June 6, 2016

"DO: Figure out what attracts people to [the Alt-Right] and what you can do to attract them away."

"DON'T: Make it all about your own moral superiority. Basically, look at what the #NeverTrump movement did, and do something else...."

105 comments:

Rae said...

Are the Bernie supporters the Alt-Left? I suppose it depends on whether sit down, shut up and vote Hillary! after the convention.

Politics would be a lot more interesting if we have a definite four way fracture among the electorate.

Ignorance is Bliss said...


Figure out what attracts people to [the Alt-Right]...

Fear is the path to the Alt-Right. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

MadisonMan said...

You don't push yourself up by pulling others down.

Terry said...

MadisonMan said...
You don't push yourself up by pulling others down.

Lord knows, you've never acted superior to anyone at Althouse, MadisonMan.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carol said...

Alt-right isn't all that different from the regular right. They simply forego all the modern shibboleths about diversity. I.e., they are honest.

Bruce Hayden said...

Ask yourself why working class white males could support Trump when the Dem party so strongly supports their economic interests, and the only answer that many in that party can come up with is that they are a bunch of white racists reacting to their loss of power through the well justified righting of their historical wrongs against pretty much everyone else. Alt-Right appears to be a term invented by the left to describe this.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

The alt-right people chronically commit thought-crimes. Nobody is allowed to express some ideas about ethnic and racial differences.

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

Vote for the least worst candidate! It's the American Way!

Those who say the system is "broken" are incorrect. It's not broken, it's being asked/forced to do things that it was never designed to do.
Our Constitution as written never was intended to be an operations manual for a government whose largest activity is taking resources from Group A and giving the resources to Group B. Yet Medicare, Soc Security, Medicaid, AFDC/TANF, SNAP/food stamps, and many other lesser programs do just that.
Some (most?) Americans believe that to be an appropriate and legitimate function of government. Fine, amend the Constitution to govern how it is to be done. The alternative is proceeding as we are until the money runs out, and then there will be conflict until the bullets run out.
Or, follow the Constitution as written.
Your call.

Terry said...

Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
It's a thought-crime to say that racial groups differ, and the alt-right people violate it.

I think, Mike Sylwester, the current intellectual fashion is to say that racial groups differ significantly in only one respect: their identity. This 'identity' is a mysterious thing. Like sexual orientation, it is your essence and it can never change, but you can be alienated from it. It works for gender as well, and it is completely unattached from biology. Kind of mystical.
So, some racial groups will try to alienate you from your identity in order to exploit you. They will try to make you, say, a hotel maid based on your identity, when your true identity is 'wise Latina.'
The problem is that the identity of white people, white men, especially, is authentically expressed when they exploit people of other racial groups. So they are evil.

Brando said...

I don't think the NeverTrumpers are trying to actually stop Trump, as if that's all they were about they'd just go ahead and support Hillary. Their problem is that like many of us, they can't in good conscience support either of them as they're both unacceptable. So what they want instead is some "none of the above" candidate to park their votes with.

Republicans tend to line up and drink their castor oil, so I don't think outside of "safe" states there will be a whole lot of NeverTrumpers from the Right (the middle, is a different story--they're not quite as turned off by Clinton). Ultimately, if Trump loses it'll be because of Clinton's turnout operation getting more Left and Moderate votes, not conservatives going third party.

Brando said...

"Nobody is allowed to express some ideas about ethnic and racial differences."

That's a pretty broad statement though. "Some" ideas about ethnic and racial differences are repellant to most people. "Some" ideas are factually incorrect. "Some" are politically incorrect but factually correct. But that's a wide spectrum.

In any case, no one should be prevented from expressing ideas, no matter how repellant or incorrect.

Ed said...

Now the Alt-Right is pushing that Benedict Option which adds the whole religious dimension to the political.

http://www.christianityandrace.org/2016/06/the-alt-right-as-benedict-option.html

Is that moral superiority, or just the First Amendment liberty of Benedict Option Christians asserting and expressing themselves?

Curious George said...

"Bruce Hayden said...
Ask yourself why working class white males could support Trump when the Dem party so strongly supports their economic interests"

You're kidding right? Nothing says anti middle class white males like open immigration.

David said...

Today is D-Day plus 72 years. I will be 73 next month. I wrote a long comment and it didn't seem like much when I started to think about D-Day and that war and all that heroism and waste. We have great opportunity in this country. Still. Do we still deserve it?

Terry said...

Ed, these days just clicking on a link to a website called "christianityandrace.org" might get you a visit from Loretta Lynch's Red Legs.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Ask yourself why working class white males could support Trump when the Dem party so strongly supports their economic interests

Ask yourself why so many working class white males don't believe that the Dem party strongly supports their economic interests.

Could it be because the Dems seem to be for unrestricted immigration, thus bringing in low cost labor to the benefit of the well off, but not to working class anyone because of the resulting wage suppression?

Could it be because the Dems are just as enthusiastic about "free trade" as the Repubs, perhaps more so?

Could it be because the Dems are silent in the face of H1B and H2B visa abuses?

Just how are the Dems demonstrating their strong support the economic interests of the working class?

Seriously, $15 an hour minimum wage laws that destroy entry level jobs and mostly harm small businesses that can't afford to automate, thus consolidating economic power in corporate hands?

Proliferating regulations that stop small businesses from forming, also further consolidating economic power?

Please, name one thing. But of course it has to be the racism, because shut up.

damikesc said...

Republicans tend to line up and drink their castor oil, so I don't think outside of "safe" states there will be a whole lot of NeverTrumpers from the Right (the middle, is a different story--they're not quite as turned off by Clinton). Ultimately, if Trump loses it'll be because of Clinton's turnout operation getting more Left and Moderate votes, not conservatives going third party.

Brando, as you know, I was a big Cruz guy. Think he was the best choice.

But I understand the Trump people. Don't agree on everything, but if --- no matter how nice you are --- you're still totally racist and the cause of all suffering, at what point would any rational person throw their hands up in the air and just say "fuck it"?

Are they racist? No moreso than Democrats. Dramatically less so than favored Dem groups like La Raza and most Progressive college groups. But whites have been DEMONIZED for years and, personally, I have few issues with whites deciding to fight back against unfair treatment.

If the Left doesn't like it, then perhaps they should lay off demonizing white men as being evil...

That's a pretty broad statement though. "Some" ideas about ethnic and racial differences are repellant to most people. "Some" ideas are factually incorrect. "Some" are politically incorrect but factually correct. But that's a wide spectrum.

True, but we also know what he said was true.

When discussing the issues of black crime, we're not allowed to discuss the roles blacks have played in their own subjugation (Cosby became persona non grata for doing that, making his raping of women a huge issue while Clinton's raping of women is a non-issue for many). We're not allowed to discuss the poisonous hip-hop culture. We're not even supposed to notice that there's a lot of well-earned hate for whites buying slaves, but virtually no criticism of Africans who sold them.\

A "dialogue" on race issues is still impossible because whites aren't permitted to actually make an argument without being shouted down. And Progressive whites who treat blacks like lesser humans --- and let's be blunt, they absolutely do --- sit back and applaud this state of affairs.

As Instapundit has said a lot, if reasonable groups are hostile to a group's issue, they will seek less reasonable groups. The outright slandering of the Tea Party by BOTH parties led to this. That was as polite a group as you'll get politically who didn't give a damn about race or issues outside of government size. The Dems and GOPe then called them racist and idiots. The IRS targeted them relentlessly and, it should be noted, NOBODY has been disciplined for doing so.

So, they found being polite and quiet was pointless. I've always said the pendulum swings back and forth and it's gone to an anti-white and anti-conservative extreme. It's going to swing back as extremely. And people will want revenge. Sad, but who can fault them?

Terry said...

I think of the Trump candidacy the way that Peter Hitchens thinks of the Brexit. He thinks it's silly because EU integration is too far along for it to stop as the result of a simple plebiscite. If the vote is against exiting, the issue is settled forever. If it is for exiting, the vote will be ignored or the exit delayed until a vote with a more favorable result can be arranged.
The model for Trump is Jessie Ventura.

Paddy O said...

Every candidate in my memory has had opponents obsessed with moral preening. That #nevertrump got a hash tag doesn't mean it's historically unique.

I remember #neverromney being quite popular in expression. It's what drove third party candidates. Bill Clinton won because there were a large number of #neverbush folks.

Brando said...

"But I understand the Trump people. Don't agree on everything, but if --- no matter how nice you are --- you're still totally racist and the cause of all suffering, at what point would any rational person throw their hands up in the air and just say "fuck it"?"

I think a lot of people will make that choice. Some will say "there's at least some chance he'll be better than I expect" or "maybe he'll be balanced out". Others will ally with him as they see him as standing up to the onrush of the more vile parts of the Left (the racialists, faux-feminists, and redistributionists). It's a year with such awful choices (at least in my view) that I don't really blame anyone for whatever choice they're stuck making this November.

"True, but we also know what he said was true."

What Mike Sylvester said? Yes, it is. The concept of shutting down speech has always been dangerous, but the categories of "unacceptable" speech have gotten so expansive these days most people are feeling like walking on eggshells. Even a lot of leftists are pushing back, and I think the pendulum is going to swing back towards more open, unguarded discussion.

"A "dialogue" on race issues is still impossible because whites aren't permitted to actually make an argument without being shouted down."

Thats' because by "dialogue" the far left always meant "you sit and listen". If you were white, the only thing you are allowed to say is that you just want to listen because you have no knowledge of what oppression means--even if a white person says the "right" thing they're accused of "whitesplaining". And if you're nonwhite but exhibit the wrong ideas, don't think you're off the hook either you sellout.

An actual dialogue would be nice, but that's not what the racialists want.

rehajm said...

Alt-right moves forward to the next browser window so if you want to attract people away you could mention it's easier to use a mouse/trackpad to click the forward arrow in the browser menu bar.

Captain Billy said...

The alt-right is a rebellion against collective, inter generational racial and ethnic guilt and to a lesser extent, feminism. I think they have just latched on to Trump out of desperation.

I never owned slaves; You never picked cotton; get over it.

Xmas said...

I'm becoming pro-Trump for the same reason as Instapundit. This country needs a crazy, white, male Republican as President so everyone can freak out about how large the Federal Government has become and how intrusive it is in our everyday lives.

As for the Alt-Right, they're just rehashing a bunch of Louis Farrakhan talking points.

buwaya puti said...

The writer seems to be assuming that his preferred system/process/ideology is still available. Unfortunately - and it is a misfortune that it is so - this is no longer true. The idea of a universal citizenship un-subdivided by race, class and ethnicity is no longer in place. The very opposite ideologies are dominant, and they arent on the right. The entire left and center insists on not merely a racial-ethnic allocation of responsibilities, opportunities and government rents, but it seems a caste system as well. It is not a matter of choosing to be tribal, but that tribalism is being forced on you by overwhelming power.

This system may not seem quite as dominant in Wisconsin, yet, but it is in full force in California, and other states. And all these are much bigger than Wisconsin and other such states that are essentially on the lagging end of these trends.

He also gets wrong the idea of individualism. This is a fundamental error. We are social animals, and we do poorly without a society. And society if it is to run correctly cannot really be a mutable ad hoc assembly, which each individual needs to put together himself, somehow. Man was meant to be born with friends and allies.

The only things the alt-right doesnt get is that its not just "whites" in this condition. Quite a lot of non-whites would like to join the white tribe, not merely set up their own. For many of them, the problem is that their tribes are little, weak in numbers. Others genuinely like the white tribe. Others are repulsed and disgusted by the other tribes. There are no viable "Asian" tribes, each is too small on its own.

Terry said...

Most of what whites complain about is a result of critical race theory. This was a big deal when Obama and Lynch went to law school. It means whites are an oppressor race, and the law must work against that oppressor race. It's totally unconscious for whites, there is nothing they can do about it, only the law can rid society of white supremacism. White supremacism is responsible for cops killing Blacks, even when the cop that did the shooting is Black.
Critical race theory is the key for solving our seemingly intractable social problems of crime and poverty.
You know how back in the 1920s and 1930s, many states endorsed eugenics? The guys who supported eugenics supported Darrow, not Bryan, in the Scopes Monkey Trial. They supported eugenics because they figured that finally science had given them the tools to solving the intractable social problems of crime and poverty.

Rusty said...

Ask yourself why working class white males could support Trump when the Dem party so strongly supports their economic interests

Tell that to the coal miners.

Terry said...

Blogger buwaya puti said...
"There are no viable "Asian" tribes, each is too small on its own."

Four words:
"Society of Harmonious Fists."

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I never owned slaves; You never picked cotton; get over it.

I remember an episode of "All In The Family" I saw way back when dinos roamed the earth where the Meathead loses out on a position at the university he attends because of affirmative action.

Mike's advisor or boss or whatever lectures him on why affirmative action is necessary to right the historical wrongs done to blacks and how all us white people would need to sacrifice for the greater good.

Even back then, despite Norman Lears' best attempt at propaganda, I knew, as the son of white trash, redneck, Appalachian economic refugees in the North, that that was bullshit. For that matter, the Meathead was the grandson of Polish immigrants. Why is he paying the price for what some cracker did 100 years before his ancestors had even arrived in the US?

The world is what it is. Trying to correct "historical wrongs" is only going to cause more resentment. It certainly is going to fuel identity politics. I think the effort to do so was intended to do just that.

cubanbob said...

All the progs who froth at the mouth when it comes to Citizens United and are now lining up behind Hillary are now frothing at the mouth about Trump's threats to free speech. How they avoid mental whiplash is a wonder.

Jack Wayne said...

WTI Crude, your facts are correct but your interpretation is incorrect. Think of it this way - what if the government is doing what it does because it is allowed/encouraged by the Constitution? If it is true that the mess we are in is "unconstitutional" then how did we get here? The simplest explanation is that the Constitution was never designed to provide for a limited government. It was designed to give us unlimited government. In short, if you believe in limited government, you don't want to follow the Constitution as written. For your desired outcome it is a complete failure.

As far as Alt-Right goes: this is just another failure of common sense. Just as The sainted Buckley drove the tip of the spear (Ayn Rand, John Birch Society, etc.) out of the Republican Party so today we have people who want to do the same thing again. Meanwhile, the Democrats (the party of unlimited government) will never do this. If the purpose of the Republican Party is to pursue a limited government, then all allies are welcome. The conclusion must be that the Republicans are not truly interested in limited government.

JPS said...

Carol, 8:13:

"Alt-right isn't all that different from the regular right. They simply forego all the modern shibboleths about diversity. I.e., they are honest."

You are mistaken.

- The left believes your group identity is a crucial determinant of who you are.

- Philosophical conservatives (American-style, i.e. conserving a classically liberal tradition) reject this notion, in favor of an individualism that the left claims is a cynical excuse for keeping the oppressed groups oppressed.

- The alt-right accepts it fully, it just claims different groups are oppressed and wants the government to militate on their behalf. When it comes to race they are liberals with inverted goals.

You don't see the difference, or maybe you need to not see it, but it's real, and crucial. Personally I think race is bullshit, culture is real. But you want to tell me by implication that I'm not honest, unlike some alt-right jackass who actually believes blacks are inferior and Jews secretly run the world? I'm tempted to go find the ugliest person on your side to tar you with, and insist you're really birds of a feather, but I think I'll get back to work instead.

mockturtle said...

Ask yourself why working class white males could support Trump when the Dem party so strongly supports their economic interests [emphasis mine]

Seriously??

buwaya puti said...

The American conservative philosophy you cite, JPS, seems to be suffering due to a change in conditions. I think it possible that it was only viable in an isolated environment, like an island species. It has been unsuccessful in resisting competing ideologies. Such consistent failure in this competition suggests that a rethink is in order.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't know quite what my humor was there. Irony? Sarcasm? But I am right now in a part of MT where the only racial issue is a bit of traditional red/white conflict (we have part of a res in the east end of the county). It is almost lily white here, and one of the poorest counties in the state. Here, the industry was timber, and not coal. Three mills 20 years ago, and one today, thanks to East Coast thinking about handling our National Forests (and, yes, as a result, fires are now a major problem every year). But, despite that white poverty, we likely aren't going to see any Hillary bumper stickers. Trump, yes. Haven't even seen any Bernie stickers yet, except back in Missoula. Even the few Dems here can't stand her, nor will they publicly support Obama. Fri night was over by Butte, which is heavily union, and the sentiment was the same, with the union people being of the same mind as everyone else.

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

Jack Wayne-
Your statement "The simplest explanation is that the Constitution was never designed to provide for a limited government. It was designed to give us unlimited government..." is counter to everything I have learned about the Founding Fathers and their intentions since I attended high school (in the last millennium).
I'm open to correction; if you convince me that your interpretation is correct, I'm gonna buy more bullets.

mockturtle said...

The left believes your group identity is a crucial determinant of who you are.

Yes! You've summed it up nicely.

Personally I think race is bullshit, culture is real.

Exactly!

Terry said...

The 14 amendment says the feds guarantee all Americans equal protection of the laws, and that the feds decide what equal protection of the laws means.
If the feds decide that means racially proportional sentencing, then that is what it means.
Obama lectured on the 14th amendment in his law school teaching gig.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"But I understand the Trump people. Don't agree on everything, but if --- no matter how nice you are --- you're still totally racist and the cause of all suffering, at what point would any rational person throw their hands up in the air and just say "fuck it"?"

About 6 years ago.

Brando said...

"I remember an episode of "All In The Family" I saw way back when dinos roamed the earth where the Meathead loses out on a position at the university he attends because of affirmative action."

I guess I saw that episode differently--sort of showing that affirmative action does have undeserving victims like Meathead, who did not come from a privileged background and had to grudgingly sit back while he got penalized for his race. Lear may have been pro-affirmative action, but to his credit he let his show be open to interpretation from those who oppose it. Another example was the one where Meathead's hippie friends stayed over at Archie's and were disrespectful of Archie's house rules, and ultimately even Meathead had to agree his friends were being frauds and should have been more understanding of Archie's rules.

The thing I liked about that show is even through the character of Archie (written by leftists and portrayed by a leftist actor) you often saw him get the better of an argument, and in any event he was humanized. A lot of shows don't do that.

Terry said...

"The left believes your group identity is a crucial determinant of who you are."
The question is why? It can't be empirically proven.
It gives them justification to revolutionize society and seize power. People can't be trusted to manage relations with their fellow citizens. Their every social interaction will be guided and judged by the State.

RAH said...

The left pushed identity politics. So the whites are now doing the same. Tit for Tat. The right has been tarred as racist. So why not embrace it? They are guilty no matter what. Diversity is killing us The Alt right is more honest But many do see the same hence Trumps rises

Anglelyne said...

From the article linked by Instapundit:

That is why #NeverTrump conservatives remain indignant toward the Republican presumptive nominee for president, because he personifies a fundamentally un-American and immoral paradigm that is in essence no different than the regressive left.

Clueless. "#NeverTrump conservatism" cleaves to notions of "un-American" and "immoral" that were pretty much invented yesterday. So we have the interesting phenomenon of extreme "presentists" claiming the mantle of "conservatism", a lovely contradiction in terms.

The above is followed by a sperg-out about "collectivism" which, typical for this kind of vapid libertarianism, gets things exactly backwards by insisting that abstractions can be (and have been, and are) the basis of a culture and a country, rather than recognizing that the ethical abstractions he claims to care about are the product of a particular culture and people.

You can't get rid of the cultural springs and maintain the ethical abstractions in anything resembling the form you want. Abstractions like "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech", as should be obvious to any observant person by now, are malleable concepts. The culture interpreting them, which at its base is more a collection of tacit understandings than of explicitly articulated abstractions, isn't "out there", but has existence only in real, live human beings.

Thus these ideas are "racial", in the sense that you can't, say, move millions of Mexicans into California in a short space of time and expect the legal and political culture of California to not become Mexican. But you can make Mexicans, Chinese, or even Irishmen adapt the American way of thinking about how things ought to be, if you let them in in prudent numbers, in a manner that does not disadvantage existing citizens, into a confident culture that makes no apologies about maintaining its own way of thinking about things and doing things. (And that means some people are not going to be a good fit, because culture is by defintion exclusionary. Sorry, inclusivo-maniacs.)

If you've been imprudent in your immigration policies for too long, or, as is currently the case all over the West, have gone past imprudence all the way to grotesque irresponsibility, fixing the problem is necessarily going to require some unpleasantness for everyone involved. If you're unwilling to inconvenience anyone (well, anyone except lower-SEC citizens), suit yourself, but it'd be nice if you could recognize that bleating "racist!" and "but but but proposition nation" is a meaningless exercise that demonstrates nothing but your own ignorance about how human societies operate.

The above isn't difficult to understand (even for people who cannot bear the thought that there may well be genetically-determined behavioral differences among human groups that shape cultural expression). It's common sense, and obvious to any normally intelligent human being whose brain hasn't been deformed by greed, ideology, or certain unfortunate cognitive disorders. It's sometimes hard to tell which, since they all immediately start screeching "racist!" in terror when asked to think like adults about the issue.

mockturtle said...

RAH, it is not diversity that is killing us. It's government policies regarding diversity that are killing us.

Alexander said...

Nobody escapes identity politics. Once one side determines that your skin is your uniform, no wailing that you are not a racist or you are really, really sorry for what people who may have been your distance ancestors may or may not have done will make any difference.

You can either wait around and go extinct, or determine that your tribe has as much a right to a peaceful and prosperous homeland as all the others.

Liberals wanted to awaken sex and racial consciousness. Well congrats, they did it. Only problem was, they didn't get to pick and choose specifically who woke up.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Note how the very act of redressing "historical wrongs" sets up two tribes or identities.

You have the oppressors, in this case the "white" tribe, and the oppressed, at first the "black" tribe but as time as gone on more and more tribes have been added so that eventually the oppressor class is white males and Christians and the oppressed is anyone that can somehow claim the mantle of victimhood.

The problem with this is it only works if the oppressor class accepts that it is an oppressor class.

However, despite desperate attempts at indoctrination, this is becoming, due to economic and cultural factors, less and less tenable. Furthermore, the advent of the Internet and the resultant breakup of the governments' defacto monopoly of most of the media has enables individuals who would have been ignored or marginalized in the past to reach large audiences and have influence that they could not possibly have achieved when the NYT and the big three networks dominated public discourse.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Personally, I did not choose to be in the "white" tribe. My primary identity was "Merican."

And then, the left decided that the identity that I did want, "Merican" was evil and began to "educate" the young in that proposition.

And now you have superhero shows for the young that show the 1950s as a unrelenting hell hole of evil and morons speaking against teaching school kids the Declaration of Independence because it is racist because America is racist. Oh, and it turns out Captain America was a Hydra agent all along.

So, having been identified as an evil oppressor due to the color of my skin and my believe that all men are created equal, by their Creator, I am then called a racist. Because of my skin color.

eric said...

I'm not sure I even k ow what the alt right is. Sometimes it seems to me like anyone supporting Trump is a member of the am right. Then I we someone like Ben Shapiro retweeting people who are slurring him for being Jewish and calling them alt right.

Then I can't help but wonder, is he saying if I support Trump now, I'm an anti Semite?

Because if he is doing that, that's not a good thing. While it's intent is to make everyone supporting Trump look bad, it runs the risk of making anti Semites look good.

Terry said...

You may not be a racist, Ron Winkleheimer, but you are an agent of White supremacy. There is nothing you can do about it. You can not be innocent of it because it is not based on anything that you've done, it is what you are.
Poor bastard.

Achilles said...

It is now racist and a thought crime to call a member of la raza, The Race, biased and racist.

The true problem is we as a country allow a person who believes we should destroy national sovereignty and give chunks of it to The Race to be a federal judge. Trump is unmasking a lot of cowards and frauds right now by actually standing up for truth and decency.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I guess I saw that episode differently--sort of showing that affirmative action does have undeserving victims like Meathead, who did not come from a privileged background and had to grudgingly sit back while he got penalized for his race.

Yeah, I got that out of it too.

But notice that you stated that the Meathead "got penalized for his race."

As I said earlier, the very act of setting up affirmative action sets up tribes and that means identity politics and when the designated oppressor tribe starts rejecting its assigned role then that means conflict.

And once large numbers of the "elite" decided that the "Merican" identity was evil and we should stop trying to inculcate it into the young and immigrants then what else are we left with but different tribes fighting over the allocation of resources?

And we all know how well that always works out.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

when the designated oppressor tribe starts rejecting its assigned role

Or worst case, embraces it.

Char Char Binks said...

I often push myself up by pulling others down. Whatever it takes.

Paul Snively said...

Newton's Law of Political Movements: to every action, there is an unequal and opposite overreaction.

Thorley Winston said...

Ask yourself why working class white males could support Trump when the Dem party so strongly supports their economic interests, and the only answer that many in that party can come up with is that they are a bunch of white racists reacting to their loss of power through the well justified righting of their historical wrongs against pretty much everyone else.

Yes because the possibility that maybe, just maybe, “working class” people (regardless of race) don’t have a single set of “interests” (economic or otherwise) that any one political party represents just never seems to enter into the discussion.


Dust Bunny Queen said...

when the designated oppressor tribe starts rejecting its assigned role

Or worst case, embraces it.

This is exactly the result that will occur if the pressure is not taken off. If you tell me over and over that I am a racist for merely existing, I guess I WILL embrace that designation and fulfill your fantasy of racism. Why not? I'm labeled. Might as well just go with it. Right?

White privilege? I didn't know I had it. It never occurred to me that my 'white' ancestors who came to the US from Ireland in poverty during the potato famine were privileged. Or my Welsh ancestors who moved from Wales to Montana to work in the mines there, in the 1880's were special and privileged...... but Hell YEAH! I got it now!!! Embrace the privilege. Whooo hooooo!!!

Thorley Winston said...

Oh, and it turns out Captain America was a Hydra agent all along.

I put the “Captain American was a Hydra agent all along” right down there with the “Clone Saga” as one of the dumbest ideas that someone at Marvel came up with.

MadisonMan said...

I remember an episode of "All In The Family" I saw way back when dinos roamed the earth where the Meathead loses out on a position at the university he attends because of affirmative action

YouTube has all.

Alexander said...

when the designated oppressor tribe starts rejecting its assigned role

Or worst case, embraces it


No, that's not the worst case.

The worst case is accepting the role, and feeling guilty about it, and allowing oneself and one's progeny to be removed from the face of the earth because of it.

That is what is ultimately going to be what leads to the enormous bloodbath we are heading towards: The final gambit of the globalist elite to wipe out European peoples as distinct cultures and nations.

It is infinitely better to become the worst oppressor than to accept the destruction of my kin and culture.

But it would be much more pleasant to not have to make that choice.

Trump, for all the bullshit screamed about him, is the moderate choice here. He's playing by the existing system. Deportation of illegal immigrants and modification of existing legal structures is a very gentle approach, historically speaking. The same goes for Farage, Le Pen, Orban... the current crop of nationalists are mild.

Once every white person fears a San Jose reaction for simply having a point of view, all bets are off.

Fernandinande said...

JPS said...
- The left believes your group identity is a crucial determinant of who you are.


True. Bit it is a significant determinant, but not to the extent the left claims, and not for the reasons they give.

Personally I think race is bullshit, culture is real.

Personally I think culture represents or reflects the average personality of the members of a given culture, and since differences in personality are mostly the result of genetics (as is intelligence, at least in the West), culture is mostly a product of genes.

But you want to tell me by implication that I'm not honest, unlike some alt-right jackass who actually believes blacks are inferior and Jews secretly run the world?

So why the never-ending, and almost unchanging, concerns about black criminality and violence, poor education and employment results, but not the same concerns about Asians or Jews? Why is there one black in the "Forbes 400" but 30 Jews in the "Forbes 100"?

Cuz da WASPY folks be mean to other folks, except for Jews and Asians whom da WASPY folks apparently love more than themselves...or something else?

I'm tempted to go find the ugliest person on your side to tar you with, and insist you're really birds of a feather, but I think I'll get back to work instead.

I'm not an "alt-right" person, so I'm not sure what my "side" is, but help yourself. Tarring is easier than thinking, and probably more fun.

Fernandinande said...

Bit it is a "But".

Terry said...

The most important privilege of all is to be able to choose who is and who is not privileged. Stripped of all the fancy titles, an aristocracy is an elite group whose members privilege one another and control admission to the elite group.

Anglelyne said...

I'm not sure I even k ow what the alt right is.

Follow the frog.

Then I can't help but wonder, is he saying if I support Trump now, I'm an anti Semite?

Because if he is doing that, that's not a good thing. While it's intent is to make everyone supporting Trump look bad, it runs the risk of making anti Semites look good.


There is definitely "anti-Semitism" on the alt-right, in various strains. I couldn't tell you about a virulent, unhinged form, because I don't go there. (I just assume it must exist because, well, the internet. As with pornography, you know that, whatever perversion or bizarre fetish you can come up with in your imagination, you can bet that somewhere out there somebody is hosting a website with videos of it.)

Otherwise, most of it seems to consist of trolling certain Jewish progs or neocons for their "open borders and diversity for thee but not for me" support of Israel, and their hypocrisy in condemning ethnocentrism and nepotism in other whites while unapologetically practicing it themselves. (And, as one would predict, lots of tasteless humor, which one wouldn't have to be a hypocritical Jewish prog or neocon to find offensive.)

Some of the criticism of these individuals is apt, and attempting to tar it all as "anti-Semitism", like implying that all Trump supporters are anti-Semites, is just dumb.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The most important privilege of all is to be able to choose who is and who is not privileged. Stripped of all the fancy titles, an aristocracy is an elite group whose members privilege one another and control admission to the elite group.

In 1984 O'Brian tells Smith essentially that. The party is about power and the leadership's goal is to maintain that power and determine who gets to inherit the power.

damikesc said...

I put the “Captain American was a Hydra agent all along” right down there with the “Clone Saga” as one of the dumbest ideas that someone at Marvel came up with.

Marvel is little more than a movie company that makes comics that few read nowadays. The movie folks won't let the comics folks touch a damned thing these days for good reason.

I love watching Progs make an asinine "suggestion", somebody saying "that is stupid because..." and the Prog then asking "Hey, why are you taking this (silly thing) so seriously?"

Dealt with that as a gamer for the last few years. I didn't like everybody involved with #Gamergate, but they were infinitely preferable to the gaming "press".

Otherwise, most of it seems to consist of trolling certain Jewish progs or neocons for their "open borders and diversity for thee but not for me" support of Israel, and their hypocrisy in condemning ethnocentrism and nepotism in other whites while unapologetically practicing it themselves. (And, as one would predict, lots of tasteless humor, which one wouldn't have to be a hypocritical Jewish prog or neocon to find offensive.)

I wish they'd more focus on how MEXICO treats its illegals. I also wish we treated OUR illegals as Mexico treats theirs.

damikesc said...

- The alt-right accepts it fully, it just claims different groups are oppressed and wants the government to militate on their behalf. When it comes to race they are liberals with inverted goals.

Gotta disagree. I doubt anybody wants preferential treatment for whites.

We'd love whites, though, to no longer be targets.

If the government treats all equally, that is grand. It does not. Pretending it does is a fool's errand.

I have to remind my sons that slavery was hardly a Western invention and that Africa, to this day, still has a significant problem with it.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Jack Wayne: " The simplest explanation is that the Constitution was never designed to provide for a limited government. It was designed to give us unlimited government. In short, if you believe in limited government, you don't want to follow the Constitution as written."

Pure and unadulterated HORSESHIT.

Go read the "Federalist Papers".

The very fact that you wrote such nonsense means (a) you never learned basic American history, or (b) you are trying to pass off as "fact" obvious revisionism flying in the face of the Enlightenment principles the Constitution was based on, or (c) you are drain-bamaged.

Roy Lofquist said...

This is a faux pas and in poor taste but I'm going to cross post the comment I made on that article.

Dear Mr. Hudson,

Where to begin? Damned if I know. So I'd like to attempt to cut to the chase and discuss the base reason you use to justify your argument.

"That is the American way of life."

A noble sentiment. But to apply the principle to our nation, or any nation, there must be a voluntary consensus among the various communities as to some basic rules for resolving disputes. And it seems that we're having a real tough time forming one as of late.

Let's try to remove ourselves from our own parochial disputes. I suggest we look to Just War Doctrine and its fruit, the Geneva Conventions. That's way too broad a subject to approach here but I would like to emphasize a basic principle they embody. These agreements are voluntary. There is no, and can not be, any enforcement mechanism except - war. Once one side willfully and egregiously violates the agreement then the other side is no longer obligated, morally or ethically, to follow those rules.

So what does that have to do with the price of turnips? The left, for want of a better term, has a bible. It is "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. That's not my unsupported opinion. In their own words, written and spoken, they cite that book far, far more often than they refer to the Christian Bible. In that book Mr. Alinsky listed 12 rules.

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

Note that he says "enemy" and "kill". But more egregiously the rule explicitly admonishes his followers to break the rules and shame the other side into following them.

You speak to American principles but at the foundation, at the level on which all others depend, is the rule of law, not of men. This is the hill we must fight on, the hill we must die on if necessary, lest all that we cherish be destroyed.

I hope and pray that we can resolve this civilly, peacefully, by the political process. I sense, as do many, that this has become less likely.

With respect sir,

Alexander said...

Gotta disagree. I doubt anybody wants preferential treatment for whites.

I'm coming around to color-blind society being like libertarian-ism - only works if everybody is already a convert.

There are no co-equal, post-racial societies; the only societies that appear as such are those where the dominant group has grown decadent and the minorities have not yet over taken them.

In theory, I'd be happy in a system that did not give preferential treatment for whites or anyone else. In practice, a society that ceases to give preferential treatment for whites will soon fill the vacuum with preferential treatment for someone else, be they hispanics, blacks, muslims...

It's not personal, but in that paradigm, I'm completely in favor of preferential treatment for whites.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Uhhhhhh, that sounds like woooooork, no fair!
Let's just call 'em all losers and racists and say their views "have no place in modern America" and be done with it, ok?
What could go wrong?

damikesc said...

I'm coming around to color-blind society being like libertarian-ism - only works if everybody is already a convert.

Don't disagree. I loathe the idea of a white grievance group like La Raza or NAACP --- but there aren't other options. As you said, unless everybody plays the same game, you cannot unilaterally disarm yourself. White guilt has been one of the biggest problems the West has had. Few are willing to actually defend Western Civilization in the face of a mob whose preferred society would have had them as the slaves the condemn the West for once holding and then ending the practice of thru force.

In theory, I'd be happy in a system that did not give preferential treatment for whites or anyone else. In practice, a society that ceases to give preferential treatment for whites will soon fill the vacuum with preferential treatment for someone else, be they hispanics, blacks, muslims...

It's not personal, but in that paradigm, I'm completely in favor of preferential treatment for whites.


At the risk of being crude, "preferential treatment of whites" (the activists claim) led to the ending of slavery. Africa never got the message. Is Zimbabwe, formerly a massive exporter of food, better off NOW than they were when colonized? Their lives still suck, but their economy is a shit show and it deeply harms its citizenry.

William Chadwick said...

My experience with the alt-right, in the comments sections of the pro-freedom blogosphere, gives me the impression that its average foot-soldier is neither vey bright nor very educated. (Of course, my Menckenite/Nockian roots incline me to elitism.) Your mileage may vary.

Alexander said...


Today, the establishment 'go-along' types and progressives of all stripes had to read in the Washington Post that it turns out, Dan Quayle was smarter than them all along. I'll take my chances with the average alt-right foot-soldier.

buwaya said...

"gives me the impression that its average foot-soldier is neither very bright nor very educated."

This is the false impression that a Menckenite personality is prone to. In a given case they may be correct, but in most cases they merely misunderstand a lack of ability in their chosen field - erudition in certain subjects, verbal wit, mockery. But, perhaps, the Menckenites would be helpless to carry on the work of civilization, likely a more vital one. Its all very well to sound plausible in print, but that wont keep the lights on.

Partly its a peculiar form of parochialism (that sees itself as worldly and sophisticated).
Partly its plain ignorance of the broad scope of the fields of human endeavor.

Gregory Bash said...

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...
Vote for the least worst candidate! It's the American Way!

I'll vote for the one that's not a criminal. Or a commie.

mockturtle said...

At the risk of being crude, "preferential treatment of whites" (the activists claim) led to the ending of slavery. Africa never got the message. Is Zimbabwe, formerly a massive exporter of food, better off NOW than they were when colonized? Their lives still suck, but their economy is a shit show and it deeply harms its citizenry.

And the slave trade out of Africa was largely run by Arab Muslims so it's always been a mystery to me why blacks would embrace Islam.

William Chadwick said...

"Partly its a peculiar form of parochialism (that sees itself as worldly and sophisticated).
Partly its plain ignorance of the broad scope of the fields of human endeavor. "

I do see myself as sophisticated, compared to your average yahoo; worldly, never.
I think I'm pretty conversant with the broad scopes of the fields of human endeavor. Not every one can, or should be, Mencken or Nock. We need ditch-diggers and trash-collectors. I wouldn't want to do such work and am glad there are people who, intellectually are well suited to it.

Still don't see where you've refuted my point. As I indicated, it was impressionistic, and once again (go back and read what I wrote, this time more slowly), your mileage may vary. If my impression was wrong, the alt-right should get a better and more representative commentariat.

Terry said...

" . . . so it's always been a mystery to me why blacks would embrace Islam."
Because it is not the religion of the white man. Everything Black nationalists do is reactionary. The white man is as deep into their head as Blacks and Jews are in the in the heads of the kluxxers. There is more than a bit of Frankenstein's Monster about Black Nationalists. The White Man is their creator. They believe that the White Man made them what they are, tooth and nail, and they hate him for it.

mockturtle said...

Not every one can, or should be, Mencken or Nock

Heaven forbid! Mencken was such an asshole!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Not every one can, or should be, Mencken or Nock. We need ditch-diggers and trash-collectors. I wouldn't want to do such work and am glad there are people who, intellectually are well suited to it.

Are you even self aware enough to hear how snotty, supercilious and denigrating you sound? No. You are not.

Thank goodness for special sophisticated you that you think you are, that there are all those stupid, intellectually challenged inferiors around to take out your trash, clean your bathrooms, build your houses, change the oil in your car and do all the work that is beneath your superior snotty self. Otherwise you might have to do something for yourself. OMG the inhumanity!

buwaya said...

"We need ditch-diggers and trash-collectors.'

You also need, for instance, electric linemen. They may sound like yahoos, but they are damned difficult to find, needing brains, physical condition, courage, craft skill. An impressive lot. There are piles of jobs like that. Thats most of "real" jobs these days.

Your impressions are generally wrong. The common American may not impress verbally, but he is usually an impressive fellow regardless, worth listening to, if you know how to do that. The entire Menckian attitude, of dismissive contempt - and inability to listen - is worthless. Mencken is good as a model of witty invective, but thats all.

mockturtle said...

Well stated, buwaya!

Anglelyne said...

William Chadwick: My experience with the alt-right, in the comments sections of the pro-freedom blogosphere, gives me the impression that its average foot-soldier is neither vey bright nor very educated.

I can't think of any political group or movement whose foot-soldiers strike me as very bright or educated. Kinda the nature of movement foot-soldiers, no?

What is the "pro-freedom" blogosphere? (As in, examples of "pro-freedom" blogs.) And from what part of the blogosphere do the "alt-righters" in the their comment sections hail?

If you know, that is. Or do they just self-identify as alt-righters? Just trying to get a handle on what people mean by "alt-right".

Anglelyne said...

buwaya: The entire Menckian attitude, of dismissive contempt - and inability to listen - is worthless. Mencken is good as a model of witty invective, but thats all.

Can't say I've ever understood Mencken fan-boys past early adulthood. Mencken was somebody who impressed me when I read him in my teens and twenties. When I re-read him in middle-age, I was surprised to find so little of real substance.

gadfly said...

The Alt-Right is inferior in all respects to those of us on the right. They have invaded conservative websites and continue to rant about those politicians in high office that Angelo Codevilla calls the Ruling Class. Focused hatred of these folks has made young Alt-Righters susceptible to Alt-Politicians beginning with an unsuitable and unstable candidate named Trump. Conservatives didn't bring the rant but we bear the brunt of their attack probably because we Country Class folks focus on smaller government over time instead of throwing the bastards out now.

Rome wasn't built in a day but progressives hiding among the Alt-Righters are looking for an "Arab Spring" event here - but we know how well that worked out.

As for a #NeverTrump movement, the Trump Hive Mind does not understand that they brought on the "stand and fight" position that we real conservatives now find themselves in. Nobody told me or my friends that we are an organized unit, but the actions required to join what could become a new party are simple - vote third party or do not vote for the office of president.

We are simply not going to capitulate to any of the three asshole liberals from New York.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

mockturtle said...And the slave trade out of Africa was largely run by Arab Muslims so it's always been a mystery to me why blacks would embrace Islam.

Related - Wiki: Cassius Marcellus Clay - prominent abolitionist, founded an anti-slavery newspaper, "While making a speech for abolition in 1849, Clay was attacked by the six Turner brothers, who beat, stabbed and tried to shoot him. In the ensuing fight, Clay fought off all six and, using his Bowie knife, killed Cyrus Turner."

Contrast: Muhammad Ali of Egypt (1769-1849) -Ottoman leader and the "father of Egypt" he conquered much of Syria and Sudan and laid the foundation for modern Egypt. He owned lots of slaves. Wiki points out the school of medicine for women he allowed to open "Therefore, the first students at the medical school were young slave girls.[15] Slaves continued to be recruited through slave auctions as well as orphans from hospices."

On the one hand, an abolitionist. On the other, a slave owner. The Nation of Islam found one name offensive (to modern blacks) and the other praisweorthy. You figure it out.

Terry said...

" . . . because we Country Class folks focus on smaller government over time instead of throwing the bastards out now."
I am not an alt-R person, Gadfly, but please show me the evidence that Republicans believe in 'smaller government over time'? In the states, perhaps, but not at the federal level. The temptation to print and spend all that wonderful money is too great.

mockturtle said...

Republicans have sure as hell thrown a lot of money into the Middle East nation-building efforts, enriching companies like Halliburton but at the taxpayer's expense.

Alexander said...

Conservatives have conserved precisely nothing in my lifetime, and then applaud themselves that their impotency is actually a virtue because it makes them "respectable" to those that want them and their progeny dead.

If that is your "superiority", then I want no part.

As an aside, fun with anagrams: Conservative = Save? I convert!

wildswan said...

We don't have to accept the left saying that alt-right is the same as Republican and we don't have to accept "Ask yourself why working class white males could support Trump when the Dem party so strongly supports their economic interests."

We could say the world changed following the crash of 2008. Manufacturing and Construction stopped being the top US employers, falling to #7 and #13. So the jobs never came back in those industries. The political point is that both Democrats and Republicans ignored this change - no attempt was made to acknowledge the huge problem this was for millions. Instead both parties called everyone upset about this change, racists. Meaning: "we don't have to do anything for you and at the same time we can feel very superior. We went into IT or health and there are plenty of jobs there. Go to Hell, homophobe Christian, whitey."

So this suffering group, the victims of the economic change, has found a candidate, Trump, who has some idea of getting jobs back, who talks about limiting immigration and rebuilding the economy.

Well, that's easily handled. Call them all names. Him crazy, them stupid, both racists. And promise to continue the same policies, promise to ignore the economic change. Of course no group has suffered more than blacks from the change. But blame their unrest on the whites who also suffered. Pit the two groups against each other. That's the Democrats today - which is where I started. Don't accept the altright = republican.

The only chance for reform is a white male Republican - only such a one will be required to produce, only they will be monitored by the media. Vote for reform

Shine, perishing republic

Guildofcannonballs said...

Multi-attractional.

The new currency's currency.

If you ever think of thanking me, FUCKYOU simple.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Hey where'd my Scalia go?

Guildofcannonballs said...

sometimes when ya think ya know competence, it is moreso clearly thrust upon ya.

sometimes.

Saint Croix said...

Basically, look at what the #NeverTrump movement did, and do something else...."

That's a result-oriented view of the NeverTrump movement. I don't think it was planned or organized from the top-up. Or maybe it was, but whatever plan they had did not work. I signed the website petition, and so did 40,000 other Republicans. I suspect, or maybe read somewhere, that Marco Rubio was behind that website. Or people who really liked Marco Rubio wanted to do that. So if the criticism is that this failed to give Rubio the nomination, whatever. Maybe the purpose was not to elect one guy, but to give voice to lots and lots of Republicans who were appalled and upset that this very ugly view of the Republican party was going to take over. And we pushed back. People want to say, "hey, Trump's the nominee, you failed." But we have also impressed many people, I feel, with our principles and our determination that we can do better than this.

The thing about Donald Trump, and this is important, is that he cuts across all of this identity politics crap. There are black people who loathe Donald Trump and black people who are voting for Donald Trump. Michael Steele is voting for Donald Trump. Al Sharpton is voting for Donald Trump. African-Americans may have a big split this year along gender lines, because I have heard that large numbers of black ladies are voting for Hillary.

There are Jews who detest Donald Trump and Jews who think Donald is great. The neocons do not like Donald Trump, and Jonah Goldberg does not like Donald Trump. So what? National Review and Weekly Standard are filled with Protestants and Catholics who think Donald Trump can suck it.

There are white males who are all aboard the Trump train, and white males who will say all sorts of shit about the man. So when Shiloh says, "all these Republicans are united behind Trump because the Republican party is a white male party that is steeped in the 19th century," it is so obviously dishonest in 2016, that no serious person says such things. When Shiloh repeats this mantra, like a robot stuck in his permanent loop, I think to myself, "Why the fuck are their no smart liberals on the Althouse blog? What have we done or said to chase the smart liberals away? All we get is stupid Shiloh with his idiot theory that every Republican is a white male. And that every Trump voter is a white male!

The media will try to unite and smear all of Donald Trump's support as white male support. They will try to tag our party as the racist party and the stupid party. But I think it's helpful and good that many Republicans have vocalized their antipathy to Donald Trump. I think it's helpful and good that some Republicans are voting for Hillary, and some Democrats are voting for Trump. I think smashing up this stupid duopoly we have been stuck in is a good thing. But the media will try to put us into these boxes. Republican party = racist white men. Democrat party = everybody else. Be aware of this framing and fight back against it. That's what the NeverTrump movement is about. And yes, black Republicans and Jewish Republicans and hispanic Republicans object to Trump. But there are a lot of WASPS and Catholics in the Republican party, who may or may not say much about it, but their feelings are kinda obvious too.

Saint Croix said...

I will say too that Trump supporters are right when they say that neither illegal immigrants, nor Muslims, are a race. That's why Donald Trump, and his supporters, can say with a straight face that they are not racists. And yet we are also seeing racial antagonism, and racial groupings. Both in the Trump camp and the anti-Trump camp. We've seen Mexican gangs attack innocent Trump supporters. And we know that racist people in the Trump camp have also felt a new sort of bravery to come forward and fly the racist flag. So it's been an ugly campaign, and will continue to be an ugly campaign. But it's very important to be open and honest. And try not to let our passions and emotions become hateful, or angry, or fearful.

Saint Croix said...

To me a very big question in this campaign is whether the Libertarian party and the Green party candidates will be allowed on the debate floor.

Hey, liberals! You say you like Europe, and want us to be more like Europe! They have more than two parties in Europe!

The Libertarian party and the Green party are low in the polls because they have no money and cannot buy publicity. Since they have no money, they have little or no name recognition.

Hey, liberals! You say you want money out of the election! Maybe you ought to allow the Libertarian candidate and the Green candidate onto the debate floor!

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both very negative campaigners, and they will continue to bash each other in the most awful ways. This will depress voters and keep them home.

Hey liberals! You say you like democracy and people voting! You might want to inform the American people that we have more than two parties!

tim in vermont said...

There is a way to get the Green Party money in the future, if they get 5% of the vote, they are eligible for matching funds. That is where I am voting if Bernie doesn't get on the ticket. I know I am wavering on Trump, and I am wavering away, but the case against Hillary, even if it might be larded up with unsubstantiated accusations, is plenty solid still. It's like the O.J. trial where it seemed like they were trying to frame a guilty man. There is no privilege to be president that certain people enjoy, Hillary will be fine if she is never POTUS. She has shown she is not up for the job.

tim in vermont said...

"Why the fuck are their no smart liberals on the Althouse blog? What have we done or said to chase the smart liberals away?"

I am not sure that liberals who think rationally exist. How can they? If they come here, they know they are going to get called out on their B.S. that they would rather not even own up to, much less defend. So we get liberals like R&B, who is reasonably smart, but who just blasts invective like a flame thrower to avoid any rational discussion.

Shill-o has yet to come up with the first argument as to why we should vote for Hillary based on her record. None of them can explain what the fuck she was thinking in Syria and Libya, or why she took 100K from one of Arkansas's biggest polluters, or why she left her email server open to hackers for foreign intelligence agencies when she almost certainly was shown intelligence on foreign leaders obtained in the very same way. What was she thinking?

With Goldman Sachs, they have two choices, either she said nothing of note or interesting, which prompts the question "What was the purpose then of paying her so much money?" Or she said a lot of stuff they really wanted to hear. One thing we can be sure she didn't do was give them a Bernie-style scolding on their reprehensible business practices.

tim in vermont said...

Ask yourself why working class white males could support Trump when the Dem party so strongly supports their economic interests.

I am assuming this is ironic. But aside from flooding the labor market for the votes, The Democrats killed Keystone XL. Supported by 60% of Americans. THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!

damikesc said...

The Alt-Right is inferior in all respects to those of us on the right. They have invaded conservative websites and continue to rant about those politicians in high office that Angelo Codevilla calls the Ruling Class. Focused hatred of these folks has made young Alt-Righters susceptible to Alt-Politicians beginning with an unsuitable and unstable candidate named Trump. Conservatives didn't bring the rant but we bear the brunt of their attack probably because we Country Class folks focus on smaller government over time instead of throwing the bastards out now.

WHEN do Republicans actually do anything? They always talk about smaller government, but when the rubber hits the road, they always get on the bus and ride along.

Just as an example, the GOP is trying to work with Dems to codify Obama's idiotic transgender bathroom policy into law. How does supporting it do ANYTHING for the cause of limited government?

There are white males who are all aboard the Trump train, and white males who will say all sorts of shit about the man. So when Shiloh says, "all these Republicans are united behind Trump because the Republican party is a white male party that is steeped in the 19th century," it is so obviously dishonest in 2016, that no serious person says such things. When Shiloh repeats this mantra, like a robot stuck in his permanent loop, I think to myself, "Why the fuck are their no smart liberals on the Althouse blog? What have we done or said to chase the smart liberals away? All we get is stupid Shiloh with his idiot theory that every Republican is a white male. And that every Trump voter is a white male!


It's not an Althouse thing. The Progressive sites have almost all shut down their comment sections because they can't find many smart ones, either.

Douglas said...

I disagree with Carol. The alt.right isn't just conservatives freed from PC constraints. That is, unless your views is that people who think the only problem with Hitler is that he didn't have enough ovens represent mainstream conservatives. Personally, I think that's insane.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Tim - I admitted above, it was intended to be humorous. Probably, as you suggest, ironic. Anyone who has followed this blog for any length of time is pretty aware of my politics. I was trying to get the conversation going, and seem to have been somewhat successful, given how many times I got quoted - probably a record here for me in better than a decade following Ann's blog. So, I count it a success.

tim in vermont said...

I thought the "Alt-Right" was the Althouse commentariat.

Saint Croix said...

So we get liberals like R&B, who is reasonably smart, but who just blasts invective like a flame thrower to avoid any rational discussion.

He probably feels outnumbered!

I agree R&B is reasonably smart, and often interesting, but the flame war stuff is boring.

Also ARM used to be liberal, but he's shifted a bit. Or maybe he hasn't shifted, but he's definitely more interesting.

Maybe my problem is that when liberals on the Althouse blog start being interesting, I stop thinking of them as liberals!

Inga could be emotional, but she could also be funny, and I thought she was bright. I liked Inga and I'm sorry we chased her away.