Culture Wars/Current Controversies

An Alt Right Update

Because a few hundred people having an Un-PC theme party in the park threatens civilization, says antifa intellectual Matthew Lyons of the (ironically named) Ford Foundation-supported Political Research Associates. While I agree with much of this analysis, particularly points 2, 3, and 4 (with 1 being plausible and 5 being more often instigated by the antifa), here’s the money quote:

“And even a strong leader wouldn’t necessarily overcome the basic political differences separating Alt Rightists from their conservative fellow travelers. In the long run, if the Alt Right wants to coalesce with system-loyal rightists, it either has to win more people to its dream of right-wing revolution, or abandon it.”

In other words, there will be no right-wing revolution. The Alt-Right will become another Republican interest group, like the religious right before them.  Look for the Alt-Right/Alt-Lite configuration to become the xenophobe and white identity politics wing of the Republican Party along side the foreign policy hawks, neocons, economic conservatives, social conservatives, and the religious right. And like the religious right, the right-wing establishment will throw them an occasional rhetorical bone and do nothing for them. As a Facebook commentator has said:

Not sure though why the GOP will ally with guys who largely don’t go to church, are economically left, oppose US intervention, and make for the least loyal Republicans. Ain’t gonna happen.

If the religious right couldn’t even restore school prayer, ban abortion, or prevent homosexual marriage, there is no way the Alt-Right will be successful in halting immigration.  As the commentator said, it ain’t gonna happen.



1 reply »

  1. Recently on Facebook, I posted the following comments concerning the recent brawl in Portland between the Alt-Right and the Antifa:

    “If either side were genuine radicals, or posed any serious threat to the system, they would be fighting the cops and not with other fringe groups. This is the equivalent of a brawl between Yankees and Red Sox fans.But it’s pretty silly for people who think of themselves as radicals or revolutionaries to be wasting time fighting with other marginal groups that are just as marginal as they are while the police stand around watching with amusement.”

    Matt Parrott of the Traditionalist Workers Party objected to comments of these kinds by myself and others, and offered the following responses:

    Absolutely silly to go about one’s political business and then defend yourself when masked radicals come at us. You’ve got to be one profoundly stupid fuckwit to not just forfeit public space when somebody else threatens violence.

    I mean, how dumb can a man be, that he has the nerve to stand his ground instead of fleeing when challenged. What a bunch of maroons! Goofballs! Assholes who deserve harm for exercising their first amendment rights!

    Har! These men who are fighting for their heritage and identity are total pussies compared to some other men who fought different men in a different time and place!

    What more heroism do you need than that Battle of Sacramento, where barely over a dozen nationalists beat back 300 marxist radicals? Are they not up to your standards?

    There’s this impression that we’re going there to just fight for fighting’s sake.We aren’t breaking up marxist events. Antifa conferences don’t bother with security because nobody’s actively targeting them. We’re attending a public event to celebrate our heritage and identity, and some people have chosen to attempt to intimidate us.”

    To which I responded:

    “Yeah, I can appreciate those who give the antifa a good shanking.

    As an outsider looking in, when I read about or watch these events it usually seems to be that it’s the antifa that picks the fight. From the “other side” there may be issues of individual hotheads or provocateurs (even state facilitated provocateurs). I’ve seen few, if any, incidents where the nationalist side seemed like it went looking for a fight per se (though I suspect that’s what at least some were hoping for in their heart of hearts, lol). However, the antifa types typically have shutting down the other side’s event as a stated goal. So it seems that’s tantamount to throwing the first punch. Of course, counter-demonstrators are within their First Amendment rights as well. However, having been to several alt-right events and seen this stuff firsthand, the antifa hardly count as “peaceful protestors” most of the time.

    I wonder though if getting into these kinds of confrontations isn’t becoming a matter of focus on the alt-right as opposed to a regrettable necessity in some instances. The way Jared does it seems to work the best in terms of making it appear who is taking the high road and who is taking the low road.”

    To which Matt responded:

    “Developing the capacity to occupy public space is an entry-level requirement for being politically relevant.

    Being a pacifist academic promoter of ideas who categorically avoids and evades confrontation is a valuable role which can move the game forward. But at the end of the day, a faction must confirm its capacity to exist in the public square if it intends to be politically relevant.”

    The more I consider this question, the more I am inclined to think Matt is correct in the sense that I have seen very little evidence of the members of the Alt-Right actually instigating violence during these confrontations (aside from isolated individuals), and plenty of evidence of leftists initiating violence or threatening such. For example, the above article by Matthew Lyons cites no illustrations of the Alt-Right actually initiating violence. This is in contrast to the Antifa and their associates, which go out their way to ensure violence occurs during such events, as even conventional liberals are now pointing out:

    Of course, the leftist response to such criticisms would likely be that “fascists” (a nebulous term that is often used by leftists to describe everything from center-rightists to libertarians to religious conservatives to Nazis to rival leftists) are violent by nature of their very existence. This might be a legitimate argument when it pertains to groups or individuals that give evidence of seriously advocating genocide or ethnic cleansing or interracial violence for its own sake. But the dubious nature of this argument is illustrated well-enough by the “anti-fascists” nearly identical reaction to ordinary Republicans, traditional conservatives, right-wing libertarians, and Trump supporters, when compared to their reaction to, for example, the Hammerskins or NSM. In other words, what the “antifascists” really believe is that opposing views of any kind should never be heard, in keeping with the Marcusean spirit of “repressive tolerance.”

Leave a Reply