Why the Alt-Right Are So Weak

  • Posted on: 17 April 2017
  • By: thecollective

From CrimethInc.

On April 15, “alt-right” supporters of Donald Trump invaded Berkeley, physically attacking people in the name of white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and nationalism while the police looked on. A large number of them were outright fascists who had converged from around the United States in hopes of creating an advertisement for right-wing violence. Finally, the Trump regime is getting the street cadre it needs to graduate to the next stage of fascism. Setting aside disingenuous arguments that the best way to support free speech is to promote totalitarian ideas, we have to ask ourselves—who are these people? Why are they attracted to fascism? And how do we stop this phenomenon from spreading?

Why do oppressed people side with tyranny?

When you find yourself on the receiving end of oppression, there are three ways you can respond. The first is to make common cause with others who are also experiencing oppression in order to defend and expand spaces of freedom and autonomy. This probably means working with people who are worse off than you, as they are more likely to revolt than those whose lives are more comfortable. Choosing this approach requires courage, humility, and a certain amount of risk tolerance.

The second option is to knuckle under and accept your lot. This is what most people do in the US: they slog through their routines under the watchful eyes of bosses, police patrols, surveillance cameras, NSA employees, and Facebook networks in a world that accords them less and less freedom. However, this strategy is becoming increasingly untenable as the various crises of our time intensify.


The third and final option is to identify with your oppressors, embracing their agenda and projecting your agency onto them. The more powerful they become, the more powerful you feel. As a strategy to improve your life, this has nothing to recommend it: associating your interests with those who hold power over you can only worsen your situation. But for those who are weak-minded, who are so desperate for a respite from their feelings of powerlessness that they are willing to go on giving up power in return for it, this option can be seductive.


This explains how millions of poor people could rally behind a billionaire. Having given up on gaining any real power in their own lives, all that remains to them is to participate willingly in their own oppression—and to assist their oppressors in wielding power over others.

They are the fan-boys of tyranny. In return for serving as lackeys and bootlickers, they hope to bully others in the way that they themselves are bullied. They do this free of charge—they don’t even warrant a paid position at the bottom of the official hierarchy. They are the ideal underlings: craven and submissive towards those in authority, cruel and abusive towards themselves and others.

Their identification with those in power is always a kind of cosplay: they can only be a pathetic imitation of the tyrants they look up to. They ape the Spartans, the Romans, the Nazis, who themselves were pathetic imitations of an idealized image of manhood, mere cogs in a military machine. All who prostrate themselves before abstract ideals rather than valuing real existing humanity in all its diversity are condemned to despise themselves.


Although bullies can appear to be powerful, everything they do to wield power only disempowers them. To have real power, you have to be based in a community that supports you in freely disposing of your potential as you see fit, which requires building meaningful ties with those who are different from you. Bullies give up on this, relying on force in their relations with others rather than interchanging care. Lacking any sense of self-worth, having given up on accomplishing anything meaningful to enrich others’ lives or their own, the only form of pride that remains to fascists is membership in an abstract category. They do not consider themselves valuable as individuals, but only as citizens, white people, “Western chauvinists,” members of a gang. This is the consolation prize of identity, reserved for weak individuals who feel that they have no value on their own merits.


This consolation prize does not come cheaply. To obtain it, they have to crush everything beautiful in themselves, everything that renders them capable of empathy or creativity. They must contort their sexuality. They have to memorize mantras of entitlement—for those who benefit from unfair advantages, however slightly, are always nagged by the sneaking suspicion that they do not deserve what they have. They have to work hard not to identify with others, not to recognize themselves in those who are different from them, not to stand out as unique.

This sort of self-policing is a full-time job. Rendering themselves helpless and weak before their overlords, they imagine they are rooting out weakness. Destroying everything in themselves that could render them capable of freedom, they imagine they are defending their freedom. Rendering relations of mutual trust impossible, they tell themselves they are protecting their communities.

At the bottom of all their sadism, we find a fundamental masochism. To justify their behavior, they need to be on the receiving end of violence. They must be at once master race and underdog, torturer and victim. Carrying out genocides, they protest that they are the ones targeted for genocide. Wracked with self-loathing, on some level they must genuinely desire to be exterminated for the exterminations they hope to carry out.


In fact, it is their own leaders who are victimizing them—think of all the Nazis who died carrying out orders for Adolf Hitler, and all the money pouring into the pockets of savvy businessmen like Donald Trump at the expense of the suckers who support them. Above all, they are victimizing themselves, giving up their agency in return for the addictive experience of being a cog in the machinery of violence.


To protect themselves from recognizing this, they require external threats. Where such threats do not exist, they must be created. This is the meaning of the Muslim Ban, for example: it is intended to create outsiders, to provoke them into reciprocal violence. Bullies who feel that they offer nothing of value to humanity can only hope that some symmetrical threat can make them look good by comparison. If ISIS did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it; Islamophobic violence is intended to accomplish precisely this.

These goons are of great use to the authorities. They can carry out attacks that the state is not yet able to, intimidating those who might otherwise rebel. They distract from the institutionalized violence of the state, which is still the cause of most of the oppression that takes place in our society. Above all, they enable the authorities to portray themselves as neutral keepers of the peace. Yet in clashes between fascists and those who oppose them, the police are anything but neutral. This explains why we saw a large number of unmasked fascists attacking masked demonstrators in Berkeley: those who defend themselves against rising fascism must conceal their identities so the police do not charge them with criminal activity, while unmasked fascists are free to assault people with knives and guns without fear of police intervention.

At a time when so many people feel powerless—both because the unfair advantages they used to have are eroding and because life is becoming more difficult for all but a few wealthy people—to be given a free hand to take out their frustration on those weaker than themselves is seductive indeed. This is what Trump, Putin, le Pen, Erdogan, and other aspiring despots are hoping poor people will do with their resentment. If they can create a feedback loop in which the more oppression is inflicted on people, the more people identify with them, their power will be secure forever.


So what do we do? How do we fight against the spread of fascism?

First, we have to make sure that it is impossible for fascists to experience the thrill of wielding power over others. To promote fascism to the poor and angry, fascists have to be able to demonstrate that they can offer the cheap pleasure of bullying people. If they are able to create advertisements for oppressive violence, they stand to gain tremendous numbers. This is why it is of paramount importance that we confront and defeat fascists whenever they try to take the streets, and that we do so by any means necessary.

This is not a battle we can afford to stand aside from. If we do not prioritize this now, we will pay a grievous price later.


More importantly, however, we have to solve the problems that produce the fascist mentality in the first place. In response to widespread poverty, powerlessness,
and isolation, we have to show that it is possible to work together across different lines of identity, we have to propose collective solutions to the problems of our time and pose effective resistance to those who would take away our freedom. Otherwise, without any viable alternatives, people will continue to gravitate to fascism.

Finally, above all, we have to spread another set of values, another of desires. To oppose fascism, we must resist the temptation to respond reactively to others’ violence, to militarize ourselves, to build symmetrical machines of war. When we resist, we should do so in ways that undermine the very foundations on which fascist narratives are constructed. We should become more compassionate, more creative, more unique and romantic and outrageous. In place of essentialist ways of conceiving selfhood, we have to celebrate difference and change within and between us; in place of authoritarian notions about government, we have to cultivate a profound collective hunger for freedom.

If we can do these things, neither fascist street violence nor state oppression will be able to stem the tide of change. Good luck, dear friends.



"What is all this fascist stuff? Where are all the fascists? Is there a fascist movement in this country? No there isn't. There's Trump-ism. So we wanna play this liberal's game of going nuts, fixating on Trump, and then making it sound worthwhile by elevating it to a fascist thing?" -- John Zerzan, Anarchy Radio (April 11, 2017)

Grandpa Zerzan is fucking clueless.

Yes Virginia, there is a fascist movement in this country, it may be small and rather incohate right now, but it is there, and growing, and attaching itself to the Trump administration. We don't have to overreact and go nuts, but there's no point in denying it anymore.

"When we resist, we should do so in ways that undermine the very foundations on which fascist narratives are constructed. We should become more compassionate, more creative, more unique and romantic and outrageous."

Is that how the Allies defeated fascism in WW II? By being more compassionate and creative? Sorry, my pacifist detector went off.

Ha, woah there killer, you're saying crimethinc are PACIFISTS? Hooo boy.

Also, is defeating fascism the way that the Allies did in WW2 exactly what we want to do?

Yes, crimethinc are pacifists.

I don't know the "exact" way to defeat fascism, but I know being more compassionate and creative isn't going to get anyone far, since fascists, by definition, don't give a shit about compassion. This nostrum of "more compassion" and how we must "undermine the very foundations on which fascist narratives are constructed" just sounds like pablum, and evokes images of the 60's practice of putting flowers into state trooper's rifle barrels.

I told everyone that anti-fascism isn't radical, but actually is patriotic and nobody believed me. This watered down crap position makes my point exactly. Anarchists are wasting their time playing gangster with the other larpers.

Regardless of the power of the spectacle, it's still possible to actually do things instead of "LARPing". It's also possible to sit on the sidelines and try to portray everything as a waste of time but perhaps your opinion doesn't carry much weight?

or lepers?

just playing..
but really all refutation is an effort in the direction of seeding the power of STATE.

in the interest of tactics- im not positive abutting the alt right glamour whores is a proper articulation of who owns the streets at this point, but i refuse to deny the value associated with the conversation of "whos doing what".

that said- discourse.
in the interest of intersection-

we're all headed somewhere.

Good way to escape the bad things in existence which include CANTIFA and other forms of politics.

Also, no this is not a fascist movement for the most part.

"Apolitcal LARPing" feeds the state. It is a form of escapism. Their is no such thing as a person who is alive and isn't involved in the world. Non-ideological = denial of reality. Salute to all the Nihilists.

The state is an inherently political attachment based entity, apolitical orientations and non connected surrogate activities are how you get it out of your life. As Gustav Landauer would say, it's a matter of contracting different relationships.

Almost everything is political. We live and are suspended in a web of political relations. No escaping that fact, no matter what other different relations you try to contract.

Then it loses any concrete meaning. In a broad sense political orientation is just an attachment based contestation of power, belief and behavior. Not everything in human affairs in entails that, there is also the option of being 'in but not of' as regards to the world of the political. Eschewing elective positions and proposed solutions goes along way in working an apolitical muscle, it doesn't have to be flexed and used all the time, but it is an important part of not bathing in political sewage.

I never said "everything" was political, but most things to do with human social relationships are. Unless you live in a cave by yourself, you are part of the human political matrix.

I'm aware of the standard objection that the word 'political' is rooted in the 'polis' of Athenian Greece where it meant the body politik of the local city-state, but unfortunately the word 'political' has gathered and taken on a broader meaning today. I'm just using it like most people do, in its general sense of how people arrange their affairs and relate to each other in society. And not only human societies, since even ethologists talk about chimpanzee politics, etc.

Capitalism is political, socialism is political, communism is political, anarchism is political, nihilism is political, egoism is political. Wanting to change society in any way is political, wanting people to change their beliefs is political, wanting society to be one way rather than another way is political. Wanting to maintain the status quo is political. However society is constituted is political.

I to am aware of the more monkey noise definition, having said that I don't think you can call relations that are integral and affinity based political even in the broad general meaning of the term.

"Yes Virginia, there is a fascist movement in this country, it may be small and rather incohate right now, but it is there, and growing, and attaching itself to the Trump administration. We don't have to overreact and go nuts, but there's no point in denying it anymore."

The interesting thing here is acknowledging fascism. But how are responding to it? Is it simply Democracy in another form or is a different force? What's the difference between the two? How can we oppose both democracy and fascism AND create a proactive anarchist form? Is this possible or should we just accept that humanity is doomed?

All good questions. I don't think we need to accept that humanity is doomed.

In pic #5, I can't tell who're the dumbest idiots... the national-fascist brutes, or the dark-skinned liberals taking pictures of them as if business as usual.

And seriously CrimethInc... why aren't you posting captions under these pics, explaining a bit on the context?

If we intend to go into the streets and take on the fascists head-on as we've been doing, we are in fact engaging in a symmetrical, heads-up fight. For this, we need to up our training and our "game," as this is not a game at all. They hit the gym and the dojo while too many of us are not training in anything but theory. Right now there are enough of us and few enough of them that we still win most of the battles but that could change.

We have a lot of new people right now, and also have veterans of the blocs of the past who could train people in how to fight as a cohesive unit. Yet, we are not holding anywhere near enough field exercises where we actually pair off into two opposing blocs and train against each other. We used to do this: back in 2003 (as the Iraq War started) I was in a combined Iraq/IMF protest where a training session (half of us roleplaying cops) really saved our butts when the pigs got violent. Today, this kind of training is probably best held on an affinity group basis, with no public announcement, no social media whatsoever, and in places offering some privacy. This is to keep the pigs from getting a bunch of photos to pick people out later-and to keep the fascists from doing the same.

A better strategy would be to let them march in the streets, and take their pictures. Each and every one. Then investigate them, learn their identities, and hunt them down, one by one, privately. Don't engage in any public violence.

We've got to stop getting sucked into the spectacle. That's exactly what they want, because the cops are on their side, the media are on their side, and liberals are on their side. We will never win anything on that terrain.

I gotta agree with this strategy... Which unlike the current antifa tactics, has a clear potential of forcing the fascists back to the sewers.

Now the fighting happening like in Berkeley has been giving way too much eminence and even maybe some fame to the fascist orcs. Don't wait for them to gain crediblity. Let's stop helping making them look like the heroes of whatever moronic bullshit they wanna fight with.

Can you give a single example of that strategy working? Cuz I can give examples of Antifa style tactics effectively shutting down fascist organizing. It's hilarious that a-news edgelords are arguing the liberal "fighting nazis in the streets will make us look bad in the media" line. Fuck outa here

It's what governments do, and it works. There are no anarchist examples that I'm aware of because it probably has not been tried, or if it has, it hasn't been talked about. But some friends and I did a somewhat similar strategy on a smaller scale years ago when some skinheads made a feeble attempt at crashing a bookfair. We took photos, then later asked around who they were. When we found out, one of my friends knew some tough Native warriors, and I happened to know a biker. We did some night work and took care of business. Never heard from those skinheads again.

And if you don't care what the public (i.e. other people) think about your beliefs than you have no fucking hope of changing anything. Have fun pretending you live in an anarchist society with you and your two Facebook friends. Stay in your tiny isolated micro-ghetto where you can remain pure and righteous and never have to engage with anyone who has different worldviews.

You do realize that gathering intel, tracking down, and doxxing nazis makes up a large amount of the work that Antifa does? It's possible to both confront nazis in the streets as well as doxx them and "take care of business". The idea that public militant confrontations with nazis is necessarily alienating to the "public" (whatever the fuck that means) is both practically and historically untrue.

You don't know what 'public' means? Wow...

And I never said all militant confrontations are necessarily and have always been alienating to most other people. In Germany in the 1920s, for example, these kind of confrontations happened frequently. But there was no internet then, no television, no cell phones, etc. And violence was more tolerated back then. We need to adapt strategies to the present conditions and sensibilities.

These kind of modern public square confrontations are a lose-lose proposition for the reasons I've already outlined.

The only thing is they would adapt in time including donning the masks. Also, a number of them are fairly armed to the teeth. Leftists don't exactly have a firearms fetish.

Fascists aren't into "tit-for-tat" violence. Do you have any idea about what "mein kampf" was about? Does "glorification of violence" mean nothing to you? Or is it just, as the liberals say, another idea in the marketplace of ideas? Fuck off.

Good, then they can deal with the negative fallout from masking up for a change. But folks should be able to deal with them before they have a chance to adapt. I mean how many marches or rallies do fascists have? Even if they did adapt, presumably they will arrive or leave by cars (license plates). If not, then just follow them home.

Anyway, film them armed, show them masked up, show them assaulting people, expose them for what they are. Sunlight is often a good disinfectant. They will shrink under the full light of day. Then later you can do some night work.

Fascists and the police do not need masks. Sometimes exposing fascists/KKK police(KKK or police)/etc can be useful, but you are assuming that the majority of people don't agree with them. Take a long hard look at the history of governments! Photography will not defeat the state (fascist or democratic, and definitely not both).

"They will shrink under the full light of day. Then later you can do some night work."
No. Yes.

You're the only one talking about the majority here. The "majority of the people" means nothing, and they've never changed anything, save at letting oppression happen with a smile. It's always minorities who've attained a degree of influence who change the tides. The problem here is that we've let a minority of morons and complete crazies to take the stage they've been struggling to attain for decades, and the usual antifa tactics seemingly didn't help against that, yet maybe at least it helped showing how idiotic/insane those people and their positions are. That's what I've been doing on the nets for a decade or so.

So when you got a minority group that needs to be taken out because they're getting dangerous, mugshots, names, and addresses are the stuff you'll need, first. And to expose them for the shit men they are is also necessary... not for the "majority", but for whoever rational person will be looking at these mental cases and seeing them as people who don't deserve the tribune they are getting.

There's also the problem with those giving them a tribune on the spectacle in the first place, and the tunnel vision of some antifa has left out of view. There are middlemen who've been giving far too much celebrity to the fascists than they deserve, and to me they're the biggest problem, not the fascists.

Tends to be the greater cultural zeitgeist dynamics of the day. Many people are tired of old 20th century leftists and their decadence. Antifa is a part of this whether they want to admit it or not. I think this whole reactionary nationalist storm will blow over with time probably by the quarter point of the century give or take. The rejection of identity politics will be a big part of this and that means that the SJW type will also have to exist history stage left.

On the issue of the middle, it's not just middle men it's middle of the road positions which I tend agree with at certain points not being a leftist myself.

1. the basic problem is that Western civilization has put science/rationality into an unnatural precedence over experience/intuition.

2. science and rationality understand things by analytical inquiry that breaks things down into notionally independent parts in a non-participating space, such as nations and organisms/organizations.

3. the rational model fixes the identity of the nations simply by giving them names and imagines each of them as having 'inputs' and 'outputs' in a complex matrix; i.e. "inputs from many to one" and at the same time "outputs from one to many". these symmetries, at the same time, also describe 'wave space' where relations are in a natural precedence over 'particule-ar, independent fixed identity nations-in-themselves.

4. 'Free trade' has been lubricating the ecosystemic evolution of this relational complex so that although the persisting name of the nation-state symbolized a fixed identity with 'its own' inputs and outputs, the real identity of a nation was as the nexus of simultaneous many-to-one inputs and one-to-many outputs.

5. free trade and globalization tend to put the (notional) individual nation at the mercy of ecosystemic evolution with some [former laggards] starting to thrive and others [former greats] starting to decline regardless of their political leaders claims to be in control in managing them as independent units.

6. Clearly, with free trade, globalization and global banking has been taking the management/control reins away from national leaders and opened the door to ecosystemic evolution wherein relational dynamics [many-to-one inputs and simultaneous one-to-many outputs of people and resources] are the epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing 'genetic expression' (the continuing genesis of nation-states, their development and their dynamics).

7. 'loyalist-nationalists' (old-timers), but not new immigrants, refugees etc. are alarmed by the rapidly changing character of their state and desire regress to former 'values' and 'national character' that they associate with their state.

8. Two trends arise from the above (a) the influence of politicians who promise to restore the unparalleled former greatness of a state heading for a lesser role within the ecosystemic evolution, and (b) antagonism between the loyalist core of the nation and latter arrivals who have established a new matrix of connections with their global points of origin.

9. since the globalization that has been going on in banking, business and immigration is like stirring cream into coffee, national politicians and loyalist-cores re not going to be able to 'unstir' the cream and restore the state to its previous condition, although their attempts to do so can be the source of much conflict.

10. People with a Darwinist view of evolution will assume that the success of a nation derives from its 'internal genetic make-up', while the Lamarckian view is that epigenetic influence inductively actualizes and shapes genetic make-up so the notional 'fixed identity of the thing-in-itself' makes no sense; ... instead, the individual state and the global collective [inhabitant-and-habitat] are a relationally transforming non-duality..

"“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” – Heraclitus

At the recent Berkeley protests lots of alt-righters were masked up. Check out youtube coverage.

Yes, I'm assuming the majority of people don't agree with nazis. Just like I'm assuming the majority of people don't agree with antifa communists Are you claiming otherwise?

A concerted effort to expose the violence of alt-reichers will eventually turn a lot of people off and dwindle their ranks. Most people don't want to be social pariahs.

You have an unfortunate tendency to pedantically preach to the choir, you know that? Anyone you could possibly hope to be talking to is probably already knows and/or is doing that but the other person you're responding to was probably making a point about how "exposing them" is often a less effective tactic than you'd expect, as Snowden found out the hard way.

tl;dr You're still relying on other people to DO something when you "expose the violence" and the whole point of this social media alt-right shit is the smokescreen they're throwing up in front of more explicit neo-nazi ideology.

How the fuck did you get THAT out of what I said? Holy shit.

I'm not relying on other people to do something, I'm suggesting alternative strategies to LARPing in a public space. Exposing nazis is already being done to a certain extent, but I'm talking about not participating in the spectacle anymore. Fuck public protests and counter protests. What have they ever accomplished? EVER.

Snowden's leaks have brought a lot more attention to spying as a problem. Most people no longer see it as something trivial only paranoid conspiracy theorists worried about. Snowden made that paranoia mainstream and legitimate. So I don't know what you mean by Snowden finding out 'the hard way' it was a less effective tactic. Less effective than what? Getting into fist fights with Trump supporters?

How did I get that? By reading what you typed. See my post below, gathering information is a good tactic of course but not an end goal. The stupid spectacle you're critiquing is the LARPing phenomenon which we can probably agree comes out of people going off half-cocked, tilting at windmills. Just because these people haven't figured out how to be serious yet isn't a condemnation of militancy as a concept.

IMHO it sounds like you're equating being a shitty militant with antifascist militancy being misguided in general. I'm already familiar with your reductionist thing about how "protesting" never accomplished anything ever. We already argued about that ages ago and it's still a reductionist position although I get why you're saying it, I'm just going to continue scoffing at you for that one. Yeah yeah, post-left, you're so clever and everyone else is so dumb, blah blah blah etc.

"How did I get that? By reading what you typed."

Oh great, thanks for that detailed comprehensive reply addressing the points I "typed". That certainly clears things up.

"The stupid spectacle you're critiquing is the LARPing phenomenon which we can probably agree comes out of people going off half-cocked, tilting at windmills."

Agreed. And it's gaining in popularity. The alt-right has a whole mythology built around this shit. There are numerous youtube videos evoking the imagery and narrative of nationalist warriors fighting against evil communists (i.e. anyone who disagrees with them is a communist / SJW / progressive / libtard / etc). This stuff is getting millions of views. It's not going away"


"I'm already familiar with your reductionist thing about how "protesting" never accomplished anything ever. We already argued about that ages ago and it's still a reductionist position although I get why you're saying it, I'm just going to continue scoffing at you for that one. Yeah yeah, post-left, you're so clever and everyone else is so dumb, blah blah blah etc."

And yet, people are still protesting. Obviously nothing resulted from those arguments. We're still repeating the exact same ritualistic tactics that never worked in the first place.

How do I know which "post below" is yours, mr. anonymous?

It's the 3 options post. We're clearly both smug assholes so lets skip the pleasantries, k? The point you seem to be arguing is that playing the role in the script for their war against the "cultural marxists" or whatever is stupid and extremely dangerous. I agree with you but that leaves a very big standing question and I hope we can also agree that Do-Nothing-Instead isn't the answer.

So you posed hang-back-and-gather-information as an alternative and me and mine just finished arriving at those same sort of conclusions BUT, that's only because we lack the capacity to do anything else. It's a logical stance to take when admit that you're trying to punch way above your weight, eating humble pie. It's not a longterm solution.

"So you posed hang-back-and-gather-information as an alternative"

No I didn't,... well..partly. But it doesn't matter. I see I'm wasting my time.

"Anyway, film them armed, show them masked up, show them assaulting people, expose them for what they are. Sunlight is often a good disinfectant. They will shrink under the full light of day. Then later you can do some night work." <--- Smug assholes are usually just wasting their time since the only goal is to jerk yourself off and feel superior.

I've certainly heard plenty of this type of bravado, I also noticed in another post there was an anecdote about "tough native warriors" which is, of course, relying on somebody else, isn't it?

Hey fuckwipe, that quote confirms what I said. Expose them and then later do night work. Your dishonest characterization of this (i.e." So you posed hang-back-and-gather-information as an alternative") is thus only partly true of what I said. It wasn't simply to 'hang back'.

Neither was my anecdote merely bravado. I was taking part in the night work, along with the Native Warriors. Yes, working with other people in a group is "relying on somebody else". There was 'somebody else' there with me. So?

Thanks for proving my point to everyone reading this that I've been wasting my time. Lol...

Worked as a kind of defensive response which was certainly good, I'm not sure you can scale those tactics beyond that kind of example however especially when it takes on a kind of offensive enforcement akin to what the police themselves do.

Stop posting your ENTIRE LIVES on Facebook and social media if you're going to go out and do activities like this. It's VERY easy for enemies to obtain your personal info like where you live, work, family, partners, etc. when you plaster that shit all over the internet, and then attack you, as has already happened to someone who was there with antifa. Also mask up so you can't be identified.

Don't stop posting your lives if you are going to go out and do activities like this. Stop posting your lives because in doing so you are already dead. Live instead.

My life is owned by Facebook by now... They're selling the parts to some agencies. I hope that's fr the greater good. For the global community!

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Fascists are liberal democrats

3 different spheres of activity, in order of personal risk and required resources

1. Intel and recon - monitoring activity through social media and in the streets, collecting personal information and building small networks of people with required skills. Relatively easy, legal, low personal risk if simple precautions are taken. This does not include taking aggressive action with this information (see option 3)

2. Defensive - medium to large-sized affinity groups need to build trust and train in self-defence and group tactics. Physical fitness and commitment is mandatory when direct confrontation is likely. Legal and financial resources with be required as well. Street demos that might be targeted by opposition need to prioritize security and stop pretending that a bunch of strangers responding to a Facebook callout have any chance of intelligently defending themselves as a group. It's negligent to call street demos without any serious security plan or threat assessment. All of this is still legal and can be done openly, which is important because you probably need to meet more people.

3. Offensive - Too many people try to start here but if you're ready, you don't need some stranger's advice. If you've never done options 1 or 2, you probably aren't ready. Slow down, stay healthy and out of jail, form solid groups with sharp people that you trust. Manage risk, don't get caught LARPing, the only real safety and strength is in what we build together.

Where is the evidence that the "alt-right" are afflicted with this sort of complex? I certainly don't see it. I see the same Christian Americanism that has been around my whole life, just with new tech. When HASN'T there been this sort of shit? Conservative talk radio, steak and potatoes, mega churches supporting totalitarian presidential actions, bible and flag waving jingoism, a taste for action movies with only one explosion happening over and over again, dumb fucking macho man-babby assholes... the list goes on. Trump is more "one of them" who can do what they think they'd do if they had his cash.

I don't think a lack of self-esteem is at the bottom of it. I grew up with these meatheads. My opinion has nothing to do with reading books about the psycho-social schema of fascists. These pampered fucks may have an inferiority complex in the brains department, but they're probably suffering more from a disappointed sense of entitlement than a deficiency in ego-formation. They don't like difference because they haven't needed any difference to get by. It seems to me that they're mostly just pissed that everything they grew up to believe about morality and jesus isn't getting them the boss job that daddy promised.

It's just more of the same anti-affirmative action kind of shit that has been around for a long time. Now they've got their highschool football coach in office and he's going to help team america win.

And fuck them! Fuck those twits. Let em have it. All of that shit was terrible before Trump and it still is.

sure, this 'nativist' nationalist viewpoint is the same viewpoint that's been around forever, and you have captured it well. but so has athlete's foot and the more interesting aspect is; ... how has the ambient/epigenetic influence changed so as to inductively actualize its resurgence?

i believe you will find, if you look into it [not that those guys are still with us but why those guys are in resurgence], that the resurgence associates with a rising tide of fear that 'we nativists (those considering themselves founding stock) are losing control'.

there is a nativist core in every Western nation that believes in genetics and believes that they areresponsible for everything good that has come to their nation, its successes and its greatness.

the founding fathers of America never said; 'we couldn't have done it without our slaves'. why not? because the Western view of the nation, then and now, is that the nation is driven and directed by a central intelligence and it is this braintrust that has 'made this country what it is'. can you see the names of all the black slaves on the'list of 'responsibles'' for the 'greatness' of the nation? how about the names of indigenous peoples? does it make sense to attribute the 'greatness' of the nation to a list of 'most significant contributors'? did it make sense for Ayn Rand, whose ideas are still touted by the nativist core, to say;

“They [the indians] had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you are a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn’t know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. . . .Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it’s great that some of them did.” — Ayn Rand

what is the measure of the 'most significant contributors' to the greatness of the nation? is it a 'coincidence' that the names of the most wealthy tend to find their way on to the list?

how about those indigenous peoples whose ethic was; "there are plenty of fish in the river, leave them there". did any of them 'make the list'? or did their names show up on the 'suckers' and 'losers' lists?

my point is that, sure, i agree, that this nativist element has been around forever, but what is of interest here lies hidden [not so hidden if we take off our blindfolds and look] in the sourcing of the resurgence. Western culture was Darwinist a century before Darwin as is clear from the writings of Adam Smith (1876),and Darwinism was its pregnant potential a couple of millennia before that. 'Science' is Darwinist in that it understands the source of success and greatness of an organism/organization as deriving from its genetic makeup. The intelligence of the farmer is responsible for the success of the farming operation [until the drought and dustbowl conditions give a reminder of what used to be taken for granted].

who are the most significant contributors to the success and greatness of the nation? in the late 1800s the immigration of italians as low-cost labour to replace black slave labour began to scare the nativists by seeming to threaten the destruction of the great USA success story. The nativist core hated those sons of bitches, and they were the target of the largest mass lynching in US history; see How an 1891 Mass Lynching Tried to Make America Great Again. Not long after that, the legal establishment on the East Coast went after italian protest organizers, Giovannitti and Ettor, and Sacco and Vanzetti, once again without letting lack of evidence stand in their way.

racism is not unknown in Christian Americanism; e.g. God, after advising the Israelites that there would be other ethnic groups in the promised land (Canaanites etc.), He instructed them; “to smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them nor shew mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them.” [Deuteronomy Ch. 7].

the current resurgence derives from nativist fears over the contaminating/diluting of the nation's gene-pool, and that comes from the globalizing of free-trade, banking and business as discussed ... here ....

I don't think there's been a resurgence.

I think that we're still seeing the reconstitution of both the liberal and the conservative elements after the 2008 financial crisis and that the new blood on both sides seem different to the extent that they're more culturally contemporary and are proficient in the latest communications technologies. The main differences between the liberal and conservative perspectives show themselves at the scale of geopolitics and this has been the case for a long time. There was a brief period of Western coalition-style government responding to a unifying post-9/11 enmity, but that period is closing. Now the Right, whose model of geopolitics is the War of Nations (rather than Transnational Capitalism) is retrenching itself in regards to ISIS, China, North Korea, Russia, etc.

Some of the article's points are fine, but I think it's really important to frame right-wing ideology in the War of Nations context it lives in. The cultural consequences cohere in that context: hyper-masculinity, xenophobia, an emphasis on "winning" as an absolute instead of a relative, people dressing up like Spartans and Romans, etc. The right-wing version of history is a history of wars and who has won them. In other words, the cultural pragmatics of right-wing ideology are oriented towards the goal of building a mighty nation. In the USA, that usually means a mighty Protestant nation. As such, whatever isn't WASP-enough is untrustworthy.

That's a different animal than the sort of characters that this article paint. Yes, the boot lickers also get their boots licked, but they don't accept that bargain because they have a weak ego/identity. If we just go back to the 90's, we see that the neo-Conservative narrative evidences a strong, but threatened ego/identity. The threat then was post-modern decadence. That kind of ego doesn't feel threatened because it is founded on weak principals, it feels threatened because it is used to being the winner in the geopolitical arena. It feels threatened by anything that may make society less war-oriented and masculine.

The worry is that the Left has had a hard time coming back from the destruction of blue-collar class war. The Left produces intellectuals that smell inauthentic when they preach blue-collar class values and even worse when they abandon class war for neo-Liberal capitalism that they mask with a pseudo-multiculturalism. That mask broke during the financial crisis. That's what happened. People who grew up in the post-9/11 world are trying on the conservative hat because the Left keeps failing to make neo-Liberalism beneficial to respective country's political mass base. And the Left will continue to fuck this up until it can found its ideology on something both transnational and basic, in the same sense that the international industrial working class is basic.

The service worker economy (read: office workers of all sort) hasn't EVER been a strong source of working class values for a variety of reasons. However, it HAS been a strong source of liberal cultural values. The thing about liberal cultural values, though, is that they are cosmopolitan. The second that something threatens the reproduction of middle-class cosmopolitanism, the propaganda for expansionist, transnational capital fails. Why? The global supply chain that feeds an upwardly mobile working class seizes up and the consumerism that justifies it becomes dysfunctional.

Well there's something that doesn't seize up with crises for transnational capital and that's the war machine... and that's the right-wing. Not that transnational capital doesn't engage in warfare.

I don't know. That's how I try to wrap my head around it.

I've named these rotten creeps before. Timothy C. May and Cody " Radomysisky' Wilson are two fascists posing as anarchists.


Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.