Don’t Give People a Club to Beat You Over the Head With

In November of 2016, I wrote an article called “The Alt-Right and Tyler Durden’s Advice” (I’ll get into the meaning of the Tyler Durden reference at the end of this writing), and in December, the next month, I did a modification of it called “Seize the Center: A Critique of the Alt Right, Including Tyler Durden’s Advice.”  The two pieces were written just after Donald Trump had been elected president and there was a feeling in the air that the alt-right—its spokesmen and their take on things and ways—was the action in white racial activism, and more, that alt-right was now who we all were, including me.  The writings reflected my discomfort with the alt-right nomenclature and approach, including the way it had latched on to Trump in a big way, which I saw as being, on balance, detrimental to the white racial movement as a whole.  Closer to home, I personally didn’t see myself as an alt or right anything, and Trump wasn’t my guy.  Really, the two articles were one; there was very little difference between them.  For shorthand, I’ll refer to the two here as the Tyler Durden article, or just Tyler.

When I finished Tyler Durden, I ran it by some people whose opinions I value.  All of them had a negative take on it.   Either they disagreed with my analyses and assertions, or thought that that while Tyler made some valid points, going public with it wouldn’t help the white cause.  So it went, our man Trump has just won the presidency, the alt-right has become a visible and vocal part of the mainstream public discourse, alt-right is us now, all of us collectively, and we’re on a roll.  The alt-right train has left the station and we’re all on board, except you it sounds like. To stay with that metaphor, the word I was getting is that this article I had put together just put a bend in the track up the line and caused trouble.

I accepted the responses I was getting and put Tyler on my personal web site, which as far as I can tell, nobody reads.   There it sat until now—it’s March of 2018 as I write this.

Why am I revisiting Tyler after all this time?  Four reasons.

  1. It looks to me as if the white racial movement and its leadership are even more on the vilified fringe of American life than before.
  2. It looks to me that white activists’ adversaries feel more emboldened than ever to turn loose on them, no-holds-barred: demonize them; exclude them; beat them up; riot, interrupt, and rush the stage if they try to speak; shut down their websites, Twitter accounts, and YouTube channels; and cancel their PayPals.
  3. I wrote some pieces for this publication this past year that got me thinking.

One of them was a commentary on the Charlottesville protest last August.  With some trepidation—I had the feeling I was throwing cold water on people trying to do a good thing—I found myself writing this:

With its stridency and far right symbolism and predilection toward violence, even if is in self-defense, the Charlottesville protest was problematic as a media event, and that’s how most people experienced it, as a show, in the same category as “Game of Thrones.”  Just as were George Lincoln Rockwell-led protests in the 1960s, it was a perfect set-up for whites’ adversaries to haul out the tried-and-true smear labels—white supremacist, racist, Nazi—and to dismiss the whole of the white racial movement as beyond the pale and a menace.

Later on, I wrote profiles of three white activists from years past—George Lincoln Rockwell, William Pierce, and Revilo Oliver.  As I looked them over, it struck me that all three of these men contributed to portraying white racial concerns and activism as extreme, “over there,” scary to dogs and little children.   I worry that set a precedent, and that the alt-right thrust is continuing it.

  1. It’s become clear to me the past few months that I need to do some work on myself, and I’ve made it a priority. Public and private concerns are interrelated: both need to be taken into account.   Any movement is only as healthy and effective as the individuals who comprise it.

In January of this year, I read a book by Jordan Peterson called 12 Rules for Life: An Anecdote to Chaos.  Without the Peterson book kind of pulling things together for me, I don’t think I would have had the personal wherewithal to reconsider this rejected Tyler article.  Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist and academic who has recently achieved notoriety for his negative critiques of postmodernism, feminism, and political correctness.  He makes it clear that he is no friend of white identity politics, but he’s very bright and stimulating and, I think, worth Googling.

One of Peterson’s rules is Stand Up Straight With Your Shoulders Back.  He means that quite literally.  It sends a message to the world and to yourself that you are nobody’s bottom dog.   I’m working on it.

Another is Treat Yourself Like Someone You Are Responsible for Helping.   I was doing things to myself that got me through the night, as they say, but tomorrow came and I paid heavy dues.

Another rule is Set Your House in Perfect Order Before You Criticize the World.  I don’t know about “perfect order,” but I needed to get my personal act in better shape if I wanted to be good for others, and for myself.

A forth Peterson rule is Make Friends with People Who Want the Best for You.   Some people in my life had to go, and others had to come in.

For the rest of this writing, using some of Peterson’s rules of life as headings and accompanied by brief comments, I’ll repeat sections of the 2016 Tyler writing that I think are still relevant, set in on the margins and in smaller type.

*   *   *

One of Peterson’s rules for life is Be Precise in Your Speech.  I question the precision of alt-right as it is currently being employed to identify, tie together, bring together people and activities in the domain of white racial analysis and activism.  I also question its wisdom.  Alt-right is looking to me like—the title of this piece—a club we’ve given people, including whites, to beat us over the head with.

In Tyler, I wrote this:

Two things about the term alt-right of note:  First, right is on one end of the ideological/cultural/political spectrum.  There’s right, center, and left, and right is over on the side; it’s not in the middle.   Second, right is pejorative.  If somebody says you’re a rightist, or a right-winger, most likely they aren’t paying you a compliment.   There is the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies at the University of California at Berkeley.  You can check out the Center’s website, or you can take my word for it that its title legitimizes attacking people, organizations, and activities those involved with the Center don’t like.   In sum, right is a red flag.

And there’s the alt (alternative) part of alt-right.  The inclusion of the word alternative denotes that there are two or more ways of looking at something and/or doing something, and that this individual or group is one of those ways; that is to say, he/it is a way, not the way.  I’m trying to think of any other movement, any corporation, anything, that has deemed it a good idea to attach alternative to what it calls itself, which underscores that it isn’t the only game in town.  Have there been any alt-progressive organizations?

Let’s say it’s back in the ‘70s and Steve Jobs is starting a computer company and he is deciding what to call it.  There were already Altair computers around (I looked it up).  Jobs thinks to himself, “I’ll call my company Alt-Altair, because my computer is an alternative to the Altairs out there now.”  But then he thinks, “I should try to establish my own identity, plus I don’t want people thinking about Altairs every time they think of my company—so I’ll go with Apple.”   You see my point?

I’m having major trouble figuring out why people would identify themselves in a way that sets them up to be marginalized and demonized—we are getting booted in our backsides [and hit over our heads] enough as it is without choosing to wear alt-right kick-me [or conk-me] signs—and that punches up the fact that they are but an option.  With the alt-right label, we are announcing that, indeed, we are a rightist movement, and ceding the central ground, and the whole left half of the spectrum, to those who oppose us.  We are implying that to accept our ideas and join up with us you have to see yourself as right wing and to a greater or lesser extent feel outside the mainstream society, and most people don’t.

At the time I wrote Tyler, three prominent white racial activists—Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and the editor of this publication, Kevin Macdonald—were scheduled to speak at a conference to be held in Washington, D.C. on November 19th, 2016 entitled Become Who We Are/2016.  CELEBRATE THE ALT RIGHT!  proclaimed the flyer for the conference that was sent around.   I questioned the fit of these three men in an alt-right conference.

Jared Taylor, founder of the American Renaissance website, spoke at the conference.   His remarks at an alt-right press conference on August 12, 2016, included this:

What is the Alt Right? It is a broad, dissident movement that rejects egalitarian orthodoxies. These orthodoxies require us to believe that the sexes are equivalent, that race is meaningless, that all cultures and religions are equally valuable, and that any erotic orientation or identification is healthy.  These things we deny. The Alt Right is also skeptical of mass democracy. It opposes foreign aid and foreign intervention–especially for “nation building.”

Reading what Jared said, I asked myself, what is right about that? It comes off to me as core, conventional, accepted, common sense thinking in America from its founding all the way up to recent decades, at which time powerful forces altered the through-line, the basic direction, the central narrative, of this country.  America was founded on the idea of equal individual rights, not egalitarianism.  Historically, this nation has recognized that people and groups are different from one another, including qualitatively different.   Until recent times, the sexes weren’t viewed as equivalent, nor was race considered meaningless—and science still hasn’t gone along with those cockeyed notions.  The Founders were very skeptical of mass democracy, which is why we pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, not to the democracy for which it stands.  Foreign intervention, nation building?—George Washington’s farewell address and the peril of entangling alliances.   Jared’s paragraph, and Jared generally—I know him and his truly remarkable work well, and I mean this as a compliment—is as American as apple pie.  Alt-right?   I don’t think so.

Peter Brimelow, author and founder of, also spoke at the alt-right conference.   At significant personal cost to himself, Peter has courageously and very effectively brought attention to the negative, even disastrous, impact of the current immigration patterns on America.  In his remarks at the August press conference promoting the November alt-right conference, Peter seemed to distance himself personally from the alt-right:

It happens that immigration is one of the issues that the Alt Right is deeply interested in.  I have a number of writers who are members of the Alt Right, very prominent members, obviously much younger than I am: [he named two of them; I won’t in this context].  These people all live in Washington. They work in institutions in Washington. They may be your colleagues.  They may be sitting next to you at this conference.  But they do not wish to show their faces. These are people who have careers, who have families to support and so on, and they simply cannot speak out on this issue of public policy and expect to go unpunished in the Land of The Free.  So that’s why I am here—to speak for them.  I’m too old to care!

If I read Peter’s comments correctly, he was there to help some people out.  He doesn’t see himself as a rightist, and that makes sense, because he isn’t one.  He’s smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum.   I pieced together this quote from one of Peter’s writings and the statement of purpose for

John Jay in The Federalist Papers wrote that Americans were “one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” …The National Question is, in short, how long can the U.S. continue as a coherent nation-state in the face of current immigration policy. . . . Human differences are not social constructs.  It is only with an honest consideration of race and ethnicity, the foundations of human grouping, that human differences can be explained and their social consequences understood, whether those differences are philosophical, cultural, or biological. stands on the side of science in publishing coverage of the ongoing discovery and research in the realm of human differences.   The racial and cultural identity of America is legitimate and defensible.  

There is nothing right wing about any of this.  It’s the people that disagree with Peter that are fringy, not Peter.

Kevin Macdonald also spoke at the alt-right conference.  Dr. Macdonald, who is the editor of the online The Occidental Observer and its companion print journal The Occidental Quarterly, had a distinguished university career as a tenured full professor, and now holds the esteemed rank of professor emeritus.   In an impressive number of books and short writings during his university years and still, Kevin has produced informed, documented, insightful, and groundbreaking analyses and critiques of Jews as a group and Jewish-gentile relations.

Predictably, this activity has resulted in Kevin’s being subjected to unwarranted and cruel attempts to hurt him and dismiss him as an irrational, malevolent anti-Semite and relegate him to a peripheral and ineffectual public presence. There is nothing right, or left, about Kevin’s writings about Jews.   He makes factual claims that are either true or untrue, and he offers inferences from those claims that are either justified or not and worthy or not.  He should not be burdened with a label attached to him and what he expresses that prejudices mainstream audiences’ interpretations and conclusions regarding him and his ideas.

An alt-right identity brings Kevin guilt by association.  It puts him in a category and with people where he doesn’t belong, and it greases the skids for those who want to discredit and marginalize him (“He’s one of them!”  “Get him!!”).

An illustration of this phenomenon, a very visible part of the alt-right is The DailyStormer web site.   A sampling of its recent articles:

Kevin is brought down and rendered vulnerable by a connection with this kind of thing.

The three examples just mentioned—Taylor, Brimelow, and Macdonald—and there are a number of others that space prevents me from citing, have the potential to be as appealing to people in the center and left and conservative right as they are to people on the far right.

Another of Peterson’s rules of living is Assume That the Person You are Listening to Might Know Something You Don’t.   Two things stand out in that rule:   The first is do less talking and more listening, including to people who disagree with you.   Hear them, see things from their side, see yourself from their perspective.  And the second, if somebody is accomplishing something you’d like to achieve—such as approval, encouragement, support, and good results—look into how they are doing it.

Three successful movements in recent decades have been the black civil rights movement in the 1950s and ‘60s, the modern feminist movement, and the gay rights movement.

Things these movements didn’t do:

None of them called themselves the alt-left.  Martin Luther King didn’t say, “As a member of the alt-left, I offer that there be racial integration in America.”  Feminism didn’t bill itself as a leftist movement.  Gay marriage wasn’t pitched as a left-wing alternative.

These successful movements were careful to stay away from any self-labeling that might be problematic for them. “I’m a Communist, but don’t let that get to you, just listen to my good ideas”—none of that.  Hubert Humphrey was a proud liberal and it got him the vice-presidency and a presidential nomination, but the people in these three successful groups saw that that handle wasn’t doing to work for them and they shunned it.

All three successful movements went straight for the center, the mainstream, of American life, where they knew the action is; they didn’t come on as fringe types.  They attended closely to the manner in which they presented themselves.  They knew how to play to their audience(s). They used language, arguments, and approaches that resonated with the mass public.  Those front and center in the black civil rights, feminist, and gay rights movements were appealing, reasonable, credible, accessible, comforting, and likeable.

These movements didn’t present themselves as an alternative.  What they were for was it, period.  It was the true, decent, fair, equitable, just, good, moral thing to do.   It was the American thing to do.   What they advocated was the proper thing, the only thing, to do if you wanted to be respectable.   To be against what they were insisting upon—their pitches were couched as imperatives—was no less than shameful.  If you were unable to go along with it, you were obliged to get over on the side and out of the way—over on the right side, way over there, that’s where the likes of you belong.

These successful movements associated themselves with attractive, convincing, and emotion-evoking images—they could be called in today’s parlance ‘memes’.  The civil rights movement got a lot of mileage out of the image of four little black girls who were killed in a KKK church bombing in 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama. The gays had Ryan White, an Indiana teenager who became HIV/AIDS infected from a contaminated blood treatment—that is to say, he wasn’t gay.  Americans watched Ryan die and it tore at their heartstrings.  The gay movement also has had the casts of “Will & Grace” and “Transparent,” which personalized, humanized, and legitimized its arguments.  The alt-right has Pepe the Frog, which goes over big among young men with gleams in their eyes and affinities for Twitter, and that’s good, but Pepe comes across as a scary menace to the general public, and that’s not good.

All three of these successful movements had radical, in-your-face components.  The black movement had H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Huey Newton and the Black Panthers, and Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam.  There were the radical feminists.   The gays had the ACT UP group.   Arguably, all of these more hard-edged individuals and organizations contributed to the cause, but if it were only these groups, it is highly questionable whether these causes would have succeeded as they did.  Would there have been a voting rights act or public accommodations law if the black civil rights movement, in the public’s perception, had been just the Black Panthers?  Not likely.   Martin Luther King and those like him had to be there front and center.

Important in this context, none of the more extreme components of these movements were condemned or expelled by the—call them—respectable elements.  At the same time, the more acceptable people and organizations in these movements didn’t openly embrace or identify with the radicals.  They didn’t have an overarching movement name—say, alt-left—that linked them and what they were doing to these more confrontational and threatening personages, groups, and activities. They basically stayed clear of their rough-and-tumble compatriots and went about the business of making their own appeals.  Martin Luther King represented himself and his organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, nothing more than that.

These successful movements avoided identifying themselves with, or linking their fates to, individual politicians or a political party.  They kept the focus on the cause, not politics.  Martin Luther King didn’t talk about Lyndon Johnson; he talked about civil rights for black people.   The gay rights movement didn’t intertwine itself with, say, Bill Clinton to the point that if Clinton wasn’t your man you were disposed to think that gay rights wasn’t your cause. The women’s movement kept the attention on women’s interests, not the Democratic Party, and if you were on their side, whichever party you favored, wherever you were on the political spectrum, welcome aboard.  Individuals within these movements were politically active, but the movements as movements, and their leadership, stayed on message, whether it was black civil rights, women’s rights, or gay rights.

Obviously, in this last paragraph I was referring to attaching white advocacy to the candidacy of Donald Trump.

I suppose the alt-right label and the Trump candidacy did result in greater visibility for the white movement.  But what kind of visibility has it been?  I don’t hold to the notion that all publicity is good publicity.  The alt-right/Trump thrust this past year or so has been the occasion for those of us on this side of the cultural/racial divide getting smeared big time.   I’ve read a lot of the following sort of thing, and I worry that some of us are unwittingly setting all of us up for it:

. . . anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled, and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right, into the ovens.

 A November 22nd, 2016 article in CNN reported:

 Richard Spencer, a white supremacist and leading figure in the alt-right, delivered a racist and anti-Semitic address to a gathering of the group’s members in which he declared, emphatically, “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” Spencer’s chants prompted some audience members to raise their right hand in an apparent Nazi salute.

This same CNN piece quotes Donald Trump as saying, “I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group.  It’s not a group I want to energize, and if they are energized, I want to look into it and find out why.”   The very person we were fawning over wants nothing to do with us.  What message does that send to the general public, and to us, for that matter?

There was this anecdote in Tyler:

A little more than week before the election, my twelve-year-old daughter Dee, as I’ll call her here, went Halloween trick-or-treating—yes, I know, she is maybe a little old for that, but she’s still into it—with her friend from school, Meredith.   Afterwards, over a bowl of chili (the girls were in another room trading candy), Meredith’s mother Christine—bachelor’s degree, suburban—brought up the big election coming up in just over a week.  I usually stay clear of political talk, but this time I bit. “Well, whether he wins or loses, Trump is raising some important issues, like immigration and—”

“HE’S REPULSIVE!” Christine bellowed.  “Grabbing women by the . . . Megyn Kelly, blood coming out of the wherever . . .  Seriously, do you want Dee to be in the same world with that vulgar lowlife orange beach ball?   I mean, really Robert.”

I have to admit I agreed with her.

In any case, end of conversation.  The lesson: I’d rather not make my pitch about the issues facing America in general and white people in particular to educated woman carrying Donald Trump on my back.

And in Tyler I offered this:

I spent my working life around university students, and of course I’m generalizing here, but based on my experience with them, their most central motivating impulse is to be decent and fair and just to people.  Which, by the way, is why the idea of social justice resonates so well with them.  They don’t want to be great, they want to be good.  They don’t want to be on one end or the other of the social/cultural/ political spectrum.  Rather, they want to be secure and accepted and respected in the middle of wherever they are, in the dorm or in the community.  They want to belong.   They want to be seen as OK people, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.   Political correctness in universities matches up well with students’ basic impulses.

What appeals most effectively across the board with university students is . . .  sincerity, respectfulness, niceness, and humility.   I’m from Burlington, Vermont and way, way back I took a community education course from a very young Bernie Sanders.   Bernie was a single parent back then, barely getting by on unemployment benefits.   He was tall and upright, not hunched over as he is now, and he had an abundant mop of dark curly hair.   I can’t remember what the course was about; labor history perhaps.  I remember Bernie saying pretty much the same things he is saying now.  During the course I took from him, Bernie didn’t strike me as the brightest person, or the most informed, but one thing that stood out about him was his sincerity.  He truly believed in what he was saying.  And he connected with me in a respectful way; he didn’t come off as a self-consumed hot shot.  I got the distinct impression that I mattered to Bernie.  He was kind to me.   He was a nice guy.  All these years later, could it be that the young people who flocked to Bernie this past election cycle were responding to the same qualities I experienced in him those many years ago?

The alt-right impulse has brought some new people into the white effort, and that is to be applauded.  Young.  Tech savvy.  With fresh takes on things, educative to the rest of us.  Active—they were the ones in the park at Charlottesville.  They know how to use humor and satire effectively.  They take no crap from anybody.   But they don’t play well with most people.  That’s the problem.

If a movement is to be successful, it needs places in it for a wide range of people, including women (how many women can you name in the alt-right?), university students, and solid folks of the sort that are working at Fidelity and forming families and establishing positive reputations and places in the community and coaching Little League teams and attending piano recitals.  The word is that more people have joined up with the alt-right than ever before, but who are they, and just as important, who aren’t they?

Two other Peterson rules of life are Tell the Truth—or at Least Don’t Lie and Pursue What is Meaningful (Not What is Expedient).

I’ve been pretty good about not outright lying, but I haven’t always been good about telling the truth.  I’m talking about my truth, not the truth; I’m not so presumptuous as to think that I’m in contact with Truth, Wisdom, anything like that.  To tell my truth, I need to put in the time and effort to get all the way down to it.  In this racial area, in all areas of my life, a lot of times I’ve accepted a plausible and palatable surface reality and gone with it.  It wasn’t my best effort and, in my personal life for sure, it cost me: I didn’t get the results I might otherwise have achieved.

I’ve also caught myself doing the expedient thing rather than the meaningful thing.  “I don’t want any more trouble, I just want to get back to and my apricot brandy.” At my scary advanced age, time’s really short for me, and I’ve got to stop doing that.

Which leads into the end of the Tyler article, the Tyler Durden story.

I’ll end with a reference to Fight Club, a film that came out the same year as The Matrix, 1999.  [I’d referred to the concept of the “red pill” from that movie in the Tyler article.]  The scene, two young men who haven’t met before (or think they haven’t; it’s complicated) sitting next to each other on an airplane: the narrator (played by Edward Norton); and Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt).

Narrator:  Tyler, you are by far the most interesting single-serving friend I’ve ever met.  See, I have this thing: everything on a plane is single-serving.

Tyler Durden: Oh, I get it.  It’s very clever.

Narrator:  Thank you.

Tyler Durden:  How’s that working out for you?

Narrator:  What?

Tyler Durden: Being clever.

Narrator:  Great.

Tyler Durden: Keep it up then. . . . Right up.

Lately, there seems to have been the enlistment of a good number of clever guys into the white cause, and I’m with Tyler Durden, if cleverness is working for them, they should keep it up—right up, with an emphasis on political right if that’s what they want.   We need clever guys, we really do.  I think this whole business comes down to each of us doing what works for us as the unique individuals we are.  It’s obvious that the alt-right label and Trump, despite his accomplishment (or was it that Hillary was so bad?), don’t work for me, so I’m not doing them.  But if they work for you, absolutely, keep it up, or do something else; whatever best gets you through your life, whatever squares with your being, whatever you think is the most ethical thing to do, do it.  From this perspective, then, rather than Become Who We Are [the title of the alt-right conference], leaving open the possible inference that we are all alike, a better title for the conference would be Become Who You Are.

What wasn’t truthful there?   The idea of doing what works for you personally, whatever it happens to be.  The hands-off, non-judgmental posture.   The truth—my truth, my best truth—would have been:  Do who you are, but take into account the fate of other people as you decide what that is.  You might do something that gets you payoffs—attention affirmation, power, whatever else—that gets somebody else’s PayPal discontinued.  If you march around with torches, it could get somebody fired from their job or suddenly without Twitter, and it could make everybody who speaks of whites without putting them down look like a bigot who deserves to be, figuratively or literally, hit over the head with a club.

Why didn’t I say that?  Why did I do my benign “whatever works for you” number?  Because I was doing the expedient thing.   I wanted to avoid the verbally cutting alt-righters’ characterization of me as an “unwith-it” boomer whose time has come and gone (which would be especially discomforting because it hits home).  I just wanted to watch my Amazon movie rental of Last Love with Michael Caine in peace.

But I need to be better than that.   The truth—my truth—is this assertion: We ought to drop “alt-right” as an overarching label for white activism.  Unless “right” fits you like a comfy glove, don’t ever speak or write a sentence having to do with you with the word “right” in it.  And besides wishing alt-righters well and learning from them and respectfully suggesting that they keep the well-being of their racial kinsmen in mind when they do things, publicly stay clear of them.

My heart just skipped a beat.

85 replies
  1. Gary
    Gary says:

    Christine’s outburst is typical of hysteria produced in gullible white Gentiles by mainstream media propaganda
    designed to turn whites against each other. Our race
    is rapidly being demonized, demoralized, and
    exterminated by our genocidal, parasitic rulers.
    Such self-hating hysteria greatly facilitates our
    extermination. Mr. Griffin, time to quit quibbling
    and confront our enemies forcefully. Your blog
    is a masterpiece of such quibbling that dooms
    our race.

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      Whites and Whites alone have been split 50/50 by a right/left con-job for a coupla centuries. When pro-White movements re-entrench that paradigmatic system of White subversion, we are doomed.

  2. Mike R.
    Mike R. says:

    I think this underlines the psychology of the white deracinated American quite well. While the left is explicitly identitarian and avowed to the destruction of the white population, sans Jews perhaps if they are so lucky, the right has no stomach for the opposite. Left and right have both seen immense paradigm shifts in the 20th and 21st centuries, so it is absolutely true that hitching one’s wagon to a pole is not a thing done without good reason. But, I would argue that pro-whites have good reason. As I mentioned, the left has become vocally, violently, and explicitly hostile to the white population. This happened long before the words alt-right crossed anyone’s lips. It also began to infect the right with the post-cold-war subversion of the neoconservatives. Hither to the left was a savage anti-white beacon and the mainstream right was simply a dithering warmonger party content to see their white constituents rot. And so the white advocates found themselves where history had taken them; an alternative message to the white population, the majority of which was being forced into the political right by the left’s identity club beating them out.

    Were it but that a new brand had been conjured or another politician had attempted to court the white majority on immigration. Were it but that whites hadn’t allowed Jews to wholly own and operate the national media in order to silence a more moderate demand for self-determination. Were it but for so many past failings by an objectively liberal white majority in comfortable middle class the world would be a much better place.

    So forgive the young a brash old fellow. To you much was given. Of them much is asked. You are welcome to criticize, but if you abandon context to make your criticism fit, it is unlikely to find a willing set of ears.

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      *As I mentioned, the left has become vocally, violently, and explicitly hostile to the white population.*

      The right is merely less vocal, violent and explicit. But they also enforce thru the police state race-replacement, anti-White discrimination, speech codes and other PC.

      It’s a trivial issue figuring out why the ‘left’ supposedly concerned more than the ‘right’ with fairness and equality and anti-racism is more hostile to Whites. It’s because Whites alone are characteristically, fair, egalitarian and live and let-live. So where the left/right divide is a design to divide Whites, it is more confounding to make the Whitest Whites identify as ‘right’ wingers, where they will tend to argue against the characteristic features of their particularly White natures and become mired in confusion and conflict.

      Not for nothing was the pro-White movement swallowed up twice in recent decades by Jewish-led right identifying plots: paleoconservatism and the alt-right.

      But although we would succeed better as the alt-left (and note how alt-rightists from Duke, to Spencer to Johnson to Enoch to MacDonald ALWAYS revert to liberal ideals of live and let-live and ‘equal rights for Whites’ in their public appeals), the getting over of the left/right divide is the only absolutely necessary thing. Just pro-White. Just survival and security. Other fluff issues can wait.

  3. m___
    m___ says:

    Jordan Peterson,
    To his disadvantage: his intellectual take on things is shallow, in public, that advances his cause: a large public of 100+ IQ individuals that look for seeds as chicken picks the yard.
    As a private person, his deepest devotion is to self-enrichment, not ego, but sheer financial wealth and independence. He needs this, to secure himself, and anything else is subject to that. That makes his devotion to ideas, meaning secondary.
    Are his propositions more then self-help literature for the above middle tier North American and European, and then not debatable, has it an impact? Yes, as expected.
    Peterson cannot ask for more, we cannot ask more of Peterson collide at this very crux, there is sincere ingratitude into catering to the larger public, and keeping with rational integrity.
    A definite negative, from all angles, Peterson is referring to the conventional, uses conventional tools, conventional formatting, and has no viewpoints as to the collectives of humans, the context global beyond human interaction, interference, clutter. These are supposed consequences of inciting interest as to any public that exceeds a fringe of rational individuals, …more, it is our opinion that Peterson himself, as a private person, has not a scope that would put him out of the common fray of gurus of modern times, in his terminology rather, of the profets of our times.
    He and others should stop referring to themselves using and esteeming conventional titles, professor, Ph.d, et Al., this has been the root cause of the degrading of our public life, the qualitative degeneration of our elites. The human version of cannibalism.
    Being able to tell truth, to context, and get away with the personal benefits of views, Patreon, Youtube etc. is being a man!
    He his for better or worse, in tactics and presence, a simulacrum of the Chomsky principle of preaching and interaction.
    Sincerely how can personal ambition succeed without an environment to trive in, the Peterson environment is quite banal, his tools ditto, the ideas and philosophy of believe, rather than rational associative thinking.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      Unless you live in Canada, you have no concept of how smothering the political correctness of speech has become, at all levels, including the Supreme Court. Peterson, like Janice Fiamengo at the University of Ottawa, have been targeted just as viciously as Kevin MacDonald for being much less controversial.

      You may find his statements banal, but they are plain and simple. Many of today’s “avant garde” thinkers become lost by overthinking issues. There is a very old labour relations adage to deal with issues – KISS – or keep it simple, stupid. That is what Peterson has been successful in doing, by pointing out the logical (and hypocritical) fallacies of the useful idiot narrative.

      I don’t agree with a number of Peterson’s pronouncements, but that does not mean we cannot learn from his method and adapt itas necessary.

  4. Nick Dean
    Nick Dean says:

    I’m liking this turn.

    Get over left and right. Just White. The only way. All else is Jew-controlled endless debate.

  5. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    As I understand it, the term alt-right developed out of the term New Right, which began in Europe (especially France) and was an effort to separate an intellectual movement from the “Old Right” – considered to be pre-war Fascism and National Socialism. Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents Publishing featured some of these writers, especially the Jew-friendly Alain de Benoist, and then came up with his own New Right which he wisely limited to the “North American New Right.”

    To distinguish themselves, others on the Right came up with the term Alternative Right. It may have been Richard Spencer who shortened it to Alt-Right, now becoming Altright or even altright. The more extreme of those who use this term like to use the imagery and themes of Hitler and National Socialism, or Mussolini/Fascism, so it’s back to the old right presenting itself as something newly edgy to the youth.

    There is so much variety among altrighters that the term doesn’t stand for anything other than that—all viewpoints on the right can belong under the banner, thereby hoping to create an impressively large group rather than many small powerless groups.

    For myself, I continue to hold up Hitler’s National Socialist program as the best example of the Right we have. Not the uniforms anymore, but the intellectual content certainly, which is accessible and excellent. I don’t think the so-called updated “new right” has brought out anything better—or as good.

    • George F. Held
      George F. Held says:

      “For myself, I continue to hold up Hitler’s National Socialist program as the best example of the Right we have.”
      Me too.

      • Nick Dean
        Nick Dean says:

        The Third Reich’s greatest virtue is that it was neither left or right, just German nationalist. As I commented vs. Susanne Posel’s standard conspindustry smears,

        “Workers in the Third Reich enjoyed social and employment benefits far outstripping those in the allied countries whether ‘capitalist’ US and Britain or ‘communist’ Soviet Union or ‘socialist’ France: the money system was reformed and the private debt-money system replaced with a state issue of currency model – a massive transfer of wealth from bankers to ordinary Germans; foreign banks and enterprises were squeezed and German banks and businesses favoured protecting German jobs and businesses; foreign workers who depressed local wages and bid up local housing and other costs were encouraged to repatriate – improving the living standards of Germans; environmental regulations were put in place to ensure that irresponsible resource exploiters paid for the costs of their actions and that land, water and air resources that belonged to the whole nation were protected from pollution and private plunder; workers were guaranteed holidays and living wages for the first time; parents of young children received cash subsidies from the government to help with their extra expenses; educational opportunities and home ownership were extended and all Germans were guaranteed health care; family farms were defended against take-over by large agricultural combines, and so on.”

        Right or left? Neither, just German nationalist.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      ” I continue to hold up Hitler’s National Socialist program as the best example of the Right we have.”
      National Socialism was only “right” if you were a communist. The overwhelming majority of parties in Germany, whether seated in the Reichstag or not, would be considered parties of the “left” in the US right/left (obsolete) paradigm.
      While there were aspects of the NS programme, such as meritocracy that were “right”, much of what they stood for was further “left” than what the Democrats are – such as nationalizing the central bank, medical care, free education, and protecting the farmers.
      As with any political platform, the reality of where the the issue lies on the political spectrum usually boils down to implementation.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:


        You are mainly talking about “Free Trade”, a policy of Liberalism (and also Corporatism), not of nationalism. You are considering Liberalism to be Right, but that is what is an obsolete paradigm in my book, especially in the US. where I live.

        “Nationalizing the central bank” – from international Jewish control based on gold reserves and international indebtedness – to state control based on creating your own money and lending to yourself, is not “Left” in today’s lingo.

        Medical care in NS Germany was not nationalized. There were some state programs to achieve certain goals. Education was not “free” – although programs were established to provide for poor youngsters who showed leadership qualities to attend political NS schools. I think this was paid for by the NSDAP. All countries protect their farmers, as they are an essential industry.

        I don’t consider the distinction between left and right to be obsolete. I am looking at it from where we stand today and my basic distinction is between nationalism and internationalism. Nothing that Hitler did was “further left than what the Democrats (in the US) are.”

      • The AntiLoser
        The AntiLoser says:

        Economically, NS was not thoroughly socialist or free-market. It was mainly nationalist. What made NS right-wing was its ethnic and cultural component: a defense of German autonomy and “Volkish” ideals against onrushing Bolshevism. Bolshevism is about much more than distributing the wealth. One could argue that, like the French Jacobins, the Bolsheviks wanted most of all to destroy the church and the family.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      The great variety of comments here (36 of them now) show that the term “Alt-Right” is unclear to most people; folks have different ideas of what it stands for, or have no idea. For myself, I’m pretty convinced it doesn’t stand for anything, just like – I’m sorry to say – the very pliable Richard Spencer. It is therefore adding to the confusion.

      Weak leadership = weak movement = defeat
      This is what we are experiencing.

      The idea that a movement that loosens up on the basic principle of Race – “in this day and age of increased migration and race-mixing” – will attract more people and therefore be more successful, is a grave mistake. That is exactly what our enemies want us to do. But it is still about Right and Left political philosophies too, and that can’t be ignored. To understand why National Socialist literature should be studied by Whites in today’s world, read this:

      You’ll find quite a few gems just on this one page, for example::

      “Propaganda is the art of exercising power without possessing the means of power; it is the secret through which the powerless can overcome the powerful when they rest too securely in their strength.”

      “There is,” writes Goebbels, “only truth. Either we lie, in which case the enemy is right, or we tell the truth and everyone else lies. We believe that the truth is on our side with all the steadfastness of our blood.”

      (For good propaganda): “Believe completely in your cause, do not shrink from powerful emotions, unceasingly hammer the same thoughts into the minds of the masses.”

      “Germany fought a desperate war (WW1) against the entire world. It fought not for the gain or loss of gold, goods, colonies, business, or markets. These were secondary. Its struggle was rather for existence, being or not being, for its spiritual and actual unity as a nation, for its daily bread.” [this was doubled in WWII]

      “They (Allies) labeled enemy activity as evil and immoral which one was afraid of. One saw the enemy lies but was still taken in by them.”

      • The AntiLoser
        The AntiLoser says:

        There is a very good piece on vDare website on what the Alt Right is. I forget the author, but it’s well-written and covers a lot of ground.

  6. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    All three successful movements went straight for the center, the mainstream, of American life, where they knew the action is; they didn’t come on as fringe types.

    They didn’t come on as fringe type because there was no need to. You have to go a little deeper than that, and just outright talk about the gullibility of most white people. Everything those 3 groups of crusaders [gay rights/black civil rights/feminism] ever said was a baldfaced lie but fat ‘n’ happy postwar Amerika loved it. The ghastlier the lie, the more most white folks came to happily gobble it up. They just wanted to be seen as “fair”. Alt-right/prowhite is struggling in a universe where The Correct New Attitudes are pretty much cemented in.

    Young men look to Peterson for answers, but he is still turning the kaleidoscope, searching for pattern and form. Earlier this year, an interviewer for VICE asked him, “Who is your target audience, who are you trying to reach?” With eyes downcast he said, “Partly me.” from an article in First Things, April 2018.

    LOL. Sad li’l guy.

  7. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    For some time, all publicity is good publicity. Once you get publicity, you say your message that posits you into a better place than obscurity. Then the whole movement needs to evolve.

    When I had the epiphany in 2015, I myself was very simple and easy target. In fact, Jews tried to expel me from the PhD program, and they still are trying. This is true for all young movements like… the rights of Whites. We do some immature things in the beginning, then grow up.

    Now I pitch myself in the center. I still have the Republican voter registration, but that is so that I can influence primaries. Should I realize that influencing Democratic primaries is more beneficial to my cause, I will register myself as a Democrat.

    All three movements succeeded gloriously because they had the Jewish support. They were Jew-incepted actually.

    A lot of prominent faces among us are like (((Michael Collin))) (Cohen). They talk the talk in order to do us maximum damage. There is no rational explanation for the nazi salute of Spencer. Whatever good he has done, I distance myself from him. There is goo in good.

    There are many women that share our ideas. Our movement is still young and too aggressive to attract masses of women. As we become more linguistically elaborate things should change. Remember, one of the advices of Peterson is to become linguistically elaborate.

    In this topic of being elaborate. Young people spend considerable time in front of mirrors to look pretty. They would like to look intelligent as well. It is easy. I do many things to look more intelligent. The top of them is English. Be elaborate, use a very rich vocabulary. This is the mark of the intelligent man. Choose that one word that kills the beast. Elaborate is not the contrary of sincere.

    All we have to do is pitch. Pitch things right. For example. Someone among you who will speak publicly can try this. When a Black student asks you a question, or is debating you, take the opportunity to pitch the debate this way:

    — Trevon, how much do you believe in all people being equal, regardless of color of the skin?
    — Very much bla bla bla.
    — Then you must be a staunch opposer of Affirmative Action.
    — I am in favor of Affirmative Action because bla bla bla.
    — You see? Everybody is pitching right and wrong whichever their personal interest is. Let’s have one rule for all. Racism is bad, even if it favors me.

    I have 0 bad things to say about Trump. He is not the first person I would criticize. You are being now like those commie movements of the day. Their worst enemy was… another commie group with which they differed on just one slight interpretation. That’s what matters and all.

    “Become who you are” is an advice to stupid people. I have long thought why are we humans obsessed with theatre anyway. It seems a waste in every consideration. What evolutionary advantage does it confer? Then I figured out. The whole life is one big theatre. You act it well, or you lose. This is what I am doing now. The difference is between a famous 2-PhD person twice-successful and an anonymous 1-PhD person twice-failed. Which one do you want in your movement? The sincere idiot or the successful actor? Do I have to “work for you” in your purist terms or pursue my own path? Look, theatre actor men are chock-full of hot women, more than they can eat. All they do is… act it well. Nothing else, no power, no riches. Just write a nice scripted plan, and act it well. The script itself must be well-thought, must have game that confers you advantage. Game in the sense of Game Theory, a branch of mathematics.

    I advocate spreading across all right-left spectrum and all. Pitching ourselves as American patriots at large. That positions us from social-democratic all the way to the right. The left has the song called Internationale that makes it clear that they are globalists. By luck, left is considered sinister, and right is considered lucky. At some level we must take advantage of this thing, and haven’t. Also, by manipulation MSM has associated right with red color. Left with red color would have savaged Democratic party at an unconscious level before everything else. But now all that damage has been done. In the long run, red is a more beautiful color to humans because it evokes sex and youth. Make it sexy.

    • Scarlett
      Scarlett says:

      Spencer didn’t do a Nazi salute.
      He did a toast as an exuberant gesture.
      I guess everyone who joyfully toasts at a wedding is a Nazi.
      He said, “Hail”, not “Heil”.
      Point is that the Tribe can find the thinnest crack and cantilever reality in perpetuity.
      Such ruthless distortions are part of the reason they keep getting expelled.
      Our job as White people is to be adept at calling bs as frequently and as vociferously as we are able, just as they do.
      Our other job is to ask the perennial question that they predictably ask, adapted to our own interests.
      The one and only question that matters now: “Is it good for Whites?”
      Every individual and collective decision should be put through those paces.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “I have long thought why are we humans obsessed with theatre anyway. It seems a waste in every consideration. What evolutionary advantage does it confer? Then I figured out. The whole life is one big theatre. You act it well, or you lose.”
      Women tend to be attracted like those who can put on a good display of theatre, which is why many women will always choose the charming con-man who is selfish and heartless to them and a bad provider, over the maths teacher who is kind to them. And once bitten twice shy does not apply.

  8. Steffen Krauter
    Steffen Krauter says:

    Good article with many interesting points. But from an overconfident younguns perspective it is dripping with boomer naïveté.

    Most of us racially conscious young whites have no desire to be respectable in (((their))) society, or playing by their rules. Doing that for the last 50 years hasn’t gotten our grandparents or parents anything except for more hatred, of which we were taught about from birth. Once we become redpilled it is truly astonishing to see how much we really are hated. Something our parents avoided teaching us in order to maintain their respectability.

    Besides comparing the white racial movement to the civil rights movement is silly. The blacks, the feminists, the faggots, they all had backing by the hostile elites who were already busy at removing wasp power to supplant their own. Us young whites who have inherited this mess are on our own. We have no one besides boomers who are afraid of being called racist (inb4 naxalt argument, exceptions prove the rule). So we make splashes and do things to get attention, sometimes outlandish and ridiculous but anything is better than silence for the fear of being being called bad names.

    Also most of us, that I know irl, aren’t worried about whites as a whole. Half of them are willing to throw you under a bus to appease their globalist masters for a few more shekels and another night of Netflix. It doesn’t matter if we try to appeal to the center or anything else for that matter, (((they))) control the narrative and as far as they are concerned each and everyone of us whites are nazis. It wouldn’t matter whether we are allies of color or not, in the end we will always be their enemy in the eternal tribal warfare. They have made that very clear to us throughout our lives.

    Also thank you to everyone at TOO and TOQ. This place is a beacon of light for our people, and especially us overconfident younguns.

  9. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    Fight Club is a great movie. I’ve watched it several times. In one scene Tyler beats a beautiful blonde boy, and the first line in this scene is “I wanted to put a bullet between the eyes of every panda that wouldn’t fuck to save its species” Media doesn’t allow even a hint of pro White ‘bias’ so this scene is clever.

  10. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    Why would someone who leans right want to associate with a party that has for the the past 30 years (at least) done nothing to prevent the downward spiral we’ve all witnessed? It has been nothing but a parade of concessions and defeats on issues that matter most to the common man, while looting the treasury to wage wars on behalf of a foreign country.

    I can understand why you’d take issue with the nomenclature, but as a younger man who came from the center-left, it appealed to me because I hated the Republican party. And yet, in actually taking this journey into the alt-right, I found it hews closer to what the Founding Fathers envisioned for America.

    The “alt” of “alt-right” is a much-needed alternative to whatever the “right” has become (aimless, unpopular, derided, war-mongering, interventionist, impotent, etc.). With its humorous “dank” meme culture and fearless provocations of the chosenites and their lackeys, the “alt-right” is becoming the new counter-culture. Young white people are looking around at the decay that has set in, and realized at least half of it could have been prevented had we simply listened to the neocons not supplanted the “paleocons”. It is, in essence, about taking the GOP back.

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      *Young white people are looking around at the decay that has set in, and realized at least half of it could have been prevented had the neocons not supplanted the “paleocons”.

  11. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    I intuit that Ger Tzedek believes every White man between the ages of 15 and 45 needs a month long sojourn in Fight Club camp with quarterly weekend refreshers and I heartily agree.

    • Ger Tzedek
      Ger Tzedek says:

      This is what I haven’t done, and should have done, in my life. I basically regret not having done this. Apparently it shows aloud. Incidentally, being in best physical shape increases your IQ. We can’t have enough of that. Another thing that I do to max out my IQ is take vitamin K2, both of its vitamers, MK-4 and MK-7. It cleans your blood vessels from cholesterol, including old cholesterol, and does you a world of other good things, without side effects.

  12. Anthony Clifton
    Anthony Clifton says:

    fitting in in a “Jew” worshipping society is not really the right
    thing to do for a Man…with testicles & brains.

    probably being around dingbats that watch Talmud Vision and
    have no true information in their cranial cavities/pus pockets
    limits the “conversation” about the global “Jewish” crime syndicate
    and the Mass Murder for filthy lucre business model of the
    terrorists with a Talmud…& a “Jewish” state…for Terrorist “Jews”.

    Maybe, some pretty young ladies will show the “men” how to
    have some courage and boldly speak the truth, and right soon.

    Truth is a tactical Nuke to the ….
    Braindeadgoy – “Jew” worshippers/Murkins.

    Jesus said stick ’em in the [redacted] @ Matthew 13:39-43. . .

  13. Protagorus
    Protagorus says:

    Dr. Griffin,

    Thank you! And thank you again! This is probably the most prescient article. I’ve been talking to several people on how I think Spenser and his association is making anyone who supports white advocacy look like nut jobs. I would never in a million years call myself Alt-Right (even if I subscribed to the bullet points). People would probably think that I want to boil children in a cauldron. And the worst part is that WA groups becomes fall groups. At this point, the cadre of Alt-Right “representatives” are going to completely shut the door for another decade before anyone can ever advocate. I personally would purchase copies of Ghandi, send a note saying “read this”, and hope for the best. I’m thankful there are people willing to go out on the branch for advocacy, but they must pay attention to history. What worked, and what didn’t work. Don’t act like Charles Manson, we want to win not lose.

    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:


      The Alt-Right has done nothing, they never had a chance; the corporate media made sure of that from the “get go!”

      Our problem as keyboard commandos (I include myself) is that we haven’t found a way of confronting the hipsters, hennetasters, and thralls.

  14. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    After the incredibly monumental wins of Brexit and Trump, we had a hiatus. Much more than justified. This gate (((globalists))) a break. They started thinking that we had exhausted our momentum. Elections all over Europe show that this is not the case. We are back, with much more elaborate means.

  15. AceOfLances
    AceOfLances says:

    This is really smart… something I often feel I’m not. I like Trump (the real Trump, not MSM version…he speaks like I do; too honestly), I believe in valueing my white, Catholic community. I am proud of my people’s (Germans who came and settled our area in the 1740-50s) accomplishments in our region. I value literature, classics; I like folks like Peterson, he speaks way better than Trump or myself. I loathe SJW BS. I loathe liberals for looking down on everybody, even those they seem to champion. I grew up very poor in a very poor area, with a lot of different folks, but the local whites were far and above (at least a good half of them compared to 5-10% of ‘others’) trying to better their lot in life.
    I don’t think of myself as alt-right, people tend to think of me as NAZI, etc. But I honestly care for everybody, even those I loathe; I think inside they are trying to be good.
    I think the definitions of what is good or bad are all off in general…framed now as right or left, depending on your side.
    How do I express myself? What do I call myself? Do I even belong to a group that can call itself anything? Catholic maybe…but I am a very divergent Catholic, since I am anti-abortion, support my race, have little conviction or time for playing j To victim narratives where we are and have always been the bad guys…so no, I’m not a usual Catholic. These are questions that I think a lot of folks like me, who aren’t talking openly about issues, publicly, who need to be careful of what we say about what we believe. I think that what I believe it pretty natural and normal, even though it isn’t seen that way.
    I think you frame these questions really well. I think we need more leaders like Peterson who we can look up to as an example of someone who is okay with what they think. How that looks outside of Peterson himself…I haven’t seen it much, except maybe Molyneaux and Sargon. MacDonald is brilliant, but no matter how well he presents, the J-question is a no-no…you just can’t go there, no one can…it been won and buried.
    I think if we don’t get some folks to set an example like Peterson, we are going to go the way of MacDonald…nothing can save our message. We need to stop that hole being filled in. How? No idea…but the questions you ask, the points that you make are a great start.
    I was in a Catholic Forum the other day, and said I have no more ill-feelings toward gays than Protestants…and that’s true…I think both have major deviations from my way of thinking, but would not treat them differently than a fellow straight white Catholic…and wow! Did folks get upset…comparing gays to Protestants!? How dare I, gays are this and that…but, I thought, they can love and be good people, they just have a mental illness (or whatever it is) and I too have a mental illness…so who am I to rail against them? Honestly though. No matter what we think of other folks, we need to be reasonable. Support our own? I think that’s natural and can be seen in the long run as okay. Oppose others based on characteristics… that’s debatable…you make a good point, our founding fathers wanted folks to be able to think and be their own person; how can we oppose that? I don’t know, again.
    I am glad to see these questions being asked, because I feel lost…and I think there are folks like me out there, maybe a lot of us.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      The JQ certainly hasn’t been won more than temporary repose. It must and will be dig up if fortunes are to change.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Ace of Lances, this is likely why, years ago, it was considered impolite to discuss religion or sex in social settings, the attitude being that they were personal, thus private and no ones business but your own. Now sex and religion have become banners defining a persons very being when in fact genitals and dogma are boring.

  16. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    On the other hand, we could have the roughest toughest men in the world and it wouldn’t make an iota of difference. We the people no longer count. They’re mocking us. Here in Canada, in Ontario, Porky Pig has become the leader of the conservatives, Oliver Hardy to Justin Trudeau’s Stan Laurel…a circus, a carnival for the hoi polloi, including the star, the Reality T.V. show actor president of the U.S. Whether the Protocols of Zion were real doesn’t matter at this point as the world around us is enacting its blueprint. Alt-right, Anglin…bread and circuses. All those now crying about Globalism, the movie Network, released in 1976, told us that the world is a corporation. Steak on the table by choice and consent.

  17. Floda
    Floda says:

    Sorry Robert, I’m inclined to be a little more assertive on my admiration of the Alt-right, Whiteness and the destruction of the West now in full swing. Just take a look at what is being done to us. Merkel invites Millions of low IQ Arabs and even lower IQ, aggressive Black African MALES (without girlfriends) into a high tech society, does anyone really think she’s going to stop it because we’re timid and polite and that it might be hurting our feelings?

    I don’t think so, as I write in Malta German airliners are quietly ferrying Africans who have survived the crossing into the country while the Jewish owned Media lie about it. It isn’t going to stop until Merkel is stopped and I don’t care how brutally or otherwise Germans do it.

    You mentioned the Charlottesville event, I’m in Australia, but didn’t the Police there herd the alt-right lot into a waiting and much larger violent Antifa mob? I recall reading ‘our’ side did all the right things, had permission to assemble and they finished having their heads kicked in while Police, and those who issue their orders, stood and watched. Not nice at all, we are at war.

    Here in Melbourne hundreds of Somali ‘teens’ (they’re always teens) regularly riot assaulting people on the streets, breaking into houses occupied by older people and stealing and beating them almost to death. Meanwhile a Police commissioner was sacked for using the word ‘Jigaboo’ to describe them on social media. He also described the Muzzies as ‘Towel Heads’. A man’s long and distinguished career destroyed by political correctness, aka, shut your effing mouth!

    Pussyfooting around has never worked for us, anymore than has apologising to Jews and expecting them to forgive and stop undermining our societies. They won’t ever stop, they are now betting we have become so weak they can finish us off without any physical resistance. They’re wrong, last weeks Italian elections saw the pendulum swing 65% to the Alt-right, the guy most likely to become PM openly said if they win 600,000 who don’t belong here will be deported. There will be blood when this happens. I hope the Alt-right in Italy gets on with it.

    Rather than attempt to conceal our wish to live among people who look like us, have the same cultural and religious traditions we should be rightly and openly proud of it. If push comes to shove we’ll win, just as we always have, in a canter.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      Have you actually read anything about the NSDAP, that wasn’t pre-approved by your rabbi? The plan to destroy Germany and Germans was in place before the NSDAP was formed.
      There has never been a political movement that is perfect, and there never will be. The NSDAP made it abundantly clear that their movement was a German solution to German problems, and not for export.

    • The AntiLoser
      The AntiLoser says:

      I saw a video where some maverick Jewish prof spoke to the AmRen people. No, he wasn’t an anti-Semite/ Brother Nathaniel type. One of the things he said was “the blood gilt is never repaid.” Meaning once you start to pay you commit to paying forever. It’s not a debt you pay off.

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        Brother Nathanael [sp]- more precisely Milton Kapner.

        Kapner is playing a game- that the war is jews vs. Christians rather than jews vs. Whites. He cannot become White, but he can become Christian and therefore “one of us.”

        When you call Mr. Kapner “Brother” you are aiding and abetting his manipulation.

        I call him Milton Kapner, AKA Brother Nathanael

  18. JRM
    JRM says:

    Articulate and sensitive piece. Easy to identify with those “misgivings” about Trump. All too easy to give a reflexive apology for any White man who simply refuses to self-censor according to the given (and well-understood by all of us) rules.

    But here is the rub: the article is shot through with a certain weariness; the author seems to me to put great effort into a balancing sheet that will satisfy his own standards of ethics or loyalty, but still leave him room for personal resignation. “I know that feel”, as they say on some sites.

    I recommend caution in holding the “Daily Stormer” up to prove how much more refined (and really quite terribly civilized, old boy) we are here; we need those young guys, and I hope they will find this venue as they mature.

    But we (I certainly include myself!) need to watch our own tendency to luxuriate in mild reasonableness and the ever-seductive sense of resignation, or we won’t even be worthy of meeting those maturing “Stormers” half-way.

    • The AntiLoser
      The AntiLoser says:

      The DS has stated that they see trolling as the only way forward. That seems plausible to me. I don’t share their views and I think some of their trolling is morally unacceptable but I find their approach to tactics sound. The goal is not to persuade the left but to defeat them by attracting followers, and even if the goal were to persuade the left, current taboos exclude right-wing opinions from the conversation and severely punish those who hold them. The only way to unseat a taboo is to break it with gusto, as the left has been doing routinely with success for all my life. Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals writes that ridicule is the strongest form of criticism.
      It is not just the Stormers who need to mature, but older folks who ought to know by now that reasoned argument in little-read esoteric journals promoting vilified opinions will not by itself build the popular base needed for an effective populist or nationalist movement.

    • Scarlett
      Scarlett says:

      This is pre-2015 when the censor commies weren’t as vigilant as they are now.
      To be sure, money has changed hands alright, between tribal interests and shabbos front men.
      Anglin is hilarious.
      Every time I watch that clip, I lol.

      • Scarlett
        Scarlett says:

        Clarification: I’m not suggesting that Anglin is a shabbos goy.
        He most certainly is not.
        If he were, I doubt that his platform would be shut down every other week in a manner that the most gruesome pedophile never experienced and that he would be forced into hiding by SPLC and the very despicable liar suing him.
        Not since David Irving, has a White man been cut from the herd and butchered like Anglin.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          I don’t see proof that Anglin has suffered personally. Quite the contrary. Also, his views on 9/11 do not discomfit the authorities or other important players. If that ain’t a red flag…

  19. Tom
    Tom says:

    I think Griffin makes excellent points. The best way to save western civilization is to erode the Left’s power base by depoliticizing civil society. From Franklin Roosevelt’s administration onward, the diminution of property rights allowed the Left to construct social engineering schemes that took power away from traditional Americans and hand it to those outside the private power base. In a purely privatized civil society, the Left’s concept of discrimination as the ultimate taboo would be rendered meaningless. Communism never gained a foothold in America by openly declaring its true intents – abolition of private property and the swallowing up of civil society by the state. No one would have paid attention to such lunacy. Instead, the road toward socialist dictatorship was always framed with beneficent-sounding euphemisms. The failure of the Right has been its failure to capitalize on its traditional values of Life, Liberty, Property, and Limited Government. Under such a scheme, all ethnic groups would have the power to construct living spaces that favor their own kind.

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      “. . .which is why we pledge allegiance to the flag. . .” [from the article]

      How many know that the pledge was written by a socialist? [Francis Bellamy, 1892] Of course the “Public schools” [indoctrination centers] were socialist monopolies from the start, and from the beginning.

      Individual rights and private property don’t mix with any variant of statism.
      The US of A is toast due to the precedents that were established in the nineteenth century.

      Communism and public schools are based on the same premise- that individuals, including children, are State Property [slaves] to be used for State purposes.

      The head of the Federal Department of Education said this in 1914: “Now the question is raised, do the schools exist for the students, or do the students exist for the schools? The answer is the latter.”

      A tacit acknowledgement that students are slaves. And Americans drank the Kool-Aid then as they continue to drink it today.

  20. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    I don’t know much about Hitler. Except that last thing, about the Jews. There has never been a country that put its heel down on the Jews that ever lived afterwards. — Huey Long (Williams p. 761)

    Certainly clever. The truth is more complicated: those days are gone. Too much information around. And even more complicated: with Jews you lose. Which way does the poor man have to go? With or against Jews? And also, the martyrdom of German and Russian people saved White man, we realize that today. Jews reined themselves in for fear of Nazi Germany, then for fear of Russia where their businesses didn’t go as planned. Stalin won over Trotsky, and I call this one of the topmost important moments of human history, however it came about. With Germans and Russians, Jews lost too much time. We developed and opened our eyes. Too much information around. Now, it is true that Germans lost their country, but there is great hope they will recover it. Americans, Brits, French were on the side of Jews, and lost their countries to mass hordes from third world as well.

    • Ger Tzedek
      Ger Tzedek says:

      And also. When German Kaiser went to Jerusalem in 1895, the chief rabbi of Jerusalem told him, you are Amalek. In English this means “you are singled out for extermination”. Now, please tell me, did Germans have options?

  21. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    The genius of “It’s OK to be white” is its benignity. To transform it into something sinister requires zealotry and animus impossible to cloak with reasonableness.

  22. T
    T says:

    Great article, Dr. Griffin. One on the best points, to sum it up, is as a general principal to always be civil. Besides being proper, it’s the easiest thing in the world to do.

    By not being civil it allows others to detract from whatever it is you might be trying to say.

    • T
      T says:

      The truth—my truth—is this assertion: Unless “right” fits you like a comfy glove, don’t ever speak or write a sentence having to do with you with the word “right” in it. And besides wishing alt-righters well and learning from them and respectfully suggesting that they keep the well-being of their racial kinsmen in mind when they do things, publicly stay clear of them.

      Good stuff. I hope the moderator indulges my posting the below from another site by a contributor named ‘Ex-New Yorker’. A person should be quite cautious about what they say and with whom they associate with. All may not be quite as it seems regarding certain organisations and people, whether it was the SDS of the 1960’s, the ‘Alt Right’ of the present, or Donald Trump.

      The big con job is called right wing/left wing and the stooges fall for this sh** every time.

      Ex-New Yorker said…

      The early days of Frisco I was living in a crash pad full of freaks. I had just hitchhiked in from New York. One of the guys staying there was an AWOL sailor. He grew a beard and long hair and was hiding out on the beat scene. A few months later the FBI was knocking on doors looking for him. He jumped a freight train to New York. At the end of the Summer he got busted where he was living on the Lower East Side. While he was locked up in the brig at the Brooklyn Navel Yard the feds offered him a job selling speed and other drugs. He would get half the money. He turned them down and finished his navy hitch behind bars. It was then that I learned why all these dope dealers sold drugs for 5 or 6 years and never got busted.

      The SDS chapters were run by the government. I had a bunch of them living in the store front of the building next to me. I knew for a fact that the guy running the place was undercover. These were the assholes who threw beer bottles at the cops “for peace”. If there were “peace demonstrations” during the Korean War the commies would have kept the war going until 1960. Every thing is run by the man behind the curtain. Just don’t ask for an encore.

      The paid protestors getting off the buses at Charlottesville were antifa. Getting off THE SAME BUSES were the “white nationalist” with brand new NAZI FLAGS. Try and find the story about that on any controlled ALT-RIGHT wed site. It is all a game. People are being played like the fools they are. If I went to a rally for “white people” and some dork handed me a Nazi flag I would be long gone down the road.

      This sh** taking place with these demonstrations are all planned out MAYHEM AND CHAOS operations. Stay away from any kind of crowd. The big con job is called right wing/left wing and the stooges fall for this shit every time. Just last week they had all these ugly fat girls and dumb white guys “screaming at the sky”. These slugs are getting dumber by the day. I thought being a doped up hippie was bad. The people operating these “fairy tale rallies” are the same fucks from the sixties. This is all a game. A big stage show for the dorks and geeks. Have you seen photos of these lame brains. It is like some kind of fucking freak show at a circus.

      I’ve read enough about these “right wing leaders” and I wouldn’t follow any of them out of a burning building. Some skinny ass f** (Milo) is nobody that speaks for me. Anybody who thinks that they need a leader has already admitted that they are nothing but sheep and cattle.

      November 15, 2017 at 2:33 PM

      • T
        T says:

        Again, I hope the moderator indulges me. More from ‘Ex-New Yorker’…

        The whole counter culture was controlled. Just like it is today.

        New Yorker said…

        More about informants.

        I was living in Berkley during the “free speech” riots. I lived in a pad on Grove street with other cartoonist. While the radicals were trashing school property we were taking speed and drawing comic books. One of my best friends had a buddy who’s dad worked for the university. This is what he told us. We were sworn to secrecy.

        The school was turning out 400 informants every year. These people turned in monthly reports to the feds about people they knew. These people came from upper middle class families and were paid for their work which was to go on for years. This included both straight students and radicals. Almost every radical that had press coverage were on the payroll. This was in 1965/66.

        Years later in New York I confronted a doper chick I knew about her being an informant. She said “Yea….so what. Every body does it”. When I asked her about what she meant by “everybody” she said “Most of the people you know. But don’t worry about it. Your safe. Most people like you”.

        One of my BEST FRIENDS from the early Frisco days was undercover. Years later in New York another friend came to my pad and told me that XXXX had set him up for a two bit drug sale. A small amount of weed and a tab of acid. Then more stories started coming in from other people. This s*** hit me like a ton of bricks.

        It took awhile for the shock to wear off. Later he became my informant and told me who all the other snitches were and who to stay away from. I was amazing how many there were. A lot I had already known about. Again I was sworn to secrecy. I was blown away about all the shit I learned. I felt like I was living in East Berlin. The informants had rank like in the military (E3, E4, E5 etc). Nearly all the hippies that got busted for drugs and didn’t go to jail were working for the man. Most of the hippies came from upper class families. I never knew any “poor hippies”.

        This is a “tamed down” story minus some of the hairy details which I have left out. I lived in a very dangerous world. There is still stuff I won’t talk about. The whole counter culture was controlled. Just like it is today. Hey…seen any good movies lately that you would let your kids watch.

        Remember…..This was fifty years ago. Be very careful about any alt right “leaders”. The controlled opposition are the ones that get the press coverage. I don’t trust any of these f***ers no matter what “wing” they claim to be part of. When all these dip sh*** get out of “college” and can’t pay off their student loans how many do you think will “get on the payroll”. The hippies were paid off in drugs.

        Don’t trust anyone unless it is somebody you have known for a long time. When those Russian block countries came crashing down the peasants started going through the KGB files. They found that one out of three were informants. These were the ones with washing machines. One third of the proles sold out their neighbors for a ****ing washing machine. How many will sell out people to cover their student loans.

        Nothing is what it appears to be. The bigger the front the bigger the back. Be careful out there.

        November 15, 2017 at 12:19 PM

    • The AntiLoser
      The AntiLoser says:

      Civility is certainly a virtue, as someone like Jordan Peterson demonstrates, but civility won’t convince someone to agree to a proposal that he understands is to his disadvantage. Where negotiation and compromise are not possible, the goals of the two sides being too far apart, it becomes a question of who has greater power. And the goal of amassing and using power is often served by such uncivil methods as ridicule, compulsion, and even violence, regrettably.

  23. Like you/Guilty Too
    Like you/Guilty Too says:

    I think the reason that the “altright” has come under such fire is that it threatens to(has?) become a true political force. The dominant regime reacts to entities which threaten its ascendancy. When the altright was perceived as marginalized trolls in typing in basements, it was useful to the left as zoo exhibit; see, “those people” really do exist. With the rise of trump certain altright ideologies have become mainstream. Now they matter, pose a threat, hence the violent reaction in Charlottesville.

    I believe the term altright became toxic with Hillary Clinton’s speech during the campaign, whether she intended or not. That turned it into a label that no one wanted to fall on the wrong side of, emphasizing the racial elements. I personally like Derbyshire’s term, dissident right, although I myself don’t consider myself right at all. I lean conservative on fiscal matters naturally, but might be considered very left on environment for instance.

    I have heard from several separate witnesses at Charlottesville that William Pierce was seen in the fighting, defending our people, wielding a gigantic shillelagh overhead. Several patriots have described how he interposed himself against charging antifa just in the nick of time. Has anyone else heard of these sightings? I found it most inspiring and moving!

  24. Nice Guy Eddie
    Nice Guy Eddie says:

    Your heart didn’t skip a beat Mr. Griffin – your brain just took a dump.

    Your argument seems to be: “Let’s be careful what we call ourselves and who we ally ourselves with in future because we don’t want to upset (((those people))) – they might be beastly to us and call us names and close us down.”

    But they were doing that anyway and won’t stop just because people like you go all girlie. Yes, by coming out of the shadows and giving ourselves a label we give them a bigger target to aim for, but unless we are willing to put ourselves in the firing line we will never win.

    In case you missed it there is a war going on. An ethnic war. A race war. A war for survival. Nothing less. We – that is white people and white nations – have been targeted for destruction – and (((they))) are winning hands down.

    There is only one way to defeat an enemy whose ultimate aim is your destruction and that is by destroying them first. There will never been any middle ground for them and there can never be any middle ground for us.

    Far from being cowed by (((their))) efforts to close us down, you should see it for what it is – a sign of growing fear. They smear because they fear. They are doubling down because they are scared that the situation is getting out of hand and may slide beyond their control. Ultimately, of course, that is exactly what will happen – history always repeats itself – but there will be many more battles between now and then. The endgame won’t be pretty.

    The Jews were maligning MacDonald, Taylor and other “mainstream” critics way before Trump, Charlottesville and the Alt-Right turned up. They use any weapon at their disposal and they go all the way, and the only way they will be beaten is when we choose to go all the way as well. I would have thought that someone who knew William Pierce* would have understood that, but apparently not.

    It does not matter what name anyone who opposes the neo-Marxist/Jewish worldview chooses to call themselves, as far as (((they))) are concerned White people – all White people, even leftie snowflakes and cowardly cucks – are the enemy and will be treated as such no matter what we do or don’t do.

    This is one of the most defeatist articles it has been my displeasure to read. Go hide behind the wagons with the cattle and the kitchen staff and the carpetbaggers. We’ll let you know when it’s safe to come out.

    *Anyone here who has not read William Pierce’s many wonderful columns should find them online (while they still can), download them and learn from them. No one, in my opinion, has come close to his clear-headed assessment of the Jewish problem.

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      Mega Bingo, Eddie !
      This is no time to wimp-out, or worry about “respectability”.
      The racial and political situation is reaching critical mass, and needs to be faced, head on. Let BLM & Antifa clear the path through La La Land into Normyville for us.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “In case you missed it there is a war going on. An ethnic war. A race war. A war for survival. Nothing less. We – that is white people and white nations – have been targeted for destruction – and (((they))) are winning hands down.”

      The difference between this war and other wars is that the losing side is only losing because it wants to lose and is lying down and begging to be kicked. As soon as it decides this is not such a good idea, it can easily get up off the floor and (a) stop the nonsense (b) reverse it. Like a lion begging to be attacked by a little dog. The lion might awake when it is no longer rich and safe.

      This type of war is unique in history – ie one side inviting the other over to trample on it. The reason is that it is actually a slow civil war, with the white haters now ruling us and taking us on this path to our own destruction. They have caused all the trouble – in league with Jews who feel hostile to the West, this is true, but it would still take place without their contribution.

      This is the weakness of people who are ‘white advocates’ in a way where they believe that all whites can join together and be united. Such Alt-right supporters fail to recognise that the biggest enemy of the whites is their own enemy within. Just look at any Twitter discussion to see these types of white white-haters. By no means are they Jew inspired, their hate comes from their own lefty genes.

  25. Wandering Learning
    Wandering Learning says:

    You cannot win, you cannot even survive, if you do not face and win the Jew-Question.

    They are using the holy-hoax to murder our race. To concede on the Jew-Question is to accept the extermination of our race.

    We must be clever on tactics and all of that, but strategically we must aim to take it back, take it ALL back (racial differences, truth about WWJew.1 and .2, how xtianity has been turned against us, take back the essence of our vital natural religions and their symbols including the swastika, and paying our traitors their due in time).

    We are facing genocide and to acquiesce to the holyhoax, or the other magikal workings of the people of the lie, is to surrender to the executioner.

    You simply cannot survive, let alone win, if you don’t face the truth at some point, and at some point soon.

  26. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    Mr. Griffin,

    Even Marx got the idea:

    After all, it should not be forgotten that toward the end of his life, Marx told Engels in a letter written in 1882 that “You know very well where we found our idea of class struggle; we found it in the work of the French historians who talked about the race struggle.”

    From “Society Must Be Defended” by Michel Foucault

  27. The AntiLoser
    The AntiLoser says:

    While I don’t agree with the views of Daily Stormer OR polite “race realists” it seems clear that the former is correctly perceived by the left as the greater threat. Griffin might be right that the people referred to as “white nationalists” should try to frame their ideas as centrist and normal and American as apple pie, and I wish him every success in doing so (where the ideas are ones I share), but the clear trend, even before the “Alt Right” came into being, has been to define those ideas as UN-American and relentlessly to marginalize them. If Griffin has a plan for reversing the trend, let’s hear it. Does it involve getting control of the media or academe? Does it involve getting either political party to reject feminism, gay adoption, wars in the middle east, affirmative action, open borders, hate speech laws, etc.? How will Griffin address the problem that the biggest donors to both parties support all that stuff and threaten to withdraw support if the parties (sincerely) work against it?
    Daily Stormer and similar “trolls,” however offensive their ideas may be, are tackling the taboos against expressing certain ideas that might become popular, even among young people, if one could express them without being fired, suspended, jailed, sued, ostracized, and blacklisted. The only way to remove a taboo is to break it, proudly and with gusto, which could be seen as Peterson’s recommended square-shouldered stance. That the animal roars when stabbed only confirms that the knife found its mark.
    These taboos allow a small elite to dominate a huge majority. Consider that not only did Trump win the white vote decisively, but a large majority of non-whites could care less about gay rights, women’s rights, the welfare of Israel, the ozone layer, etc. etc. They are simply voting their interest as client ethnicities — but the politicians they elect always please their socially liberal billionaire donors by supporting the radical social agenda that is leading to our demise as a society. That is the logic of the case for populism and nationalism as well. Both jettison free-market blather in order to focus on the culture, or the interest of the whites who created it.
    Peterson also says we should set our own house perfectly in order prior to battle and always speak precisely. But that is to no avail if one is not allowed to speak at all. Notice that Peterson ducks many issues as simply too hot to handle. Does he really duck them because he shares the liberal view on those issues? I say he’s cucking — not that I blame him.
    DS is speaking more PRECISELY than Peterson insofar as it’s clear what DS thinks on the hot-button issues even if they don’t say it with precise language or politely.
    The $64 question is whether the crushing pushback against the Alt Right is a good thing or a bad thing in terms of the frog-boiling analogy. I have lived six decades on this planet without seeing traditional white nationalism as anything but a vanishing eccentricity whose adherents are mostly old men. Now the Alt Right comes along and shows the defiance and swagger that can create a mass following, and the left throws all its artillery at it — surely a sign it is feeling the pushback. And indeed, by pushing so hard and overplaying its hand, the left has EARNED and made itself vulnerable to the sort of nastiness DS dishes out. Though one idea behind it is simply that trolling is the way forward, which seems plausible.
    MacDonald’s scholarly views, if true, would warrant an open discussion and thoughtful counter to secular Jewish power, but the taboos prevent that from happening except in off-off-Broadway venues, and then only until the censors arrive. IMO there is no future success to be had from yakking about IQ scores and how smart those Jews are and how dumb those coloreds are. No politician of either party is going to be associated with such a view, whether or not somebody thinks it is “centrist.” But people WILL listen to talk about why there needs to be aggressive, impolite pushback against the vilification of white people and the destruction of the societies they have created.

    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:

      The AntiLoser,

      “the problem that the biggest donors to both parties”

      “expressing certain ideas without being fired, suspended, jailed, sued,”

      “a small elite to dominate a huge majority.”

      “Now the Alt Right comes along and shows the defiance and swagger”

      “impolite push back against”

      With the big donors you might start by calling them what they are, “the Stalin boot.”

      If you want to escape being fired or suspended you remind those folks litigation is a two-way street. And jails, you “pack” the jails!

      The small elite is a small Abrahamic elite.

      We should support members of the Alt-Right as long as they advocate for the European and European Diaspora males. Meaning: that certainly it’s not too much to ask that these males have the right to choose the race and sex of their children without being bothered by hipster lawyers, hennetaster professors and techie thralls!

      And the push back starts when the left lose “funding” in all its forms.

  28. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    What you see with AmeriKwans is the Stockholm Syndrome where their subservience and enslavement to the Jew supercedes and cancels any other alliances or obligations to anything else. They must serve the Jew first and foremost. If the Jews demands they lick the dog filth from a Jew’s boot they will do it and smile and remark how good it tastes to please the Jew. If the Jew demands their suicide they’ll gladly do it.

  29. DeplorableNationalConservative
    DeplorableNationalConservative says:

    “Those front and center in the black civil rights, feminist, and gay rights movements were appealing, reasonable, credible, accessible, comforting, and likeable.”

    There were far more embarrassing people in the civil rights, feminist and gay rights movements than in the Alt-Right, but the media covered up for them – ignoring or making excuses for the embarrassments, focusing on showing the best side of the best activists.

    And all three movements were pioneered by a group called the New Left – almost exactly like the Alt-Right, the New Left defined itself as being on one side of the political spectrum, and as critics of the what they saw as the flawed existing leftists.

  30. Rick
    Rick says:

    I have the cure for this curse of the “right wing” label. We Conservatives must assert our moral primacy. Conservatives are not right wing. They are the remaining forces striving to maintain the great moral tradition of the West which is Christian at its core. The forces that call themselves Left, Liberal, Progressive are nothing but the age-old Rebellion grown out of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the scourge collectivism. There is no right-left continuum. There is only Western Tradition and the 500-year Rebellion against it, now in the guise of “social justice.” The Left-Right continuum is a gigantic semantic sleight of hand devised to draw a moral equivalence between the forces of the Rebellion and the forces of Christendom. Now, on to asserting our moral primacy!

  31. Malc
    Malc says:

    Civil rights and homosexual movements were given a massive leg up by a devious and accommodating media. Need i say more ? we can only dream of such luxuries. Alt Right, is a welcome collective of dissident voices, which has raised the profile of resistance, and without resistance, you die. There are many miles to go, but our issues are now in the mainstream. As for Jordan Peterson, in some ways he does not seem a great deal different to Dale Carnegie, in order to further your case, or in our situation Cause, be a good listener, show respect, let others do the talking, be coherent etc etc…..all very useful advice!

    • T
      T says:

      Malc: Civil rights and homosexual movements were given a massive leg up by a devious and accommodating media. Need i say more ? we can only dream of such luxuries.

      A truth.

  32. Hipster Racist
    Hipster Racist says:

    The developments of the last two years have shown that the author of this article had it right all along.

    It’s a huge failure of the adults in this movement to have allowed themselves to be associated with the online clown show of the Daily Stormer variety and the “IRL activist” groups that want to re-enact the failures of idiots like George Lincoln Rockwell.

    I assume that the older types sort of took it on faith that these “young alt right internet guys” just had a “different sense of humor” and gave them the benefit of the doubt.

    In reality, many adults is the movement really did hand over a club that the anti-whites have spent the last year beating us with.

    It was all easily predictable – many of us did, in fact, predict it.

    Young. Tech savvy.

    That’s debatable. Being familiar with internet trolling culture is NOT the same thing as being “tech savvy.” Just like being a comic book nerd doesn’t automatically make you a genius computer programmer. That is yet another example of how the older folks were bamboozled into thinking there was a faction of “bright young internet savvy folks” when it reality it was mostly an anonymous collection of, well, internet trolls.

    The supposedly “tech savvy” “bright young internet folks” have time and time again been compromised online, allowed themselves to be doxxed and literally left a trail a mile wide of embarrassing if not incriminating reckless speech that has already been introduced in criminal and civil trials.

    A screw up of monumental scope, to be frank.

    • Maple Curtain
      Maple Curtain says:

      Well, you’ve left a trail of Boomer smugness all over the internet, “literally” a mile wide, and what does the white race have to show for it?


  33. Gnome Chompsky
    Gnome Chompsky says:

    So many comments here, replying to DeplorableNationalConservative with the obvious point that Michael (‘Martin’) Luther King Jr. is a perfect example of a front-and-centre rep. of one of those groups who was totally reprehensible, a debauched freak pretending to be a Christian minister, and who plagiarised the best part of his doctorate in divinity.

    As for (((second-wave feminism, U.S. version))), when they weren’t happily married and ugly Jewesses, they were ugly single Jewesses. Betty Friedan and ‘Bela Abzug’ come to mind as respective exemplars, just two of many.

    More recently, (((Einsler))), author of Duh Vuhjinuh Monologues, from my reading, forced down the throats of U.S. students as a ritual, is the wife of a wealthy (((man))).

    Many reprehensible others from any of the categories.

    I think the origin of that usage of ‘alt’ is the usenet newsgroups with names starting with ‘alt’. I am sure that, before I ever saw ‘alt right’, I saw ‘alt lit’ and ‘alt crit’ used as terms.

    It is a contested term. Anglin, weev, and their followers claim it, so do others.

    If it is ‘alt’, to what is it an alternative?

    OTOH, I agree with Jim Goad’s recent Taki’s Mag. column abt. corporate censorship of the ‘net, the Daily Stormer is very funny, and not as in laughing *at*, but rather *with* their writing.

  34. Maple Curtain
    Maple Curtain says:

    I noted a few weeks ago that paleos like Patrick Buchanan have nothing to say to today’s world, because the sensibilities drilled into them in their formative years do not allow them to confront the JQ.

    Mr. Griffin is the same. Don’t know whether he’s a Buchanan era paleo or a boomer, but he can’t even stand up to some hysterical cow in a kitchen, so we need hardly listen to him pontificate on the ‘right’ way to change the political culture.

    As another commenter has noted, the DS is a far more powerful vehicle that TOO, which is why it has been chased off the internet for the past 9 months, and TOO has not.

    TOO can only reach, at best 5% of the white male population – the rest are not intellectually-capable of dealing with the issues on an intellectual level.

    But politics, Mr. Griffin, acts upon 100% of the population, and your class snobbery will get the defenders of the white race nowhere.

    When you get up the courage to stand up to that hysteric in the kitchen, let us know.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      I disagree with you completely. TOO serves an invaluable purpose, even if it is too intellectual for most. So what? To save the White race, we need to attract high quality (IQ) persons. Whites are notoriously analytical and individualistic. This is at once our glory and a pronounced disadvantage in interethnic competition. But without smart, successful people espousing White preservationism, we will die out (given our population paucity, as well as genetic recessiveness).

      OTOH, DS repulses vast numbers of people, and it makes the job of reaching good quality, ethical people – the types we desperately need to counteract the “White survivalism is racist (and racism is evil)” meme that now dominates among the unthinking in today’s Occident – much harder than it need be. OUR cause is the truly moral one, but because our world is “metapolitically race-liberal”, we White Preservationists must be extra careful to be intellectually rigorous, and personally and rhetorically ethical. DS allows the auto-racist (White-self-hating) Left and minority ethnosupremacists to employ guilt-by-association tactics against us, which work well given American hegemonic metapolitical liberalism.

      Sadly, WPs simply have to be behaviorally superior to leftists (but that does not mean in any way surrendering the truths we proclaim; the models here are Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald).

      • Maple Curtain
        Maple Curtain says:

        Events, not nice white intellectuals intellectualizing, will determine the future – the collapse of white prospects will cause whites to fight back against the Jews.

        TOO can’t begin to compete with DS for readers – not even in the same league. Your dismissal of DS is pure snobbery. Much of what Andrew Anglin writes is a lot more intellectual than many of the contributors to this site.

        Western society is no longer under the rule of law – it is under the rule of lies and liars. It is collapsing in real time, and white men willing to fight in the streets will determine the future of the white race.

        Kevin MacDonald is fit for advising WN politicians.

        Jared Taylor is a shabbos goy who provides cover for the Jews – a race traitor who casts out anyone who dares mention the Jews. Taylor is not going to bring about an American Renaissance – he wants to continue to subordinate whites to Jews and their mud shock troops. He is much worse than irrelevant, as traitors prove to be.

  35. Bob Whitaker is okay!
    Bob Whitaker is okay! says:

    With the center collapsing we need to make it clear that we are a new generation. We are Pro White, not pro right.

  36. Sam J.
    Sam J. says:

    I’m of two minds about this. This article and when I read Hipster Racist convince me that we should cut off all Nazish talk, no I’m personally not a Nazi, and become less rough. Then I think about how that’s worked out for us. Not too well. Something to consider is that until very recently there was no other media but the Jew media so we really don’t know the out come of a bunch of people screaming “Hitler was right”. As a factual matter if people actually look into what Hitler said about the Jews and their actions in Russia and Germany, then compare to the present USA…well Hitler was right about a lot of things. There’s even convincing evidence that some screaming Nazi are in with the Jews to discredit the Alt-Right but however bad the “atmospherics” of the Nazis it may be that this doesn’t work anymore. There’s online ways to check what is said and how it equates with reality and the Jews are a bunch of damn liars that a little research readily shows. If people, hearing the screaming Nazis, decide to take a look at some of the stuff they are screaming about they may find the Nazis are right. There’s also the old adage that,”Any publicity is good publicity”.

    I don’t particularity care for the Nazi stuff myself but they are out fighting the antifa in the streets and the audience can’t help but notice the, supposed, evil Nazis are unmasked and the antifa are doing all they can to be masked and are hitting people with hidden weapons.

    So in the end Robert Griffin and Hipster Racist may be right that the Nazis are trying to discredit the alt-right but today…it might just not work. When the real Nazis got their own media the word rapidly got out what perfidy the Jews were up too and after a small interval they were in power.

    The last thing that gives me hope is the Jews have been kicked out of every single country they’ve ever been to in any numbers. Germany was way more pozzed by a long shot then we in the US are right now and they eventually prevailed in their country. If we can just keep ourselves from getting into wars if we come to power we’ll be fine and especially don’t attack Poland. 🙂

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      @Sam J,
      Do you actually have some people in mind that you are calling “Nazis” in today’s world? People who go around calling themselves ‘nazis’ are not. That includes A. Anglin (who anyway says he is not) and the guys in the Traditionalist Worker’s Party (Heimbach).

      Do you have any idea what the real Nazis were like? They were grown-up acting, responsible men and women who had been through WWI, the Great Depression and the total collapse of their currency, the dictate of Versailles and the takeover by Jews. They experienced the incredible revenge of their neighbors, the French, British, Poles and Czechs. They saw their fatherland encircled by enemies and the life squeezed out of it. They joined a movement to stand up and fight all this, no matter what it cost. They didn’t scream.

      So who are these ‘screaming Nazis’ you are pointing to as carrying on that name? Yes, I think they are jokers or paid actors. No one should be taking that name for themselves today. As you said, “the real Nazis got their own media,” they planned and followed a plan, they got funding and were respectable. But there was more freedom in that Germany of the 1920’s than there is in the U.S. now, or even at that time!

      The trouble with this article by Griffin, and with The Occidental Observer’s philosophy, is that it’s too easy on the Jews. TOO and MacDonald would say, “We are not anti-Semites. We are only FOR the White Race, to look after our own interests and keep our White nations intact.”

      Adolf Hitler gave a major speech in 1920 at the Hofbraeuhaus in Munich which was titled “Why We Are Antisemites.” [] Who in the alt-right would say that now? That’s the difference.


      (Mod. Note: Ms Yeager, be careful over-generalizing about the “philosophy” of TOO and people associated with it. Your brush is definitely too broad.)

  37. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    I have read this tread at least five times. My motivation was to tease out of these many comments some measure of nostalgia for what the Alt Right might have been, or might still be. The appellation is perfect: The High Right. Notionally, it is pure, high-minded, ascetic, firm of purpose. Visually, it is the soul-stirring torchlit Charlottesville parade. The conceptualisation was perfect. But things went wrong. I dream that we will try again, throughout the White-inhabited world, and much better prepared. For though the mighty pen serves us well, we need self-display too. And, of course, we have to look good in both formats.

Comments are closed.