April 14th, 2016

Who are the “alt-right” and what do they want?

You’ve probably heard of the “alt-right” in connection with this campaign season, and you probably don’t really know exactly who these people are and what they ultimately want.

Welcome to the club, which is a very large one (including me).

That doesn’t stop a lot of people from writing about it (including me). Witness two recent offerings: this one from Trump-friendly Breitbart (“friendly” isn’t quite a strong enough word, but it’ll do for now) and this rebuttal at the Federalist. They’re both well worth reading, although long.

The Breitbart piece treats the alt-right as predominantly a bunch of young, often bright and/or irreverent people most of whom are not racist but are merely defending whites and Western culture (which the alt-right equates as inextricably linked) against threats, and are not really bigots. The Federalist says no, a great many of them really are motivated by bigotry:

[The alt-right] is a movement that counters the toxic culture of the left with a toxic brew of its own: a mix of old bigotries and new identity and victimhood politics adapted for the straight white male. Bokhari and Yiannopoulos [authors of the Breitbart piece] try to connect it to “cultural libertarianism,” a concept coined by Bokhari last year and championed by both authors; but other than opposition to restrictions on “hate speech,” it’s hard to see what an ideology that explicitly subordinates the individual to the tribe could have in common with libertarianism of any kind.

Today, the excesses of the “social justice” movement have brought us to a point where reasonable conservatives, libertarians, and liberals are ready to join forces against quasi-totalitarian identity politics. We need to start reclaiming the principles of common humanity, freedom, and universal values, not put a positive spin on a different brand of divisive identitarianism.

Both articles are so long that to respond to them in any comprehensive and detailed way would take a great deal more time than I have now. So I’ll just say that I agree far more with the conclusions of Federalist author Cathy Young than with the Breitbart piece, but I reiterate that I don’t think anyone actually knows who the alt-right really is, because what we see is the tip of the iceberg. And I say that despite the fact that I generally don’t tend to go for conspiracy theories. But what I’ve seen of this phenomenon (and I’ve seen a lot of it) tells me—or tells my gut—that this is a large and dangerous movement with roots that may be well-hidden but are also international (foreign IP numbers, for example) and are the very opposite of classical liberalism and/or what is usually thought of as conservatism.

As a blogger for this last decade-plus, I’ve had to react to things in real time, often with very incomplete information. The alt-right is one of those things. I’ve found that I’ve had to go with my gut time and again, and that my gut has demonstrated a rather good track record. It’s not a compelling argument to say “my gut tells me something very bad about a lot of these people.” But my gut has become a far more perceptive instrument than it used to be, and I’ve come to really trust it, particularly in sensing something I’ll call “tone” and in understanding what it represents.

For example, I have seen nothing from the alt-right that makes me think they care in the least about individual liberty, truth, or what Young calls “universal values.” What I have seen is vicious ad hominem attacks, lies, propaganda, and yes, bigotry (including anti-Semitism, of course). And just to clarify—the “alt-right” I’m talking about are the activists; their much-more-numerous followers are a more varied bunch with varied motivations and methods, who may or may not even understand who or what the alt-right is, and may or may not sympathize with it.

The strongest force behind the Trump phenomenon appears to be populism mixed with anger at the GOP for its failure to fight successfully (or in some cases even to fight at all) against illegal immigration and other aspects of the Obama administration and the general drift of events in America lately. But as with most political movements there’s also a smaller, activist part working behind the scenes to provide the memes and tactics that help drive the larger movement. In the case of Trump the activists are also somewhat varied, but the portion that has come to be known as the alt right seems to me to be a well-motivated and organized group of people who have studied the methods of the left and adopted those methods to their own purposes—purposes that often do not come under the heading “conservative” at all:

…[T]he true conflict facing Republicans is…within the soul of American conservatives. Namely, a new, highly heterogeneous force in right-wing politics is taking hold, and they have their sights set firmly on the Republican “establishment.” Known collectively as the “alternative right,” this amalgam includes neo-reactionaries, monarchists, nativists, populists, and even a few self-declared fascists. They mostly congregate online, with a large swath of blogs and websites dedicated to their concerns. As an example of how truly diverse the alt right is, major and proverbial watering holes for them include everything from Breitbart and the libertarian-leaning Taki Mag to Alternative Right—a blog that openly supports white nationalism.

…The alt right taken the fight to the left in the best way possible—they’ve co-opted its tactics and deployed them against their bully makers.

Even though the alt right loves to mix it up with Gawker and Salon types, it (like Trump) may enjoy picking on other conservatives even more. Republican hesitancy to accept the alt right into the fold therefore makes sense for several reasons, especially since it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the alt right couldn’t care less about the Republican party. In fact, many on the alt right believe that the Republican party is in dire need of a purge.

Anyone who’s been around the right side of the blogosphere since last summer should instantly recognize what is being described here; you’ve seen them. Several blogs have been taken over by this group, notably Breitbart. Many alt-righters have come to this blog, too, but I’m relatively small potatoes and in addition I’ve always had an aggressive banning policy, so only the most polite ones tend to stay.

The alt-right is recognizable almost immediately by style and tone, which very much resembles the left. At first I thought it was the actual left, riding the coattails of the Trump phenomenon in order to hurt the conservative movement. And in fact a certain percentage probably does fall under that description, but I doubt it’s the majority. The majority of alt-right activists mimic the left’s methods, but this is not in the service of conservatism of the Buckley variety, this is bare-knuckles war that is in part a war against what for want of a better term I’ll call classical liberalism.

The alt-right’s main weapons of smears, lies, attacks, sabotage, and mockery are wielded by a relentless corps of people willing to hammer them home at every possible opportunity in every possible venue. The regular right didn’t and still doesn’t know what hit it, but it had better smarten up, although it may already be too late.

Is Trump aware of all of this? Or is he just the alt-right’s unwitting and perfect instrument, the “tool” that fits their needs exactly (the alt-right often refers to Trump as just a “tool” or a “weapon” to them). I don’t know; my guess is that he’s slightly aware of it, but not really in on its inner workings, and that he thinks they are the tools that he is using.

If Trump were to be nominated, I believe he would lose in the general, unless Hillary (or Sanders) weakens so much that literally anyone could beat them. Not only is a Trump loss indicated by nearly all the polls, but it appears to me that any gain Trump might get from some crossover votes would be more than offset by the number of Republican voters he’d lose. But the alt-right doesn’t much care if Trump gets elected or not, although of course they would like him to be elected and they will work for his election quite assiduously. But since their goal is to displace and take over and thus destroy the fragile coalition that has long been the Republican Party, I believe they have already come close to their aim, and that aim will have been accomplished whether Trump wins or not or even whether he is nominated or not.

No one will get the alt-right activists back into the fold—if they were even in the fold in the first place (I don’t think most of them were). They are gone for good. They’re not interested in joining, anyway; they’re interested in taking over and then imposing their will on the others. That’s a huge part of what this election has become. A vote for Trump is a vote for the alt-right, whether Trump knows it or not.

88 Responses to “Who are the “alt-right” and what do they want?”

  1. Big Maq Says:

    Perhaps it is just my circle, but most of the folks that I know who were(!) Trump supporters, came by it “honestly” (AFAICTell) and, last I checked, seem to be coming around (if not convinced already) to the idea that there is just something wrong with Trump’s entire campaign (personality, tone/tenor, proposals, lack of attention to and availability of detail, obvious falsehoods, etc.).

    Maybe the relative anonymity of online brings out people’s true selves. For instance, on a recent Disqus comment, one said “As a Christian, I’d rather have an unbelieving bully building a Wall rather than handing out soccer balls to the invaders at the border.”

    I dunno. This dude doesn’t say “brown people”, but seems to have overriding concern for who is coming across the border than about the issue that the border is itself insecure.

    Caught one up a while ago on Disqus who talked like this one, and he finally came out and said he’d have no problem if all the illegals were “white”.

    Anyway, it is strange that one would give up all else just to get that one thing – no matter what that one thing is.

  2. Artfldgrs Says:

    I would not be liking if they are Alternative Right that’s related to Richard Spencer. That’s a white supremacist group for the most part…

    that’s about all i know of that group from wiki. nothing like it in my sphere. For the most part such groups don’t ever have much real influence in the modern era. But like most of the ideologies they tend to think others think like them and are hiding it and if they make it possible, they will show themselves and appear.

    to paraphrase (and adjust):
    “There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of from our experiences”…

  3. neo-neocon Says:

    Big Maq:

    Those people are not the alt-right activists. And those people are probably not even really aware of the alt-right activists, unless they spend a lot of time around the blogosphere.

  4. expat Says:

    The alt-right seems to be the downside of the internet/cell phone/social media. When people spend all their time using these things to re-enforce ideas that might have once hit them and then gotten lost in the real world, they get a lot of self-esteem. They aren’t much different than SJWs and BLM types. It makes you wish for the good old days when dad would have taken them out behind the woodshed and when perhaps their teachers would have taught them how to think.

  5. I R A Darth Aggie Says:

    All I know about the “alt-right” is that they have a venomous love for all things Trump, and venomous hate for anything opposing him.

    Also, they’ve coined the offensive term “cuckservative” to describe white men who have adopted non-white children.

    To me that is prima facie evidence of their core beliefs.

  6. Oldflyer Says:

    Well, I guess I live a sheltered life. I did not even know that there was an alt-right movement. Guess my head is in the sand, because I stick to blogs where most of the content and commentary are reasonably restrained and reasoned.

    If Trump is playing to the emotions, beliefs, prejudices discussed here, he is even scarier than I thought.

    To give him a small measure of credit–and I do mean small–he would not be the first to unwittingly stir up the rabble and come to regret it.

  7. Mac Says:

    I get no pleasure out of being right when my pessimistic predictions come true, but I’ve been expecting a resurgence of actual and open white racism for some time. You can’t keep telling young people born 20 or more years after the end of segregation that they should forever hang their heads in shame because of their race and not expect some of them to start kicking back in like manner. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  8. Nick Says:

    I don’t think you can talk about the alt-right collectively. If you take the extreme-most 10% on any side of any issue, you’re going to get a wild degree of difference. This is just a normal distribution. The middle 80% are always going to be more easily classifiable.

    That said, there are certain patterns you can see on message boards, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate a unified mass movement.

  9. J.J. Says:

    It’s sad that the Republican coalition that Reagan put together (conservatives, Rockefeller Republicans, Reagan Democrats, and 56% of independents.) is being ripped asunder by this campaign.

    The GOP after the convention will no longer exist as a viable party.

    If Cruz is nominated, the Rockefeller Republicans and the Cruz conservatives will try to win the general election, but the alt-Right/populists will not support them and may even sabotage them.

    If Trump is the nominee, many moderate Republicans or RINOs and Cruz conservatives will not support him. Unless something cataclysmic happens on the Democrat side, they will win in November no matter who the GOP candidate is.

    Sorry to be so pessimistic, but this campaign is a disaster for the Republican party. Unfortunately, it may affect the Republican power structure in the states, where the old coalition of moderates, conservatives and enough independents to win elections has been doing very well. Even in a blue state like Washington, our legislature has a tiny Republican majority that has been effective in countering liberal big spending and union power grabs.

    If the general election results in a bad defeat for the GOP, the House and Senate could both fall to the liberals. It would be a watershed event that could set this country on a much sharper downtrend than anyone can possibly envision at this point.

  10. Ann Says:

    The very term “alt-right” is unfortunate, and can only serve to harm the conservative brand.

  11. Baklava Says:

    two wrongs don’t make a “right”
    one wrong doesn’t make a “right”

    Trump will mis-define and hurt conservatism for a generation.

    Alt-right will do the same.

  12. DNW Says:

    “The alt-right is recognizable almost immediately by style and tone, which very much resembles the left. At first I thought it was the actual left, riding the coattails of the Trump phenomenon in order to hurt the conservative movement. And in fact a certain percentage probably does fall under that description,”

    Let’s just focus on that observation and the founding characterization for a moment.

    You have described the rhetorical methods of the left.

    Well and good. The next step is to ask why.

    1. The standard answer is that they, or many of them, simply are incapable of arguing effectively, and so adopt mockery and ridicule as an expedient.

    2. Another explanation is that it is held to be axiomatic among progressives that reducing the enemy with ridicule that marginalizes his voice, which “de-legitimates” him, is a more efficient use of time than debating; which itself conveys a measure of respect.

    Regarding the second view, we naturally ask, what social anthropology, worldview or life-way values condition, or appear to justify such a tactic?

    You might shrug and say, “It’s the view that the ends justify the means”.

    But that is really just another description of a stance which is conditioned by a deeper set of evaluations.

    And these evaluative judgments concern the “nature” or meaning of mankind and man as an individual.

    And it is the particular outcome or product of that judgment which makes a means justifying an end thinkable in the first place.

    So, what is it that the alt-right has learned from the left, not about means, but about the meaning of left-life, that makes this kind of will-to-power ruthlessness, so utterly thinkable in the first place?


    Margret Mead stands before a class. She scoffs at the idea of objective, universal, morality based on a universal human nature. You have been socially conditioned to respect boundaries that are convenient for some, that is all.

    A kid stands up in the back of the class and thinks to himself – she is right and I never liked the bitch in the first place. What can they really do to me that will detract from the satisfaction that I will get from bashing her face in?

    What does Margaret say to convince the young man not to kill her? Start screaming at him that he is a sociopath? Argue that “colleges can’t function very well if students kill professors they find annoying?” or “God will punish you!”?

    What can someone who has chopped down the laws say in her own defense when someone wants to chop her?

  13. parker Says:

    I read Young’s article at the The Federalist. Breitbart was deleted from my bookmarks back in January so I will not be reading the other article. I can readily agree that the msm, academia, and popular culture seek to undermine the precepts of Western Civilization and marginalize those who hold those principles in the highest regard. I too, like millions of others, am deeply disturbed by the invasion of illegals that is aided by team bho and the legions of the left. I too view islam as a mortal threat to civilization.

    What I can not accept is the rage of the alt-right, and its destructive ideology. At the heart of what I believe it means to be conservative is the belief that everyone is an individual who is a free agent, a sovereign agent who holds their destiny in their own hands. Those who divide sovereign individuals by race, religion, gender (or even confusion over gender), etc. are my enemies and the enemies of my grandchildren. Hard left or alt-right, fascists all.

  14. junior Says:

    J.J. –

    The work on the right to destroy Reagan’s coalition goes back further than just this year’s election. Back in 2008, when it briefly looked like Huckabee might actually have a shot at the nomination, one of the higher-ups in his campaign staff openly crowed that they were going to remove the fi-con leg from Reagan’s famous three-legged stool.

    While one might argue that earlier presidents had already more or less bypassed the fi-con leg, they never went so far as to openly crow about it.

  15. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Those who object to immigration over the southern border are not racist. They’re directionist. People from south of the Rio Grande come from disfunctional cultures. They come with ideas of how things should be done which are not only different and unfamiliar, but clearly dangerous to the nation. You don’t have to be a wetback to be one of those. Look at Bernie Sanders.
    You don’t have to be an islamaphobe to ask what pro-active steps we need to take to avoid a Rotherham.
    Nevertheless, as one commenter observed above, getting a combination of the actual results of immigration of various groups and a bunch of crap from the SJW types is enough to take the edge off genuine toleration.

  16. Matt_SE Says:

    The Federalist article accurately summed up my thoughts and feelings about the alt-right. Of course, from the moment it was published early this morning, the article was inundated with alt-right supporters and apologists.
    If you want a tour of their psychology, just read the comments.

  17. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    I agree with much of neo’s post. The article she linked to, “What, Exactly, is the ‘Alternative Right?'” is however, a crock of sh*t.

  18. chuck Says:

    I was under the impression that ‘alt-whatever’ derived from the alt newsgroups, see alt.*_hierarchy. It was reserved for newsgroups that were odd, offensive, etc.

    What the alt-right, and earlier the communists, fascists, and other hermetic groups, shows is that social reality *is* constructed. Folks caught up in those bubbles live in a different world with different truths, and argument with them is difficult because the very “facts” differ between worlds. Reality, as in verifiable scientific reality, simple doesn’t compute, it is all perceived reality.

  19. blert Says:

    MY gut tells me that we are looking straight in the face of SVR Active Measures.

    Understand, the SVR // nee KGB never launches a social divide with its own players.

    Rather it greases the skids so that the new, divisive movement is amplified beyond all reason.

    The Alt-Right is nothing but an echo chamber of Putin’s OWN world cultural theories.

    I can’t find a lick of difference between the Alt-Right and Putin.

    Can you ?

    Many of the players are OBVIOUSLY extremely educated in European historical details — from a dialectic point of view.

    One, his pseudonym is Arbiter — is a raving anti-Jewish advocate for historical Hitlerism, side stepping around the horrific track record of Adolf.

    The LENGTH and erudition of Arbiter’s posts — and his hours long dedication to various blog threads would awe even Artfulldodger.

    It’s of significance that he is held out as some minor oracle spouting insights from the eternals.

    I can only conclude that Arbiter is an SVR trooper.

    In all his screeds, never a word WRT Putin, Russia… instead a constant drip, drip, drip of nihilism WRT American democratic republican ideals.


    They have one overwhelming thrust.

    Why is it that all other races have exclusive zones — such that Whites are kicked out of South Africa — while it’s beyond the pale that the Anglosphere stay White.

    The argument being if it’s racial oppression for Whites to live in southern Africa — then can’t it be argued that it’s racial oppression for Blacks to live in the Anglosphere — where they are economic parasites — generations without end — slavery — with the script flipped… with Big Government the plantation master.

    The vast, vast, vast, majority of White America had nothing to do with chattel slavery — either fighting it directly — or immigrating long after the practice had been outlawed.

    Racial preferences — as applied — have harmed my entire generation — and that of those next born.

    Trillions of dollars later, thousands of lives later, the ghetto is as it ever was.

    It’s a powerful argument that SJW can’t deal with.


    The Alt-Right anger with Jews is entirely due to the memetic warfare waged by Hollywood and the MSM — with a dose of Academe.

    The marriage rate between Jews and Blacks is the null set.

    Yet, Jews in Hollywood constantly push the zany idea that White chicks should mate outside their race — the LAST thing that Jews wish to promote for themselves.

    Such hypocrisy is the well spring of anti-Judaism.

    Manipulating the population — Adolf style — or Hollywood style is certain to come to tears.

    This memetic warfare is still genetic warfare.

    The intent of this faction is scarcely different than Hitler.

    It’s just performed with propaganda and guilt trips… not bullets and gas.

    It’s a VERY dangerous path for a minority to trod.


    It’s of note that Blacks HUGELY resent being tools of Jewish elites; the patronizing implicit in Jewish ‘protections’ for the Black citizens, realized via lawfare, media war, and finance.

    Considering Muslim trends in our Black prison population — this is a time bomb — epic in scope.

  20. chuck Says:

    To continue my previous post, the post WWI world might be seen as a struggle to establish a new reality to replace that detroyed by the war. The destruction not only affected the old, liberal worldview, it also affected religion, both Christian and Islamic. What is happening in the Middle East at this time might be thought of as an attempt to replace what was lost when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, a process that has passed through both Communist and Fascist phases. The war on Christianity proceeds apace in the Western countries and who knows where that will end. China has changed drastically in the last hundred years and the trip has been far from bloody. We live in interesting times and I expect we are still far from a new consensus.

  21. blert Says:


    Red China “far from bloody” in the last century ?

    I hardly think so.

  22. Dennis Says:

    Richard Aubrey Says at 7:29 pm
    “Those who object to immigration over the southern border are not racist.”

    Exactly. Falsely accusing people of racism is itself a form of bigotry just as malicious as racism itself.

    I read the article by Cathy Young and an left with as many questions as answers. A country which is dominated by leftist identity politics is a racist country. That is what identity politics is all about. To expect the victims of that racial assault and discrimination, who are predominantly young white males to sit back and remain passive, is itself a form of racism since members of other groups are not expected to endure assaults passively.

    There was one passage in Ms. Young’s article which I find especially puzzling.

    “Today, the excesses of the “social justice” movement have brought us to a point where reasonable conservatives, libertarians, and liberals are ready to join forces against quasi-totalitarian identity politics.”

    I’m sorry, but there is no evidence that the left has any intention of ceding identity politics when it has served them so well as a bludgeon to ensure their own political power and a crony capitalism which enables them to accumulate immense wealth.

  23. parker Says:


    I found inconsistencies in Young’s article. But unlike GB, not a crock. Bottom line is which side are you or me on? For my part, I see the ‘alt-right’ as only a few shades away from the code pink idiots. Go too far around the circle and one meets their mirror image. The ‘alt-right’ are nihilists.

  24. Cathy Young Says:

    Hi neo-neo! Long time, no talk. Appreciate you blogging about this.

    I don’t have the time to engage in a discussion right now, but I did want to say, in response to Dennis’s post, that I was referring to the recent writings of Jonathan Chait, Judith Shulevitz, Conor Friedersdorf, and a number of other voices. The clamoring for “safe spaces” in college, in particular, has definitely been met with a backlash. I agree, however, that most liberals have yet to question the underlying ideology.

    I also totally agree that wantonly labeling people as racist, misogynist, etc. is a form of bigotry. But the answer is to oppose such labels, not to try to live up to them.

  25. Eric Says:



    That’s diagnosis. What’s the prescription and treatment plan?

    Again, it takes a social activist movement competing for real, head-on throughout the arena, to defeat a social activist movement.

    And, activism is method, not ideology. It’s the power of the people available to anyone for any cause. And against anyone for any cause. Our nation’s founding fathers were first and foremost activists. The essence of America is activism and activism is required to “keep it”.

    And, while the alt-Right mimics the Left as a strategic choice to exploit the long established proven vulnerability of conservatives and the GOP to Left activism, leftist-style activism is not the only style of activism. Keep in mind that effective counter-Left/alt-Right activism is not necessarily leftist-style activism repurposed, like effective counterinsurgency, such as the COIN “Surge” in Iraq, is not (terrorist) insurgency repurposed.

    But to find out what works to win the game requires for conservatives to commit collectively, zealously, and permanently to compete fully as activists in the arena. Ie, not quitting in the face of basic competitive pushback like the Tea Party did.

    “The GOP after the convention will no longer exist as a viable party.”

    As lead vehicle, dominant vessel, and center of gravity for the Right? Perhaps not.

    But that doesn’t mean the GOP can’t be retained while evolved to fulfill its given function within a reorganized social political combination, hierarchy, and shifted center of gravity.

    Just look across the aisle. The Democratic Party has been steadily subsumed and is not the center of gravity, yet it still functions in its electoral, government lane, albeit as a subsidiary agent for the larger social cultural/political activist movement.

    Which is not to say conservatives and others of the “Republican coalition that Reagan put together” should cargo-cult copy the Democratic Party and its principal, Left, in form and ways. Rather, recognize and accept that the (re)organizational principles of the evolving American political landscape are the operative context for the Right, too.

    Necessity is the mother of invention. Given lemons, make lemonade. See the opportunity in crisis.

    Its time for the Right and GOP to catch up. Accept the reality that the activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is.

    You don’t have to like the evolution. You just have to be ready and willing to soldier through the reality of the competition, which is to say, adjust to the needs of the mission and compete for real in order to win (the war) then secure (the peace) the dominant control that’s necessary to reify your preferred social condition.

  26. neo-neocon Says:


    I knew you’d have something to say about the plan 🙂 .

    But let me add something that I assume you already know: you cannot separate method from ideology. A method has a point of view, a morality if you wish. Some methods are too antithetical to a person’s point of view and morality for that method to be used. That’s part of the problem of effective activism by people who believe in ethical behavior. Do nice guys finish last? How does a group of people fashion an effective activism that is not immoral, when competing with an activism that is?

  27. neo-neocon Says:


    And hi to you!

    I’ve followed your work in recent years and admired it very much (particularly about the “mattress girl” case, which I wrote about here and cited your article).

    These are trying times, and you’re doing great work.

  28. Dennis Says:

    Cathy Young Says at 9:08 pm

    “I was referring to the recent writings of Jonathan Chait, Judith Shulevitz, Conor Friedersdorf, and a number of other voices. ”

    I hate to admit it but I’m unacquainted with those individuals. I take my cues about the direction the left is moving by watching the leftist politicians and gauging how the leftist media and their supporters react to them. That evidence is what I base my own opinion on. So far I’ve seen no tendency towards moderation among the left.

    While I hold most leftists in utter contempt as complete hypocrites who are willing to set aside all their purported principles in favor of Islam, I do appreciate that there is a rare leftist like Bill Maher who are more consistent and who are willing to tell the truth about Islamic jihad.

    I do admit that I have been quite disappointed by the hypocrisy of many on the right, including many “conservative” talk show hosts, who have spent years cultivating an image as men and women of principles but who are now willing to discard their principles as if they were mere trifles when it comes to the cult of Donald Trump. If that is the alt.right – shame on them.

  29. Richard Aubrey Says:


    “not live up to it” implies some folks who are complaining–or whatever it is–are actually racists.
    It is not uncommon to hear a puzzled young person say, “I wasn’t racist until…..” went to college, started working downtown, various other times.
    Problem is that not being racist doesn’t mean ignoring facts. It means coming to terms with the facts even though, to the SJW, it makes you a villain. Hell. Even Jesse Jackson said that he was more concerned to be followed by young black men than by young white men. Roy Innis said, years ago in a conference, that it hurt him deeply to see his people standing in the rain outside a drugstore’s bullet-proof dispensing window due to the violence of blacks in the neighborhood. Some of the audience said it was true but it wouldn’t do to give the racists more material.
    What the hell do we do now?

  30. The Other Chuck Says:

    If you want to distill the thinking of the alt-right down to basics, it is that the cultural and economic decline brought about by what they see as collaboration and inaction of the establishment right with the left means that there is little or no difference between the two. Given what they see as uni-party control of the country, they are waging an as yet non-violent revolution. I believe that a number of them are planning (for) civil unrest, bloodshed, and possible civil war.

    Here are a couple of examples of the language they use – you can judge for yourself if it is hyperbole, fantasy, or telegraphing what they very much intend:

    …not all swords have two edges. And not all of even those are particularly sharp. The GOP has become a very dull blade indeed–chipped, notched, rusty, and pretty much useless for any work requiring an edged weapon.

    Here is an alt-right response to The Federalist piece:

    The alt-right, in all of its manifestations, is not growing in number and confidence because they made a pact with the devil. There is nothing supernatural at work here. It’s not a coherent intellectual movement, but simply a refuge from the endless assault on ordinary people, who see their traditions, their customs, their ancestors and their progeny being ground up in the meat grinder of technocratic managerialism. The alt-right is not offering anything but shelter from the storm – for now.

    The tone is threatening, whether it’s at Breitbart or Conservative Treehouse, but usually implied or hinted at. They sometimes hide it with what appears to be outlandish, not taken for real, threats. It’s a way to get across what they mean while allowing themselves the cover of a seemingly outrageous statement which they very much mean for real.

    There is fascism afoot in the country. And Trump knows damn well exactly what he is fomenting.

  31. liberty wolf Says:

    In my journey from left to right, I rubbed up against the alt-right without even knowing what it was. I began my journey conversing online with people who were reading alt-right material. They were younger than me by ten to fifteen years and had been involved or were close to people involved in the tech industry in the Bay Area. I am still friends with these folks and treasure their friendship and many of them have actually developed doubts about the alt-right. It is a fascinating and strange world, and it took me awhile to find my way around it and to find out through reading many voices that I am definitely NOT alt-right but a classic liberal. I am more into Victor Davis Hanson than say, Richard Spencer (NOT to be confused with Robert Spencer) I will visit Richard Spencer’s sites but I tend to feel queasy after a certain amount of time. Because there is real racism and more — anti-Semitism underneath it all or right out front. And they aren’t morons like Stormfront but actually have minds and possibly, that is the most distressing aspect.

    There is a link that Spencer has with the alt-right in England and France and altogether the alt-right in this country seems to have more to do with the right wing in Europe than the traditional right wing in the USA. The alt-right in those countries dislikes the American Revolution and has a nostalgia for the aristocracy and for monarchy. I was listening for awhile to YouTube lectures from a character named Jonathan Bowden out of the UK who is a trip to hear lecture, he is knowledgeable and seems possessed when he orates (he is deceased as of a few years ago) but he is also, if you listen long enough – an anti-Semite and just a bit of a loon. I can’t abide that. It is stomach turning. You can learn things about Carlyle and Evola and odd aspects of the Occult but the man is actually sympathetic to the Nazis! He is anti-Christian and wants the Nazis to have taken over the continent and for paganism to come back and rule in this weird fascistic way. I don’t think economically they are anything but statists. They are pro-western civilization but their idea of what that is gets permeated with some odd strands that are again, nefarious and just evil.

    Then, there are the human biodiversity people and they are also interesting but again, I feel queasy reading too much about IQ and race. I am agnostic to some degree on that subject and feel there is a lot we don’t know, but no matter what people are more than their IQ score. Which isn’t to say there is not some credence to it. However… it feels a little smug and simplistic.

    I believe in the rights of individuals and while I understand people have their tribes and collectives, I feel individual rights come first and I believe in individual agency. There is something wrong with this alt-right racial obsession, it is a reaction to the left. As other people here have pointed out it is again an obsession with the collective – which is more left than right. Maybe that is why it is actually more like the European right, which is again about Nationalism and often, race or ethnicity without having any real notion of individual liberty. Basically, we are talking Fascism of some type.

    The fact that these folks are falling for Trump is beyond me, and I guess it has to do with their racial preoccupations. I’m for strong borders also, however… I don’t make a cult of race or nationalism. The left does make a cult of race, and I hate it on that side as well.

    I don’t think Trump actually knows much about the alt-right but he is being used by them. Or, they are being bamboozled by him. Either way, it is not good.

    There are all kinds of weird permutations of this alt-right and some of it is anti-feminist to an extreme degree. Check out The Thinking Housewife who appears to have gone off the deep end into believing in false flags and anti-Semitism — Jewish conspiracies. She’s also against interracial marriage and basically thinks all women should be housewives. Sarah Palin is too feminist for her. Interesting to read but also again, queasy making. In the case of Laura Wood, The Thinking Housewife, it is just strange.

    So there is odd sexual politics too, a range…

    I can sum it up this way as per race: the racial politics of the far left enrage me and the racial politics of the alt-right makes me feel queasy… there is something just WRONG with it. You feel dirty and like you need a shower after reading too much about IQ and race – or at least I do. Not that those arguments have no merit or substance, but the emphasis is dehumanizing – and again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are not measuring everything or — there are things we don’t understand. In any case, it is wrong to see people as anything other than individual ultimately. At least first and foremost…

    And again, the anti-Semitism is disturbing. I think it may be getting worse on both the left and this alt-right.

    I will stick with our American right, our classic liberal right. I hope we can keep it alive and vital. It is the best hope of humanity – really and truly.

  32. Dennis Says:

    I think I understand Liberty Wolf’s explanation about the alt.right. Those are all good points.

    Young white males have real legitimate grievances which have not been addressed. Their anger is real and legitimate. They are expected to abandon pride in who they are and to renounce the very real accomplishments of their ancestors who are now Dead White Men who just happen to have brought us ideas about human liberty, democracy, and science which are head and shoulders above anything which has come before.

    The young white males have been deprived of the moral values of those hated Dead White Men who were almost all devout Christians and relied on their Christian World view to guide them in their discoveries.

    A degree of anti-Semitism among young white males is also not surprising. Jews are a small minority of the society but they perform well above their numbers. The secular Jews also trend heavily towards the left. That means that many of the leaders and one might add some of he most obnoxious members of the left are Jews. Based on traditional Judeo-Christian values, it is wrong to judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a minority, but because they are so noisy it is very easy to generalize from those bad Jewish apples to the entire Jewish community. People who have lost their moral compass – which is exactly what has happened to the majority of White males who have lost their Christian faith – scapegoating is all too easy. As Rene Gerard has pointed out scapegoating is an integral part of paganism and serves as a device to relieve mimetic pressures in the society. That means that as the West drifts further and further from its Christian roots scapegoating will become an ever more ominous reality.

  33. Richard Saunders Says:

    blert — l hope you’re reporting what the “alt-right” thinks, not your own opinion, because the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”-inspired rant in your 4/14 7:51 pm post could have come right out of the pages of Die Sturmer.

    What Hollywood meme is there about “the zany idea that White chicks should mate outside their race?” “Guiess Who’s Coming to Dinner” One movie in 50 years? Oh yeah, there was that couple on “The Jeffersons,” too, wasn’t there?
    any others? If you’re thinking about the Kardashians, they’re Armenian.

    As far as “— the LAST thing that Jews wish to promote for themselves,” wrong again, dude. Jews are disappearing through intermarriage and dis-identification as fast as free booze at a journalists’ convention. And the Hollywood Jews are leading the way. Almost none of the “Hollywood Jews” are married to other Jews, and when did you last see an intact Jewish family in a movie or on television?

    In 50-75 years, the only Jews left in America will be, as a friend of mine put it, “the Amish and the Irish,” but which he meant a few weirdos with long black coats and beards, and the rest will be people who eat a bagel or a corn beef sandwich once a year because they have a vague memory that their ancestors were something called Jewish.

    Religious Jews don’t give a damn about marrying blacks — if they’re Jewish. I know at least a couple Orthodox Jews married to black women who converted. And of course, it happens all the time in Israel — if the Ethiopian Jew’s parents will permit it!

    As I said, I hope you’re reporting what the “alt-right” believe. If so, they’re just anti-Semitic sh*theads. And if that’s what you believe, well, if the shoe fits —

  34. blert Says:

    Richard Sanders:

    Rage is not an argument.

    The ONLY inter-marriage issue that’s a hot button is Black &White.

    There is no Jew and Black intermarriage to speak of.

    ( Considering the IQ gap, it’s hardly surprising.)


    I don’t weigh in on abortion – as I am an outsider to the issue.

    I’ve ‘blocked’ foreigners from commenting on American politics in other forums, ( I shamed them. They had been weighing in on our American primary. ! )

    IMHO it is DYNAMITE for one ethnic group to push// advocate inter-racial marriages that they would never contemplate for themselves.

    And the stats are clear, Jews just don’t marry Blacks.

    For the intent is grand scale social engineering.

    Every tyrant from Stalin to Hitler to Hussein was obsessed with grand scale social engineering — first with starvation then with bullets.

    Population displacement, soft invasion, memetic warfare — these are also methods of grand scale social engineering.

    The very goal is evil.

    There can be no legitimate route to it.

    It must be transparent by now that Merkel’s invasion MUST end in a veil of tears.

    Qaddaffy’s Black Muslim mercs are fleeing to Europe.


    The tyrant imported hundreds of thousands of Black Nigerian Muslims as mercenaries for his army and police state.

    They are rejected by NIgeria –and her neighbors.

    Think Boko Haram.

    The photos at the link give the story away. The boat people — this time — are mercenaries with zero skills outside of trigger pulling.

    Again, more grand social engineering. It’s evil.

  35. DNW Says:

    “Oldflyer Says:
    April 14th, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Well, I guess I live a sheltered life. I did not even know that there was an alt-right movement. Guess my head is in the sand, because I stick to blogs where most of the content and commentary are reasonably restrained and reasoned.”

    Yeah, well I guess I am about 90-120 days less sheltered than you.

    In fact I doubt if many here had ever heard of it until Trump came along, and some of his supporters were so labeled.

  36. Trimegistus Says:

    For forty years or so, we have been told over and over and over again that anyone who doesn’t adhere to the doctrines of the “Progressive” left is a racist fascist sexist homophobe.

    The alt-right are what you get when people start to believe that. They see the failures, hypocrisy, blatant racism, misandry, and creepy totalitarianism of the Progressives, and what alternative do they have?

    They can support mainstream conservatives, whose position is “maybe if we surrender to the Progressives they won’t make jokes about us on the Daily Show.”

    Or they can decide, “Fuck it. I guess I am a racist fascist sexist homophobic bigot.”

  37. I won't submit Says:

    President of the CRIF [the French ADL], Roger Cukierman, stated that inter-racial marriage is the only solution to the invasion of Zeropa.
    It’s been well received …

    Here, Sarkozy says exactly the same thing.
    (Video in French.)
    It’s been well received …
    Again, more grand social engineering. It’s evil.

    Sarko’s mother is Jewish.

  38. Nick Says:

    Trimegistus – There’s an analogy in the buildup to the Civil War. The southern Founding Fathers tended to treat slavery as a temporary evil, or maybe a necessary evil. Within 50 years you had people calling slavery a “positive good”. What happened? A few things. The horror of the Haitian Revolution, the increased revenue from slave labor in the cotton industry…but also the animosity between pro and anti. Nothing hardens your will more than being told that you’re wrong, particularly when you know you’re wrong. All the bloodshed in the West, the endless editorials, the accusations that your beliefs were inconsistent with Christianity, all of it brought out the worst in the South. The North didn’t let up (and if I’d been around back then, I wouldn’t have let up either).

  39. Nick Says:

    I Won’t Submit – So, you’re saying that interbreeding is a Jewish conspiracy?

  40. blert Says:

    I won’t …

    Europeans are hard pressed to marry outside their home turf… hard pressed to get employment outside of their home turf.

    Sicilians had to go to America to get employment.

    They never had any employment prospects in ‘the boot.’

    Bavarians have no shot at jobs in Berlin, etc.

    Londoners disdain Liverpudlians.

    Hence, not withstanding the decades, there is virtually no inter-racial marriage between female Muslims and kafir husbands; nor many inter-racial marriages between Black Africans and French (White) natives.

    The premium, sweet (state sponsored ) jobs in France are given to Whites. They don’t mess around with affirmative action — as France never had chattel slavery. Hence, they are guilt free.

    What’s happened — across Europe — is systematic ghettoization for ‘migrants.’

    This is particularly true for Muslims — who drive all natives away once their numbers amount to only 4% of the natives.

    It’s their crime rate.

    They have nothing but time on their hands — and no viable way to enter the European economy.

    They don’t bring any skills, and are stunningly low on smarts.

    They come from societies where the Big Man called all the shots — personal initiative was very risky. So they are largely indolent and bitter.

    In Italy, Black Libyan ex-mercs are essentially put in ‘prisons.’

    That’s the only term that fits an abode one is forbidden to leave — and which is secured by the authorities.

    Such living quarters are very dispiriting, in and of themselves.

    If the new ‘migrants’ knew what they were in for, they’d stop coming.


    Sweden kicks back out about HALF of all the ‘migrants’ that make it to Sweden. That towering stat is buried in the fine print, somehow.

    The upshot is that White Europeans LOVE to morally preen — but they can’t walk the walk.

    They have zero growth economies wholly unable to absorb ‘new talent.’ … Especially Qaddaffy’s Black mercenary army.

    Take a peak:


    Some of the boats look like they held every fella from the same platoon.

    Yet the Daily Mail can’t admit that these guys are all ex-mercs unable to fend off Arabs nor to get back home — which is the ONLY place where they can live a normal life.

    As it stands, they are actually heading into a prison.

    That’s also not admitted.

  41. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    Welton makes a veritable litany of specious assertions. I stand by my assessment that the article is a pile of dung.

    Trimegistus @ 10:34 has the right of it.

    As for the hints of reactive future violence from the alt-right, does anyone here imagine that the Left will ever gracefully accept defeat? Ever admit that their entire rationale is illogical, anti-factual and at best, profoundly mistaken?

    That the Left will not… at some point attempt to violently impose its beliefs upon those opposed to it? Hell, it’s already happening and… spreading.

  42. neo-neocon Says:


    In the US, the percentage of black-Jewish intermarriage is the same as in all other religions, except Catholics. Catholics are higher than all the others, for some reason.

  43. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    “alt-right” is a designation that has changed in meaning. As Chuck notes, alt-anything used to mean simply nonstandard, controversial in the early days of internet chat groups. Alt-feminism, alt-Christian, alt-sexual were all pretty broad categories that included idiosyncratic individuals as well as burgeoning movements. I think the Trump supporters are trying mightily to convince them “You’re all one of us. We pretty much agree. Because you’re alt, we’re alt, and we’re numerous. Vote Trump.” They’ve had some success with this, because one recurring theme of Trump supporters is “But we’ve just had it up to here with the GOPe. If you don’t agree with us then you are part of the GOPe or are their dupes.”

    I don’t see how that sustains itself beyond the excitement of a single election. There’s plenty of alt-right over at Taki’s mag, or Unz review, or Vdare, who have no support for Trump whatsoever. Many share similar concerns over immigration, but they still don’t like him.

    As for calling any number of people racist for opposing immigration, it derives from an uncomfortable truth: we tend to want immigrants from cultures that have respect for rule of law, are not quick to violence, and value education/use of time. Statistically, that means Europe, especially inside the Hajnal Line. See also Steven Pinker’s Better Angels, which traces the reduction in interpersonal violence starting in the 13th C in NW Europe. (I’d go back further.) Whether it’s related to whiteness or simply a cultural accident*, it means that choosing immigrants along those lines can be made to look racist, because everyone else is darker. (There are significant exceptions among the elites of any color in British colonies, Ashkenazi Jews, and of Northeast Asians. But those tie in as well.)

    Actual racists use such formulations as cover all the time, but that doesn’t make it untrue. Wolves always hide in sheep’s clothing – there’s no point in hiding in wolves’ clothing, after all.

    *My vote is the whiteness is much more accidental than not. Collisions of specific cultures, but one can imagine similar events occurring among other peoples.

  44. neo-neocon Says:

    I won’t submit:

    So which half of Sarkozy was in charge when he said that? The Jewish half or the other half? Of course, Sarkozy does not practice Judaism, but I’m sure to someone like you that doesn’t matter. In fact, his mother was NOT Jewish:

    Sarkozy is the son of Pál István Ernő Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa[9] (Hungarian: nagybócsai Sárközy Pál [ˈnɒɟboːt͡ʃɒi ˈʃaːrkøzi ˈpaːl] ( listen); in some sources Nagy-Bócsay Sárközy Pál István Ernő),[10] a Hungarian aristocrat, and Andrée Jeanne “Dadu” Mallah (b. Paris, 12 October 1925), whose Greek Jewish father converted to Catholicism to marry Sarkozy’s French Catholic maternal grandmother.

    Sarkozy was raised Catholic.

    And what on earth does any of it have to do with what Jews in general think vs. what others in general think?

    Your bias is showing.

  45. Nick Says:

    For me, the entire discussion comes down to this:

    “The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race.”

    That assumption plays a huge role in their argumentation. You can say that one culture is superior to another all you want to, and I’ll agree with you every time. But you can’t get to racism from there without making that connection.

    Of course Western culture is superior to all the others. Good Western culture, at least. But I wasn’t born reading Faust, nor was I issued a copy when I was born. The good of Western culture is attainable by anyone regardless of race. Ditto the bad of Western culture, and the good and bad of every other culture. To the extent that we’ve been exposed to them, it’s our choice to immerse ourselves in them.

    I have known people you’d have to call “white trash”. I’ve known people of every color and background, some of whom have indulged in lousy culture, and some in good culture. Most of us drink in a bit of both. The Western principles – or as I referred to them a few days ago, “having your passport stamped in Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome” – work for everyone who try them. Everyone who doesn’t try them falls short of their potential.

    I’m a culturalist. I’m not a racist; I’m the opposite. Western culture is superior in and of itself, not because I was exposed to it, and not because of the races of those who created it or passed it along. Kevin Williamson has done a great job of documenting the white Appalachian life, and it’s not the least bit enhanced by the skin tone of its participants.

    The Breitbart article neither presents an argument for, nor squarely deals with the assumption that, race and culture are inseparable. Every experience tells me that they’re not. Also troubling, much of the alt-right doesn’t seem to defend the culture as is. The theories rely on tribalism, as if to say that my culture is mine for the same reason that Japanese culture is a Japanese person’s. With all due respect, that’s nonsense. My culture is good Western culture because I pursued it. I choose classical music and Catholicism over kabuki and Buddhism, over American Idol and atheism, over kabuki and Wicca. One of the reasons that good Western culture is superior to all the others is that we encourage that kind of free choice.

    Long post. You get my point.

  46. geokstr Says:

    Trimegistus Says:
    “They can support mainstream conservatives, whose position is “maybe if we surrender to the Progressives they won’t make jokes about us on the Daily Show.”

    Are you just another Trump troll come to tweak the so-called “cuckservatives” that don’t even inhabit this blog?

    Because what you describe as “mainstream conservatives” are actually the Establishment Republicans. If you don’t know the difference, or don’t care, then don’t waste your time denying you’re a Trump fan.

  47. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Nick @ 12:54,

    You also have the right of it. Especially in regards to culture and race and perhaps most profoundly, that aspect of the alt-right that is tribalistic as well, which I suspect is what, on a gut level many here sense that is profoundly troubling about some on the alt-right.

    I fully support the best aspects of classical liberal western culture but I’ll have nothing to do with white tribalism. I suspect nearly all cultures possess some admirable aspects.

  48. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    In principle, I have to agree but how many here would label among others, Marco Rubio and Chis Christie as mainstream conservatives, rather than establishment republicans?

  49. Matt_SE Says:

    DNW Says:
    In fact I doubt if many here had ever heard of it until Trump came along, and some of his supporters were so labeled.

    My primary exposures to it are about two years old, and stem from reading Zerohedge and Vox Popoli (one of Vox Day’s sites). ZH may not be explicitly dedicated to the alt-right, but their worldview aligns greatly with it and the site is quoted often on VP. I started reading Zerohedge because of the recent deterioration of the world financial situation, and the MSM’s bullshit narratives about it (e.g. “the polar vortex”). I wanted a dissenting opinion.

    I was exposed to VP from a 3-year old list of the “best conservative blogs.” I got the flavor quickly, but realized that they had an alternate take on the issues of the day and were worthwhile for that reason (e.g. they will discuss the pros and cons of controversial books like “The Bell Curve” and “A Troublesome Inheritance”). Sometimes, they’re even correct! I got perma-banned from VP recently because I questioned the narrative about Trump, questioned their rosy assumptions about his electoral chances, and punched back against the vulgarian regular commenters. On Vox Popoli, you’re allowed to criticize only if you do it from a supine position very much like a dhimmi.

    Still, on both sites you can detect ominous strains in the background. There’s a vague threat to their rhetoric, as Liberty Wolf said.

  50. liberty wolf Says:

    Dennis: I do think the alt-right is a reaction, at least in the USA, but it may be a “tradition” of a kind in Europe since they gave birth to fascism. I don’t think the entire alt-right is fascist, but there are threads that lean in that direction and others that shout an identification with fascism. Some of the alt-right is more libertarian and not at all statist, so there are many threads and combinations. But yes, I find a lot of it queasy making, mainly because of the focus on race and — “the Joooos!” Heh, scary stuff. Though again, your mileage may vary and there are people who are just discussing the topics of possible racial differences without necessarily wanting to devalue anyone who is in any group. I do believe that, though it still makes me queasy.

    While I am not a Christian, what you say here is most likely quite true… ” That means that as the West drifts further and further from its Christian roots scapegoating will become an ever more ominous reality.”

    The rise of paganism, oddly enough, and not the squishy loving if somewhat addled new age paganism of my California cohorts is part of this alt-right. Again, I have mixed feelings since the pagans I know are often anything but racist or fascist, but it is odd to see it surface and take this ominous turn. There is that underbelly of paganism which the Nazis were tuned into and which is shared by some on the alt-right. Scary stuff indeed.

  51. liberty wolf Says:

    Blert: Among famous Jewish/Black marriages there’s Alice Walker and her (now ex) husband Mel Leventhal, the parents of Rebecca Walker. I know there are others and many of the Jewish women I dated when I was younger also dated black men. So actually I don’t think it is as uncommon as you may think.

    In any event, the idea that “the Joos!” are conspiring to mix the “white” race (which has meant different things at different times) and dilute it for some nefarious and yet unknown reason (to take over? take over what?) is just crazy talk. Sorry, but that’s just the truth. Neo is kinder when she says “your bias is showing”.

    That’s the troubling thing about alt-right thinking, and I am not sure you are “alt-right” but in general that’s the issue. It breathes life into these old memes that are just wacko and dangerous.

    I do prefer the elegant and singular clarity of our classic liberal tradition which is not founded on racism no matter what the progressive left says or the communist left. I guess that is of course the huge reason the alt-right happened, the left and it’s crazy racist discourse that is just as racist but in an inverted way.

  52. liberty wolf Says:

    Matt: I guess Zerohedge is also alt-right? I read it too because of the financial information and I find it fascinating if a bit opaque since I am not an expert in economics but am learning. Still, many of the writers seem informed. I was disappointed though to see some anti-Semitic articles posted or advertised on the header and didn’t want to link to it because of that. I don’t think the whole of Zerohedge is like that but there is a thread there too. Disheartening…

  53. liberty wolf Says:

    Oh gee, my apologies to Blert, I really meant to say that my comment was directed at “I Won’t submit” — that’s who Neo referenced as having the “bias” that is “showing”. So sorry! I wish I could edit that passage but I don’t think I can! I got lost in the threads of comments here. Again, my apologies!

  54. Richard Saunders Says:

    blert — Rage? You mean someone who says you have no facts to back your ridiculous opinion is enraged? Yawn. I’m still waiting for your list of movies and TV shows that push “the zany idea that White chicks should mate outside their race.”

    First of all, since there are no significant differences among “races,” who cares? The number of “mixed-race” people is increasing every year. I realize that’s disturbing to you, but too bad. (Actually, since all African-Americans have some “white” DNA, they’re already “mixed-race.”)

    Secondly, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between religion and “race,” or more correctly, ethnicity. Since there are Jews of every ethnicity – Chinese Jews, Indian Jews, African Jews, Jews from Europe, from Spain, from North Africa, all of whom blissfully are marrying each other in Israel and elsewhere, ethnicity means very little to Jews. Are there some of those ethnic Jews who want to preserve their individual cultural traditions? Do many Ashkenazi (European) Jews in Israel look down on Mizrachi (Arab) Jews? Sure. But even those prejudices are disappearing. (Until recently, Jews descended from Aleppo wouldn’t marry Jews from Damascus. Were they racists?)

    Jews didn’t used to marry outside their religion, but as religiosity has declined among Jews, that preference is disappearing as well. (17% intermarriage in 1970, 43% in 1990, and 58% today – 71% among non-Orthodox Jews.) So since the majority of Jews today don’t care about their religion, they feel free to marry anyone, and that includes black people. Ask Sidney Portier, Lenny Kravitz, or that civil rights lawyer who had her 15 minutes of fame 20 years ago, Lani Grenier or something, Julian Bond, the couple who used to write the Wall Street Journal’s wine column, and many, many more.

    As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “You’re entitled to your own opinion — you’re not entitled to your own facts.”

  55. liberty wolf Says:

    It is hard to get all the comments and commenters straight but I guess Blert * also * is of the opinion that Jews are pushing mixed race marriage? Anyway, whatever, I think my opinions speak for themselves without necessarily answering any one person. Jewish conspiracy theories are just crazy, no other way to put it. And, unfortunately, also often murderously harmful; history teaches us that. They seem to have a long shelf life and arise in every decade and every generation.

    As a mixed-race person, I have no issue with race mixing! LOL It broadens the perspective to be from more than one kind of people. Or it can… in any event, it is a non-issue and I am happy that my DNA is from more than one group. More than two even… of course, more and more people are finding out that they are mixed race when they look at the whole DNA picture, mine is just more upfront and obvious and recent.

  56. DNW Says:

    “Nick Says:
    April 15th, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    For me, the entire discussion comes down to this:

    “The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race.”

    That assumption plays a huge role in their argumentation. You can say that one culture is superior to another all you want to, and I’ll agree with you every time. “

    I’m losing track of what culture is supposed to mean; and what it means for someone to have a “culture”.

    Are we talking about the kind of dinnerware you use, or just your tolerance for crowding and willingness to submit to authority? Do we include an appreciation for contrapuntal music and melody? How about the habit of industriousness, or self-governance and an ego investment in the cultivation of virtue and excellence over immediate appetite satisfaction?

    I’m not any more certain of what culture is by definition, than I am of race. But you can clearly see the differences, oddly enough.

    Certainly racial differences have biological meaning and consequences; or at least separated mating populations exhibit differences which have interesting consequences for the human organism which manifests the classic “package”. Lots of traits are population group specific: sickle cells; the lactase persistence gene; that strange phenomenon of tetrachromatic vision. And medicine is increasingly pointing at least to the seriousness of population differences when it comes to therapy.

    Now, just to what degree say, “libertarianism” or the potential for it, is biologically correlated with say, European decent, is a much more problematic issue.

    I’m not even sure that there is any basal psychological homogeneity at all, in what we call European populations.

    There are what, at least three known distinct population groups that make up Europeans?

    I suppose (just to make up some wild and imaginary example) that if it could be proven that 38 percent of males in some culture specific population group carried a “gene” for borderline personality disorder, and only 4% in another population group did, and you could point to some “cultural” phenomenon related to increased borderline behavior in the first group, you could make a case of some sort.

    I guess you could also say that the wearing of sun hats by American women at one time was both cultural, and made desirable in the first place, by specific racial characteristics.

    I’m not sure that that is what most people think of as culture though.

    Even getting a tan though, is based on having white skin.

    Two cultural phenomena; diametrically opposed, but only made understandable in the first place on the basis of the same racial characteristic.

    And both outcomes, strangely enough, intended to demonstrate leisure and sexual fitness or desirability.

    So what does one make of that? Kind of a dialectic.

  57. Nick Says:

    What does culture mean? I guess an easy definition would be context. An odd definition, but one that would probably work, is the non-industrial output of a society. You could think of culture as the exact opposite of genetics: it’s the stuff we pass down outside of fertilization.

    There is no single European culture any more than there’s a single European genetic code.

    Put a white guy in the inner city, give him a lousy education and a government check, and he’ll probably have very few personal achievements. Put a non-white in the suburbs, raise him with discipline and principles, and he’ll accomplish something. You can speculate about genetic correlations, but the hard evidence points to culture as having a greater influence. I’d wish my kids to have both sickle-cell anemia and a mastery of English rather than neither.

    I had some conversations with a Trump supporter on this site. I kept asking him what it was that he wanted to preserve in our country. He could never get the point of the question. Our legal system, our ethics, our traditions of right and wrong, science and property rights, are far more important than how our parents tan.

  58. parker Says:

    Interesting comments. I am rather simple and straightforward, and perhaps at times ignorant. However, destruction of civility and thus civilization, is destruction. It does not matter what is the origin of an ‘ism’. It is to be resisted. No apologies, no equivocation. That which desires to destroy first principles is to be resisted. Period.

    To use a lame analogy, do not put the One Ring on your finger, cast it into the fire.

  59. I won't submit Says:

    neo-neocon Says:
    April 15th, 2016 at 12:51 pm
    I won’t submit:
    In fact, his mother was NOT Jewish:
    OK, lets split hair: was sorta Jewish.
    Andrée Mallah.

    You bias is showing:
    Yup! Make my stand just like my ancestors:
    -When my Grandma sent my then 18 year old Father over the Vosges mountains, dodging K9 equipped killing squads,
    to avoid induction in the Wehrmacht and join the Allied forces, she showed her bias… He survived!

    -When she went into hiding in the same mountains for 3 long winters, with two young ones, barely scrapping by, she showed her bias.

    -My Grandpa lost all of his teeth in the process due to malnutrition. He’d show us his bias-acquired toothless smile sometimes, for fun.

    -Several of their siblings and cousins, categorized as ‘ideological undesirables’, were given a couple of hours to vacate their farms and
    were shipped by train to parts unknown never to be seen again.
    Should not have shown so much bias and could have survived.

    -My Father’s cousins who got inducted all died on the Eastern front.
    Didn’t act on their biases or, had a favorable bias.

    -His one cousin who served in the west was in the SS division Das Reich.
    They committed atrocities at Oradour when retreating and he was subsequently tried and jailed.
    Effing cousin Helmut showed his bias: never repented.

    When the dust settled, Grandma Salome for the rest of her life, steadfastly refused to socialize with a large part of her family and childhood cohorts.
    That was very biased of her!

    Biased? Yup! Border, language, culture.
    It was National Socialism then it is Moooslimes now. Can’t afford not being … ‘biased.’ Geez!

    These are not times for pretenses of nuances.

    The Federalist piece linked in the post makes me … nervous. The lady is too … certain of herself.
    Me don’t like on some level. There is something effete.

    Can’t continue to be a cuckservative and get it good and hard from the GOP branch of the Uniparty, over and over again,
    never changing your ways or thinking, while expecting different results. That’s the classic definition of crazy.

    Remarkable the unselfconscious willingness of cuckservatives to vilify, denigrate and demonize the Trump constituency instead of addressing their concerns.
    The Cucks never took on the Obama voters on that level. Instead they brazenly hobnob and gallivant with this vile crowd.

    I find Cruz very disappointing at this stage. He should have made many moves to triangulate Trump supporters by now. It is not that difficult.
    I don’t understand. The phenomenon is real and he’s ignoring it.
    Shape up or we’ll get Trump!
    —- —
    Nick Says:
    April 15th, 2016 at 11:33 am
    I Won’t Submit
    – So, you’re saying that interbreeding is a Jewish conspiracy?

    Whøt? You can’t be serious!
    Conspiracy? Cukierman’s and the CRIF’s blatancy is breathtaking! They don’t even bother hiding it.
    People over there are agog! Deep existential issues are being stirred …
    It won’t end well for these delusional …. self-styled and supposedly ‘chosen elites’.
    It has happened before… it has.

    This, looks terrible!
    Puke! Can you say … red diaper dopper baby Stalinist conspiracy?
    Can you?
    100 million + died you know. Do you know?
    It really doesn’t look good a picture.
    —- —-
    Incidentally, Cruz doesn’t want females to stimulate their private parts. Tried to legislate!
    His kooky college roomate is greatly amused by this apparently new belief.

    At this stage it is not elections that will right the course but … events. Soon we’ll be done talking.
    It’s gone too far.
    It’s happened before.

  60. Nick Says:

    Thanks for the clarification – I’m always reluctant to write someone off as a lunatic in case maybe I didn’t understand him or he hadn’t thought through the implications of what he was saying.

  61. I won't submit Says:

    Looked into it some more:
    Cukierman’s solution to the muslim invasion of Zeropa is to marry the invaders and,
    Sarkozy clearly states that it should be made mandatory …. you first!

    Lunacy is a relative concept obviously.
    Meanwhile, Cukservative arrogance is absolute.

  62. neo-neocon Says:

    I won’t submit:

    Calling someone “Jewish” who is not is a tell.

    The use of the word “cuckservative” is a tell.

  63. mf Says:

    Right Wing Bolshevism Part 1

    Right Wing Bolshevism Part 2

    These people and/or their followers can be co-opted to provide sustenance for a Republican party that more meets the needs of the rank and file. There are things going on. Today Palin said she would back Cruz if he is nomnated.

    We may be returning to our roots which is the Constitution and the legacyof the founding fathers. Or maybe I’m just nuts. 😉

  64. Dennis Says:

    I won’t submit Says at 9:28 pm

    “Incidentally, Cruz doesn’t want females to stimulate their private parts. Tried to legislate!”

    That’s not my take on the article you linked. Cruz was hired by the state of Texas to defend its laws. He was doing his job. I didn’t see anything there to indicate that either Cruz or Abbot proposed any legislation on the issue.

    mf links at 1:24 am
    “Right Wing Bolshevism Part 1”

    I’m not sure who those people the article describes are, but it is ugly stuff.

  65. AntiLeftist Says:

    This is a brilliant analysis of the alt-right. The movement (if it is one) is still pretty amorphous, but if you want to get a good idea of what it’s all about, visit the blog of the author of the book SJWs Always Lie (Vox Day, as mentioned in Matt_SE’s post). That will open your eyes pretty quickly. For me, the blog was interesting at first, but the more I delved into the comments, the more queasy I became. The author is very smart (a fact that he continually touts), but the commenters not so much — and quite sickening at times. These are the same people (along with the Leftists riding their coattails) who swarm comments sections with vile, noxious, incoherent, and utterly moronic posts in support of Trump.

  66. DNW Says:

    ” AntiLeftist Says:
    April 16th, 2016 at 10:16 am

    This is a brilliant analysis of the alt-right. The movement (if it is one) is still pretty amorphous, but if you want to get a good idea of what it’s all about, visit the blog of the author of the book SJWs Always Lie (Vox Day, as mentioned in Matt_SE’s post). That will open your eyes pretty quickly. For me, the blog was interesting at first, but the more I delved into the comments, the more queasy I became. The author is very smart (a fact that he continually touts), but the commenters not so much — and quite sickening at times. These are the same people (along with the Leftists riding their coattails) who swarm comments sections with vile, noxious, incoherent, and utterly moronic posts in support of Trump.”


    Yesterday I had begun to post up something substantially the same in affirming Matt’s comments, but dropped it.

    I knew who Vox Day was from early days, when he was a young “libertarian Christian” Internet writer or something.

    I more recently discovered his blog after I followed a link-back to something he had quoted me as saying in a post-up I had made on trolls to a blog I had been invited to contribute to. Actually it might have been the blog owner quoting a passage or a comment I had made … anyway …

    On occasion I’ve left comments there, but the deliberately provocative essays of Vox Day aside, and while granting that numerous of his readers appear to be more or less rational and temperate themselves, there does seem to be a strong undercurrent there marked by a sub-population of what appear to me to be gleefully angry, honest to goodness, Nietzschean will-to-power racialists.

    Whether it is a put-on, or what, I cannot say.

    Anyone who has ever lived in a homogeneous community knows that it is in some ways less stress inducing and fraught with certain types of conflict. On the other hand they will know first hand how ridiculous race worship is.

    I think that is why among real fascists, there is often a thread of homo-eroticism; the surface argument just isn’t all that compelling.

    Day is clever and provocative, and an able reasoner who takes it to the fine edge he is capable of discerning, and stopping there.

    Some of his alpha-male wannabe followers don’t seem to have the same talent … or inhibitions.

  67. DNW Says:

    I know there is an “s” in “descent”

    But it will be decent of you to ignore that I wrote decent when I meant descent.

  68. Nick Says:

    A tell is using a word that only appears on a few internet sites or radio shows as if it’s universally accepted. It indicates that the writer has a very limited exposure to people who think differently. To use a popular term these days, it’s tribal.

    I assumed that “Zeropa” was a typo the first time.

  69. Ready for the Apocalypse Says:

    IRA Darth Aggie: “Also, they’ve coined the offensive term “cuckservative” to describe white men who have adopted non-white children”

    That is only one usage of the term, and far from the most common. “Cuckservative” is hard to define, but it tends to refer to anyone who believes the following things:

    Hispanics are natural conservatives;
    Martin Luther King would be a Republican if he were alive today;
    inner city pathology can be cured by a combination of enterprise zones and school vouchers;
    liberal democracy can be successfully imposed on Arab or Muslim countries;
    illegal immigrants are coming to America as an “act of love”;
    the USA is a “proposition nation”

    The alt-right is an umbrella term, and its adherents frequently disagree with each other. But I think anyone calling himself “alt-right” would reject all of the above statements.

  70. Ready for the Apocalypse Says:

    Also, if I were to summarize the alt-right as a whole, I would say they believe in the following 3 principles:

    1. Hierarchy is preferable to equality;
    2. Nationalism is preferable to globalism;
    3. Race and culture matter.

  71. blert Says:

    I won’t submit Says:
    April 15th, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    For your information…

    As Solicitor General Ted Cruz HAD to support ANY statute that the state legislature put on the books.

    If you’d ever had a legal education, you’d understand that this aspect of the profession is deemed ESSENTIAL.

    Attorneys jealously defend their clients ( the state government of Texas, in this case ) REGARDLESS of their own opinion of the controversy.

    Johnnie Cochran was REQUIRED to defend O.J. Simpson to the best of his ability — even though he privately suspected — or knew — that he was guilty.

    Any other course of action would’ve meant censure and disbarment.

    It’s in that context that Ted Cruz argued to defend even the absurd. Such Solicitor General arguments dot the case histories of our nation.

    Something just as absurd happens every year.

    In his official capacity Cruz could NOT turn the case down. It’s simply not an option.

    Right now, the old case is being used as an ad hominem attack.

    { To the man }

    Ted was just being a professional.

  72. blert Says:

    Ready for the Apocalypse Says:
    April 16th, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Also, if I were to summarize the alt-right as a whole, I would say they believe in the following 3 principles:

    1. Hierarchy is preferable to equality;
    2. Nationalism is preferable to globalism;
    3. Race and culture matter.


    The ONLY item that you’ve got right is #3.

    Your inference WRT #1 could not be further from the truth… as most Alt-Right posters are HIGHLY Libertarian and hyper liberal in their private sphere.

    Anti-totalitarian to the core.

    They regard today’s elites as a kakistocracy… and that both parties — all parties — have drunk the equalist Kool-Aid.

    It’s now public, Sweden is engaged in MASS deportations — as soon as the paper work can be cleared up.

    They are not going to stuff their land with prisons for ‘migrant’ felons.

    After experiencing their first Swedish winter — most are all too happy to leave… incarceration… and the snow.

    The fact is that Black Africans LOATHE the Swedish climate. It’s not even that popular with Swedes, as countless Swedes — over the centuries — have debouched off to the Roman Empire.

    Lombardy, there they squatted. Which is why you still see blonde ‘Italians’, up north.


    As for #2, nationalism — nope. The Alt-Right crowd fears for the White race — as a whole.

    From their point of view, the Nation of Islam, Wahhabists, et. al. are NEVER going to adopt our cultural mores — quite the reverse being the case.


    The Alt-Right crowd believes that Proximity + Diversity = Chronic social upheaval — Balkanization.

    The NOI is both racist and segregationist — in the extreme. Yes, more segregationist than George Wallace or David Duke.

    They advocate what amounts to a ‘Reservation for the Nation of Islam’ very much like that of Native American Indians.

    Farrakhan is also quite the fascist, and a big buddy of the late Qaddaffy.

    HE would fit your template — not the Alt-Right crowd.

    Just thought you’d want to know.

  73. Ready for the Apocalypse Says:

    blert: “most Alt-Right posters are HIGHLY Libertarian and hyper liberal”

    We must be reading different people. Almost all alt-righters I’ve read reject libertarianism. For one thing, libertarians are in favor of open borders and tend to treat people as rational self-aggrandizing economic actors. Every alt-rightist I’ve read is against that.

    “As for #2, nationalism — nope. The Alt-Right crowd fears for the White race — as a whole”

    European alt-righters are usually traditional European nationalists. American alt-righters view White Americans as a nation (either actually or potentially) in the European sense.

  74. DNW Says:

    Ready for the Apocalypse Says:
    April 16th, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    IRA Darth Aggie: “Also, they’ve coined the offensive term “cuckservative” to describe white men who have adopted non-white children”

    That is only one usage of the term, and far from the most common. “Cuckservative” is hard to define, but it tends to refer to anyone who believes the following things:

    Hispanics are natural conservatives;
    Martin Luther King would be a Republican if he were alive today;
    inner city pathology can be cured by a combination of enterprise zones and school vouchers;
    liberal democracy can be successfully imposed on Arab or Muslim countries;
    illegal immigrants are coming to America as an “act of love”;
    the USA is a “proposition nation”

    The alt-right is an umbrella term, and its adherents frequently disagree with each other. But I think anyone calling himself “alt-right” would reject all of the above statements.”

    I believe that all of those statements range from dubious to clearly false or obnoxious.

    Under false, one might place the notion that Martin Luther King would have retreated from his ideological commitment to socialism and somehow become a conservative. That is as big a myth in my estimation as his genuine commitment to Christ.

    Consider too that the supposed natural conservatism of Hispanics [which it is hoped will translate into classical liberal political, and conservative social values at the polls someday] is generally attributed to their Catholicism. But serious Catholicism is something Hispanics seem to be abandoning faster than suburban white housewives on the pill.

    And I personally would never refer to anyone as a “Cuckservative”.

    Well, George Will maybe. I might call him that. But then again maybe not, since I have not read anything he has written in years.

  75. neo-neocon Says:

    Ready for the apocalypse; DNW:

    Actually, it’s much more simple than that.

    “Cuckservative” is a term used by the alt-right, followers of the alt-right, and/or many supporters of Trump to refer to anyone on the right with whom they disagree.

  76. Ready for the Apocalypse Says:

    DNW: “I believe that all of those statements range from dubious to clearly false or obnoxious”

    Yes, and these statements are supported by prominent Republicans and establishment conservatives. That is one reason why the alt-right is starting to flourish.

  77. Matt_SE Says:

    @ AntiLeftist and DNW:

    Vox Day strikes me as a petty warlord, carving out a fiefdom. The same thing happened to many local Tea Party chapters, where without a unifying organization nationwide many chapters fell to cult-of-personality politics. Strong personalities emerged and subsumed the organizations.

    I note that the general tenor of paranoia among the alt-right lends itself to that end. The more they’re resisted, the more they circle the wagons.

    Vox could still contribute in a meaningful way to a reform agenda for America, but I think he has succumbed to human frailties in the same way that many Trump supporters have.

  78. blert Says:

    mf Says:
    April 16th, 2016 at 1:24 am

    JR Nyquist’s opinions parallel my own — long expressed here and there — that Alex Jones is a Active Measures asset — and that the Alt-Right is in synch with Putin — right down the line — at many Web nodes.

    BTW, it has long been KGB // SVR policy to back BOTH sides// wings of a political controversy in an alien, target, land.

    This grand tactic befuddles virtually EVERYBODY.

    What must be understood is that Moscow can make tools and fools of their ‘counter’ asset — at will.

    One could reasonably argue that Trump is a ‘counter’ asset at this time – – if Putin wants Hillary to be our next president.

    Considering her lax cyber-security, she’d be an IDEAL pigeon for Putin.

    The fact that she’s ethically demoralizing and economically destructive would be doubleplus good.

  79. Matt_SE Says:

    I believe the term “cuckservative” originated in response to a story on Ace of Spades about a weak man who allowed his wife to be bedded by a Brazilian lover “Paolo.”

    It caused a minor stir among the pick up artist (PUA) crowd, with their preoccupations about alpha/beta status. There is significant overlap between the PUA and alt-right community (unsurprising, given their efforts on behalf of white males).

    The alt-righters got to comparing weak Congressional conservatives (or those they imagine to be conservative) with the weak husband; the cuckhold. Hence: cuckservative. It even more expansively refers to anyone on the right who backs policies that the alt-right views as suicidal for the nation, like open borders.

    It started as a juvenile portmanteau both linguistically and ideologically, and through frequent sloppy usage has become a general epithet for vaguely right-leaning people who oppose the alt-right.
    That’s my take on it.

  80. AntiLeftist Says:

    Matt_SE, sounds suspiciously like the phenomenon (megalomania?) that ultimately leads to the Stalins, Hitlers, Maos and Pol Pots. That might work in a nation in which slavery (either physical or intellectual) is part of the culture, but it will not work at this time in the US. That’s why people like Vox Day won’t be anything but, as you say, petty warlords.

  81. mf Says:

    I understand what you are saying except that Putin will not win. You seem to think he will. Am I right?

  82. Nick Says:

    Megalomania isn’t unique to any political system. None of this stuff is. The majority of political systems revolve around power-hungry people making promises to take from other tribes and give to their own.

    I don’t think of Trump or his fans as fascist, but then I don’t really think of anyone that way. Fascism is a term made up by people in the early 20th century who wanted to put a scientific gloss on the same old thuggery, at the time when monarchies were fading. A hundred years earlier, Mussolini would have been called Benito I. In a different system, Trump would be a pretender to the throne (or wearing a hat with bells on it).

    Our political system was innovative in that it tried to keep power from being concentrated. It’s done a pretty good job of it, too, considering.

  83. blert Says:

    Putin is at times brilliant, corrupt, vicious and devious.

    I can’t imagine Mr. KGB NOT skewing with our election process.

    There are no end of historical legacies — wherein the KGB and the CIA fought over European elections… going all the way back to the late 40’s.

    IMO, Putin’s priority is to block Ted Cruz… the candidate that he’d least like to face off.

    Trump is astoundingly divisive. So there can be no doubt that Putin’s minions are working full tilt to enhance his campaign.

    I suspect that Putin would prefer Donald to Hillary — as his extreme vanity makes him easy to tool. On the record, it’s obvious that Trump will let Putin expand his empire.

    The likely prospect that Hillary would win any contest this November does not alarm Putin. She’s a fool, arrogant and sloppy. Huma will continue to compromise her.

    A Hillary maladministration will bleed the Pentagon into a hollow shell — even thinner than it currently stands.

  84. blert Says:


    I’d agree with your take on “cuckservative” 100%.

    My gosh, this is the first time I’ve typed it.

  85. Dr. Toboggan Says:

    Matt_SE: it’s heartening to find I’m not the only one who comes away from reading Vox Popoli vaguely unsettled. He’s a fine and interesting writer, and I’ve found plenty of food for thought there. But I can’t help but feel that when he writes of “Reconquista 2.0”, or “Round 2” (by which I take him to mean a second American civil war), he’s not so much warning that it might happen as he is fantasising that it will.

    As for Zero Hedge, I never read too much of that. It seemed like, no matter what bit of financial news they were reporting, it was always the first tremor of a world-shattering earthquake that would leave us all bartering with nuts and berries. Now, sooner or later they’re going to be right – there will be another financial crash – but that shouldn’t make their paranoia into prescience.

    And as for “cuckservative”, I always thought that term was a little backwards. They’re trying to say that establishment conservatives are cuckolds, yes? But their position is that establishment conservatives are selling out the real conservatives – i.e. the alt-right – in order to find accommodation with the left, despite all the faith put in them over the years. But if the establishment is cheating on you with the left, doesn’t that make you the cuck?

  86. Matt_SE Says:

    @ Dr. Toboggan,

    The alt-right rejects the conservative mantle. They utter the word only with derision. Many people online have tried to make the claim you are making, and I’ve never once seen an alt-righter defend conservatism.

    In fact, I don’t think they have much of an understanding of what conservatism is. They are nationalists, populists, and Caucasian ethnocentrists. They are reactionaries against the left (whether they know it or admit it). They are cynics who have lost faith in the normal order.

    Members may not share all these qualities, but they all have many of them.

  87. I won't submit Says:

    Cuckservatives are the Conservative Republican equivalent of the battered spouses who go back in for some more. Over and over again.
    Why there hasn’t been a more forceful reaction to the depredations by commission or by omission of the GOP branch of the Uniparty is beyond me.
    TEA party protesters by the millions in DC had no effect …

    What’s the obsession with the alt-right?
    It’s always been around, rise up in times of turmoil, goes back into the woodwork … Think Michigan Militias.

    I found a subtitled video of Sarkozy elated out of his mind with mandatory matrimonial social engineering concepts.

    Redux:President of the CRIF [the French ADL], Roger Cukierman, stated that inter-racial marriage is the only solution to the invasion of Zeropa.
    Tuns out he’s one of many in the French Jewish intelligentsia to proffer such nonsense….
    One must then expect his brethren to mate with rabid clitoris excising, women enslaving, head chopping moon worshippers.
    A sophisticated proposal for resolving the great Semite do-si-do in the middle East.

    neo-neocon Says:
    April 16th, 2016 at 12:12 am
    I won’t submit:

    Calling someone “Jewish” who is not is a tell.

    The use of the word “cuckservative” is a tell.
    He rates as ‘barely’ at the site but they slyly claim him.

    I went looking for a definition of Cuckservative… the eyes glaze over with the shrillness generated about this word.
    Must have hit a nerve … as it should.

    Turkish made an official European Union language
    Look at the demographics…. Zeropa!

  88. neo-neocon Says:

    I won’t submit:

    You have a very odd definition of “shrillness.”

    The use of “shrillness” there is also a tell—of the troll.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge