The Alternate Right
The Alt-right is a nascent political/cultural movement in the US (and also the West generally). Literally, the Alt stands for Alternative. It is the alternative to the normal (establishment) right wing political echelon. Why are we talking about the Alt-Right?
Presidential candidate, email-deleter, and Benghazi-abandoner/liar Hillary gave a speech on the Alt-Right. In it she twice mentioned anti-Semitism in relation to the Alt-Right. This blog has an interest in Semites. We must then ask: is the Alt-Right anti-Semitic. Let’s scrutinize this:
Hillary Clinton has no moral authority, on anything, and more to the point, when it comes to anti-Semitism and bigotry in general. There are stories of instances where she used the word “nigger” in a derogatory fashion. There are also instances of anti-Semitism and other bigotry. Are we to accept every rumor and anecdotal story? No. But when it comes to the Clintons, we must chase every lead. Given their propensity to go to extreme lengths to cover things up, it is not imprudent to decide that where there is smoke there is fire.
(I am not even referencing the fact that Julian Assange, the world’s most notorious espionage agent, has offered a financial reward for information regarding the murder of one Seth Rich, who is believed to have been a WikiLeaks spy. For a good read on the conspiracy theory regarding the Clintons killing off all and sundry read this article by Gavin Mcinnes. One final thought: if I die suddenly from a barbell, like John Ashe, whose trial, according to the NY Post would have been bad for the Clintons or if I commit suicide by shooting myself in the back of the head, like Suzanne Coleman, a lady who was Bill’s courtesan, the Clintons did it. I don’t use barbells and I couldn’t be happier with my life.)
But does making some offensive remarks against retarded kids, and telling her Jewish aide “F****** Jew Bastard” disbar her from being a moral authority on bigotry? Very simply, by the standard of the radical left, a cult which Hillary has pledged fealty to, yes.
Of course, that only speaks to the accuser, not to the accusation. Is the Alt-Right anti-Semitic? Dennis Prager has all these rules that qualify someone as an anti-Semite, but I didn’t wish to get pedantic over it. Let us simply say that anti-Semitism is Jew-hatred. Are all the members of the Alt-Right Jew-haters? No. Are some of the members of the Alt-Right Jew-haters. Yes. Is the Alt-Right, as a philosophical and political movement, a Jew-hating movement? Good question.
The first thing to consider is that there is no Alt-Right. Or at least there is a lack of clarity as to what constitutes the Orthodoxy (and significantly, what is deemed to be heresy) of the Alt-Right. Different echelons of the Alt-Right are all rallying around their own banners and attempting to purge the elements they deem heretical.
(This infighting, it should be noted, is nothing new. Allow me to quote at length from a speech that may have been the inception, intellectually, of the Alt-Right, entitled The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right. Describing the Paleoconservatives (who are in many ways John the Baptist to the Alt-Right’s Christian messiah) Paul Gottfried said: “They quarreled to such a degree that they eventually fell out among themselves. Soon they were trying to throw each other out of the shaky lifeboat to which their endangered cause had been confined…. But their breakdown into rival groups, led by competing heads, commenced early in the conservative wars, and (alas) it has been going on up until the present hour.”)
From my very brief investigation into the matter, there seems to be some tension in the group between those that are simply populist/nationalist and those that are white nationalist, although that itself is a simplification that don’t cover all the intricacies that make up the various tensions that exist within the movement. There is also a tension, I believe, between members of the group who pro-Israel and those are who not pro-Israel (or anti-Israel). A final tension in the group that is relevant to us is, basically, belief in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion versus disbelief..
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (see here and here), it is worth remembering, is one of the great blood libel-like events in history. A hundred years ago, it was first published publicly by one Sergius Nilus, and it supposedly exposed a cabal of Jews (Zionists) who were controlling the world for their own nefarious ends. anti-Semites throughout the world gleefully exploited the so-called findings to further trumpet their hatred of the Jews. (They still do.) In 1921, the London newspaper, The Times, skillfully demonstrated to all those that would listen that this book was a forgery. The book was a forgery, copied and pasted from earlier anti-Semitic works and from conspiracies dating back to the French Revolution. In other words, there was no secret Jewish (Zionist) meeting and no Jewish (Zionist) hegemony over the world.
Too late. The word was out that the Jews were controlling the world. Till today, people believe this rubbish. (I know, I became friends with a man who held such beliefs.) Hitler decried the Jewish hegemony of the world. (Hitler even accused Roosevelt, whose record viz. the Jews is a matter of controversy, of being a Jew.) Hitler’s stooge, Charles Lindbergh, spoke of how the Jews in the US controlled the levers of power, saying that the Jews had “large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government”. As late a genocidal, deranged maniac as Saddam Hussein believed in the conspiracy, and even in the original book Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hussein gave copies of the book to his generals and told them that it would give them insight into the minds of the Jews. Instead, this gives us some insight into the mind of Saddam Hussein. Though why anyone would want to peer inside the mind of a murderously crazy dictator is beyond me.
This terrible conspiracy is still around, and may always be around. But groups of people who consider themselves to be the Alt-Right or aligned with the Alt-Right or at least sympathetic to the Alt-Right believe in modern-day mutations of the Elders of Zion nonsense. And, while part of the Alt-Right firmly rejects this Neo-Fascist element of the Alt-Right, the center of the Alt-Right, that is, the space between the Neo-Fascist element and the Anti-Neo-Fascist element, is busily engaged in shrugging its collective shoulder.
One such shrugging man in the center is Jared Taylor, one of the icons of the Alt-Right. He is a race-realist (his term) but does not hate Jews. He might even be philosemitism for all I know. One thing he does that does advance that latter assessment is that he invites Jewish speakers who are race-realists to his conference, American Renaissance. Taylor has had Jews at every one of his conferences since its inception.
In the above picture, Rabbi Mayer Schiller is the chasdish person who is seated next to Jared Taylor, whom we have been discussing. At this, the first conference in 1994, Rabbi Schiller gave one of the speeches. Pictured also are Lawrence Auster, Michael Levin, and Eugene Valberg–all Jewish. An astonishing 44.4 percent of those pictured were born Jewish.
But Jared Taylor also invites David Duke who think that the Jews are the reason his life sucks (or something like that) and want them to be “cleaned out” from the West. Jared Taylor is trying to play it both ways. That balance is extremely tenuous (perhaps non-existent). A friend of Taylor’s told me that two of the regular Jewish attendees of the conference stopped going because of the presence of Richard Spencer. Spenser is another icon on the Alt-Right, and is close to being a Neo-Fascist (down to the haircut).
My conclusion on the question of anti-Semitism in the Alt-Right must be preliminary to mirror the fact that the Alt-Right is in its infancy. I think you could divide the movement (as it pertains to the Jews), such as it exists, into three parts, similar to what we did above. On one side are the pro-Zionists. Opposed to them are blood-libel conspiracy theorists. Sandwiched uncomfortably in the middle are the ones who largely tolerate both elements in the movement. If a movement is to be judged by its mainstream–and this is not altogether a bad way to judge anything, then the Alt-Right is not anti-Semitic. However, it is also not anti the anti-Semites. At the very least, not with the sort of zeal that the Semites would like.
The Alternate Right (PDF)