] of Salon
has a piece ripping off a Guardian
story about the Alt Right. He's apparently done this without using the copy and paste function:
Meanwhile Peter Briemlow, who founded the xenophobic website Vdare.com, said Trump’s failure to deliver on white nationalist goals would result in a backlash against him.“I think the right of the right is absolutely prepared to revolt,” Brimelow said to The Guardian. “It’s what they do.”Alt-right leaders are predicting a “revolt” if Donald Trump doesn’t do their bidding December 27, 2016. Emphasis added
The actual Guardian
report, 'Alt-right' groups will 'revolt' if Trump shuns white supremacy, leaders say
by Rory Carroll [Email him]
December 27, 2016, is more sensible. Of course I object to "white supremacy". But this term seems to be in the process of being redefined to mean "whites saying truths the political Establishment doesn't want to hear about race" or "whites not being utter wimps about race."
Here's the unedited e-exchange I had with Carroll (his questions in bold
):1. Once Trump is in office and making decisions - and the inevitable compromise of power - might disillusion afflict parts of the alt-right (or white nationalist movement, or whatever term you think is most accurate)?
There’s always been a Right of the Right in GOP politics, dating back at least to Taft. Periodically it launches revolts against the Establishment (Goldwater, Buchanan) and occasionally it wins (Reagan, Trump). One or other faction of this group is usually most prominent and its name tends to be used for the whole phenomenon, but that’s not strictly accurate. For example, “paleoconservative” was most prominent during the Buchanan Wars, but the younger people now apparently identify that with hyper-Catholicism, social conservatism etc.
“White Nationalism” doesn’t really work because the Alt Right has views on foreign policy, trade etc. that are not racially specific. (I should say I think White Nationalism is a legitimate position
But yes, I think I think the Right Of The Right is absolutely prepared to revolt. It’s what they do. The only time this didn’t really happen was with Reagan, because he gave them key important bones—Cold War victory, tax cuts, breaking inflation etc. Trump will have to give them e.g. an immigration moratorium.2 I'm wondering if the ebullience from the Washington conference shows expectations are too high and that people are in for a bumpy landing. And if so, what will that look like? Sniping between maximalists, pragmatists and others?
You mean the NPI conference? I thought it was post-Clintocaplyse relief rather than ebullience, apart from Richard’s idiot conclusion
Apart from that, I thought the audience were true believers. None of them were looking for jobs in the Trump Administration. They’re absolutely prepared to revolt. These are not party loyalists. They know they’re entirely outside the Establishment consensus. And they’re used to guerilla warfare.3 News sites often thrive in opposition and struggle when they're cheerleaders, or de facto defenders, of power. Might this be the fate of the likes of Breitbart, currently enjoying a surge in profile and clout?
If an outlet is seen as the forum for the Administration and its hangers-on, that’s a powerful role. To a certain extent, that happened to NATIONAL REVIEW
after 1980—and to WaPo
and the NYT
forever. Of course, it can easily degenerate into cheerleading e.g. NATIONAL REVIEW under Rich Lowry.
Generally speaking, of course you’re right, opposition is easier. This is not a problem we have at VDARE.com!