It’s always interesting when the mainstream media reports on fringe media, and a recent article in the New York Times was no exception. Although Stephanie Saul, the journalist who primarily wrote the piece, conducted an interview with Alternative-Right’s Colin Liddell and was apparently aware of The Right Stuff.biz, neither received any mention in her article. Instead, her focus was mainly on Stormfront and the Daily Stormer, and broader pro-white ideology on the Internet, which really has no consistent nomenclature. She settled on variations of “the white supremacy movement,” which is accurate for some sites but not all. For example, I myself am dismissive of the term as something the left uses to slander white in-group advocacy; where are the condemnations of the Democratic party as black supremacist or Latino supremacist or LGBT supremacist, etc.? There aren’t any; it’s a double standard. But I wouldn’t expect the New York Times to appreciate the distinction.
But for all its inherent faults as a product of the mainstream and therefore anti-white media, I found the article to be surprisingly tolerable and revealing of a higher degree of literacy in the white nationalist wing of the electronic right than I was anticipating. [I had learned from my spooky scary internet associates that the article was being written in advance]. Equally surprising was the amount of straightforwardness with which the article addressed what could be called our movement; I had expected a screechy catlady-tier response. To be sure, the article in question certainly doesn’t paint us positively, nor is it sympathetic to us, but still, it caught my attention. The purpose was, after all, to try to connect internet sites to Dylann Roof.
Anyway there were a few quotes that stuck out to me that I wanted to comment on using my own platform, this blog.
Experts dispute the number of movement supporters but agree about its efforts to modernize. While the virulent racism of old can still be found online, the movement today also includes more button-down websites run by white nationalism think tanks with vanity publishing units. Most of the best-known organizations also claim to have disavowed the violence of groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
I don’t know why you needed “experts” on an internet-based movement, or what qualifies one as such, but generally yes, it would be impossible to come up with an accurate muster roll of white nationalists. You are right that most organizations are non-violent, but your word choice is evidently skeptic. That happens when you conflate Amren with the KKK. We are also very interested in modernization, but who isn’t? I guess since we are often considered conservative or middle-aged white people you might think we’re luddites or tech-illiterates, but many of us are in our twenties and thirties. In fact, if I had to guess I would say most who write and blog are. Like regular people, we embrace technology and communications platforms. You know, because we’re regular people?
“White supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy — separate from any formalized group — which hampers warning efforts,” said a Department of Homeland Security report issued in 2009. The report came under fierce criticism from conservatives, who said it unfairly painted them as terrorists.
You know what’s funny? White people are proportionately one of the safest demographic groups in the United States. The threat of white supremacist terrorism is a left-wing bogeyman designed to detract from the actual terrorist-producing population of the United States, Muslims. As I have previously written and deduced:
The ratio of whites to right-wing or white terror attacks is therefore 10,427,760:1. So for every 10,500,000 white people, there is one terrorist.
The ratio of Muslims to Muslim terror attacks is therefore 395,714:1. So for every 400,000 Muslims, there is one terrorist.
Wait a minute, are you telling me that minority Muslims are almost 26 times more likely to be terrorists than the majority white population, even though whites commit more terror attacks? Even though there are almost 70 times more whites than Muslims in the United States? How do per capita statistics work? How could that even be possible? You’re racist! Skinhead troll!
Back to NYT; here’s another fun snippet:
Several organizations — the National Policy Institute, American Renaissance, the Charles Martel Society and its website The Occidental Observer — try to take a more highbrow approach, couching white nationalist arguments as academic commentary on black inferiority, the immigration threat to whites and other racial issues.
You know, the left really needs to check its institutional privilege. It’s not as if other ideas are illegitimate just because you control academia and media. There is nothing wrong with taking “a more highbrow approach.” I’m sure some leftists are ashamed of the violent and anti-civilizational behavior of many Democrat voter blocs, such as African Americans, just as much as the alt-right wouldn’t touch the KKK with a barge pole.
Then there’s another silly attempt to portray the movement as violent:
Stormfront’s Mr. Black does not just talk about such aspirations: He spent two years in federal prison for an ill-fated attempt in 1981 to seize the Caribbean island of Dominica for conversion into an all-white paradise, financed by brothels and casinos. The authorities stopped him and his group as they were boarding a yacht with plans to stage a Dominica coup.
Wow so some white people attempted a coup in the 1980s; that is pretty noteworthy relative to the world capital of military-derived chaos, the Middle East and Africa. It is pretty hilarious to think that as late as the Reagan era Americans were still attempting 19th century style filibusters in the Caribbean and Latin America though.
My favorite part of the article, naturally, were the very contrasting White Genocide magnets with the following caption:
I didn’t expect the New York Times to be this literate on white nationalism. Credit where credit is due.
I’ll close with the following:
An analysis of traffic to several major supremacist websites shows that many attracted spikes in interest late last year, around the time that anger over the shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., was touching off protests in cities and towns across the nation. But it remains far from clear whether it translated into a larger following for any of the groups.
Yeah, I wonder too if the viciously anti-white narrative touted across the mainstream media and on social media in the wake of the deaths of black criminals lead to a spike in white nationalist web traffic. Whose fault is it anyway?