We in the Alt Right should pat ourselves on the back for giving the reading public a more meaningful vocabulary with which to describe what looks more and more like the dystopia around them. Our political problems are much better understood through the prism of race and ethnicity than “liberal” and “conservative” labels. That old dichotomy has become irrelevant, yet many still cling to it.
To be clear, I find liberals to be exasperating in their political views, and generally avoid extended conversation with them. But not a few of them are likely driven by pathological altruism, which, however mischievous in its effects, springs from a good instinct. So I’m not ready to dehumanize them to the extent that we see in mainstream conservative media.
Whenever we see some type of Black Lives Matter outrage of violence against a hapless White, the reaction from your average conservative is something like, “Well, there go liberals, they’re the ones who are really violent.” Let’s call it Democrats are the real criminals, an aberration of “Democrats are the real racists.” Can it be that they really miss the most obvious quality of the attacker? They don’t really imagine that a Starbucks-swigging upper middle-class White liberal is “the real criminal.”
Steven Crowder, who apparently claimed leadership of the Alt Right (much to the amusement of The Daily Stormer [here and here]) steps in as the perfect foil to my argument. In an article from April, 2015, after heaping praise on the peaceful protests of Martin Luther King Jr. and lauding the role of violence in defeating the Nazis and freeing of slaves, Mr. Crowder proceeds to make this rather obtuse observation:
Liberals can’t seem to wrap their heads around this concept. It seems every time liberals set out to protest, we end up with destruction. Violence is the rule for leftists, not the exception.
He then goes on to give examples of “liberal” protests gone bad, such as in Detroit, Baltimore and Ferguson; but he also throws in Woodstock and Occupy Wall Street for good measure, as though those temper-tantrums were equivalent to the utter savagery of inner-city riots. But as for noticing the obvious about political violence in America — that it’s really about race, he just can’t go there.
To view a Black attacking a White and to identify that Black as a “liberal” is truly an astounding act of self-deception. To do so is to imply that the person involved is guided primarily by an abstract ideology, which is simply laughable. To paraphrase John Derbyshire, Blacks and Mexicans are not carefully perusing campaign literature with furrowed brow to decide their political allegiance. Rather, they’re following their racial interests, and, in the instances of documented violence against our people, indeed they are following their racial hatreds.
All in all, we in the Alt Right are making finer distinctions in our analyses, especially among different types of Whites, who after all seem to be the only race to put abstract ideologies before their own racial interests. This is why we have further divided Whites into cuckservatives, cucks, and “shit-libs” (a term which implies a disingenuous, glib, anti-White advocacy).
And to further clarify, we have helpfully pointed out that many of the most virulent self-hating Whites are actually not White at all. Not only will you find them in the byline of the most odious journalism, but also they populate the comment boards of the internet and Twitter with their invective. When you find irascible anti-White prose, you often find a name linked to the Old Testament. We denote these unpleasant fellows with parentheses, which calls to mind an amusing echo sound effect innovated on the Daily Shoah podcast. This is not meant to convey any ill-will whatsoever; we are merely helping the reader to “consider the source,” if you will.
And yet our mainstream Republican brethren persist in viewing society in the lame, worn-out liberal/conservative paradigm. It’s time to move on. Indeed, we have staked out a worldview from which we frankly concede some of the left’s positions — positions that don’t seem to be inherently “leftist” except by the fact that they have arbitrarily landed in the orbit of the left at this particular point in history. “Liberal issues,” including environmentalism (which, as Nelson Rosit reminds us in a series of TOQ articles [available by subscription], was invented by White racialists), a strong social safety net, ending corporate abuse and the power of money in politics, may very well be advocated by the Alt Right in good faith, and perhaps even prudence—who knows? You see, we are open-minded.
Jared Taylor summed it up in a spirited appearance on NPR. Speaking of his alignment with Trump’s policy positions, he explained:
I might very well disagree with his trade policies, I might disagree with what he plans to do at the Veterans Administration. A President is going to have a huge amount of policies. As far as I’m concerned, though, and as far as the Alt Right is generally concerned, we are one issue voters. We would vote for any candidate who would stop the dispossession of the majority population.
That clarifies our position vis-à-vis the liberal/conservative bickering. We don’t care. We’re busy with a little, nagging existential issue called our survival.
Mainstream conservatives are bordering on self-parody when they confuse racial violence against Whites with “liberals” attacking us. How can we progress if we don’t call things by their proper name? Mainstream conservatives are all up in arms when liberals like President Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to use terms like “radical Islam,” but are not willing to deal with race in realistic manner.
The counterargument is that Black aggressors are not representative of Blacks per se, because hey, look at Fox News. There’s Ben Carson and that Sheriff Clarke fellow from Milwaukee with the big hat. These gentlemen, God bless ‘em, show only that not all Blacks are a problem, not that the problem with Ferguson, Baltimore, and Detroit doesn’t have something to do with Blacks. Just look at the statistics on Black crime, Black academic achievement, and the Black family. And look at the plaudits showered on any Black who will mouth conservative platitudes. Indeed, their motives are more suspect than those of the rampaging Black rioters.
I personally know some White liberals, as most of us do — not the obnoxious pontificators we see on TV, but actual flesh and blood people. For example: a Finnish woman who gets inexplicably elated by the existence of a Transgender bathroom, or an otherwise friendly and attractive librarian whose worldview is lamentably steered by NPR. I don’t regard them as sinister or violent at all, Steven Crowder’s thesis notwithstanding. Rather, they are in some ways naïve, on issues of race in particular, while perhaps having sensible views otherwise. They may deserve our censure in that regard, but we should hardly confuse them wanting to do us actual physical harm. Those who would harm us need to be called by name. And “liberals” does not quite do it anymore.
Contact Malcolm Jaggers