Alt-Right, Politics, Top Stories

What the Alt-Right and Regressive Left Have in Common

The world is getting harder to understand. Although science has never been more successful at revealing the contours of the world – where we came from, what kind of creature we are, which forces govern the objects around us – the difficulty of processing new information continues to grow. Science is not the accumulation of indisputable facts, but a panoply of interwoven theories, each with different degrees of support, and each revealing a slightly different aspect of reality.

Apart from ideas intended to explain where we came from and what we are like, people seek teleological answers to their questions. They want to know why, in some deep sense, they are alive at all – why they should get up and go to work, get married (or not), have children (or not). They want to know who they should associate with, and what principles they should stand for.

In the struggle to unify disparate facts and values, and to answer questions concerning how we should live, it helps to have a theory of everything. Traditionally, religious institutions have supplied this theory. Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity, for example, tell us who to worship, how to spend our days, and what will happen after we die. They offer instruction manuals and grand unified theories wrapped in a single book.

In many parts of the West, politics has taken the place of religion in producing an all-encompassing explanation of world events, a reason to get up in the morning, and a promise of salvation. Some even see the state as a kind of God, thinking that if only the right people come to power, we’ll all prosper.

Many people are attracted to political ideologies that provide them with a simple recipe for how to live their lives and how to understand the world. They encourage each other with increasing zeal to root out heretics, and wage war against infidels. True believers do not welcome skeptics. They burn them.

Ideological Dogmas, Left and Right

I want to examine two pieces of dogma – one from the regressive left, another from the alt-right.

As Bo Winegard recently argued, many on the radical left are committed to a kind of cosmic egalitarianism which manifests itself in the religiously held dogma that evolution cannot have produced group differences in socially valued traits, because that would be cosmically unfair. Instead of being open to evidence that genetics may partially explain such differences, many leftists construct increasingly exotic and untestable theories for why it is that in countries with a relatively high level of equality of opportunity, different groups still end up exhibiting different outcomes.

Their main explanation is oppression. And while oppression is real, especially in past societies, it has become an explanation for all achievement gaps. The increasingly expansive way in which terms like “white supremacy” and “Islamophobia” and “misogyny” are used, and the frequency with which they are hurled at political opponents, are symptoms of a deeper cause. They signify the extent to which some people are under the sway of something like a conspiracy theory. No matter what the evidence, they are convinced that achievement gaps are best explained by oppression, or its remnants.

On the alt-right, it has become fashionable over the last few years to recycle a trope from 1930s Germany: “The Jewish Question” (to which the Holocaust was supposed to be “The Final Solution”). The contemporary version of the question concerns why Jews have so much influence in cognitively demanding occupations, including science, medicine, law, and politics. Although the “JQ” (as alt-righters call it) has a mundane answer, many subscribe to elaborate theories to account for the fact that most Jews don’t conform to the stereotype alt-righters expect them to.

For example, when a scholar documents the fact that 4 out of the 10 speakers at an inaugural white nationalist conference were Jewish, along with a vast array of other evidence that conflicts with alt-right dogma, the predictable response by people in the grip of an ideology is that Jews do this to create a smokescreen: it provides cover for all of the other Jews who plot against white nationalists.

To take a related example, many alt-righters blame the Iraq war on Jews. Rather than focus on the fact that the architects of the Iraq War who had the most political power were not Jewish – President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Colin Powell, and most members of Congress – alt-righters focus on those Presidential advisers who were Jewish – Paul Wolfowitz, for instance. Similarly, rather than attributing responsibility to Swedish and German leaders for encouraging the mass migration of Africans and Arabs into Europe over the past few years, many alt-righters find a way to blame Jews who barely exist in those countries, and who are not in positions of political power.

Self-Sealing Ideologies

Neither the “Jews cause all my problems” claim nor the “racial/gender oppression is everywhere” claim is a literal conspiracy theory. Most people who buy into them don’t think Jews or white men (respectively) secretly meet in smoke-filled rooms and devise sophisticated strategies for dominating the world. Instead, these theories resemble traditional conspiracy theories in sealing themselves off from any possible counterevidence.

The philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong calls theories like this “self-sealing” to indicate that although they are internally coherent, they are essentially immune to refutation, and therefore non-scientific. Self-sealing theories typically invoke ad hoc hypotheses to show that any evidence against them can easily be dealt with by the theory itself, no matter how baroque or counterintuitive the assumptions become. In extreme cases, self-sealing theories reinterpret all apparent evidence against the theory as evidence in favor of the theory. The more damning the counterevidence appears to be, the stronger the theory! What looks like counterevidence is really just evidence of how clever white men are at oppressing women and Muslims, or just how clever Jews are at subverting Western societies.

In the case of misogyny, if a radical feminist is shown survey evidence that most men favor equality of opportunity, she might respond that they are fooling themselves, and that deep down most men are unconsciously motivated by misogyny, or participate in a society that has institutionalized misogyny. For example, when James Damore said he supported mild efforts at diversity in the workplace, but that average differences between the sexes probably explain why Google programmers are mostly men, he was dismissed as a misogynist by radical “progressives.”

Similar explanations occur in the case of race, where persistent gaps are blamed on our participation in a system of “white supremacy” – a system that paradoxically includes (in the United States and much of Europe) aggressive affirmative action programs for non-whites, extra tutoring support in many colleges for minorities, and free English-language classes for recent immigrants. As Nathan Cofnas has demonstrated, when political radicals in the grip of ideology are presented with evidence for heritable group differences, they typically find ways to dismiss that evidence on moral grounds, rather than confronting it and thinking through the consequences.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Self-sealing theories resemble many conspiracy theories in making self-fulfilling prophecies. That is, they make predictions about a state of the world, and the prediction is more likely to come true because of the content of the prediction. Consider the prediction by some on the alt-right that most Jews will never join their movement, since Jews are the kinds of people who thwart European interests. When they are presented with evidence that a surprising number of Jews helped spearhead their movement, or consider themselves members of it, or defend the cultural heritage of Europe, they deny that these are “real” or “representative” Jews.

When someone on the regressive left predicts that most white men will not join their movement, they are correct. What kind of masochist would join a movement that focuses its energies on demonizing those who they predict will not join it? The prophecy is guaranteed to come true because the people who make it create the conditions for it to come true.

The alt-right and the regressive left need each other. In fact, they created each other, and without one side remaining radical, the other would dissolve. They are playing an individually satisfying but socially destructive game. Each member of one sect provokes people to join the other sect, and thereby legitimizes their own existence. If a group of people can convince themselves to sincerely believe that Islamic terrorism doesn’t exist because “Islam is a religion of peace” and “no true Muslim would murder innocent people,” the members of this group are either gullible or dishonest, and they are partly responsible for creating the conditions for an extreme ideological reaction.

If another group of people blames Jews for every problem in the world (and then confirms its suspicions when Jews don’t want to join their group!), they bear some responsibility for the predictable response by radical leftists who conflate speech with violence, and who try to shut down debate. Both sides are wrong, but they have a repulsive symbiotic relationship. The problem is likely to get worse until each of us looks in the mirror, confronts our own biases, and vows to change ourselves before we try to change the world.

 

Jonathan Anomaly is a core faculty member of the Department of Political Economy, and Assistant Professor in the PPEL Program, at the University of Arizona.

48 Comments

    • Robert Paulson says

      My thoughts exactly.

      The author also makes a mistake in attributing much of the leading of the Iraq war to the top leaders in the White House. The intellectual foundations of neoconservative foreign policy and interventionism were laid long before the Bush administration, and many of those people were Jews (as the alt-right would no doubt be quick to point out).

      Also, the alt-right has no political or institutional power and is completely marginal, confined to internet comments sections and forums. The radical left controls major institutions and its adherents are rapidly infiltrating positions of authority across our society.

      • Steven says

        Our President is a strong supporter of the alt-right; who are slavishly devoted to him.

        Trump literally said a bunch of violent thugs at the Charlotseville hate speech rally were “very fine people”.

        • Robert Paulson says

          Lemme guess, he’s also a Putin-Nazi-White-Supremacist who receives orders *directly* from the Kremlin and who is Literally Hitler (TM).

          I doubt Trump even knows what the alt-right is. He’s a reactionary in the purest sense – he sensed the media (which he hates) wanted him to address Charlettesville in a certain way, and so he did the opposite. He also pointed out the inconvenient fact that no matter how much you hate the alt-righters at the rally, there WERE “violent thugs” on both sides. Pointing this out does not make one an alt-right sympathizer.

          • Steven says

            As I never said any of that, I find it interesting your mind goes there.

            Trump apparently knows that violent thugs advocating genocide are “very fine people”; which is one of the many things he “knows” that happen to be false. He pointed out the fact that he supports violent, hateful thugs advocating for genocide. You can try to explain this away as much as you like: he clearly allied himself with nazis. These are the facts, not to be confused with alternative facts.

          • Robert Paulson says

            All you have is rhetoric without meaning. I haven’t actually made any claims to fact, so your incessant accusations of peddling “alternative facts” are total non sequiturs. I merely stated the *opinion* that I don’t think Trump knows anything about the alt-right and just reacts to the media.

            You keep claiming he called the Charlettesville crew “very fine people.” Please provide sources so I can a) verify he actually said this, and b) read the context in which he said it. It sounds to me more of Trump blurting out something stupid (not exactly unusual for him) rather than consciously being a in support of neo-Nazis.

        • Robert Paulson says

          “He pointed out the fact that he supports violent, hateful thugs advocating for genocide.”

          This is pure projection and hyperbole. Find me a quote where he *explicitly* states his support for genocide. And I mean explicitly, not your paranoid interpretation of something else he said or did.

          If anybody is peddling in “alternative facts” it is you. I want to see exactly where he said, verbatim “I, Donald J Trump, support violent hateful thugs advocating genocide.”

          • Steven says

            ” Find me a quote where he *explicitly* states his support for genocide. ”

            I never said Trump advocates for genocide, I said he explicitly made a statement supporting people who advocate for genocide. Please read my comments before responding to them.

            He said the genocide advocating, violent thugs at the Charlosttseville hate speech rally were “very fine people”. These are the facts, go peddle your alternative facts to those who choose to remain willfully ignorant.

  1. Sam says

    Never thought of it like this. Goes to show that extremism on either side is foolish.

  2. Jachin says

    Interesting. I think that this is an excellent piece. There are, however, some points that I would differ with you on. One is that I think that you attempt to make the alt-right much larger than it actually is. The alt-right is a fringe movement with perhaps a few thousand hardcore proponents, magnified by the presence of Social Media, a 24/7 news cycle, and the recent election of some possible political allies. This ushers into the second point, which is that I do not believe that the far left and the alt-rigt are comparable in terms of impact or in terms of ideological polarity. First, the far left is actually on the left; the alt-right is not on the right. This is because the far left applies all leftist concepts liberally and equally to all possible scenarios, while those who are more moderate on the left abondon some of their philosophical positions when the consequences seem absurd. The alt-right, however, does not apply any right wing concepts to their philosophical extent. Does the alt-right stand in defense of free market capitalism? No, but the right does. Does the alt-right stand in favor of American military prowess? No, but the right does. Have any of the alt-rights intellectual leaders spoken in defense of gun rights, against government action in the daily lives of citizens, or against abortion? None of the things that the right talks about are mentioned as priorities in the alt-right, and vice versa. The only reason the alt-right is called alt-right is because it’s founder, Richard Spencer, wanted something to replace the right, which he supposed would die because it was unable to meet the needs of an increasingly tribalistic America. Secondly, the priorities of each group are not the same. The far left’s desire is to get as many groups of people under the banner of a specific condition, that is, oppression. In other words, the far left sacrifices perspicuity in terms of grouping in order to achieve the very specific end goal of having those who seem to be fortunate to apologize for their success. The alt-right is to get a very specific group of people, white people, into a very vague end goal, a European ethno-state, which for some reason, will be better than the America we have now. This is not to say specific is synonymous with well defined, in fact, race is an extremely difficult thing to define, because it has no basis in genetics. Are Chechens, Romas, Jews, or Albanians white? These groups, though they could say on public documentation that they are “white”, would they be considered as such? What I am attempting to stress here is that what you equate as polar opposites are not truly polar opposites, because they differ in purpose, polarity, and extremity.

    • Andrew Miller says

      You hold a very ignorant, ahistorical and parochial view of what it means to be on the right.

    • Andrew Miller says

      I suppose I should elaborate, although I will do so for wider elucidation, not because of any illusions that you personally will likely learn from it.

      Boiling away silly, temporary and provincial beliefs of rightists and leftists: leftism is the belief that social and economic inequality is unnatural and immoral, and that equality can be achieved if people want to achieve it. Rightism is the belief that inequality is natural and amoral, and that efforts to force unequal beings into a state of equality are immoral and usually if not always doomed to failure. It’s highly foolish to think that being right-wing requires extreme opposition to abortion rights; a bloated military budget and a belligerent, imperialistic foreign policy; and a commitment to neo-liberalism (disguised as “free-market capitalism”, which itself is not inherently right-wing). Even support for a broad individual right to bear arms, the only tenet of current-year GOP ideology I really support, can’t really be said to be inherently right-wing, as right-wingers in many times and places have not supported such a right.

      What you describe as right-wing is really just a bizarre, funhouse-mirror, hodgepodge ideology no less ridiculous (but much more self-contradictory) than the ideologies described in this article.

      • Big Al says

        @ Andrew Miller. “Right wing is what I say it is”?

      • Anomaly says

        Andrew, this attack is directed at a certain segment of the “alt-right,” not the right in general. And a segment of leftists who often call themselves “progressives.” It’s about a mode of (bad) reasoning that’s not sensitive to counter-evidence, not about any one ideology.

      • Jachin says

        I define the right as broadly as possible, in order to demonstrate that the alt-right is not on the right political spectrum. Historically, the right is associated with those who value tradition over any new and progressive idea, because the conservatives believe that the old ideas are better than the new ones. This is highlighted in the event where the left and the right became popular political descriptions: the French Revolution. When Louis XVI called together the Estates General, those who sat on the right were interested in keeping the existing cultural and political institutions, while those on the left were interested in changing those institutions. While you are correct in implying that the right is not often neoliberal, it is incorrect to say that the American right is not firmly pro-Capitalist, because the right regards this as an insitution that is intertwined within the framework of American traditional values. Thus, because the alt-right is an almost uniquely American phenomenon, it can be said that the alt-right is not right wing at all.

    • Does the alt-right stand in defense of free market capitalism?

      When someone proposes an alternative, yes.

      I’ve yet to hear an alt-righter say ‘capitalism isn’t working, maybe we should give socialism or anarchism a shot.’

      We live in a capitalist society; alt-righters don’t have to fight for capitalism because it’s our societies default setting. As soon as someone voices even the slightest Bernie-style move towards redistribution they lose their shit. Most of them think Obamacare was Stalinist.

    • David J says

      Excellent comment and one which adds greatly to the article itself.

      • David J says

        I was referring to Jachin’s long comment above.

  3. Nat says

    Wish the author should have taken time to add the conspitorial and irrational features of the center like the #resistance and #nevertrump. The collective delusion among the educated elites that Trump could never be president, and the transparent dishonesty of “rational” camps like the Upshot will go down in history as an example.

    Also the alt-right and gender extremists are easy targets. Why not take on transatlanticism or neoconservatism?

  4. Darren, nottingham says

    The JQ crosses both the left and the right. The better parts of the alt right spend no time on it. It’s a sign of weakness.

    • Fattyfatman says

      Without spending time on it, the alt right is completely ignored by the media. Without media attention, there is no alt right. It’s hard to argue that the alt-right is anything more than a media phantasm (and I would argue a leftist one at that).

    • Yeah, anti-Semitism seems to be the link between the point of agreement between the alt-right and the regressive left. I think leftwing anti-Semitism might be more dangerous because of its insidiousness; generally, rightwing anti-Semitism is very transparent.

  5. John Malcolm says

    Ah so the alt right and the far left are the same guys! Apart from being totally different in every way.

    They believe in equality we believe in hierarchy. They believe in state control, we believe in private property. They believe in more military intervention we believe in less. We believe in tradition they hate it. We debate people they don’t, We like white people they hate them.

    But the alt right talks about the JQ! Oh the horror! The horror!
    The alt right does not believe that all our problems are caused by Jews, just that their influence is relevant and we should be allowed to talk about it.
    Funny how they simultaneously accuse the alt right of hating Jews and of ‘being infiltrated’ by them, without seeing the contradiction.

    • Big Al says

      The alt-right and the far left are in fact very similar. At their core, they focus on grand victimization narratives. “The reason you can’t meaningfully participate in the 21st century economy is _______” fill in enemies list. Both groups have their hands out for welfare, with the alt-right specifically looking for welfare for whites. I don’t see the alt-right as conservative in any way. It’s not enthusiastic about any of the tenets of classical liberalism, it’s hostile towards Christianity, it appeals downwardly mobile whites who aren’t able effectively to manage marriage and other familial relationships effectively and who thus can’t be advocates for these values, etc. etc. etc. Richard Spencer wants single payer. I also think that the degree to which the alt right relies on postmodern haziness has been under-commented on given that the flirtations with fascism and Nazism are edgier and much more exciting for the media to focus on. The alt right just winks away facts and history like the post-modernists. Anyways, I was unlucky enough to be up close for Al Sharpton in his prime. The alt right is Al Sharpton-ism for white people – it’s the same mix of palms-out demagoguery, malice, mau-mauing, and media whoring. And I think in its better moments, the alt right acknowledges this.

      • semitfatman says

        Always keep in mind that it is big lie propaganda that Nazis are on the “right.” And, as you point out, Spencer’s alt-right is not really on the political right either.

        IMO we do need a legitimate alternate right, one that battles explicitly against the Marxists, globalists, and establishment Republicans in the US. Small ‘L’ liberals are in this alt-right IMHO. As are the left-behind Democrats. MAGA is to the left of alt-right, but at least on the correct end of the spectrum.

        ~ Vox Day’s alt-right ~ (search) comes pretty close IMO, with a few warts here and there.

    • Danny says

      There’s a difference between “being allowed to talk about” something and being obsessed with it. See Kevin MacDonald’s twitter feed and articles, and read Anomaly and Cofnas’s last Quillette piece (and the comments that follow it), and then tell us that alt-right leaders aren’t obsessed with Jews.

      If you’d *like* the alt right to dispense with their obsessive focus on Jews, good for you. While you’re at it, let the extremists on the regressive left know that it’s okay to talk about genetic differences between individuals and groups. Then maybe we can have the level-headed conversation you seem to think already exists. Until then, this critique is spot on.

    • Günter says

      Were it that was the case. The alt right, as defined in this piece anyway do in fact blame almost all of the West’s problems on Jews. They don’t say “look there is some Jewish influence here.” Everybody acknowledges that. They say “Jews control our society and hate whites and are trying to kill us off.” If you don’t believe me check the comments on Anomaly’s last piece for Quillette, or better yet, the comments on Jordan Peterson’s recent piece on “the JQ.”

      The intellectual forefathers of the alt right, generally being erudite men of profound intelligence, are not nearly as obsessed with Jews. Unfortunately the run-of-the-mill alt right is largely a movement of fanatical trolls who spend most of their time online complaining about, when not directly threatening, Jews.

      • Softclocks says

        It seems only natural that the displaced members of a majority group should be envious of the successful few of a minority. Though I imagine they have precious little evidence of an illuminati type conspiracy there is a wealth of “evidence” indicating that jewish individuals are at the forefront of negstive media, academia and policies directed at the so called angry white men.

        Peterson, as many others, acknowledges white guilt as a factor in discouraging young white men. Who is promoting white guilt?

    • Steven says

      I love the way alt-righters trivialize anti-semitism. Blind, ignorant hatred for Jews from a group that openly calls for genocide in the vein committed by the third reich is just some asinine free thought experiment. They just want to “be free to talk about” genocide: how could anyone dare to oppose such a thing! The horror! The horror!

  6. Fattyfatman says

    I have a bit of a different take on this. The alt right needs media oxygen and can’t survive without it. The idea of white ethno states in the US is preposterous in a very specific way: If I’m a white guy from a red state and I have a 130+ IQ and I could make a mid six figure salary in tech, law, medicine, business, etc. and live in a nice metropolitan area where there are lots of nice metropolitan women, why would I trade that in for retrograde and downwardly mobile options? There’s no way. I wouldn’t.

    So what are the alt-right’s real political ends? I think it’s just conventional identity politics. Mau-mauing the flak catchers for some white elephant “development” projects for the white working class. However, they can’t get there without the media attention. And warmed over anti-Semitism, even without being able to ground it factually, does the trick. Not too impressive if you think about it – even the Black Panthers managed to run a school lunch program.

    • ga gamba says

      If I’m a white guy from a red state and I have a 130+ IQ and I could make a mid six figure salary in tech, law, medicine, business, etc. and live in a nice metropolitan area where there are lots of nice metropolitan women, why would I trade that in for retrograde and downwardly mobile options? There’s no way. I wouldn’t.

      Using what I know of the alt-right I think they would answer: “The careers you mention will still exist – it isn’t a back-to-the-farm movement. Your employers are wasting money and time on diversity training and other empowerment schemes, and to make up for claimed demographic shortfalls and avoid PR messes certain groups are given a leg up – even with the power of extortion backing them up many can’t compete. This erodes the enterprise’s competitive strength and damages employee morale and esprit de corps, leaving it vulnerable to those that don’t embrace the diversity dogma. Your upper-class metropolitan area you live in abuts large swaths of mayhem and crime where the resentful underclass live; you avoid these areas most hours of the day and certainly at night, yet the underclass intrudes your areas to pillage. The tax you pay provides barely functioning services, and some of them such as public schools you wouldn’t dare send your children, so you end up paying once again to cover their private education. These supplemental costs, be they for the cocoon of guarded residences, private transport, etc. are a quasi tax. The nice women are narcissistic “roasties” ideologically possessed by third-wave feminism where men are the blame for all their (very minor) problems. If you don’t parrot their words you’ll find yourself shamed and shunned. People have traded stable and safe family-oriented genuine communities for individualistic cosmopolitanism.”

      This is a brief reply to your brief statement, and since I’m not of the alt-right I’m sure I’ve missed some important points, so I’m happy to be corrected.

      It’s interesting that the alt-right’s model countries are non-white Japan and South Korea, neither of which have embraced the diversity-is-our-strength mantra. Both these countries have many metropolitan areas as you describe without having the many problems found in their western counterparts.

  7. Craig says

    You’ve raised some good points here but you appear to have forgotten, or have ignored, that the regressive left hates Jews as much as the alt-right, albeith for different reasons. The alt-right hates Jews largely for reasons that you’ve outlined here although I would have emphasised the representation of Jews in the finance industry as a key reason for that resentment. Whereas the regressive left hates Jews for Israel’s perceived injustices against Palestinians, although I believe that to be simply a semi-respectable (in their opinion) cover for the left’s underlying bigotry.

  8. Steve says

    The problem with the ‘Alt-Right’ terminology, is that no one has bothered to define it. To many on the left, anyone to the right of their views is ‘Alt-Right’. To people on the right, the ‘Alt-Right’ is mostly composed of Gamergate morons, irreverent 4Chan pranksters, and a few thousand legitimately racist Richard Spencer acolytes. This renders the Alt-Right label virtually meaningless, since it means completely different things to different people.

    • Bill says

      Well put and the author stated as much by providing the provenance of the term as the racist Spencer types. Unfortunately, the term is thrown around as slander the same as the Nazi label. Anything to the right of Bernie Sanders = alt-right/Nazi it seems. The same with the fascist label. The youngster SJWs have learned that by throwing those terms out there you shut down speech and so they persist. They’ve bastardized sexual assault & rape as well as part of #metoo reducing it to the point that if any male makes eye contact they potentially face the backlash where the accuser takes the “anything more than making eye contact” and the peripheral listener hears Bill Cosby/Harvey Weinstein/Bill Clinton. The only thing entertaining about how absurd it has become is watching the leftist identity-pols eating their own as their cobbled together cliques of aggrieved compete to see who is MORE aggrieved.

  9. From a practical standpoint, I don’t think Jewish people would want to undermine liberal (classic type) western civilization even if they could. Ask the jews of Malmo if the destruction liberal mores in their city have made their lives better.

  10. Steven says

    The problem with this article is the inherent false equivalency.

    The alt-right’s hatred of Jews is based on nothing more than envy of success coupled with completely unearned feelings of superiority. If alt-righters can’t make money, succeed in life or accomplish much of anything: well those dastardly Jews must have conspired to keep them down! The fact that no evidence whatsoever exists to back this up is somehow irrelevant.

    Conversely, we have centuries of experience in which white Christian males did in fact conspire to keep minorities and women, Jews included, from succeeding. From racist segregation laws, to denial of voting rights, white Christian males worked incredibly hard to stack the deck in their favor. We are making great strides in equality, but expecting equal results when the playing field is only just recently becoming equal is ridiculous.

    The difference between the radical left and the alt-right is the radical left has clear, documented evidence for their conspiracy theories, the alt-right has nothing but blind hatred.

    • Baron von Gout says

      The alt-right’s main complaint about Jewish people isn’t an economic one. It’s not that they feel “kept down” by them.

      It’s that Jews often show a fundamentally different set of values than whites, especially when it comes to the need for immigration, diversity, “progress,” equality, sexual degeneracy, Marxism, and other measures intended to reshape white societies both socially and demographically. And they use their outsized influence, particularly in universities and the media, to push for these changes.

      A lot of alt-righters spend way too much time banging on about the JQ, but it’s not like they’re just making this stuff up. There’s a significant amount of documented evidence for all of it. It’s trivially easy to find.

Comments are closed.