THE SPLC CARTOON CONTINUED: You are ‘alt right’ because I say so, and I’m a Democrat! / PLUS – SPENCER BEING MORE NEO

The situation, then, is that conservatives dismissed by the self-described ‘alt right’ as light-weight, hold protests haunted by alt right figures, who hold nearby protests.  The Democrats at the SPLC then try to run the groups together, while further suggesting the Boomer ‘alt right’ is ‘young people,’ many (re the ‘MyLow’ KGB fabrication) involved in ‘pedophilia’ and homosexual activity along with their obvious fear of Likkud.

Some of the conservatives furthermore go along with this SPLC last move: though then obviously, not the first….  But this is all another story.  See the earlier post in the blog, dealing with the war on younger people.  Let’s just ad:  a big part of the war is on their reputation.  Fraud tactics supposedly justly used to stamp out the supposed evil of anti-Semitism, are simply retooled to attack non-geriatric, same-ethnos leaders.  Once fraud begins, only capital wins.


Spencer was at the alt right rally alongside the more ‘conservative’ one…. I didn’t learn much from the SPLC about Spencer in this case, but some other sources suggested a poor crowd showing for his speech and a new turn to the theme of ‘Unite the Right.’ Twitter then gives me Here Spencer has a poster with all kinds of NS themes, suggesting again some sort of interest in uniting ‘neo-Nazi’ and Klan material.  So far involvement with NS notions has been rather minimal for Spencer, and I suspect it is going to stay that way.  Things will likely be just at the level of images.  Still it makes it all more difficult to show what a stupid charge ‘Nazi’ has been against an Anglo kid like Spencer….

Yet of course it is possible, he could take up neo-Nazi ideas.

In INVESTIGATING THE ALT RIGHT, I give four criteria for being a Neo-Nazi:

‘1) a revising of the negative historical image of Adolf Hitler and Germany, 2) a revising of positivistic approaches to Judaism which bracket out Hitler’s vision of Jews, so as to help bring the serious curtailment or death of Jewish power, & 3) a pursuit of National Socialist themes of ‘Aryan’ DNA purity and flourishing, esp. via use of government coercion. Then also one might add:  4) a (focus on a) re-militarising of Germany….’

Spencer has perhaps suggested some ideas along the idea of #3 in terms of coercion, but then also, well, wow, he married a Russian woman and had a child with her.  I hate to break it to the peons, but the Germans did not consider Russia to be an ‘Aryan’ people….

As far as #1, #2, and #4 go – I am not familiar with Spencer ideas along these axes.  Actually, he seems more in favour of positivism than against it, suggesting neo-Darwinian ‘science’ will show the greatness of white DNA.  Etc.  He is just not a neo-Nazi.

‘NS-like’ images can be interpreted in many ways.  Maybe they are more, Afrikaner Weerstand images?  Spencer plays with this ‘neo-Nazi’ label, but we all know, he is an Anglican and a Klan sympathizer, and no friend of Germany at all, excepting insofar as his art benefits all peoples through its question raising.  Spencer just seems a bit confused to me, as if he is suffering.  It is no doubt, not easy to stay in the media spotlight without new ideas, though Spencer is quite an artist and actor.







All of the Ages: SPLC Style

This is simply & obviously a cartoon.  The idea is entered in, we cannot blame earlier generations for mistakes, as they in turn blamed yet earlier generations.  Then also it fabricates, in a cartoonish manner, an idea of Spencer as blaming ‘everything’ on Boomers, when he has barely mentioned them.  This is simply Ersatz material from the SPLC, and obviously shows no real concern for issues of racial conflict or of culture.


But what I did find interesting was the notion, Boomer is somehow responsible for our immigration policies.  That is truly a laugh.  Boomer having political power? Not until very recently. Otherwise, he has mostly minded the ‘figurehead’ shop.  What he has ‘accomplished’ in politics is mostly to go along with the slaughter of the West the Brythonic and Soviet elders have planned.  Boomer is Hamlet.  (Also he is like a victim of child abuse, who simply does not understand that he tries to do to the young, what his parents did to him….)  But still the Boomers are a diverse lot, and the main movers are older and, moreover, white nationalist movements have long focused on these older trouble makers.

So, that’s not a right idea that the ‘alt right’ offers, and which the SPLC seems in its own way to go along with.  Boomer is not the main creature to blame, even if he is a kind of accomplice or figure of negligence.

But beyond these problems:   there is the shared fantasy world of the SPLC & the alt right – the actual source of the cartoon – that Richard Spencer’s parents are ‘Boomers.’ …  The main ground of ideological trouble here, is this troubling issue of the fake identification paper, which a kitty cat organisation such as the SPLC hasn’t the slightest power to address.  They are mere tools of capital.  On the other hand – it is indeed a troubling issue, if one that clearly shows, issues besides ‘race’ drive the oppression of the young.  White nationalism is just a side show.  Silent and Great’s main delusions do not concern race, but rather God and His nature….  Then too there are wrong ideas regarding the fundamental character of His Creation, errors which Augustine and Kant have long addressed….


Well, right, it is silly for Boomers to blame ‘Boomers,’ quite true.  At least if they are claiming to be born after 1966, i.e. to not be Boomers.

I think this kind of criticism of what is going on with the ‘alt right’ is implied by what I write in INVESTIGATING THE ALT RIGHT.  The whole ‘alt right’ approach is misguided as it is based in non-solid foundation. In any case, one idea I float in the book is “how is ‘white nationalism’ meaningful when what is needed is ‘Catholic’ nationalism?”

Also let me now add: “and when what is needed is a return to the Latin Rite?”  Everything in the world of politics after Vatican II is meaningless post-Protestant Masonic illusion.  The white race is nothing.  Something besides its own nationalism will have to restore it.

Race conflict has been a tool of the Great & Silent Generations – who allied with Communism and its anti-nationalist creed – but the war on younger people takes many other forms.  True, some of us born later in the 20th Century have gone along with this conspiracy.  Boomer is often a rollover Soviet monkey.  Yet it was not Boomer who invaded the Boer.  It was not Boomer who chose Poland & the Soviet Union over Germany, Austria & Italy.  Etc. ‘We didn’t start the fire.’

Boomer is a proper target for criticism since he is a great hypocrite.  Still that does not mean, his parents did not do terrible things to him.  Indeed, one might say it is all part of one story.  His hypocrisy and conspiring against the young of his own ethnic group, is an outgrowth of a mental illness originating in the harsh times of the 50’s and 60’s, etc.  In his own childhood and youth.


The SPLC looks a little confused as it seems to imagine, children born in the 70’s would likely have Boomer parents.  There is a simplistic model of Great giving birth to Boomer giving birth to post-Boomer generations.  Obviously, most white child birth is after the age of 30.  Boomer did not father the majority of the white children born in the 70’s.  Voices of complaint against the elderly coming from post-Boomer generations are not always directed against poor Boomer.

And of course, even if they are, and it is a case of Boomer’s child criticising him – what does it mean that the parent has ‘supplied a second home’ or ‘given support’?  Is one free of ideological error because one has given some support to a generation, which one has at the same time attempted to harm through a given kind of politics?

Obviously, the SPLC, in suggesting this absurd idea of the parent being beyond reproach, does not mean what it says.  It raises the issue of parents for various reasons, possibly to criticise Third World approaches to Tradition and the elder.  But this roundabout approach is pointless.  These SPLC people are unable to speak literally, but they choose to use the English language.  They are, quite frankly, bitches cowering behind non-literalism.  If you cannot say what you mean – shut the fuck up!

But no, the Parisian Spandu ballet circus will continue….  Of course.  The rich elderly Leftists and their sick little feminist daughters, in general, have nothing else to do.  Nor would their egos allows it….


Thousands of Leftist intellectuals have benefited from parental support after the age of 18.  To harp on this topic because the benefiting intellectual is not a Democrat, is just more of the childish circus play acting we see from the Democrats.  They wanted to be circus actors in Paris but instead they got dumb jobs at the ‘Hatewatch,’ etc.  Their only defense for their earlier inconsistency and illogic is just to make it all worse so they can pretend, all along they were only making a joke.  Everyone know what this is.  It is simply a question of spelling it out.  The mainstream media is tout court, fake news, lost to the fantasy that it was appropriate to tolerate the nothingness and unreality of the Obama Administrations supposed policies, while Trump must be met with their IRA ‘dirty protests,’ etc.

The news is simply not reported, and ‘commentary’ from groups such as the SPLC is just childish fallacy reaching to be some sort of ballet dance art project.  As art, it is not totally without worth yet still one must say, it is all rather limited, and we only pay attention to it, because there is nothing else out there.  No, there is not – as it took Britain and American only a couple of decades to end Western civilization in feminist, capitalist nothingness….




Timid WSJ Attack on the SPLC Fraud


One confusing element is the suggestion, libertarian & white nationalist politics oppose.  Using a term such as ‘white nationalist’ without defining your meaning is not helpful.  As I understand it, this term refers to politics focused on the common interests of whites, though not necessarily to the exclusion of other political goals.  If there is also a fashion of defining it as excrement – how is that relevant?



There is a great irony for anyone trying to learn about ‘far right’ movements – a massive amount of research on them has been done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organisation often accused of being part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy America. That’s rather far from the truth today, but it remains so, that this is an organisation to the Left of the political spectrum.

The greater irony is that it is a useful source, with absolutely no intellectual authority…. That’s right, it is a fraud organisation, and to recommend it is something like a Catholic suggesting, a new convert will be well served in the faith through following the guidance of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Actually, it’s quite a bit worse than that, and one suspects the major players at the SPLC suffer from mental illness, or an oddly concealed enthusiasm for the German Reich.

I try to explain to students, Wikipedia lacks intellectual authority, but still this does not prohibit it from being the case, that an article in its might be quite truthful. The SPLC is similar in this regard, although with the SPLC, truth content does not usually extend beyond the paragraph limit.

One simply has to know what is true in advance of reading the SPLC. Truth and lie mixed together, can at best remind one of truth. Still, reminding can be useful. carries a range of articles dealing with the shannanigans over at the SPLC:…4051.10142.0.10644.…

The core of it is simply this: ‘When the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., sponsored a public debate on immigration policy, the left-wing hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) smeared and denounced AEI by claiming that it was “mainstreaming hate” by sponsoring the debate. Of course, Americans have been debating immigration policy ever since the Louisiana Purchase. The SPLC is the leading leftist group that engages in this kind of totalitarian behavior.’

What was once the SPLC long ago, during the Civil Rights movement, has no real connection to what it is after the Carter era. What was a movement about Black rights, has been turned – via an intervening turn to focus on ‘hate groups’ such as the KKK – to an organisation focused on demonisation of the Western interest in national borders.

Even today many liberals are taken in by the past image of the organisation, though Dees is the only holdover from the earlier days, and we have little evidence, the personality of Dees has survived over the years. While I do not have access to his medical files, ethically there is a case to be made, the public would be best served by making his medical history known. Dees has collected a very large amount of money for his fraud purposes and the news media regularly cites his fraud organisation as an authority on others. While I believe in privacy, given the many signs of mental illness in the SPLC’s activities, I cannot believe that this is a case where privacy ought to be an absolute right.

What is the basis for trusting the SPLC’s claims? Nothing at all. All they can do is, as I say, remind – or inspire, e.g., inspire you to look up a quotation offered, from some other source.

Still people are time and again taken in by the image of the SPLC as a credible source.

It is an organisation fulimating for Center-Left policies – with a focus on liberalism regarding borders, but then also with other foci, e.g. Bernie Sanders healthcare – which seeks to promote these policies by accusing Right-of-center political opponents of a sin. The major ‘sin’ had in mind is obviously anti-Semtism, but also at times it seems suggested that independents of connection among Black and Jew, it may be an inherent evil to place’s own interests before those of Black people (hater!).

The documentation regarding the irrationalism and concealment of Leftist political bias in supposed ‘objective’ monitoring of ‘hate,’ is quite extensive, and extends beyond what has to offer:

It is as if with the presses treatment of the ‘alt right,’ writ large. Violent, criminal, or very unpopular Right-wing groups are first selected to fill a category – ‘alt right,’ ‘hate groups,’ etc. – and then the category is rounded out with enemies of the Center-Left, using arbitrary standards. It is simple smear. But again and again, Democrats give this group money and laud it with rewards. I wonder if they have ever heard the saying, ‘you reap what you sow?’

What is the Alt Right?

Initially, it was quite difficult to make any sense of what this movement might be.  It seemed to only repeat a previous 1980’s situation, where ‘movement’ conservatism opposes itself to non-conservatism, i.e. the radicalism of anti-Catholic and anti-middle-class American Zionism.

What had occurred earlier, after Reagan, had been a situation where many conservatives had begun to say the Republican Party was not any longer run by conservatives, but rather by ‘neoconservatives.’    With time, the idea of ‘neoconservative’ took on a very specific meaning, referring to people who called themselves ‘conservatives’ while suggesting, national borders were not a normal part of conservative tradition.  Matters were only made worse by an additional feature of the ‘new’ neoconservatives:  all these neoconservatives were greatly in favour of the State of Israel and in U.S. efforts to support that Mideast state.  So, originally a ‘neoconservative’ was something like a recent, moderate convert to ‘conservatism’ – i.e., to the thinking of pro-free market types, of Burke, of Russell Kirk, etc. – but by the end of the 1980’s the term meant:  a proponent of mass immigration from the developing world and a staunch ally of Israel, who nonetheless did not feel at home in the Democrat Party.

Ordinary and humdrum conservatives, believing in common sense and Catholicism, a good dose of markets and Burke, etc., felt themselves totally exiled from the Republican Party and its ‘neoconservatives.’  For some reason, many of them then began calling themselves ‘paleoconservatives,’ i.e. the old conservatives, not the new.  However, despite this fancy label, the ideas defended were as boring and traditional as possible, straightforward Tory thinking, and nothing radical at all.  Nonetheless, soon it is seen as appropriate to begin to suggest ideas along the lines of ‘Tories are “alt right”, and normal conservative Republicans think it is fine and good to allow demographic catastrophe to happen.’  In other words, it is now said to be somehow ‘radical’ to imagine, reducing the former majority ethnic group to minority status, might be socially disruptive.

So, what has occurred, is that an idea, which is just a simple idea of ‘conservatism,’ as expounded at length by Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk, is soon no longer allowed to be left at that, but must be called new things, such as ‘paleoconservative,’ ‘alt right,’ etc.  There is a fraud shift of labels, allowing the installations of policies and cultures traditionally at home only in Communist parties, as normal for GOP, etc.  The anti-Communist ideas, are exiled to ‘the fever swamps.’  The half-Communists, now call themselves ‘mainstream conservatism.’  Etc.  At the same time, it is not entirely a victory for the far-left, as indeed, only some Leftist ideas are inserted into the Republican DNA:  definitely no ideas that have anything to do, with restraining the power of the ultra-wealthy!

Richard Spencer

The ‘alt right’ carries over many ideas of historic conservatism, and re-announces the ‘paleoconservative’ disdain for the fraud of neoconservatism.  Regardless, in terms of how the term ‘alt right’ is typically used, it seems to be more specifically a question of a social network revolving around the far-right American figure, Richard Spencer.  It can be difficult to separate alt right thinking from Spencerism.  My investigation of this Spencer does not place him as a ‘neo-Nazi,’ but as coming out of the Ku Klux Klan movements of the American South.  Likewise, less than there being a new alt right ‘philosophy,’ Spencer is more of a street fighter and activist, who relies on what went before him, e.g. Friedrich Nietzsche, Julius Evola, Alain De Benoist, Francois Duprat, Jared Taylor, Patrick Buchanan, Thomas Fleming, etc.  Spencer has his ‘philosophy,’ which seems somewhat Nietzschean and also biological-reductionist and Darwinian, but largely he is a kind of specialist in media relations, fulminating for his own brand of white nationalism.  There is a significant amount of anti-Semitic content via Spencer’s praise for Kevin MacDonald.

‘The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization. Characterized by heavy use of social media and online memes, Alt-Righters eschew “establishment” conservatism, skew young, and embrace white ethno-nationalism as a fundamental value.’ –Southern Poverty Law Institute

I will further add: ‘The Alternative Right blames Jews as principle agents of “social justice” ideologies tied to mass immigration from the developing world, and in general tends to cast Jews as the cause of otherwise-inexplicable, negative social phenomena, e.g. supposed media bias against conservative politics.’

Conclusion – ‘Conservative’ to ‘Alt Right’

Conservatism is one thing, and the ‘alt right,’ something else.  The second label is somewhat up for grabs but it seems now heavily tied to Spencerism.  The media has a tendency to label conservatism, as ‘alt right,’ and neoconservatism, as ‘conservatism.’  Conservatism shares with the alt right, an interest in border control and some normal ideas of national interest, but further has many differences, most notably in that postwar period conservatives have tended to try to hide their anti-Semitism – and now many so-called ‘conservatives’ are not even anti-Semitic with which to begin.  Likewise, neoconservatism shares very little with either the alt right or conservatism, excepting a (supposed) rejection of ‘hard Left’ economics.

LINKS:  ‘How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War’ by Michael Lind, 2003, , provides some background on neoconservative Zionism.  ‘AVOIDING THE ISSUE,’ Lawrence Auster, National Review, February 21, 1994, provides some information on the open borders side of the equation.  ‘Among the Neocons,’ by Scott McConnel, in the American Conservative, April 21, 2003, provides a more synthetic treatment: