Attacks on the Alt Right

The New Yorker writes

The alt-right has no consistent ideology; it is a label, like “snob” or “hipster,” that is often disavowed by people who exemplify it. The term typically applies to conservatives and reactionaries who are active on the Internet and too anti-establishment to feel at home in the Republican Party. Bizarrely, this category includes the Republican nominee for President.

This is uninformed or crazy. The Left fears and despises Trump and the Alt Right because they do have a coherent ideology.

Just listen to a Trump speech. Or read an Alt Right site like the Gateway Pundit.

The extremist fringe is represented by Richard B. Spencer. See this Mother Jones article trashing him as a hateful racist.

Spencer granted interviews, but there are not any quotes to back up the extremist epithets. He is quoted as saying:

The alt-right is in a way conservatives who don't have anything to conserve anymore

Race is real, race matters, and race is the foundation of identity

I think white identity politics is inevitable. You can't become a minority and not understand yourself as in jeopardy in some way

I think there is something within the European soul that we haven't been able to measure yet and maybe we never will, and that is a Faustian drive or spirit — a drive to explore, a drive to dominate, a drive to live one's life dangerously … a drive to explore outer space and the universe. I think there is something within us that we possess and that only we possess.

If you want more extreme statements, try Daily Stormer. But the mainstream media refuses to mention that site. Perhaps they are afraid of getting trolled.

Mother Jones writes:

Years later, Spencer would through his Radix Journal help spread a metaphor used to explain the jarring experience of waking up to a different worldview. In the 1999 movie The Matrix, the character Morpheus (who is black, incidentally) offers Keanu Reeves a choice between taking a blue pill — "the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe" — or a red pill, which shows "how deep the rabbit hole goes." In the alt-right's telling, the so-called "normies" swallow the blue pill, digesting the fiction of racial equality, while those who get "red pilled" are stripped of the virtual-reality cloak that blinds them, waking up to the shattering realization that liberalism is just a mirage designed to obscure the hard, ugly truths of a world programmed by genetics. "You're destroyed by it," Spencer says, "and put back together again."

The metaphor is more common used to discuss myths about sexual equality.

The simplest and funniest definition of the Alt Right is that it opposes the Ctrl Left.

Update: The NY Times explains:

Pepe the Frog, Nasty Woman, #NeverTrump.

Internet memes, the viral in-jokes of online culture, have emerged as a potent force in the presidential race, serving to build up and tear down candidates. ...

A hashtag that really took off was #AccordingtoPalin, which was just a running joke about remarks that she had made that were very questionable, like, “You can see Russia from Alaska.” ...

Pepe didn’t become political until Donald Trump endorsed it by retweeting a Trump version of the character, which led to a mass influx of pro-Trump Pepes.

You have to consider social media’s political climate leading up to 2016, which has been heavily marked by the gender war and identity politics. These things led to the emergence of a reactionary movement, namely the alt-right, and Trump was kind of the natural poster boy for that.

Pepe plugged into the ideology of the alt-right because it was a reaction against the people they call “normies.” Pepe had been a symbol of the disenfranchised, social outcasts. It was Trump’s natural audience. ...

But the real trigger point that led to mass production of Nazi and other offensive Pepes was after Hillary Clinton released a denouncement of the meme, which is a milestone in meme history.

No meme has ever been denounced by a presidential candidate.

I think what Palin said was actually correct. You know that the Left has lost it when they complain about green frogs on the internet.

Most stereotype are accurate

A new paper claims:

Are stereotypes accurate or inaccurate? We summarize evidence that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable findings in social psychology. We address controversies in this literature, including the long-standing and continuing but unjustified emphasis on stereotype inaccuracy . . .

It is funny how some ppl think that stereotypes must be false.

The decline of pro football

The Wash. Post reports:

Football, America’s biggest prime-time powerhouse, has been thrust into a crisis this fall, with dwindling ratings sparking questions over whether it can remain a gold mine for television ...

But now, the NFL is seeing its ratings tumble in the same way that the Olympics, awards shows and other live events have, falling more than 10 percent for the first five weeks of the season compared with the first five weeks of last season.

Aren't ppl boycotting the NFL?

Most of the NFL news I hear is peripheral to playing football. It is about air pressure or domestic violence or protesting white cops or some leftist goal. No thanks. I have lost all interest in watching games.

When you're a star they let you do it

It appears that Clinton and her allies will continue to bombard us with dubious allegations until election day. Trump is being asked whether he ever kissed a woman without asking permission first.

Besides just dirty politics, I have another theory for these stories. The core of leftist feminism is to deny human nature.

The video that was most upsetting to Republican cuckservatives revealed two uncomfortable truths: That men lust after beautiful women, and that women make themselves available to alpha men. As Trump said on the video:

And when you're a star they let you do it. ... You can do anything.

Right. Trump did not admit to sexually assaulting women. He said that women around TV star permit flirting and sexually suggestive activity.

Trump may have been exaggerating, I don't know. I doubt that the women will let the stars "do anything".

There are not enuf red pill voters to elect Trump, so he had to apologize. The truth hurts too much for most ppl.

I just heard what may have been the longest interview I have ever heard on NPR Radio news. Some woman claimed that she sat next to Trump on a commercial airplain about 20 years, and he was inappropriate. This was in plain view of other passengers, and none even noticed. She made no complaint, and did not switch to another seat. She thought that it was no big deal at the time. But now she is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, and asked the NY Times to tell her story.

Do you really want to live in a world where men have their careers destroyed from allegations like this?

Update: Here is an example of blue pill cuckservative thinking:

“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” Priebus said in a statement released that night.

There are men who will always defend women, no matter how immoral or irresponsible her behavior.

There are also leftists who seek to regulate private personal conversations. To them, we must never express certain opinions, even in private. This thinking has now infected the Republican Party. There can be no freedom until such ppl are purged from the Party.

Trump-haters are nuts

In last night's debate, Donald Trump was asked if he had ever kissed a women without her permission. The moderator implied that Trump had admitted to criminal sexual assault in a leaked video.

So I finally viewed the video. The only thing Trump admits to is once taking a married woman furniture shopping in a very private and crude conversation. And that he is attracted to beautiful women.

I am coming to the conclusion that the Trump-haters suffer from some sort of mental illness. They express shock and outrage, but what did they expect? Are they really as clueless as they appear?

Here is a Slate Star Codex rant against Trump from 2 weeks ago:

The nightmare scenario is that Trump wins, his style of anti-intellectual populism is cemented as Official New Republican Ideology, and every educated person switches to the Democrats.

I’m not 100% this would be bad – maybe educated people who are temperamentally conservative would pull the Democratic Party a little to the right, turning them into a broad moderate coalition which has no problem winning elections and combines the smartest elements of liberal and conservative thought. ...

One more warning for conservatives who still aren’t convinced. If the next generation is radicalized by Trump being a bad president, they’re not just going to lean left. They’re going to lean regressive, totalitarian, super-social-justice left.

If so, here is some of their forbidden language:

1. “Some of my best friends are …”
2. “I know exactly how you feel.”
3. “I don’t think of you as …” ...

16. “I never owned slaves.” ...

32. I don’t care if you are pink, purple or orange, I treat all people the same.”

If "intellectual" means shaming ppl for micro-aggressions, then put me down as anti-intellectual.

Brown Is the New White

A NY Times op-ed brags:

“Brown Is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority”

The demographic revolution of the past 50 years has transformed the United States from a predominantly white country into a truly multiracial nation. People of color have grown to 38 percent of the population today from 12 percent in 1966, and that metamorphosis paved the path to electing the first African-American president.

In November, Democrats have the chance to secure a decades-long electoral majority for decades, ...

The target audience for ads, swing voters, is dwindling. A 2015 study by a Michigan State University assistant professor, Corwin Smidt, shows that voters are more polarized than at any time in the past 60 years, and just 5 percent — about six million people in the 2012 electorate — are swing voters. By comparison, the number of eligible minority voters in 2012 who didn’t make it to the polls was more than 25 million. …

In 2016, there’s still time to redirect resources to what we know works: mobilizing voters of color.

I think that is correct. It is hardly worthwhile for the Democrat Party to bother trying to persuade white swing voters. Its policies have been bad for those voters, and it has little to offer.

The Democrat strategy is to just keep flooding the country with non-whites and non-Christians, and sell then with a message of white hatred and identity politics.

Behavior difference are off the table

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist professor Jerry Coyne writes:

But the issue of whether there are genetically-based differences in behavior, physiology, mentation, and other non-physical attributes of populations is simply off the table. It’s not just that we shouldn’t investigate them (for one can make a case that that research might itself have invidious social consequences), but that those differences don’t exist. I’ve even heard people called “racists” by cultural anthropologists — one of the worst fields for ideologically motivated scholarship — simply for suggesting that there might be behavioral genetic differences between human groups. You can discuss the issue, but there’s only one position considered acceptable. ...

When it comes to the sexes, though, it’s a different matter. In the hominin lineage males and females have been coevolving (either cooperatively or antagonistically) for 6 million years or so — ample time for differences in behavior, wants, thought patterns, and so on to evolve, just as morphological differences between men and women have clearly evolved. Do those genetic differences in thought and behavior exist? I suspect they do, at least for traits connected to sexuality and sexual behavior. Just as animals ranging from flies to mammals show consistent (though not universal) patterns of male/female differences in sexual behavior — differences explainable by sexual selection — so I expect the human lineage evolved similar patterns. After all, males are larger and stronger than females, and you have to explain that somehow. How do you do so without explaining evolved differences in behavior — probably based on sexual selection?

Yet the idea that males and females show evolutionary/genetic differences in behavior is also anathema in liberal academia, and for the same reason that population differences are anathema. Such differences, so the thinking goes, would support either racism (on the part of populations) or sexism (on the part of males and females). But of course that thinking is false: we can accept evolved differences without turning them into social policy. And it’s of interest to many evolutionists, including me, to know the extent to which groups and sexes have evolved along divergent pathways.

Still, many feminists, liberals, sociologists, and cultural anthropologists deny any such divergence. Yes, men and women differ in body size, strength, and structure, but there are, so they say, no such differences in the brain and behavior. In all other traits, so the trope goes, men and women are equal.  And given equal interests and talents, then the only thing enforcing anything other than a 50% representation of men and women in professions must be cultural pressures: viz., sexism. Thus, unequal representation in professions is prima facie evidence of sex discrimination.

Remember this whenever you see academic research or opinions on the subject of racism or sexism. Only one view is tolerated, and that view is completely contrary to the facts and common sense.

Obama to create a new racial category

I have readers who wonder about Jews being classified as non-white. I only say that because so many Jews classify themselves as non-white. Now the Obama administration has endorsed classifying Israeli Jews as non-white:

White House wants to add new racial category for Middle Eastern people

Gregory Korte, USA TODAY 3:24 p.m. EDT October 1, 2016

WASHINGTON — The White House is putting forward a proposal to add a new racial category for people from the Middle East and North Africa under what would be the biggest realignment of federal racial definitions in decades.

If approved, the new designation could appear on census forms in 2020 and could have far-reaching implications for racial identity, anti-discrimination laws and health research.

Seems logical to me, if you are a leftist seeking to exterminate white Christians.

Under the proposal, the new Middle East and North African designation — or MENA, as it's called by population scholars — is broader in concept than Arab (an ethnicity) or Muslim (a religion). It would include anyone from a region of the world stretching from Morocco to Iran, and including Syrian and Coptic Christians, Israeli Jews and other religious minorities.

It would also include ppl who say their ancestors came from there, so that would include most Jews. Many of this new category look white to me, but I guess they can be recruited to the non-white side in the war against whites.