September 10, 2016
Yesterday, a press conference was held in Washington DC by three popular figures in anti-immigration, racialist and “alt-right” circles.
Richard Spencer of NPI, Peter Brimelow of VDARE and Jared Taylor of AMREN fielded journalist’s questions for about an hour and thirty minutes.
My thoughts on the events?
First, the logo they unveiled for the alt-right was pretty sweet:
It embraces that retro aesthetic which has become emblematic of the new Nazi movement.
Also, it’s great that we have people who can do stuff like this. Most people in the alt-right operate under cover of anonymity, because they would surely be fired from their jobs or expelled from their schools if they became a public supporter of alt-right Nazism.
Having people who can directly address the press on camera is something valuable. These are events that potentially can attract a lot of eyes, and generate a lot of media buzz, and unlike written interviews it can be broadcast live with no manipulation.
The key problem here was that no clear, central explanation was given as to what the alt-right is, what are it’s goals and worldview. The discussion was mostly vague and evasive, rather than making an effort to cut straight to the core of the issues.
It felt like for every answer, the speakers were rolling their tongues in their mouths 3 or 4 times to make sure they wouldn’t offend anyone or come off as too “extreme.”
No one leaves a Trump speech thinking “but what did he mean, though?”
In these kinds of events, it’s important to have a clear, coherent message to communicate to the press. Don’t let them try to figure out what you’re about. You have to force-feed them the points they’ll have to write about later.
This should have been worked out beforehand.
And we come to the really bad parts.
I said previously that no clear message was being communicated.
But some messages definitely came through.
- “I would say that the Neo-conservatives are actually a model to be emulated.”
- “I don’t believe there is one moral standard for the universe or anything like that, I think everything comes from a perspective.”
- “I actually understand Black Lives Matter on a fundamental level, that doesn’t mean that I approve of them or endorse them, but I, in a way, understand that deep HURT that they are coming from – they don’t feel like they are part of White America.”
- “I would stress the perspectives. For me European culture is the greatest, but also, my dog is the greatest dog. By objective standards he probably falls very short, but he’s my dog.”
- “I actually fundamentally understand the impulse towards Zionism.”
- “When people say ‘a conspiracy,’ that’s kind of like a racist word, it’s not a real word, like ‘are you a racist?’ It’s ridiculous.”
- “To call Jews European would be to insult their being and history and I would never do that.”
- “I think it is very important that the Ethnostate be a dream, it is a utopia in a sense, I think it would be ridiculous to start defining it right now, it is something for the future, it is very simple, it is very similar to the idea of Zionism for Jews in the 19th century, its actually very similar to the ideal of Communism for the Left in the 19th century.”
- “In terms of the European Homeland, we would have fine relationships with the Jewish Homeland, we would not want to undermine that. We understand the Zionist impulse in a way that others don’t.”
- “[Race-mixing] is not really a threat to White Identity, to be honest, simply because of numbers. In terms of intermarriage between Asians and Whites or something, it’s not something significant that we really have to deal with. It’s not like half of the country is East-Asian and the other half is White and we’re all mixing – that is simply not happening on that scale, so it’s simply not an important question. I don’t feel like intermarriage is really threatening White Identity.”
- “Whites aren’t going away. If you watch network television you would probably believe that half the country is gay and half is Hispanic. It’s ridiculous, that’s not what the country is.”
Who is advising this guy?
What’s the deal here?
First, probably 95% of people in the alt-right would disagree with all of the above, or at least find it pretty gay. So it’s counter-productive to present himself as a “representative” of the alt-right and push these weird ideas.
Second, this is just really bad PR. People hate the neo-conservatives – so why associate ourselves with them? Why say that “there is no crisis, whites aren’t going anywhere?” This doesn’t help motivate people to become active.
- “White Supremacist – this is the Atom bomb of insults.”
- “[It follows that, by ordinary Caucasoid standards, the average White is a better person than the average Black; of greater proportion of Black than White behavior also falls below the ordinary thresholds of decency and tolerability] – you could make exactly the same statements about Whites as opposed to Asians [=average Asian is a better person than the average White]. They built much more orderly societies than we did.”
- “There is a broad spectrum of opinions within the Alt-Right as to the role of Jews in the Western societies, the extent to which Jews are welcome or should be welcome in the Alt-Right, to which they could contribute, to a consciousness of Whites as a [beleaguered?] people – I tend to be among those, who thinks that European Jews are very much a part of our movement. Some people say that no, Jews should not be a part of our movement, but there is an enormous spectrum of opinion on that issue.”
- “I don’t think that a Jewish American or a European Jew cannot be a fully committed man of the West who wishes our Race and our Civilization to survive. “
- “I don’t think that if a Jewish person identifies with the West and with Europe that that’s something we should deny to someone just because he’s a Jew.”
Again, all if this stuff is defensive in nature. Instead of imposing our value system, these kinds of statements are meant to excuse and justify ourselves based on the enemy’s value system.
This is demoralizing, and actually reduces our legitimacy. I mean, if we accept the Judeo-liberal values, why not just be a liberal?
It’s great that these sorts of events are being carried out, and Spencer et al must be commended for taking the initiative to do so. In spite of everything, this is probably a net positive, in the sense that we are getting some media attention out of it.
But ultimately, as a movement, we need to project strength and confidence. Having a vague message and being wishy-washy isn’t going to win us any converts amongst the crowd of high-energy young men.
For their next conference, they should make sure to craft a more powerful message – one that’ll appeal to the demographic we need to make the movement stronger.