Richard Spencer, President of the National Policy Institute, speaks at length about the alt-right, the alt-lite, and how the movement goes from the internet to the mainstream.
In this interview, Richard explains identitarianism, the alt-right’s appeal to young people, his status with and analysis of the “alt-lite,” how the alt-right transitions from the internet to the real world, what he meant by his now-infamous 2013 “homosexuality is the last stand of implicit white identity” tweet, and more.
This is an interview, not an endorsement nor a condemnation of his views, and as a public figure and leading voice of a growing political movement, Spencer’s ideas- although you may disagree with them- are worth listening to.
Topicsalt-Right
Living in Europe, my experience is that all those who call themselves “identitarians” do so because the word nationalist sounds too much like national socialist. So they let the enemy dictate even their name.
The real reason for the invention of “identitarian” in France, and its spread, is to include Jews living in the West. And Gypsies. And any minority that “has lived in Europe for centuries, because they have a European IDENTITY”.
Almost no Europeans who call themselves “identitarians” would approve of this website, as it mentions Jewish influence sometimes. That makes the site a pariah to them. In nationalist forums the “identitarians” are a constant headache – you never know when one of them will start condemning “extremists” and “racists”. That’s the level they are on. That’s the kind of kids they attract. While some of the leading voices know better, they ignore what they know.
This interview was so GOOD, in my opinion!
I’m seriously going to be using this as a way of explaining the Alt-Right & related topics to loved ones who either don’t or (if they actually knew of my political/ideological affiliations) wouldn’t otherwise understand.
There’s such a weird (or, at least, it seems weird to me now, post-redpill) tendency for people to think there’s something sinister going on, whenever White Consciousness is involved.
Whiteness is “safe” to most people as long as it remains unconscious/unspoken/unacknowledged. But for someone to specifically & explicitly identify as White: normies seem to just assume there’s something sinister somewhere in it, for some reason.
I’ve been struggling with this tendency of normies lately, in regard to certain family members of mine to whom I’ve been trying to explain my views. It’s like they just jump to some dark assumption about everything, e.g. to them the notion of an ethnostate implicitly means people are going to get “cleared out” via some violent method, or something: it’s like they (whether they’re fully aware of it or not) think White Consciousness is inherently sinister, & thus they’re almost “looking for” any ways in which violence or evilness/”hate”/etc might be present or possible.
But Richard (to my non-normie mind, at least) seems to do an excellent job here of putting forth very clearly, reasonably, & “non-scarily” what the Alt-Right is about, and WHY it’s about the things it involves: WHY White identity is important to us, etc.
So yeah: this will definitely be put to use as a means of explaining, to normies I actually care about, who the hell I actually am, what my views are, etc.
Holy cow …
Interviewer, from 2:26 to 2:29: “Is the goal of the NPI, would you define that as racist?”
Spencer, from 2:30 to 5:38: “Well, the word racist [etc.]”
Short answer (recommended): “Yes.”
Interesting video with Richard Spencer. My take on this and only a few points:
-Racism is a term that has meaning to me. It means someone who believes a race is either superior or inferior to another race. That person does not have to belong to the either race being addressed Example: A Chinese could believe that blacks are superior to Whites based on no particular reason. To me that Chinese is a racist.
But
to discuss race issues is not racist. American culture does it all the time. From Black history month to identifying race on a government document race issues are addressed without anyone being called “Racist”.
-I understand and agree with Mr. Spencer clarifying the ‘Alt right” as an American white awakening, but like to add that the “white movement” includes the various European nationalist movements to white pride movements from Canada to Australia
-I disagree with Mr. Spencer that there are those in the left who embrace everything in some kind of nebulous identity. they do not. they have strong lines that separate what they will accept and reject, no matter how much they claim to be “universal”.
-I agree that the alt right /White pride movement is a fundamental awakening of White identity.
I would add that European culture is so vast that it has defined most of the modern world and by doing that the “parameters” of what is White and European also includes a good deal of what is a modern world. it is easier for a black person to deal with the limited scope of being black than a white person to deal with the massive world he or she has inherited and is white.
White is European. Example are European Jews. They identify themselves first and last as Semites and anyone who they consider as speaking against their faith or tribal aspect of the Semite is automatically called an “Anti Semite”. A white person cannot be a European and a Semite. Judaism is the only religion that deals with the ideology of faith and the anthropological term of the “Tribes of Israel”.No other faith does that.
-Agree with Mr. Spencer of a white nation forming out of North America since there are many nations (outside of Europe) who combine Race and nation including nations like Japan, South and North Korea.
It’s always necessary to talk about power and influence. It would be stupid to waste time talking about Eskimos and Hawaiians. Sure, they are interesting from an anthropological perspective but not from a political, economic, or historical one.
One thing for sure, the quality of Jewish intellectual discourse has gone way down. Not because there aren’t smart Jews cuz there are plenty. I think the problem is twofold:
1. Cultural degradation that affects all intellectual discourse. What kind of substantial discussion can we have in a world of homomania, tranny-mania, 50 genders, and other triviality-as-centrality? Also, PC isn’t good for free discussion, and Jews who’d been free-speech pioneers are now newspeak pioneers. Also, since the 60s, two or three generations grew up under permissive slovenliness, and no one bothers to learn logic or reason or manners. It’s like art school students making ‘art’ without honing their skills of basic technique. I mean how did Emma Sulk graduate with art degree at prestigious Columbia by dragging a mattress around? How is The Nasty Coates a first rank intellectual? Long ago, Jews from working class backgrounds who studied like crazy made their way into media and academia. Today, we often have spoiled Jewish brats of spoiled Jewish brats controlling much of media.
So, there are plenty of smart Jews, but they’ve become either culturally slovenly, socially snobby, or overly PC or both. The general rule is you can be crude, abrasive, and trashy as long as you keep within perimeters of PC. I think part of the intensity of hatred against Alt Right(and the cartoonish insistence that it is ‘nazi’) betrays alarmism among progs and globs that it’s where the only honest and free debate is pertaining to social and political reality. It talks about the real power and how it relates to race at the biological level. Alt Right has the hunger thing.
2. Intellectual discourse is always more interesting as a form of attack than defense. It’s like a court trial. While defense can be clever in its own way, the trial only exists cuz of plaintiff and/or prosecutor. It’s like charging up San Juan Hill. What made it exciting was going from below to the top of the hill. It required courage, vision, boldness, etc. Those at the top only needed to hunker down and defend their position.
Jews used to be on the offensive. Wasps and other gentiles had top power in US and Europe. So, Jews had to critique, subvert, analyze, interpret, accuse, and go on the attack. Endless sorties through culture, ideas, news, and art. Jews were charging up the hill, and they had to be endlessly creative to break through the walls of the castle. Why do we like heist movies than movies about security folks defending a bank? The heisters are more fun. It’s like David Mamet’s HEIST. More fun to follow the robbers than people hired to watch the fortress.
But now, Jews are now so deeply entrenched in seats of power that they are in defensive mode. They now fear controversy. They demand consensus. It’s like NYT saying ‘debate on gay marriage is over, shut up, and obey’. And shut up and obey about ‘America as nation of immigrants’ too. Jews talk of building bridges and creating an open society, and this outwardly seems ‘radical’ and ‘progressive’. But it is actually defensive, to shore up and entrench Jewish Domination. Diversity is a tool of elites to play divide-and-rule.
There are now a lot of Jews in media, academia, and etc. but they offer nothing new, unlike Jewish thinkers in the past. Sure, they are erudite, smart, and can have articulate conversations and write interesting-enough essays, but there is nothing seminal in what the say. Not due to lack of talent or intelligence but because they are in a defensive establishment position.
Long ago, Jews looked at the mountaintop occupied by gentile elites, and they wanted some. So, they figured they had more to gain than lose by stirring up the discourse on power. Now, they don’t want a lot of discussion of real power since it would point to them. So, there’s a lot of obfuscation — ‘white privilege’ to distract us from Jewish Privilege, alarmism over ‘Nazis’ and ‘KKK’ to shut down free speech, Haven Monahan’s aryan blonde gang than black rape since blacks are symbolically useful to Jews, ‘we love muslim refugees’ in context of holocaust & refugees to hide the fact that refugees exist in large part due to Zionist-led wars in Middle East — than real talk about real issues and problems. During the Vietnam War, Jews led the debate against the Military Industrial Complex. Some of their attacks were radical, ludicrous, and hateful, but Jews were really presenting fresh ideas and dissenting views. Nowadays, Jewish power is firmly on side with military industrial complex and calls for ‘new cold war’ with Russia and other warmongering strategies around the world.
Those defending power and privilege tend to be less interesting in ideas and criticism because human nature likes to yammer about the rich and powerful. So, those with less power wanna talk more about the Power(like hoi polloi wanna talk about rich celebrities with mixture of envy and disgust) while those with more power wanna talk less, at least about the power. This is why the powerful prefer the pageantry of power than critique of power. Kings throughout history put on regal processions to wow the people. Communist nations had the same thing once new elites were established. Just look at the grandeur of power. Bow down, obey, and cheer. Make the power look godly, awesome, and glorious so that the masses will simply revere it. Notice how Obama was promoted as The One, the new messiah. It must have worked because even the anti-war progs were silent during his destruction of nations.
If the powerful wanna protect the power with pageantry, with more idolatry and less ‘ideality’, the powerless wanna look past the crown & cloak and get to the real nature of the power.
Jews have retained their style of critique and dissent — that of attack — , but their substance is now the defense of power. They have the ultimate power and privilege. Their main priority is defending their top dog position while pretending to be the underdog. Thus, both their topdog discourse and underdog discourse are disingenuous. We have top dog Jews as underdog Jews barking at imaginary KKK and Nazis.
Jews are still in offensive mode via globalism, but it is one of imperialism than liberation. They are trying to conquer more than nations than liberate them. They are trying to plant the homo flag in every nation. Homomania is sold as ‘leftism’ — the homo agenda is valid as progressivism to the extent that we should acknowledge some are born homo and such folks should be left alone than persecuted — , but it is essentially a tool of globalist domination, a proxy of Jewish Power.
So, we have a strange situation. We have people in dissent-mode as the people-of-power. This isn’t anything new. Communists came to power in dissent-rebel mode but suddenly found themselves with all this power. But since their ideology was always about the oppressed-fighting-the-oppressors, they hunted for ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘feudalists’ even after all such class enemies been wiped out or sent to the Gulag. Their need to ‘resist the oppressors’ was such that when there was no more bourgeoisie, they had to accuse other communists of being ‘bourgeoisie’.
And we have something similar with Jews. Since they rose to power by critiquing gentile elites, some of whom were antisemitic, they are still looking for Nazis. And when there aren’t real nazis, they make believe others are Nazis. Jews used to hunt real Nazi criminals, but now they are hunting imaginary Nazis. It could be any white man or woman who voted for Literally Hitler Trump.
So, Trump is hitler, Spencer is a nazi who needs to be punched, and Trump voters at Milo speech are ‘nazis’ too. And this dumb-dumb mentality has spread among progs who now call anyone a ‘nazi’. Little do this prog tools realize that they are ideological goons of Jewish power and privilege. IF the main objective of the left is to speak truth to power, then we should be speaking truth to Jewish power. But Jews fear this and used the media to spread alarmism about Trumpen-Hitler and nazis(and KKK), so the progs are on easter bunny hunt for Nazis and KKK.
It’s like what Mao pulled. To shore up his own people, he told the Red Guards to ‘bombard the headquarters’. ‘To rebel is justified’. But it never meant going after the real supreme power, that of Mao and his inner circle. Only Mao’s rivals in the communist party were ‘capitalist roaders’.
To be sure, perhaps some progs, especially if non-white, understand wink-wink that Jewish supremacist power is to their advantage. Though ostensibly anti-western and anti-American, what they prize most is the chance to live in the West than in their own nations that are repressive, corrupt, backward, dirty, and/or brutal. A Muslim in India prefer white rule than Hindu rule, and a Hindu in Pakistan prefers white rule to Muslim rule. All said and done, whites are nicer and fairer. But they would feel ashamed to admit this, so they demand to allowed into the West in the name of fighting ‘white oppression’. (But if West is about white supremacism, why not stay in their own nations? They can’t admit that their own kind made a total mess of things.) So, they talk anti-Americanism but they are glad they are in America or some white-built nation. And since Jewish Power has been most instrumental in letting them via the Statue of Liberty myth, they are allied with Jewish Power. Immigration is the bribery offered to non-whites to support and defend Jewish supremacist power in the West. As long as Jews rule the roost, immigration get the boost. It’s an old imperialist trick. When the Brits ruled over African nations, they brought in Hindus(like Gandhi) to manage things. Since hindus in Africa depended on British power to gain profit for themselves, they supported the Brits over the blacks. During most of Gandhi’s stay in Africa, he was firmly on the side of the Brits over Africans.
If Jews are the top elites, why hasn’t there been much needy critique of Jewish power from the gentiles? For one thing, too many whites are ‘dumb polac*s’, too many blacks are too busy rapping, too many Mexicans prefer to watch blondes in soap operas, too many Asians are obedient followers, and too many Arabs-Muslims don’t write or read. If Arabs produced many more like Edward Said, Jews would be in serious trouble. That ONE guy did so much to change discourse in the West. Spain(hardly an intellectual power) publishes and reads more books than all of Arab world combined.
Also, there is the Holocaust Cult in the West that suppresses honest discussion of Jewish power. Anything even slightly critical is deemed ‘antisemitic’ which is associated with Nazism and Holocaust. Consider how GOP became a total bootlicker of Zionism. Even Trump is totally about ISRAEL…. though some barbed comments during the campaign — “I don’t need your money” — were daring but mostly for show.
Because sane discussion of Jewish power has been suppressed in mainstream liberalism and conservatism, the only anti-Jewish voices that were heard was from nutjob far-right neo-nazi types whose craziness had a self-negating effect. I think Jews rather liked neo-nazis as the face of criticism of Jewish power cuz it created the impression that only extreme nutty haters can possibly dislike Jews.
This is why Alt Right is alarming to Jews. It does offer some cogent critique of Jewish Power.
This is why Jews would rather call it ‘nazi’ than address its arguments in point by point manner.
And yet, ironically enough, there may be dawning of more honest discussion of Jewish power by the way of New Jewish Perspective. We see this with the Mondoweiss guy, Norman Finkelstein, Glenn Greenwald, and others who feel that Jews have abused their power and memory to justify bad behavior that is resembling the abuses of power by the enemies of Jews.
Indeed, the most effective criticism of Obama administration came from this camp than from National Review that stuck to old lame formula. And despite Obama’s Iran deal and final play snub of Israel, can any honest person say Obama ‘threw Israel under the bus’ during his 8 yrs?Even with the easing of sanctions on Iran, the US is 1000x more friendlier to Israel than to Iran.
great interview. The issue of determining White identity needs to be hammered out in our movement. I’ve seen so many cases of where the hard-core purity spiraling ends in “one drop of Jewish blood forever taints you,” “impurity this impurity that” . . . . But identity includes race as well as other things, and while it may be hard for some “purists” to accept, there has always been mingling on the fringes and on the frontiers. for example, how many of the old families here in America (I’m talking about those of us whose families came here in the 1700s or earlier) have some percentage – however small – of Native American? I suspect most do, and yet for hundreds of years, these families have identified as White American. Can you really hold a purist perspective and argue that they aren’t White? Or someone with a single Jewish grandparent. They grow up in a Christian home, identify completely as White, have no sympathies for Jewish intrigue, etc…. Can you seriously argue that these people are *not* White? How? Daniel Friberg, of Arkos, has a really good definition that by-passes the need for everyone to get a DNA test: do you identify as White? and do people around you identify you as White? If the answer is yes, then you’re White. That’s pretty easy and corresponds most to reality. This realism is important because for all those purists out there, they would not be able to distinguish between someone who is half Ashkenazi, practicing the Jewish faith, and someone who is half-Ashkenazi and is a practicing Christian (I’ve met several of both examples). This is annoying for us because it is not easily defined and it is precisely this difficulty (among other things) that drove the Left to argue that race therefore has no biological foundation (it’s just a social construct, etc…). Well, race is real, race matters, but the awe-inspiring power of human DNA does not allow for *total* black-and-white answers (no pun intended! 🙂 )
The earliest colonists to North America are centered on the east coast. Newer waves of immigrants that settled the west are much more likely to have Native American ancestry, although the percentage of non-white admixture among US self-professed whites is very low.
It’s absolutely false to say that “most” Americans who descend from 17th century colonists have Native American descendants and if you are going to put it forward find some evidence.
As for “Christian” Jews then I guess you would need to include people like Theodor Adorno, the “Catholic” as a true Aryan. The “Jewish faith” is largely irrelevant as religious Jews are overwhelmingly less pernicious than irreligious Jews. Jews who grow up without Judaism are much worse, rather that be as Christian or atheist. Practicing Jews are self-conceived outsiders who wish to remain with at least one foot in their own world if not wholly separate. A vastly more preferable arrangement than Jews who don’t conceive of themselves as Jewish in their upbringing and as a rightful inheritor of gentile civilization and proceed to wreck it.
I hear you, and note that I said “I suspect most do.” I honestly don’t have numbers and frankly, numbers are impossible to have on this issue. As to the Jewish part of this, my point was that, if casually crossing paths with someone who is half-Ashkenazi Jew, it would be impossible for any of us to know whether that person was Jewish or not (and only if we knew their religion would we have any clue as to guess). And I agree with you about religious Jews versus non-religious. But the problem here is that many in the White Nationalist movement cannot admit this difficulty, which forces us to cling to over-the-top, black-and-white notions that are impossible. Here I think National-Socialist Germany offers us some guide posts in the Nuremberg race laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
I for the most part agree with your comment.
The issue of Jews/partial-Jews is a tricky one though, given Jews’ historical tendency of claiming to be “White” when advantageous to them (regardless of whether they truly did/do consider themselves “White”), and given that Jewish interests simply AREN’T necessarily in alignment with the interests of Whites (& in fact are quite often in opposition to them, as illustrated by Kevin MacDonald in “The Culture Of Critique” et al.)
I can understand people’s wariness of Jews/partial-Jews, and their reluctance to regard as “White” even people of Jewish or partial-Jewish descent who claim to be/feel “White,” given the duplicitousness & actual harmfulness of some Jews who have made such claims. The pull of their (Jewish) tribal loyalty appears to often be quite strong.
But, where the “line” would be drawn is a good question, & perhaps things like whether they were raised in a Jewish or non-Jewish cultural/religious environment would be a factor in determining where the “line” would be for each specific person.
I think you’re spot on to point out that Jews are conveniently White when they want to be, and then conveniently a minority, when they need to be. And Jewish interests most certainly do *not* align with White interests; no dispute. But my point was more along the lines of the difficulty we have (or anyone has) in racially/visually distinguishing between Ashkenazi Jews and Whites (many DNA numbers tend to support that notion that Ashkenazi Jews are already roughly 80% similar to White Europeans; not sure how accurate that is, but that’s what they say). And since we could not racially/visually distinguish who is Jewish, in this case, I’m not sure what our line would be if we had – and will certainly have in the future – cases where someone whose grandfather was Jewish, but whose three other grandparents were White, and where this someone grew up in a Christian home and has identified as White for his/her whole life. Unless that person actually knows that his one grandparent was Jewish and makes that public, no one would ever know. Along those lines, though, I think the Nuremberg race laws have something to contribute: if Nazi Germany could consider someone 1/2 Jewish as partly belonging to the German race and approved for Reich citizenship (1/8 was considered as belonging to the German race), then we paint ourselves into an untenable corner in trying to outdo Nuremberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
Agreed: the Nuremberg laws are a good standard; and in cases where there is for whatever reason a less clear-cut situation (such as an inability for whatever reason to ascertain whether a parent or grandparent/s were fully or partially Jewish, or a case of having e.g. a parent? or grandparent? who was half-Jewish & half- some other non-White race), other non-DNA factors such as cultural/religious upbringing could help decide.
I wonder, in the case of e.g. a person who was raised Christian & is ostensibly White, but is actually half-Jewish, how much of an influence on their behavior/interests/etc an awareness of their partially-Jewishness would have?
Or, really, for any person with any Jewish blood: how much of an influence would it have, if they thought they were fully White but then at some point discovered they were part-Jewish?
Would the knowledge of it make them inclined to then, to whatever degree, identify or sympathize with Jewishness, regardless of having identified as “White” until then?
I suppose it would depend on the person, but I guess I’m just pondering whether an ostensibly “White” & “White”-interested person would act against White interests if they at some point discovered they were part-Jewish: would finding out about it “bring out the Jew in them,” for lack of a gentler way of saying it?
It’s a tough question all around, I guess. For any other race, it feels a lot more cut-&-dry: just a matter of how much White blood, coupled with whether they identify as White. But in regard to Jews/partial-Jews, it gets more complicated….
He’s making sense and that scares the shit out of the left.
Media, infected with the neurosis of the Tribe, promoted Obama as new jesus and then vilified Trump as ‘literally hitler’. For 8 yrs under Obama, there was soft-peddling of the phoniest president in US history. And the media covered up real problems like black crime by labels the thugs ‘teens’ and ‘youths’. Meanwhile, every Hate Hoax about KKK and white supremacists have been hyped sky-high.
Also, while far-right ideology has long been censured and condemned by the media, the violent culture of rap music and anarcho-terrorist culture have been glorified and romanticized. Since young ones, especially males are high on hormonal thug instinct, they seek outlet for their aggression. Those who can make it in sports expend their energies through ball-play(and balling the sluts on campus). For males who don’t make the team or lack ‘big man on campus status’, there is the culture of rock concerts and radical politics. Since rightist politics have been censured and prohibited among youths, a lot of young males channel their male aggression through underground rock culture that is associated with antifa and anarchist strains. Most antifa types didn’t get ideology through books and study. They got it through rock/punk/rap scene. They were more likely converted into the movement by Matrix movies, Rage Against Machine, Public Enemy, the Clash, or articles in Rolling Stone magazine.
And the real animating force behind their lunacy isn’t much different from Alex and his droogs in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. They need outlets for their young male energy.
Honest ones join street gangs. But middle class kids want to justify their thuggery, so they seek ideology. Likewise, the main reason for some kids joining skinhead gangs had less to do with ideology that frustrated longing for excitement and action.
Since radical rightist politics is pretty much forbidden, the only permissible outlet is the anarchist and antifa strains of violence. Also, even though all violence is officially illegal, there is no moral, political, and ideological censure of much of bad behavior by blacks and proglodytes.
If a bunch of far-right thugs went on a rampage, the media would foam at the mouth, Democrats would condemn it, and even Republicans would condemn it. There would be loud sermons about ‘hate crimes’.
But when antifa goes nuts, the media just report it neutrally, the Democrats either remain silent or give tacit support(like Obama and Hillary did for race riots after Ferguson), and Republicans say nothing. Even Trump wont say anything about Berkeley,and he hardly said anything to condemn antifa violence against his supporters in 2016. Thus, white patriots are treated like Palestinians in Israel.
Anyway, the media have spread the message that Trump is hitler, Putin is hitler, and ‘Muslim ban’ is WWII and Holocaust all over again, and etc. And given that pop culture and celebrity mania are the dominant culture for many young people, the entertainment industry freakouts about Trump infects them too.
The media also gave green light to ‘punch nazis’ after Spencer got clocked. There was no condemnation, and even Conservatives said nothing. So, the national consensus is now that it is OKAY, even cool, to attack ‘nazis’ who could be any Trump supporter.
Indeed, the Tribe in the media are especially angry over the Trump victory because the anti-Trump violence failed to cower the will of Trump voters. Almost all the political violence in 2016 was anti-Trump, and the media hardly condemned it. Media didn’t even cover much of it. Anyway, the message that Trump-supporters were supposed to take from the violence was that they better not even dare to vote for Trump because they are deplorables who deserve an ass-whupping. But the deplorables voted for Trump anyway. The Tribe is furious at such uppity behavior.
It’s rather odd. The media are trying to send a message not unlike the editorial of a newspaper after Jack Johnson defeated the great white hope. The paper told the Negroes not to get uppity or boastful about the victory.
I think the Tribal Media are sending the same message. Spencer got punched on Inauguration day. The media more or less endorsed it and celebrated it, and in doing so, sent out a missive to all young exasperated progs to punch a nazi to send a message to white patriots NOT TO GET TOO COCKY OR UPPITY. DON’T GET TOO PROUD. This goes to show that white folks have become the ‘new negroes’ who are expected to be shuffling uncle tom before the Tribal Massuh. “Don’t git uppity just because Trump run.” And antifa is used as overseers to whip white folks into shape. Shut up and pick some cotton. The Tribe sees this as a Slave Rebellion.
While there would have some unrest regardless of the nature of media coverage, there is no doubt that the anti-Trump media coverage in 2016 was the most hysterical ever.
It was rabid, extreme, and crazy. The narrative received by the urban and radical young was that Trump is ‘literally hitler’ and his supporters are ‘nazis’. Trump is trying to restore simple law and order in immigration policy, but this is WWII all over again for those who’ve come under media spell. Snowflakes turned into hailstorms as this most easily triggered generation have been spoonfed on the bitter medicine that they are now living in Neo-Nazi-land.
And then, there is the power of academia. We know that academia have been totally taken over by Progs. Indeed, they worked politically and systemically to recruit and promote only their ideological brethren and sistren. This happened for 30-40 yrs, and the result is the academia has become the incestuous hotbed of dogmatic thinking and PC lunacies. Safe in their own ideological bubble, ideologues never had to deal with reality. They had this fixed view of the world where the ‘progressives’ are struggling nobly against Nazis and KKK and Haven Monahans. Much of it was shaped by the paranoia of the Tribe that served as professors who would concoct PC and notions such as ‘hate speech’ that came to encompass more and more speech. (In Canada, even the failure to address some tranny as ‘ze’ can be constituted as ‘hate speech’.)
But what if there is no Hitler? Okay, pretend Trump is Hitler. What if there is no KKK? Pretend blankets and science labs are associated with KKK. What if there are no nazis on campus? Well, any Trump supporter is a ‘nazi’. Since young ones are stupid and gullible — and hungry for a self-righteous view of the world where they are ‘good’ joined against ‘evil’ — , they’ve latched onto this cartoon vision of reality. Since their worldview depends on combating Hitler, Nazis, and KKK, they must turn their enemies into such caricatures to feel justified. It’s Justice Pornography. At some point, Progressivism loses its main themes(some by victory and some by failure), and it turns regressive into childhood fantasies of cops and robbers. It’s sort of like what happens in the movie REGRESSION where people begin to hallucinate stuff because a certain narrative and idea begin to infect their minds. It’s also sort of what happens to the character in Mamet’s HOMICIDE. His awareness of existence of antisemitism makes him imagine much more, far beyond reality. He even surmises that a Jewish shop-owner was killed by some vast neo-nazi conspiracy when it turns out that she was killed by neighborhood negro hoods.
Also, the rise of Trump finally permits some masculine element to reassert itself among the progs. During Obama, the progs couldn’t get worked up into militant mode, so things got soft and trannies & 50 gender pansies took the limelight.
But now that the message is NAZIS RULE THE US, the pansies are being pushed to the back while the macho thug force are emerging as the vanguard. And violence is their forte since, in any sound, factual, and rational debate on just about any issue, the Alt Right will mop the floor with them. Alt Right has the advantage of having no use for censorious PC. In contrast, antifa must stick to PC formula, much like Mao’s Red Guards. They can only yammer in slogans and cliches, and this makes them sound stupid when matched with real reason and facts. All they can do is shout ‘nazi’, ‘racist’, fascist’, etc.
The alliance of Western academia and Big business is not unlike the alliance between Wahabi and Saudi Royal Family. The Royal Family is very rich, very corrupt, very materialistic, and totally venal. So, they are vulnerable to moral and spiritual condemnation. To shield themselves from such opprobrium — that eventually brought down the Shah — , they formed a partnership with the Wahahi sect. This way, the Royal family would lavishly fund the Sect, its mosques, its missions. In return, the Wahabis would bless the family and shower it with praise. Thus, the Royal family would be shielded from the potential moral and spiritual outrage among the masses.
Something similar happened in the West since May 68 movement. As the capitalist class came under increasing attack from the Left, it had to find a way to ameliorate the Left and win it over. Capitalists may have appreciated support from conservatives, but why pay for something you can get for free? The real danger came from the Left that dominated media and especially academia. The rich class may have all the money, but culture and values are determined by the intellectual class in academia and media. The boomer enterprisers who went for money knew of the boomer radicals who were taking over the institutions. So, a kind of symbiotic relationship had to be forged. The rich class would fund the Left on grounds that the main leftist ire would be directed at anyone but the rich class.
And that was essentially the formula of Clintonism where the rich class were allowed to rake in more and more as long as they funded the ‘left’. This had a corrupting effect on the Left in the same way that Royal Family money had a corrupting effect on the Wahabi sect that has become entrenched and privileged. So, Wahabis may fund and cause trouble anywhere but NOT in the domain of the Royal Family. Likewise, the pact between the rich class and the Left means that the Left, in taking money from the likes of Soros and Wall Street, must take their rage out on ‘racists’, ‘homophobes’, ‘fascists’, and ‘nazis’ who could be any ordinary Joe with a maga hat. This way, the Left became the main enemy of the white working class and the tool of globalist elites.
But then, all this anti-Muslim hostility on the Right is to miss the point. In the EU, yes, Muslims are a serious problem. In the US, the real enemies of the patriots are not the ‘muzzies’.
For all those who say ‘white nationalism’ or ‘white supremacism’ rules America.
If that were true, there never would have been the 1965 immigration act.
There never would have been slogans like ‘diversity is our strength’ and all this crap about ‘white privilege’. And all this deification of MLK and non-whites.
If ‘white supremacists’ really control America, why did all this happen?
No, the ruling power in America is Jewish Supremacism.
Mass immigration and Multi-culturalism were strategies laid out by the Tribe to create Diversity conducive to Divide-and-Rule by the ruling minority elites.
@33mins or so, “Why whites have a hard time with their own identity where non-whites don’t.”
Whites have been both the fish and the water – ie, who else is there, that we should care?, up until very recently. Richard himself has said that you define yourself in opposition to your enemy, or ‘The Other’. Or that an enemy defines you (in the context of being ‘white’ in Europe in addition to Swedish, Spanish, etc, now because of Africans, Muslims). Similar principle, here.
Whites projecting themselves upon others is also not specific to whites – whites haven’t historically known much about any others. Egocentrism (assuming everyone knows what you know, feels what you feel) is the default position wrt relating to other people. Children start out that way – up to a certain age they’ll think you know they took the cookie because /they/ know they took the cookie. You have to work at creating the knowledge in yourself that others aren’t the same. Whites are getting there.
Again, neither of these thing is particular to whites, it’s just because of our accustomed numbers in traditionally white countries.
You are right. Identity, so natural in other countries and for other people, becomes taboo for White Americans.
I wonder (((Who))) is responsible for that.
MILO YIANNOPOULOSOROS: 2/1/17
Elite California school forced to cancel speech by right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos as students set off fireworks at cops, tear down barricades and set the campus ablaze in protest
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182824/Protesters-speech-Breitbart-editor-UC-Berkeley.html#ixzz4XUxQ6AFf
Milo definitely is a firebrand, but I do not buy his posing as a right-winger. Neo-conservative sounds more accurate.
No room for jew cock suckers in the alt-right.
Lauren Southern is literally a third of a century younger than Ann Coulter. Hope a swole and fashy bro knocks her up soon – it’d be a shame to see her go barren like Ann.
yes, the Aryan goddess does indeed need a quality White Nationalist to marry.
Southern is Jewish.
I recorded a bit of a rant about the recent rash of leftist violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVh4tpgOZ2M
Very cool. Got anything newer for those of us who are already Alt-Right?
*whispers into ear* hitler was right/did nothing wrong
When is the next college campus speech? How can I help make it happen?
…
….