Review: A FAIR HEARING
A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of its Members and Leaders, edited by George T. Shaw,
The Alt-Right became a part of the US political lexicon during the Trump-Clinton presidential campaigns, when Clinton, like Obama and Trotsky, wanted to appear as the peoples champion rather than the oligarchs choice. Looking about for a red-herring, a bogeyman and a scapegoat she or her scriptwriters chose the Alt-Right, a hitherto obscure, broad movement that could be depicted as a neo-Nazi or revived Klan threat because its agenda included white survival. Because Alt-Right pioneers were well-educated, articulate and presentable, and had their foundations prepared by the traditional Old Right that had become marginalized partly by the mainstreaming of the misnamed neoconservatives, there had been a fertilized ground from which the Alt-Right grew, rather than just cropping up from nowhere. These origins are often obscure in stating that the Alt-Right, as in Europe, is a New Right. It is actually, as Daniel Friberg, CEO of Arktos Media has stated in his own book the return of the real right. (Friberg, The Real Right Returns, Arktos Media Ltd., 2015). The Right does not need reinventing, it needs reiterating. What was called Right, especially in the Anglophone states, is a reanimation of Liberal-Whiggery that subverted and obscured the traditional Right. The Right is organic, Liberal-Whiggery and Communism alike disrupt organic bonds, the former with the fracture of individualism, the latter with the fracture of class, and both with the primacy of economics. Hence one now sees the revival of interest of Rightist philosophers such as Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola among the Alt-Right.
The interregnum between the traditional Right, which Dr. Paul Gottfried termed palaeoconservative to distinguish it from the bastardous misnomer, the neoconservatives, was maintained by certain traditional-Conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Sam Dixon, Jared Taylor, et al. The two latter are included in this anthology of Alt-Right activists and writers. The inclusion of a chapter from Dr. Gottfried would have perhaps been apt given that Dr. Kevin MacDonalds expertise on Jewish matters as they pertain to Western culture, are included, and Dr. Gottfried is an example of a Jew whose sincerity and contribution to the Right (whether called palaeo, true, real or Old) might only be questioned by the most obsessive Judaeophobes of which the Right, Old, Alt and New, has many, as distinct from a justified and rational Counter-Semitism, defined in George T. Shaws Alt-Right Counterrevolutionary Lexicon as suspicion of or distaste for Jewish behaviors and agendas as a response to initiatory hostile actions from Jews.
The Clinton-Psychotic alliance was trumped because Americans en masse saw Hilary as obnoxious, arrogant, and distant. She needed a scapegoat for her loss; or more than one, when we consider Russias alleged but elusive interference in the US elections, never mind that a vast network called civil society and mainly US based stretches over the world, and regards Russia as the primary target. (K R Bolton, Russias Fight against Globalisation, Black House Publishing, 2018).
The editor, George T Shaw, introduces this collection of essays with his chapter An Alternative to Failure. His immediate definition of Alt-Right is that of race survival for whites like any other distinct human population. This primary moral imperative of the Alt-Right is expressed as ethnostates, to which everyone is entitled. The Alt-Right as a US phenomenon is of course predicated on the American experience. Race separatism is long part of that heritage, and Sam Dixon, a Southern lawyer who bridges the time-factor between the Old Right and Alt-Right, is cited by Mr Shaw, who writes that the actual spiritual and philosophical struggle that has been taking place in America since World War II
has been racial. Shaw lists three fundamental, interrelated concerns of the Alt-Right: demographic destiny, the Jewish question, and white genocide. (Shaw, A Fair Hearing, xi, xii). The mainstream right has been inadequate in dealing with these questions, or really one big question; but a new generation has awoken to find demonized what were only a few generations ago normal values.
Gregory Hoods The New Kulaks: Whites as an Enemy Class, examines this demonization and marginalization of whites per se, as a social construct based on privilege and exploitation of people of color, without any other identity, in contrast to all others, whose identity assumes profound significance. (Hood, A Fair Hearing, p. 3). Such blind hatred leads to irrational claims such as the notion of white privilege, and white itself becomes an insult. One might note that like identity politics for people of color, the appendage of white privilege was unknown to the Left until recently. Friedrich Engels, in writing of the poor of Britain, did not see anything of white privilege. And to conclude that the White working class has tagged along with the oligarchy, or that the oligarchy has any loyalties other than to money, is typical of the way the Left has historically served the interests of money, as Spengler pointed out in The Decline of the West , Prussianism and Socialism and The Hour of Decision, decades ago.
So pervasive is the obliteration of whiteness that even when a supposedly conservative columnist, Brendan ONeill, argues in The Spectator that the term white men has become the most dehumanizing insult of our times, he explains that he does not want to be called a white man, as he searches for an identity that includes those of different color or gender. (Hood, A Fair Hearing, p. 5). Mr ONeil began with the Revolutionary Communist Party in Britain and shifted to become a libertarian, as many Communists did. He writes also for the American Conservative, and some of it is quite good. Ultimately libertarianism is not Right as race is a collective entity, prompting Ayn Rand to call racism the lowest form of collectivism. (Rand, Racism, 1963, https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/more/Racism). Hood continues that white identity is conceded only so far as there is white privilege. Hood sees this as paralleling the Stalinist demonization of the kulaks as the exploitative wealthy farmers who required eliminating as class enemies. White privilege inexorably leads to white supremacy and to genocide, according to this line. Hence, even the most gutless mob action of Antifa, and the cry of no platform of Nazis, can be rationalized as a purely defensive measure for the good of humanity. Deconstructing a groups identity as entirely negative is a precursor to politically, economically, and physically destroying that group. (Hood, p. 8).
One might also ask, when the class warriors of the Left cry that white racism is divisive, and has no place in a plural, democratic society, as per the present brouhaha about letting Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux into Australia, Britain, and New Zealand, to speak about multiculturalism, what exactly is class struggle if not divisive? Indeed, what is multiculturalism if not intrinsically divisive, when the name itself refers to a multiplicity of cultures within a given ecological niche, where in any other niche one would expect conflict over resources? Such awkwardness is answered with doublespeak phrases such as unity in diversity. The Left, having also jumped onto the ecological bandwagon in recent decades, despite their ideological foundation being that forces of social production transcend nature, now claim that mankind must be part of the eco-system, like any other species. However, when it comes to intra-species competition within an eco-system, the Left revert to their 19th century theories about social production and mankind suddenly rises about nature Faustian style.
Click for Full Text!