Sunday, May 01, 2016

Trump has been good for the Alt-Right

Google Trends search results for the phrase over the last several years:

And the top seven (Trends' display number, not mine) states by search index share:
The political and punditry classes are becoming aware of a new game-changing cultural force that is shifting the intellectual landscape under their feet. As Trump smashes one PC taboo after another, he primes the public to genuinely consider what the Alt-Right is producing with less anxiety and apprehension than before. Once they're receptive, getting the scales to fall from their eyes is relatively easy.

Until yesterday, 538's poll-plus predictor had Cruz favored by a 2-to-1 margin in the state. Encouragingly for Trump's prospects Tuesday, Indiana is more interested in the Alt Right than even its DC enemies are. Here's to Nate Silver having egg on his face yet again.

Parenthetically, I like "Alt-Right" as an umbrella label for the various movements--HBD, neoreaction, paleoconservatism, white advocacy, men's rights, identarianism, etc--it is comprised of. In parsimoniously present a contrast both with cucky Conservatism, Inc and the CultMarx left which in many ways have more in common with one another than either does with the Alt-Right.

It's probably counterproductive to quibble with the semantics at this point, anyway. The name appears to have stuck so let's own it.


Eric Dondero said...

We in the AIt Right are winning. Great. But now we have to Iose aII the idiot Jew haters in our movement. Too many Ieft who do not represent REAI AIt Right views.

Eric Dondero said...

AIt Right aIso incIudes us Iibertarians who oppose IsIam and Sharia Iaw. Fuc these MusIim asshoIes.

Anonymous said...

Fuck off Eric.

Anonymous said...

A/E is taking correct approach.

Purists and 'now we have to get rid of _______' are not.

F--- Off is the correct response to entryism - and yes that was entryism.
Or a Troll imitating or parodying an Entryist.

We're defined if at all by our enemies and that we're not Leftists.
There's ideas I don't like argue or denounce them then move on, no
more Buckley's purging energy that's needed.


chris said...

No enemies to the right. We will know we've truly won we all of us here are executed for being too leftist.

The Z Blog said...

I struggle a bit with the alt-right label. Richard Spencer is credited with the phrase and I find his white identity shtick to be weird and stupid. It's David Duke in khakis. But, the label has stuck and it has broadened to cover the vast range of thought outside the narrow world of Progressive-Buckley Conservatism.

Still, the danger of being associated with unhinged bigots and race loons is always going to be there. I'm glad to see people are on guard against the libertarians trying to sneak in. They're worse than the race loons.

mikestreetstation said...

I'm sympathetic to Eric's view of losing the Jew haters, but I notice that doesn't seem to bother the left at all. They are serious about "no enemies to the left" and are littered with anti semites of various stripes. But that makes no public impression at all because the left is running the organs of the media.

Anonymous said...

I'll be on board with purging Jew Haters and Race Loons just as soon as they stop being right.

Dan said...

"We will know we've truly won we all of us here are executed for being too leftist."

After comedy died because of PC, I had no choice but to come to the alt-right, because that is where all the best lines are.

There can be no purges from the alt right. There is nothing to purge people from. It is just a loose confederation of truth tellers. I suppose people can try to shut down the whole Internet.

If you say in your own name that boys have penises and girls have vaginas, you have already been purged. Then you can get a domain, and reveal to the world the stunning boy/penis, girl/vagina nexus, and become a new node on the alt right network.

When everything is hate speech, nothing is and it all becomes a joke. To me the gay 'marriage' thing helped break things open because overnight a hundred million Americans were written off as extremists too horrible for words. Evangelicals, who are the largest single voting bloc, started favoring Trump, who isn't even religious. Why? They can all relate to being heretics in their own country.

Audacious Epigone said...


The Respectable Right and mainstream left are both "philosemitic" and the former is militantly pro-Israel to boot. The Alt Right should allow for dissension from those broad positions.

Summary of my take:

Regarding Israel, it shouldn't be treated as the 51st state (which would actually be a demotion in its status). If I were dropped randomly in the Middle East I'd obviously hope it'd be in Israel and my sympathies are with it but their fight isn't our fight. Israel-firsters should be shamed and mocked (Trump did this artfully in his foreign policy speech when he said that Americans don't understand why their leaders are so worried about protecting the borders of other countries but don't care about our own--a thinly veiled shot at those Israel-firsters). If Iran is truly viewed as an "existential threat" let Netanyahu act accordingly. That he doesn't gives lie to the idea that the Iranian threat is actually anything close to existential.

I'm not perspicacious enough to add anything to the Kevin MacDonald Jewish Question. I'm agnostic about the whole debate but think the more integration with the non-Jewish population the better. See Trump, Donald.


The Right Stuff's pithy characterization of the Alt Right as "the right wing stripped of any superstitious belief in human equality and any admission of the left’s moral authority" seems workable.


The Alt Right is not, generally speaking, comprised of people who will allow themselves to be executed. Or at any rate if they are, the mortal blows will have to come in the front while we're standing up, not in the back or at a kneel.

Z Blog,

Richard Spencer coined it back in ~2009 but then abandoned it in favor of "identitarian" a couple of years later. In its resurgence it's less associated with him than it was previously. He's become markedly less abrasive now than he was back then.

Regarding the ambiguity about the term because of its associations (ones I don't have a problem with personally, though I'd classify myself as a citizenist rather than a white nationalist) could be more of a feature than a bug. It precludes the movement from being hijacked and then co-opted into the Respectable Right like the Tea Party was.


That the Jewish Question is so taboo is part of the reason it is such a prime target for 'extremist' obsession. I see no reason it shouldn't be brought out into the light of day.


In one of his recent videos Jared Taylor thanked the BLM and Rapefugee boosters for sending so many people his way. Decent, magnanimous middle Americans only have so many cheeks to turn.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Speaking of Trump, there was a graph in the WSJ a couple months ago that showed Trump's modal Twitter follower was a male in his late 20's to mid-30's - basically us. No other candidate had this group as their largest. It seems to me that this is the group that falls most naturally into alt-right views since by then you've had time to see your good name get smeared nonstop in the media and culture but also grown up enough that you have the confidence of your experience such that you no longer just take it lying down. I know I myself had pretty standard libertarianism views until around age 27 or so.

So if Trump's visibility helps get the message out, all the better.

Audacious Epigone said...


That take resonates so precisely with the way I feel that I could've written myself with only the minor exception that I fell into the Steveosphere and out of standard libertarianism in my early twenties. When I started the blog my transition had already begun.

Jeff Deist of the Mises Institute had a pretty good summation of the Alt Right a couple of months ago. I'll find the exact location in the video if you're interested in seeing it. One thing he emphasized was how the Alt Right is much younger than the Respectable Right.

The Z Blog said...

The Alt-Right is geezers with nothing to lose (me) and young guys with everything to gain.

Anonymous said...


I can go along with your definition/qualification.


Exactly. We geezers have nothing better to lay down our words and our lives for than bequeathing a better posterity, and if the young want any future including existence they'll have to fight for it.


Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

Trump winning isn't about the Alt-right.

This is GOP sweep year for the presidency due to structural factors.

Any plausible** GOP nominee will beat ANY Democratic nominee, with the GOP getting 55%+ of the popular vote and 400+ electoral votes in November.

Despite Politico's touting its reporter's and editor's innumeracy, the key structural factor this election cycle -isn't- Trump generated GOP turn out.

George W. Bush got 10.8 million primary votes in 2000 when the US population was 282 million.

While Trump -- at 9.9 million primary votes prior to Indiana -- is on a glide path to get more GOP Primary voters than George W. Bush. He would have to get more than 12.4 million voters this year, with 324 million Americans, to beat that proportionately.

I.e., Trump's primary turnout this year is due more to GOP voter participation returning to its pre-Obama level.

The real structural factors are the following --

1) The GOP sweep of Congressional, state and local elections in the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections, to the point where it would be difficult for the GOP to win any more than the Presidency, plus

2) The economy and jobs have plain sucked the whole time.

Historically this structural combination has resulted in an overwhelming turnover of the Presidency at the next open election. See Kennedy in 1960, Bush in 2000 and Obama in 2008 after the 2006 Democratic take over of Congress.

This Mudcat Sanders story --

Democratic Strategist: Trump Will Beat Hillary Like ‘A Baby Seal’

Tells me not so much that a nomination of Hillary will alienate the white working class outside the South from the Democrats (about 20% of the electorate) as that this will make the alienation -indelible- for the Democratic Party.

We are talking on the scale and permanence nation wide to rival how Gov. Pete Wilson and the GOP alienated California Hispanics in 1994, with inspired exploitation of that alienation by Leon Panetta and Pres Clinton.

It looks like the GOP will have an 'electoral voter lock' on the Midwest for a generation or more, after a Trump Presidential victory, with Pennsylvania and New Jersey "Turning Reddish-Purple."

** Jeb Bush was -not- a plausible candidate, even though he won the Plutocrat/campaign consultant money primary.

"Plausible" in this case was defined the GOP primary voting base. IMO, the disconnect between Populist GOP aligned voters and the Plutocrat/Consultant elite is the defining demographic issue of this election. It was a vulnerability that Trump saw and exploited to win the GOP nomination.

That the alt-Right is riding Trump's coat tails to public respectability is a positive side benefit.

Audacious Epigone said...


Well put. You can see evidence of exactly that by clicking through his various rallies. Here's one with a good mix of wizened warriors and hungry young shitlords behind the stage.

Mil-Tech Bard,

The key will be getting traditional Republicans who make up the grassroots backbone of the #NeverTrump movement to show up. If they do, Trump will win in a landslide just as you and Scott Adams have been predicting from the beginning. Primary turnout attests to that.

It's difficult for me to discount that reticence on the part of these value conservatives though. I live in Kansas, right in the heart of the cuck corridor. Trump isn't popular here with Republican voters (never mind local/state politicians--Kris Kobach is the only one who has good things to say about him). I heard one of the local guys on the largest talk radio station in the Kansas City area saying he'd leave the Republican party forever if Trump was the nominee. Good riddance irrespective of the electoral outcome in November, but it's indicative of the general *conservative* sentiment here.

On the other hand, these same cuckservatives really, really loathe Hillary Clinton and as the primary fights fade into the past, their hatred of Hillary should get most of them in line.

Dan said...

Well that happened rather quickly.

After Wisconsin, it looked like to me Trump would not be able to make it on the first ballot. And Cruz seemed to have all the delegates committed to him.

Then on April 19th, Trump killed it in New York and now by May 3rd, the Republican primary is already over.

It seems that the Republican party's antics in Colorado wrecked things for Cruz. He came to symbolize the establishment trying to steal the election, and that was the end.

Audacious Epigone said...


Exactly. There were a couple of polls asking people which candidate(s) they saw as part of the GOPe. A couple of months ago it was something like Trump 6%, Cruz 25%, Kasich 60%. Then they asked again after WI, the CO/ND antics, and the Cruz/Kasich pact and it was Trump 5%, Cruz ~50%, and Kasich 65%. Cruz's whole narrative of being the "true" outsider fell apart.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

This applies --

I used to say to our audiences: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

--- Upton Sinclair

The media talking-head political analysts are talking their salary paid for the vested media interests in #NeverTrump.

The paid political consultant class -- as opposed to the media talking heads -- knows damned well that Trump is bringing in 'new in the last four Presidential election cycle' GOP voters in the form of turned off working class white males. That is what blew up the North East for Trump. After New Hampshire Ed Goeas, a Republican strategist who was part of an anti-Trump effort, said the following to Bloomberg Politics’ --

“With all Due Respect” program that the front-runner is getting too much credit for the increased turnout.

“These are general election voters that tend not to participate in primaries,” he said. “It’s not like he’s bringing huge numbers of people to register to vote for the first time.”

Until NY State and Tuesday's primaries, the paid consultants did not really believe Trump could make turned off voters actually -vote-.

See Jay Cost here:

The Long Game
A guide to counting delegates.
Feb 01, 2016 |
By Jay Cost

Trump is doing very well among people who haven’t voted in the past four elections. It’s possible he has energized them so much they will actually caucus and vote, but you wouldn’t want to bet your gold-plated faucets on it. People who don’t vote generally don’t vote.

Now the paid political consultant class -knows- Trump can make non-voters vote. And they have primary voting evidence as to where they live.


Through the first 12 primaries held this year, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that Republican participation is on a record-setting pace, with the combined turnout of 17.3 percent of eligible voters being the highest of any year since at least 1980. The analysis didn’t include caucus states.

The key demographic Trump is drawing is white working class voters, who are turning out at 1980 election participation rates. Demographically that means Trump has increased that working class white male voter turn out rate from 50% to 75%. IOW, White working class men are acting as hopeful about the political system in 2016 as 1980.

Given that White males by themselves are 7-time the size of the entire black population in terms of voters, and the working class makes up 60% of white males, that is a huge voter turn out shift.

White voter male participation at or above the 1980 election cycle effectively defeats the Obama majority-minority plus young single white women electoral coalition straight up. And Hillary cannot bring African American voters like Obama did.

Pander to the interests of the white working class -- AKA closed borders, deportation of illegals and anti-free trade agreements -- and they turn out for you.

Who'd a thunk it? Only Trump.

But the real problem is the top end political consultants cannot tell their money bags billionaires the truth until after the election. Not if they want to continue working for billionaire moneybags, who cannot imagine working class white male voters trimming their power, with Trump as their tool.

As for your Cuckservative Kansas voters, preference cascades will work on them too, in the privacy of the election booth where it is Trump or Hillary. They will vote the GOP tribe over the Donkey Tribe.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

This fits my experience with Trump supporters in Texas --

Some of my best friends are Trump supporters
March 28, 2016
By Oleg Atbashian

...They are being described as uneducated, angry, vengeful, racist, xenophobic, and plain stupid. Authors of these assumptions, mostly writing from within the Boston-New York-Washington corridor, admit that they don't even know anyone who likes Trump. But how can they write about what they don't know? When the electoral map is fluid, when things are happening rapidly in real time, and when no reliable historical data exists, we rely on personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. In the absence of such, the writers simply fill the gaps in their knowledge with their own prejudices, similar to how medieval mapmakers marked unexplored areas with "here be dragons."

There's a big probability that Trump supporters are, in fact, all around them, even in their own families -- and the reason why these writers don't know it, is their own snobbery. No one likes to be called stupid, his IQ questioned, or presumed to be an unthinking herd animal, and many simply don't have the time to stop and explain their reasons whenever a #Nevertrump activist feels like trashing Trump voters. Many simply choose to remain silent.

Now that Trump has won, the credibility of #Nevertrump with the Cuckservative base just got shot in the head.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

A final thought --

The Paris and San Bernadino terrorist attacks were the "Sister Soulja moment" of the 2016 Presidential campaign that separated Trump from every other candidate of both parties.

The media would not say "Muslim Terrorist" during and after both Paris and San Bernadino, while Trump did.

Trump was attacked by every presidential candidate of both parties for doing so. For visibly being utterly and completely politically incorrect in stating the "suppressed public truth."

The GOP voting public -noticed-.

After Paris, Trump forced a public reappraisal of 9/11/2001 regards American Muslims in Patterson N.J. publicly celebrating the attack the day it happened. This forced the surfacing of video tapes of local NJ television reports of those celebrations.

And in the face of those media attacks Trump doubled down and called for the following a Muslim immigration halt.

Rubio and the Cruz campaigns had a couple of weeks to retool as national security candidates to match the tenor of the times...and didn't.

Later, after San Beradinao, Trump called for collective punishment/deportation of the families of Muslim domestic terrorist.

Rinse and repeat with the media and rest of the Presidential candidate field attacking Trump.

Trump then went from 20 something percent GOP support to 30%(+) in a week after San Bernadino, and never looked back.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

Great stuff, thanks.

These epicycles being used to explain away whatever actually does happen in the service of what won't happen in the future are almost beyond parody now. We heard similar explanations about Trump's alleged support not translating into electoral support. Sure, people will drive three hours across their state and stand in line for a couple of hours--and risk not getting in at all--to attend a Trump rally but that doesn't mean they'll actually, you know, get out and vote for the guy or anything. Turns out Trump outperformed polling expectations in 26 of 36 states. When the "late deciders" (who go uncounted as "undecided" in polls) are factored in--a group where Trump fared relatively poorly--his polling outperformance looks even better.

Tangential to San Bernardino and Paris (doesn't look like Paris anymore), the concern that Trump's tough rhetoric on ISIS presages a Dubya foreign policy repeat strikes me as off the mark. Trump's nationalism and civilizational awareness is most publicly salient in his pledge to build a border wall and put a moratorium on Muslim immigration into the US in place. Talking tough on ISIS shows consistency on this in most peoples' minds. That libertarians especially lose it on the ISIS thing serves as a good illustration of why they'll always be nothing more than a tiny minority with a worldview that appeals to a subset of high IQ, aspergy, WEIRDO white males and no one else.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

Suppose there was a "Sister Soulja moment" in the 2016 Presidential election and the media political consultant class completely ignored it.

Exhibit A --

Why Republican Voters Decided On Trump
May 4, 2016 at 2:51 AM
By Nate Silver

You cannot understand the GOP base without understanding that it is very national security conscious can and does see foreigners as both real and as enemies.

And Nate Silver just proved he does not and never will understand GOP voter motivations.

Proof -- Go to the Silver column link and do a search for the text string "terror".

Audacious Epigone said...

Haha, we might simplify that self-serving blather with a much more concise explanation:

"I really, really got it wrong. My methods don't work, my ability to think qualitatively is disastrous, and, consequently, my future attempts at prognostication should be given no special consideration."