffed by people of remarkable and sometimes enviable intellect, a magazine which I grew up reading every week as my primary source of information throughout my university days, willingly seems to have bought into the idea that a green cartoon frog is the new face of the far-right, neo-nazis, white supremacists, and others.

Not David Duke or any other individual involved with the KKK.

Not some gang member from the Aryan Brotherhood with Hitler and swastika tattoos on his body.

Not even Milo Yiannopoulos, the flamboyant white homosexual journalist widely followed by the Alt-Right.

A. freaking. green. cartoon. frog.

People who work at The Economist: are you doing the drugs? Did no one stop for a single moment and think “this sounds a bit too silly, maybe we should go with something else or at the very least double-check to see if its right?” Did nothing about the idea seem a bit absurd to you?

It genuinely scares me to think that people took this fear of Pepe thing seriously.

* So the only sources of biased judgments in this article come from jewish-supremacist groups like the ADL and SPLC?

The groups that praise Israel’s ban on muslims, while campaigning for open borders in the West?

* The Economist, it’s feminist and “progressive” editorial staff, and this reporter have shined a bright light on their own ideology with this article. The degree of confirmation bias is astounding, especially for a magazine that once was a bastion of logical thought.

The Economist is a lost cause, so this comment is not for them. It’s for the other readers that might make their way to this comments section.

The author says that one thing that binds many on the Alt-Right is anti-feminism. That is about the only true point made here. Meanwhile, the author bashes various people ostensibly of the Alt-Right for made-up statistics and scare-mongering.

Yet, The Economist has not once questioned any of the ridiculous “statistics” that feminists put out there and which, these days, are actually the basis for draconian public policy. For example, the supposed “pay gap” has been soundly disproven, yet The Economist along with it’s fellow progressive and feminist media travelers continue to cite it as if it is a legitimate basis for government intervention into the economy and people’s personal and family lives. Another example is the absurd idea that there is a “rape culture” on American university campuses. Feminism is so full of these nonsense statistics that I could write pages of them here. The media that wants so desperately to control “the narrative” never question its own easily debunked assumptions.

On topics like immigration, you would have us believe that a religion/ideology that is obviously incompatible with the Western philosophical underpinnings of Western democracy is, in fact, harmless. This, despite the morbid violence that results when Islam’s followers clash with secular Western society. On topics like immigration, you would have Americans reject the notion that rule-of-law is a key part of America’s success in order to feel good about illegal immigration.

More than anything the Alt-Right is a response to the media force-feeding this nonsense to people for the past 2 or 3 decades. We know things like the pay gap, rape culture, LEO bias against blacks, and so on, are not true. Yet it is forced on us much like the Soviet Union forced mythology on it’s people in order justify CONTROL.

We just are not buying it anymore. So you can throw around all the -isms and -phobias you want at people who disagree with you. We now know that these terms are only designed to try to shut good people up. And you can use big words like “excrescence” to feel holier-than-thou and intellectually superior. That will not work either.

The “narrative” used over the past 3 decades to manipulate and control is now dead. Articles like this are nothing more than an expression of remorse that your best days are behind you.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Comment Section Eviscerates Economist Editorial Against Alt-Right