Long-read

The alt-right: identity politics on steroids

Today's white nationalists draw inspiration not from the Nazis, but from the identitarian left.

Nikos Sotirakopoulos

Share

Over the past five years, the ‘alt-right’ has been one of the most abused terms in Anglo-American political discourse. The label has been used to refer to a range of figures, from US president Donald Trump to best-selling psychologist Jordan Peterson, from any member of Boris Johnson’s cabinet to full-blown neo-Nazi thugs and avowed racists.

This stretching of the term is not only disingenuous — it is also dangerous. By making the alt-right a mundane catch-all smear, the hideousness and danger of the actual alt-right is hidden.

Such intellectual laziness has another negative outcome: it fails to understand the deeper reasons that gave breathing space to the alt-right. Because if we scratch the surface, we are in for a surprise: the alt-right is not the resurrection of Nazi Germany or the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, but the unwitting by-product of some of the dominant mainstream ideas of our time.

Over the past decade we have witnessed the development of various forms of anti mainstream conservatism and even a countercultural right. But the alt-right is a distinct phenomenon. It has certainly been a fellow traveller of the countercultural right, hence the appropriation of the term ‘alternative’ from 1960s hippiedom. And it received an initial boost by associating itself with the transgressive ethos and euphoria around Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Yet the alt-right should not be confused with people like Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, and other noisy figures and provocateurs who have been at the forefront of the culture wars. Rather, what differentiates the alt-right from the rest of the transgressive, anti-mainstream right is its distinctive racial worldview. And at the centre of its racial worldview lies white nationalism.

For the alt-right, whiteness refers to an identity, to a culture, and to a race. Richard Spencer, the 41-year-old godfather and de facto spokesperson of the current alt-right movement, sums up this worldview as follows: ‘Race is real. Race matters. Race is the foundation of identity.’ This is why the alt-rightists proudly declare themselves to be ‘identitarians’.

White nationalist Richard Spencer speaks to select media in his office space on 14 August 2017, in Alexandria, Virginia.
White nationalist Richard Spencer speaks to select media in his office space on 14 August 2017, in Alexandria, Virginia.

According to the alt-right identitarian worldview, identity, in terms of one’s race, culture and heritage, defines who one is. This would mean that there is a white culture, a white history and, therefore, a white worldview; in short, a white mind. This is race tribalism at its purest. According to this view, individuals see themselves, others and the world around them through the prism of the group – in this case, the racial group. Using such a worldview, other groups are viewed with suspicion, or even hostility, and communication with them is difficult. After all, they have their own distinct worldviews and minds.

Do these themes sound familiar, and have we heard them elsewhere? As we will shortly see, the answer is yes.

Since different groups of people think, act and view the world in different ways, the next logical step, politically speaking, is segregation. Thus, Spencer and others in the alt-right movement envision the establishment of a white ethno-state, where the white race can fulfil its destiny. Such an ethno-state will be built on traditionalist values, and will reject many of the tenets of a supposedly alienating modern world.

Predictably, Spencer and the alt-right are sceptical of Enlightenment ideas and critical of the gains of modernity. The modern, Enlightenment view of individuals as sovereign agents, capable of making sense of the world through reason, which is universal and unrelated to race or identity, stands against everything that the alt-right stands for. Being philosophically opposed to individual agency and autonomy, most alt-rightists even have a disdain for capitalism, insofar as it manifests a form of individual freedom. As Spencer said in a video now removed from YouTube (as most of the material related to the alt-right tends to be), ‘a nation based on freedom is just another place to go shopping’. Despite some of its prominent members flirting with libertarianism in the early days of the alt-right, its politics are small n-and-s national socialist, and they apply in one state: the white ethno-state.

One of the ugliest parts of the alt-right, which links it to the dark tradition of national socialism, is its anti-Semitism. For Spencer, including Jews in the white ethno-state would be problematic, as ‘the preservation of their identity as Jews was and is contingent on resistance to assimilation, sometimes expressed as hostility towards their hosts’. Another alt-rightist is overt in his hate towards Jews: ‘When any element of the organised Jewish community is the counterparty in an agreement, like the fable of the frog and the scorpion, the compulsion towards betrayal, even against allies, is irresistible for the Jew.’ (1)

One might wonder how the sewer of history broke, and such ugly and vile racist views resurfaced. The answer is not that it is a resurrection of national socialism, or of older forms of white supremacy and racism. Its members might view such movements sympathetically, and consider themselves heirs to their legacy. But the alt-right is a distinctive 21st-century phenomenon. This is because the worldview of the alt-right is the logical result of the dominant ideology in the West today — namely, tribalism. Spencer’s talent, such as it is, lay in his ability to adapt his racist message to the prevailing cultural climate of our times. Thus, the alt-right is focusing on two areas possessed of a strong currency in today’s politics: identity and victimhood.

We are constantly being told that our identity is special, that we should be proud of it, and that it makes us who we are. It tells us we are not sovereign individuals; rather, we are male, female, cis heterosexual, LGBT, BAME, minorities… the list goes on. The alt-rightists see this trend, nod approvingly, and simply add their identity to the list. We are white, they say, and this is who we are.

In this sense, the alt-right is entirely on trend, intellectually speaking. In academia, for example, racial thinking has also experienced a powerful revival in recent decades. But it has come back wearing a progressive face. Critical-race studies, and similar disciplines, tell us that colour-blindness is problematic, and that ‘whiteness’ is an inescapable predicament for white people. Indeed, critical-race theorists present whiteness as something close to a modern form of original sin.

The alt-right has seized on this revamped concept of race, and appropriated it for its own ends. In its hands, whiteness becomes something that must be defended. As Jared Taylor, a sixtysomething ‘race realist’ intellectual, who is popular in the alt-right movement, puts it:

‘What do you call a black person who prefers to be around other black people, and likes black music and culture? A black person. What do you call a white person who listens to classical music, likes European culture, and prefers to be around white people? A Nazi. All non-whites are expected to have a strong racial identity; only whites must not.’ (2)

Whiteness, here, has first been turned into an identity, and then into a source of pride, equivalent to blackness in mainstream identity politics. This shows how the promotion of identity politics by the progressive left has fuelled, and paved the intellectual ground for, the adoption of identity politics on the right.

This is why the identitarianism of the left has been a boost for the alt-right. As Spencer wrote in 2015:

‘Conservatives like to demean such things as “identity politics”, as just another car on the gravy train. But the reality is that leftists are engaging in the kind of ideological project that traditionalists should be hard at work on – the formation of “meta-politics”.’

By meta-politics, Spencer means the culture wars. He views this arena as a battle for cultural hegemony, a rightist version of the long march through the institutions, in which the alt-right aspires to turn its values and beliefs into the socially dominant values and beliefs. If all this sounds redolent of the thought of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, that’s because it is.

This is due to the strong ideological influence on the alt-right wielded by the French New Right (Nouvelle Droite), an intellectually peculiar movement that emerged during the 1960s, which argued that people should be segregated according to their ethno-cultural backgrounds, and subsequently set the tone for rightist identitarianism in Europe and the US (though it avoids some of the ugly racist overtones of the alt-right). Its leader, Alain de Benoist, was influenced not just by reactionary traditionalists (such as Italian thinker Julius Evola), but also by intellectuals associated with the New Left, including the Frankfurt School and, of course, Antonio Gramsci.

Some right-wing identitarians even call themselves ‘Gramscians of the right’. They understand well the importance of culture and of ideas in shaping the development and direction of society. And in a society in which the idea of identity plays such a prominent role, the alt-right has made itself firmly at home. The alt-right’s worldview could be characterised as identity politics on steroids.

Members of the alt-right clash with counter-protesters during the 'Unite the Right' rally, 12 August 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members of the alt-right clash with counter-protesters during the 'Unite the Right' rally, 12 August 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The other mainstream value the alt-right embraces is that of vulnerability, which is both a status requiring special recognition and a basis for political organisation. Ironically, it is perhaps more accurate to portray the alt-right as a white-vulnerability movement, rather than a white-supremacy one. After all, this is the ultimate justification for the alt-right’s dream of an ethno-state — namely, that it will provide a ‘safe space’, as Spencer himself puts it, for white people, threatened, as they allegedly are, by globalism and multiculturalism.

Indeed, Spencer, Taylor and others in the alt-right openly claim that other races have, on average, a higher IQ than whites. Such a claim would have been unimaginable for old-style white supremacists. But here it provides another reason as to why whites need their own racial ethno-state – because they are not as bright, as, say, Asian people.

Fortunately, a world of ethno-states is not going to happen anytime soon. The actually existing alt-right has always had a very limited appeal, despite many mainstream commentators and politicians boosting the actual size and threat of the movement. The ugliness of the Nazi-like parades, the Aryan salutes, and, most importantly, the horror show of the Charlotesville riots in 2017, which cost the life of a counter-protester, have delegitimised Spencer and his movement. In fact, many on the anti-establishment right have gone out of their way since Charlottesville to distinguish their position from that of the alt-right.

Yet, a danger remains. Until the tribalism and anti-humanism, so prevalent in mainstream culture, are properly challenged, a more sophisticated version of the alt-right could still have a wide appeal. This is why we need to challenge identitarian ideology as a whole. We need to challenge the idea that people are mere members of groups, and start seeing people as individuals again. Too often, someone starts a sentence by saying ‘as a person of…’ x race, or of y gender, or of z sexual orientation, ‘I think…’. We need to reply that we don’t think with our skin colour or our gender, but with our minds – minds that are universally capable of reason and sympathy.

We are constantly being told that our ethnicity, our gender, our upbringings and our culture define who we are. We need to stand up to this view, and defend our individual free will and our capacity to change our predicament. Only then, perhaps, will it be possible to change the world for the better. This is how we will defeat the alt-right and its misanthropy – through a defeat of tribal thinking and identitarianism in general.

Nikos Sotirakopoulos is a lecturer in sociology at York St John University and the author of The Rise of Lifestyle Activism: from New Left to Occupy. Follow him on Twitter: @Nikos_17

(1) ‘What the Alt Right Isn’t’, by P Le Brun, included in The Alternative Right, edited by G Johnson, Counter-Currents Publishing Ltd, 2018, loc, 1936

(2) ‘Race Realism and the Alt Right’, by J Taylor, included in The Alternative Right, edited by G Johnson, Counter-Currents Publishing Ltd, 2018, loc, 594

All pictures by: Getty.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Hugo van der Meer

4th May 2020 at 2:09 pm

Neo-marxist trots are the real danger. An undermining of nationalist identity and the vilifying of anyone whose antecedent history is Anglo-Saxon is the danger. The taking over of universities by racist snowflake paranoid megalomaniac student unions is the danger. The enemy is not the alt right, whatever that means, the real enemy of the islands of Albion are those that will not accept the way of life led by the indigenous peoples of these islands. Not fascists but the English, Scottish, Welsh. Nationalist movements will uphold the historical ancestral importance of life lived and for those who died to preserve that way of life. May our brave forefathers never be forgotten or disgraced by the false notions so prevalent and fomented by the soap dodging do gooders of Spiked.

Mor Vir

4th May 2020 at 9:12 am

This is straight to the head of Moxon.

All of the trade representatives of British capital have united to pile pressure on the TP to make sure that capital gets all of the workers that it needs from abroad after the end of the Brexit transition period and EU free movement.

Capital is quite clear that ‘taking back control’ of mi gration must be squared with the interests of capital. Capital welcomes that the TP has scrapped any notion of a limit to immi gration and that the TP has lowered any salary threshold.

British Capital wants effective influence over the new points-points based mig ration system to make sure that all sectors of the economy get all of the workers that it needs, including ‘low skill’, low wage workers. Indeed, that is the entire point of a points-based system.

Every business and every sector must get all of the workers that it needs, and any other consideration must be squared with that.

British capital is entirely united – CBI, CIPD, FSB, BCC, IoD and all of the others – in pushing for as much mig ration as the economy can support.

The British state is a capitalist state and it exists first and foremost to represent the interests of capital. That has meant the expansion of the domestic workforce in the post-imperialist era, after the loss of the Empire and the colonies that British capital previously relied on to expand labour and capital.

Mass immi gration is not a ‘Marxist conspiracy’, it is a British capitalist state strategy that is entirely intended to facilitate the interests of British capital. This society is based on the accumulation of capital, money-grabbing. The sole reason for mass imm igration has been money for British capital, just as that was the sole reason for imperialism and colonialism.

The metropole is the colony now, and indeed, what goes around truly does come around. So at least have the honesty to admit what has happened and what is going on. You are a British capitalist state loyalist, so own the strategy of your state and its consequences, and stop trying to ‘blame’ everyone else.

> Business unites on future immi gration system

Leading business groups and trade associations issue a joint call for a new immi gration system that delivers for firms of all sizes and sectors, across all UK regions and nations.

24 January 2020

In an open letter to the Home Secretary, the CBI alongside CIPD, FSB, BCC, IoD and over 30 leading trade associations offer government help with designing the new immi gration system.

The signatories welcomed recent indications from government about reducing the £30,000 minimum salary threshold and scrapping the net mi gration target, which have sent positive and important signals around the world that the UK is open for business.

The letter makes clear that business understands the immi gration system must change in order to re-build public confidence. It also outlines how business can provide insight to help build a new points-based system that both provides greater control, as well as access to the labour and skills needed to support the economy.

The letter sets out four key priorities that will help to ensure the new system works on day one for all UK regions and nations:

– A minimum salary threshold can work if it is set at a level that supports the economy and protects wages
– Flexibility for skilled workers to enter the UK through a points-based system
– A temporary visa route which supports all sectors of the economy
– A radically reformed sponsorship process in place for the first day of operation.

It concludes by highlighting the need for a simple, streamlined and affordable system that meets business’ needs of all sizes, sectors and across all UK regions and nations.

– CBI

steve moxon

4th May 2020 at 1:55 pm

Baloney ideo-nut conclusion as usual from this troll.
Uncontrolled mass immigration is the product of ‘identity politics’, not ‘capitalism”.
In any case, there is no such entity or agency as ‘capitalism’: there are all sorts and all sizes of entities engaging in trade — trade being a time-immemorial activity, which always produces surplus (incuidng for ‘the workers’ and even in the worst factories in history), entirely contrary to Marx’s contention.
Most lobbying for immigration of workers comes from zombie firms who cannot easily survive without cheaper and already-trained workers — the very sort of entities that lose out in the normal competition in commerce that you berate as ‘capitalism’!
Uncontrolled mass immigration is a political policy of Left backlash against the mass of ordinary people as a direct expression of the Left’s elitist-separatist hatred towards them.

Mor Vir

4th May 2020 at 3:26 pm

I repeat, British capital is entirely united – CBI, CIPD, FSB, BCC, IoD and all of the others – in pushing for as much mig ration as the economy can support.

Capital relies on the expansion of the labour force and on the health of all economic sectors. Capital is entirely untied in calling for unlimited mi gration, as much as the economy can absorb, both high and low skilled, and the TP has agreed to that. Capitalism in that political sense may be taken as the dominance within society of the organised interests of capital. Mass imm igration is a capitalist state strategy in the interests of capital, it has got absolutely nothing to do with Marxism. Be clear, ALL of British capital is united in calling for unlimited mi gration.

Who let in six million mi grant workers, three million net, over the last 10 years, Marxists or the TP? It is absurd to try to blame Marxists for the strategy of the capitalist state, behind which all of British capital is united and insistent.

Zombie firms are not an exception, the zombie-fication of the capitalist economy is universal across all ‘mature’ capitalist economies as profitability and productivity growth tend toward terminal zero. Regardless, capital has always relied on an expansion of the labour force for the expansion of capital since the beginnings of capitalism. The two cannot be separated.

Capitalism has not always existed. It is not defined as the presence of trade in a society but as the dominance of wage labour and trade as the dominant form of the organisation of productive activity within a society.

Just as socialism is not defined as the presence of sharing, or charity, or the Co-op, within a society but as the dominance of communal ownership and the dominance of the communal direction of the means of production. Otherwise you may as well say that socialism always existed b/c ppl have always shared stuff, in the family, the community and wider society. ‘And behold we would now live in a socialist society.’

Wage labour and trade were not the dominant form of productive activity for 1000 years under feudalism, nor for thousands of years under classical slavery. It is a modern economic system, capitalism, that was made possible by the development of the industrial means of production. Likewise, socialism will be realised only when communal ownership and direction become the dominant form of economic activity.

So yes, capitalism does exist as the dominance of wage labour and trade within our society. The British state is a capitalist state that exists first and foremost to politically facilitate the interests of capital. And capital is entirely united in calling for unlimited imm igration, which is essential to the interests of capital, as much mi gration as the economy can absorb – which is just what capital has long called for, since the loss of the Empire and the end of imperialism and colonialism.

You are the colony of capital now and you have no one to thank or to blame for that but the British capitalist state, organised capital and the state political parties like TP that are the political representatives of capital.

Marxists have no interest in mi gration. If anything mi gration helps capitalism to keep going. Capitalism will have run its course when it has run its course, and that has got nothing to do with Marxists any more than mi gration has. Marxists have no interest in hastening the demise of capitalism and if they did then they certainly would not actively support the very mi gration that allows capitalism to keep going.

steve moxon

4th May 2020 at 4:49 pm

Guffaw!
Labour REDUCTION has been the main trend.
Your completely false economic analysis is through blinding by extreme nonsense ideology.
There is no such entity or agency as ‘capitalism’: there is simply trade, as there has always been since prehistory, where both sides — and whether investors or workers — are in surplus. Surplus is WHY there is trade, and inherent in it. Trade is between two parties who each have a comparative advantage in producing what they are trading (directly or — via money– indirectly).
Commerce does NOT rely on some supposed infinite expansion of labour. On the very contrary, expanding labour rather than productivity leads to zombie firms that eventually have to give up the ghost. The British textile industry is a case in point, Instead of investing in new technology, the mill owners imported an Indian night shift, only to find that this merely put off the day when to be competitive they had to invest, by which time the threshold of cost was too high.

Mor Vir

4th May 2020 at 7:24 pm

You are the only person on this website who habitually relies on mockery Moxon, and I do not know what is going on psychologically there but please cut it out like a normal adult would. In any case the reliance does not bespeak confidence but a lack of it.

You have already been adequately answered on the character and historicity of capitalism.

In fact capitalism does rely on both an expansion of profits and a related expansion of labour. That much is empirically verifiable. The trend toward a reduction of labour through efficiency does not negate the more general trend to an expanded workforce. The expansion of the global economy itself is testimony to that. Capitalism as a profit-based economic system needs to constantly expand profits in order to function and to survive but technological improvements in efficiency are necessarily limited as development is gradual and costly; capitalism thus depends on the multiplication of production through expanded labour in order to increase profits rather than merely on the improvement of the quality of the means of production. Moreover, capitalism relies not only on production but on consumption; thus expanded profit can only mount from sales, which in turn requires an expanded wage pool, and thus an increased labour force. Thus capitalism relies on expanded labour both to compensate for the slow improvement and implementation of technology and to provide consumers to purchase goods.

Falling profitability does not result in general from zombie-fication, rather vice versa; the cycle is vicious but the long-term trend is caused by falling profitability. Lower profit rates cause lower rates of investment which leads to zombie-fication. The trend to zombie-fication is self-reinforcing. Generalised low profitability causes low investment which in turn causes low increase in wages, which allows a smaller increase in the value of sales, which leaves little to be gained by investment where it would otherwise be possible; thus zombie-fication increasingly spreads through the market as profitability falls. Thus zombie-fication causes an expansion of labour rather than vice versa. Again profits may only be increased on a market-wide scale through the employment of more workers to buy products with their wages; labour increase allows for the cheaper investment that a zombie-fied market can justify and it adds consumers to the market to consume products and to keep the cycle going.

In any case, however far one wants to take the detailed analysis, to volumes upon volumes of circles upon circles, the empirical trend is toward an increase in the labour force. Indeed ALL of British capital is united in demanding unlimited access to migrant workers. That is how British capital perceives and expresses its interests, so your argument is not with me but with British capital in its entirety. ALL of British capital agrees with me that the expansion and survival of British capital relies on an increase of labour and therefore on unlimited access to mi grant workers. Even if you disagree with the entirety of organised capital, that would still not change the fact that it is their interests, their demands, that have entirely driven mass imm igration into Britain. Your argument that it is a Marxist conspiracy would still be ridiculous.

In sum, organised British capital in its entirety agrees with me that the expansion and survival of British capital depends on an increase of workers and therefore on unlimited access to mi grant workers; you think that you know capitalism better than the entirety of British capital, and you have some ridiculous conspiracy theory that a tiny number of Marxist intellectuals have driven mi gration policy rather than organised British capital itself, even though it is empirically verifiable that CBI, CIPD, FSB, BCC, IoD and all of the other representatives of organised British capital have openly driven the strategy along with their state party representatives in TP and LP and that they continue to do so. It is a public fact. You may as well argue that the sky is not blue when everyone can see that it is. This is not so much a debate between me and you Moxon, it is public facts vs. your conspiracy theory.

steve moxon

4th May 2020 at 8:32 pm

?! There’s no “mockery”, just justified contempt towards you for your extreme ideological bindness and absence of knowledge about economics — and politics, or anything much.
Your cod analyses are bilge, in long posts of pointless lengthy blather.

steve moxon

4th May 2020 at 8:36 pm

?! There’s no “mockery”. Straight talk and no device is needed in justified contempt towards you for your extreme ideological blindness and absence of knowledge about economics — and politics, or anything much.
Your cod analyses are just blather.

Jean De Valette

3rd May 2020 at 11:14 pm

It was inevitable, once identity politics became a thing, that the understanding that whites would be excluded would soon be shattered.

And why shouldn’t white people have the right to identify as such, when other ethnic groups are encouraged by this ideology to do so?

The idea that there can be organisations exclusively for black police, black lawyers, black solicitors etc etc; that Louis Farrakhan, the Black Nation of Islam leader in the USA can with impunity call for a black state in the USA while similar arrangements for whites would be excoriated as ‘racist’, is an insufferable injustice.

The ideology behind it casts whites and only whites in white societies as capable of ‘racism’. In practice this casts white people as intrinsically evil. In practice it allows non-whites Carte Blanche to say what they want and behave as they please in social ways and allows them to play the race card if they feel offended.This is again utterly insufferable. it is grossly unjust andplain evil. It really does turn the indigenes in Britain into second class citizens in their own country, just as Enoch Powell predicted.

‘Fortunately, a world of ethno-states is not going to happen anytime soon.’ Really? Everywhere one looks, cracks along ethnic lines are appearing in multi-ethnic states. After the failure of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and (soon) the EU, the future is indeed ethno states, regardless of the plotting of authoritarian political classes. And the wishful thinking of libertarians. People need to belong; to have a home, and their DNA leads them to find that in others who share it as much as possible.. If our ethnicity, our gender, our upbringings and our culture don’t define who we are, what does, in secular terms?

Next, “Spencer, Taylor and others in the alt-right openly claim that other races have, on average, a higher IQ than whites’. That is certainly the finding of psychological testing by such as Arthur Jensen, J Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Hans Eysenck, Satoshi Kanazawa and others. These findings are traduced by egalitarians because, well, they are egalitarians.

As for ‘’When any element of the organised Jewish community is the counterparty in an agreement, like the fable of the frog and the scorpion, the compulsion towards betrayal, even against allies, is irresistible for the Jew.’’

I suggest that the author reads ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion’ by the Israeli Scholar Israel Shahak. He should be prepared to be shocked. He will find that those remarks merely reflect teachings in Judaism .

Martin Sewell

3rd May 2020 at 5:33 pm

The alt-right is not ‘identity politics on steroids’, it is a backlash against identity politics. Identity politics divides society into faux subgroups. One group, white male heterosexuals, supposedly has power over the other groups, ethnic minorities, females and gays. The alt-right is a white nationalist movement, which is an assertion of a natural in-grouping.

steve moxon

4th May 2020 at 9:06 am

Hi Martin. Yes indeed, it’s a backlash, and as such it is against the whole mindset of abstracted groupings as being political entities. So rather than being a counter in similar terms, it is a movement against ideology. Yes of course the nation state is an in-group: it’s about the limit to which a male sense of in-group can stretch. This doesn’t mean, though, that it’s the basis of any conservative rebellion against the imposition of the Left’s backlash against ordinary people. The so-called alt-right is simply a refusal to accept the Left’s oppression towards ordinary people; a rejection of what it is in terms both of its obviously unwarranted discriminatory effects and its political philosophy, without asserting nationalism or ethnicity per se. Yes, there are a few ‘white nationalists’ per se, but they’re very rare, it seems. I think it’s an important distinction, and not just folk trying to hide their true colours so as to avoid censure. Do you agree?

Steve Huckle

3rd May 2020 at 2:09 pm

My overriding emotion here was disbelief. Nevertheless, I can but admire the author’s creativity! Equating the politics of the alt-right with those of the progressive left is so fantastic, ordinary mortals would not even attempt it! That said, impressive though the imaginings of this work of fiction may be, it has to be called out for the nonsense that it is.

john Sullivan

3rd May 2020 at 5:32 pm

We need to establish some kind of award, perhaps named after the writer himself. Or, maybe the 100% Complete Lack of Self Awareness award?

Mor Vir

3rd May 2020 at 1:13 pm

This is for Moxon.

Are the ethnic Brits (EB) descended from a Mesolithic island population?

The answer is no. Brits are descended from three main ancient populations:

– a Mesolithic Western European hunter-gatherer population (WHG)

– an Early Neolithic Anatolian farmer population (EN)

– a Bronze Age Steppe pastoral population, Yamnaya (YNA).

The population on Britain during the Mesolithic was WHG.

The deep ancestry of the EB today is 45% EN, 41% YNA, 14% WHG. (Haak et al. 2015)

It does not follow however that 14% of EB ancestry is descended from Mesolithic islanders. The population of Britain was almost entirely replaced via the continent during the early Neolithic (Brace et al. 2019) and again during the Bronze Age (Olalde et al. 2017). The WHG in EB was brought over from the continent during the Bronze Age. EB have zero, or close to zero, ancestry descended from Mesolithic islanders.

EB are not relatively high in WHG, at 14%, compared to other Europeans. Indeed, Hungarians (16%), Bulgarians (15%) and Albanians (17.5%) have higher levels of WHG than EB. Estonians are 33% WHG, Lithuanians 30%, Ukranians 28%. (Haak et al. 2015)

Thus EB are in no sense characterised by a relatively high level of WHG ancestry let alone by an absolutely high level. They are no more WHG than Bulgarians and Albanians, and a lot less than East Balts. EB WHG in any case is from the continent and not from a Mesolthic island population.

Thus EB are a tribrid Eurasian population like all other European populations, with most of their ancestry drawn from the Near East during the Neolithic and from the Eurasian Steppes during the Bronze Age.

EB are Caucasian in the sense that they do not have significant Far Eastern, African, Polynesian or Native American ancestry – there is as yet little Black or Chinese ancestry in EB though that is changing.

Those are the simple facts devoid of any political agenda or spin.

Ref: Brace et al. 2019, Haak et al. 2015, Olalde et al. 2017, captured online.

Mor Vir

3rd May 2020 at 2:28 pm

This paragraph would be better phrased thus:

Thus EB are a tribrid Eurasian population like all other European populations, with most of their ancestry drawn from the Near East (EN) and from the Eurasian Steppes (YAM), brought over with WHG during the Bronze Age.

steve moxon

5th May 2020 at 12:46 am

Guffaw!
Yet again you make my point for me: that our ancestry is truly ancient.
Obviously the mesolithic peoples came into Britain and mostly were not here already — they hardly could have been here through the ice age!
As for supposed replacement by succeeding waves: this is far less the case than is often supposed.
For a detailed picture from fine-scale genetics, see the separate books by Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes.

SNJ Morgan

3rd May 2020 at 7:39 am

“the hideousness and danger of the actual alt-right is hidden”

-the hideousness and danger of the actual alt-left has been in plain view for decades, but few are willing to confront that.

From Antifa to manic intolerance and the cancel culture – that is what needs to be challenged. And is being challenged, by people sick to death of insufferable left.

Get your house in order, Lefties, and you might be taken seriously.

David Webb

2nd May 2020 at 9:32 pm

Interesting that this lecturer opposes free speech to the extent that comments on this article are being premoderated.

David Webb

2nd May 2020 at 9:32 pm

This is a maliciously misleading article. Why should communication with non-whites be conducted in a veil of suspicion or hostility, or why would it be difficult to communicate with them?

But what is true is that ethnic minorities are heavily invested in their group identity and self-interest in our countries. You would struggle to find even a single non-white in the UK who didn’t trot out the racism meme whenever convenient. In the end, mass immigration was always going to lead to ethnic minority identity. If you have 10 Somalis is a city like London, they will be under heavy pressure to integrate. If you have 100,000, then they won’t and can’t.

Crucially, Enlightenment ideas and the gains of modernity (as your clunky Marxist terminology has it) cannot flourish in a culturally divided society. John Stuart Mill made this very point in chapter XVI of his “On Representative Government”. There is no such thing as a multiracial society that preserves Enlightenment values, only a contest between groups that non-whites engage in, but the virtue-signalling whites don’t engage in.

You need to show, Nikos, that Jewish people don’t form an identity group in Western societies that looks out for its own interests. You haven’t even attempted to show that. I myself don’t support an obsession with that minority, but it is just lying to claim they don’t have an identity.

You use the slur-word “racism” throughout, without demonstrating that it means anything other than wanting a piece of the globe for us, as all other groups do for themselves. Maybe you should go to China and start propagandising the locals on the theme that China shouldn’t be Chinese? Your constant defamatory claims about “ugly racism” are refuted later in your article, as you admit that the Alt-Right isn’t a supremacist organisation, and the fact that Orientals have higher IQs on average is openly admitted in the Alt-Right. This is just empirical reality.

* It is not the Alt-Right, but Youtube censorship, that causes a lot of Alt-Right videos to be deleted from Youtube. You can find nearly everything deleted on Bitchute.
** You can’t help lying, but at Charlottesville the Right had a legal permit. They arrived to find that early in the day, at 10am, the police had banned the rally, despite the courts insisting that the Right be permitted to assemble, and the police DELIBERATEY DROVE THE RIGHT INTO THE WAITING ARMS OF ANTIFA WHO WERE WAITING WITH BASEBALL BATS AND FLAMETHROWERS. The Charlottesville government report clearly shows this.
*** Sotirakopoulos is a lecturer in a non-subject, sociology, which is just Marxism and non-white ideology funded by the taxpayer. Soti, get a job???

Gordon el Gopher

3rd May 2020 at 8:43 am

“But what is true is that ethnic minorities are heavily invested in their group identity and self-interest in our countries. You would struggle to find even a single non-white in the UK who didn’t trot out the racism meme whenever convenient.“

Maybe you should actually meet some rather than read about them from the attention seeking media types.

I work with lots of black African immigrants. They think it’s funny how paranoid we are about race and offending people in this country to the point where it’s all we ever go on about – it’s like we’ve all turned into an episode of Fawlty Towers.

David Jory

2nd May 2020 at 9:20 am

I had a chuckle this week when our egalitarian leaders sent a letter to NHS staff saying that BAME workers would have to be risk assessed for frontline healthcare work.
Imposing Apartheid is good now, is it?

Michael Fereday

1st May 2020 at 10:26 pm

While I think I understand the overall tone of the article (which I believe has some merit ), it completely falls into the same pit of most of progressive leftism; in an attempt to expose the nasty culture of ‘identity politics’ it over states the ‘evil’ of white nationalism which then broadly feels like an attack on being white. In any other ethnic minority in any other nation this would be seen as ‘resistance’ …If you replaced the word white with black in the sixth paragraph you would have the makings of CNN or BBC hit!

Jim Lawrie

1st May 2020 at 10:08 pm

Why do the left think that likening anything new to what already exists can pass for analysis and insight?

Jim Lawrie

1st May 2020 at 10:16 pm

Charles Manson was part of the alternative, hippie movement. It is equally tenuous and helpful to associate him with today’s alt-right based on that single word.

scott johnston

1st May 2020 at 8:16 pm

What a disgusting hit piece this is little better than the science denying deconstructionist Garbage peddled by the Guardian.

It is a demographic fact that europeans are becoming ethnic minorities in their own homelands and countries any one with a pair of eyes can see this happening european americans are a minority in america by 2040 the ethnic english scottish welsh and northern irish are all ethnic minorities in Britain by 2066 and the Irish are a minority in ireland by 2050 can you please explain how it is “racist” or “white supremacy” to simply want to remain the majority of your own homeland ??

The idea that race/ethnicity is just skin colour is also unscientific and out right moronic there are IQ differences in race both the human genome project and the american psychological association have stated this and said that IQ is 80% genetic and heritable many others have also stated this (Google IQ by nation) there are also behavioural differences in race such as in group preference low impulse control and low time preference ect and physical differences such as bone structure, hormone distribution, Susceptibility to diseases as we are now finding out with corona killing BAME people at a higher rate.

The idea that we are going to “assimilate” these people is again pseudoscientific garbage first of all why would they even want to ? why would you want to give up your real ethnic ancestral identity and culture to larp as something you are not and how is this going to be achieved when we are the minority and they are the majority why wouldn’t they just enforce their culture on the minority groups ? we are already seeing this in sharia courts in the UK and the muslim and african Ghettos in birmingham and london ect, People and time create culture, culture is downstream from genetics this why different races and ethnic groups have created very different cultures all over the world and to try and force your culture upon these people is both bigoted and moronic !

And the idea that we will never have ethno states is profoundly stupid as all the european nations are ethno states by default, china and all the nations of africa are ethno states and of course israel is an ethno state that literally DNA test its citizens and has been caught sterilising african migrants but i have a feeling you people are fine with israel’s actions !

Instead of making disgusting lying hit pices why not actually debate these people on your youtube channel if their ideas are so stupid and its ridiculous for europeans to want to remain majorities in their own homelands or that race is just skin colour why not debunk them in a debate i’m sure Jared Taylor Richard spencer would be happy to debate they have both appeared on CNN to debate their ides or how about debate actuals scientists who are experts in the field of genetics such as Dr michael woodley and Edward dutton of the Youtube channel the jolly heretic !

Brandy Cluster

2nd May 2020 at 11:22 am

Take the rest of the week off; it’s obviously getting you down and you cannot think clearly. Or is this how you are all the time?

David Webb

2nd May 2020 at 9:34 pm

Scott, you’re right. We are becoming minorities, and this lecturer simply wants to prevent any white person from openly noticing what is happening.

George Whale

1st May 2020 at 7:48 pm

Is it so surprising that people in London, Birmingham, Luton, Slough etc., seeing their communities broken up by mass immigration, feel a need to reassert their distinctive identity, in the way that other groups are encouraged to do?

Ethnocentrism has two sides: positive ethnocentrism, love of one’s own ethnos (roots, culture, traditions); and negative ethnocentrism, hostility to out-groups. Most English ‘alt-righters’ reject the latter.

The atomised individualism that this writer apparently craves can only be achieved by severing bonds of kinship and culture – which never works, long-term. The need for identity is human and universal.

As more neighbourhoods, towns and cities fall to ‘super-diversity’, expect the alt-right and its offshoots to grow.

Un Washed

1st May 2020 at 7:31 pm

The Iconoclast
Laura Towler
Mark Collett
Morgoth
Patriotic Talk
Dangerfield
On The Offensive
Simon Harris
The TrUK Show
Way Of The World
Jakes & Latte

The British Nationalist scene is sure flourishing lads. Are we all beyond the pale?

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 8:09 pm

OK, so it is not so much a political movement now as an underground chat show genre?

Neil McCaughan

1st May 2020 at 11:50 am

Rather a long article to describe something that scarcely exists.
Belief in the alt-right is merely a function of the diseased imaginings of Jon Snow, the idiot Guardian and the imbecile Independent. Whereas they, and their friends in the Ku Kluck Klan, are the real problem.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 1:23 pm

Precisely. This website rails against political mirages through ideological excess, and then does exactly this. The “alt right” and “white supremacism” are near non-existent phenomena. ‘White nationalists” are vanishingly rare, even in the USA.

scott johnston

1st May 2020 at 7:02 pm

What utter garbage nationalist movements are taking off all over europe and what is wrong with europeans wanting to remain ethnic majorities in their homelands and not be replaced by third world migrants ?

The idea that ItS jUsT SkIn CoLoUr is unscientific and moronic there are thousands of biological differences in race/ethnicity the Human genome project even says that their are IQ differences in race as does the american psychological association are they “white supremacists ??

scott johnston

1st May 2020 at 7:20 pm

What is called “alt right” is just nationalists and nationalism is on the rise all over america and europe and can one of you clowns please explain to me what is wrong with europeans simply wanting to remain ethnic majorities in their own homelands ? All the stats show the we are all becoming ethnic minorities in our own homelands for example the irish are a minority in ireland by 2050

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 8:11 pm

?!
Virtually nobody is a “white nationalist”, and few are nationalist: whereas MOST people are profoundly against the ‘identity politics’ elitist-separatist hatred towards them, as manifest so obviously in policies of uncontrolled mass immigration. Me very much included.
Indeed there are substantive racial differences — and genetically more than culturally based — and indeed there are major integration problems. [I’ve just complained to the BBC about their denial of these.]
You don’t need to be a nationalist, never mind a ‘white nationalist’, to see this and try to do something about it.

Dominic Straiton

1st May 2020 at 10:21 am

” A world of ethno states is not going to happen anytime soon” Tell that to Han China, Japan, Pakistan, The gulf States,Iran,the list goes on and on.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 12:39 pm

Yes, the Left as ever are in denial about human nature. In-grouping behaviour, its evolved psychology and biological underpinning are perennial. Nobody at any time is going to acquire a sense of in-group that goes beyond the nation, if that. This has been a lesson that those on the Left of all people should have learned after World War 1. They though that ‘the workers’ would unite instead of fighting nation against nation, How utterly wrong they were then, as now.
Stalin had to appeal to nationalism to have any chance of winning against Germany, as Russia like Germany was revealed to be a ‘national socialist’ state. The Soviet empire imploded through the refusal of nationalities to be subdued. When even the small Marxist empire of Yugoslavia imploded, old inter-national and inter-ethnic tensions resurfaced even though people hitherto had lived side by side as neighbours and friends for many decades.
Denial of basic reality is dangerous, and the Left is about little but such denial.
Where they get right that the underlying principle in life is cooperation, but totally fail to grasp that competition is not antithetical to but instrumental to cooperation. If they studied biology, they’d understand this. Not understanding this is lethal to their political philosophy, not mention to those who live under regimes with such pretensions.

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 12:57 pm

None of those are mono-ethnic states, nor was UK historically, strictly speaking, as a union of nations. Even England included Cornwall, which identified differently, and there was always some immigration, especially since the rise of capitalism.

Japan is a multi-ethnic state of which the Yamato is the main group and the older established group. Modern Japan has a collapsed fertility rate of 1.369 in 2019, the lowest since records begain in 1899, and deaths outnumber births, with the largest natural decline in population ever in 2019. Japan is a ‘super-aged’ nation and 20% of its population is over 65, as will be the case in USA, UK an France within a decade.

Japan has millions of foreign born citizens, and many more will be needed to support the ageing Yamato and to keep the capitalist economy going and expanding. All naturalised citizens are counted as ‘Japanese’ in the census, so it harder to get an ethnic breakdown of the figures.

“‘ The major ethnic groups of Pakistan include Muslim Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Saraikis, Muhajirs, Baloch, Paharis, Hindkowans, Chitralis and other smaller groups. Smaller ethnic groups found throughout the nation include Kashmiris, Kalash, Siddi, Burusho, Wakhis, Khowar, Hazara, Shina, Kalyu Baltis and Jatts. wiki

“‘ The majority of the population of Iran (approximately 67–80%) consists of Iranian peoples.[2][3][4][5] The largest groups in this category include Persians (who form the majority of the Iranian population) and Kurds, with smaller communities including Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Lurs, Tats, Talysh, and Baloch.

Turkic-speaking groups constitute a substantial minority of about 15–24%, the largest group being the Azerbaijani, due to their historical, genetic and cultural commonalities with the Iranian peoples, Iranian Azerbaijanis are also often associated with the Iranian peoples.[6] They are the second largest ethnicity in Iran as well as the largest minority group.[7] Other Turkic groups include the Turkmen and Qashqai peoples. wiki

“‘ Ethnic minorities in China are the non-Han Chinese population in China. China officially recognizes 55 ethnic minority groups within China in addition to the Han majority.[1] As of 2010, the combined population of officially recognized minority groups comprised 8.49% of the population of mainland China.[2] In addition to these officially recognized ethnic minority groups, there are Chinese nationals who privately classify themselves as members of unrecognized ethnic groups (such as J ewish, Tuvan, Oirat, Ili Turki, and Japanese).

& c.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 1:17 pm

Come again? You can’t see the wood for the trees.
The UK is anything but a ‘nation of immigrants’. The fine-scale genetic research re UK ancestry: the genes of UK residents mostly arrived here in the stone age; less so over the bronze/iron ages, and not much since. Angles & Saxons were a tiny immigration. Everything subsequent has been minuscule until the last couple of decades, and nobody can make positive integration claims re this!
China and Japan are overwhelmingly mono-ethnic states, with minorities mostly little different from the majority in any case. On the figures you state yourself, the sum total of ethnic minorities in China are under 10%. You run away from citing a percentage for Japan. Chinese famously label Caucasians “big nose”, and openly detest Africans. No foreigners can meaningfully integrate into Japanese society.
Pakistanis are together in having little ethnic differences, and Iran is an artificial state, as are other in the Middle East, which is why they are so dysfunctional and liable to fracture.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 1:19 pm

Come again? You can’t see the wood for the trees.
The UK is anything but a ‘nation of immigrants’. The fine-scale genetic research re UK ancestry: the genes of UK residents mostly arrived here in the stone age; less so over the bronze/iron ages, and not much since. Angles & Saxons were a tiny immigration. Everything subsequent has been minuscule until the last couple of decades, and nobody can make positive integration claims re this!
China and Japan are overwhelmingly mono-ethnic states, with minorities mostly little different from the majority in any case. On the figures you state yourself, the sum total of ethnic minorities in China are under 10%. You run away from citing a percentage for Japan. Chinese famously label Caucasians “big nose”, and openly detest Africans. Nobody from abroad can meaningfully integrate into Japanese society.
Pakistanis are together in having little ethnic differences, and Iran is an artificial state, as are other in the Middle East, which is why they are so dysfunctional and liable to fracture.

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 2:06 pm

Did an ethno-national state now exist it would be at most an ideological analogy of older situations.

The population of Britain is mainly descended from Anatolian Neolithic and Bronze Age Steppe immigrants, like all of Europe. All genetic anthropologists are agreed on that, and there is no point in trying to dig up early, outdated studies that predate the retrieval and comparison of ancient DNA. Either find that out or do not, I am not going to try to teach you genetic anthropology yet again.

UK comprised various ethnicities and their genetic similarity does not change that. UK was not an ethno-national state, it was a multi-ethnic capitalist state.

You are not about to get an ethno-state so you may as well stop being belligerent about it. I thought that we agreed to avoid each other, that includes when either of us may respond to a third party. I have no desire to get dragged into unsightly episodes with you.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 2:44 pm

Guffaw!
* You make my point for me: you have to go back aeons to make a case that Britain is a nation of immigrants. Why not go back in evolutionary time and claim we’re all like mice and not human at all?!
* Fine-scale genetics research has only very recently been possible, so it can’t be “out-dated”. And you don’t contradict that most of our genetic material came into Britain in the stone age: the neolithic, you cite; though more came in even before this, in the mesolithic. Not only did incomers bringing with them farming not supplant those already here, but much of the influx of farming practices would have been cultural rather than a movement of people. — And I know vastly more about genetics and evolution than you do.
* An “ethno-national state” is not due to ideology: it’s due to human nature. Ideologues like you always ‘project; a mirror-image of your own ideology to pretend everyone else not in your ideo-in-group somehow must also have an ideology, and an ‘opposite’ one to yours, in the usual “you’re the devil, I’m an angel” puerilty of the Left.
I note your bad grace. Again, standard on the Left.

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 3:19 pm

Do not address me again.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 3:37 pm

I’ll address whom and what I please.
If you write ideological nonsense, I’ll point it out for what it is.

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 4:51 pm

That is what you are reduced to b/c you have no manners. You are the textual equivalent of the photo up the top. I would happily chat with you like all others if you were polite.

You are anyway talking about a r acial state based on genetics, not an ethno state.

You yourself are a product of the mixing of genetically and culturally diverse ice age, neolithic, bronze age and historical populations, which is why you speak someone else’s language. I could tell you the precise proportions of your deep ancestry from each group but why bother? If you were interested then you would know by now.

So much for mono-r acial groups being human nature, when you, like all others, are a product of multiple mixing. Periods of genetic and cultural change tend to correlate, so the massive cultural changes since the Industrial Revolution should give you a heads up of what to expect. That is simply the historical pattern.

If you want to go by what ‘normally’ happens in human history then this is exactly what typically accompanies massive economic development and cultural change. It is you who wants to intervene in the pattern of history and contrary to modern trends to have a revolution to re-establish UK society on the ideological basis of the r acial state. Maybe you already realise that, maybe you do not.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 5:59 pm

Chaff.
The absence of manners is yours — but of course, your Left mode of constant ‘projection’ and condescension makes this impossible for you to see, as everyone else through your daft extreme-ideological lens are devils who cannot be right.
* I know a lot more about this that you — and there is no ‘mix-up’ here; not by me. Fine-scale genetics studies reveal overwhelming prehistoric immigration to Britain, so rules out the ‘nation of immigrants’ twaddle that is used to argue somehow that there are no problems with uncontrolled mass immigration of different ethnicities.
* It’s laughable to claim that being “mono-racial” is not reality or human nature.
— Indigenous Brits are ‘caucasian’ through and through; back thousands of years.
— People naturally mate with those they see as being like themselves. Of course there are always exceptions, but the old saying that the exception proves the rule is like what are assumed to be stereotypes: they recur because they fit with reality.
* Try quitting ‘chucking the toys out of the pram’ chaff and present substance instead of bull.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 6:03 pm

That’s just chaff.
The absence of manners is yours — but of course, your Left mode of constant ‘projection’ and condescension makes this impossible for you to see, as everyone else through your daft extreme-ideological lens cannot possibly be right.
* I know a lot more about this that you — and there is no ‘mix-up’ here; not by me. Fine-scale genetics studies reveal overwhelming prehistoric immigration to Britain, so rules out the ‘nation of immigrants’ empty rhetoric that is used to argue somehow that there are no problems with uncontrolled mass immigration of different ethnicities.
* It’s nonsense to claim that being “mono-racial” is not reality or human nature.
— Those with British ancestry are one race through and through; back thousands of years, including back to partial near-east origins.
— People naturally mate with those they see as being like themselves. Of course there are always exceptions, but the old saying that the exception proves the rule is like what are assumed to be stereotypes: they recur because they fit with reality.
* Try quitting the petulant chaff and present substance.

scott johnston

1st May 2020 at 7:16 pm

You are talking utter nonsense english scottish welsh and irish are all ethnic groups i can do a DNA test and it tells me im scottish despite the fact that i’ve never even been to bloody scotland your entire moronic argument is horses used to be whales ergo their is no such thing as horses lol its just stupid !

George Whale

1st May 2020 at 8:03 pm

Prior to the present invasion, the numbers of incomers were relatively tiny, and left few DNA traces here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 8:05 pm

Neither of us denied that genetic differences exist or that the UK is a multi-ethnic state so I am not sure who you think that you are being rude to. Or maybe it was a dadaist post? Dadaism!

Mor Vir

3rd May 2020 at 9:37 am

Just to be clear Moxon, you are arguing for a mono-racial state, which would imply not only a cessation to imm igration but the rep atriation of other races. About 40% of kids born in UK now are of a m igrant background, do you intend to rep atriate them all or to evaluate their race on a case by case basis? Do you really think that is realistic objective or are you huffing and puffing at a castle? That might be why you come across as so lightheaded.

steve moxon

4th May 2020 at 9:09 am

Talk about a caricature!
I’m arguing for no such thing.

Philip Humphrey

1st May 2020 at 10:11 am

It’s been obvious for a long time that the tiny group of people known as the alt-right are one of the fruits of leftist identity politics and “woke-ism”. The irony is that leftists themselves like to big up the alt-right, grossly over estimating their size and influence. They use that as a justification for ever more divisive and authoritarian policies concerning race, gender etc. It’s almost a symbiotic relationship between two philosophies that are equally disturbing and divisive, the mirror images of each other and so similar in many ways.

Brandy Cluster

1st May 2020 at 10:26 am

You’ll certainly be interested in this podcast (do not watch BEFORE 1:06:50) with Adam Carolla and Dave Rubin and the madness of the American Left: compelling stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ0oksaxEEI

scott johnston

1st May 2020 at 8:18 pm

lol both these people are jewish advocates and they are hypocrites and Rubin is dumb as rocks

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 10:02 am

Sotirakopoulos has a late bourgeois ideology that reflects the needs of the post-imperialist economic base to view and to treat ppl as essentially interchangeable producer-consumers regardless of ethnic or territorial origin. The capitalist states used to expand their workforce externally through imperialism and colonialism, and now with the loss of empires and colonies, they rely on mass immigration into the metropole to expand the labour that is required to expand capital. The capitalist states used to use racism to justify their expansion of the workforce externally, and now they use anti-racism to justify their expansion of the workforce internally. The capitalist state is the racist/ anti-racist state and both racism and anti-racism are bourgeois ideologies. Racism is an imperialist bourgeois ideology and anti-racism is a post-imperialist bourgeois ideology. Both ideologies reflect the changing conditions and the changing needs of the economic base for expanded labour. The ideologies are historical and material in basis.

Sotirakopoulos myopically and ahistorically thinks that the ideological view of ppl as interchangeable producer-consumers reflects some universal ‘reason’ inherent in the world. He proposes, that b/c logic and the categories of reason and ontology are universal, the late bourgeois approach to interchangeability is natural. That is frankly silly. Not only philosophers but everyone for thousands of years have grasped the universality of logic and of the ontological categories without drawing late bourgeois ideological notions of human interchangeability. It smacks of a reversion to Hegel, that social reality reflects ideas inherent to the world and to our minds. Actually, the ontological structure is that of the Universal, the Particular and the Individual. Universality does not erase what is particular and individual about anything let alone about ppl. The presentation of his ideology may smack of a crude neo-idealism but at root it is simply a reflection of the economic base in its current state of development.

Similarly the reason why there is ‘not going to be an alt-right state anytime soon’ is not b/c of the attitudes and impressions that ppl have about the alt-right (again ideas, here popular impressions, as the basis of social reality) but b/c everyone lives under the capitalist state and the needs and interests of capital come first. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that USA will be overall majority non-white by 2045 b/c new immigrants will account for 80% of population expansion. That is b/c capitalism relies on an expanded workforce to expand GDP, especially in the face of terminally declining profitability and productivity growth in USA as in other ‘mature’ capitalist economies. It is a conscious and deliberate decision by the capitalist state to maintain GDP growth through massive immigration in the face of collapsed domestic fertility rates and collapsed domestic demographic expansion. To suggest that the maintenance of the interchangeability of ppl as producer-consumers will continue b/c ppl have a poor impression of the alt-right is frankly silly. USA capitalist state will simply enforce its interests and its will, it is not about to allow some ideological and territorial secession within capitalist state territory. Ppl will increasingly become streamlined proletarians without any other identity b/c that is what suits the capitalist state, interchangeable worker-citizens.

Sotirakopoulos is a late bourgeois propagandist, he does not seek to interpret and to understand ideological phenomena in material, historical terms, he simply seeks to propagate late bourgeois ideology and to promote the conformity of ppl to the needs of the late capitalist economic base. That he interprets that ideological phenomena as a reflection of the universal structures of reason is quaint and incidental. Every society seeks to give its structure a rational basis and justification but the basis is material and historical not logical or moral, and ideological ‘justifications’ are secondary phenomena. Those justifications are not their own true explanation but rather their own self-presentation, an attempt to find a basis of ideas in ideas, whereas in fact they are simply a reflection of the economic base in its development. Sotirakopoulos employs a bourgeois, ahistorical, non-material ideological method to propagate bourgeois ideology. One may say in sum that he is a thoroughly bourgeois ideologist, both in his method and in his results. He wishes to keep the world stood on its head rather than to place it on its feet in its material explanation.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 3:40 pm

Utter bull.
Extreme totalitarian Marxist ideology is the product of an intellectual lunatic asylum.

George Whale

1st May 2020 at 8:09 pm

Correct: though nowadays we use the term ‘university’ instead of ‘asylum’.

Mor Vir

2nd May 2020 at 8:33 am

Your own ppl despise you and cast you out and yet you still want to save them. I suppose that makes you a glutton for punishment and some sort of m asochist. You like to be the bottom, right? Your ppl can go to hell and so can you.

steve moxon

3rd May 2020 at 7:45 am

?!
What on earth does this anonymous ideo-nut ‘Mor Vir’ think he’s on about?
Who knows?
Who cares?

Mor Vir

3rd May 2020 at 8:43 am

If you do not care Moxon then why do you keep embarrassing yourself with grunty put downs?

Methinks me espies your affinity to the Stone Age that you wish to return to. As you put it yourself, you are a part of a Stone Age population. Sadly you would be a peculiarly granite character in the Flintstones

And anyway, ‘mass imm igration is not a capitalist state policy, it is a Marxist conspiracy intended to slight the workers.’ LOL Tell that to the CBI, CBC, B of E and TP.

steve moxon

4th May 2020 at 9:07 am

?! Guffaw.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, or what?!
Empty chaff at very best.

Anjela Kewell

1st May 2020 at 9:47 am

All through history people have tried to dominate others. Whether by slavery, genocide, persecution or as today cultural dominance.

Nothing changes but perception.

We have today an educational dominance which is just as sinister and cruel as any other form of dominance. It has nothing to do with skin colour but everything to do with levels of intelligence and the wish to control.

In the past very able strategists and strong fighting forces could conquer nations and either kill them, put them to slavery or educate them. It all depended on the ambition and intelligence of the dominant force. No one continent has had historical peace. Not one continent ever will whilst there are people who wish to control for ideological reasons.

There are very many levels of intelligence (not intellect). Today the dominant force is intellectual education. But intellectual education breeds low levels of understanding, knowledge and ability. Precisely because it is ideological.

That ideology is predominant in every western institution which is why we are seeing the return of racial tensions. Except that racial tension is now towards the white people on their own continents. By the very nature of the placement of these continents in the cold, sunless northern hemisphere the skin of these peoples will by necessity be white. Yet they are now being persecuted for the colour of their skin. More sinisterly they are being persecuted by their own cultural educationalists.

The many years of predominantly ideological teaching has encouraged many, of little intelligence to enter the world of academia instead of turning their hand to more realistic endeavours. Unfortunately we see the result of this folly throughout all our institutions. This in turn has created bad government, bad decision making and a divide which has become not just cultural but racial. What is more astonishing it is becoming racial in countries that have historically been the least racist of all.

How is it possible that great thinkers like Roger Scruton could be hounded to arguably an early death. How is it possible that great truth tellers like Tommy Robinson could be falsely accused and placed in solitary confinement without a trial by jury. All for the sake of a cultural ideology forced on an intelligent nation by those who wish to control and conquer.

The big question we have to ask is WHY. Everyone will have a different answer, but I suggest it comes down to level of intelligence coupled with lack of compassion. A psychopathic need to control the lives of ordinary people. The more compassionate the conqueror the more chance there is of genuinely healthy and creative results.

The less compassionate the more cruel and vindictive the outcome. This cultural fight is being carried out by some extremely forceful people who will use the lack of intelligence in the majority of the educational ideology, to destroy nations in a strong belief they are working towards a better world. They are not.

Brandy Cluster

1st May 2020 at 10:29 am

Absolutely brilliant comments; thank you for them.

Korina Wood

1st May 2020 at 9:17 am

Alt-Right, Socialism, Fascism, Communism are all Left Wing Statists. All of these people want to be controlled by some king of State and be part of the Borg Collective. Individuals want to be Individuals and led by their moral values, it is the Statists that think they know what is better for someone, even better than the person themselves. Statists do not know me, they do not kno my family and are incapable to deciding what is best for me. Their Arrogance and Autocracy is criminal, but Statists do not care about you, they care about control and power… and money.

Jim Clifton

1st May 2020 at 8:52 am

Not alt-right, but the movement has been dead for well over a year now. Spencer has a smaller following than ever and is held on by family momey. Taylor never really considered himself alt-right because of his age and how long he had been doing it. A lot of them who haven’t pulled a Mike Cernovich or Milo where they disavowed (because they were flirting with the ideas, make no mistake) have went with the new “groyper” thing or have interestingly went leftward in economics, trying to grab onto Bernie Bro/Dirty Bag Leftists route with no real success.

That’s America of course. Over here the closest to anything now is the Patriotic Alliance which thinks itself a party when it hasn’t even got its papers in order. They’re nothing really because the brand features kicked out members of the BNP, people who make jokes about political violence, and some who think Hitler should have won the war. I’m not one for horseshoe theory, but these are on par with Corbyn people who think people will decide to go full on communist. I wouldn’t be shocked if PA gets in the news in the coming months about some folk inciting violence in some way.

It’s a shame really because quite a few people that join these movements are smart, just young. They’d do a lot of great work for other movements when they mature into their political vaules, but things like PA will surely put you on a blacklist for the rest of your life. Even if you say sorry to the Media a thousand times over.

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 10:27 am

The far right is over in UK, so they may as well stop ruining their lives. Around 40% of kids born in UK are now of an immigrant background. All of the old far right parties are over, reduced to insignificance. UK is returned to an unchallenged two-party setup with Brexit and the end of UKIP and TBP. The far right is back to a pre-1970s condition, only history has moved on and what is done is simply done on the migration front.

They must have always realised that there was a very good chance that they would lose, and lose they did. The TP is running on the fumes of the old far right just as LP was running on the fumes of the old far left, and many of them are assimilating into Toryism. Britain will be a highly multi-ethnic island in the future and the native Brits will become a dwindling minority, there is nothing that they can do about that.

L Strange

1st May 2020 at 2:08 pm

Britain will be multi-ethnic, but mono-religio/cultural – Islamic. The same goes for other countries in Western Europe, of course. There’s about 30 years left, apparently, to enjoy our cultural heritage.

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 2:30 pm

Indeed some remnants of the far right are reduced to scaremongering about Islam but it gets them absolutely nowhere.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 3:49 pm

Wha hae!
Nobody does or needs to do any “scare-mongering” about Islam.
Most people are fairly aware of the major obstables to integration that some takes on Islam produce.
The adherents to such as Wahhabism need no-one to point out the dangers they pose.
Everyone can see that a growing minority is a major threat if ultra-extremist separatists among them can galvanise the rest as ‘useful idiots’ to their cause.

L Strange

1st May 2020 at 4:34 pm

Our country, and others, will be majority Muslim. ‘Scaremongering’ isn’t required – there is no Muslim-majority country that allows it’s citizens to live as we do in the West. There’s no evidence to suggest that it will be different for us.

Mor Vir

1st May 2020 at 11:25 pm

If Muslims became a majority then it would be their country to do with as they like. Think of it as karma for what you did to P alestine.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 8:16 am

THIS IS NOT ‘IDENTITY POLITICS’. There is no such thing as ‘white’ ‘identity politics’.
‘Whites’, as with males and heterosexuals, are the TARGETS (VICTIMS) of ‘identity politics’.
This website here once again runs away from owning the Left’s excrement — and worse, it tries to turn it upside down in not just denial but bare-faced lying.
‘Identity politics’ (often or even usually dubbed ‘political correctness’) is the result of a political-Left major backlash against the mass of ordinary people (in Europe and ‘the West’), beginning in the 1920s/30s, in the wake of the persistent failure of Marxist theory to be realised in European ‘revolution’ or any real change through democracy. In shifting the blame away from Marxist theory and its adherents, and on to those the theory had prescribed and predicted would have been the beneficiaries — the workers — if only they had responded accordingly; then the cognitive-dissonance within the political-left mindset caused by this crisis to an extent was salved.
It is NOT at all the same as what the Left mistakenly term ‘the politics of identity’ to tag the new movements against the elite, on the false assumption that they are essentially nationalistic and ‘white backlash’. Trump and Brexit triumphed because the general populace have come to realise that the government-media-education uber-class has an unwarranted profound contempt for and visceral hatred towards them; and, therefore hardly is liable to act in their interests.

Right Now

1st May 2020 at 3:15 am

Re “the appropriation of the term ‘alternative’ from 1960s hippiedom” :
Also, “Alt” puts one in mind of a laptop keyboard (as in Ctrl Alt Del) so signalling that the Alt-Right is a presence on the internet.
Re “This is how we will defeat the alt-right and its misanthropy – through the defeat of identity politics in general” :
Good luck with that. Liberals, by identifying their enemies as Men (The Patriarchy)/Whites/Heteros, have successfully channeled the envy and resentment of the marginalised. You are asking the Left to give up a winning strategy!
Isn’t the Alt Right just acting in self-defence (a doomed last stand perhaps) instead of joining the rout of Conservative Inc?

Rosie Maxima

1st May 2020 at 2:58 am

Heavy reading, but very interesting and well-put. I am of the mind that it’s ok to feel drawn to a particular culture or cultures and to identify with this or that genre, but not with the level of self-awareness that obsessive identitarians apply. They need an ‘identity’ to fulfill the very meaning of their existence. I love music that has a strong African American influence , jazz, blues, soul and pop, but I also love classical and celtic music. There’s beauty in one and all.

scott johnston

1st May 2020 at 7:07 pm

So europeans wanting to remain ethnic majorities in their own homelands is racist ? And you don’t think the culture is going to change when the ethnic english scottish welsh and northern irish are a minority in britain by 2066 ? are you really this stupid ?

scott johnston

1st May 2020 at 8:25 pm

So how is this the same as europeans not wanting to become ethnic minorities in their own homelands ? the ethnic english scottish welsh and northern irish are all minorities in britain by 2066 and the irish are a minority in ireland by 2050 how is it “racist” or “white supremacy” to not want to be ethnically replaced in your own homeland by third world migrants ?

Gordon el Gopher

1st May 2020 at 2:44 am

Yep. The horseshoe theory of politics. They’re all as nutty as each other. I’m white but these arsewipes don’t speak for me.

It’s the same with men’s rights activists being the exact mirror image of feminists. Neither could give a damn about men or women. They’re all just hateful, attention seeking twazzocks.

Rosie Maxima

1st May 2020 at 2:48 am

Or the men who make up the ‘straight pride’ parade…

Gordon el Gopher

1st May 2020 at 3:03 am

Pride events are for people who aren’t actually getting any. “Right hand pride” is probably more like it.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 8:19 am

That exactly what “men’s rights” is NOT, you fool.
It’s simply anti-feminism.
Anti-feminism is not somehow some new ideology.
It’s anti-ideology.
You need no ideology to be against ideology.

Gordon el Gopher

1st May 2020 at 11:42 am

What is it you think I’ve said that you’re replying to?

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 12:27 pm

Come again?

Gordon el Gopher

1st May 2020 at 8:01 pm

So you’re saying “men’s rights” isn’t actually about men’s rights?

Can’t they just call themselves anti-feminists then and quit with the pretence?

Unless you’re suggesting men’s problems are down to feminism, which flatters feminism and is clearly rubbish.

steve moxon

3rd May 2020 at 7:53 am

“Men’s rights” are being asserted because of the hatred towards men by feminists that has become all-pervasive and entrenched, having had a ready reception given the natural negative attitudes towards men generically, which have the deepest biological roots.
A contemporary ‘civil society’ has to work with nature, as it were, but where there already is profound disadvantage you don’t massively compound it.

Gordon el Gopher

3rd May 2020 at 12:36 pm

Sounds like I was right then; MRA’s aren’t pro-men they’re just anti-feminist. Just like feminists aren’t pro-women they’re just anti-men.

So MRAs are anti-anti-men. But this isn’t maths where 2 negatives make a positive. It’s BS sociology when adding BS to BS just leaves you with lots more BS

steve moxon

4th May 2020 at 9:17 am

How obtuse can you get?
You’ve just decided against all evidence that somehow MRAs are mirrors of feminists.
The reason some men for once stop running away from conceding victimhood (which they normally avoid like the plague because of its impact in status and hence on sex) is for the very reason of the appalling negative impact on men of the intensification in the extreme ideology of feminism of the negative attitudes that naturally are directed at men.
It’s not in any way though asserting some ideology. There is no such thing as ‘meninism’!
In order to stop the appalling things currently happening to guys, it’s necessary to attack where this is coming from: to attack feminism head-on.
As I say: just how obtuse can you get?!

Gordon el Gopher

4th May 2020 at 12:48 pm

I don’t need evidence to show MRAs aren’t doing good work to help men. You provide me with evidence they are.

You admit yourself that feminism isn’t the route cause of problems affecting men. Sure feminism doesn’t help men but it’s just another symptom of one of the biggest causes – and that’s wealth and income inequality.

Feminists just say it like they see it. Feminists tend to come from a place of privilege. From the suffragettes and the women who inspired them to Sheryl Sandberg and the powerful women of Silicon Valley they look around themselves and see mostly powerful, wealthy men. Like most people they don’t really see outside their bubbles so they assume that’s what all men are: powerful and wealthy. Working class women don’t tend to be feminists because they’re more likely to see men struggling – who the hell would want gender equality with that? In fact working class women will lose out most from feminism as it widens the gap between privileged women and non-privileged women.

So MRAs are just attacking a symptom. If you want to help men then fight wealth inequality. Don’t pay wealthy female BBC presenters more, pay wealthy male BBC presenters less and give that money to the people on the other side of the camera. That way you shut the feminists up by giving them gender equality and you’re sorting out wealth inequality too.

steve moxon

4th May 2020 at 2:09 pm

?!
So the Mankind Initiative charity, which runs helplines and other facilities for domestic violence victims are is just some ‘meninist’ ideological salon is it?
* Wealth inequality is NOT the root or even symptom of disadvantages for men: it’s a natural expression of differences in male mate-value, reflecting differences in genetic quality.
You don’t understand the first thing about the sexes, evidently.
The problems men face stem from a cultural ‘runaway’ based in evolved negative attitudes towards men to control sexual access; this being vigorously intensified by hatred towards men springing form the feminist core of the ‘identity politics’ backlash against ‘the workers’ by the Left. Hence the appalling situation men face for example in the family courts, in rape / sexual assault judicial processes, being blamed as domestic violence abuses when overwhelmingly it is women who are domestic violence perpetrators, and so on.

Gordon el Gopher

5th May 2020 at 8:36 am

I’ve looked on the Mankind Initiative website and there’s no mention of MRA or even men’s rights. This is exactly what feminists do – that feminism takes the credit any time a woman does something positive for another women.

My ‘thing’ is mental health, and I often encourage my own and other organisations to take men’s mental health more seriously and change the way they work with men in order to meet their specific needs (eg different communication styles). But I wouldn’t call myself an MRA.

steve moxon

5th May 2020 at 3:49 pm

?!
So just HOW is the Mankind Initiative anything even remotely like the activity of feminists?!
There’s no mention of MRA on their website for the good reason that they are purely and simply an org dedicated to supporting men who are domestic violence victims. They have no ideology as you falsely suppose, so they hardly can be asserting it. They simply oppose the hate-mongering ideology of feminism, as do all MRAs. There is nowhere any such thing as ‘meninism’. Why are you so prejudiced and silly to pretend otherwise?

Gordon el Gopher

5th May 2020 at 11:49 pm

Steve you’re imagining I’ve said thing which I haven’t. I never said the Mankind Initiative were anything like feminists. The Mankind Initiative, like many other organisations, are actively out there helping men. Which makes them also nothing like MRAs.

MRAs claim to be interested in helping men but they’re not actually doing anything to help men, instead – you said yourself – they’re just anti-feminist. Feminists claim to be interested in helping women but they’re not actually doing anything to help women, instead they’re just anti-men. In my book that makes feminists and MRAs very similar, almost the same.

You’ve even put something you call ‘menimism’ in quotes, as if you’re quoting me, but I’ve never even used that word. I’m not interested whether MRAs or feminists have an ideology or not. What bothers me is that they hide their ideology (or lack of) behind some feigned interest in helping others when they’re actually motivated by something that looks much similar to misanthropy.

Jim Clifton

1st May 2020 at 8:54 am

Men have clearly got a bumcase in the family courts.

Gordon el Gopher

1st May 2020 at 11:40 am

Men have got the arse end of a lot of things; Homelessness, addiction, violent deaths, deaths and injuries at work, death at war, suicide.

I’m not saying men don’t have problems. I’m just saying most people who call themselves an MRA aren’t interested in those problems.

And it’s the same with feminism. Look at the big argument a few months ago; not enough female high earners at the BBC, not enough female directors of large firms, wealthy actresses not paid as much as wealthy actors. Hardly a word from feminists about low paid nurses and care workers, where normal every day women are the majority.

steve moxon

1st May 2020 at 12:26 pm

You’re wrong.
“MRAs” are anti-feminists, and precisely because they see that feminist claims are truth inversions, leaving the actual disadvantaged and victims — males — not only unrecognised as such, but actually blamed as perpetrators when this is complete fiction.

scott johnston

1st May 2020 at 8:22 pm

wow what a stupid comment low IQ centrist comment i bet you actually think this is an intelligent argument white people are set to become ethnic minorities in their own homelands the ethnic english scottish welsh and northern irish are all minorities in britain by 2066 for example the alt right are simply what hack journalists have decided to call normal nationalists who don’t want to be ethnically replaced in their own homelands by their world migrants

Gordon el Gopher

1st May 2020 at 9:31 pm

It’s nothing to with being centrist, left or right – I just don’t really care about skin colour and ethnicity. I’m as happy telly a Guardian reader there’s no such thing as black culture as I am telling you that I don’t really care if there are fewer white people in the UK than non-white.

One things for sure; you’re average white Welsh bloke hates me (a white Englishman) far more than he hates black guys. And I don’t care about that either 🙂

Brandy Cluster

2nd May 2020 at 11:20 am

Your comments are those of a perennial hate bag.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film

More long-reads

Racialising the crisis in policing

Luke Gittos

Racialising the crisis in policing

The self-making of the British working class

Helene Guldberg

The self-making of the British working class

The lethal folly of humanitarian interventionism

Cunliffe and Hodgson

The lethal folly of humanitarian interventionism

Social media: the state of things to come

David Gunnlaugsson

Social media: the state of things to come