Hillary Clinton Denounces the ‘Alt-Right,’ and the Alt-Right Is Pleased
Below is the NYT take on the Alt-Right. Since I am often seen as Alt-Right, I think I am in a position to give a more accurate perspective.
For a start, in its best misleading style, the NYT lumps together all sorts of quite different interest groups. If there is a discernible common theme in Alt-Right writings, it is probably a belief that racial differences are real and that some of those differences matter. And I think you just have to walk around with your eyes open to see that. But where you go from there is quite various. Stormfront, for instance, is clearly neo-Nazi and I never go there. Vdare, on the other hand, I do read occasionally and I have donated to them. But I see Vdare as just old-fashioned conservatives. They would be Republicans if Republicans could bring themselves to mention racial differences. But Republicans have been thoroughly cowed by the Left so that is not going to happen.
I myself think that most racial differences are trivial or temporary but some are not. And I don't think America will have good public policy until the real differences between blacks and whites are acknowledged and integrated into public policy. For instance, there should be special schools using high-discipline policies for those blacks who are unable to adapt to traditional white classrooms. White education would thus no longer be held back and the blacks concerned might actually learn something for a change.
And let there be no doubt that the real racists are the Left. They never stop agitating about black "inequality" and they have in place a whole raft of laws and regulations that are as racially discriminatory as Jim Crow. And they are consistent in that Jim Crow laws were the work of Democrats too. Race, race, race dominates their thinking. It has got to the ridiculous stage in some schools where blacks cannot be punished for misbehavior unless whites and Asians are being punished at a similar rate. And since black kids are much more unruly, that leads to a very serious breakdown of order and means that all the students learn very little in the course of their education.
So, as usual, Leftists have turned reality on its head. They are themselves the most zealous racists but, with their unending torrents of abuse, they have managed to pin the racist label on other people. Leftists DO see differences between blacks and whites but no-one else is allowed to. Crazy.
So, one thing that would unite all those described as Alt-Right is the view that the "forgiveness" of disruptive and violent black behavior should end. There should be one law for all, impartially enforced.
The only other commonality that I see in the alleged "Alt-Right" is a respect for traditional European values. Britain, Western Europe and their derivative societies have created modern civilization and the modern world generally. Western European culture (including U.S. culture) has been enormously creative and its influence extends worldwide. A trivial but instructive example of that is that young Japanese females these days sometimes blond their hair! The European example is a powerful influence in just about everything these days
But where you go from acknowledging that is another matter. Most Alt-Righters would simply be pleased to have their membership of a dominant civilization generally acknowledged. They don't seek "white supremacy" at all. Why? Because they already have it! Their culture and laws already rule the roost. The Left devote demonic energies trying to tear down the dominant culture and its systems but they can only nibble at the edges. Alt-Righters would mostly be happy if the Left simply became constructive rather than destructive -- but that is an impossible dream, of course.
The Alt-Right does however explore a variety of possibilities for protecting European-descended people from hostile minorities. The phenomenon of "white flight" suggests that most Americans have some wishes in that direction.
And even Abraham Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. So was the Great Emancipator a racist? In the addled thinking of the modern Left, he was. What the Left will not see is something well-accepted in law -- that motives matter. Wanting to protect yourself and those like you from harm is radically different from wanting to do harm to others. And such different motives will produce quite different behavior sets.
But because the thinking categorizes people by race, it is racist, according to the Left. You can categorize people in all sorts of ways but the one way in which you must not categorize people is by race, according to the Left.
There is also a libertarian take here on the Alt-Right. Again it is over-inclusive. Very little of what it says would apply to all Alt-Right thinkers.
For instance, it says: "What is the alt-right theory of history? The movement inherits a long and dreary tradition of thought from Friedrich Hegel to Thomas Carlyle to Oswald Spengler to Madison Grant to Othmar Spann to Giovanni Gentile to Trump’s speeches"
That is an amazing lumping together of disparates, mostly Communists and Fascists. Hegel, for instance, was the inspiration of Karl Marx, not the Alt-right. And the article goes downhill from there.
So let people do a bit of Googling and read for themselves what the various Alt-Right sites say. You won't agree with them all but you may agree with some -- JR
As Hillary Clinton assailed Donald J. Trump on Thursday for fanning the flames of racism embraced by the “alt-right,” the community of activists that tends to lurk anonymously in the internet’s dark corners could hardly contain its glee.
Mrs. Clinton’s speech was intended to link Mr. Trump to a fringe ideology of conspiracies and hate, but for the leaders of the alt-right, the attention from the Democratic presidential nominee was a moment in the political spotlight that offered a new level of credibility. It also provided a valuable opportunity for fund-raising and recruiting.
Jared Taylor, editor of the white nationalist publication American Renaissance, live-tweeted Mrs. Clinton’s remarks, questioning her praise of establishment Republicans and eagerly anticipating her discussion of his community. “Come on, Hillary,” he wrote. “Talk about Alt Right.”
In an ode to Mr. Trump’s characterization of Jeb Bush, Mr. Taylor described her speech as “low energy.”
Other white nationalists mocked Mrs. Clinton, saying she sounded like a neoconservative and a “grandma,” while welcoming the publicity.
Mr. Trump has publicly kept his distance from the alt-right, but his critics have accused him of offering subtle cues to invite its support. His appointment of Stephen K. Bannon, the head of Breitbart News, to be chief executive of his campaign was cheered by alt-right members who are avid readers of the Breitbart website.
The alt-right claims to support the preservation of white culture in the United States, and many of its members want to see an overhaul of the entire political system. However, its views are widely seen as white supremacist and anti-Semitic.
Many who align themselves with alt-right philosophies say that they do not subscribe to all of Mr. Trump’s policies, but that electing him would be a step in the right direction because of his “America First” worldview and his hard line on immigration. This week, some expressed disappointment that Mr. Trump appeared to be softening his tone on deporting people who are in the country illegally.
Richard B. Spencer, the president of the white-nationalist National Policy Institute, who is credited with coming up with the name “alt-right,” pushed back against claims that the group promotes violence and said in a statement that there was a double standard at play.
“While Hillary & Co. condemn the alt-right — nonviolent activists seeking social change, largely through a vibrant internet presence — she allows noted supporters of terror to attend her rallies and has never once disavowed the actions of domestic terrorists associated with Black Lives Matter,” Mr. Spencer said.
Mrs. Clinton’s public criticism of the alt-right could turn out to be a boon for the movement, and its members did their best to capitalize on the moment.
Some, in an effort to show a lighthearted side, circulated footage of Mr. Taylor playing the saxophone at the group’s most recent conference. The white nationalist website VDare published a “What Is the Alt-Right?” video and blasted out a fund-raising pitch warning, “Hillary wants to ignite a witch hunt against the alt-right because she knows we are finally starting to make an impact on the public’s thinking about immigration.” And the Stormfront forum set up an online thread for potential new members.
After Mrs. Clinton’s speech, one group of white nationalists convened a 90-minute videoconference that was broadcast on YouTube. The consensus was that Mrs. Clinton was “toothless” and “lackluster,” and they expressed disappointment that she had not mentioned alt-right leaders by name. She made reference only to David Duke, the former Klansman whose support Mr. Trump was slow to disavow.
Although the alt-right tried to put its best foot forward, there was plenty of venom directed at Mrs. Clinton, and the conspiracy theories ran wild. A popular attack was the continuing effort to raise questions about her health.
By addressing the alt-right in such a prominent setting, Mrs. Clinton ran the risk of helping its cause. But Richard Cohen, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, dismissed the idea that Mrs. Clinton was doing the public a disservice by drawing attention to the alt-right.
“I think every public official ought to denounce racism, and that is what Secretary Clinton did,” Mr. Cohen said, noting that the alt-right ideology opposes the notion that all people are equal.
Referring to the term “alt-right,” which was trending on Twitter, he added, “It is a fancy, almost antiseptic term for white supremacy in the digital world.”