Once again, whatever one thinks of alt-right ideology, this article is consistent with something I have noticed for a while, i.e. the convergence of a capitalism with left-wing ideology. I think this has to do with changes in the capitalist class that have taken place over the past few decades, where we now have a rising left-wing of the capitalist class that is rooted in the “newly rich,” and outside the traditional American plutocracy (i.e. the right-wing of the ruling class). In fact, I interpret much of the left/right red/blue divide at present as representing the fracturing of the capitalist class between its traditional upper class sectors, and a rising upper middle class and newly rich with a different set of social and cultural values that are shaped more by the 1960s than by 18th and 19th century America, and the efforts of both of these to rally constituents for themselves on the ground level (hence, the MSMBC/FOX dichotomy in the media).
By Vincent Law
To those who have not been keeping up to date on all the happenings post-Charlottesville, the most disturbing trends has been the great Shuttening of Alt-Right sites, accounts, and communications.
We’ve been getting attacked on all fronts from the Corporate leviathan. From Airbnb to Paypal, GoDaddy to Cloudfare, we are under attack by the bugmen running these corporations. Even TOR, the world’s largest enabler of child pornography and narco-trafficking decided to come out and denounce the Alt-Right.
I am currently of the view that the alt-right has lost whatever potential it ever had to be a genuine radical force in domestic US politics. While the alt-right started out with a certain amount of promise seven or eight years ago, over time it has degenerated into reactionary 1920s style white nationalism, idiotic slogans and memes, support for Donald Trump, and apparently more recently, full-blown neo-Nazism. Sorry, folks, but that’s a serious dead end. However, this analysis of the “neoliberal police state” by an alt-rightist who is a veteran of other movements is actually quite accurate, irrespective of what one thinks of the ideological content of this piece.
The truth about Charlottesville is finally starting to come out, but there are still far too many in America who don’t yet seem to be aware of it, or of the magnitude of its implications.
The first violation of our basic civil rights occurred the week before, when our totally lawful permit to hold a rally protesting the planned removal of the Robert E. Lee statue, located Emancipation Park in the downtown, was unconstitutionally moved to another park located nearly two miles outside of town and out of sight of the Lee statue.
Todd Lewis joined by Keith Preston and Musonius Rufus to discuss the Charlottesville riots, the altright and the left.
It’s interesting to see where the general public actually stands in all this nonsense.
By Rod Dreher
The American Conservative
Results of the new NPR/PBS Marist poll are pretty surprising for we who have relied on the media to accurately report on the mindset of the country. It’s not that the numbers are good for Trump; they’re not. It’s that it hasn’t been nearly the disaster you would have expected. Here are the complete results. Highlights:
Wow. Actual smart people. Impressed.
In light of tensions and violence in Charlottesville, a secessionist and a black nationalist from Charleston, South Carolina, came together to make sure that what happened is not repeated in their hometown. Jonathan Thrower of the Charleston Black Nationalist Movement and James Bessenger of the South Carolina Secessionist Party join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss what led them to open a dialogue.
This is what civilized discourse between intelligent people looks like. I actually agree with most of what both debaters said. Maupin is more or less arguing for democratic socialism, and Invictus seems to be a moderately conservative, classical liberal. Neither one seems that radical to me.
A debate on July 8th, 2017 between Augustus Sol Invictus and Caleb Maupin.
The debate was formally titled “The Revolutionary Left vs. The Revolutionary Right.”
The debate was sponsored by Students & Youth for a New America http://www.synamerica.com
My interview with Tom Woods. Listen here.
Keith Preston, whose writing I always find interesting and challenging, wrote an excellent overview and analysis of what happened in Charlottesville last weekend. He does the impossible here: this is as dispassionate as it gets. Enjoy.
About the Guest
Keith Preston is (more or less) a left-anarchist and the author of numerous books, and operates AttackTheSystem.com.
Get a free trial set (just pay shipping) from Harry’s razors — handle, five-blade cartridge, and shave gel — when you sign up at Harrys.com/woods.
“Some Initial Thoughts on Charlottesville,” by Keith Preston
Ep. 677 Our Politically Correct Totalitarians
Ep. 164 Breaking Free of Left and Righ
[Update: This assessment of the events in Charlottesville was originally posted on Monday, August 14. As of August 16, I have added some additional comments where indicated.]
[Updated: Additional comments have been added as of August 19.]
I’m still trying to find out more about what happened in Charlottesville on Saturday. But from reviewing news reports on the incident from across the ideological spectrum, and speaking with people on “both sides” who were present at the melee, here are my initial thoughts.
It would appear from the contents of this manifesto that the Alt-Right has gone full National Socialist, which means that the Alt-Right is finished as potential prototype for a serious opposition movement from the Right in the United States. The Alt-Right may well thrive as a right-wing counterpart to the SJWs and Antifa in the future, and consequently create occasional ruckuses at its own rallies, or engage in street fights with leftist opponents. But what is contained in this manifesto is not marketable to a mass audience.
Read the full manifesto by Richard Spencer here.
Additional commentary on the statement from Richard can be found here.
An equally serious issue is raised by this article by Vincent Law on the relationship between the Alt-Right and law enforcement. Clearly, the only critique of the police state that is being offered here is that the police are “not racist enough” (as opposed to the leftist claim that the police are “too racist,”), and are more concerned about protecting the state (i.e. “doing their jobs”) than assisting in the advancement of the Alt-Right cause. The fight against the police state must be a fundamental component of any kind of radicalism worthy of the name in the present day United States. The police are the front line guardians of the soft-totalitarian system (“anarcho-tyranny,” as the late paleconservative writer Sam Francis called it). This fact remains true even if one is not an anarchist or a libertarian.
Regrettably, neither the Left nor the Right has developed anything remotely approacing a comprehensive analysis of the police state and its workings in contemporary society. The Left simply advances a limited critique of the police as “too racist,” which ignores the fact that substantial numbers of law enforcement personnel and other “criminal justice” professionals are in fact people of color, and with the Left usually calling for a strengthening of the presumably “less racist” federal law enforcement in order to counter the presumably “more racist” local enforcement. Meanwhile, the only objection to the police state advanced by the Right appears to be regret that all law enforcement personnel are not more like Bull Connor, or that they are working for a government that is not sufficiently fascist. This is in spite of the fact that police state repression in the US now extends to all ethnic groups and even class positions, and even though most of our Alt-Right friends would be immediately purged by an actual fascist regime (see the fate of Ernst Roehm, Edgar Jung, Gregor Strasser, Ernst Niekisch, etc.).
For a discussion of what a more plausible right-wing opposition movement in the US might look like, check out this piece in the neocon house journal National Review by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry. This article suggests that a Trumpized GOP might be able to position itself as an ostensibly “working class” (lower middle class) party in opposition to the Democrats’ emphasis on the economic and cultural values of the upper middle class in the manner of Marine Le Pen’s Front National. Even this is doubtful given that Trump has in fact pursued a fairly conventional Republican agenda, to the degree that he has an agenda as opposed to haphazard improvisations. A Trumpized Republican Party would essentially be the normal Republican Party, perhaps with a little more lip service given to economic nationalism and immigration restriction with little action in these areas, just as the GOP has retained the loyalty of the religious right for decades using the same the methods of rhetorical overtures and token gestures.
For some reason or other, this man really doesn’t seem to fit the image of a white supremacist.
By Katie Shepherd
Tusitala “Tiny” Toese, 21, perhaps the most recognizable person in the Portland area’s far-right activist circles, was issued a criminal citation for disorderly conduct in the second degree. His nose was bloodied and bruised in a fight with counterprotesters. Despite his cuts, he continued to participate in the protest until it dissolved around 6 pm, when Portland police detained and cited him.
Portland police made the decision not to arrest him on the misdemeanor charge because he needed to go to the hospital to get stitches from his injuries. Christopher Burley, a police spokesman, said the bureau is short on resources and couldn’t send an officer to accompany Toese through his hospital stay.
Poor Spencer Sunshine wants to have an “anti-fascism” theme party and no one wants to come. Maybe this guy needs to ask himself why, out of the 320 million people who live in the United States, it’s only a few thousand leftoidal nutcases that feel the need to get worked up about this stuff.
Read the article at Truthout
In practice, since February, few groups outside of antifascist circles have done national-level, longer-term, nuts-and-bolts organizing on the ground against the organized far-right groups. For example, there has been no new wave of regional anti-far-right groups like those which existed in the 1980s and ’90s. These groups did not engage in militant direct action but did build grassroots opposition to Nazi and Klan groups. But, outside of Redneck Revolt, there is not even a sustained effort to create online counter-propaganda. (Although one of the few initiatives by moderate groups has been to limit the far right’s use of social media and online fundraising platforms.) There have been localized demonstrations — in Portland in June after the murder of two men by an Islamophobic racist, and later in the month against a national day of Islamophobic rallies — but these haven’t gelled into any coherent organization or strategy.
In other words, nobody gives a fuck about this guy and his loopy cause. As Ted Kaczynski reminded us,
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.
Here’s the money quote from this article:
“There is something not normal about a person who can read a defense of the stateless society and decentralization, secession, and self-determination as means of achieving it and immediately think Nazi because of a reference to the obvious reality of blood and soil.”
By Dan Phillips
The Liberty Conservative
Certain quarters of the libertarian universe are in an absolute tizzy because Mises Institute President Jeff Deist invoked “blood and soil” in a recent speech. In the minds of some PC brain-addled libertarians, this is clearly an indication that the speaker was dog whistling to Nazis. This is both profoundly clueless and shameless PC grandstanding.
The Stark Truth. Listen here.
Robert Stark and co-host Sam Kevorkian talk to Zoltan Istvan about his proposal for a California State Basic Income. Zoltan is a Trans-Humanist and futurist writer, philosopher, and journalist. He was the Transhumanist Party’s candidate for president in 2016, has written for Vice, Newsweek, the Huffington Post, and Psychology Today, was a reporter for the National Geographic Channel, and is the author of The Transhumanist Wager.
Zoltan’s campaign for President
Zoltan’s Run for California Governor as a Libertarian in 2018
Zoltan’s proposal for a California state-wide Basic Income
How Automation and Artificial Intelligence will make a Basic Income Necessary
The estimated proposal of $56k per household in California
Residency restrictions on the Basic Income
How the Basic Income would replace existing social programs
Is monetizing federal land the way to pay for a basic income
The environmental concerns in monetizing Public Lands, how no National Parks would be touched, and the clause that says the land must be maintained
How Gene Editing will impact wildlife conservation in the future
Using drones to track non-violence criminals in lieu of incarceration
Liberty Might Be Better Served by Doing Away with Privacy
The California High Speed Rail and Driverless Cars
From The Washington Post.
I’ve always thought that those were inept analogies for exactly the reasons outlined here. There are some well thought-out arguments coming from the restrictionist side, but those most certainly aren’t amongst them.
By Ilya Somin August 6 at 4:18 PM
If you follow debates over immigration, it is hard to avoid arguments for restrictionism that analogize a nation to a house or a club. Such claims are ubiquitous in public debate, and are sometimes advanced by professional political philosophers as well. The intuition behind these analogies is simple: As a homeowner, I generally have the right to exclude whoever I want from my property. I don’t even have to have a good justification for the exclusion. I can choose to bar you from my home for virtually any reason I want, or even just no reason at all. Similarly, a nation has the right to bar foreigners from its land for almost any reason it wants, or perhaps even for no reason at all. All it is doing is exercising its property rights, much like the homeowner who bars strangers from entering her house. In the words of a leading academic defender of this theory, “My right to freedom of movement does not entitle me to enter your house without your permission… so why think that this right gives me a valid claim to enter a foreign country without that country’s permission?”
Todd Lewis is joined by Keith Preston to analyze whether the thesis of Thaddeus Russell that true freedom is embodied in libertinism.
THE TENTH ANNUAL H.L. MENCKEN CLUB CONFERENCE
THE FUTURE OF THE RIGHT: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
NOVEMBER 3-4, 2017
To register, please click here.
Friday, November 3rd
5:00-7:00 PM – Registration and Reception
7:00-10:00 PM – Banquet
Moderator – James Kalb
Presidential Address: Who Might Succeed the Conservative Establishment? Contenders: The Altright and the Populist Right – Paul Gottfried
Guest Speaker: Liberty and the Deep State- Tom Woods
Saturday, November 4th
9:00-10:30 AM- Panel: The Significance of the Trump Presidency after Almost a Year
Peter Brimelow: The Festering Immigration Problem
Marshall de Rosa: Trump and the Constitution
David Gordon: Does Trump Have a Foreign Policy?
10:45 AM-12:15 PM- Panel: The Altright: Its Appreciable Strengths and Continuing Glaring Weaknesses
John Derbyshire: Where the Altright Has Been Spot On
Keith Preston: The Altright Among Other Rights
Paul Gottfried: The Altright and Its Weakness
12:30-2:00 PM- Lunch: Carl Horowitz: Why Have Corporations Become Bulwarks of the Cultural Marxist Left
2:30-4:30 PM- Panel: The Future of the Grievance Culture
Michael Hart: Partition As A Way Out
Ilana Mercer: Exceeding the Limits of Tolerable Grievances
Robert Weissberg: The Future of the Academic Jungle
Robert Paquette: Fighting Political Correctness on the Frontlines
6:00 PM- Reception and Banquet
Guest Speaker: The Media and The Right- Richard Pollock