"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

20 November 2016

The Hoopla about the “Alt Right"

In recent years I have paid less and less attention to what goes on in White Nationalism generally, or what is now known as the Alternative Right. Whether White Nationalism and the Alternative Right are the same thing, or different things, I cannot tell. Some people think that they are the same thing. Others deny it.
I first heard the term Alternative Right a few years ago. For me the term had some connotations. The word alternative has a positive connotation for some people in a certain age-group, because of alternative music or alternative dance-music that some preferred to the music played on radio-stations in the 80s and 90s. This alternative music, incidentally, usually exhibited less Negro influence than the music in the pop-charts. Thus it seems that the Alternative Right was supposed to be a better form of right-wing politics, for the cool White kids.

But why invent a new term at all? Are there really any new political orientations that have not been labeled?

No, of course not. A new label is invented to escape stereotyping. It's the same reason that Blackwater Security keeps changing its name. Nobody wants to be called Racist or White Supremacist, because the mass-media always represent Racists and White Supremacists in a negative way. (Racism and White Supremacy, by the way, were not always universally considered derogatory terms.) Most people prefer to do things the easy way. So, rather than try to fight the stereotype, one chooses a new label.

I have never used the term Alternative Right to refer to myself, because I thought it was too vague. I have never been eager to participate in fads, which is how the use of that term appeared to me. Also, as a national-socialist, my position is a synthesis of what are normally regarded as left and right. To say that I am on the right would not be entirely accurate.

Most people are not going to know from the name just what the Alternative Right is. Because the term has no instantly clear meaning, its intended meaning is easily missed or distorted.

When Steve Bannon told a Jewish reporter for Mother Jones that Breitbart was a platform for the Alt Right, he offered a rather vague notion of what this might mean:

“Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.” [S. Posner, Mother Jones, 22 August 2016]

Mother Jones of course did not fail to inform readers of the term's inextricable association with White Nationalism. Bannon has subsequently declared that Breitbart had zero tolerance for “racial and anti-Semitic” views.

Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has recently said that her idea of the Alt Right is: teenagers who discovered that it is fun to be called racist.

This is not at all the impression given by Richard Spencer's panel of Alt Right luminaries -- Peter Brimelow, Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, et al. -- at a press-conference on 19 November 2016. They are all uptight about being called racist. When a reporter asked if they were racist, instead of boldly saying, "Yes we are racists, they objected to it. Jared Taylor said that the word racist was pejorative (obviously not having read  René Binet's Theory of Racism). So, it is clear that these luminaries, who are supposed to represent the Alt Right, are in fact less radical than the teenagers that Ann Coulter thinks really are the Alt Right.

When a reporter mentioned Andrew Anglin and The Daily Stormer, Peter Brimelow (a former employee of National Review) felt obliged to stipulate that Anglin was not a member of the Alt Right at all, but a flat-out Neonazi, meaning that there was some important difference between Anglin and the Alt Right.

This really puzzled me, because it is not at all clear, from a strictly political perspective, that these Alt Right luminaries share goals not shared by Andrew Anglin. The differences between MacDonald and Taylor alone are huge. MacDonald focuses entirely on Jews, while Taylor tries never to focus on Jews. If they are in one boat together, it is a broadly pro-White boat. It does not seem tenable to assert that they are in one movement together while Andrew Anglin is in a different one -- if it is strictly a matter of politics.

It is obviously not a matter of politics. There are other reasons why they find the association with Anglin embarrassing. Basically he is running a sensationalist tabloid in the form of a blog, and he is catering to a young audience, and, perhaps most importantly, he does not avoid taboos that these respectable luminaries assiduously shun, starting with the very name of his blog. Just as these worthies fled from the word racism, they flee from that association. Pretending that there was a huge political gulf between the Alt Right and The Daily Stormer was a way of escaping this embarrassment. It is bourgeois respectability that is at stake here.

This is at the opposite extreme from Ann Coulter's impression of what the Alt Right is.

I was dismayed to hear Spencer say that the Alt Right is interested inthe conservative revolution in Germany. The Revolutionary Conservatives were a tiny political movement that had very little effect. Whatever useful ideas they produced were subsumed under National-Socialism. One of the better known Revolutionary Conservatives, Hermann Rauschning, became a traitor to his country. When people say that they are interested in the Revolutionary Conservatives, it tells me that they have some inhibition about showing an interest in National-Socialism, which was obviously a much more important movement. It is a way of maintaining distance from Hitler, which means that Richard Spencer is still under the influence of Holocaust-propaganda. Spencer's professed admiration for the French New Right -- he named Benoist, Faye, and Steuckers -- likewise  represents a retreat from taboo, because these men generally avoid discussing Jews. Bourgeois respectability, bourgeois inhibition, still at work.

It must have been like the Earth crumbling beneath them, therefore, when Tila Tequila and two young men at the conference were photographed giving a Roman salute. All those pains taken to avoid being called racist, and to avoid association with The Daily Stormer, only to have this happen. (It has since been determined that the two males photographed giving a Roman salute with Tila Tequila are Jews.)

This may vaguely resemble Ann Coulter's idea of the Alt Right.

If Richard Spencer and his friends are not even able to control the behavior of people attending NPI's conferences, they are certainly not going to be able to control the use of the term Alt Right.

Ultimately, because there is no control over what Alt Right can mean and who calls himself Alt Right, the term will continue to be stretched and distorted until it becomes entirely useless, or even a liability for some who have conspicuously applied the term to themselves. That process surely accelerated recently, when the term acquired importance as the object of so much attention.

Now, Spencer's National Policy Institute is a different matter. That is an organization. Its goals and membership can be defined by its leadership. Good luck to Richard Spencer on that. I just hope that NPI's proposals will be as radical and thorough as our situation requires.


Signifier said...

I'm glad to learn I'm not the only one who can't get a bead on what "alt-right" means. Thanks for the article.

Hadding said...

I see that a lot of the softies that embraced the term Alt Right are already running away from it. Even some of the speakers at the conference are criticizing Spencer now.

Brimelow apparently made the decision to distance himself from "Alt Right" even before delivering his speech at that conference, since he stipulates in his speech that he is not part of it but previously seemed to indicate that he was (also having participated in a press-conference about the Alt Right with Spencer and Taylor a few weeks earlier).

It was predictable that Ramzpaul would flee in terror, since he had been telling people that the Alt Right were "the new hippies." How absurd.

Hadding said...

When I wrote this article I had watched the exchange between the speakers and news-media with which the conference opened. I had not watched Spencer's speech, which is as big a disaster for bourgeois respectability as the photo of Tila Tequila and the two Jews.

There is an apologetic essay on TOO by somebody called "Thorborne" that pretends that Spencer himself had nothing to do with the "Hitler salutes," and also pretends that Tila et al. represent the only instance of this. How ridiculous, when anybody can check the video taken by The Atlantic that shows several arms rising in response to Spencer.

The other speakers at the conference know that this is the case. One of them, Matthew Tait, says that the conference was a roaring success until Spencer gave the last speech, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with his antics.

The basic problem seems to be that Spencer was operating under incompatible influences. On the one hand, there was the bourgeois respectability of most of his invited speakers. On the other hand, there were the hellraisers who think that it's fun to be called racist. Spencer, drink in hand, gave a performance that reflected both influences, to the satisfaction of the latter and the embarrassment of the former.

I think that if Richard Spencer feels the urge to incorporate some element of National-Socialism into his presentations it ought to be something more substantial than raising his arm and saying "Hail victory," which doesn't accomplish a damned thing apart from giving mass-media something provocative to show.

What I mean is that Richard Spencer avoids talking about Jews. He speaks very well in interviews, but he seems to retain the "responsible conservative" inhibition against mentioning Jews. Quite often, for example when the complaint of "White privilege" is presented, it would be extremely edifying for the audience to hear that a large contingent of those privileged "Whites" are Jews, and that it is Jews, not Whites, who dominate mass-media, and that the billionaire hedgefund managers who donated to Hillary Clinton were almost all Jews. There are several issues, like unnecessary Middle-East wars, that cannot be truthfully explained without mentioning Jews. The fact that most people who talk about these matters do not tell the truth for fear of the Jews is a big problem. If Richard Spencer wants to use something from 1933 it ought to be frankness about the Jews, rather than some anachronistic symbolism that no longer has the same meaning.

Signifier said...

"If Richard Spencer wants to use something from 1933 it ought to be frankness about the Jews."

Well said, and right to the point!

And his speeches ought to be, as you rightly say, more substantial. Much more substantial.

My impression is that Spencer has a Jewish handler somewhere in the background helping him and his cause for White people to look completely ridiculous. That Heil Trump signal was a necessary trick to get him to undermine his credibility and that of his organization. Reminds of the Jew who led the so-called American Nazi party decades ago. Subversion from within.

Hadding said...

Professor Paul Gottfried is Spencer's Jewish eminence grise. Spencer had Gottfried edit Radix Journal last year, which I find scandalous for a pro-White organization. There was no White guy that could do it?

The new crop of White Nationalists (since 2001) seem to think that they are too good to learn from the more successful earthshakers of the past, from Adolf Hitler to William Pierce. Instead they want to study relatively obscure figures (like the "Revolutionary Conservatives") who are more acceptable to the Jews and were never heavily stigmatized in propaganda, because they either have an ambiguous significance or didn't really accomplish much. It all goes back to trying to stay more or less within the boundaries of current bourgeois respectability (which Jews have had a hand in defining). This is not compatible with doing what needs to be done.

What has to be recognized is that respectability has more than one component. There is respectability based on mere convention, and there is respectability based on what is reasonable. Mass-propaganda can alter what is conventional, but it cannot alter what is reasonable. What we can do is to activate reason against convention to the extent necessary, in the minds of those who put great stock in reason, to bring respectability into line with White survival.

The American Nazi Party was never led by a Jew. You are thinking of Frank Collin, a half-Jew pederast who led the NSPA, a splinter-group from the NSWPP (which was formerly the ANP). He now works for Ancient American magazine under a different name. I actually think that Frank Collin was more or less sincere in his efforts, but such a horrendously flawed individual, as a half-Jew who hated his father, that of course he turned out to be a liability. It is difficult for any man who hates his own father not to have a seriously deformed character (on top of the effect of Jewish heredity).

If Spencer is going to troll the public as a way to get publicity, with the idea that the smarter people will see past it, he should understand that George Lincoln Rockwell already tried this in a big way. The problem that Rockwell had was the kinds of people that he attracted, who were more interested in raising hell for excitement than in political change. Maybe Spencer can have better luck in that regard. But he is already starting to experience the corollary, which is the bourgeois softies abandoning him.

Hadding said...

Apparently Paul Gottfried introduced the term Alternative Right in 2008 with a speech published in Taki's Mag, and at that time named Brimelow and Taylor as representatives of it. More extreme people have now adopted the term, causing Brimelow and Taylor to retreat from it.

This is the reverse of what usually happens to vaguely pro-White or anti-Jewish "movements" in the USA. Usually the Jews scheme to offer a kosher version of it, and make sure that their version gets enough publicity to crowd out the genuine item. Alex Jones, for example, is a product of that.

Signifier said...

Hi, Hadding,

You are absolutely right: "The American Nazi Party was never led by a Jew. You are thinking of Frank Collin, a half-Jew pederast who led the NSPA, a splinter-group from the NSWPP (which was formerly the ANP)."

My mistake to make the misattribution, but I'm glad you understood that I was indeed pointing up Frank Collin. He caused havoc for conscious White people.

You are a good historian and provide copious details (I am not and have only a somewhat adequate memory). I enjoy reading your writing and articles, though -- very much. Your points of view are instructive and very interesting.

Hadding said...

It is an understandable mistake, since news-media falsely referred to the NSPA as "the American Nazi Party" more often than not.

Signifier said...


Thanks for your kindness.

I want to tell you that I read your translation of Rene Binet's "Theory of Racism" this morning as a result of discovering the hyperlink for it in your essay about the Alt-Right, a hyperlink that wasn't as noticeable as it is in the recent reproduction of your writing at National Vanguard.

Your translation was so good and readable, I'm now anxious to continue on to Part 7 when you find the time to make it.