My discussions about the Alt-Right in recent weeks has turned up many revelations–most of which the insiders already knew. Basically, in the run-up to the election of President Trump, the Alt-Right brand was considered a big tent movement. Many fit in the brand, and they did so without hesitation.
In 2016, the Alt-Right brand was seen as a movement in transition. Because you couldn’t pin it down, it was safe. It was generally an anti-establishment movement comprised of anti-globalists, libertarians, paleoconservatives, neoreactionaries, monarchists, and yes…some white nationalists. It was a big tent where, for that time, everyone agreed not “to punch right.”
At first the Left did not know how to process the Alt-Right. They were a surprise. But they swiftly became demonized, predictably, by Hillary Clinton. Finally, as no surprise to anyone, the Left flatly demonized the Alt-Right as a gaggle of racists.
But to my surprise, when I attempted to discuss the Alt-Right with my fellow Traditional Catholics in the beginning of 2018, they also blew off the Alt-Right as a group of neo-Nazis. I was shocked at the ignorance of my colleagues. Have they not kept up with things as I have? Traditionalists, such as my fellow Trad Catholics, were one of the primary beneficiaries of the Alt-Right. But instead of embracing this new outside-the-box movement, it appeared as though they fell into the typical Leftist trap, adopting the vocabulary of the Left, and vilifying the Alt-Right for being “racist.” They held an insular viewpoint, preferring to blow off all of the political vocabulary, and contenting themselves with the idea, “I don’t need politics. I’m neither Left nor Right. I’m Catholic.”
I would try to explain to my fellow Catholics that the Alt-Right movement was not the race-based movement they made it out to be, but nothing would convince them, it seemed.
Finally, I went to the source. I was talking with some fellow Alt-Right types, and I tried to discuss how the movement was not based solely on the idea of race realism. I tried discussing the Alt-Right’s origins by citing the Paul Gottfried 2008 speech in the Mencken Club, as well as a few similar-minded writers at Takimag. But, like a dog returning to its vomit, a few voices even in the Alt-Right itself flatly stated–with relish–that they think the foundation of the Alt-Right is race realism.
From all directions, external and internal, the vast consensus now is that the Alt-Right is a lost cause. It is lost to ethnonationalism. It is viewed by everyone–people outside of it and inside of it–as being a race movement for whites.
How to Ruin a Right-Wing Movement: Enable Richard Spencer
Hands down, Spencer is credited with destroying the Alt-Right name. His out-and-proud white nationalism and non-Right socialist tendencies–not to mention his repeated PR fiascoes–have managed to embarrass and scandalize a lot of people who’ve “taken the red pill.” Many have stated this, and I would have to agree with their assessment. While race realism is nothing to be ashamed of, the cartoonishness of Spencer is over-the-top.
Which is why it is also odd that, yes, Spencer is responsible for helping to form the Alt-Right movement. He coined the very term. Undeniably, his 2010 blog “Alternative Right” is responsible for popularizing the idea of this movement in the early formative years. Spencer, however, was too much. His actions are akin to adding too much paprika in a soup.
Even his early colleagues, the aged godfathers of the Alt-Right, have been somewhat leery of Spencer. For example, Spencer actually personally knew Paul Gottfried. Gottfried was sort of a mentor to him. Of Spencer, he politely says:
“Richard is fearless in going after our self-appointed thought censors. But I wish Richard would think more often before he blurts out reckless indiscretions. Shocking one’s listener has its limits, certainly in terms of traditional standards of taste.”
Gottfried later told Salon magazine that “Richard, I think, has gone out on a limb to create a more extreme racialist right.”
Paleoconservative journalist Taki Theodoracopulos, author of Taki’s Magazine (Takimag), is less flattering than Spenser’s former preceptor. Over at The Spectator in December 2016, after sharing a story of how Spencer once threw up all over his carpet, Taki recalls how he let Spencer run Takimag. Failing to bring in any significant web traffic, Taki had to fire Spencer from the position two years later. Taki reflects on how Spencer is featured on the front page of the New York Times because he adequately serves their purpose of providing a bogeyman for sensitive, low-information voters.
However, by far, one of the biggest critics of Spencer and everything he represents is Vox Day, author of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right. Day has gone so far as to call out Spencer’s socialist views for the leftist nature that they are. Day has even given Spencer and his followers some special designations. At first, they were called Alt-White, then Alt-Retard, and also Fake Right:
I remember being surprised when I interviewed Richard Spencer and discovered him to be to the left of the entire Brainstorm community and surprisingly vague about anything that was policy related. This was the great extremist, the outlaw intellectual? My initial assumption was that he simply had poor judgment and hadn’t really formulated his political philosophy, especially when he went from one public relations debacle to the next without ever managing to accomplish anything substantial or do anything useful.
But it wasn’t until I discovered that Spencer had opposed Brexit and supported the European Union that I began to conclude that he, and at least a portion of what I called the Alt White, were not even of the ideological Right at all. I soon got confirmation from Greg Johnson, Andrew Anglin, and their fellow travelers, as they tried to simultaneously – and dishonestly – argue that a) they were the most extreme right of the right-wing, b) any criticism of them was “punching right”, and c) the terms of left and right were outdated and meaningless.
Richard Spencer has some very loyal followers on the Alt-Right, and often it seems as though no amount of dialectic will be capable of convincing any of them of Spencer’s errors. To this day, there are some who actually consider the Leftist sabotage in Charlottesville last August as a victory, not the disaster it actually is.
One cannot help but wonder if Spencer’s followers are either really that obtuse, or that perhaps…
…Spencer Could Be Controlled Opposition.
Yes, it is not beyond our government to infiltrate a political movement. It has happened many times before. Why doubt that this could happen to the Alt-Right?
In fact, after it was uncovered that Spencer’s right hand man, Eli Mosley, was a military fraud, Day speculated:
At this point, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Mike Cernovich was correct all along and Richard Spencer really is controlled opposition. That, or Spencer’s natural ability to surround himself with leftists and frauds while staggering from one obvious and easily avoidable PR disaster to the next without ever losing the media spotlight is the most highly developed since Hillary Clinton’s.
Vox Day is not alone in speculating about the idea that Spencer is controlled opposition. After all, Jason Kessler who arranged the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville was actually a former Obama voter who worked with Occupy Wallstreet. Additionally, it has come out that Mike Enoch’s mother had posed in a picture with Hillary Clinton, hinting at a possible association between the two families. With these different turncoats and peculiar characters popping up here and there, how is it not possible to start guessing about Spencer’s authenticity?
Suspicion of controlled opposition even extends to Andy Nowicki. Nowicki was a writer and eventually co-editor of Spencer’s first (and now defunct) website, AlternativeRight.com. (Nowicki is still an assistant editor to the second incarnation of that blog, now known as AlternativeRight.blogspot.com.) Nowicki has stated that he has a suspicion that the Alt-Right movement may be an inorganic contrivance of some sort. Though there is much sincere sentiment in the movement, Nowicki argues:
[O]ne isn’t wrong to wonder and one isn’t wrong to speculate. One isn’t wrong to consider in some way or form–to some extent or other–the Alt-Right might well be an astroturfed phenomenon with connections from on high.
Vlogger Apollonian Germ also put out a video in May of 2017 discussing the strange connections of Richard Spencer’s family. Apparently, Spencer’s parents drove across the United States from Boston, Massachusetts to Texas in order to ensure Spencer’s enrollment at St. Mark’s School, a school that is run by many establishment and CIA families. This school is funded and controlled by industry and government elites. Many of their alumni have become writers, producers, actors, musicians, government officials, CIA, and other insiders.
Not only that, but Spencer has even had ties to the Bush family. His own organization, the National Policy Institute (NPI), was founded and is run by William H. Regneri II. This man owns a publishing company that was initially subsidized by the CIA, and his family ties back to many elite families, such as the Rockerfellers.
Richard Spencer is only several degrees of separation from people of major influence. The implications of these associations are not lost on Apollonian Germ, who states that:
All of the elites are connected to each other, and all of the people in the highest positions are working on the same team. They like to co-opt all sides of the argument–all sides of the political discourse. They want to control their opposition as well as the side that is pushing their own narrative. It would benefit them to have somebody who they could place in the public eye as the leader of this new movement of ethnic consciousness for white people. It would benefit them to put somebody at the head of that movement to steer it in the wrong direction and give it a bad name.
There are even a few conspiracy theories that presuppose that Zionism has had a role in either creating, or at the least, directing the Alt-Right movement. This may not be out of the realm of possibility when considering that the very founder of the movement, Paul Gottfried, is in fact Jewish. And, indeed, many people either involved in the Alt-Right or who act as apologists for it are either Jewish or non-Jewish Zionists.
While it may initially seem silly and typical to propose the idea of an Alt-Right Zionist conspiracy, it increasingly becomes difficult to deny when the facts presented show that both Netanyahu and his son have supported America’s far Right, or that Haaretz (a Jewish publication) is featuring headlines such as: Alt-Right Leader Richard Spencer Tells Haaretz: ‘Jews Have Nothing To Fear.’
During the 2016 Presidential election, many were happy and unashamed to identify with the Alt-Right. It was a broad anti-political correctness movement. In a well-known Breitbart article, Milo Yiannopolus cheered the Alt-Right as a band of witty, youthful, subversive, taboo-defying, right-leaning intellectuals, conservatives, and meme shitlords.
Yet, since the election, many of the same people who were extolling the Alt-Right have begun tearing down the brand, painting Richard Spencer–who, after all, uses “alternative right” as his blog name–as the ultimate racist villain. As Andrew Maratz writes in The New Yorker:
Now the boundaries are set. Spencer and his allies have won the branding war. They own the alt-right label; their right-wing opponents are aligning themselves against it, working to establish a parallel brand.
These circumstances leave a lay person such as myself asking: What did I become a part of? Was anyone in this movement genuine? Many in the Alt-Right have been sincere, and they were not embarrassing neo-Nazi archetypes symbolized by Spencer. Is it possible that although the Alt-Right was an organic movement, it was controlled in various places? Is it possible the Alt-Right was toyed with as a plaything by Zionists and elitists, only to be dumped later on after being used?
In the beginning, it seemed as though the Alt-Right was simply a right-wing reaction against an entrenched neocon establishment. Yet now, due to voices from within and from without, the Alt-Right is Richard Spencer’s “Party of Ethnonationalism.”
If I were to hazard a guess at what has happened in these past few years, it is this: many in the West have woken up and taken the Red Pill. They have opened up their eyes to reality and the oppression of political correctness. But then Richard Spencer and the 1488er Alt-White racialists hijacked the Red Pill movement, stealing and hoisting it as their Alt-Right brand.
So, perhaps in the end, this was all just a Red Pill movement. Perhaps Spencer’s Alt-Right creation was a distinct parasite of that movement.
It appears that Vox Day will continue to claim the brand, declaring Spencer to be an aberration–even though Spencer coined the term in the first place. Day even continues to declare that Christianity has a prominent place in the Alt-Right, even though Richard Spencer and many in the movement are atheists:
The Alt-Right doesn’t just stand for the European races, but for the West. And Christianity is as integral and irreplaceable an element of Western civilization as the European races; it is one of the three pillars of the West. The Alt-Right supports genuine Bible-based traditional Christianity, not the evil globalist Churchianity that presently wears so many nominally Christian organizations like a demon-possessed skinsuit.
And, yes, it is true that Christianity has had a place in the Alt-Right–at least in the election season of 2016. I have argued with many fellow Catholics that the Alt-Right is not a pagan or atheistic movement. However, if the entire Alt-Right brand was a contrivance, if it is controlled opposition…well, that throws everything up into the air.
For certain, we can say that America has been taking the Red Pill since 2008. People have been waking up and breaking Establishment-set taboos, for sure. But it wasn’t until the election cycle of 2016 that the term “Alt-Right” popped up on headlines. And then–quite conspicuously–a lot of the original supporters of the Alt-Right began to denounce it after Donald Trump’s political victory, as if on cue.
Will I continue to proudly claim to be Alt-Right in the future? I’m not so sure anymore. Some people such as Vox Day continue to hold onto the brand, as they’ve invested a lot into it. I know that I have certainly talked it up in public and with friends. However, as I sometimes say, I’ve made mistakes before. Perhaps it is enough to consider myself red pilled for now, and let Spencer keep his “brand.”
LINKS TO RESOURCES: