This was called “The War on the Alt-Right” [H/T Chuckles]:
One of the things few notice is the level of coordination in the media. The writers and talkers are often conspiring with one another to push some agenda, usually on behalf of moneyed interests or one of the political parties.
The most recent example is the Michelle Fields hoax, facilitated by Ben Shapiro, who is a kept man of the guy financing the Ted Cruz campaign. The whole thing was a setup by “reporters” with an agenda, one purchased by the Ted Cruz campaign.
The Fields hoax is an exception, but there is a lot of everyday coordination in the media. The JournoList scandal a few years ago revealed that many left-wing writers and reporters were coordinating their efforts via a secret e-mail list.
They would promote each other’s work and coordinate how they would cover certain people and events. They imagined themselves as the guys meeting at Rue Saint-Jacques, except they were working on behalf of the king, despite imagining otherwise.
It looks like Buckley Conservatives have learned from their betters on the Left.This article appeared on the collaborationist website The Federalist, yesterday. Today, National Review has a different version of essentially the same article.
Ian Tuttle feels no shame in plagiarizing the Federalist piece, suggesting this is a coordinated effort. Then again, there are only so many ways to hoot the word “racist” in a column so plagiarism is probably not the right word here.
I’m not sure it should be called the Alt-Right as there are many libertarians onside who would have counted themselves vaguely left, meaning to them compassionate and caring for the people.
Perhaps a better term would be “We the People”, as in anti-Statist, anti-Establishment, pro-liberty. it excludes bansturbators, the self-entitled and the eternal victims.
I’ve been looking at the numbers of late. Every reference I could find was pressed into service to arrive at a total number of such thinkers. This includes Kippers, Tea-Partiers, those who comment at the Mail and who used to at the Telegraph, who sometimes get through at the Speccie, who are vaguely libertarian but sometimes are the right part of the left-right divide.
It includes Marine Le Pen, Nigel, so many bloggers, many readers of blogs, then people such as Churchmouse, various techies, Ron Paul and so on. And they are unherdable cats. Though they appear to speak with one voice, they are “uncoordinatable” – each objects to something in the other, on some issue.
They do badly on combining and doing the PTB global leftist Establishment thing, as written on by Senator William Jenner in the 50s, along with Carol Quigley, Zbigniew Brzezinski and so on. Each has his or her own path and is gratified if someone agrees on some point … but that’s largely it. Having made the point, each goes back to his day-to-day biz.
And so nothing gets done because the other side is highly organized and has a plan. It’s this way with the GOP Establishment and their current man Cruz, against the one speaking truths at this time, the abrasive political amateur Trump.
What has come out of this campaign is that so many now see that the Establishment right is as bad as the Establishment left and they combine. Just for this brief time, the OWSers and TeaPartiers are at one. We always saw it ourselves but the point is that it’s now gone out into the mainstream.
Shapiro, in years gone by, would have been lauded. Now he is vilified by many who have grown-up, politically. This is called political maturity and the Establishment, seeing this happen, obviously number crunch and answer their concern – how far could this go?
The figure I got to was about 35% of the population our way inclined, with maybe another 15% or more at times undecided but not antithetical to the principles we blog on. and this translates into UKIP’s showing in 2015, once one has removed the LibLabCon con and the postal voting. 35-40% does seem reasonably accurate.
How many SJWs/feminists/Corbynites, even left-liberals? You’d have to think, given Obama’s electability and Hillary still winning primaries, that it is around 40-45%, with another 10 to 20% undecided but that way inclined. Given the constant low-level campaigning in every university, every film, every speech and so on, it’s understandable.
This is seen in Australia too where the ALP was usually around 40% and Libs could not govern unless in coalition. Libs are held to be around 35% usually. It’s also in the US now where Trump is falling just short of the numbers required. Close but no cigar so far.
In a two-philosophy preferred situation, and this will come out with today’s Dutch referendum and our June 23rd, when all who vote for whatever reason are combined, it’s pretty well line ball. As the presented options are so radically opposed, therefore there is the bleedin’ obvious – we are in nations divided since the 60s as at no other time in remembered history.
I see no way back. If you say redistribute “the” wealth and I say there is no “the” wealth, it’s what belongs to individual people, then there is no possible compromise there.
If you say “you didn’t build that” and I say I damn well did, there is no possible compromise there either.
If you say “refugee” and I say “invader”, we are a nation divided and Lincoln had something to say on that.
Turn the other cheek is a good general philosophy but not if we are being charged by a lion who sees his meal in us.