Racism can be so confusing!
Consider the case of everyone’s favorite racist dickhead fantasy author, Theodore “Vox Day” Beale. Ever since he discovered, two years ago, that his DNA contained enough Native American blood “to qualify for membership in most Indian tribes,” Beale has been using these DNA results to do a sort of end-run around accusations of racism.
How can he be a racist, much less a white supremacist, if he’s technically a “Person of Color,” specifically “a real Indian, complete with tribe, reservation, casino, and language” (that he of course does not speak). It’s a “gotcha” he loves to pull out every time someone points to any of the incredibly racist things he’s said over the years.
Now this little rhetorical gambit of his is starting to backfire. Turns out Beale’s identification of himself as a “Native American” isn’t exactly endearing him to the hardcore white supremacists of the Alt Right.
And so Beale, who very much wants to be not only a member but a big name in the Alt-Right club, has decided to invent a whole new category of Alt Right for people like him. Or perhaps just him.
In a blog post today, Beale divides the Alt Right into three groups: The Alt-White, the Alt-Lite, and the Alt-West. The Alt-White consists of the unrepentantly white supremacist Daily Stormer crowd. The Alt-Lite is made up of Pepe-posting anime Nazis who, in his mind, don’t really count as serious Alt-Rightists at all.
And then there is the Alt-West, which consists, as far as I can tell, of no one but Beale himself.
Beale tries to explain the details of this particular sorting system, but his efforts really only serve to muddy things further.
Alt-White is for whites only. Alt-West is pan-racial and pan-national, which should not be confused with being multicultural or equalitarian or pro-diversity in the egalitarian sense.
Beale is the only “pan-racialist” I’ve ever run across who not only rails against white women dating black men, but who actually went so far as to mock a “coal burning” white woman who was recently murdered by her black boyfriend. Beale’s take? “Burn de coal, pay de toll.”
Alt-White is primarily concerned with white nationalism, and secondarily concerned with European nationalisms. … While the Alt-West supports white nationalism, that is not its sole concern, as it supports all nationalism, European or otherwise.
Distinction without a difference.
Alt-White is neutral to hostile on Christianity. Alt-West is strongly pro-Christian, as it believes Christianity to be one of the three pillars of Western Civilization aka the historical Christendom.
But don’t worry, aspiring Alt-Westerners! You don’t actually have to do more than pay a vague lip-service to the idea of Christianity!
Pro-Christian includes, but does not require, actually being a Christian.
And then comes what the Nazi types like to call the Jewish Question.
Alt-White is hostile to very hostile to all Jews everywhere. Alt-West is friendly to Israeli Jews while hostile to globalist Jews and anti-nationalist Jews.
So Beale is fine with Jews just so long as they don’t live in his neighborhood. Or his country. Or indeed any country other than Israel.
But perhaps the most revealing bit is Beale’s take on literal Hitler and the literal Nazis.
Alt-White has a romantic view of National Socialism. Alt-West regards it as a suicidally stupid but semiotically useful form of German nationalism.
Er, what?
So Beale’s main criticism of the Nazis is that … they were kind of stupid for invading Russia and dooming themselves to defeat? But, hey, they had the coolest logo?
Aside from these little differences, Beale assures any Alt-Whities reading his post that
Alt-White and Alt-West are largely in accord. … [W]ith the possible exception of Christianity in the long term, there is very little reason for conflict between Alt-White and Alt-West … .
Also, white people are totally awesome!
There are much bigger battles ahead than settling the question of whether Christianity is a necessary component of Western Civilization or not. Because we know the white race is absolutely a necessary component of it, and that is why, whether one is inclined towards the Alt-White or the Alt-West, every member of the Alt-Right who values both whites and the West has immediate and mid-range objectives remain exactly the same.
Mighty white of you, Ted. Mighty white of you.
@ buttercup
Maybe he just has really strong feelings about OJ Simpson?
http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag392/pellico31/no-pubic-option_zpsba44f07c.jpg
http://www.11points.com/images/bigotedmisspellings/obamamusllin.jpg
Based on some “Oh, you’re a white South African” comments I’ve had from alt-righters, I have a sneaking suspicion that what they admire the most about Israel has to do with apartheid.
@Alan Or he’s an unhappy former client of Mike Cernovich.
I just noticed the word “(Zionist)” in teeny, tiny letters above “Juice”. Perhaps he’s protesting the establishment of a citrus homeland in Florida?
Poor Voxman. Still yearning to be recognised as a big deal and a sooper-genius, destined forever to fall short.
@ buttercup
Being playing around for a suitable response and the best I could come up with was a terrible pun about ‘citric Hasid’. And there are hardly any fruit based rhymes for Balfour Declaration!
Again, it seems that first and foremost the connections are anti-Islam. At least from what I’ve seen so far. Oh, and also anti-leftists appears to be a common denominator.
The apartheid thing is a bit more complicated, in Israel. From my (very limited, I admit) point of view, I’d say that the situation in the occupied territories is apartheid, or at least very similar to it, while inside Israel it tends to be more run-of-the-mill racism.
And you have the terrorism issue, which further complicates things (since many Israeli racists like to point out the prevalence of Hamas and other fundamentalist organizations as a justification for the apartheid in the OT, and since dealing with terrorist organisations like those in the countries around Israel can be difficult even in the best of circumstances, and I would not call our circumstances the best).
All in all, it’s a bit of a complex issue, and it’s one that tends to make me a bit wary. Even as left-wing bleedin’-heart wuss as I am, and even though I highly dislike and disagree with the current government’s policies, speaking about Israel with non-Israelies can make me uncomfortably defensive.
I think it’s just that it feels like the conversation goes to extremes very fast – either against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims, or against Israel. Words like “atrocities” start getting thrown about, and I get, well, uncomfortable.
Or maybe it’s the sort of natural hypocricy we all tend to have when other people are speaking negatively about something we’re close to. :-/
I do realise that I was the one who brought this up to begin with, so please don’t take my discomfort as an obligation to not talk about this subject. Just explaining why I might get a bit awkward.
Members of Pox’s Tea Bag tribe?!
http://8.media.tumblr.com/iQr08Tpiumfa9cbl3Hut5lkQo1_500.jpg
Regarding ‘(Zionist) juice’, I always find it perplexing that the word ‘Zionist’ is used to describe two diametrically-opposed supposed tendencies of Jews:
1) The supposed nationalist tendency of occupying land in the Middle East in order to create a permanent Jewish state (which is what the Arabs are protesting against)
2) The supposed tendency of Jews to adopt an internationalist stance, and in organizing a worldwide conspiracy to put the peoples of the Earth under an all-encompassing totalitarian regime (which is what the hard-right nutters are railing at)
Make up your minds, people! It can’t be the same group trying to create a nation-state for its people, and simultaneously trying to enslave the entire Earth, nationalist and internationalist in its designs.
The only commonality is that it involves the demonisation of people of the Jewish fait-
Oh. Ohhhhh.
@ Penny Psmith
It’s very close to home (literally) for you, isn’t it? I’m glad you posted that comment.
When I was a young ‘un and heavily involved with the local International Socialists and the like, any discussions about this issue were exactly as you describe. This was back when “Zionist” was taken to mean “Israeli supremacist”.
I still recall my fury when reading Naomi Wolf (I think it was Fire with Fire? Not sure which book now) writing about visiting a fellow Jewish friend and casually mentioning that her friend’s house was in a settlement in the occupied territories. It meant nothing to Wolf, except as backdrop.
And now I’m worried that I’m simply confirming your original comment! My point – if there was one – was that I once viewed this issue through a simplified lens where Israeli people were just backdrop (and not a positive one). I’ve since learned otherwise.
I do hope that makes sense of a kind. Thanks again; I always appreciate your comments 🙂
@ penny
I don’t want to ‘splain your own country’s situation to you but I’ve had some interesting chats about those issues with peeps from the IDF and the Mossad (nothing sinister, I just know their legal people). They have some views that might seem a bit unexpected.
I don’t want to derail the thread and discussions on this topic never end well anyway, but if you’re interested in what they said maybe just create a temporary ‘burner’ email and I can pass on the details?
(Or I’m just on Facebook. Stone circles, Sunsets, Sikhs and Spitfires)
@Mish – Thanks for the sympathy! And don’t worry, it’s fine. I got it.
There’s just a combination of factors here that tends to push hot buttons, so to speak (apologies for mixing metaphors) for a lot of different people: occupation, terrorism, Jews, Zionism, Islam, various flavours of racism, US foreign policy, etc. etc. So things can get heated fast. I do trust the commenterati here that it won’t get that bad… again, mostly trying to explain my own behaviour.
@Alan – If other people here are fine with tne derailment of the thread, go ahead! It sounds interesting, and like I said, I don’t think my awkwardness about this subject needs to be a reason for everyone else to drop it (also, see above).
I do know that a number of officers and ex-officers in IDF, Shin-Bet, Mossad etc. have been speaking publicly against current government policies, the occupation in general, and the current — umn, currents — of right-wing radicalisation and racism, here. It’s quite fascinating to see these things coming from people who are/were part of the system, and even more fascinating to see the right-wing responses to them (I remember one guy who wondered something like “what is it about the army that makes these people go all leftist?!” :-D).
The weird thing is the way he’s trying to declare the people who wouldn’t kill him for who his ancestors were his enemies.
They’re the dangerous ones. The ones he needs to rally the troops to stop.
Aha! I was kind of wondering why my old racist misogynist homophobic theocratist shitbag colleague had converted to that religion in particular. I knew he switched away from Catholicism because Francis was insufficiently regressive, but I didn’t understand the appeal of the Greek Orthodox Church.
I have seen this often — the argument is they just want separation between equals (but whites are of course far more equal than the rest, so we’re claiming all your territory. Here have a little corner of the desert.)
It’s not a new idea: Ethnic cleansing dates back to ancient times.
Arguably, ethnic cleansing isn’t even a human innovation — other apes do it too.
@Alan – It’s like finding a rhyme for orange. This is where speaking fluent Teabonics would probably help – no need for spelling or sense, just pick a person or institution you dislike, then cram in a random, unrelated grievance.
I’m pondering “Sykes-Apricot Agreement” and “Protocols of the Elderberries”, but that’s straying a little far from Zionist juice territory.
@ penny
Oh gawd, that is an entire subject in itself; but yeah, some of the most hippy people I know are ex IDF. You seen “Alpha Diaries”? That’s an intersting take on this too. One technique I did pick up from the IDF was that after a patrol with heavy backpacks they all stand in a circle and give each other a shoulder massage. Love that.
As to the original subject, I’ll keep it as a very brief executive summary of their views as relayed to me.
As for the IDF staff (i.e. the planners and policy makers), whatever their personal politics, from a purely pragmatic military point of view they hate the settlements. That’s because they consider that Israel’s biggest problem is a lack of ‘strategic depth’. If you’re defending against invading forces you want a big buffer zone where you can fight without worrying about damage to your own people. So if an invasion comes from the south you can have use tanks and air strikes against the enemy in the Sinai on an effective a blank canvas (rather than the Africa campaigns in WW2). However if an invasion comes from across the Jordan, you’ve only got a tiny strip of land before the enemy is in your own streets. However if you put settlements in that strip you’re now having to take into account the risk to your own population right from the start. You can’t just run tanks anywhere or use blanket air strikes. You have to fight around a load of out of bounds areas. Effectively you’ve lost what little strategic depth you had. It’s like if NATO didn’t have the Steppes to fight on and waited until the USSR was in the suburbs of West Germany. The IDF staff just sees the settlements as a planning headache.
The Mossad hates the IDF getting into battles in the territories and Gaza (and the politics causing that). All it does is inflame the situation and act as a recruiting tool for Hamas. More improperly though it’s a massive drain on resources better employeed elsewhere. Rocket attacks are obviously a big concern to the Israeli populous, but as far as The Mossad are concerned they don’t represent an existential threat (or even any threat at all statistically). But when Hamas are active, political and popular pressure means they have to divert all sorts of resources to dealing with that. As far as The Mossad are concerned though, the real existential threat comes from surrounding enemies on a state level. But every team tracking down some guy knocking out home made mortars is one less team they could have dealing with Iran or Syria etc. Also Palestinian discontent is exploited by these state actors. So nobody is more keen on coming to an accord with the Palestinians than the security services, just from a pragmatic view.
Like I say, that’s just the pragmatic view, not the politics. It may well be though that that is what feeds into the views you noted in your post.
@ buttercup
You’re amazing; I can only gape in slack jawed awe.
ETA: Ooh, “British Mandarin-Orangedate”?
(Yup, got my coat)
@WWTH, Axe, SFHC, Buttercup, calmdown, Virgin Mary
http://thegops.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Obama-is-the-AntChrist-628×356.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ucVNz5j.jpg
ANTCHRIST!! I KNEW IT!!
http://dorkshelf.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/hailants.jpg
Ha! Very steadily ninja’d and outperformed by Nequam <3
Sigh, kids today…
We don’t need a new word to describe the “Alt-West”. What he’s describing is just the old Paleoconservative wing of the Republican Party.
It seems to be on the way out. As religion becomes less important in public life, the Paleoconservative and Religious-Right wings of the Republican Party have found themselves increasingly marginalized by the Neoconservative and Libertarian wings.
The new Alt-Right wing is basically a group of secular bigots with an isolationist foreign policy. It draws from Paleoconservatives and Libertarians who want to be part of a larger faction, so that they can oppose the dominant Neoconservatives.
Vox needs to start figuring this stuff out, unless he wants to be the world’s last Paleoconservative.