They say that politics is downwind of culture. This means that something has to be commonly accepted by a critical mass of people as a “thing” before a politician can safely point to this thing and call it such. Politicians can afford to say only what their constituents allow them to say, so being ahead of the curve can often be ill-advised for someone who wishes to win elections.
On Friday, September 9th, as Hillary Clinton was addressing a crowd of a thousand at an LGBT fundraiser in New York City, she condemned half of Donald Trump’s supporters as “irredeemable.” The money quote, the one pounced upon most by the conservative media, was this: “To just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.” She then accused Donald Trump of lending credence to such people. “And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million.”
Make no mistake, she was talking about white people, more specifically, the Alt Right.
While boosting Alt Right websites by three orders of magnitude was clearly an exaggeration, Hillary was not saying anything her supporters didn’t already know in their hearts. These are all truisms on the Left. Hillary may have been politically unwise to utter them publicly, but she certainly wasn’t ahead of the curve. And along this curve, the race-realist, identitarian, white nationalist crowd (many of the folks visiting this website and reading this article, that is) are considered to be anathema, subhuman even.
I’m reminded of Stalin’s opinion of the kulaks (“an accursed enemy of the collective farm movement”) which he used as an excuse to murder or deport them by the millions in the early 1930s. Kulaks were essentially peasants who were successful enough at farming to own property, either land, equipment, or livestock, and often not much of it. For such bourgeois selfishness, they had to go. Chairman Mao expressed it more succinctly of non-party people: they have no soul. I’m sure this made it easier for him and his followers to look the other way as tens of millions of Chinese peasants starved to death in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
“Irredeemable” was Hillary’s word, but the notion has been with her followers for years now. Remember how Hillary opposed gay marriage and once proposed a physical barrier between the United States and Mexico? She said these things not because she believed them, but because her constituency at that point was still conservative enough to prevent her from saying anything else. Now that her constituency has slouched Leftward, Hillary can get away with saying what she really believes.
This is not to say that Hillary if elected president will go on a murderous rampage against the Alt Right. But her inheritors in 20 or 30 years just might. And why not? To these people we are “irredeemable.” Nothing, not re-education, not ideological indoctrination can fix that. Once upon a time, a Barack Obama could blame a Democratic defeat on his party’s lack of a clear message. Now, according to the Democratic nominee, we (the Alt Right, that is) are simply lost. No amount of messaging is going to change that. This is why Hillary’s comment is so remarkable. She’s not even interested in winning our vote. She has no intention of leading us at all.
Has any conservative ever been this callous towards his fellow Americans? True, in 2012 Mitt Romney claimed how 47% of America would never vote Republican because they were dependent upon government. Unlike Hillary’s statements, however, Romney’s was objectively verifiable, more or less correct, and, most importantly, not a subjective condemnation. For Romney, this 47% would theoretically be more open-minded to a Romney presidency if they were to free themselves from the paternalistic shackles of government. In other words, they are redeemable.
Another example from recent memory that I can think of is Secretary of State James Baker who, in 1992, said of the Jews, “Fuck them. They didn’t vote for us.” This was in response to Jewish dissatisfaction with Bush 41’s support of liberal Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin and to Jewish complaints of Baker’s relatively anti-Israel attitude. Yes, this wasn’t a nice thing to say. However, it really was no different than Barack Obama’s “I won,” comment. To the winner goes the spoils. If the Jews yearned for more influence on Republican policy vis-à-vis Israel, they should have voted Republican. It’s not like the Republicans didn’t try to woo the Jewish vote in the 1970s and 1980s. They most certainly did, for all the good it did them. Parse Baker’s comment even further, and you ultimately reach the assumption that Jewish Americans would have deserved more seats at the table had they only played ball. Read: redeemable.
In any event, James Baker was not a presidential candidate on the stump during an election year. There was little riding on his comment at the time. What he said was positively timid compared to what Democratic candidates have been saying to their constituents about conservative Americans for years now. For example, we need to “get in their faces” (candidate Barack Obama), and Republicans are “terrorists” (Vice President Joe Biden). And so it goes today. While Donald Trump has made concerted efforts to court Hillary supporters (blacks, gays, Hispanics, and the Bernie Sanders crowd, mostly), Hillary will do no such thing.
Now, let’s fast-forward a bit. Writing off the Alt Right’s chances of redemption is acceptable now because the number of people who agree with this sentiment is large enough to withstand blowback from those who don’t. And as this number continues to grow, so will the number of people who believe even worse. I predict in the future, Democrats will be proposing automatic prison sentences for those who espouse racialist or race-realist positions. They already think nothing of ruining the lives and careers of such people. Just ask Jared Taylor or Kevin MacDonald. It goes beyond race, as well. Prominent liberals have discussed the prospect of criminalizing global warming skepticism and have done what they could to bury under litigation any business that has the temerity to refuse services for gay weddings. If you look also at the absolutist manner in which young liberals behave on campuses these days, with their so-called “safe spaces” and “free speech zones,” not to mention their childish protests whenever conservatives come to campus to speak, it’s impossible to be sanguine about our future.
It goes without saying, of course, that the vast majority of the victims of this oppression will be white. White Americans are indeed the kulaks of the present day.
I’d like to call this phenomenon the Great Unraveling. It began, fittingly enough, 15 years ago to the day on which this article was written. After the 9/11 attacks, the rift between Left and Right began to widen. 9/11 was an event which could bear no reconciliation. Either you had sympathy with the terrorists or you didn’t. Typically, people on the Right viewed the attack in the same way most of America viewed the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, as a cowardly provocation to war. On the other hand, people on the Left tended to promote restraint and pacifism given their own anti-American stances. These people may have condemned the attacks, but at the same time they recognized justice behind them. Of course, this is a thumbnail portrait which neglects to include the entire truth. You did have Right-wing isolationists and Left-wing patriots (including, at the time, Senator Hillary Clinton), but in general I think this is how everything went down.
Since then, both Left and Right have bifurcated further. A good chunk of the Left has gone from supporting a war in Afghanistan at least to openly negotiating with and sending funds to Iran, one of the greatest sponsors of anti-American terrorism the world over. On the other hand, the Alt Right has led to a split among conservatives, leaving behind the neoconservative, nation-building coalition of the George W. Bush GOP. Expect all this to continue as radical positions become more and more acceptable in public discourse.
One major difference, however, is that the Left is much farther along on this path to radicalism than the Right is.
Yes, Donald Trump has been calling for a wall between the United States and Mexico. He has also been calling for a suspension of immigration from Islamic countries. But this is not terribly radical in that he is only seeking the commonsense nation-preserving measures which Mexico and all Muslim countries follow already. He is not promising mass deportations of Mexicans who live legally in the United States. Nor is he demanding a permanent ban on Islamic immigration. To the right of Trump you do have the Alt Right, which, frankly, is attempting to reestablish white identity and wishes to eventually purge most non-whites from white ancestral nations. But even these people are less bellicose and less radical than what has become the mainstream Democratic Party. In the main, for a group that has been calling for drastic changes to the current order, the Alt Right has been remarkably restrained in its rhetoric. It’s also important to remember that while the Alt Right supports Trump almost to a man, it’s not so much the other way around. Trump is not the Alt Right, and the Alt Right is not Trump. We on the Alt Right are nowhere near as mainstream as our counterparts on the Left.
Aside from all the street violence and campus rioting we’ve seen exclusively from the Left, Hillary and Bernie Sanders have been pandering to the Black Lives Matter crowd and other anti-white organizations as well as to both Muslim and Latin America pro-immigration groups. They, in a sense, are the polar opposite of the Alt Right, yet, unlike us, they operate center stage of American politics. They presently have far move cultural power than we do, which is why Hillary thinks she can get away with calling us irredeemable and deplorable and the like.
I believe the November elections will be a wake-up call for liberals when they see how easily Donald Trump traipses into the White House. At that point, the Left will become even more radical and even more violent. Folks on the Right will have no choice but to drift further into the Alt Right camp just to be able to resist. At that point, we will be the ones calling them irredeemable and deplorable.
While this will definitely be a much-needed boon for the Alt Right (and a good thing at that), I truly dread the fierce confrontation between Left and Right which will dominate American politics and American life in the years to come.