1,793 words
They say that politics is downwind of culture. This means that something has to be commonly accepted by a critical mass of people as a “thing” before a politician can safely point to this thing and call it such. Politicians can afford to say only what their constituents allow them to say, so being ahead of the curve can often be ill-advised for someone who wishes to win elections.
On Friday, September 9th, as Hillary Clinton was addressing a crowd of a thousand at an LGBT fundraiser in New York City, she condemned half of Donald Trump’s supporters as “irredeemable.” The money quote, the one pounced upon most by the conservative media, was this: “To just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.” She then accused Donald Trump of lending credence to such people. “And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million.”
Make no mistake, she was talking about white people, more specifically, the Alt Right.
While boosting Alt Right websites by three orders of magnitude was clearly an exaggeration, Hillary was not saying anything her supporters didn’t already know in their hearts. These are all truisms on the Left. Hillary may have been politically unwise to utter them publicly, but she certainly wasn’t ahead of the curve. And along this curve, the race-realist, identitarian, white nationalist crowd (many of the folks visiting this website and reading this article, that is) are considered to be anathema, subhuman even.
I’m reminded of Stalin’s opinion of the kulaks (“an accursed enemy of the collective farm movement”) which he used as an excuse to murder or deport them by the millions in the early 1930s. Kulaks were essentially peasants who were successful enough at farming to own property, either land, equipment, or livestock, and often not much of it. For such bourgeois selfishness, they had to go. Chairman Mao expressed it more succinctly of non-party people: they have no soul. I’m sure this made it easier for him and his followers to look the other way as tens of millions of Chinese peasants starved to death in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
“Irredeemable” was Hillary’s word, but the notion has been with her followers for years now. Remember how Hillary opposed gay marriage and once proposed a physical barrier between the United States and Mexico? She said these things not because she believed them, but because her constituency at that point was still conservative enough to prevent her from saying anything else. Now that her constituency has slouched Leftward, Hillary can get away with saying what she really believes.
This is not to say that Hillary if elected president will go on a murderous rampage against the Alt Right. But her inheritors in 20 or 30 years just might. And why not? To these people we are “irredeemable.” Nothing, not re-education, not ideological indoctrination can fix that. Once upon a time, a Barack Obama could blame a Democratic defeat on his party’s lack of a clear message. Now, according to the Democratic nominee, we (the Alt Right, that is) are simply lost. No amount of messaging is going to change that. This is why Hillary’s comment is so remarkable. She’s not even interested in winning our vote. She has no intention of leading us at all.
Has any conservative ever been this callous towards his fellow Americans? True, in 2012 Mitt Romney claimed how 47% of America would never vote Republican because they were dependent upon government. Unlike Hillary’s statements, however, Romney’s was objectively verifiable, more or less correct, and, most importantly, not a subjective condemnation. For Romney, this 47% would theoretically be more open-minded to a Romney presidency if they were to free themselves from the paternalistic shackles of government. In other words, they are redeemable.
Another example from recent memory that I can think of is Secretary of State James Baker who, in 1992, said of the Jews, “Fuck them. They didn’t vote for us.” This was in response to Jewish dissatisfaction with Bush 41’s support of liberal Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin and to Jewish complaints of Baker’s relatively anti-Israel attitude. Yes, this wasn’t a nice thing to say. However, it really was no different than Barack Obama’s “I won,” comment. To the winner goes the spoils. If the Jews yearned for more influence on Republican policy vis-à-vis Israel, they should have voted Republican. It’s not like the Republicans didn’t try to woo the Jewish vote in the 1970s and 1980s. They most certainly did, for all the good it did them. Parse Baker’s comment even further, and you ultimately reach the assumption that Jewish Americans would have deserved more seats at the table had they only played ball. Read: redeemable.
In any event, James Baker was not a presidential candidate on the stump during an election year. There was little riding on his comment at the time. What he said was positively timid compared to what Democratic candidates have been saying to their constituents about conservative Americans for years now. For example, we need to “get in their faces” (candidate Barack Obama), and Republicans are “terrorists” (Vice President Joe Biden). And so it goes today. While Donald Trump has made concerted efforts to court Hillary supporters (blacks, gays, Hispanics, and the Bernie Sanders crowd, mostly), Hillary will do no such thing.
Now, let’s fast-forward a bit. Writing off the Alt Right’s chances of redemption is acceptable now because the number of people who agree with this sentiment is large enough to withstand blowback from those who don’t. And as this number continues to grow, so will the number of people who believe even worse. I predict in the future, Democrats will be proposing automatic prison sentences for those who espouse racialist or race-realist positions. They already think nothing of ruining the lives and careers of such people. Just ask Jared Taylor or Kevin MacDonald. It goes beyond race, as well. Prominent liberals have discussed the prospect of criminalizing global warming skepticism and have done what they could to bury under litigation any business that has the temerity to refuse services for gay weddings. If you look also at the absolutist manner in which young liberals behave on campuses these days, with their so-called “safe spaces” and “free speech zones,” not to mention their childish protests whenever conservatives come to campus to speak, it’s impossible to be sanguine about our future.
It goes without saying, of course, that the vast majority of the victims of this oppression will be white. White Americans are indeed the kulaks of the present day.
I’d like to call this phenomenon the Great Unraveling. It began, fittingly enough, 15 years ago to the day on which this article was written. After the 9/11 attacks, the rift between Left and Right began to widen. 9/11 was an event which could bear no reconciliation. Either you had sympathy with the terrorists or you didn’t. Typically, people on the Right viewed the attack in the same way most of America viewed the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, as a cowardly provocation to war. On the other hand, people on the Left tended to promote restraint and pacifism given their own anti-American stances. These people may have condemned the attacks, but at the same time they recognized justice behind them. Of course, this is a thumbnail portrait which neglects to include the entire truth. You did have Right-wing isolationists and Left-wing patriots (including, at the time, Senator Hillary Clinton), but in general I think this is how everything went down.
Since then, both Left and Right have bifurcated further. A good chunk of the Left has gone from supporting a war in Afghanistan at least to openly negotiating with and sending funds to Iran, one of the greatest sponsors of anti-American terrorism the world over. On the other hand, the Alt Right has led to a split among conservatives, leaving behind the neoconservative, nation-building coalition of the George W. Bush GOP. Expect all this to continue as radical positions become more and more acceptable in public discourse.
One major difference, however, is that the Left is much farther along on this path to radicalism than the Right is.
Yes, Donald Trump has been calling for a wall between the United States and Mexico. He has also been calling for a suspension of immigration from Islamic countries. But this is not terribly radical in that he is only seeking the commonsense nation-preserving measures which Mexico and all Muslim countries follow already. He is not promising mass deportations of Mexicans who live legally in the United States. Nor is he demanding a permanent ban on Islamic immigration. To the right of Trump you do have the Alt Right, which, frankly, is attempting to reestablish white identity and wishes to eventually purge most non-whites from white ancestral nations. But even these people are less bellicose and less radical than what has become the mainstream Democratic Party. In the main, for a group that has been calling for drastic changes to the current order, the Alt Right has been remarkably restrained in its rhetoric. It’s also important to remember that while the Alt Right supports Trump almost to a man, it’s not so much the other way around. Trump is not the Alt Right, and the Alt Right is not Trump. We on the Alt Right are nowhere near as mainstream as our counterparts on the Left.
Aside from all the street violence and campus rioting we’ve seen exclusively from the Left, Hillary and Bernie Sanders have been pandering to the Black Lives Matter crowd and other anti-white organizations as well as to both Muslim and Latin America pro-immigration groups. They, in a sense, are the polar opposite of the Alt Right, yet, unlike us, they operate center stage of American politics. They presently have far move cultural power than we do, which is why Hillary thinks she can get away with calling us irredeemable and deplorable and the like.
I believe the November elections will be a wake-up call for liberals when they see how easily Donald Trump traipses into the White House. At that point, the Left will become even more radical and even more violent. Folks on the Right will have no choice but to drift further into the Alt Right camp just to be able to resist. At that point, we will be the ones calling them irredeemable and deplorable.
While this will definitely be a much-needed boon for the Alt Right (and a good thing at that), I truly dread the fierce confrontation between Left and Right which will dominate American politics and American life in the years to come.
10 comments
I can actually see lefts trying to sabotage the building of the wall if it ever happens. who knows what it might entail, attacks on workers and maybe even car bombs. Whatever it will be it will be seen as an attack on white America and from there it could escalate in any direction.
We’ve already seen violence against Trump supporters at rallies so I can easily see “whitey” being attacked on Election Day.
Regarding the censoring and punitive measures against dissenters I imagine that will be a hallmark of a Clinton presidency.
This is why the leftists and antifas need to be rounded up and forced at the point of a bayonet to Build the Wall!
They are called Labor Camps for a reason.
I, for one, look forward to the coming civil war.
Time to settle scores.
Iran, one of the greatest sponsors of anti-American terrorism the world over.
Iran is a sponsor of terror/resistance organizations that target Israel. That’s why it gets identified in the mainstream media as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Once we recognize the slight of hand that turns armed opposition to Israel into terrorism against the United States, the dossier against Iran as a supporter of specifically anti-American terrorism becomes surprisingly slim:
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm
For example, in this State Department report on terrorism, we get ridiculous sentences like the following: “In 2014, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of primarily Iraqi Shia and Afghan fighters to support the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown that has resulted in the deaths of at least 191,000 people in Syria, according to August UN estimates.”
Obviously it would be more accurate to say that the death toll in Syria is a consequence of Western (and in particular American) support for Sunni jihadists, the most violently wicked people on the planet.
In the ongoing Syrian crisis, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah are on the side of the angels, whereas the United States and Israel have been, in effect if not intention, supporters of al-Qaeda specifically and Sunni fanaticism in general.
A legal government has the right to defend itself, but in necon newspeak any resistance by the Syrian government and its allies to the violence of jihadist rebels becomes “terrorism.”
Similarly,
ISIL and AQ were far from the only serious threat that confronted the United States and its allies. Iran continued to sponsor terrorist groups around the world, principally through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). These groups included Lebanese Hizballah, several Iraqi Shia militant groups, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. Iran, Hizballah, and other Shia militia continued to provide support to the Asad regime, dramatically bolstering its capabilities, prolonging the civil war in Syria, and worsening the human rights and refugee crisis there. Iran supplied quantities of arms to Syria and continued to send arms to Syria through Iraqi airspace in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions. Finally, Iran used Iraqi Shia militants and high profile appearances by Qods Force officials on the front lines of Iraq to claim credit for military successes against ISIL and to belittle coalition airstrikes and U.S. contributions to the Government of Iraq’s ongoing fight against ISIL.
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239403.htm
I’m assuming readers can see the unintentional humor here, especially in the final sentence.
***
Hillary’s “Moderate Syrian Rebels” at Work
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/07/21/u-s-backed-moderate-syrian-rebels-beheading-boy-mistake/
It’s funny that Hillary claims Trump increased public exposure to the Alt-Right when she was the first to mention them publicly.
Great article again from Spencer Quinn
Except for the amazingly misguided and wrong-headed non-objective observation on Iran, an absolutely dumbfounding and unbelievable remark from an self-claimed Alt Rightist.
I’d like to call this phenomenon the Great Unraveling. It began, fittingly enough, 15 years ago to the day on which this article was written. After the 9/11 attacks, the rift between Left and Right began to widen.
There was a definite sea change in the Left around 2001, one which saw it shift focus from socialism to identity issues. Why this is so bears more examination.
Back in the 1990s, the Left concentrated on issues such as the widening gap in income between corporate executives and workers; the abuses of the prison-industrial complex; the de facto one-party Democratic-Republican system; and the ravages of globalization. It was bound by Jim Hightower style populism on one side and the inevitable speech by Noam Chomsky on the other. There was even something of a 1960s libertarian angle, with Radio Pacifica’s overnight program featuring recorded talks by Alan Watts.
Something of a movement coalesced around Ralph Nader’s run for the presidency in 2000. He had broad enough appeal to push these issues, and name recognition to get mainstream support. But what killed his run was the Anyone But Bush movement which sprung up just as Nader was getting close to the 5% support which would have made him a serious contender. Suddenly, Nader became one of the most vilified men on the Left, ostensibly because his candidacy would have meant that votes for Al Gore would have been diverted. There’s no way to prove it from here, but it just may be that the Democrats saw the threat to that one-party system and pulled the strings to freeze out Nader as well as co-op the Left.
Regardless, as 9/11 rolled around, it was pretty much the end of the Left as an independent force. There were a few antiwar protests which fizzled as the US military smashed the Taliban-Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and then rolled into Baghdad.
Since then, the Left has functioned largely as an auxiliary to the System, most notably in supporting globalism through its advocacy for unrestricted third world immigration. And the Left is hellbent to criminalize dissent through hatespeech laws and terminating the employment of ungoodthinkers. Black Lives Matter is pretty much an enforcement arm for the Democratic Party (witness its reps on the DNC stage with Hillary Clinton). As for the “corporate media,” it’s difficult to see how the Left can protest when that very media supports the party line on immigration, race and gender while attacking White America.
Indeed, it’s doubtful if the Left could function today were it not for the support of the corporate power structure through overpaid globalists like Bill Gates and George Soros, Wall Street bankrolling the Democrats, and the endless stream of foundation grants, jobs, fundraisers, and media agitprop.
Another factor is in demographics. By 2001, the various minority advocacy groups had the numbers behind them to get militant in their demands. They pushed aside the older, socialist (and sometimes libertarian) generation of Leftists for their own identity agendas. After all, a workers’ revolution might benefit all Americans, including those White “oppressors” who owe reparations to blacks, third world immigrants, Muslims and etc., for centuries of slavery, colonialism and crusades. As for having two political parties, that was a silly idea which just might give White voters a chance to recoup power. Better to have the one- party system which works so well in third world states to guarantee a non-stop flow of benefits to the forces of liberation.
Then there’s the failure of Mainstream Conservatism. In 2001+ many conservatives were wrapped up in winning wars in Eurasia and Eastasia against “terrorists,” and thinking because the US military could blow Afghanistan to pieces and then take apart Saddam Hussein’s demoralized and unsupplied army that they had the initiative. But as has been the case too often historically, while the legions fought abroad the home front was collapsing in corruption and the rule of hostile elites. The failure of conservatives to build a real movement in the USA among Whites ceded to the Left domination of academia and media. The Tea Party and such never dealt with the real issue, which was racial. The unqualified support for capitalism meant ignoring the increasingly leftist tilt of corporate policy.
This created a vacuum into which the Alt Right is now advancing. The irony is that on a number of issues, notably the economic nationalism and the provision of a real opposition candidate, the Trump campaign is picking up from the populist angle of the 1990s Left.
It’s been 15 years since 2001, time for a new odyssey.
Great article, even greater discussion. What is amazing to me is how the left have now become the revolutionary guard and patriots of the neo zio-liberal america, and the alt-right are the subversive traitors. My, have times changed. So now its patriotic to be antiracist and snub the national anthem (after all, written by slave-owning white supremacist Francis Scott Keyes ) and its treasonous to Harmon back to the good old days of pre-1965 america when whites were in control, boys were boys and women, women. The other major shift is the antiwar message, typically relegated to the left and almost nonexistent isolationist/nativist right, has now become the alt-right (incorporating race conscious libertarian) domain, while it is Hillary who leads the war party of globalist intervention and neo-con messianic fervor. There hasn’t been a shift in politics this substantial since Roosevelt made the dems the party of socialist policy and big gov., or since Johnson losing the south to the corresponding southern strategy. Finally we’re all seeing the sailor strategy crystallize as Republican voters come to their senses and nominate the only guy supporting white interests. I think we all need to reflect that if get things back in order it will not be without a corresponding political earthquake/ societal cataclysm the likes we’ve never seen in our lifetimes. The 60’s was child’s play compared to what’s on the horizon and I fear the stage is indeed set for civil/race war. Its only been 150 years..this time let’s learn from history, figure out the winning strategem, and emerge victorious, because I see blood on the horizon.
What is amazing to me is how the left have now become the revolutionary guard and patriots of the neo zio-liberal america, and the alt-right are the traitors. My, have times changed. So now its patriotic to be antiracist and snub the national anthem (after all, written by slave-owning white supremacist Francis Scott Keyes ) and its treasonous to Harmon back to the good old days of pre-1965 america when whites were in control, boys were boys and women, women. The other major shift is the antiwar message, typically relegated to the left and almost nonexistent isolationist/nativist right, has now become the alt-right (incorporating race conscious libertarian) domain, while it is Hillary who leads the war party of globalist intervention and neo-con messianic fervor. There hasn’t been a shift in politics this substantial since Roosevelt made the dems the party of socialist policy and big gov., or since Johnson losing the south to the corresponding southern strategy. Finally we’re all seeing the sailor strategy crystallize as Republican voters come to their senses and nominate the only guy supporting white interests. I think we all need to reflect that if get things back in order it will not be without a corresponding political earthquake/ societal cataclysm the likes we’ve never seen in our lifetimes. The 60’s was child’s play compared to what’s on the horizon and I fear the stage is indeed set for civil/race war. Its only been 150 years..this time let’s learn from history, figure out the winning strategem, and emerge victorious, because I see blood on the horizon.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.