Hillary Clinton’s Reno speech had plenty of ridiculous moments. The claim that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is behind the Alt Right is laughable, but one shouldn’t ignore its obvious pandering to neocons, many of whom are shilling for Hillary or, like Robert Kagan, are actually advising her on foreign policy. The rest of the neocons are staying with the Republicans for now, hoping she wins and that they can pick up the pieces.
If you want hostility with Russia, Hillary’s your candidate, as the always hilarious Hillary PR Team noted on Twitter:
The Trump campaign runs on paranoia and fear, most likely because it is a subplot of Putin’s secret master plan for global domination.
— Hillary PR Team (@OnMessageForHer) August 26, 2016
In case you missed the speech, here is a 1½ minute version, with a special appearance from Pepe.
If you missed Hillary’s landmark speech yesterday, we recommend you play these highlights on a loop this weekend! pic.twitter.com/P7uewL83r3
— Hillary PR Team (@OnMessageForHer) August 26, 2016
What I want to focus on is her (slightly less ridiculous) statement, “The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump Campaign represents a landmark achievement for the ‘Alt-Right.’ A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.”
Would that it were so. Breitbart is not the Alt Right. There are certainly some linkages, made possible by fuzzy definitions of the Alt Right which provide irresistible opportunities for politicians like Clinton to smear Trump. But we do not read on Breitbart the full-throated identitarian, explicitly White, race realist, and Judaeo-critical ideas that are the true hallmark of the Alt Right.
So what are the prospects for the Alt Right really taking over the Republican Party? First, perhaps the most important contribution of Trump’s candidacy, win or lose, is that he has destroyed the traditional Republican Party. The GOP, “dependent on a neocon media and foreign policy establishment and with a big business, pro-Israel donor base, is dead—and, in my view, it can’t be resuscitated.” This was a party completely out of touch with its base. Trump accomplished a hostile takeover, and it’s no surprise that the elites who have run the party, are not on board with this revolution.
It is a fond hope of the neocons and likely also the Chamber of Commerce wing that after a Trump defeat, preferably by a landslide, that they can put this party back together again just like it was under George W. Bush. But this was always a party that depended on pulling the wool over the eyes of its base — talking tough on irrelevant issues like abortion and school prayer — while supporting immigration and trade policies that are obviously against the most fundamental interests of its base, with the neocon intellectual wing telling them that they have to support these policies out of principle. After 2014, the complete failure of the Republican Congress to actually do anything to stop the leftward trend was certainly part of the frustration that led into a Trump victory in the primaries.
It’s hard to see the base turning around and voting for the likes of Jeb Bush (the original darling of the establishment for 2016) after they have heard a politician present proposals that are actually in their interest — especially an immigration policy and trade policy aimed at the interests of Americans. The populist message is out of the bag now, and even if Trump loses there will be other politicians who will continue this trend, if only out of self-interest. The tendency for candidates like the sociopathic Ted Cruz to emulate Trump positions on these issues during the primaries was as obvious as it was opportunistic and insincere.
A neocon/Chamber-of-Commerce reconstituted GOP with its message of globalism and nation building would appeal to a minority of the GOP, likely a smaller minority than was apparent in the primaries. Such a party would be in the real interests of only a tiny minority of GOP voters. This party couldn’t possibly dream of winning a national election. But Trump has shown that a populist GOP could win a national election
So if we assume that a populist party with or without the Republican label is the wave of the future for most White Republicans, what are the prospects for an Alt Right takeover of the intellectual wing of the party? The fact is that the Alt Right is the only intellectually coherent perspective that supports Trump. The wars between the Trump campaign and the “principled conservatives” at what now passes as the mainstream conservative media, such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page, National Review, Commentary, and The Weekly Standard, are legendary. There is no question that the Alt Right has already established an impressive array of media outlets, mainly online. These can easily fill the vacuum created by the demise of the neocon-led intellectual basis of the GOP, and they will continue to grow. With greater funding, we could expand into print journals (like The Occidental Quarterly) as these traditional conservative publications do now, but that’s not really necessary. The world is now online.
The question is whether this new populist Republican party could successfully do without the Alt Right. To be sure, such a party could behave like the Trump campaign has necessarily operated, with implicitly White messages, especially on immigration, but without talk of explicit Whiteness. Such a movement would not mention the specter of Whites becoming a minority and all that will likely mean in terms of maintaining our culture and institutions — not to mention increased victimization of Whites given all the anti-White hatred that is becoming the norm in universities, BLM, etc.
The problem is that such an implicitly White populist perspective has approximately zero intellectual and media muscle. One approach would be similar to organizations that want to reduce immigration, such as FAIR or NumbersUSA, but never frame the issue as one of White interests. These organizations have been around for years but have not had any noticeable impact on legislation or on challenging the elite consensus on immigration. They inevitably deal at the level of data attempting to show that immigration has negative effects on various things — definitely useful for the converted, but not really a well-grounded theoretical perspective. The left has always been able to counter such data and muddy the waters in a way that doesn’t damage the elite consensus.
— (((Mark Krikorian))) (@MarkSKrikorian) August 26, 2016
Relatedly, all the data in the world do nothing to blunt the main self-interested motives behind the immigration onslaught — minority ethnic activism and corporate greed, both of which are completely entrenched among elites. These people are not swayed by data.
Such approaches would inevitably be piecemeal, one issue at a time, with no ability to tie it all together into a coherent world view. There would be no way to tie issues like immigration, trade, and political correctness (the assault on the traditional culture of America) into one theoretically grounded package. Inevitably, such a perspective would either subscribe to leftist views on race or do their best to fly under their radar.
I am not saying that such a perspective is impossible, but it would be a hodgepodge of ideas that don’t really fit together. It certainly would not have the faux theoretical gravitas of cuckservatism with its worship of muh principles — the Constitution, limited government, free markets, the moral imperative of an aggressive, nation-building foreign policy — on display at National Review, et al. Again, the good news is that whatever happens to Trump, this perspective is dead, its future the stuff of esoteric intellectualism, outside the political mainstream, outside the corridors of power.
Consider this exchange between Trump and his campaign chair, Steve Bannon:
Last year, in a November interview with Bannon, Trump regretted the loss of a worker who took his skills back to his native India.
“We’ve got to be able to keep great people in the country,” Trump said. “We have to be careful of that, Steve. I think you agree with that, Steve?”
Bannon did not. “A country is more than an economy,” he retorted. “We are a civic society.” (“‘Racialists’ are cheered by Trump’s latest strategy“)
The problem is that thinking of the US as a “civic society” doesn’t quite get there either. If America is just a civic society, what’s the problem with importing millions of smart foreigners? Couldn’t they, as assumed by the cuckservative credo, all become good Americans as long as they subscribe to the principles underlying the US as a proposition nation? These same people would be horrified if someone suggested Africa undergo displacement-level immigration because it would improve their societies.
The only way to have a theoretically grounded reason for wanting to keep such people out cannot be based on civic nationalism. It must be based on racial/ethnic nationalism — that is, it must be something approximating the Alt Right. Without an explicit Alt Right ideology of White identity and interests, there is no intellectual basis for arguing against Whites becoming a minority.
It’s already obvious that, as in the case of Jewish neocons so central to the previously regnant GOP ideology, their civic nationalist assertions are nothing more than attempts to mask their Jewish identities and allegiance to Jewish interests in a manner that is acceptable in American political discourse. Why suppose that any other non-Western ethnic group or religion with sufficient numbers and power would be different? We already see the effects of Muslim immigration in Europe—no-go zones, increased civil strife, bloc voting for the left, sexual predation, etc. The vast majority of Third World immigrants are simply not going to become principled conservatives whatever their IQ. Individualism is deeply ingrained in our European heritage and likely has an ethnic basis. It is suicidal to simply assume other groups will ever embrace it.
Civic nationalism might have made sense in a world in a steady state, 90% White society without displacement-level immigration. But in the present situation, where the traditional White American majority is on the verge of being demographically displaced and with the reasonable belief that other groups will not give up their identities and ethnic interests, it is simply agreeing to our own demise.
The Alt Right is not going away. As the only intellectual perspective that can put together a coherent, scientifically based populist world view, it will thrive in the post-neocon/cuckservative political landscape. As the onslaught inaugurated by the 1965 immigration law continues to affect more and more White people negatively, as White people increasingly see themselves as a precarious, threatened ingroup despised by the mainstream media and hostile minority ethnic activists, they will necessarily sign on to the Alt Right.
We are the future.