Either Way, It’s American Displacement Day 1

columbusday_sanc2

The Infernal take on “Columbus Day”.

_________________

Yesterday yielded another round of commotion regarding the infamous Christopher Columbus, designated “discoverer” of the so-called “New World” (Leif Erikson moans from Midgard!). No doubt, the less-than-vocal majority of Statesiders were simply thrilled to get a day off from work; the more vocal, however, reheated their rancour over the late Double-C’s conquering, raping, enslaving ways, wishing instead for an “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” to displace the dastard. Not surprisingly, this generated a bit of an uproar from the more reactionary elements of the World Wide Web, who predictably countersignalled in favour of Columbus.

Now, on October 13th, 2015, I sit here typing this whilst high (or, rather, low) on my favourite empathy-suppressant. Clearly, it’s a shitty batch, what with me feeling somewhat sympathetic to the prog pouting over this issue. Going by several accounts of his exploits, Columbus and his crew were certified cunts, engaging in kidnapping, murder, rape, and kiddy sex slavery, amongst other fun activities; all this after being, by CC’s own account, warmly welcomed by the Amerindian tribes who would become their all-purpose prey. Taking that into account (plus the fact he never actually set foot on the North American mainland) it does seems rather grotesque of Statesiders to dedicate a day of pomp and pageantry to his “discovery”; kinda like “Good War” enthusiasts fellating Bomber Harris for raining down death on civilian populations.

That said, I find the desired (and partially realised) replacement of the occasion with an Indigenous Peoples Day to be sublimely silly and short-sighted. For all the shit suitably slung the way of Columbus, Cortez, and all the other Christians who murdered Indians, they were but the most proximate of predators on the calendar of conquest. A decade ago, I stumbled upon a rather illuminating piece of historical revisionism on the late and lamented Loompanics site; its author, Bill Wilson, made the case that those favoured by the IPD-endorsers had encountered and erased a preceding population of decidedly different descent:

More…

Questions About Gun Control After UCC Shooting 1

A gunman killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg Oregon before being killed by responding sheriff deputies. This is a sad, horrific incident, and my heart goes out to the families of the deceased.

President Obama was quick to say that “This is something that should be politicized” in reference to stricter gun control laws and has even gone on to cite Australia’s outright ban on guns and subsequent confiscation as an example of what might be done here in the US. Before I can entertain support for such policies, there are a series of issues and questions that I would like to have addressed.

  • Mother Jones cites 572 fatalities in 71 mass shootings from 1982 to July of 2015. Adding UCC that makes 72 mass shootings and 582 fatalities. From 1984 to 2014 there have been 608,478 homicides in the United States. Based on these numbers, mass shootings have accounted for .09% of homicides in the United States. Should we be crafting nationwide policy based on terrifying, spectacular, but extremely rare incidents such as mass shootings?
  • More…

Author: Chris Combe from York, UK, who does not endorse this use of the work

Beyond Social Justice 7

A discussion with Ian Mayes, Nexus X Humectress, and Keith Preston about how social justice activism has led anarchist movements astray and lots of other stuff.

Topics include:

  • Anarcho-pacifism
  • Intentional communities
  • Beyond Social Justice: how historical opposition to valid injustices has now evolved into something absurd.
  • How totalitarian humanism’s focus on privilege and microaggressions forestalls social revolution.
  • Is feminism necessary in the West?
  • Radical gender equality.
  • How the men’s rights movement fits the dictionary definition of feminism.
  • MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way, the new subculture of anti-marriage relationship nihilists.
  • No “hope” for revolution.
  • “Anarchist” as an identity.

More…

So Where Are the Feminists? Reply

wherearefeminists

Ann Sterzinger asks the question at RightOn, spotlighting how the clash in the feminist worldview between “Enlightenment Person” and “Mommy Goddess” curtails any meaningful criticism of the more predatory and illiberal residents of Dar al-Islam. I notice the bifurcation a lot in abortion debates, where feminists talk about personal autonomy with one breath only to endorse the subjugation of unwilling fathers to the wombocracy with the next; and let’s not get into the decidedly maternalist bent of feminist anti-sex-industry campaigns.

Of course, the mistake made here is taking the feminist “equality” spiel at face value, instead of simply acknowledging the special pleading that forms the backbone of the ideology. On a related note, I’m somewhat wary of the reports of a “rape epidemic” in Scandinavia, given not only the prevalence of feminist dogma, but also expanded definitions of “rape”, the possibility of false/mistaken reports, and questionable reporting procedures (particularly in Sweden); it certainly raises the question of how embellished the “epidemic” is by such factors.

________________

Why do radical feminists remain silent on the issue of mass immigration into Europe, in spite of the fact that the statistics show that European women are among its primary victims?

I’m not the first to ask this, but the more times it gets asked, the better.

During this debate on just how we’re going to get millions of Muslim migrants settled in Europe—since Europe’s politicians apparently have never seriously considered the option of actually securing their borders—where the hell are the feminists?

Because rape is bad, right?

Have they read the rape statistics regarding the millions of devout Muslims who are already ensconced in the Land of the Unbeliever?

More…

Sylvanian Families being stalked by ISIS banned from art gallery Reply

 

Sylvanian Families being stalked by ISIS banned from art gallery

From The Metro. The tragicomedy writes itself!

Also, this is the most media coverage I’ve seen Sylvanian Families receive in decades.

________

An exhibition celebrating freedom of expression has become the unlikely victim of censorship – after an artwork which showed Sylvanian Families being terrorised by ISIS was banned from the display.

The Passion for Freedom exhibition is currently being held at London’s Mall galleries – and features work such as ‘The Great Wall of Vagina’ – an eight foot long wall cast from the genitals of 400 women.

But the ‘Isis Threat Sylvania’ piece was removed after police became concerned that it was ‘potentially inflammatory’ and told organisers that they would have to pay £36,000 for security if the piece was displayed.

More…

Greg Johnson Interviews Vox Day Reply

This includes an interesting discussion of some of the problems with conventional libertarianism, including free trade, open borders, and excessive reliance on ideological abstractions.


Vox Day and wife

From Counter-Currents:

Greg Johnson talks to video game designer, musician, blogger, novelist, and publisher Vox Day. Topics include:

  • His political outlook and its formation
  • Why he is no longer a Libertarian
  • “National libertarianism”
  • The necessity of borders
  • The European refugee crisis
  • Why nationalism and tribalism are unstoppable forces
  • Illegitimate forms of identity politics
  • The problem of white identity in the United States as opposed to European national identities
  • His book new Why SJWs Always Lie
  • Why they always lie
  • Advice to those who wish to roll back political correctness
  • A preview of coming attractions

Recommended reading:

Sanders v. Klein on immigration: The old Left against the adolescent Left 2

A division emerges between the social democratic labor Left and the cultural Left.

By Ian Smith

The Hill

The recent fiery to-and-fro between old-style social democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Vox-founder Ezra Klein was a perfect illustration of just how long it’s been since the Left was right on immigration. Klein, an immigration-novice who once stated we need open-borders or else the quality of Chinese restaurants would decline, attempted to rebut Sanders’ once-uncontroversial notion that excessive immigration depresses wages, by touting the increasingly popular, yet evidence-free, idea that an open-borders policy can actually solve global inequality. Although Klein’s response was less thoughtful assessment, more emotional spasm, it’s become standard argumentation for contemporary facts-be-damned Democrats.

Refuting Sanders’ argument that “open-borders” debases American sovereignty and hurts working people, Klein stated that the question was really a more ‘philosophical’ one. By making the “global poor richer”, he said, what immigration policy should really be based on is a ‘weighting’ between national sovereignty and global inequities. This overly moralistic but increasingly common position is a major subject of a new book on immigration: How Many Is Too Many? by Philip Cafaro. A philosophy professor himself, as well as a progressive against open-borders, Cafaro pillories his fellow leftists when they apply “overly abstract” and “highly general ethical principles” to a “particular policy issue in a specific time and place.” This usually shows, he writes, they have “little apparent understanding of the effects [such] proposals might have on the people living in that society.” This is indeed a fair sketch of the left today.

READ MORE

The appeal of Trump: Why immigration may be the defining issue of the 21st century 1

Will the future of political conflict pit a hyper-capitalist Left versus an anti-capitalist Right?

By Michael Brendan Dougherty

The Week

There was once a fanciful idea that the internet and all its attendant technologies of cheap communication would reverse the pattern of urbanization in developed countries. Some people still believe this: People could telecommute to work while enjoying the comforts of the small towns and country roads of their childhood. A few people, in fact, do this. But the for the most part the opposite phenomenon is playing out. The information age is the age of moving people. And if that’s true, Donald Trump is just the first manifestation of a new era in global politics.

The information age makes it very easy for a small town kid to find an apartment, a job, and a social network in the big cities and growth areas. It also allows him to stay connected with friends at home. In other words, it lowers the price of moving and the cost of leaving. It reduces the feeling of disorientation in new places, while allowing people to still belong, in some sense, to where they came from. New York, Los Angeles, D.C., Silicon Valley, Portland, and Austin have all benefited from these trends.

And the truth is that this is a global phenomenon. It’s easier than ever to establish social, commercial, and employment relationships in places thousands of miles away from you. So why not go there? According to the U.N.’s figures, by 2013 the number of emigrants from the Global South that emigrated to the Global North was equal to the number of emigrants in the Global South that emigrated within the Global South. One of every nine Africans with a tertiary diploma was living in one of the elite nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It’s not a coincidence that Trump is surging ahead because of his anti-immigration views in America, while Europe is roiled by debates over how to handle migrants crossing the Mediterranean.

This, incidentally, is why I am convinced that there was no way that the GOP could have precluded the Donald Trump moment in American politics by passing comprehensive immigration reform two years ago. The movement of people from country to the city, from poor nations to richer nations, from the Global South to the Global North, may be the great political problem of the next age in global development. Just as the building of trade routes and the maintenance of empires defined the mercantile age, then the construction of a political economy (capitalist or socialist) became the major problem of the industrial age, the mass movement of people may be the defining issue of whatever we’re calling the information age.

More…

bernie sanders

Culture-War vs. Freedom for All, or, GET BERNED No Matter What You Believe 9

By Paul Adams Shepard

The fact is, unless you are wealthier than 99 percent of your countrymen, a Bernie Sanders Presidency would help YOU in specific and significant ways. This is an absolute fact.

If a man or woman (such as my friend, a woman in her forties who is employed as a cashier in the gas-station and convenience store where I used to work) opposes Senator Bernie Sanders for cultural reasons (“cultural” as in relating to America’s famous “culture war” of the last several decades); if you are for example “pro-Life” and this is your primary issue, then far be it for me to insist that you cast your vote for any Democrat.

HOWEVER I would suggest that the Abortion Question (like Marriage Equality, Gender Diversity, School-Prayer, etc.) isn’t going to resolve itself immediately and that it would be better to keep discussing these issues in comfort.  Who disagrees with this?  The alternative is to remain shackled to debt and to the greed of exploitative plutocratic elites. More…

Borders? What Borders? 1

By Neil Lock

Libertarian Alliance

Sean Gabb has called for (in his words) a decent libertarian essay in favour of open borders. I hope this will fit the bill. My view is certainly libertarian; for I favour not so much open borders, as no borders – at least, no political borders, and so no barriers to migration. As to decency, you the reader shall judge.

Borders in a Libertarian World

Can borders exist in a libertarian world? Most definitely, yes. Where does the justification for these borders come from? From property rights. Each individual has the right to set a border around his own property, and to admit only those he chooses to.

At first sight, it might seem that in a libertarian world there would be no general freedom of movement. Individuals might agree to the use of routes (easements) over each other’s property; but each would only allow use of his easements by those who have a contract with him. However, libertarians are practical people – aren’t we? And we don’t like to waste time or effort. So, after a while, many would not bother to check who was using their easements. As long, of course, as they kept to the route, weren’t noisy, and didn’t commit acts of violence or theft.

In this way, I think there would arise a general presumption of freedom of movement along defined routes, even across property owned by others. This freedom might, perhaps, be denied to specific individuals – for example, convicted criminals or former politicians – because of their past actions. And some might choose to guard their property jealously, not permitting anyone to cross it; though they would, of course, always be in danger of tit for tat. Others might choose the opposite tack. Perhaps, even, donating part of their property for public use, such as a park. More…

Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders? 1

By Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

As I write, there are several thousand non-European refugees outside Calais, all trying to enter the United Kingdom. Because they are disrupting travel across the Channel in the main holiday season, the British media has no choice but to report on their presence, and to keep reporting. Their presence is followed by the British public in part because of the disruption, but mainly, I think, because of what they visibly represent.

Britain, together with every country like Britain, is faced with an inward movement of peoples no smaller in extent than the mass-emigrations from Europe that settled North America and Australasia, and perhaps as great in its effects as the incursions from across the Rhine and Danube that transformed the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. We face a mass-immigration from the Third World that may eventually double or treble our populations, and that will, by inevitable force of numbers, make us minorities in what we have so far considered to be our homelands.

What have we, as libertarians, to say about this?

The mainstream response, I suggest, has been unsatisfactory. For the libertarian mainstream, the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights. Since movement across a border is not in itself a violation of individual rights, closing the borders is, by definition, an illegitimate use of force. Therefore, the libertarian mainstream is formally opposed to immigration control. More…

Unity sounds nice, but truth is we need freedom to go our own ways Reply

This guy gets it.

By David McElroy

I disagree with you

We do a very poor job of disagreeing in this country. You’d think we would be experts at it, because we do so much of it. But we’ve developed a culture in which most people are far more eager to tell everyone else why he’s wrong than to understand why there’s a disagreement — much less what to do about it.

I’m never sure whether to be amused or frustrated at the extent to which some people are outraged when I outline a position on a controversial issue that doesn’t stick to the accepted framing of the issue. Some of the nasty email I received about my Monday article concerning the moral right to make your own choices — even if they’re the “wrong” choices — are perfect examples.

Look at comments from two different emails and tell me whether you think these folks read the same article:

READ MORE

Illuminati: Fact or Fantasy Reply

By Charles Burris

LewRockwell.Com

Because of the particular nature of some of my articles and blogs at LRC, many readers over the years have inquired concerning my personal views and scholarly assessment of the Bavarian Illuminati and its genuine impact on world history. Did such an organization really exist? Does it exist today? What role did it play in the French Revolution of 1789? The Revolutions of 1848? The Russian Revolutions of 1917? etc. Since its founding on May 1, 1776, the Illuminati has been the subject of more controversy, disinformation and fear-mongering than almost any other topic analyzed by historians. But today, from impeccable archival research compiled over the past several decades, we now have an almost complete true picture of this clandestine organization and its nexus of influence. Here are the seminal primary and secondary documents I recommend which present that historical portrait: Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith, by James H. Billington; Perfectibilists: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati, by Terry Melanson; The Secret School of Wisdom: The Authentic Ritual and Doctrines of the Illuminati, edited by Josef Wäges, Reinhard Markner and translated to English by Jeva Singh-Anand; Philo’s Reply To Questions Concerning His Association With the Illuminati, by Adolph Freiherr Knigge and translated to English by Jeva Singh-Anand; Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution (1792): L’Esprit des Religions, by Nicholas Bonneville and translated to English by Marco di Luchetti Esq.; Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism: A Translation from the French of the Abbe Barruel, by Augustin Barruel; The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France, by Robert Darnton; The Literary Underground of the Old Regime, by Robert Darnton; Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France, by Robert Darnton; Critique and Crises: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society, by Reinhart Koselleck; and The First Professional Revolutionist: Filippo Michele Buonarroti, 1761-1837, by Elizabeth L. Eisenstein.

(The fictional works of Robert Anton Wilson are in a whole separate category or parallel universe.)

Activist who burned Confederate flag charged with arson Reply

So if a white guy gets charged with arson for burning a Rainbow flag, and a black woman gets charged with arson for burning a Confederate, I guess that’s supposed to show how far we’ve come towards achieving equal (no) rights and equal (non) protection under the law.

KOAA

Manitou Springs – Patricia Cameron, 32, a member of a group of activists who burned a Confederate flag in Manitou Springs over the 4th of July weekend, has been charged with arson.  Video was posted online of the group gathering around a grill inside a pavilion, dousing the flag with lighter fluid and setting it on fire.  Manitou Springs  Police say Cameron was charged because the flag-burning posed a danger to people in the area and to city property.

Police say they’ve identified another member of the group, but haven’t been able to locate him.  A third member of the group remains unidentified.

Dave Chappelle’s Comeback Tour Takes Aim at “New Intolerance” Reply

Who better to fight the PC moralists than Dave Chappelle?

By Nick Gillespie

Reason

A decade ago that Dave Chappelle was the hottest comedian on the planet. His Comedy Central show created riffs and routines (“I’m Rick James, bitch“) that still haunt the ether like old radio transmissions bouncing back from outer space. His standup was raucous and rude and unbelievably funny. After quitting his show and his career at the very peak of his fame and occasional standup appearances (some of which got pretty nasty between him and his audience), Chappelle is back with a full tour in the U.S. and England (and still occasionally getting on the wrong side of the crowd).

It’s not just Chappelle who has changed over the past 10 years, of course. So has the culture, which has gotten noticeably touchier about all sorts of real and imagined slights. Spiked‘s Tom Slater has a review-essay about seeing Chappelle, who converted to Islam in the late 1990s, perform in London that’s well worth a read if you care about freedom of expression and what is accurately called “the new intolerance.”

A snippet:

A snippet:

His new set is peppered with jokes about him coming face-to-face with the new intolerance. There’s the lesbian couple whose kid is at the same ‘liberal-rich’ private school as his son – one of them laughing along at his jokes about whether or not they qualify for the father-son picnic, the other ‘too committed to her lesbianism’ to entertain them. And then there’s that trans joke, in which Dave, finding himself at a poncey gallery party, is stared down when he dares to ask ‘Is he okay?’ after a cross-dresser collapses in the corner. ‘I support anyone’s right to be who they want to be. My question is: to what extent do I have to participate in your self-image?’

Read the whole thing.

End Times Broadcaster Renounces His American Citizenship Because of Gay Marriage Reply

This is welcome news. The more that the different strands of the “far right” continue to lose power politically within the context of the mainstream political system, the more they will turn their back on the “American way.” As revolutionary anarchists, we should encourage the entire spectrum of the right-wing to adopt such a position, whether they be religious fundamentalists, traditional conservatives, neo-reactionaries, neo-confederates, right-wing libertarians, white nationalists, paleo-conservatives, pro-lifers, gun nuts, homophobes, survivalists, preppers, etc, etc, etc. Ideally, the entire spectrum of the radical right would turn their backs on the United States, and work to carve out their own independent enclaves and city-states. This is something the genuine radical Left should support.

By Allen McW

The Daily Kos

Preface: I thought I had heard it all but Rick Wiles gets my vote as the most OUT THERE bigot yet!

End Times broadcaster Rick Wiles renounces his American Citizenship because of the Marriage Equality ruling.

Seriously, you just can’t make this stuff up! The morons are just rushing out the gate like a dam which has burst open to let the floodwaters out! It seems they are all trying to outdo each other in their bid to do and say the most bizarre things imaginable!

Here are just a few of the bizarre and Un-American trash that Rick Wiles spouted.

the America I knew and loved is dead, rest in peace. It will not be resurrected.

READ MORE

Robert Stark interviews Ann Sterzinger Reply

Ann Sterzinger Returns!

Ann Sterzinger

Topics include:

Trigger Warning, her new project with Rachel Haywire

The Pros and Cons of Child Abuse

Why she is a “radical moderate” and why it’s foolish to subscribe to any ideology in its entirety

Why people feel a need to be part of a political team that will support them and how it’s difficult to be politically homeless

More…

Gay Marriage, Good News and Bad: Some Thoughts on “Marriage Equality” Reply

If during the course of some Twilight Zone moment I had found myself on the Supreme Court this past term here’s how I would have approached the gay marriage issue before the Court:

First, the objections to gay marriage.

1. Gay marriage is against religious teachings. Perhaps, but in a society whose core political charter guarantees free exercise of religion, this is an irrelevant argument.

2. Gay marriage goes against tradition. Perhaps, but then so does marriage based on companionate monogamy. Historically, most marriages were arranged by the families of the bride and groom, and polygamy was also widely practiced, at least among wealthy males. Additionally, an appeal to tradition alone often produces embarrassing results. Case in point: “Tradition” was one of the arguments used by slavery apologists in past times.

3. Gay marriage is unnatural. Perhaps, but the same was said at one time about interracial marriage, which was illegal in parts of the United States until 1967. It is doubtful that many Americans really want to go down that road.

4. A same-sex coupling does not produce children. No, it doesn’t. But then neither does a marriage between two sixty-five year old heterosexual partners. Besides, it’s not like the creation and raising of children is the only or even the primary function of marriage in our own culture. People get married for all kinds of reasons: romance, companionship, sex, money, social status, to defy their parents, immigration status, insurance benefits, and many other things.

Ideally, marital relations would not be a matter that involves the state. Instead, different religious and cultural communities would have their own standards concerning what constitutes a legitimate marriage, and the purely economic aspects of marriage would be no different that an ordinary business contract.

However, the fact remains that we do have state-sanctioned marriage, and this status conveys on marital partners a variety of legal benefits. Among these are inheritance rights, property ownership rights, survivor benefits in the event of the death of spouse, critical decision making prerogatives when a spouse is incapacitated, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, the exemption of marital partners from testifying against one another in court, and a number of other things.

More…

My Flag is the Black Flag: Some Thoughts on Charleston, Gun Control and the Confederate Flag 1

The recent murder of nine African-Americans in Charleston, South Carolina by a deranged white supremacist has generated something of a backlash against the Confederate flag, long a symbolic target of the Left in America’s ongoing culture wars. Massacres carried out by a mentally disturbed lone gunman are hardly a novelty in the United States. In fact, they’re fairly routine. Sometimes the killers are motivated by racism, sometimes by other things, and sometimes they seem to have no apparent motive at all. Perhaps this should come as no surprise. A nation of 320 million people is statistically likely to include quite a few fruitbats among its populace.

Everything from video games to guns to TV to the Confederate flag gets blamed for these characters. But I think the real issue is family and community breakdown. Do any of these freaks have parents, siblings, neighbors, landlords, co-workers, employers, friends, teachers, etc. who could tell they were obviously severely mentally disturbed and probably dangerous? Both serial killers and public shooter/mass murderer types are uniquely American in terms of volume, frequency, and proportion, and I think it has to do with the hyper mobile, hyper competitive, impersonal, rootless anomie you find in American culture that’s somewhat unique on a world or historical basis. At the same time, America does not presently have the much larger scale inter-communal violence found in some other parts of the world, primarily the “failed states” of Asia and Africa, so maybe the occasional deranged lone gunman is a cheap substitute.

Whenever these events occur, the gun control do-gooders start crawling out of the woodwork and citing their statistics concerning how the murder rates in the European Union and Japan are considerably lower than those of the U.S. which they attribute to the generally stricter gun laws of those nations.

More…

The “real threat” of “fascist organizing” 1

Take an aspirin before reading this one.

LibCom.Org

Why we fight I: What is the real threat of fascist organizing?

As the far right begins to rise in the United States, what is the real threat that they hold?

The numbers quickly broke three hundred as the Rose City Antifa called for an action to stop the White Man’s March in the spring of 2014. Under the now common banner of taglines like “Anti-Racism is a Code Word for Anti-White” and “Stop White Genocide,” the White Man’s March was a poorly constructed idea for white nationalists to rally around. The event was pushed by members of the American Freedom Party in Portland, though as the counter-protester’s numbers swelled it became clear that the far right had skipped town. It was true, actually, as the main caller for the march spoke on The White Voice, a now defunct white nationalist podcast network, about how they headed up to Spokane, Washington. They then went on to brag about their massive turnout and banner drop. There were less than a dozen in total.

With numbers like these seeming increasingly dismal for many of these open neo-Nazi actions, the question should be rightly asked what kind of actual risk do neo-fascists hold? There has always been the obvious one, as was mentioned in Movement of Long Knives and will be discussed in a later essay, that for the militant skinhead and Ku Klux Klan factions, the risk is with disorganized bits of random extreme violence. This is a very real, if dwindling, threat, and will always be a small part of the racist right. When it comes to the more organized and “intellectual” far right, what potential do they actually have?

They certainly are not going to sway electoral politics in any meaningful way, which is actually quite contrary to the rhetoric the left usually uses when discussing the threat of the racist right. While there are some connections of what’s left of the paleoconservative and paleolibertarian Republican establishment, who will be focusing on immigration in the coming years, but this is a clouded connection at best. Websites like VDare link together anti-immigrationists from the mainstream to the white nationalist fringes, but any explicit connections between people or ideas from the fascist edge will be the death knell for any politician. Just ask House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was publicly roasted after it came to light that he spoke at the European-American Unity and Rights Organization organized by David Duke. There were, in previous years, a minor connection between those on the conservative side of the party and the less militant white nationalist organizations. People like Mike Huckabee even spoke at the conferences for organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens, but today they would never be caught dead at one of these events.(1) In response to being abandoned by the conservative establishment, most of these groups have begun to likewise abandon hope for the conventional electoral sphere entirely.

READ MORE

Social Justice Warriors vs Reactionary Conservatives Reply

By Scott Alexander

SlateStarCodex.Com

The social justice narrative describes a political-economic elite dominated by white males persecuting anybody who doesn’t fit into their culture, like blacks, women, and gays. The anti-social-justice narrative describes an intellectual-cultural elite dominated by social justice activists persecuting anybody who doesn’t fit into their culture, like men, theists, and conservatives. Both are relatively plausible; Congress and millionaires are 80% – 90% white; journalists and the Ivy League are 80% – 90% leftist.

The narratives share a surprising number of other similarities. Both, for example, identify their enemy with the spirit of a discredited mid-twentieth century genocidal philosophy of government; fascists on the one side, communists on the other. Both believe they’re fighting a war for their very right to exist, despite the lack of any plausible path to reinstituting slavery or transitioning to a Stalinist dictatorship. Both operate through explosions of outrage at salient media examples of their out-group persecuting their in-group.

They have even converged on the same excuse for what their enemies call “politicizing” previously neutral territory – that what their enemies call “politicizing” is actually trying to restore balance to a field the other side has already successfully politicized. For example, on Vox recently a professor accused of replacing education with social justice propaganda in her classroom counterargues that:

All of my students, regardless of the identity categories they embraced, had been taught their entire lives that real literature is written by white people. Naturally, they felt they were being cheated by this strange professor’s “agenda”…It is worth asking, Who can most afford to teach in ways that are least likely to inspire controversy? Those who are not immediately hurt by dominant ideas. And what’s the most dominant idea of them all? That the white, male, heterosexual perspective is neutral, but all other perspectives are biased and must be treated with skepticism […]Have we actually believed the lie that the only people who engage in “identity politics” are black feminists like me? Could it be that when some white men looked at more powerful white men, they could see them only as reasonable and not politically motivated, so they turned off their critical thinking skills when observing their actions? (Not everyone, of course.) Could it be that we only consider people ideologues when they don’t vow allegiance to capitalism?

More…