Republican politician's neo-Nazi group charged with beating black man in restaurant

[JosephDredd]

this is the first time ive logged in in a long time. im thoroughly convinced that josephdread is a troll. no one can be functioning in life on that idiotic level.

I'm getting damn tired of having to read his stupid threads. I don't know why they haven't banned the guy.

 

[Lead]

@JosephDredd @Jackie Blue @X-Pac Rules

I went through the thread a bit but has anyone been able to verify this guy is a state senator? In neither of your links does it say Senate or Senator.

I found this link that has him winning a spot on a committee:

Smith first won the election in 2012 by writing himself in as a candidate for one of the two committee seats allotted to his district, Pittston City Ward 4. On Tuesday, Smith won 69 of the 73 votes casted for the Pittston City Ward 1 republican committee seat.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...-group-wins-re-election-county-committee-seat

Also, he doesn't show up in the PA State Senator listing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_Senate

Lastly, the state senator who won Luzerne County for State Senate (John Yudichak) got 37,047 votes, This guy appears to have gotten 69 votes (as a write in) in 2012 for whatever seat he was in.

 

[JosephDredd]

@JosephDredd @Jackie Blue @X-Pac Rules

I went through the thread a bit but has anyone been able to verify this guy is a state senator? In neither of your links does it say Senate or Senator.

I found this link that has him winning a spot on a committee:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...-group-wins-re-election-county-committee-seat

Also, he doesn't show up in the PA State Senator listing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_Senate

Lastly, the state senator who won Luzerne County for State Senate (John Yudichak) got 37,047 votes, This guy appears to have gotten 69 votes (as a write in) in 2012 for whatever seat he was in.

Oh shit, I just retraced my Google steps and discovered there's a Steve Smith who's in the senate in Arizona. He crossed into my search somewhere and I didn't realize it. Will correct the title.

 

[Lead]

Oh shit, I just retraced my Google steps and discovered there's a Steve Smith who's in the senate in Arizona. He crossed into my search somewhere and I didn't realize it. Will correct the title.

I mean, to continue the debate here, you are pointing to a new story about some guy who got 69 write in votes for a position that's hard to even narrow down (committeeman is my best guess at it) as a type of connection between neo-nazi's and the GOP. A state senate election is tens of thousands of votes to get a seat. If it had been a seat that high, I get why it would be news worthy but where we currently have it at, not so much. Sad story though.

 

[Madmick]

I get what you're saying and I generally agree. These terms get tossed about too casually these days. That said, it might not be so inaccurate in the case of Steve King. He seems like a fellow traveler of white nationalists, to the point where he's actually become the favorite major politician on Stormfront, surpassing Trump, and it's widely believed there that he shares their views.

If it comes out that he is, he'll receive my full condemnation, but I don't care for he pitchfork brigade running people through on their speculative belief that they know what lies behind an unopened closet door. He has definitely made comments that steered into that territory, but I've noticed that his quotes are usually presented on leftist websites heavily spliced up, and without any surrounding commentary. I don't like that. I'm not from Iowa, so otherwise I don't pay a great deal of attention to the man.

I'm afraid I don't keep up with the ins and outs of Stormfront.

I just weary of this climate where accusation is accepted as evidence. For example, Cernovich is a scumbag, but his Wiki calls him "Alt-Right" despite that he publicly rejects that group. However pitiful his "submit to an alpha male" garbage is he doesn't subscribe to that group. So accusing him of belonging to it without any evidence that he is some secret agent is downright dishonest, and morally unacceptable.

 

[Ruprecht]

I just weary of this climate where accusation is accepted as evidence. For example, Cernovich is a scumbag, but his Wiki calls him "Alt-Right" despite that he publicly rejects that group. However pitiful his "submit to an alpha male" garbage is he doesn't subscribe to that group. So accusing him of belonging to it without any evidence that he is some secret agent is downright dishonest, and morally unacceptable.

Cernovich championed the "alt-right" before the "big tent" collapsed and he labelled his faction the "New Right" though. Same goes for the "alt-lite" and all the other labels for groups which spread the same message with the same methods, but reject outright white nationalism.

Incidentally, it was only after they "broke up" that he deleted all his "white genocide" tweets.

 

[Madmick]

He championed the "alt-right" before the "big tent" collapsed and he labelled his faction the "New Right" though. Same goes for the "alt-lite" and all the other groups who spread the same message with the same methods, but reject outright white nationalism.

Incidentally, it was only after they "broke up" that he deleted all his "white genocide" tweets.

Your Twitter link is broken. Is that not archived?

Which "Alt-Right" are we talking about? The term before it really got dragged out around August of 2016 by the MSM and linked to Spencer, or afterwards? Because I believe Cernovich shifted to embrace the "Alt-Lite" or "New Right" specifically to distance himself from and repudiate Spencer's White Supremacism, which it definitely isn't, and White Nationalism, which it explicitly denies, but less cogently. They flirt...hard. Spencer had virtually zero presence on the national stage or in the mainstream consciousness prior to that article except the random, "Here's a portrait of what White Supremacists have become" article from 2010 through the election.

So that timeline is critical because I believe the term was commandeered and retroactively branded with a denotation that doesn't necessarily mirror how the term was evolving, and even the ADL noted it was a "vague" term with "implicit" racism (i.e. speculation). They are the ones who really got things going with a February 2016 piece on Spencer and the Alt-Right, a primer that was noticed and got picked up the following month by the HuffPo, leading into a trickle that eventually broke out in a one-week period due to a CNN piece by Don Lemon labeling Bannon as "alt-right" on August 20th that erupted a torrent of "What is the Alt-Right" articles on August 28th, 2016, when suddenly the country was edified by the MSM seemingly overnight. They were coming back at Trump and his base with some of Trump's own "fake news" tactics; screw facts and care for nuance-- let's weaponize this. They didn't care that Bannon rejected it:
Breitbart pushes back on ‘alt-right’ label

Reporter Tony Lee on Saturday defended the publication, citing a Harvard/MIT study that found Breitbart was not alt-right, and used an alternative quote from executive chairman Bannon explaining his own beliefs, which Lee argued has been taken out of context.

“I’m an economic nationalist. I am an 'America first' guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors,” Bannon told The Wall Street Journal last year, Breitbart noted.

“I’ve also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I’ve never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism," he continued.

CNN, HuffPo, NYT, New Yorker, and the rest want to restore confidence in academia...tell me, do they really believe in it? Because it seems to me Harvard's conclusions, and Bannon's explicit, self-avowed repudiation of White Nationalism got lost somewhere on the way to Charlottesville.

The term "Alt-Right" was growing in popularity on Sherdog, and even I quite liked it as a potential branding for the birth of what appeared to me to be the 7th party cycle, and the past few years has only confirmed my belief that this has taken place; the evangelical marriage of Christianity to the Republican party has been dissolved in the same moment the high-skilled blue collar laborer marriage with Democrats (specifically including unions) has also rapidly dissolved. It's time that Wiki got an update. I was hopeful. I prefer more conservative approaches to economics, but I hadn't gotten that from either party my entire life, so often I found the liberal policies (or at least compromises) a palatable option if wedged between the socialist vs. swamp monster dichotomy. I thought, "Maybe we can bring the belief in science and reason back to the conservative platform! I can have EVERYTHING! I can have it all!"

Yeah, that didn't pan out, but the 7th party cycle happened anyway, and Trump is such a myopic Magoo that he's catalyzing the same shift among the liberals towards outright socialism. Woe is me.

 

[Ruprecht]

Your Twitter link is broken. Is that not archived?

Which "Alt-Right" are we talking about? The term before it really got dragged out around August of 2016 by the MSM and linked to Spencer, or afterwards? Because I believe Cernovich shifted to embrace the "Alt-Lite" or "New Right" specifically to distance himself from and repudiate Spencer's White Supremacism, which it definitely isn't, and White Nationalism, which it explicitly denies, but less cogently. They flirt...hard. Spencer had virtually zero presence on the national stage or in the mainstream consciousness prior to that article except the random, "Here's a portrait of what White Supremacists have become" article from 2010 through the election.

So that timeline is critical because I believe the term was commandeered and retroactively branded with a denotation that doesn't necessarily mirror how the term was evolving, and even the ADL noted it was a "vague" term with "implicit" racism (i.e. speculation). They are the ones who really got things going with a February 2016 piece on Spencer and the Alt-Right, a primer that was noticed and got picked up the following month by the HuffPo, leading into a trickle that eventually broke out in a one-week period due to a CNN piece by Don Lemon labeling Bannon as "alt-right" on August 20th that erupted a torrent of "What is the Alt-Right" articles on August 28th, 2016, when suddenly the country was edified by the MSM seemingly overnight. They were coming back at Trump and his base with some of Trump's own "fake news" tactics; screw facts and care for nuance-- let's weaponize this. They didn't care that Bannon rejected it:
Breitbart pushes back on ‘alt-right’ label

CNN, HuffPo, NYT, New Yorker, and the rest want to restore confidence in academia...tell me, do they really believe in it? Because it seems to me Harvard's conclusions, and Bannon's explicit, self-avowed repudiation of White Nationalism got lost somewhere on the way to Charlottesville.

The term "Alt-Right" was growing in popularity on Sherdog, and even I quite liked it as a potential branding for the birth of what appeared to me to be the 7th party cycle, and the past few years has only confirmed my belief that this has taken place; the evangelical marriage of Christianity to the Republican party has been dissolved in the same moment the high-skilled blue collar laborer marriage with Democrats (specifically including unions) has also rapidly dissolved. It's time that Wiki got an update. I was hopeful. I prefer more conservative approaches to economics, but I hadn't gotten that from either party my entire life, so often I found the liberal policies (or at least compromises) a palatable option if wedged between the socialist vs. swamp monster dichotomy. I thought, "Maybe we can bring the belief in science and reason back to the conservative platform! I can have EVERYTHING! I can have it all!"

Yeah, that didn't pan out, but the 7th party cycle happened anyway, and Trump is such a myopic Magoo that he's catalyzing the same shift among the liberals towards outright socialism. Woe is me.

Yeah, the direct link is to the archived tweet, but it won't embed.
That's the thing though, just because Spencer stood up and reclaimed the "Alt-Right" label for White Nationalism doesn't delete the years of online content where "Alt-Right" was a broad label which included a lot of white nationalists/supremacists, but also the groups that now refer to themselves as "New Right" or "Alt-Lite" etc (they themselves were making no distinction at that point).
Not to mention that despite explicitly rejecting white supremacy/white nationalism, they are still using the terms, memes, conspiracy theories etc that originated with the white nationalists (some of which actually goes back to Nazi propaganda and beyond).
Likewise, despite their desperate attempts at rebranding, the use of the term in an all inclusive sense has continued anyway.
Funnily enough, these same individuals that aggressively branded themselves as "alt-right" are now crying about it as "victims" of a conspiracy when their associations and the origin of their labels and terminology are exposed.
Mike Cernovich being a prime example, with his promotion (and now deletion) of "White Genocide" propaganda, his self labelling as "Alt-Right" and then his subsequent anger that he was associated with explicit Neo-Nazis who used the same exact propaganda, the same terminology and the same label for their politics.

 

[Madmick]

Yeah, the direct link is to the archived tweet, but it won't embed.
That's the thing though, just because Spencer stood up and reclaimed the "Alt-Right" label for White Nationalism doesn't delete the years of online content where "Alt-Right" was a broad label which included a lot of white nationalists/supremacists, but also the groups that now refer to themselves as "New Right" or "Alt-Lite" etc (they themselves were making no distinction at that point).
Not to mention that despite explicitly rejecting white supremacy/white nationalism, they are still using the terms, memes, conspiracy theories etc that originated with the white nationalists (some of which actually goes back to Nazi propaganda and beyond).
Likewise, despite their desperate attempts at rebranding, the use of the term in an all inclusive sense has continued anyway.
Funnily enough, these same individuals that aggressively branded themselves as "alt-right" are now crying about it as "victims" of a conspiracy when their associations and the origin of their labels and terminology are exposed.
Mike Cernovich being a prime example, with his promotion (and now deletion) of "White Genocide" propaganda, his self labelling as "Alt-Right" and then his subsequent anger that he was associated with explicit Neo-Nazis who used the same exact propaganda, the same terminology and the same label for their politics.

It matters because "Alt-Right" had no real penetration or brand power during that time. It was an obscure term. Hell, in February 2016, there was basically nothing that came up in a Google. I could find so little. It took the past 2 1/2 years of people digging through old articles 100 search pages deep just to find the incredibly obscure term in this context, sharing it, revisiting it, etc, that you actually get relevant results in the first three pages when you search the term. I'm talking about even the major network stuff you'll easily find now that is older (like an MSN video from 2010).

I don't care about shared tactics like "terms, memes, and conspiracy theories" unless they themselves entail or explicitly advocate for White Supremacism or White Nationalism as standalone content. It's one thing if you quote a prominent white supremacist; it's quite another to plunder public IP. You don't know where they sourced it.

I also don't care that the "term in an inclusive sense continued anyway". That's because dumb liberal journalists have weaponized it like Trump branded his political foes (ex. "Lyin Ted"). Those stuck, too, regardless of whether it made sense. This is Big Lie logic. All it proves is the power of propaganda tactics. They have tried using this to slur Candace Owens as "Alt-Right". They even tried sticking it to Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson by weakly hedging that they are a "platform" for the Alt-Right and "far right". Why? Because he's willing to interview Roseanne? Indeed, because of precisely that. That was when the leftist smear machine really ramped up against Rogan.

Bannon plays to mutually exclusive crowds simultaneously, out of ambition, but his paper took this issue head-on. This was from March 2016 about three weeks after the Huffpo picked up the ADL's ball on Spencer and ran with it:
An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right

A specter is haunting the dinner parties, fundraisers and think-tanks of the Establishment: the specter of the “alternative right.” Young, creative and eager to commit secular heresies, they have become public enemy number one to beltway conservatives — more hated, even, than Democrats or loopy progressives.

The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous movement. Some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set. They’re wrong....

The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought.

Alongside other nodes like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American Renaissance, AlternativeRight.com became a gathering point for an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another. All of these websites have been accused of racism.

The editorial discussed Spencer, but you'll notice how sly they were about reporting accusations of racism, but not necessarily refuting them (not even by implication of following arguments). The above was the only space he got. The "platform" Bannon describes is robustly laid out here. There is no doubt that many legitimate racists are among them, including Spencer as the progenitor, with his Dixie-singing bullshit, but it traces the nonlinear bottom-up evolution of the movement, and almost none of them can be fairly construed as White Supremacists. While those lines do blur more around ethno-nationalism the clear drive of the article is to sort out those (including gay and non-white members) from the "low-information, low-IQ" skinheads "driven primarily by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred." This editorial remains the most accurately detailed, straightforward coverage of the Alt-Right that I have read to date:

Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.

The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.

You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.

The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.

Some alt-righters make a more subtle argument. They say that when different groups are brought together, the common culture starts to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Instead of mosques or English houses, you get atheism and stucco.

Ironically, it’s a position that has much in common with leftist opposition to so-called “cultural appropriation,” a similarity openly acknowledged by the alt-right.

http://therightstuff.biz/2015/11/01/multiculturalism-in-action-ourculturesarenotcostumes/
The article exists to champion an oppressed political group: white people who embrace identity politics. Liberals and non-whites are not hounded or stigmatized for doing this; at least not until the rise of papers like Breitbart, and Trump who it serves. That's why they mention the shared belief of "cultural appropriation", but wield it from the white perspective. Logically, if you support liberal notions of "cultural appropriation" then you believe today's mainstream cultural leftism to be as morally repugnant as this Alt-Right. Yet the mainstream press actively participates in and promotes that idea from the liberal, non-white perspective.

The irony isn't lost on me, especially in the context of my Trumpets-are-Berniebots theory, that James Gunn's recent fate more or less perfectly mirrors that of Milo's. Cernovich ate dick over #Pizzagate, but the liberals are out there ptichforking "pedos" on his behest. So does Disney fall under this vast "alt-right" umbrella now?

Above all else, the editorial was written to divide the "establishment" conservatives from this new breed, and that was Bannon's aim. He himself has never waffled from referring to himself as an "economic nationalist", so he wouldn't fall in very well with the "Natural Conservatives" outlined in the article, for example, but this was about his desire to terminate the 6th party cycle, and I fear he succeeded in a precarious fashion:

There are principled objections to the tribal concerns of the alt-right, but Establishment conservatives have tended not to express them, instead turning nasty in the course of their panicked backlash. National Review writer Kevin Williamson, in a recent article attacking the sort of voters who back Trump, said that white working-class communities “deserve to die.”

Although the alt-right consists mostly of college-educated men, it sympathises with the white working classes and, based on our interviews, feels a sense of noblesse oblige. National Review has been just as directly unpleasant about the alt-right as it has, on occasion, been about white Americans in general.

In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction. It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged.

For decades, the concerns of those who cherish western culture have been openly ridiculed and dismissed as racist. The alt-right is the inevitable result. No matter how silly, irrational, tribal or even hateful the Establishment may think the alt-right’s concerns are, they can’t be ignored, because they aren’t going anywhere. As Haidt reminds us, their politics is a reflection of their natural inclinations.

In other words, the Left can’t language-police and name-call them away, which have for the last twenty years been the only progressive responses to dissent, and the Right can’t snobbishly dissociate itself from them and hope they go away either.

This is a broad coalition, and the common denominator isn't racism.

I'm not sold that most of the men in this movement are college-educated, outside of leadership, but if you stripped away race you'd once again see the similarities between today's mainstream liberalism, and this Alt-Right. Kevin Williamson is simply applying the most callous conservative logic to West Virginia that you'll notice Alt-Right, Alt-Lite, or run-of-your-mill Trumpets tend to show for impoverished non-white communities. He's giving them the bootstrap speech: "Stop begging for money while you do nothing but fill your veins with needles. You reap what you sow." The Alt-Right rejects that by prioritizing that community's needs in spite of its communal flaws. It's very liberal of them, economically. That's how Trump carried those Rust Belt states while Williamson futilely went blue in the face for having the audacity to apply conservative logic in a colorblind manner.

Blacks are hurting, too, almost across the board, but poor blacks aren't mocked when when they don't prioritize the needs of poor whites. Poor whites are shown the same disregard as the "privileged" whites despite their circumstances. Privileged whites see this, and realize if they were poor, they would be in those shoes. Nobody calls a black activist in the streets or on Twitter a "black supremacist" for demanding reparations, but working class whites are scorned as "bigots" and "rednecks" because they have the audacity to point at an alien group of people, mostly belonging to another race, not just another nationality, and-- right or wrong-- demand those people be kept away because they perceive them to be taking their jobs and/or cheapening their labor market.

How many segments like this do you think it would take before the jig is up on the double standard?



The Communist party had an incredibly complicated evolution, too, with radical variance in their own beliefs and desired policies. If Lenin said he was providing a platform for "Communism" it wouldn't necessarily mean that he advocated for anarchy. If an idea is racist, it's racist. Bring me the idea. This identity-sleuthing where liberals presume to know a person's beliefs based on an assortment of (word) associations as if they could piece together a Nazi flag from a thousand tatters of cloth in the front yard like a jigsaw puzzle is just a form of politicking. It's inductive, not deductive. It's a political Rorschach Test with them in the role of psychologist. Of course they like that.

"When I say a word to you, I want you to say the first thing that comes to mind. Okay"?
"Got it."
"4Chan."
"Television?"
"I knew it. You're a racist."

 

[Hollywood Jack]

If it comes out that he is, he'll receive my full condemnation, but I don't care for he pitchfork brigade running people through on their speculative belief that they know what lies behind an unopened closet door. He has definitely made comments that steered into that territory, but I've noticed that his quotes are usually presented on leftist websites heavily spliced up, and without any surrounding commentary. I don't like that. I'm not from Iowa, so otherwise I don't pay a great deal of attention to the man.

I'm afraid I don't keep up with the ins and outs of Stormfront.

I just weary of this climate where accusation is accepted as evidence. For example, Cernovich is a scumbag, but his Wiki calls him "Alt-Right" despite that he publicly rejects that group. However pitiful his "submit to an alpha male" garbage is he doesn't subscribe to that group. So accusing him of belonging to it without any evidence that he is some secret agent is downright dishonest, and morally unacceptable.

With regard to Cernovich (who oddly enough is the world's biggest snowflake), he fit the old definition of alt-right, as did Milo and Gavin and some other folks. They would be considered alt-lite now. Of course the mainstream media and others enjoy tying them into the 14/88 wing of the alt-right which won out when it comes to the term alt-right.

 

[Ruprecht]

It matters because "Alt-Right" had no real penetration or brand power during that time. It was an obscure term. Hell, in February 2016, there was basically nothing that came up in a Google. I could find so little. It took the past 2 1/2 years of people digging through old articles 100 search pages deep just to find the incredibly obscure term in this context, sharing it, revisiting it, etc, that you actually get relevant results in the first three pages when you search the term. I'm talking about even the major network stuff you'll easily find now that is older (like an MSN video from 2010).

I don't care about shared tactics like "terms, memes, and conspiracy theories" unless they themselves entail or explicitly advocate for White Supremacism or White Nationalism as standalone content. It's one thing if you quote a prominent white supremacist; it's quite another to plunder public IP. You don't know where they sourced it.

I also don't care that the "term in an inclusive sense continued anyway". That's because dumb liberal journalists have weaponized it like Trump branded his political foes (ex. "Lyin Ted"). Those stuck, too, regardless of whether it made sense. This is Big Lie logic. All it proves is the power of propaganda tactics. They have tried using this to slur Candace Owens as "Alt-Right". They even tried sticking it to Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson by weakly hedging that they are a "platform" for the Alt-Right and "far right". Why? Because he's willing to interview Roseanne? Indeed, because of precisely that. That was when the leftist smear machine really ramped up against Rogan.

Bannon plays to mutually exclusive crowds simultaneously, out of ambition, but his paper took this issue head-on. This was from March 2016 about three weeks after the Huffpo picked up the ADL's ball on Spencer and ran with it:
An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right

The editorial discussed Spencer, but you'll notice how sly they were about reporting accusations of racism, but not necessarily refuting them (not even by implication of following arguments). The above was the only space he got. The "platform" Bannon describes is robustly laid out here. There is no doubt that many legitimate racists are among them, including Spencer as the progenitor, with his Dixie-singing bullshit, but it traces the nonlinear bottom-up evolution of the movement, and almost none of them can be fairly construed as White Supremacists. While those lines do blur more around ethno-nationalism the clear drive of the article is to sort out those (including gay and non-white members) from the "low-information, low-IQ" skinheads "driven primarily by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred." This editorial remains the most accurately detailed, straightforward coverage of the Alt-Right that I have read to date:
The article exists to champion an oppressed political group: white people who embrace identity politics. Liberals and non-whites are not hounded or stigmatized for doing this; at least not until the rise of papers like Breitbart, and Trump who it serves. That's why they mention the shared belief of "cultural appropriation", but wield it from the white perspective. Logically, if you support liberal notions of "cultural appropriation" then you believe today's mainstream cultural leftism to be as morally repugnant as this Alt-Right. Yet the mainstream press actively participates in and promotes that idea from the liberal, non-white perspective.

The irony isn't lost on me, especially in the context of my Trumpets-are-Berniebots theory, that James Gunn's recent fate more or less perfectly mirrors that of Milo's. Cernovich ate dick over #Pizzagate, but the liberals are out there ptichforking "pedos" on his behest. So does Disney fall under this vast "alt-right" umbrella now?

Above all else, the editorial was written to divide the "establishment" conservatives from this new breed, and that was Bannon's aim. He himself has never waffled from referring to himself as an "economic nationalist", so he wouldn't fall in very well with the "Natural Conservatives" outlined in the article, for example, but this was about his desire to terminate the 6th party cycle, and I fear he succeeded in a precarious fashion:

This is a broad coalition, and the common denominator isn't racism.

I'm not sold that most of the men in this movement are college-educated, outside of leadership, but if you stripped away race you'd once again see the similarities between today's mainstream liberalism, and this Alt-Right. Kevin Williamson is simply applying the most callous conservative logic to West Virginia that you'll notice Alt-Right, Alt-Lite, or run-of-your-mill Trumpets tend to show for impoverished non-white communities. He's giving them the bootstrap speech: "Stop begging for money while you do nothing but fill your veins with needles. You reap what you sow." The Alt-Right rejects that by prioritizing that community's needs in spite of its communal flaws. It's very liberal of them, economically. That's how Trump carried those Rust Belt states while Williamson futilely went blue in the face for having the audacity to apply conservative logic in a colorblind manner.

Blacks are hurting, too, almost across the board, but poor blacks aren't mocked when when they don't prioritize the needs of poor whites. Poor whites are shown the same disregard as the "privileged" whites despite their circumstances. Privileged whites see this, and realize if they were poor, they would be in those shoes. Nobody calls a black activist in the streets or on Twitter a "black supremacist" for demanding reparations, but working class whites are scorned as "bigots" and "rednecks" because they have the audacity to point at an alien group of people, mostly belonging to another race, not just another nationality, and-- right or wrong-- demand those people be kept away because they perceive them to be taking their jobs and/or cheapening their labor market.

How many segments like this do you think it would take before the jig is up on the double standard?



The Communist party had an incredibly complicated evolution, too, with radical variance in their own beliefs and desired policies. If Lenin said he was providing a platform for "Communism" it wouldn't necessarily mean that he advocated for anarchy. If an idea is racist, it's racist. Bring me the idea. This identity-sleuthing where liberals presume to know a person's beliefs based on an assortment of (word) associations as if they could piece together a Nazi flag from a thousand tatters of cloth in the front yard like a jigsaw puzzle is just a form of politicking. It's inductive, not deductive. It's a political Rorschach Test with them in the role of psychologist. Of course they like that.

"When I say a word to you, I want you to say the first thing that comes to mind. Okay"?
"Got it."
"4Chan."
"Television?"
"I knew it. You're a racist."

Obscure term and origin? "www.alternativeright.com" has been the same since 2010 (domain changed over to altright.com in 2017, but it still redirects).
It's not the tactic of using memes and conspiracy theories they copied, they use the same memes and conspiracy theories. I guess when you take up the banner of white identity politics, there's not a whole lot of historical material to choose from.
I'm sorry, once you call yourself "alt-right" and promote the label, you lose any credible objection to the term being applied to you.
The most common use of "alt-right" in the older, more inclusive sense I see is simply in media that isn't heavily political and doesn't care about their rebranding or divisions.
It'd be like Lutherans being upset about being called "Christians" after they split with the Catholic church, or to use your communism analogy, it'd be like Maoists getting upset about being called communists after splitting with the Leninists.
No sympathy at all.

 

[salamander]

You're a sick loser lol

You brag about having sex with your hoe on a MMA forum while she's in labor giving birth to yet another one of your unplanned failures, and I'AM sick? I'AM the loser???

FOH cheesedick.

 

[Scrody]

What a shit thread.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

How clueless are people that think only white people form gangs along racial lines?

I've never seen Joseph making threads about black gangs attacking white people even though it happens literally every day in America.

It's almost like he's racist or something.

 

[Throwin Bombs]

Oh shit, I just retraced my Google steps and discovered there's a Steve Smith who's in the senate in Arizona. He crossed into my search somewhere and I didn't realize it. Will correct the title.

Caught. Once again making up things to produce a clickbair headline and then making some pathetic excuse about it.

Regardless of your nauseating bias, its terrible for anyone to be beat up simply because of skin color, white black or whatever else if that is what happened here.

 

[Cooz]

I chose an Israeli source on purpose:
Rights Groups Demand Israel Stop Arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine

Human rights activists petition the court to cease Israeli arms exports to Ukraine since some of these weapons reach neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine’s security force...
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...top-arming-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-1.6248727

Dredd cares not about this.

EDIT: And please stop conflating Jews with zionists/Israelis.

Read your own article. Nowhere does it say anything about Israel arming neo nazis.

Your yellow font means nothing!

 

[Madmick]

Obscure term and origin? "www.alternativeright.com" has been the same since 2010 (domain changed over to altright.com in 2017, but it still redirects).

How many unique users did it have in that early years? How many unique search queries that would turn it up on the first page of a Google search? I literally and earnestly wonder if the average Google user performed the keyword search "alternative right" in 2011 if that website would have come up in the top 50 results. That's how search algorithms work. I remember personally searching "Alt-Right" in February 2016, and so little came up. I don't recall Spencer's website coming up at all.

If you read the editorial not all of the groups evolved or ever participated in that website, or had any affiliation with anyone or anything related to it. It's not even clear to me when the contraction "Alt-Right" was formed, or by whom. You could say Communism didn't have an obscure origin, either, with Marx's manifesto, but that isn't how Communism evolved as a coalition of parties and individuals.

It's not the tactic of using memes and conspiracy theories they copied, they use the same memes and conspiracy theories. I guess when you take up the banner of white identity politics, there's not a whole lot of historical material to choose from.

Yes, but where did they source them? They may be oblivious to the creators. That's why I'm asking about the specific character of the material. If it isn't inherently and explicitly white supremacist or white nationalist, then there might be much less personnel crossover forming that bridge than you perceive.

I'm sorry, once you call yourself "alt-right" and promote the label, you lose any credible objection to the term being applied to you.
The most common use of "alt-right" in the older, more inclusive sense I see is simply in media that isn't heavily political and doesn't care about their rebranding or divisions.
It'd be like Lutherans being upset about being called "Christians" after they split with the Catholic church, or to use your communism analogy, it'd be like Maoists getting upset about being called communists after splitting with the Leninists.
No sympathy at all.

It isn't clear who among those being branded "Alt-Right" were promoting Spencer or "his" label. This was not a top-down, rank-and-file organization with card-carrying members. White Supremacism isn't the common denominator of belief, but that's what you are (and the media) are pushing here with branding of the term. It may not be revisionist for all, but it is for some.

You're confusing the metaphor. It wouldn't be like the anarchist-syndicalists splitting from the Communists, then later objecting to being call "Communists". It would be like when the Leninists and the Anarcho-Syndicalists first divided their camps, then later the Leninists objecting to being called "anarchists". Marx, not anarchy, was the common denominator that yoked them. Spencer may have initiated a group that eventually attracted many, or at least coined a term that was adopted independently and evolved on somewhat parallel rails, as the "establishment" and the "anti-establishment" split, but he may not have been the one who attracted them. They could have been oblivious to him.

As this Newsweek article on Cernovich and his ilk relays, "In 2015 and 2016, they worked under the banner “alt-right,” a catch-all term that was loosely defined around Trump’s hardline anti-immigrant rhetoric." The article also points out the watershed moment where those abandoned the term probably dates to The Atlantic photo from November 2016 that shows Spencer heiling. That mirrors what the Breitbart editorial reported. The tent was pitched over Trump, the anti-Establishment, and hardline anti-immigration, not Richard Spencer and white supremacy.

If we collectively come to associate "White Supremacist" with "Alt-Right", and once that is defined, if many who previously gravitated toward the movement say, "White Supremacism? No, that's not me", and reject the label on the grounds that it congealed into this defined perception around a retroactive discovery, then I think it's appropriate to accept they aren't necessarily being devious.

Cernovich told Newsweek that the contemporary alt-right, which he said he believes is driven by an obsessive hatred of Jews, is “toxic waste that ruins any area they inhabit.”

In turn, the contemporary alt-right loathes many of the pundits with whom they aligned during Trump’s rise. They refer to the figures now calling themselves the “new right” as the “merchant right,” a crude, anti-Semitic term that refers to their interest in fame and money over supposed “race-based” principles. The Judaism-obsessed alt-right also views these pundits as being compromised on American foreign policy, which they suggest is manipulated heavily in the favor of Israeli interests.

The split seems genuine to me.

 

[Ruprecht]

How many unique users did it have in that early years? How many unique search queries that would turn it up on the first page of a Google search? I literally and earnestly wonder if the average Google user performed the keyword search "alternative right" in 2011 if that website would have come up in the top 50 results. That's how search algorithms work. I remember personally searching "Alt-Right" in February 2016, and so little came up. I don't recall Spencer's website coming up at all.

If you read the editorial not all of the groups evolved or ever participated in that website, or had any affiliation with anyone or anything related to it. It's not even clear to me when the contraction "Alt-Right" was formed, or by whom. You could say Communism didn't have an obscure origin, either, with Marx's manifesto, but that isn't how Communism evolved as a coalition of parties and individuals.

Yes, but where did they source them? They may be oblivious to the creators. That's why I'm asking about the specific character of the material. If it isn't inherently and explicitly white supremacist or white nationalist, then there might be much less personnel crossover forming that bridge than you perceive.

It isn't clear who among those being branded "Alt-Right" were promoting Spencer or "his" label. This was not a top-down, rank-and-file organization with card-carrying members. White Supremacism isn't the common denominator of belief, but that's what you are (and the media) are pushing here with branding of the term. It may not be revisionist for all, but it is for some.

You're confusing the metaphor. It wouldn't be like the anarchist-syndicalists splitting from the Communists, then later objecting to being call "Communists". It would be like when the Leninists and the Anarcho-Syndicalists first divided their camps, then later the Leninists objecting to being called "anarchists". Marx, not anarchy, was the common denominator that yoked them. Spencer may have initiated a group that eventually attracted many, or at least coined a term that was adopted independently and evolved on somewhat parallel rails, as the "establishment" and the "anti-establishment" split, but he may not have been the one who attracted them. They could have been oblivious to him.

As this Newsweek article on Cernovich and his ilk relays, "In 2015 and 2016, they worked under the banner “alt-right,” a catch-all term that was loosely defined around Trump’s hardline anti-immigrant rhetoric." The article also points out the watershed moment where those abandoned the term probably dates to The Atlantic photo from November 2016 that shows Spencer heiling. That mirrors what the Breitbart editorial reported. The tent was pitched over Trump, the anti-Establishment, and hardline anti-immigration, not Richard Spencer and white supremacy.

If we collectively come to associate "White Supremacist" with "Alt-Right", and once that is defined, if many who previously gravitated toward the movement say, "White Supremacism? No, that's not me", and reject the label on the grounds that it congealed into this defined perception around a retroactive discovery, then I think it's appropriate to accept they aren't necessarily being devious.

The split seems genuine to me.

You saw the tweet right? Cernovich was calling himself alt-right (he used the inclusive label at the time) while espousing the "White Genocide" ideas from white nationalists. After they split he changed his term to "New Right" and deleted all his "White Genocide" commentary.
That's not a coincidence.
There's no confusion in the metaphor, they collectively used "Alt-Right" until Spencer and Co said that yes, it actually refers explicitly to White Nationalism and can't be divorced from racism.
It's not like they could have been unaware of the white nationalists in the audience until that point (impossible if they read the comments section of any of their articles/media, something that Shapiro had commented on), they just apparently didn't feel the need to reject them explicitly until they received media attention.
Up until that point, they were one big group. Sure, there's a spectrum of beliefs and plenty of divisions (as with any group), but they were sharing the same media, outlets, terminology, opinions, claims etc etc etc. Yiannopolous explicitly included Spencer in his "Big Tent" of Alt-Right on Breitbart as late as March 2016, although he drew the line at "1488ers" apparently.

 

[panamaican]

Candidates espousing White supremacist views shouldn't come as a surprise, after all the GOP has been courting them since the Civil Rights era. Fox , Rush , Breitbart and the rest of the rightwing media haven been nurturing them and egging them on for many years now. All Trump did was capitalize on their effort. Conservatives and GOPers aren't necessarily White supremacist but the GOP is where all the WNists flock to and it has a shit ton of them.

Sure, but they had the decency to play the background. Now, they feel like they should be front and center.

 

[My Spot]

Naturally, you can't point to other threads where I've deliberately mislabeled the titles. I can point to threads where I've changed titles once I've been corrected.

And I'm still waiting for you to link to a thread where I freaked out about Trump and ice cream. Or what other Sherdog accounts you think I've had that got banned.

In fact, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate anything you say about me. All you do is show up and tell lies in my threads. Do I have my first Sherdog stalker?

How come you didn't make a virtue signal thread about the democrat state senator who was selling illegal arms?