Nazis Down, Bannon Out, Crackdown on Free Speech Begins

Members of the Alt-Right gather around a statue in Charlottesville. Screen grab from raw video.

The Daily Stormer, America’s No. 1 website for young wannabe neo-Nazis, is kaput, banished to the outer limits of the Dark Web by the likes of Go Daddy, Google and CloudFlare after more than four years of nonstop unadulterated hating online.

White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart CEO credited for President Donald Trump’s successful populist campaign strategy and alleged white nationalist, is out after just eight months on the job.

Bannon and Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin represent opposite ends of the Alt-Right spectrum, which I define broadly as a white identity political movement that exists mostly as a series of websites, YouTube channels, chatrooms and bulletin boards on the internet. Both Bannon and Anglin, who have never met as far as I know, fashion themselves more as cultural warriors than journalists. They’re engaged in a death-match against the agents of Cultural Marxism, who are apparently legion in Hollywood, Big Government and Wall Street.

As CEO of Breitbart prior to joining Trump’s campaign, Bannon mainstreamed Alt-Right themes on sex, gender and race to a rapidly growing audience of conservative white males frustrated with 8 years of rule under President Barack Obama and the do-nothing Republican Congress. The content was designed to trigger liberals as much as appeal to conservatives and added a decidedly ugly tone to our national conversation.

While Bannon was mainstreaming Alt-Right ideas at Breitbart, Anglin was plumbing the depths of depravity one can go to on the internet at The Daily Stormer. Anglin recently proposed, in all seriousness, imposing White Sharia Law on the entire United States. He’s viewed as a pariah to most of the Alt-Right’s opinion makers because of his open embrace of Nazism, but as a pied piper to the tens of thousands of mostly young readers who flock to The Daily Stormer every month.

Twitter profile pic of confirmed Nazi and Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin. Doesn’t look very scary, does he?

Or formerly flocked, I should say. There has always been a question in my mind as to whether the American public would accept the Alt-Right, if its members happened to slink out from underneath their keyboards and voice their opinions in public. After the disastrous Unite the Right rally Charlottesville, Va. two weekends ago, that question has been answered. Not only are Americans not going to accept the Alt-Right, they’re going to shut it down.

Bannon has been banished from the White House; Anglin’s voice has been silenced, perhaps permanently. There will be many who will say good riddance to bad rubbish, perhaps rightfully so. But their departure from the scene, particularly the Stormer’s takedown, could hold profound implications for the future of free speech on the internet and in public spaces. The crackdown has begun. How far will it go?

Death and Debacle in Charlottesville

The Alt-Right’s public debut in Charlottesville was, for a political movement that imagines itself to be intelligent and media savvy, a clusterfuck of monumental proportions. The various factions of the movement involved prepared months for the Unite the Right rally, ostensibly to protest the removal of Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee’s statue from a city park. In reality, the event was supposed to be the Alt-Right’s coming out party.

Somehow, these geniuses decided the best way to introduce the American public to the Alt-Right was via a pagan torchlight ceremony the night before the actual event, featuring hundreds of baby-faced white millennial men brandishing Tiki torches, circling around the statue, throwing Hitler salutes and chanting “blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us.” It was straight out of Race With The Devil, except with neo-Nazis instead of Satanists.

Not all of them are neo-Nazis of course. But the various groups do share similar core ideologies. I’ve spent the better part of the past three years combing Alt-Right websites and it’s true what Nietzsche said: Stare too long into the abyss, and the abyss stares back at you. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas, is another way of saying it. Even if they were true, full-blown Nazis, I’d still defend their right to assemble and speak in public.

That’s because enlightenment is the best disinfectant. If Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer had spoken about his vision of white nationalism in Charlottesville Aug. 12, the nation would have discovered he’s a straight-up white segregationist complaining that a county that’s still deeply segregated isn’t segregated nearly enough to suit his taste. He wants to live in a gated community too! That’s not nationalism. It’s just more ghettoization. Come back when you have some real solutions, kid.

But Spencer infamously didn’t get a chance to speak, because Charlottesville police pulled the plug on the event. They then herded the gathered Alt-Right protestors into a crowd of counter-demonstrators fronted by black-masked members of the AntiFa and let them have it out.

Both the Alt-Right and the Resistance, including the AntiFa, had been preparing for this battle for months, and by all accounts both sides put up a good fight, flailing away with bats and homemade clubs and shields, pepper spraying each other, administering collective beat-downs on lone individuals separated from their respective herds. Reading their accounts and watching them on YouTube, I was reminded of General Alexander Haig’s comment about slam-dancing punk rockers in the early 1980s. Good cannon fodder, he remarked.

Despite the fact that a member of the Alt-Right was charged with second degree murder after killing a female counter-protestor in a traffic incident during the ensuing melee, President Donald Trump seized the opportunity to state the obvious, that the violence had indeed occurred on both sides, instead of condemning the overt racism on display. Republicans, Democrats, corporate America and three-quarters of my Facebook friends denied the obvious and remain infuriated Trump hasn’t denounced the entire Alt-Right.

Meanwhile, the entire Alt-Right, with the possible exception of The Daily Stormer’s crew, is delighted. They’ve just been legitimized by the president without having to test their views in a public forum. In the days since Charlottesville, Trump has repeatedly doubled down, calling out “racists,” “white supremacists” and the “KKK,” but attributing equal fault for the conflict to both the Alt-Right and what he erroneously called the Alt-Left.

The God-Emperor may have recognized their existence, but their jubilation will be short-lived.

Here Comes The Corporate Clampdown

One reason I’ve visited The Daily Stormer often during the past three years is to see if someone has finally taken the website down. That used to happen frequently until the site began using CloudFlare, which prevents hackers from initiating attacks on the site. A number of other Alt-Right websites use the service. They have to, or they’d be taken down constantly by progressive hackers trying to save the world.

Not too long after the female counter-protestor was killed in Charlottesville, Anglin posted an article stating the woman was expendable because she was slightly overweight, childless and past the prime age desired for breeding. CloudFlare’s CEO was so sickened by the story he pulled the plug on The Daily Stormer, despite his strong belief in absolute freedom of speech on the internet. He’s standing by the decision.

The article was repulsive by design and far from the worst thing Anglin has ever written. Even though most of the Alt-Right leaders on hand to speak at Charlottesville have denounced the article, if they’d been allowed to speak and the subject had turned to women, the nation would have discovered there views aren’t all that different from Anglin’s White Sharia.

They’d prefer to see white women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, making and taking care of white babies to combat the ever-rising number of brown immigrants coming from south of the border.

I don’t know white ladies. Does that sound like a good deal to you?

I’m thinking probably not to most of you, and that’s why I’ve always said, just let these guys speak. Judge them on the merit of their ideas, assuming they have any, not with the heckler’s veto before they’ve spoken a word.

According to some white male employees, Google isn’t a corporation, it’s a prison.

That said, it’s become clear that Silicon Valley corporations, once among the most stalwart free speech advocates on the planet, are losing patience with the Alt-Right’s style of cultural critique. The week before Charlottesville, Google fired a white male employee for posting what amounted to an Alt-Right manifesto for tech workers on an internal company website.

Corporations are private entities that have the right to ban controversial speech if it disturbs their customers or employees. But any attempt to censor speech on the internet, which has become the primary tool citizens use to communicate with one another and access information in an information-driven society, is necessarily fraught with difficulty, particularly in the present volatile political environment. Silicon Valley monopolies like Facebook and Google wield an unprecedented amount of power in this so-called cultural civil war.

One problem with censoring Alt-Right websites is the Alt-Right isn’t monolithically racist or white supremacist. If anything, I would say, in the parlance of progressive activists, that it owes its broader popularity to “white male fragility.” Not that we need a special name for it. Nobody likes being called the bad guy all the time, and the white male has in recent years become the go-to villain for the left, so much so that Hillary Clinton felt confident enough to shun white male votes in the 2016 election.

So what do fragile white guys talk about on the internet? The topic with the broadest interest is immigration. There’s guys (and some women) who go way back, “immigration patriots” that got booted from mainstream media gigs for their views and now beg enough PayPal donations to make a decent living—until PayPal cuts them off, which it has in some cases. They know how to write and arrange selected facts effectively. Their conclusions are decidedly different than the open borders philosophy espoused by Silicon Valley corporations. Does that make all of their conclusions “hateful” and worthy of censorship?

There’s guys who talk about black crime, posting startling statistics as well as YouTube videos of blacks committing violent acts. Often, but not always, this information is presented in a racist context. Despite that, some of the data is solid, the black crime rate in certain cities is rising dramatically, and it paints a much bleaker picture of urban decay than generally portrayed by mainstream media. Some of this is useful information, if we want to honestly address these problems. Which of these websites should be censored?

Because public discussion about such issues has become so politicized in recent years, corporations will be tempted, and be well within their legal rights in most cases, to terminate all of these websites simply for violating their terms of service agreements. I predict that’s exactly what they’re going to do in the coming months, and freedom for speech for anyone that expresses dissenting opinions on the internet, not just members of the Alt-Right, will be in jeopardy.

Just how woefully inadequate this corporate censorship may turn out to be has already been hinted at by Facebook and Google’s attempts to weed “fake news” out of their platforms. Despite Facebook’s best efforts, I’m still getting genuine fake news articles, such as the obvious hoax going around last week stating that Malia Obama had been busted attempting to score six pounds of weed off the street in Chicago. This seriously calls out Zuckerberg and company’s ability to determine what fake news is in the first place.

Meanwhile, Google altered its search engine algorithm to combat fake news, in the process somehow making it more difficult for socialist-minded readers to find websites catering to their political persuasion. One need not wonder too hard why one of the world’s largest corporations might brand anything socialist as fake news.

In fact, the most absurd development to come out of the Charlottesville debacle is the casting of corporations, which care far more about keeping wages down than they do about income inequality, as social justice heroes by virtually the entire left, simply because they oppose the president’s statements on what happened in Charlottesville.

If anything, American corporate economic philosophy is more in tune with the heavily libertarian Alt-Right: Let the winners take all the spoils, because being naturally smarter than the rest of us, they deserve it.

A Little Shame Goes A Long Way

While I don’t believe censorship of the internet is the answer to combatting the Alt-Right, I’ll concede some middle ground to parents of teenagers who’ve fallen under its sway.

I advise such parents to monitor their child’s internet use. Talk to them about it. Younger users are attracted to the allure of reading forbidden things and expressing forbidden thoughts, all under the snug, cozy blanket of anonymity. Some critics have compared Alt-Right websites to pornography, for conspiracy theories that posit a single villain behind all of society’s ills, whether that villain be Cultural Marxism or the Jews, are highly seductive to disenfranchised young white American males with a limited knowledge of history and philosophy.

I’m afraid some of these children got a nasty little awakening in Charlottesville. Anonymous Nazi shit-posting on the internet may be empowering, but throwing Hitler salutes in public is still going to get you fired from just about any job outside of meth cook.

I don’t pity members of the Alt-Right who attended Charlottesville and have subsequently been fired after their photos were plastered all over the internet and activists tracked their employers down. I don’t even mind that various left-leaning media outlets encouraged the practice and kept running lists on the targets. Welcome to America, boys, we play hardball here. Your goofy, offensive antics have ensured that no one will ever pay you serious attention again.

While public shaming has its limitations, namely, that some people are shameless, I still don’t think outright censorship of the corporate internet space or public spaces is the final solution. It sets a dangerous precedent by which any dissenting speech can be banned if any interest group finds it objectionable. In America, in theory anyway, we challenge arguments we find objectionable by posing our own well thought-out objections to those arguments, not by shutting down the discussion.

Hopefully, the coming internet crackdown will not be too severe. It’s become painfully clear that America hasn’t completed its long conversation about the differences between the races and the sexes, but it’s encouraging that the most popular comment regarding the events in Charlottesville, the most popular tweet of all time in fact, came from former president Barack Obama, who was quoting from Nelson Mandela’s autobiography.

“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion,” the former President tweeted. “People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

President Barack Obama’s tweet after Charlottesville has received 4.5 million likes. Photo from Twitter.

That’s what I remember believing as a small boy in the late 1960s, listening to the speeches of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King on a black-and-white TV. My faith in the human heart may have waned since then, but not my faith in the human mind or democracy. I believe on an elemental level, before any differences are taken into account, we are all equal and deserving of the same basic human rights.

The vast majority of Americans share this belief—even Alt-Right darling Milo Yiannopoulos admits that in his bestselling book, Dangerous. That’s why I’m confident about letting the Alt-Right speak in public. White people have grievances? Well let’s hear them then! Perhaps some of them are even legitimate. Maybe if the left could quit hammering so hard on white male privilege when so many low income white males obviously aren’t privileged, we might be able to address everybody’s grievances at the same time.

But a warning to anyone identifying as Alt-Right. Save the sociobiology for the classroom and your blogs, assuming they haven’t been taken down yet. Quoting cherry-picked studies from controversial, still-evolving disciplines such as evolutionary psychology and biology to validate your own sexist and racist beleifs is going to bring you nothing but grief in the public and private arenas, as a certain Google employee discovered recently. And if you’re still blaming Cultural Marxism for everything, standby to be branded as an anti-Semite.

You may take some pride that your God-Emperor has at long last publicly acknowledged you, even though he may have mortally wounded his presidency in doing so. Andrew Anglin is gone, perhaps for good, but Bannon is already back at Breitbart, so you have that to look forward to.

The rest of us, especially people like me who had once hoped Trump’s populist message was sincere, are left wondering how he can possibly make America great again when the only friends he has left are the evangelicals and the Alt-Right

.

R.V. Scheide
R.V. Scheide has been a northern California journalist for more than 20 years. He appreciates your comments and story ideas.
Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

75 Responses

  1. trek says:

    What about our higher ranking gov. officials when they post their personal thoughts, is it free speech or condemnation?

    Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a black Democrat, said she has no plans to resign as numerous top Republicans and Democrats in Missouri have insisted since Thursday’s post in which she wrote “I hope Trump is assassinated!”

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      If her constituents want her to resign, they can recall her. I think also she could be censured if Congress chose to do so. That sort of language is uncalled for from any public servant … but then Mr. Trump seems to be re-writing some of the rules on that.

    • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

      Sen. Chappelle-Nadal needs to quit her government job—that’s not even a tough call.  She should just admit that you can’t come back from saying something that stupid and repulsive, and tender her resignation.  There’s got to be a “too far” line somewhere, and wishing for the assassination of another elected official has got to be quite a distance over that line.

      But, as R.V. says, Trump is re-writing the rule book on how much stupid, repulsive stuff you can say and still keep hold of your elected office.

  2. cheyenne says:

    I would say that the Alt-right are less educated than the Alt-left because while the right demonstrates without masks and are easily recognizable and therefore fired the left wear masks so they can’t be identified.

    • Beverly Stafford says:

      Hey, Cheyenne, it appears you are in one of the perfect spots to view the eclipse.

      • cheyenne says:

        It is getting darker and the shadows coming through the trees are weird.  It also is getting colder.  I25 is bumper to bumper as all the Denverites are heading north and the warning signs on the freeway say don’t wear eclipse glasses while driving.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Just the AntiFa–whose affiliation and paymasters are rumored to be George Soros–where the masks. The most impressive thing to me is the number of normal people who joined in in the counter-protests, particularly at Boston last weekend.

  3. cheyenne says:

    Actually in about an hour the sky will darken and when the solar event has passed it will be “A New Day Is Dawning” and the world will be a better place.  Think happy thoughts.

  4. Joe Bob Briggs says:

    Crackdown on “free speech?” It’s a crackdown on hate speech. Besides, the First Amendment only applies the government.

    Maybe if the left could quit hammering so hard on white male privilege when so many low income white males obviously aren’t privileged, we might be able to address everybody’s grievances at the same time.

    Economic privilege is different than racial privilege, chief. These are really not difficult concepts.

    • Tim says:

      So when a conservative group obtains a permit to speak in a public place, but is ultimately not allowed to speak — that is not a violation of the freedom of speech?  Berkeley, Sacramento, Charlottesville, Boston, etc — all were either not allowed to speak as planned or were forced by police to cut short their speeches due to leftist violence.

      • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

        Yep, those AntiFa counter-demonstrators are definitely shutting these events down, they have no problems taking the credit for it either. I don’t think they should do it.

      • Joe Bob Briggs says:

        Gosh Tim, sorry your klan rallies got cancelled, but leftists weren’t the ones running down innocent protestors in Charlottesville. Right wing extremists are far and away responsible for more violence and acts of domestic terror than leftists.

        All speech is not protected, either. I suggest you read up on “imminent lawless action.

        • Tim says:

          I guess you know what they were going to say before they said it?

          Seems to me it is democrats calling for the assassination of Trump.  And a democrat who shot up a bunch of republican congressmen.  And a left-winger who struck that car in Charlottesville before it accelerated into the crowd.  And democrats who have been censoring web sites.  And democrats who have been firing people based not on job performance, but on their personal beliefs.

          I sure didn’t see neonazis bringing violence to shut down the various left-wing marches — kinda sad when the KKK has more respect for liberty than you.

          • Joe Bob Briggs says:

            You’re literally defending the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and murderers.

          • Tim says:

            Yep! “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Tim — The alt-right dudes had an escort of cos-playing militia dudes who were carrying military-style rifles. (I assume they were semi-automatics, but who knows?)  That’s every bit the implicit threat of violence as carrying a hardwood stick, and then some.  And of course, one of them used a Dodge Challenger as a weapon.

            Since 1995, excluding acts of Islamic terrorism, politically motivated domestic terrorism has resulted in 211 deaths on U.S. soil.  Ten of those acts of domestic terrorism were committed by right-wing extremists, resulting in 209 deaths (168 in a single event).  One was committed by a left-wing extremist, resulting in 2 deaths.  If you want to add Islamic terrorism to the scorecard, fine by me.  Islamic terrorists are conservative, authoritarian religious fanatics.  You can have them.

            As for Democrats censoring web sites: You seem painfully ignorant of how strongly libertarian the people who run Silicon Valley are, and that’s evident in what they’ve tolerated in the name of free speech on the internet.  But as private business owners, they have the right to search their consciences and decide if they want to support hate-mongering that leads to violence.  Likewise, business owners have the right to decide if they want to financially support white supremacists with employment and take the resulting public relations hits.

            As for the white supremacists losing their jobs?  Those who think freedom of speech comes with the guaranteed that there will be no consequences are childishly naive.  You appear to be a little less naive, in that you don’t use your full name while defending NAZIs and white supremacists. Cowardly, but probably prudent.  Your point of view is repugnant to people, including most rank-and-file conservatives.

          • Tim says:

            If and when someone goes beyond saying something which advocates violating a civil right, e.g. forcibly taking from some to give to others (Bernie Sanders), and actually violates a civil right – that’s where I draw the line.  As you’ve said before, your right to swing a fist ends at my face…

            And don’t be surprised if/when Google settles out of court for violating employment law: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html

            Finally, internet domains are very similar to a public utility — don’t be surprised if they’re required to serve clients they don’t want (just like bedsheet wearing rednecks must serve people of color).

            I’m sorry you find the defense of Liberty repugnant.  IMO, the price of freedom isn’t paid in some sandpit half-way around the globe; it is paid everyday by Americans at home who tolerate diverse, and sometimes offensive, opinions.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Tim — I think you misunderstand my point of view.  I’m in favor of NAZIs being able to march and chant and make asses of themselves peacefully without being clubbed by AntiFa.  I’m in favor of white supremacists being able to use public utilities (but a web-hosting company is not a public utility, nor is a search engine company a public utility).  I’m fine with NAZIs owning a domain name and address.  If they can’t find a company to host their site because the material on their website is repugnant, too damned bad, NAZIs.  Start your own damned hosting company.

            I just think that privately owned companies have the right to establish terms of service.  It’s not just fascist punks that have rights—business owners have rights, too.  I am not in favor of internet carriers being allowed to pick and choose what goes through internet pipelines.

            Elsewhere (on FB), I criticized the firing of Google’s manifesto writer, saying that I hope his job termination makes him rich, if it hasn’t already done so.

            Elsewhere (here on ANC), I’ve criticized the political correctness of my own alma mater, UC Davis, and the UC system’s PC police who attempt to exclude conservative speakers.  I find it especially laughable/troubling when they equate ideas that they find offensive or that merely make them uncomfortable with acts of violence.

            I’m not sure what to make of your opening.  Taxation is forcibly taking something that belongs to you, and that’s a violation of civil rights?  Uh…..whatever, man.  I don’t think that our conservative SCOTUS is within a thousand miles of agreeing with you on that one.  Regardless of what you think of the policy, suggesting that Uncle Bernie was planning to violate your civil rights by increasing taxes on the wealthy—equal to taking a fist to the nose—is crazier than a fish with titties.

          • Joe Bob Briggs says:

            It’s amazing how the only people that seem to be advocating the Democrats to throw women, LGBTQ, and people of color under the bus are straight white males.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Throw them under the bus?  Is that what it’s called if you try to emphasize actually achieving things for them over celebrating every group’s special status, at the cost of achieving very little?

            It’s hard to achieve much of anything on behalf of the groups you named when you’re perpetually the minority party.

            And you’re wrong about “only.” There are plenty of struggling working class and lower middle class women who don’t care for their straight white male partners being labeled “privileged” and treated as the enemy.   Trump beat Clinton among white women by 10 percentage points, and he beat Clinton among white women who don’t have college degrees by 28%.  The latter group is the group that the Demos should be winning over.  Easily.

            The Democratic message that struggling working class and unemployed white people are privileged is working exactly as it should. It’s failing because it’s bullshit.

          • Tim says:

            Steve, do you believe you have the right, as a small business owner, to refuse service to blacks?  Gays?  Socialists?  Republicans?  Members of the American Nazi Party?

            Considering the internet is an information superhighway, would it have been fair to demand Rosa Parks “get her own damn bus” or start her own taxi company?

            As for taxation, there is a massive difference between voluntary taxation and a majority picking on a minority.  First they taxed the rich, and I did not speak out — because I was not rich…

        • Joe Bob Briggs says:

          Read a book on intersectionality, Trowers.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Yeah, Joe Bob.  I understand the concept.

            Now go out and win an election, hitting up the crowd with intersectionality.  You think you’ll win by dazzling them with your density of your language mated to your obtuseness?

            It’s a great idea, isn’t it?  Instead of reigning in a political strategy that’s clearly failing, double-down on it!  Create even more categories of “specials” out of the spaces where the “specials” intersect!

            Thanks for so exactly illustrating the problem that highly educated elitist liberal Democrats have in selling their message to the working class.  As an academic construct, I have no problem with the concept of intersectionality.  As a foundational for a political playbook, it sucks out loud.

            Fail.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Yes, JBR,  economic privilege is different than racial privilege … it is a universal concept that can be applied to everybody, as opposed to the concept of racial privilege, which is applied to one specific people–namely, whites.

      • Joe Bob Briggs says:

        Ignoring white privilege  doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

        • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

          I didn’t say to ignore it. I said to de-prioritize it, if you want to win over white people. Maybe you don’t!

          • Joe Bob Briggs says:

            White person thinks white privilege isn’t a big deal, film at 11.

          • R.V. Scheide says:

            Racist!

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Joe Bob — I like you, but try not to be such a penis with limbs.

            There is a legitimate argument that the Democrats are getting their collective ass handed to them—especially at the level of state government—because of the Balkanization of victimhood that the Demos have been promoting for decades.

            As I’ve said elsewhere, Uncle Bernie tried and failed to do exactly what R.V. suggested: De-emphasize the political fragmentation of victimhood, and emphasize the economic similarities of those who are being left behind when it comes to the American dream—including white people who are getting screwed (and there are millions of them).

            In the end, Uncle Bernie got strong-armed, he capitulated, and he started sounding like Hillary ver. 2.0, he didn’t get the nomination.  Hillary failed too, because her message was the same as it’s been forever:  We’re the party of special classes of victims—except for white males, who deserve what they get if they’re not doing so well, because privilege.

            As a result, she fucking LOST, and we got Trump and a SCOTUS that will be conservative for the rest of my fucking life.

            There are far-left people like Bill Maher who see this problem clearly and speak of it ad nauseam.  I don’t like Gavin Newsom—I think he’s a smug pretty-boy careerist with a sense of political entitlement (like Hillary)—but he’s spoken to the problem, too.  Things like racism and sexism exist, but it’s a losing hand to make those issues the primary issues in elections.  He’s also said it’s a losing hand to make the corruption of the GOP the primary issue—it’s a hugely important issue, but people in White Bread America don’t give a shit about collusion with Russia.

            R.V. is talking about being pragmatic in order to turn back the GOP’s run of dominance.  You’re arguing for political orthodoxy, regardless of the outcomes.  One of those two world-views is conceptually idiotic and self-destructive in practice.

  5. conservative says:

    America today is a lot like Detroit in 1967.  The quality of life for poor white and black people is awful and getting worse.  Hope is fading fast.  The 2% annual GDP growth economy hurts the poor the most.  The drug culture, the rise of hate groups, the rise of single motherhood, the decline of churches teaching values, the decline of real educational attainment, the children in foster care because of their mother’s drug use, and probably a dozen more on the list.  It is an explosive mixture.

  6. Robert Scheide Sr. says:

    A GERMAN POEM THAT SAYS IT ALL

     

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    So the apparent answer to the free speech of Americans , is sure let them speak, but counter their speech with bigger and bigger crowds.  The minute they propose violence and commence to hurt  people take them down.  The danger of allowing them to run their tripe on the net brings to mind ISIS recruiting suicide bombers on the net and have them carry out the acts they received over the net.  How long till the alt right encourages the same kind of acts.

    AS RV says the alt right is highly Libertarian which should say it all to those students of economies..Libertarian economics has never worked anywhere it has been tried and brings outright disaster to countries that have tried it, think Chile.

    It is really hard to harness speech in any flavor, but when it is hate speech that we have seen before that brought about a world war do we draw a line there..  I think so and it should probably be shut down before it turns uglier.. Why take the country back 100 years.  Sure white men have joined the ranks of underprivileged block men and they now have joined them in the hurt..

    So the obvious answer is for all to force the folks who have all the cash begin to share in their wealth, after all they made it by screwing us and not sharing profit with their workers.. No  they kept it all for their-selves ,shipped our jobs overseas , didn’t invest in America , just their own bank accounts.

    So perhaps instead of exercising our mouths we should zip up our wallets till they start sharing the wealth with all so all the boats could rise, white , black, brown , all.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      That sounds like socialism, dad. That can get you banned from Google.

      • Robert Scheide Sr. says:

        I am a Bernie Socialist, no doubt..  there are too many examples where modified socialism has been quite successful so why not.   Capitalism has not been kind to any body in the last 30 years I am ready to try something else.  Like health care for all and free college.

    • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

      The alt-right is highly libertarian?  Sure, that’s what they say about themselves.  That’s what a lot of local conservatives say about themselves, too:  “I’m basically a libertarian.”  But when you really listen to them, it turns out they’re law-and-order authoritarians (excepting the environment) and many are moralistic busy-bodies, based on religious orthodoxies.

      Certainly, anyone mimicking or even professing admiration for NAZIism is an authoritarian, not a libertarian.  Trump, when he goads his “fans” into attacking protesters at his rallies, or tells cops they should start roughing up people they’re arresting, proves himself a thuggish authoritarian.  People who applaud Trump—or go further and do his bidding—are likewise thuggish authoritarians.

      • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

        The default ECONOMIC position of the Alt-Right is libertarianism in the Mises mold. Obviously, the real Nazi are national socialists. In fact, Alt-Left was originally a term designed to apply to the neo-Nazis.

        • Tim says:

          You’re saying the alt-right supports Libertarian economic positions like free trade and open borders?  Ending petro-wars and other oil subsidies?  Free-market banking?

        • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

          Trump—and most of the people who still support him who identify as “alt-right” —are so far from economic libertarianism that it’s laughable.  Protectionism, closed borders, coal subsidies, ramping up military spending…

          As for Alt-Left being originally designed to apply to neo-Nazi’s—that depends wholly on teasing out the thousands of times “Alt-Left” has been defined independently and determining which one was first.  And it matters not, because “Alt-Left” has never had any importance in the lexicon, has only recently emerged from total obscurity and only as a smaller bookend to the opposite of “Alt-Right.”  It is is still not nearly as widely used as “Alt-Right,” except by Sean Hannity and people who admire him.

          As for the increasingly popular fantasy among right-wingers that Naziism was a left-wing movement:  All actually-existed fascist states, including Nazi Germany, practiced business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — it the 1930s, the heyday of centralized socialism/communism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.  Nazi fascism was a partnership between the central state and the military-industrial complex.

          And all you have to do with today’s neo-Nazis, to identify whether they are left-wing or right-wing, is identify who they support (Trump) and who they hate (liberals, non-whites, non-straits, non-Christians, etc.)

           

  7. Frank Treadway says:

    Sounds like RV, Sr. has a more rounded grip on the subject than RV, Jr.  Nevertheless, all ethnic/social groups, including women, are stultified when it comes to equity in the workplace. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part non-white persons in the US are still trampled on, be they left or right.  I’m old enough to witness cross-burning right here in Shasta County.  This disgusting scare tactic plays out in more subtle ways still today in our community. However, it’s not going to make me leave my community, the potential is still here to make our City the Queen of the North, like it was in the 1960s.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      In a Record Searchlight article recently, it stated Shasta County was 88 percent white. I don’t think the Democratic Party on a national level understands how some of its rhetoric sounds to communities such as ours. So far, while they’ve hinted they’re aware of the problem, they’ve done little to address it. What this nation needs is a $5 trillion infrastructure package. Rebuild the inner cities, rebuild rural communities, invest in America all around. No more Wall Street bailouts, no more wars for oil. You know, all that stuff Trump said he was going to do, but lied about.

  8. Janet Williams says:

    Thank you for another great column!

  9. Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

    So far as I know, no government agency has limited the white nationalists from speaking out, which is what the 1st Amendment forbids regarding free speech.  Businesses are entitled to decide whether or not they’re going to allow hate-mongerers to use their communications platforms as megaphones.  On a small scale, A News Cafe’s proctors delete hateful comments.  Sometimes they delete merely cranky comments, like mine.  That’s not a violation of my free speech—I can still say whatever I want to my friends and my dog.

    I don’t quite know what to think about AntiFa.  Prior to Charlottesville, I just thought of them as the idiot anarchists who like to throw bricks through Starbucks windows during otherwise peaceful left-wing demonstrations.  Since Charlottesville, I’ve heard a lot of right-wingers opine that they’re just as bad as the white nationalists/neo-NAZIs and basically believe in the same things as the white nationalists/neo-NAZIs.  That’s not true.

    Here’s what I understand about AntiFa, based on what I’ve heard since Charlottesville.

    Here’s where AntiFa doesn’t seem to me to be all that bat-shit:  They don’t want liberal big government—they’re basically neo-anarchists who believe the role of big government is to reinforce the status quo.  They also reject the Balkanization of victimhood by liberals—they see the power struggle as an us-against-them struggle between the haves and have-nots.  (The “haves” have most of the wealth and the power and increasingly corner it—they’re the ruling plutocracy.)  While accepting the reality of racism, sexism, etc., they view the breaking up of the have-nots into special groups of victims as a ploy by the ruling plutocracy—including Democrats—to divide and weaken the larger group of have-nots.

    Here’s where AntiFa seems most similar to white nationalists/neo-NAZIs:  They believe in direct confrontation, and that violence and vandalism are legitimate tactics—throwing a brick though the window of a Starbucks or going at white nationalists with hardwood sticks is preferable to being ignored, the way namely-pamby liberal demonstrators chanting “hey hey, ho ho….” are routinely ignored.  That type of violent and illegal activity is viewed by AntiFa as lying within the traditions of civil disobedience.

    Of the preceding two paragraphs, the political theories described two paragraphs above strike me as arguable, and even embraceable.  It’s the paragraph directly above—the embrace of violence—where I still recoil.

    • R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

      Although local governments as well as universities have denied Alt-Right and other speakers deemed controversial the right to speak based on safety concerns, none so far has denied it based on the speech itself. Right now, the Supreme Court decision still stands: Naais have the right to assemble and speak just like anyone else.

      It is not clear to me whether AntiFa and Black Bloc are the same, even though they dress the same. I did see a lengthy interview of one of AntiFa’s alleged leaders on Democracy Now who was advocating violence to suppress hate speech–defines as whatever AntiFa says it is. In the past, the left has argued Black Bloc are agent provocateurs who act to discredit the left. Is that what they think they’re doing now?

      It is also not clear to me the involvement of Soros and other similar NGO types in the Resistance and AntiFa. In many ways, Charlottesville resembles one of those “color revolutions” we’ve been staging around the world since Yugoslavia in the late 1990s. What’s the game here?

  10. Jerry says:

    Thank you, RVS and ST.  All three of you have given me a lot to ponder.  Very helpful points of view, based on reason and facts, IMHO.  Thank you once again.

  11. The Old Pretender says:

    Since the days of net neutrality are over, I am not surprised speech is being restricted.  Once the airwaves are no longer the public commons, it is the corporate interests that call the shots.  Cut into their profit, and you no longer have a voice.  A continuation of the robber-barons and the Citizen’s United crowd who ended up deciding the rights of us all.

    The crash of 2008, and the lack of prosecution of those who stole the economy, set up the white boy angst that came alive in Charlottesville.  The socialists were damn close to bringing us back from the brink, but until we all realize the true enemy is corporatists of all parties, we will never right this ship.

  12. Tony Selle says:

    Nit-picking perhaps, but calling an elected official a public servant in your reply above does a disservice to actual civil/public servants. There is a vast difference between politicians (elected) and public servants (merit hires). One makes laws, takes big money for campaigns and blames the ills of government on the other

    Otherwise great write, you always make me think.

     

  13. Josephus says:

    I strongly identify with the alt right.  I also understand where antifa is coming from.  The ideas of the alt right are extremely powerful and the more people who are exposed to their actual message as opposed the media’s gross mischaracterization of it (kkk, nazism,  etc) the stronger it will become.  The antifa are understandibly panicked.  Debating the ideas isn’t working so they have to resort to violence.  However this is counter productive as the alt right perceives this as the left’s concession that their arguments cannot be refuted.

    The idea that the alt right would go away if we just ignored them is facile.  They are growing.  And they are growing because their message is extrordinarily powerful.   The only way to stop them is censorship, violence, and oppression.

    There is of course a great deal of irony in labeling them facists.

    • Joe Bob Briggs says:

      The alt-right literally waves the Nazi  and KKK flags at their marches I’m not seeing any mischaracterization.

    • Larry Winter says:

      So, lay some arguments from the alt-right that “can’t be refuted” that has forced us on the left (we are a monolith, I can say openly now that the word is out) to resort to violence.  (I guess I should be looking for my baseball bat while I await an answer).

      • Josephus says:

        You are right.  Substitute antifa for left in that sentence I wrote.  The left is absolutely not monolithic on the issues the alt right is concerned about.

        The concept remains however that the alt right perceives the deliberate distortion of their positions through represents an inability to rebut their ideology.

        If their ideology is as weak as people would have you believe then it should not be hard to accurately state what they believe, then tell why they are wrong.

        What I see in the media are an abundance of straw man arguments against the alt right.  Most of the people in the alt right despise the kkk and 1488ers precisely because they do not give an accurate portrayal of what the movement stands for.   It is frustrating because it gives people who oppose the movement (not just the left) a convenient way to ignore, distort, and cartoonishly mischaracterize their views, instead of addressing what they actually believe.

        • Larry Winter says:

          “The concept remains however that the alt right perceives the deliberate distortion of their positions through represents an inability to rebut their ideology.”

          Well, I’m still unable to rebut an ideology you haven’t expressed yet.

          • Tim says:

            That privilege comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors — and is something that white men are quite often lacking.

            That there are different distributions of traits associated with various races & genders.  While everyone deserves equal protection under the law, we will never be completely equal.

            That countries have a right and duty to protect their borders. Those who break border laws are criminals.

            That Christians have become persecuted in America.

            That the freedom of speech is being suppressed by urban political correctness.

            That the right to bear arms is under attack; it is an individual right guaranteed by the constitution.

            That almost all major media and internet companies promote loose morals and a liberal agenda (is it any wonder 33% of middle schoolers are sexually active and nearly half have experimented with drugs and alcohol?)

            That the economic policies of the former administration have penalized small businesses and rewarded massive consolidations.  The stimulus packages helped those who were already rich.

            That the war of northern aggression was not just about slavery.  Less than 5% of the south owned slaves, 4 slave states fought on the union side, Lincoln’s inaugural address promised not to take away slavery (“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”), the war waged for 2 years before Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation, and the south voted pretty much as a block on a wide range of issues outside of slavery – from rejecting the third bank of the US to trying to block tariffs designed to protect northern manufacturing at southern expense.  Erasing evidence of southern heritage is no different than removing Christopher Columbus because he mistreated natives or MLK because he was anti-gay.

          • Larry Winter says:

            Thanks Tim, though a lot of your points are just typical right wing talking points, nothing new that would create a new term like the Alt-right.

            But I’ll take a crack at your list.

            1. I’ve experienced white privilege when I was younger while applying for a job.  To say it doesn’t exist because privilege also exists in other forms, such as economic status, doesn’t mean people aren’t still confronted with it.

            2.  I think the left demands equal opportunities, not that everyone is genetically equal as you’re implying.

            3.  Border laws are enforced regardless of who’s in power.  Sanctuary cities are making a statement that enforcement of immigration laws should be prioritized at the Federal level and that States and Cities have a right to prioritize their laws themselves, based on their needs and concerns.  State’s rights and all of that.

            4. Christians have over 90 churches in Redding alone.  Nuff said.

            5.  Freedom of speech is aimed at Government which can’t restrict speech based on content.  It can cancel events based on safety reasons.  Those that threaten violence based on someones speech should be arrested.

            6.  This argument is rather vague.  Felons lose their constitutional right to bear arms without a peep from conservatives.  Maybe the Alt-right has another attitude.  But even here in liberal California, I can go buy a hand gun or long gun.  That right still exists.

            7.  Media and Internet companies are only following Capitalist principles.  If sex sells, well, it’s going to be offered.  Isn’t that how capitalism works?

            8.  Now you’re just talking policy matters.  Berniebots would agree with your statement.

            9.  The War of Northern Aggression?  Lol.  Seceding from the Union and attacking Fort Sumter weren’t aggressive acts?  How PC southern style.  Lincoln’s quote was an attempt to keep the Union together, but the deep South had already seceded and they weren’t turning back.

            Erasing evidence of Southern Heritage isn’t a legitimate claim.  Statues are being moved to new locations, based on local, Southern decisions.

            You may not agree with my rebuttals, and they may not be the best, but it’s not a baseball bat.

          • Tim says:

            1) Calling it “white privilege” implies that privilege always occurs when one is white.  Such beliefs cause a wealthy black boy from the finest private schools and who even studied abroad (e.g. a young Barack Obama) to be granted preferential admissions treatment by Harvard due to his skin color because all blacks surely are disadvantaged and must need help from liberal white saviors.

            Judge privilege on its own merits; stop relying on lazy and divisive proxies like gender and race.

            2) James Damore would obviously disagree with you.  Girl-only coding boot camps are an example of unequal opportunities designed to meet an equality quota rather than provide true equal opportunity.  Affirmative Action in college enrollment hurts Asians.

            3) So Sacramento telling Shasta County not to hold an existing inmate an extra day for INS, despite Shasta County wanting to, is an example of local rights?

            4) Bernie Sanders said Russell Vought was not qualified for public office because Vought, as a Christian, believes one must accept Christ to reach heaven.  Would Sanders have made a similar litmus test for a Muslim applicant?  A Texas police sergeant was fired for refusing to take off his crucifix at work, yet others may wear turbans.

            5) When the government is 0/5 in allowing major conservative speeches due to “safety concerns” and yet no one is cracking down on those with the explicit goal of inciting violence to stifle said speeches (antifa), the government is failing to protect the first amendment.

            6) In California you’ll pay nearly twice as much for an AR15, America’s most popular long gun, and receive a neutered example compared to what is available in the free states.  Additionally, you cannot buy any of the all-new semi-automatic pistols unless you are a police officer or are buying one secondhand from a police officer.  This is because Kamela Harris has banned all new pistol designs that don’t stamp serial numbers in 2 places on casings — technology that does not exist in the real world.  You can buy grandfathered pistol designs as long as they remain unchanged.  In 2010 there were 1,400 models of semi-automatic pistols legal for sale in California.  In 2017 that number is down to 305.

            7) And yet “Last Man Standing” was selling just fine, but canceled by ABC.  Hickok45 generates tons of views on YouTube, but google took down his channel last year because it protrayed shooting as a fun and positive sport.  Conservative channels are being de-monitized; non PC search results are being artificially populated with “corrections” (e.g. “Why are Asians smarter?” no longer returns results noting Asians have larger brain cavities, average higher IQs, and are disproportionately represented in college, but instead returns a quora post that says “‘Asian people are smart’ is a stereotype”)

            9) Secession is non-violent unless violently prevented.  The “attack” on Fort Sumpter occurred only after Lincoln sent ships to bolster the troop count & provisions.

            And they aren’t just moving statues, they’re hiding them beneath blankets as if ashamed.  They’re removing the Confederate flag because some racists use it (lots of racists use the American flag too).  A Carolina police officer was recently fired for wearing confederate boxer shorts — would that happen to a black man wearing an African pattern or an Canuck wearing a maple leaf?

          • Larry Winter says:

            1.  Oh Gawd.  Right from Pat Buchanan’s play book.  You can’t prove what you say.

            2. James Damore stated that women aren’t code writers because of their biological makeup.  Another unproven remark that was considered bigoted by his boss.

            3. You completely missed my point about tensions between the Feds and States.

            4.”Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”

            “In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world,” Sanders told the committee during his introductory remarks. “This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms … we must not go backwards.”

            I’ll let these words speak for themselves in terms of who is the persecutor.

            And that Texan police officer that lost his case in the Texas Supreme Court?  That’s an argument for Christian persecution?  Lol.  Didn’t you read the case?

            5.Government isn’t 0 for 5 (Milos spoke at Calpoly that cost the school $65,000 for security) and there have been multiple arrests of violent protestors at other events.

            6. No shout out for felons?  I’m disappointed.  What kind of Second Amendment advocate are you?  Damn, only 305 models of semi-automatic hand guns available in the lib State of California.  Oppressive I tell ya!

            7.Last Man Standing?  Surely Fox would pick it up.  Wrong.  They declined.  Damn liberal media!  And I did Google “Why do Asians have larger brains” and I found an article on the first page and Hickok45 is on Youtube right now.

            8. You conceded number 8?

            9.Jeeze.  Secession is an action taken that violates the US Constitution.  But hey, they were forced to attack first because Lincoln was fortifying Fort Sumter and so Lincoln was the aggressor?  I can’t fight this logic.  It does not compute.  That’s like saying North Korea would be justified in attacking us because we have built up our military capabilities there.

             

            Look Tim, I appreciate the dialogue, but this can go on forever and still reflects my first point that the reason for violence from antifa is not because the Alt-right (whatever that means) have ironclad arguments.  It’s because people take on a righteous attitude that they are  morally right in becoming violent.  It takes a special kind of tunnel vision that doesn’t care if its from the left or right.

          • Tim says:

            1) Actually, it is straight out of 2008 candidate Obama’s play book:  https://youtu.be/saIVafSC38k

            2) You obviously have not read the actual memo.  Here it is: https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f  If you can’t spare the time to read the whole thing, at least note the graphic on page 3 which conveys his main argument: distributions of traits are often different between men and women, but there is so much overlap that individuals cannot be judged by the group average.  In other words, some men and some women have the traits desired in coders.  But it is also possible that a 50% male-female ratio will not reflect the average distribution of those desired traits.

            3) Orval Faubus made that same argument.

            4) Vought was stating his personal beliefs.  He was not saying he would discriminate against Muslims in his job.  His views are no different from fundamentalist Muslims (or Hasidic Jews or devout Mormons) who hold that those who reject their particular brand of faith will be denied heaven.  The 1st amendment protects said beliefs.

            5) San Luis Obispo, outside of campus, is not a liberal city. By the way, 2 more SF rallies were canceled due to threats of violence and no government commitment to law and order.  March on Google & The Free Speech rally (which somehow was perverted by the MSM into a white supremacist rally despite being led by a Japanese American who explicitly condemns hate speech).

            6) Obviously you’re not familiar with firearms.  There are at least 100 different handgun calibers, so 305 models — and forever after no new improvements — is quite restrictive (e.g. enjoy your choice of new 1977 Ford, Chevy, or Dodge sedans — forever…)

            7) Fox news is conservative; Fox, the network, is not.  Yes, Hickok45 was put back on YouTube after a major uproar last year. That his channel was taken down at all is merely a symptom of what Google thinks is offensive.  Seriously, he’s what Bob Ross was to painting, yet Google treated him like Gustave Courbet.

            8) You’ll get no argument from me about Berniebots and Trumpettes having a lot in common.

            9) Unlike the European Union, the constitution said nothing about disillusion.  But it is clear the founding fathers were not opposed to revolting against any government that became tyrannical.  Having been informed of South Carolina’s desire for independence, Lincoln choose to send troops — that is an aggressive act.

            10) We seem to agree.  Facism is facism, whether from the right or the left.  The main difference, imo, is that moderate conservatives have no problem condemning the words & actions of right-wing facists.  I have seen little to no outrage on the part of moderate liberals regarding the words & actions of left-wing facists.  Instead, Liberals take offense over this supposed equivalency and imply that because their facists aren’t as bad as the other facists, they have nothing to condemn.

          • Larry Winter says:

            You stated that Obama got into Harvard because of Affirmative Action.  I said you couldn’t provide evidence to make such a claim.  You send me to a Youtube interview that doesn’t talk about how he got into Harvard but where he talks about Affirmative Action saying that his daughters should be considered folks that are very advantaged by the Admissions department.

            Fail.

            I’m done.

          • Tim says:

            I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who my have benefited from the (Harvard) Law Review’s affirmative action policy…

            Barack Hussein Obama II, November 16, 1990

            No one disputes that a non legacy white boy with Obama’s mediocre grades*, no particular talent for sports, and (up until then) no achievements would have been denied admissions to Harvard Law School.

            *While Obama never released his college transcripts, his autobiography admits he was indifferent towards studies, used drugs, and partied often.  Further evidence is that Obama never made the dean’s list at Columbia, which required just a 3.3gpa for any given semester.

          • Josephus says:

            I tried to reply.  I don’t know if it got stuck in moderation?

             

          • Josephus says:

            I posted a reply but it didn’t go through.  I disagree with most of Tim’s points.  I think his second and third point represent valid alt right beliefs.  I don’t think the alt right cares about the “persecution of christians” for example.  That’s silly.  If the alt right was a christain movement they would be happy to bring in hoards of Christians from Central America.

            The idea that there are differences in distribution of traits between races is a core belief of the alt right.

            Also, the alt right believes the fact that the racial demographics of the US are changing at an unprecedented rate in American history is cause for concern.

            Another core tenet of the alt right is the idea that race is an integral part of identity.  Given the recent waves of other identity movements, an identetarian movement for white people was inevitable and perfectly natural.

            The alt right believes it is not wrong for white people, or any other group for that matter, to be proud of their identity and heritage.

            They also believe it is normal and healthy for people to want to live in communities made up of people like themselves.

          • Steve Towers Steve Towers says:

            Tim — The victim mentality is strong in you.  You’re persecuted because you’re white, because you’re male, because you’re Christian, because you want to own guns and someone is presumably preventing you, because you want to want to speak out and the PC police are somehow preventing you……it goes on and on.

            But what I find particularly amusing is this:  “That almost all major media and internet companies promote loose morals and a liberal agenda (is it any wonder 33% of middle schoolers are sexually active and nearly half have experimented with drugs and alcohol?)”        

            I don’t know if you’ve ever lived in a university town, but most of them are decidedly liberal.  As kids tend to everywhere, most university town kids more or less adopt the political worldviews of their parents.  Same, I’ve found, in decidedly conservatives Shasta County.  All of those youngsters—here and there—are exposed to the influences of the same suite of major media and internet companies.

            Let’s compare liberal godless Davis and conservative Christian Redding.

            Which community of the two do you think has the higher teenage pregnancy rates?  The higher rates of drug and alcohol use in young people?  The higher rates of school violence?  The higher incidences of hate crimes?  The higher rates of high-schools drop-outs?

            Which community has the higher high school graduation rate? The higher median SAT rates?  The higher rate of attending college? The higher percentage of college graduates?

            There are large swaths of America that exist largely as you wish it to be:  Mostly white, conservative, Christian, Trump Train-riding, and alt-right in political outlook as you described it.

            These large swaths of America are also relatively uneducated and unprosperous.  That America reaches its ass-backwards nadir in the Deep South, but it’s also in evidence in Shasta County and all of the counties surrounding us.  And not coincidentally, these swaths of America are economic parasites.  Here in California, the red counties take far more revenue from Sacramento than we pay in.  Across the country—with very few exceptions—the red states take far more revenue from the U.S. Treasury than they pay in.

            You get one thing semi-right:  The plutocracy that runs this country favors corporate power and continued consolidation of the nation’s wealth by the über-wealthy.  You attribute that to the previous administration (you’re right), but seem to believe that it doesn’t apply to the current administration (laughably wrong—the current administration is more supportive of the billionaire class than any since Reagan).

          • Tim says:

            I’m agnostic, but don’t need to be Christian to see that it is wrong to suspend a football coach for not waiting until students/parents to leave before praying after a game.  Simply insert a supposedly disadvantaged religion in place of Christianity to see if the treatment is fair (would a Muslim coach be required to pray in private?)

            And presumably preventing me from owning guns?!  There is nothing presumptive about the fact I can’t buy the ambidextrous gen5 Glock because California civilians are prohibited from buying anything newer than a Gen3.

            Regarding liberal media portrayal of sex, I was alluding to network TV’s acceptance/encouragement of teen promiscuity and the concomitant rise in teen STDs (by age 24, half of Americans will have contracted an STD — a rate that is largely constant throughout the country).  Teen pregnancy, on the other hand, is far more correlated to poverty than party (Mendocino county, 66% democrat, has a teen pregnancy rate far in excess of Shasta County, 62% republican).  If you’d like to discuss liberal policies and their affect on the family, perhaps we should consider the rise of the single parent since the Great Society?

            As for unprosperous, uneducated, economic parasites — allow me to quote a sometimes sharp fellow:

            “Thanks for so exactly illustrating the problem that highly educated elitist liberal Democrats have in selling their message to the working class.”

            Big city liberals can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact some of us would rather own outright 100 acres in the country, earn $20,000/year, and spend $10,000 than finance 0.1 acre in the city, make $100,000/year, and spend $110,000.  Stop measuring poverty by this floating ratio of income disparity rather than whether folks have stable food, clothing, & shelter.

            Is Mendocino county any better off for being so liberal?  And why do you consider the deep south the conservative nadir?  Louisiana is 28% republican, Mississippi 46%, & Alabama 49% (versus 67% Wyoming, 59% Utah, & 51% Montana).

            When their host dies, parasites find a new host or perish too; if the government ceased tomorrow, do you think your “economic parasites” in WY, UT, and MT would be wasting away?  Or would it be those dependants we’ve cultivated in “prosperous” SF, LA, NYC, etc?

            PS: I’m not a fan of the current administration and don’t expect it to reduce the cronism that is polluting our capitalist system.  But I do think that, so far, it is only the 3rd worst of the century when judged by net effect on citizens’ liberty.

  14. R.V. Scheide Jr. says:

    Story update: Incredibly, as of Thursday August 24, The Daily Stormer is back on the regular internet. It’s apparently hard to keep these Nazis down!

  15. The Old Pretender says:

    FOURTH REICH ZOMBIES!!!

  16. Josephus says:

    I’m a little miffed my comment got hijacked by Tim and Steve and Larry never responded to my accurate description of the alt right and instead chose to engage Tim.

  17. Mark Kessinger says:

    That’s because enlightenment is the best disinfectant.

    IHmm, interesting gloss on the famoujs quote of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.  But Brandeis didn’t use the word ‘enlightenment, but rather the word ‘sunlight.’  And the two terms are not, even when used metaphorically, synonymous.  The Brandeis quote, in its fuller context, states:

    Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

    What Brandeis was talking about was not the ‘enlightenment’ of people, but rather about illuminating, or shining a light on — indeed, exposing — wrongdoing and corruption for all to see.  Enlightenment of people (as in giving them an increased understanding and awareness of something), is something rather different.  I mean, you can shine a light on something so that others can see it; but that doesn’t mean that those who see what you are illuminating for them will necessarily be enlightened by having seen it.

    For people to be able to be ‘enlightened’ in the sense that Mr. Scheide suggests requires, first and foremost, a prior willingness to be so enlightened.  It requires a choice:  a choice to privilege reason and empiricism over one’s emotions, biases and bigotries.  That choice is both an intellectual and a moral one.  And if people have made the choice not to give priority to reason and empiricism in forming their views about things, any effort you make to “enlighten” them will serve only to further entrench them in their positions.

    When I was younger, I probably would have agreed 100% with your position.  I am a passionate believer in the freedom of speech, and for much of my life, I was pretty absolutist in my views about the First Amendment.  But in a society that has enshrined equal protection under the law and equal civil rights in its Constitution, and has come to embrace those values as an essential part of what it means to be an American, I have to question whether it makes sense to permit hate groups to peddle ides that are fundamentally contrary to these values.  These groups, if given half a chance, would be the very first groups to set about denying the very freedom of speech they themselves are now exploiting.  Their rights end where others’ rights begin; and thus I have to reluctantly conclude that their right to advocate their views should likewise end at the point that such views advocate for intruding on the rights of others.

    Finally, it is worth noting that by the 1930s, German society was the most highly educated, erudite, cultured — indeed, enlightened — societies that had ever existed in human history (that we knew of at that time).   But that didn’t stop them from giving in to baser aspects of their collective character.  The view that people whose views are rooted in irrational hatred and bigotry are merely in need of enlightenment rest on the idea that they will necessarily choose to receive such enlightenment. But we know that people do not always choose to act or think rationally.  And we needn’t even go back to the Third Reich to see examples of it:  witness the Tea Party, or the birthers, or any of the other alt-right conspiracy nutcase factions.  Hell, for that matter, look at Trump’s hardcore supporters.

    • Mark P. Kessinger says:

      A couple of additional points that I alluded to above, but could have made more explicitly:

      A couple of points that I alluded to, but could have made more explicitly:

      (1) that the absolutist defense of the First Amendment rests on the idea that better, more noble and more just ideas will necessarily prevail against toxic ones. That belief is, at best, overly optimistic, and I don’t believe it is borne out in history. In fact, history shows that sometimes the opposite happens.

      and

      (2) that the right of freedom of speech, like all other civil rights, exists in tension with the same right of everyone else (which most of us acknowledge), but also in tension with OTHER constitutional/civil rights. Thus it makes little sense to give an absolute privilege to the freedom of speech that we certainly do not give to other constitutional or civil rights.

      • Tim says:

        Unlike facist Germany, the United States is a republic which is built on the protection of enumerated rights. If you would like to add or remove a constitutional right, the founding fathers even left a handy dandy method of doing so – get 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of states to ratify the change (a high enough bar to warrant serious contemplation considering how good the original has been).
        What you are suggesting is modern day McCarthyism; it is the worst of America, built on insecurity and fear that, when presented with all the information, your fellow citizens won’t reach a good conclusion on their own.
        (and yet the 1st still protects your right to advocate removing the 1st amendment, even though it is as offensive as the KKK’s desire to get rid of the 14th)

        • Mark Kessinger says:

          I am not advocating the removal of the First Amendment. I am advocating keeping First Amendment rights in appropriate balance with other constitutional and civil rights, rather than reflexively privileging it over them.

        • Mark Kessinger says:

          Also, Germany WAS a Republic when Hitler came to power. Not so much after he had been in power for a while.

    • Josephus says:

      Very eloquent. Your comment about valuing reason and empiricism above emotion got my heart beating fast.

      What if the alt right is not advocating impeding the rights of others? What if they are prevented from speaking and clarifying their ideas because people have imputed goals and motives to them which do not represent their actual views?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *