A Shambolic Circus

I lead a quiet life, and so seldom see so much as the disappearing backside of naked hate, but last night I saw hate full-frontal, and that hate was coming at me. I saw a great chanting mob that was howling hatred, and specifying the object of its malice with signs that called for “fascist” blood. I saw stone-eyed ranks of la Raza Cósmica punching out their fists in the Red Salute and shouting about who did and who did not belong on campus. I listened to the hateful curses of Black nationalists, and even saw hatred pantomimed by two women dressed as clowns. Hate was on the menu last night. It was fresh, it was hot, and the portions were not small.

All of hatred that I saw was directed at Richard Spencer and the “fascists” who had gathered to listen to him. Spencer said nothing hateful, and only a few things that squeamish listeners might call regrettably rude. Apart from one sign with a picture of Pepe and a slogan about “helicopter rides,” his “fascist” followers might have been disciples of Mahatma Gandhi.

I arrived at the Memorial Student Center at six o’clock, an hour before Spencer’s talk was to begin. In one plaza was ranged the “silent protest,” which more or less lived up to its name, and whose placards suggested that many in it were not altogether clear as to why they were there. Betraying a certain ignorance of Richard Spencer’s ideology, one of these placards read “Make America Gay Again.”

The mob in the adjoining plaza was far from silent, and it knew why it was there. Our local newspaper had billed this as the “BTHO Hate Rally,” BTHO being a popular local acronym for Beat the Hell Out (of). The BTHO crowd was raucous and in the mood for beating the hell out of just about anything that came to hand. They had drummers, and agitators, and Soviet flags, and anarchist flags, and more than a few threatening placards calling for blood. One said, “I Am a Fascist Killing Machine.” Another, with greater subtlety, “Goodnight White Power.”

We “fascists” were obliged to form a line on the street. This was part of a security measure that made no sense to me, but that did allow protesters to wave their signs at us, and to take our pictures. As the bully-boys were still down the street getting wound up by the agitators, most who did so were slightly bemused good-whites, like these two anthropology professors.

1

We also had our pictures taken many times, by cheerless souls with grim this-is-going-in-your-file expressions on their faces. I didn’t see a badge marked Secret Police on this dour fellow, but he really didn’t need one.

2

After a while the BTHO crowd came surging down the street with a roar that was mighty but surprisingly unfrightening. It was stirring to see the Stars and Stripes waving beside the Hammer and Sickle, just as in days of old, but pride of place was of course given to the Black Flag and the anarchist circle-A. “Anarchist love,” I thought to myself, thankful that a low hedge separated me from its raging embrace.

3

Across the street, small knots of people dribbled through the gates of the football stadium on their way to the official Aggies United Rally, a wholesome evening of “celebrities, musicians, and a brief talk by an 88 year old Holocaust survivor.” This was by all accounts (except, of course, the official account) a huge flop.

I was fairly certain the screaming anarchist mob would not charge the line of “fascists” because the line of fascists was so obviously packed with infiltrators, plants and informers. I must also say that the police were out in force and doing a good job.

There were about five hundred people in the audience, and perhaps twenty television cameras against the back wall. Roughly a quarter of these were Richard Spencer supporters in one sense or another. Another quarter were White libertarians and leftists, the former mostly college students, the later mostly pony-tail-professor types. Another quarter were Blacks, all of them apparently students, and few of them inclined to reticence. The final quarter were Hispanic, a subset of which were the fist-punching and Che-Guevara-impersonating representatives of la Raza Cósmica mentioned above.

Spencer entered the room on time, a glass of wine in his hand and a smile on his face. He was dressed semi-casual, in jeans, dress-shirt and vest, and he gave off an aura that was happy, friendly and carefree. He opened his talk with some light-hearted remarks on the “Heil heard round the world,” and was for the next two hours, with only a couple of exceptions, jocular but also serious and respectful. There was no hint of Roderick Spode marching to the podium with a sheaf of papers, or of the Little Corporal shaking his fist.

Spencer explained the birth of the Alt-Right as his awakening to the utter failure of conservatism in the disastrous Bush administration. Around 2008, he told us, he realized that the United States had become an “ideological nation,” just as the old U.S.S.R. had been, and that movement conservatives were at the heart of this juggernaut. Thus, he said, George W. Bush was the real “founder of the Alt-Right.”

The Alt-Right was, therefore, originally, a right-wing critique of Bushism, most especially of its militarist-missionary foreign policy and its propositional nationalism. Somewhere in the dustbowls of Afghanistan and Mesopotamia, Spencer told us, American conservatism died. It was for this reason, he concluded, that the Right needed to rebuild itself from the ground up.

Around 2010, Spencer told us he settled on racial identity as the new foundation of right-wing politics. Birth, as he told us, “is not an accident,” and everyone is part of a people, whether they like it or not. A man’s people begins in his family, but expands outward from there until it reaches the limit of race.

There was at this point an uproar of predictable heckling about the “human race,” and a damn-fool pony-tail-professor shouted out that Europe is “just a place,” all of which Spencer used (with remarkable good cheer) to elaborate what he means by race, and why he believes that identity reaches it most significant limit in race. Although race is based in biology, this substrate is expressed in the much more important domain of “spirit,” which for Spencer means both nature and destiny. In Spencer’s view, therefore, each race has a unique spirit, nature and destiny, and therefore each race deserves its own homeland to work out its destiny without the distraction of routine contact and conflict with other races.

Throughout Spencer’s speech two dancing clowns cavorted silently in the aisles, and before his podium, holding up signs of disapprobation.

4

The last point about each race deserving a homeland lead Spencer to assert that “America at the end of the day belongs to White men.” This occasioned much loud consternation among the Black quarter of the audience, which had segregated itself in the front rows on the left, and among the fist-punchers from la Raza Cósmica. He made it clear that this did not mean that non-White citizens should be expelled from the country, only that Whites had a right to rule the U.S. as a majority (i.e. “set the tone” of society), and a right to take measures to preserve their majority.

About forty minutes into the talk, there began to be a certain tangible restlessness in the audience, a majority of which had been enduring in relative silence the equivalent of having red-hot nails driven into their eyes. Ominously, one young man took up a position in the center aisle holding a placard with a picture of Adolf Hitler blowing his brains out, and the words “Follow Your Leader.” Spencer made a joke about this and went on talking. The young man was joined by a second, apparently of mixed race, but with an orangish Afro hairstyle, who locked arms with the first. When they began to advance on the podium a third young man, who evidently supported Spencer, stood up to block their way. The two attempted to rush him and there was some grappling that threatened general melee.

Spencer very skillfully diffused this fraught moment with repeated and effective calls to “talk, not fight.” I was grateful for his success, since the “fascists” would have taken a beating in any general fracas. I saw only two from the Alt-Right who looked like they might know what to do in a bar fight, and no equivalent shortage of toughs in the adversarial three-quarters of the audience.

Spencer used this disruption to make very good points about the absurd pretense that the protesters were “speaking truth to power.” He pointed out that their views were in almost perfect alignment with the campus authorities, all major corporations, and every branch of the U.S. government (the armed forces not excepted). They were simply the brownshirts of an unholy alliance that aimed to reduce humanity to a mass of anomic and atomized consumers who were fat, unhappy, and addicted to drugs and porn.

After about an hour, Spencer took questions from the audience. About half were belligerent, a quarter disputatious, and a quarter sympathetic. Some of the Black students cussed Spencer out and gave him lessons in Afrocentric history; others registered polite dissent from his views. My sense was that many among the belligerent and disputatious had not attended very closely to what Spencer had said in the preceding hour, but had instead writhed in their chairs, rolling their eyes and groaning with pain. This was the case with the young man to my left, whose muttering had led me to identify him as a red-white-and-blue constitutional libertarian.

After about an hour of questions, we were directed to exit by the back door, so as to escape the BTHO Hate mob that was waiting out front to kiss us goodbye. Walking past the site of the now disbanded silent protest, I saw its organizer, a local rabbi, wandering around as if lost. Down the street I heard a good deal of shouting from the BTHO Hate mob, but I was accosted only once, by an oddly dressed woman who was exceedingly drunk.

*****

Richard Spencer is a White Nationalist, and therefore holds opinions with which many Americans disagree. He was last night perfectly comfortable with disagreement and entirely open to rational debate. He answered all respectful questions respectfully, indulged more rudeness and ignorance than I would have, and resorted to taunts only after he had been sorely taunted. If he harbors a smoldering cauldron of hatred in his soul, he is possessed of psychopathic powers of dissembling.

I take hatred to be a burning and often unfounded resentment coupled with a will to inflict grievous harm on the object of that resentment. A man carrying a sign announcing that he is a “fascist killing machine” would, for instance, fall under suspicion of hatred in my book. This would be especially true when the word “fascist” meant to the man nothing more than someone with whom he disagreed.

Grievous harm can be inflicted in many ways, one of the more cowardly but effective of which is defamation. This is why we have laws against slander and libel, and why we all at least pretend to deplore gossip. I would have to say that just about everything I have been told about Richard Spencer in the past two weeks is defamatory and untrue. Likewise, just about everything that was said about me, and those others in the audience who came to listen, rather than to heckle and jeer.

The quality of the challenges to Spencer’s ideas was shockingly low, an embarrassment to Texas A&M University. Most of the challenges were nothing but variations on attempts at book burning, ridicule, or flipping the bird. Among the challenges that betrayed traces of intellectual development, most were mere slogans drawn from the most dubious quarters of academia. Spencer slapped down the one feeble attempt to discuss biology, dismembered a budding logician, and exposed grand canyons of historical ignorance in another young scholar. He is by no means a genius, but he went through the best that A&M had to offer like Bruce Lee on a good day.

Referring to the recent Trump campaign, Spencer said that part of Trump’s appeal was his recognition that America was no longer “great.” Now Spencer took this in a transhumanist direction from which I would (I hope not stupidly) dissent, but the comment was powerful when made in the shambolic circus of that room. There in the front left we had a sort of anti-amen-corner of Blacks, entirely segregated, loudly muttering, in many cases spitting rage, and incapable of understanding or making themselves understood. Just to my right was the stony-eyed la Raza Cósmica, fists raised in the salute of a political movement that murdered, by conservative estimates, one hundred million innocent people. Beside me sat the red-white-and-blue constitutional libertarian, writhing with cognitive dissonance because of the inassimilable discrepancies between the America in his head and the America before his eyes.  Here and there were the pony-tail-professors, who had clearly failed to teach their students how to debate, and very likely did not know how to do so themselves. Outside there was a screaming mob waving communist symbols and calling for blood. Across the street the most utterly clueless were sticking their head in the sand of “celebrities, musicians, and a brief talk by an 88 year old Holocaust survivor.”

36 thoughts on “A Shambolic Circus

  1. From CNN’s coverage of the event:

    “At one point, Quentin Boothman, a white freshman, stood up near the front facing Spencer as he silently held a sign with an image of a gun pointed toward Adolf Hitler’s face.
    “Follow your leader,” it read.
    After Spencer started heckling Boothman…”

    “As the speech continued, followed by a tense Q&A, Spencer continued to provoke the crowd…”

    • CNN is lying. I was there. When Boothman walked towards the podium, Spencer said “Oh, a suicide picture. Nice. Turn around and show it to everyone.”

      • Yes, that’s pretty funny in an appalling sort of way. Whatever one thinks of Spencer’s opinions, he stood up well under tremendous hostility. He made jokes about people who were being obnoxious, insulting and disruptive. He was one of the only people in that room who was working to dial down the hate.

  2. They know that they can’t compete neither intellectually nor economically. So they are trying to eliminate competition. And the white male (alpha) is their enemy. Unfortunately, the future Chinese overlords will most likely be much, much worse. Confucianism ain’t Scholasticism, by a long shot.

  3. Keep checking under your desk for thugs today, Mr. Smith! Btw, were you video’d by the man with, or without, your consent?Ha, ha.

    • Several signs were posted warning us that we might be photographed entering the event, and that such a photograph might be subject to regrettable interpretations. The fellow I photographed was not panning the crowd. He was going for faces.

      • Where “might” means “will,” right?

        I said before you are more courageous than you give yourself credit for. I am more convinced than ever. You have my undying respect (for all the good it will do you), Sir!

      • Woody Guthrie had a sign on his guitar that read “This machine kills Fascists”. Sounds like the unfortunate protester missed the subtlety of the original, along with the definition of the word “fascist”, along with the ideology… “rebel without a clue”. (making a short comment to see if it will post… have not been able to send a post here for some reason)

  4. “Beside me sat the red-white-and-blue constitutional libertarian, writhing with cognitive dissonance because of the inassimilable discrepancies between the America in his head and the America before his eyes.”

    Isn’t that the truth.

    I watched the speech and Q&A (or at least most of it) on YouTube and would recommend to others as it allows those of us who weren’t there to at least get a sense of the anger, frustration, and tenseness among the crowd. From the gratuitous insults, quick and complete disavowals from questioners, nervous voices, literal clownish behavior, etc. from Spencer’s detractors one gets the idea that these people know they’re beat intellectually but don’t quite how to respond…and it scares them. As Spencer pointed out, he doesn’t concern himself with fringe leftist groups but liberals do concern themselves with him and his ideas to a hysterical degree. The left doth protest too much, methinks.

    Overall, here are some other related thoughts. Concerning to the excerpt above (that is cognitive dissonance among mainstream “color-blind” conservatives), the entire spectacle just reinforced what Spencer was saying. How could one not agree with his contention that race is real and a large part of identity when witnessing the obvious differences in tact and reasoning ability between a white and black questioner? How could one not agree with the idea that racial identity is central to a person’s identity when la raza self-segregated itself and raised fists in defiance? How could one not recognize–during the cacophony emanating from the various races in the room and the fights that nearly broke out–that diversity naturally leads to conflict, distrust, and bitterness?

    Surrounding these events someone inevitably challenges the idea that racial identity or biological race is a coherent or legitimate concept. Everyone wishes to claim “science” as being on his side, but the best way to defend white racial identity is to point out that the left uses it when they decry “white privilege.” However a leftist defines someone as being the recipient of “white privilege,” then that is what is meant by white. If whites can be condemned as a racial group, they can be defended as one as well.

    One poignant moment was when Spencer pointed out to a self-described conservative (wishing to do away with identity politics) who condemned Spencer that this conservative now found himself on the same side as radical leftists in the audience, which the young man tried hand-wave away. This was a solid and piercing rebuttal, but Spencer missed an opportunity to go further. Politics–that is the art of obtaining and holding onto power–is merely a means to an end, the end being a system of rule. If identity politics–that is the direct appeal to people on the basis of nationality, religion, and in this case race–is a winning strategy that will bring about a more conservative system of rule, why shouldn’t the right do what the left has been doing and directly appeal to racial identity? Furthermore, did not mainstream conservatives attack Obama for his nebulous religious views and the controversial church he attended? Is this not identity politics based on religion? Whither the difference, particularly when blacks vote for Democrats (who endlessly pander to them) by a ratio of 9:1? If whites were consistently Republican merely 2:1, every election would be a landslide and states like Oregon would be solidly red.

    Lastly Spencer did not show signs of hate, but certainly disdain and impatience toward some of his detractors. He reserved his venom for one particular questioner (who claimed to have a Phd in genetics) who wore a “BTHO Hate” shirt. Wryly asking what the man’s shirt meant, Spencer mocked the questioner for wearing and challenged him to come up on stage and fight him, since he apparently represented the hate the man wanted to beat the hell out of. When the man declined, Spencer called him a coward. Such an exchange highlights a further difference between the Alt-Right and mainstream conservatism which gets overlooked, namely viewing the world through a masculine lens which includes taking risks and defending oneself if necessary. Generally, those who hold strongly to mainstream conservative positions have lost (or never held) this fighter mentality. This move proved to be shrewd, as it signaled that simultaneously labeling white identitarians as “hateful” and using this as pretense to assault them would be countered by a direct challenge to do that very thing. Spencer’s only flaw was allowing the man to get off a question–he should have forbade the man from making a question until he was willing to behave (by say, removing the shirt). This would have further reinforced that the Alt-Right is to be respected (and is thus a legitimate movement). Think of when Trump had Jorge Ramos removed from one of his press conferences for asking a question out-of-turn. This prevented other intrepid journalists from doing so in the future, and in turn showed his potential voting base that he would stand up for himself in the face of hostile actors. Of course strong counter-attacks such as these cannot be done whenever, but they aren’t without merit.

    • I think you impression of the general tone of the event is correct. It seemed to me that there was significant loss of understanding across racial lines. This was not simply a matter of disagreement over premises and inferences, but a deeper difference in styles of argument, expectations for evidence, and even the meaning of words. Of course all such things are made more difficult when passions run high, but as you observed, this was not simply a matter of high emotion.

      The man in the BTHO tee shirt was interesting. I don’t know if he had been heckling before getting up to ask his question. If so, Spencer might already have had his number. Otherwise this was the only case where Spencer started out on offense. As you can see on the video, he was otherwise polite to people who opened their question by calling him vulgar names. I suspect that some of this was Spencer’s disgust at what he saw as a weak and flabby white man. But I think it was also a reaction to the tee-shirt. If you are polite to a man who says you are a hater on his chest, you implicitly accept the indictment. If you are polite to a man who threatens you, even if only on his lousy tee shirt, you implicitly submit to the threat. I expect BTHO man is too dim and soft to understand honor culture. Also that he knows he is weak and soft, and so does not take his own threats seriously. Spencer was completely right to call him on this–to point out to the fat fool that he was making libelous charge and threatening actions that he could not possibly carry through.

      • Also thanks for going and sharing your account of the evening. It’s important that we attend these types of events as it legitimizes speech and ideas the left wishes to ban. The further to the right the fringe is defined as, the more “mainstream” our positions become. Remember they do this stuff on college campuses to non-racial conservatives as well.

  5. Pingback: Refuse the Insult – The Orthosphere

  6. I appreciate your sharing your experience. It is essential to have clear-eyed appraisal to understand what is going on. I’d never heard of Spencer before the hoopla started, and still haven’t read or listened to him. Much good in the comments here too.

    It concerns me, deeply, that Texas students would self-segregate when attending an event to make a stand for … well, I would say “equality over racism”, but those young people don’t know what American Equality once meant, do they? We would not have done that when I was that age. Even in high school, we mingled. And so did my children’s generation.

    About Spencer. I kind of accidentally found myself on the side of the Alt-right & the Alt-Righteous – but not of the Alt-white – in support of freedom of speech & religion, of Western Christian civilization in macro, and, as GW said above, the Alt’s focus on “viewing the world through a masculine lens which includes taking risks and defending oneself if necessary”. I’m a mother of strong sons, and a grandmother of boys. Feminized America was dangerous enough when my sons were growing up, but it is far worse now, and it is deadly for individuals, for communities, for all aspects of society and for the security of our nation.

    I understand where Spencer et al are coming from re race, but I think ultimately, they are mistaken about separation leading to any kind of lengthy peace, because of humankind’s tendency to divide continually into ever smaller groups. The Religious Wars of Europe that led to the US becoming “a proposition nation” in the first place are an example of that division. More recently, the Northern Ireland “Troubles”. While all can claim other causes, it wasn’t race that led to the disruption. It is important to recover a sane way of looking at the world which includes being willing to look at biology, and which philosophically and legally stops discriminating against white people and in case of a tie, protects interests of Christians & other religions above protections for sex or orientation (neither of which have been codified into the Constitution). But as an ultimate end goal, separation of races won’t fix things for anyone.

    Where Spencer’s most important effect lies is in exactly what you described: his willingness to speak the forbidden, to debate clearly and rationally, pointing to the incongruity of what the protesters think they are angry about, forcing a “conversation”between the demonized and the mob. If he and others can reach through the brainwashing, we might have a chance for this young generation to finally learn how to think for themselves.

    • Ms. Tina…

      First… “We” need more white womanly voices likes yours exactly for your OWN husband’s, sons’ and grandsons’ sake.

      Now… The races ARE ALREADY separated.

      But more importantly, “we” are really talking about a psychological separation that exists at one-hundred and eighty degrees opposite to the “liberal” BELIEF that the races cannot possibly separate PHYSICALLY.

      Sure “we” can physically separate NOW and when the collective will for a psychological separation is realized due an already extant spiritual and intellectual separation, physically separation will be collectively inevitable.

      And you are already here, but refuse the last and most crucial step. In many ways, it makes you more radical than any of the ideological stooges at the Spencer affair.

      Think about this.

      • Not sure whether I am understanding you correctly but I think we are on… different ladders perhaps. I think in terms of individuals, and we are faced with an opposite society that grew out of a foolish equation of the individual with the group then insisted that “all groups are alike”. That led to many of the abuses all of us could list. As a Christian, I will not budge from the stance that as individual human beings there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, but Jesus Himself was very casual in acknowledging the factual, concrete differences between groups, Romans,Gentiles, Samaritans. We are colorblind as friends and in worship, but when our little fellowship of congregations get together at different places, we don’t deny that differences between all these little independent churches have roots in race as well as original denomination.

      • Christianity does not need saved. White Christians do. And if your response is that all people need saved especially fellow Christians then you are right back to the fallacy of Christianity needing to be saved from the unequal application of its believers.

        If you truly think of the individual then you take physical separation as a given. If you then claim that racial separation is essentially a non-starter then you are neither showing deference to the individual nor deference to an individual race. So in fact, you are not thinking of the individual at all when you consider racial separation. You are only thinking in terms of a failing Christianity. Yet, racial separation is not a failing of Christianity nor is a white Christianity physically separate from black Christianity or plain anti-Christianity verboten under Christianity.

        You cannot save all. You can only maybe save individuals. But you cannot be “racist” about it. Nonsense. You must be racist about it or you suffer from a pathological egalitarianism that is absolutely fatal to a belief in Christianity’s earth-shattering claim.

    • “It concerns me, deeply, that Texas students would self-segregate”

      What should concern you even more deeply is that your entire life you’ve been immersed in propaganda telling you that they shouldn’t — whereas it ought to now be clear such self-segregation, an affinity for one’s own kind, is completely natural — instinctual — an adaptation for survival — the claim that the kind of mass ‘diversity’ we are being bullied to accept is a benefit to white, Christian societies is the greatest fraud of the modern era.

      • It’s better not to make assumptions. The propaganda you refer to is new, and very different from the kind of simple straightforward integration we knew in Texas and Oklahoma (the North, Midwest, and West Coast were another matter – they practiced apartheid until the 1980s so never benefited like we did). This multi-cultural globalism was hatched during Bill Clinton’s era, although it likely got its start with Bush Sr. (Contrary to popular belief, the immigration changes in the 60s were not originally what they ended up being).

        No, my statement comes from daily living & working in color-blind eras in happily integrated neighborhoods in Oklahoma and Texas. There is a culture of success in America, and that culture is open to everyone. But the point I was making in the post above is that it shows me the race-hustlers succeeded in separating individuals into groups. It’s too late to stop it or turn back, so now individual Americans have that challenge along with all the others. I was thinking of friends, and people I love, and am sad that kids didn’t sit outside whatever group they are identifying with today. Old people always have our designated chair. When young people do, it suggests they have not grown up yet, or else are in a regimented place.

      • “the race-hustlers succeeded in separating individuals into groups”

        You completely miss the point, which is sad — the separation, the self-segregation, has absolutely nothing to do with “race-hustlers” — again: it is natural — an affinity for one’s own kind is completely natural — it is instinctual, likely an evolutionary adaption for survival — to regret seeing it, to look for contrived explanations for it (“race-hustlers”), or even worse to condemn it, is nonsensical — you seem to have a Christian perspective, and I always try to respect that (I am Catholic) — but I am mostly concerned about what constitutes a sustainable polity, since I have to pay Caesar — and here I can only repeat: the claim that there is strength in diversity is the greatest fraud of the modern era.

    • Welcome to the Orthosphere comments. I’ve seen your “likes” for a while now, but it’s good to hear your ideas. I’m a good deal older than Spencer, and since you say that you are a grandmother, you may be as well. That generation has its own style of communication, and it takes some getting used to. I try to learn from them without going native. One of the ideas standing behind this post is that my generation–the generation that presently runs a good deal of the world–is living in the past. Our world is passing or already passed, but my generation (and even more so the one just before) has the narcissistic idea that “our” world is just now being born. I do not understand much about the world that is being born, but it is one that I very strongly suspect the “good-white” protestors, like the two anthropology professors in the photograph, cannot imagine.

      • I’m a good deal older than Spencer, and since you say that you are a grandmother, you may be as well. That generation has its own style of communication, and it takes some getting used to.

        I’m younger than Spencer, and I still haven’t gotten used to the Alt-right’s style of communication. But then again, I’ve been called an ‘old soul’ before.

      • The difference in communication style isn’t simply a generational difference, as you say. Some styles I will not use (perhaps cannot), but I try to have a “reading knowledge” of all of them. I large part of reading knowledge nowadays is understanding the author’s use of irony.

      • I large part of reading knowledge nowadays is understanding the author’s use of irony.

        Yeah, the alt-right seems very ‘hipster’. Even Spencer’s haircut reminds me of hipsters.

      • Ian: When I first stumbled upon Spencer’s old Alternative Right website seven or eight years ago, the first thing I learned was that aesthetics matter. In those days the right-wing blogosphere was mostly made up of blogs by stuffy old farts with page designs that looked as if they would have preferred to write with a quill pen, and by skinheads with a taste for black backgrounds and weird fonts. The old A.R. was nothing like that. It had a sort of conservative art school feel, and this made it feel like a place for young people without prison records.

        I’m exaggerating, of course, but my general point is valid. Spencer wanted to make a new right-wing politics, to do this he had to appeal to college graduates under 35, and to do this he had to appeal to their aesthetic taste. To do that he had to find a look that wasn’t Old Fart, that wasn’t Low Prole, and that wasn’t Young Republican.

        Anyone aiming to build a political movement must capture the future elite–young people who have the smarts to become an elite, but don’t yet have a vested interest in the status quo. This cohort demands visual style.

      • Atheistic-grounded Nationalist Socialism in America could never, can never and will never be a new kind of “right-wing” politics.

        The failure to make clear definitions of the various accusations (racist, Nazi, neo-Nazi, fascist, national socialist, “white supremacist,” white Supremacist) made by the Babblers is an EXPLICIT submission to Babel. Spencer MUST BE hiding under the confusion. This hiding under the blur of Babel is ultimately to benefit of SOCIALISM whether deleteriously diverse or neurotically ethnocentric.

      • Thank you for the welcome. Yes, I’m nearly 60, and expect (good genes) to live to 100.
        I agree that the Obama years have been the last gasp for the Summer of Love. I’ve written before about a peculiar Leftist inability to see the future, because they keep their backs turned firmly against it. It goes back to the Fall, I think – they are still railing at the gates of the Garden. I’m an optimist, and I know God always wins. But that doesn’t mean we have an easy future ahead. I’m feeling much much more hopeful since God picked out a Cyrus for us.

        With Cyrus comes work, and battles. It’s for our NEW greatest generation to win. I’m not sure of what my spiritual/cultural work will be to help restore America and expand the wins against the Globalists. God will see to that when He wants me. In the meantime, I’m glad to see more normal conservatives taking a stand with the generation that has to switch gears. There’s a massive undertow, the likes of which Clinton and Merkel and your pony-tail professors will find “Inconceivable!”

      • JMSmith,

        Jim Kalb has made similar remarks on Spencer’s aesthetic sensibility.

        Does Spencer’s current website retain that aesthetic sense?

      • The Radix site has a minimalist aesthetic. It looks low-budget to me, but I’d say it’s Hipster and not Prole. My sense is that Spencer is no longer connected with the website called Alternative Right, and that the look there is much closer to Prole. Lady Butler’s Scotland Forever is a glorious painting (although Scotts slaughtering Frenchmen isn’t exactly what the Alt-Right is all about), but I doubt that banner attracts future members of the elite. I don’t know enough pop culture to recognize the hulking figure in the image just below this, but this is pure Prole.

        I am not a regular reader at either site, and so cannot say for certain how the content relates to the look. My general impression is that the content is fairly similar. This seems right to me. Bars appeal to different types of clients with different “looks,” but what they pour in the glasses is pretty much the same.

        These are just impressions and conjectures written from the heart of Stuffy Old Fart country.

  7. Pingback: Mr. Nice Meets Mr. Woke – The Orthosphere

  8. Pingback: Vir Prudens Non Contra Ventum Vingit – The Orthosphere

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s