Wombaticus Rex » Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:18 am wrote:"The alternative right is Oswald Spengler meeting Colonel Kurtz at a Nietzsche book club" - Brett Stevens
Personally, I find this formulation over-estimates both the literacy and competence of those participating.
There's a world of difference between Otto Skorzeny and Klaus Barbie; indeed, both are apex specimens of their type.
here's the alternative right that is actually has the power to poison and kill people hundreds of thousand of them at a time and make them pay for their poisoning or they will take their children away
The Man Who Drowned Democracy With 'Sewer Money'
Justice Anthony Kennedy masterminded the Supreme Court's decision to undo a century of public-interest regulation of campaign expenditures.
AMERICAN BLOGGER PRAISES OSLO SHOOTER
July 26, 2011
While most people who found their words or sentiments echoed in Anders Breivik’s screed raced to distance themselves from him, an obscure American blogger named Brett Stevens was practically giddy to learn that Breivik, who murdered more than 70 people this past Friday in an anti-Muslim murder spree, had quoted his writing.
“I am honored to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I,” Stevens wrote on Sunday. “[N]o comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”
Breivik’s manifesto quotes in full a 2009 essay called “Conflict avoidance and how to avoid it,” in which Stevens argues that being “forced” by social constraints to treat each other as equals, “when in fact … we are not,” leads to dysfunction, frustration, and breakdown.
“For the last 2,000 years our preferred method of neutralizing conflict has been to insist on equality. First, it was insisted that we were all equal in civic duty, so should get a vote. Then, it was insisted that we were all equal in the eyes of God, as we all had souls. A thousand years later, we upgraded that to the idea that we were all equal citizens in potential, so we should have no limits of role or money,” Stevens wrote. “The idea of universal equality and rights sounds good to us because we’re afraid as a group. If you the individual speak out against it, the others may gang up and you and clobber you — for denying their denial of reality.”
Stevens’ proposed solution was to hold “rallies where each participant steps out and says, ‘You know, we’re not all equal and we can’t pander to the weakest link in the chain just so we seem nicer than our neighbors.’”
Though not well known outside of white nationalist circles, Stevens is a well-read and prolific blogger who believes that political correctness and diversity have undermined the natural social order. He is a fan based on his blog roll of the VDARE hate site, which has published anti-Semitic, racist and anti-immigrant materials. He is also an admirer of racist ideologue Jared Taylor, founder of the group American Renaissance. Taylor once wrote, “When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears.”
Stevens blog also links to the campus group Youth For Western Civilization, which worries about “radical multiculturalism” and claims that the “far left” is trying to “destroy our people and culture.”
Stevens takes some pains to obscure his identity, using as his Facebook picture the famous rendering of the Unabomber suspect wearing huge sunglasses and a hooded sweatshirt. Indeed, he seems to be something of an admirer of Ted Kaczynski. So is Breivik, who included in his own manifesto substantial portions of the so-called “Unabomber’s” anti-technology, anti-liberal manifesto.
In Breivik, Stevens has found yet another murderer after his own heart.
“This was an act of war, a political act. It was not a murder like a serial killer, who kills for his own pleasure,” he wrote on Sunday. “This guy killed to attract attention and to change society, which puts him in the same category as Ted Kaczysnki and Tim McVeigh, or even the American revolutionaries who opened fire on British redcoats.”
Stevens ramped up his rhetoric on Monday:
“If you wonder why people shoot up your society, it is because you are oblivious to truth and derive some perverse sense of power by turning your back on the truth. You feel like you are kings because you have in your minds the ability to deny logic, truth and the evident consequences of your actions.”
“The rage builds under the skin,” Stevens continued. “Look for more events of this type in the future. As for me, I’m tired of giving service to the boilerplat (sic) ‘oh isn’t this terrible.’ If that’s the kind of sentiment you want, get away from me — you’re an idiot.”
Breivik’s 21st Century Fascist Manifesto
By Richard Seymour
http://www.whomakesthenazis.com/2012/09 ... ntury.html
As we will see, the burden of Breivik’s argument involves a recitation of standard reactionary complaints – multiculturalism, Islam, political correctness, leftists and the European Union all conspire to degrade the nation and abridge its sovereignty. What makes these complaints into a fascist diatribe is their specific articulation. The political theorist Ernesto Laclau argued that the character of an ideology is determined less by its specific contents than by its “articulating principle”. None of the ideas of fascism are distinctive to it – this is why it has been called a “scavenger ideology”, appropriating dis-embedded elements from other ideological traditions. These elements are capable of being appropriated because they possess “certain common nuclei of meaning,” which can be “connotatively linked to diverse ideological-articulatory domains”. Yet, fascism is a distinctive ideology and behaviour. And the “articulating principle” that quilts these heterogeneous elements is precisely that point at which ideology becomes practise: the call for a mass, extra-parliamentary movement of the right to take power through violence against opponents. At any rate, this is the approach I will now take in examining each element in Breivik’s doctrine...
Antisemitism: the National Jew vs the International Jew
A common trope in anti-Semitic ideology plays the ‘good Jew’ off against the ‘bad Jew’. So it is with Breivik who re-states in his own language a distinction notoriously made by Winston Churchill, between the ‘National Jew’ and the ‘International Jew’. In a 1920 article, ‘Zionism vs Bolshevism: A struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People’, Churchill had explained the difference between “Good and Bad Jews”. The good Jews were those ‘National Jews’ who, while practising their faith, exhibited undivided loyalty to their nation of habitat. In contrast, the ‘International Jew’ who showed no such fidelity, or was disloyal, or revolutionary, was a bad Jew. For Churchill, Zionism was to be endorsed, as the creation of a “Jewish homeland” in British Mandate Palestine would serve the interests of both Jews and the British Empire, and siphon Jewish energies away from revolutionary projects.
So it is for Breivik, who distinguishes between “loyal” and “disloyal” Jews. The former are Zionists, and thus nationalists, the latter anti-Zionists and cultural Marxists. In this respect, he poses the question of whether Hitler’s anti-Semitism was rational:“Were the majority of the German and European Jews disloyal? Yes, at least the so called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that opposes nationalism/Zionism and supports multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists. Conservative Jews were loyal to Europe and should have been rewarded. Instead, [Hitler] just targeted them all.” (p 1167)
Breivik’s objection to Hitler, then, is that he was indiscriminate in his punishment of Jewish disloyalty, when only “the majority” were disloyal. The implication is that only the latter should have been “targeted”. This is not so much Holocaust denial, as Holocaust affirmation. And in Breivik’s treatment, even loyal Jews are better disposed of in some far away land:“[Hitler] could have easily worked out an agreement with the UK and France to liberate the ancient Jewish Christian lands with the purpose of giving the Jews back their ancestral lands ... The UK and France would perhaps even contribute to such a campaign in an effort to support European reconciliation. The deportation of the Jews from Germany wouldn't be popular but eventually, the Jewish people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them.” (p 1167)
The second principle objection to Hitler, then, is that he did not simply ethnically cleanse the Jews from Germany in the cause of Zionism. For Breivik is fanatically pro-Zionist, seeing in them the ‘good Jews’ that nationalists can work with. While most, approximately 75% of European and American Jews are “disloyal” today - being “multiculturalist (nation-wrecking) Jews” – only 50% of Israeli Jews are “disloyal”. This “shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP.” This is a vital strategic point for Breivik, who maintains that in Western Europe, only the UK and France have a “Jewish problem” – in contrast to the US which, due to its relatively high Jewish population, “actually has a very considerable Jewish problem”. (p 1167)
Breivik’s embrace of Zionism puts him at odds with many fascists and neo-Nazis, but he is not out on a limb among his fraternity. For several years now, far right groups in Europe have been gravitating toward a pro-Israel position. Geert Wilders, though not a fascist, represents a strain of radical right opinion that is pro-Israel. Marine Le Pen, daughter of Jean Marie Le Pen and leader of the fascist Front National (FN) in France, argues that the FN has always been “Zionistic”. The BNP’s legal officer, Lee Barnes, gave full-throated supported to Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon: “I support Israel 100% in their dispute with Hezbollah ... I hope they wipe Hezbollah off the Lebanese map and bomb them until they leave large greasy craters in the cities where their Islamic extremist cantons of terror once stood.” The BNP declared itself “prudently” on Israel’s side, for reasons of “national interest”: Israel was part of a “Western, if not European” civilization whose opponents were “trying to conquer the world and subject it to their religion”. An article on the BNP’s website explained that the party had cast off “the leg-irons of conspiracy theories and the thinly veiled anti-Semitism which has held this party back for two decades”.
This realignment reflects a geopolitical reality in which the ‘war on terror’ has revived colonial discourses and designated Islam as the eternal Other of the ‘West’. In this situation, Israel is seen as an ally against the Muslim peril. Thus, it is quite logical that anti-Semitism should take the form of embracing the ‘good Jew’, and Zionism. Yet history, and the thrust of Breivik’s argument, suggests that even the ‘good Jew’ would not be safe from a reconstituted European fascism.,,
Breivik’s 2083 is a fascist manifesto not because it apes the language of fuhrers and duces past, but because it has absorbed the elements of contemporary reactionary discourse and articulated them in an agenda of mass rightist insurrection. He has eschewed many of the obsessions and talking points of much white supremacist discourse, which has been concerned with reviving the prospects of fascism by restoring the reputation of the Nazi regime. He does not need Holocaust denial to articulate his agenda, any more than he needs the hard biological racism of the colonial period to express his supremacism. His vituperations about ‘cultural Marxism’ have, by placing crypto-communists in senior positions of authority, provided the conspiracy that he needs to explain the nation’s parlous circumstances. The nefarious ‘Jew’ of anti-Semitic discourse is not rejected, but is qualified, allied to a Zionist posture, and is at any rate secondary to his wider schema.
There are other respects in which Breivik’s manifesto is very different from classical fascist discourse. For example, there is nothing about trade unions, very little about traditional revolutionary socialism, and also nothing on the global economic crisis, in 2083. It is hard to imagine a Mein Kampf without some reference to the trade unions, to winning the German workers from the reds, and so on. To put it another way, there is very little that is specifically addressed to the problems of the working class, or even the insecure petty bourgeoisie. Unlike most fascist parties and intellectuals in Europe, Breivik has no orientation toward winning over masses. In politics, he worked as part of a milieu, but ultimately set out to make his most significant contribution to the fascist struggle on his own. Yet, Breivik aspires to trigger a mass movement, even if he does not attempt to offer plausible solutions to popular problems. And in defining a ‘revolutionary’ rightist creed that is more informed by this conjuncture than the interwar period, 2083 outlines some of the contours of what we can expect from fascist movements of the future.
Luther Blissett » Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:18 pm wrote:The "Debate Fascism" subreddit is simultaneously a condemnation and endorsement of that assumption. On one hand, you can tell that a lot of the participants are typical philosophy geeks, but on the other, it's obvious that actual fascist organizers are not using this as a think tank.
Worth a read / analysis for all the links alone. I recommend delving into some of the original posters' comment histories.
Charleston, S.C., shooting suspect Dylann Roof, shown being escorted from the Cleveland County Courthouse in Shelby, N.C., last week, may have commented on the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website started by Andrew Anglin, 30.
jakell » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:35 am wrote:Luther Blissett » Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:18 pm wrote:The "Debate Fascism" subreddit is simultaneously a condemnation and endorsement of that assumption. On one hand, you can tell that a lot of the participants are typical philosophy geeks, but on the other, it's obvious that actual fascist organizers are not using this as a think tank.
Worth a read / analysis for all the links alone. I recommend delving into some of the original posters' comment histories.
One handicap that the Left has is that too many folks want to be (regarded as) part of the intelligentsia, and this results in a 'ideology heavy' movement that bogs itself down.
There are some exceptions to this and they can be found concentrated on the rather shouty and shallow anti-fascist sites that AD often links to.
On the other hand, it's sort of inherent in a lot of alt-right thinking and belief that an 'elite' is a natural part of the movement, and that others can and should be content to remain 'soldiers'. Thus, 'too many chiefs', doesn't become a big problem.
SINK THE RICH!
This week we examine the contradictory notion of “Anarcho-Capitalism” and dismantle this illogical concept by illustrating current examples of why free markets have nothing to do with freedom. On the music break, San Diego based MC Odessa Kane with “GPT”
We wrap things up with the bleak economic outlook for the coming year and our very clever solution to fix this capitalist clusterfuck.
Will the History Books Record How Neo-Nazis Made Eyes at the Bundy Militia?
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
By Spencer Sunshine, Truthout | News Analysis
With fellow protesters on either side of him, Ammon Bundy, back to camera in center, speaks to reporters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Princeton, Ore., Jan. 4, 2016.
The FBI and the Oregon State Police have arrested most of the leaders of the three-and-a-half-week armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. At least two militia members were shot during a highway traffic stop that turned into a shoot-out Tuesday night, and one militia leader - Robert "LaVoy" Finicum - was killed.
From its start, the Malheur occupation highlighted the social and political fault lines within the United States, drawing sharply conflicting reactions ranging from mockery to hero worship to criticisms of the capitalist and colonial underpinnings of the militia's tactics and aims. Reactions to the shoot-out have also revealed even more fault lines, including divisions within the left, as some celebrate the downfall of the far-right-wing occupiers and others question how any progressive could ever celebrate the shooting of a civilian by the police.
As the Malheur occupation fades into history, there are many insights on the US social and political landscape to be distilled both from this episode and from the national conversations it has sparked. One underreported aspect of the affair is what it revealed about the nature of the partial but significant overlaps between neo-Nazis and anti-federal-government activists like the Bundys.
The occupiers had been demanding the abolition of the federal government as we know it, using a set of rationales that were originally derived from racist movements. Some of the occupiers were known to spout anti-Semitic or Islamophobic conspiracy theories, while another denied that slavery existed. And so it should not have surprised anyone that neo-Nazis and other organized racists have applauded the occupation.Instead of wearing a swastika and burning a cross, they were wrapped in the American flag and waving the Constitution.
Until their arrest, Ammon and Ryan Bundy (sons of deadbeat rancher Cliven Bundy) were leaders of the occupation of the refuge's headquarters outside of Burns, Oregon, which had gone on since January 2. They had two demands: to remove control of the bird sanctuary (previously Indigenous-held land) from the federal government's hands so that ranchers could use it for private gain without current environmental and other restrictions; and release two members of the Hammond family, local ranchers serving sentences for arson on public land.
Many of the ideas and political forms that Ammon Bundy and his friends used were derived from the 1970s white supremacist group Posse Comitatus. It promoted the formation of militias, developed a fictitious parallel legal world based on an idiosyncratic reading of the US Constitution, and rejected the authority of federal and state governments - claiming that the county sheriff was the highest legitimate elected official. But while Ammon Bundy and the others directly around him had many of the same ideas, they were careful not to use Posse Comitatus' bigoted language.
This was not true of many of the Bundys' followers at the refuge. Jon Ritzheimer, who was also arrested Tuesday night, is a famous Islamophobic organizer, known for his vicious rhetoric. Blaine Cooper once wrapped a Koran in bacon and set it on fire. Brand Thornton and David Fry are reported to hold anti-Semitic ideas. Ryan Payne (also arrested on Tuesday) believes that slavery didn't exist. Rance Harris is said to have neo-Nazi tattoos like "88" - the alphanumeric code for "Heil Hitler." And together they collectively offended the Burns Paiute Tribe (whose land used to include the refuge), by - among other things - breaking into an area where the tribe's artifacts are stored.
So flirtatious overtures from neo-Nazis to the Bundy gang should not have surprised anyone.
At the beginning of the occupation, Andrew Anglin, publisher of the popular neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website, wrote that, despite his relative disinterest in cattle-grazing laws, "when I see working class White men in a confrontation with the federal government, I simply assume that the federal government is wrong and the working men are right. Clearly, that is the case in this situation." The next day he added, "I'm warming up to their issues a bit more. They do seem like good guys" - even though he wished they were "protesting these new Obama gun control measures."
John Friend, a Holocaust denier, made a special trip to the Malheur refuge, where he interviewed several of the occupiers. He also wrote a glowing report about the armed occupation for the American Free Press, an anti-Semitic, white nationalist newspaper, which is one of the remaining parts of the Willis Carto empire. (Among his other achievements, Carto helped popularize Holocaust denial in the United States.)
The Traditionalist Youth Network, the reigning US youth group for nerdy 20-somethings who are into racism, took to Twitter to support the Bundy militia. They declared the Bundy action to be "civil disobedience" (the whole armed part apparently being neither here nor there), and claimed that leftists, who normally "romanticize" civil disobedience, "totally lose their shit (TERRORISM! ANARCHY!) when some white people do it."
Taki's Magazine is a home for folks whose views are largely in line with those of the Republican Party, except the party just isn't bigoted enough for them. It ran a full propaganda push for the Bundy rebellion by Gavin McInnes, a cofounder of Vice magazine (though now gone), and contributor to the xenophobic, white nationalist website VDARE. Falsely claiming that the wildlife refuge was stolen from ranchers, McInnes called the Hammonds' mandatory minimum arson sentences "an incredibly cut-and-dried example of the government oppressing the people because they want our stuff." McInnes claims the liberal media hates the Bundy gang because they are white men who do "exactly what the Constitution says we should do." (Somehow in my civics class I missed the amendment that specifies citizens' obligation to get guns and occupy publicly owned bird sanctuaries. I'll have to read it again.)
Hunter Wallace, writing for the popular white nationalist Occidental Dissent website, supported the Bundys' attack on public lands. Complaining of "environmentalism run amok" - we can only assume their fantasy all-white world will have no need for polar ice caps - they attack the "truly insane levels" of Western federal land ownership, and "the extremes to which radical Greens in the Obama administration have discredited environmentalism," by wanting to "block the Keystone Pipeline" and "halt drilling in the Arctic." I certainly hope they are investing all of their movement's funds in low-lying Pacific Island real estate.
Last, commentators on the famous neo-Nazi Stormfront website weighed in on the Bundy gang. As part of a long thread, some cheered them on to a military victory over the government. One comment, by "charlie894," said, "Hopefully those men are super well prepared and can surprise the hell out of the gov[ernment] lackeys." Meanwhile, "Volodyamyr" claimed the Hammonds' arson convictions were a government plot to get the "large deposits of gold, silver and other metals" in the area that "Obama would rather ... go to the Jews and our enemies instead of domestic industry. In other words, the Judeo-Bolsheviks want to push these people off their land, rape it for these metals, and leave a contaminated wasteland."
The last comment in the thread was perhaps the most insightful. Recognizing their attraction as well as their differences, "Troy" says: "This is not the great white racial revolution. Is their cause righteous, from our point of view? Maybe. Probably." Bemoaning the Bundys' lack of explicit biological racism and possible commitment to some kind of egalitarianism and/or Christian Zionism, Troy nonetheless said, "We should all be glad of anything that threatens/angers/humiliates ZOG" (the "Zionist Occupied Government," an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory), because it will help bring down the United States.
The irony is that the desire to incite a radical right-wing revolution that brings down the US government as we know it seemed to be the Bundy militia's goal as well - only, instead of wearing a swastika and burning a cross, they tried doing it wrapped in the American flag and waving the US Constitution.
WELL DRESSED RACISM: AMERICAN RENAISSANCE RETURNS TO TENNESSEE
JANUARY 31, 2016
The modern racialist movement is defined by American Renaissance. It bridges both the organized racism of the past and the contemporary Alt Right, Human BioDiversity, Neoreaction, and other movements who believe themselves superior to the KKK. AmRen began in the early 1990s by Jared Taylor, a former West Coast editor for PC magazine and consultant to companies dealing with Japan. Taylor, raised in Japan before going to Yale and then to France for graduate school, is a very literate and well spoken man. His enunciation is important to him, so much so that he has developed an elitist accent that is just as artificial as his conference’s attempts at pedigree. He formed AmRen to give intellectual credibility to his growing racist ideas. He had already been making waves on the racist right when AmRen came into existence, publishing the book Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. Getting good reviews from people like Pat Buchanan, he launched AmRen as a conference and newsletter that would further disseminate racist views using pseudoacademics and reviving old bio-racial rhetoric.
Beginning in 1990, AmRen brought together a couple hundred racists to talk about…well…racism. What defined AmRen right from the beginning was really marginal ideas on bioscience that justified the notion that black people were inferior. Speakers often try to replicate academic discourse, yet their ideas are simply that black people have lower IQs, are prone to criminality, and all races have trouble trusting one another for biologically deterministic reasons. These conferences are also notable in the white nationalist community for its lack of anti-Semitism, though most of the conference attendees are only putting on a face for this event. Several Jewish speakers have been seen at AmRen, including the ultra-Orthodox Rabbi Mayer Schiller and Mark Levin. Both of them have been known for writing about IQ gaps and the need for traditional, racially static communities.
Over the years there have been speeches by controversial academics like J. Phillip Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Donald Templer, all of which quickly drop their veneer of respectable scholarship so that they can insult and degrade people of color. This is all in line with what in “Human BioDiversity” circles is often called the “Yellow Hypothesis.” This essentially revives a racial taxonomy and hierarchy, but one that shifts the dynamics slightly. In this view, according to their theories on innate IQ, Asians have the highest IQs, whites just below them, then Latinos far below that and African descended people scraping the bottom of the list along with Australian aborigines. This is what they use to refuse the label of “white supremacist,” but the dynamic is to suggest that Asians actually lack other qualities because of their high level IQs and therefore whites are essentially “just right.” Jews, according to this, actually have higher IQs than Asians, but the AmRen crowd usually save that part of their analysis until the conference is over. What some attendees, such as Professor Emeritus Kevin McDonald, suggest is that the high verbal intelligence that this crowd ascribes to Jews has actually made them a parasite that uses their intellect to manipulate Western men away from their ethnic interests. Though the general line-up of AmRen is certainly prone to conspiracy theories, this is a step too far for Taylor.
The focus on pseudoscience has really defined AmRen for almost two decades, yet in recent years there has been a shift. Over the last few renditions of the conference, all of which have been at the Montgomery Bell State Park outside of Nashville, they have shifted away from arguments about racial difference in biology and more in the direction of politics and culture. They have included many speakers from nationalist parties internationally, as well as many from the Alt Right that talk in vague platitudes in an attempt to revive racial Idealism and Romanticism. This change is largely because they did not see the resurgence in “white racial consciousness” that they were hoping for from their previous discourse about perceived racial difference. Taylor has been a bit slow off the mark, and because of the new focus on social media and streaming content, as well as the lower brow focus of modern post-Trump Alt Right, he has been the old man of the community. While others are trying to maximize this Trump moment, Taylor continues to drivel on about black crime with barely-coded insults to movements like Black Lives Matter.
The coming 2016 conference, which will be held on May 20-22(which is actually longer than most AmRen conferences), replicates this new trend in their programming, as well as returning to attempts at respectability. Similar to what you see in white nationalist conferences and organizations like the H.L. Mencken Club and the Council of Conservative Citizens, they always try to host speakers who are just on the edge of respectability. This was the case with people like the late Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, who were both on the edges of the beltway Conservative Movement.
The 2016 conference’s “headliner,” so to speak, is Peter Brimelow, who is exactly the kind of crossover point that AmRen uses to make itself relevant. Brimelow was a former writer for Forbes and a number of conservative publications, really known for writing about education and the “problem” of the teacher’s unions up through the 1990s. In 1995 he published his “magnum opus,” Alien Nation, a book that rallied against immigration and the need to tighten the borders. Brimelow himself was foreign born, a British immigrant, a point that is often lost on his supporters. He then founded the web publication VDare, which has become a meeting point for the far right who want to focus on immigration as their primary issue. He has slowly shifted out of the broad GOP crowd and into a racially focused community, speaking at other racist conferences like the H.L. Mencken Club and the National Policy Institute. His talk brings the conference back to one of their real forces of excitement: Donald Trump. Titled “The Trump Tsunami and the Future of the Historic American Nation,” Brimelow will continue the fawning appreciation for the billionaire just as most in the AmRen scene have. Jared Taylor recently voiced a robocall for Trump support in Iowa, funded by the neo-fascist American Freedom Party.
James Edwards is also on the line-up, a person who has not been as prominent over the last year or so of the growing white nationalist movement. He hosts the Political Cesspool, a white nationalist/populist radio show that is actually on a few AM stations beyond its large internet following. He is on the board for both the Council of Conservative Citizens and the American Freedom Party, and he spoke up in defense of the CofCC after the Dylan Roof shooting. The murderer mentioned the CofCC’s website, which obsessively focuses on what they falsely say are differences in black and white crime rates. He represents a lower-brow sensibility for the AmRen community, which is really summed up by his book Racism Schmacism.
Flemish nationalist Filip Dewinter will rant about the “Islamisation” of Europe, Ruuben Kaalep will give a plea for Estonian nationalism, and Dan Roodt will talk about “white survival” in post-Apartheid South Africa. This is part and parcel of the new AmRen: trying to create unity between white racists internationally. Here they often try to find common cause with white nationalist talking points in Europe, focusing largely on Syrian refugees and Islamic immigration.
RamZPaul will join the AmRen crowd, which he has in recent years, where he does a sort of “stand up routine.” This mainly consists of awkwardly timed jokes coming straight out of his popular YouTube videos. His comedic style is telling and has helped groups like The Right Stuff to focus on humor in their racism. He will discuss the Alt Right, which has been seeing a surge of media attention in recent months because of the entryism that Donald Trump has provided for them. This theme will be compounded with the inclusion of Uncuck the Right, a new YouTube “sensation” who does racist parody songs in the vein of The Right Stuff. “Uncuck” is a reference to the Cuckservative meme that the Alt Right recently popularized, referencing the idea that mainstream conservatives do not act in their own racial interests in terms of immigration. This also really shows AmRen begging to keep themselves relevant in the internet-only “shitlord” movement of angry white men.
Both Taylor and Sam Dickson will be speaking about “identitarianism,” Dickson giving the same “Benediction for Heretics” that he has done every year since 1990s premiere of the conference.
Montgomery Bell facility where AmRen 2016 will be held.
Over the last several years of the conference, protesters have always been present. In 2010 the conference was effectively shut down when pressure was put on the Four Points Sheraton at the Manassas Battlefield to cancel their reservation. The following year, he attempted to hold it in a secret location, yet when the location was revealed to be the Airport Sheraton organizers were successfully able to shut it down again. This later inspired lawsuits from David Yeagley, a self-described “American Indian” who the One People’s Project have revealed is actually Italian and consorts with white nationalists. He tried to sue, among others, Daryle Lamont Jenkins, but the suits were ultimately unsuccessful before Yeagley passed away. Now the conference has been moved semi-permanently to Montgomery Bell State Park, a government run facility that has been less responsive to organizing.
In 2013 organizers again clashed with conference attendees, this time out in Nashville. After the primary conference, attendees including the Traditional Youth’s Network’s Matthew Heimbach and Scott Terry, RamZPaul, and several people from the CofCC and the League of the South all headed to a local par where Antifa organizers were also present. A scuffle ensued where anti-racist organizers ended up being forced out of the bar, and the staff allowed the fascist parties to stay.
For 2016, research is being done about the attendees and location, and you can expect that the opposition to this festival of white self-congratulation will not be able to continue unchallenged. If you are in the area, this is going to be one of the prime places to confront the dangerous white nationalist movement.
EDGELORDS: THE NATIONAL POLICY INSTITUTE HOLDING WASHINGTON D.C. CONFERENCE IN MARCH
JANUARY 31, 2016
In an effort to double up their popular conferences, The National Policy Institute is going to be having a conference only a few short months after their Halloween event. Set to coincide with the Conservative Political Action Conference, which makes sense with their use of the Alt Right branding, the event will bring together “shitlords” and white nationalists from the growing recesses of the internet-focused racialist movement. The evening event, on March 5th, is going to be smaller than NPI’s regular conference event, which usually spans an entire day. This conference, called Identity Politics, will bring together Richard Spencer, the NPI president, Kevin McDonald and RamZPaul.
Richard Spencer has been one of the people at the center of the recent upsurge in this particular wing of the white nationalist movement. Focused on social media, podcasting, and YouTube conversation videos, the new Alt Right has evolved beyond what it had been previously. Spencer coined the term in 2010 with his website Alternative Right, which was meant to bring together “dissident” right wing ideologues that were leftovers from paleoconservatism, libertarianism, the Old Right, traditionalism, and all the other “edge” philosophies that were leading in a neo-fascist direction.
This was a “big tent” approach that was meant to associate these disparate forces with each other, but he moved on from this approach when joining NPI and forming the Radix Journal. The term Alt Right, however, stayed, and it became synonamous with a white nationalist movement that had little connection to the silly costumes of the KKK and neo-Nazis. Instead, this group formed an ideology that was a hodgepodge of the new scientific racism of Human BioDiversity, the strange “critiques” of democracy from Neoraction, the general attack on egalitarianism, a focus on the spirituality of ethnic Heathenry, the traditionalism of Julius Evola, and a great deal of misrepresented scraps of the social sciences to justify “identitarian” focus on ethnic identity as well as classic racial hatred and anti-Semitism. These people see themselves as a break from the racism of the past, yet they simply repackaged it for a different audience.
The new shift was largely from association with The Right Stuff and their cohorts, which focus on internet trolling, using internal jargon, repeating offensive jokes, and using social media and blogs as their primary vessel rather than any kind of organizing. You would expect that this would change the speaking demographics of the NPI conference, but most of the people associated with this side of the movement do not use their real names and would not let their faces be seen lest anti-fascists identify and doxx them. The main exceptions to this was Mike Enoch from the Daily Shoah’s appearance on the NPI conference podcast, though he wore sunglasses during the panel to try and conceal his identity. UnCuck the Right, an internet sensation that does the same embarrassing parody songs that The Right Stuff is famous for, is presenting at American Renaissance as well, which is again a surprise for a grouping who hides behind avatars.
Instead, Spencer will be joined by former University of California at Long Beach professor Kevin McDonald. McDonald is known for creating a “unified theory of anti-Semitism” which his Culture of Critique series. Here he states that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” where Jews use ethnocentrism and high verbal IQ to outcompete Gentiles for resources. He identifies things like Marxism, Freudianism, contemporary anthropology, Frankfurt School philosophy, and other movements as pseudoscience created by Jews to destroy Western identity and therefore come out on top. McDonald was a well regarded evolutionary psychology academic before going off the deep end, and now writes for various white nationalist publications like the Occidental Quarterly on the need to reclaim ethnic nationalism and avoid what he calls “white altruism.” Over the last year he has been doing speeches and interviews about the “origins of the white man,” which he did both at last year’s NPI event and at the Stormfront Smokey Mountain Summit. He is working on a book on this theme, where he butchers anthropology in an effort to create a “history” of white people as a monolithic and distinct history. Here he resurrects a strict racial taxonomy, one that has literally no place in contemporary biology or anthropology, as well as distinct categories from the early 20th century like “nordics.”
RamZPaul will join the two, who does actually come in similar to the silly format set by The Right Stuff. He does popular YouTube videos where he decries liberalism, multiculturalism, and “the modern world,” usually with a penchant for bad stand-up comedy. Over the last couple of AmRen and NPI conferences he has taken on a specific topic to sort of “explain,” though they usually show that he does not have a clear grasp on the concepts himself. In his recent AmRen talk on the “Dark Enlightenment” he went on to briefly explain critiques of democracy and equality as well as the preference for monarchy, but with all of the platitudes and generalizations it became obvious that he had not been able to understand Nick Land’s work and was generally out of touch with the science and philosophy that movement claims as its own. At the March event RamZPaul will try to explain what the Alt Right is, which may actually creates some dissonance in the crowd since he is not a strict white nationalist.
Spencer’s talk will likely be one of his usually “if you dream it we can built it” rants, where he talks vaguely about “ideas” and “passion,” yet clearly does not have a political program to support it. It may be simply to support Donald Trump, who is fawningly supported by the Alt Right. Spencer himself really pushes a sort of “right Idealism” where by he thinks these sorts of expensive conferences and constant blog diarrhea are comparable to building a movement. This provides Antifa its greatest opportunity to challenge their existence since all they want, literally, is a platform. They have no other strategic elements to the movement, and they are hoping that the groundswell from the Donald Trump primary bid will be enough to move to the next stage in their fascist project.
Confrontation at the NPI conference is often difficult since it is usually held in The Ronald Reagan Building in The Rotunda of Washington D.C. They have been resistant to organizers asking them to cancel the event, and strict security keeps protesters relatively far from the entrance. What has been seen recently is that the swell of young people has come primarily from people who do not want their identity’s released, so photos and videos of conference attendees is an important operation. Pressure can be put on the operations of the Ronald Reagan building year round so that when it comes time for NPI to sign its contract, there is already a show that the community will not accept that. This could be a long-term organizing project for those in the area, but really any organization nationally could take up this campaign to show national discontent for what is happening there.
Below is the contact information for the Reagan Building if you want to make your voice heard about their hosting, but it may make sense to use this information to develop a long-term escalation campaign where community phone blasts, emails, and general mobilization can be done on a multi-month calendar.
WHAT HAPPENS IF TRUMP TAKES IOWA?
FEBRUARY 1, 2016
In a recent conversation between Radix Journal’s Richard Spencer and the Twitter white nationalist sensation Ricky Vaughn, Donald Trump’s upcoming primary showing in Iowa was the key point. Both of these characters see Trump’s campaign as a proxy for the unchecked anger of reactionary whites, and when the Iowa GOP polls open on Monday it will set the trend for New Hampshire a week later and, in essence, the rest of the primaries. According to CNN, 30% of Republican primary voters are going to pushing for Trump, the second closest behind him is the ultraconservative Ted Cruz at 12%. Many laughed at the beginning of Trump’s bid, and when he pulled to the top of the GOP polls he was often compared to the 2012 race of Herman Cain. Except he stayed there.
Iowa is also looking this bleak, with the Des Moines Register recently clocking him at 28% above Cruz’s 23%. It will be safe to say that when looking at these numbers, one of the two of them will win, and it would be more surprising at this point to see Cruz pull to the lead.
The issue for anti-fascists is less about how to counter him with an election strategy and more about what this type of turn means for the confrontation of the far right in America. A liberal strategy may be to just double down on Bernie, or even to go with Hilary since a more middle ground candidate will have the ability to dethrone Trump in the general election. There is little to be done in the Republican race as they seem to be leaning towards the far right of the party on all fronts, with so-called “moderates” like Jeb Bush dropping quickly.
So, what would happen if Donald Trump does win in Iowa? Putting politics aside, what you will see is the continued mainstreaming of nationalism in America. The Alt Right has ridden the Trump wave into the semi-mainstream, with a break happening in the GOP between those who want to stick with party orthodoxy and those who are going to give in fully to reactionary impulses. We are certainly seeing this with conservative loudspeakers like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter, who has been contributing to VDare recently and has been both quoting and following American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor on Twitter. Week by week, publications like The Right Stuff, The Daily Stormer, and Radix Journal chock up all of their references in the mainstream media as memes like Cuckservative head from the margins into the mainstream.
The reverse effect that this has, which is the sort of dialectic that nationalists like Richard Spencer loves to cite, is that Donald Trump represents the re-Republicanization of white nationalism. Over the last five years, those on the Alt Right have been pushing white nationalism away from the party politics that it consorted with through Libertarianism and Paleoconservatism. People like Sam Francis and Joe Sobran were dead while Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, Peter Brimelow, and, later, Jason Richwine and John Derbyshire, had been blacklisted from the Conservative Movement. They were shifting in the direction of right-wing philosophy, revivalist paganism, traditionalism, and dissident strains on the revolutionary pan-fascist movement. Their movement, dripping in Idealism and completely divorced from conventional politics, was trying to define a right-wing counterculture. With Donald Trump, they have rushed back to the center, attempting to mainstream their movement in ways that havn’t been possible since David Duke. The only difference here is that they are bringing their racist vulgarities with them, and the reactionary impulse that Trump has cultivated has been accepting of this. At a time when racial tensions have hit even harder during the refugee immigration and recent attempts to confront police racism, those on the edge are being given permission to jump into their racial resentments full force by Trump’s rhetoric. Their white nationalist movement has a chance not to go mainstream as they would have liked, but for their bigotries to hit the tip of everyone’s tongue.
Trump winning in Iowa will open up that platform further, but, unfortunately, the gates have already been opened. Right now it is up to antifascists not to just confront Trump, or to simply catalog and oppose this insurrectionary nationalist movement, but to continue to undermine white supremacy and racism in all ways possible. This means continuing to mobilize with Black Lives Matter, to go after anti-immigrant extremism in our communities, and to defend against Islamophobia. The fascist reaction is not just one type of politic, but instead intersectional in its fear and bigotry. If Trump wins then that is a sign of where we are at, and it means that there will be continued polarization between those that want to restore white privilege and those that seek to undermine oppression.
In a certain sense, Monday is not as important as what comes next for the anti-racist movement. Trump’s turn was shocking, as was the ability for white nationalists to mobilize around it, but their narrative still has yet to break through entirely. An intersectional Antifa project, one that is able to confront them rhetorically, shut down their communication, expose who they are, and block them in the streets is what is going to shut it down before it starts. Donald Trump represents a window for them, not their movement in its entirety. If his numbers spike in the next few weeks it may inform the tactics and strategies of the anti-fascist left, but it will not change our underlying project.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests