Alt Right Forever?

Analysis of Spencer video.

Basically I agree with most of what Spencer says here.

A few points:

1. I’m no fan of the Alt Right, for reasons outlined numerous times on this blog, and the “branding” arguments and semantic debates about naming this precinct of Der Movement leave me cold.  That said, Spencer makes reasonable points in this brief video.

2. On the one hand, what happened at the conference was not optimal, and I’ve written as much.  But some folks are getting carried away with their reaction, being a bit hysterical.  It was regrettable, but not fatal.  It really isn’t that big of a deal.  Acknowledge error (no need for “apology”) and more forward.  Hopefully something was learned here.  But the idea that the “Alt Right brand” (such as it is) has been “damaged beyond repair” is simply ridiculous. If people are so easily discouraged by that, then they are useless for any serious sort of political activism.  A more important issue is having security for the meetings, doing so with the reality of the open hostility of the System and its police forces (e.g., leftist thugs can attack with impunity; rightest self-defense would likely be criminalized).

3. Alt Right a household name?  Perhaps that’s going too far, but I was recently surprised when a female of my acquaintance asked me: “What’s the Alt Right?  Can you explain it to me?”  Now, that was in response, I later learned, to an article about Bannon and not Spencer, but still….

4. Spencer’s critique of Ramzpaul was spot-on.  I listened to RZP’s own video, there was the implication of the same attitude that greeted Ronnie Raygun’s 1980 election – ‘we won, so no need for any more radical activism.”  Sigh.  That’s the wages of “mainstreaming.”  And RZP’s statements about The Daily Stormer being an ADL False Flag – what can one say? That’s typical “movement” drama, and that applies regardless of whether or not the accusation is true.  Constant “movement” freakishness.

5. Spencer’s comments about the self-determination of small nations was a very effective riposte to the ethnonationalist faction.  The “Velvet Divorce” of the Czechs and Slovaks worked out with NATO and the EU in the background, and Big Daddy America and its nuclear arsenal and superpower status backing ostensible small nation sovereignty (but are any of these nations truly sovereign?).  In the absence of these larger unit power structures, why would anyone take small nations with populations in the low millions seriously?  Why would anyone take any single European nation seriously (apart from the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France, and only the French force is truly independent; putting aside whether or not you want to consider Russia as “European” as well).  Why should the Chinese take the Czechs and Czech sovereignty seriously apart from Czech membership in supra-national organizations?  This is NOT a call for any sort of rigid empire or Euro-panmixia, nor a call for any nation to give up its uniqueness or internal rule.  But facts are facts: in a world of a clash of civilizations, smaller nations alone have no viability on the world stage whatsoever.  They may delude themselves that they do, but they really do not, and eventually that reality will catch up to them.

Advertisements