Tag Archives: alt-right

The Reaction to the War on Whites

jewsmedia-approved_anti-White_conspiracy_theory

Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right presents a concentrated glop of typically neurotic jewsmedia psychoanalysis and psychopathologization targeting Whites. The main concern is to explain how the relatively mild-mannered Tea Party reaction has transformed into the much more outspoken race-conscious and jew-aware alt-right reaction:

Reactionary energy helped deliver all three branches of government to a Republican Party in the grips of an alt-right-curious anti-PC bomb-thrower the faithful called their “god-emperor” (or at least helped him along with last year’s affirmative action for white people, a.k.a. the Electoral College). But at no point during the campaign, even, could you have mistaken the unruly energy on the right for anything so organized as a party or as purposeful as a protest movement. It was — and is — a counterculture. One formed in the spirit of opposition to everything the existing Establishment stood for: globalist, technocratic liberal elitism. The amazing thing is, in November, for the first time in American electoral history, the counterculture won everything.

So what follows here is an attempt to really reckon with the alt-right and its fellow travelers: to organize and catalogue influences, philosopher-kings, and shit-posting foot soldiers; to track the movement’s history, its future, and the story of how the modern internet made it possible; to study its grievances, its media savvy, its symbols, its heroes and villains, its president and its critics of the president, its billionaire supporters and the underemployed message-board-dwelling “advocates” who serve as its creative engine. The movement is not a monolith — though it would also never be mistaken for a rainbow coalition — and part of what we’ve focused on is just how the various wings work together in concert.

The two recurring key words are White and reaction. The attitude shared by all the cited “experts” is unapologetically anti-White, their common theme being that they deplore Whites and White behavior. Even the cited “experts” who aren’t explicitly anti-White don’t have any problem associating with those who are. And despite the fact that the reaction they are talking about is decentralized and disorganized, and thus amorphous and incoherent, the anti-White consensus is that they are in fact talking about a collective White phenomenon.

What these full-time thinkers and writers have trouble explaining is why their White enemy is reacting, and what Whites are reacting to. I say what’s happening can be explained very concisely, and in plain language: Whites are reacting to jewing, and more specifically, Whites are reacting to a jew-led war on Whites. It is not so clearly stated in the jewsmedia exactly because the jews wage war by deception. The constantly stated imperative to “combat racism and anti-semitism” is as close as the anti-White/pro-jew regime gets to an open and forthright declaration of war.

While anti-Whites explicitly fault Whites for reacting, most also at the same time pretend there is no organized, collective, hostile anti-White force causing this reaction. It just happens. These professional anti-White combatants like to pretend Whites only imagine there is a war on Whites. Even more often they pretend that what’s happening is actually a White war on them, projecting their own group consciousness and motivations onto Whites. Though Whites are relatively confused and clueless, anti-Whites fear what might happen if Whites ever actually start to think and organize to the extent they themselves do.

The portion of this particular jewsmedia effort which best illustrates what I’m talking about is titled Fourteen Scholars on the Roots of the New Reactionary Rage. The “scholars” are actually racial partisans, professional non-Whites and/or anti-Whites, mostly jews and blacks. Undoubtedly the nymag.com editors solicited and published this anti-White perspective because they share it.

Among the most glaring language:

White supremacy. Pure and simple.

white nationalists … white nationalism … white nationalists … white nationalism … white nationalists … white nationalism

Everything has been infected by this notion of white identity politics.

it’s all about protecting this idea of the white male identity

the strain that holds everything together — say, anti-communism, anti-women’s rights, anti-unionization — is the foundation of white supremacy

But it was life-long professional jew Leon Wieseltier who very succinctly captured the essence of the war on Whites, how jews wage war under cover of this narrative which inverts cause and effect, and their fear of this truth coming to light:

What’s crushing to me about them is not that they’re all racist or anti-Semitic, because I don’t think that they all are, it’s that for none of them was racism or anti-Semitism a deal breaker. I don’t believe the majority of people in 1933 Germany were anti-Semitic. But for the majority of them anti-Semitism wasn’t a deal breaker. Some of it is about bigotry, some of it is about ideological fanaticism. It’s possible to be anti-government and not racist. The controlling emotions of the alt-right are rage and anger and resentment and fury. It is possible to be critical of the globalization policies of the 1990s without the anti-elitist madman. It is possible to believe that trade deals should include worker protections without becoming haters. But populism is a paroxysm of anger. Populism always passes. It exhausts itself.

It is possible to explain what Whites think and how Whites behave without being anti-White. It is a jew-constructed and jew-serving anti-White narrative that such explanations are perceived as “racism”, or more tellingly, “anti-semitism”. Visible non-Whites have some idea that they’ve got it good, but if Whites stop feeding them they may have it not so good. Jews, in contrast, are driving the whole process, and thus have a much clearer understanding. Jews realize they aren’t White and posture as “white” only to better manipulate and parasitize Whites, to better conduct the very war and feasting upon Whites which is making Whites resentful and angry. What jews fear is Whites clearly understanding this.

Anti-White Clinton Harpy Jewsplains The White Man’s Burden

jennifer_palmieri

The rhetoric of the Clinton campaign represents the semitically correct state of the art, the culmination of decades worth of anti-White political discourse. The anti-White animus driving the Clinton campaign came to the fore especially toward the end of the campaign, in both her alt-right speech on August 24th and her basket of deplorables speech on September 9th. These speeches created controversy when they were delivered, but now in retrospect can be seen as definitive of Clinton’s campaign strategy and emblematic of the broader jew-led war on Whites.

After the election the Harvard Institute of Politics and jewsmedia figures conducted a lengthy post-mortem discussion between Clinton and Trump’s campaign managers. The most heated exchange occurred when the role of White voters came up for discussion (at about 1:35:00):

JENNIFER PALMIERI, CLINTON CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician I am glad to have laws. [interruption] Give me a minute. I am more proud of Hillary Clinton’s alt-right speech than any other moment on the campaign trail.

CONWAY: Wow.

PALMIERI: She had the courage to stand up. I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.

. . .

PALMIERI: Kellyanne, his schedule didn’t concern me. What concerns me is hiring — is, is himself, you know, we’ve already gone through some of the examples of his own language, of his own positions that I believe were at odds with my values as an American of embracing diversity, inclusivity, equality. And hiring someone like Steve Bannon who has an act, with Breitbart and gives people and one of my proudest moments with her is her standing up with courage and with clarity in Steve Bannon’s own words and Donald Trump’s own words the platform that they gave to white supremacists, white nationalists. And it is a very, very important moment in our history as a country and I think as his presidency goes forward I am going to be very glad to be part of the campaign that tried to stop this.

A more telling concern was expressed by the jew Joel Benenson (at about 1:45:00), “Who are you trying to take the country back from, my grandparents who came here?”

Palmieri’s point was that the Clinton team perceived Trump’s rhetoric as appealling to White voters, and that they regarded such an appeal as unthinkably wrong specifically because the voters are White. Palmieri reiterated this point in a Washington Post op-ed:

I don’t know whether the Trump campaign needed to give a platform to white supremacists to win. But the campaign clearly did, and it had the effect of empowering the white-nationalist movement.

Trump provided a platform by retweeting white nationalists — giving their views an audience of millions. Views previously relegated to the darkest corners of the Internet also had a platform on Breitbart, the website of Trump campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon.

If Trump expects the Americans who did not vote for him to accept him as president, he needs to show that he accepts all of them as Americans. He needs to show that he understands their concerns and hears their fears.

I suggest he and his team try “hashtag ‘we are all Americans.’ ” We all have a role to play here. But it’s the winner who carries the burden of taking the lead in uniting the country. It’s the burden of leadership. It’s the burden of being the president of the United States.

Palmieri’s assertion that Trump won by “providing a platform for White supremacists” is best understood as an inversion and psychological projection. Like Clinton, Trump pandered frequently and explictly to jews and every other group except Whites. Unlike Clinton, Trump never mentioned Whites. In contrast, the entire premise and frame of reference for Clinton’s alt-right speech, which Palmieri is most proud of, and Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” rhetoric, which she used in many contexts around the same time, was utterly and explicitly anti-White.

In light of this anti-White rationale, Palmieri’s suggestion that Trump’s burden is to serve “all Americans” is best understood as a clarification and restatement of Clinton’s campaign slogan: STRONGER TOGETHER (AGAINST WHITES).

Catching up with John Friend

parasites_projecting

On Tuesday night John Friend and I discussed what’s happened since last year.

Topics included the ongoing jew war on Whites, the meaning of “conspiracy theory”, kikeservatives, Twitter, the jewsmedia, Trump, Bannon, (((the echo meme))), alt-right, Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor, Hitler and national socialist Germany, White racial consciousness.

Discussing the Alt-Right with Kyle Hunt

kyle_hunt_renegade_broadcasting

Tonight at 8PM ET Kyle Hunt and I will talk about the Alt-Right and the zeitgeist behind its rise. You can tune in live at Renegade Broadcasting.

The post for the program is The Solar Storm: Tanstaafl – Team White (2-7-16).

Alt-Wrong: Andy Nowicki on the Jews

andy_nowicki

LET’S TALK ABOUT JEWS!

In his latest vlog, Alt Right co-editor Andy Nowicki walks the line between insufferable Jew-love and inveterate Jew-hate, considers the many fascinating parallels between anti-white and anti-Semitic rhetoric, asserts that racial solidarity ought not come at the expense of morality, and shows off his handsome nostrils.

This is an emotional, cathartic rant in which Nowicki displays his shallow understanding of race and discomfort with thinking seriously about “JOOOOOOOOOOOOS”. A more accurate title would have been “LET’S TALK ABOUT INSUFFERABLE JEW-HATE!”, because what Nowicki actually talks about is how “a certain faction” of Alt-Righters and White nationalists annoy him by constantly bringing up the jews.

Nowicki says he’s leery of making a distinction between Whites and jews. What he’s actually leery about is Whites making the distinction. Though jews look “white” to him and he realizes jewish identity is “an elusive thing” he faults more race- and jew-aware Whites for being more wary than he is. Rather than seeing crypsis as a jew feature he mistakes it for a White bug.

Nowicki admits that thinking of jews as a racial Other doesn’t exactly work for him. When he tries to imagine, “for the sake of argument”, that Whites and jews are distinct, it’s clear he cannot even see Whites as equivalent to jews, much less as truly separate and more worthy of his sympathy. In a telling gaffe he imagines Whites as “gentiles”, i.e. racial Other from the point of view of jews. Then, instead of noting distinctions he explains his interest in spotting “parallels”, by which he means seeing criticism from a point of view more sympathetic to jews than Whites.

Nowicki correctly notes that “anti-semitism” means any attempt to blame the jews for anything. When he mentions anti-Whitism, however, he fails to recognize that the jews blame Whites for everything. Never mind that this is directly connected to the most obvious and damning distinction of all: That jews have a homeland, because Whites; whereas Whites have no homeland, because jews.