This is Real Folks. We Really are Winning. But, We Haven’t Grasped Victory Yet


I’ve never seen things move so fast in our direction before. Of course I am not particularly old, but still, I have been watching and contributing what I can towards pushing our cause foreword for almost a decade now. We really are winning. I see something almost every week that makes me say this, and that is very encouraging. There is hope left in the world. There really is.

One of the biggest things is probably one of the most easily overlooked: the ever subtle, ever gradual shift in tone in media outlets. Outlets that just last year would have called people like Richard Spencer “White supremacists” and dismissed them without further comment, now adopt a much more neutral tone.

While some outlets still insist on calling him a “White supremacist” or “neo-nazi”, gradually, it seems that most are starting to call him a White Nationalist instead. This is a definite improvement since (1) it is more accurate, (2) whatever you have to say about any baggage which you think comes with the label, it is nothing like the baggage that comes with the “White supremacist” or “Nazi” label. Nothing. Most people don’t have a clue what a White Nationalist is, meaning that they don’t automatically bring all those negative stereotypes with them when they hear someone called that, unlike when people are called “White supremacists” or “Nazis.”

This shift in labeling also means that increasingly, we are being considered (1) politically relevant, which means we are growing in power and influence not just in our eyes, but in the eyes of everyone, and (2) a serious political philosophy to be taken seriously and addressed, rather than merely dismissed off-hand with a slur.

Moreover, the outrage with which many journalists used to write about us is slowly but surely giving way to a begrudging acknowledgment of legitimacy. Take some of the examples below:

From the Auburn Student Newspaper, The Plainsman:

White nationalist thinker Richard Spencer, who was set to speak on campus next week, in a phone interview with The Plainsman blasted the University’s decision to cancel his event.

The controversial white nationalist has now promised a showdown with University officials over freedom of speech on public college campuses. . .

He rose to national prominence for being punched at an anti-Trump protest in January and has been criticized for his alt-right views, which are a combination of racism, white nationalism and populism.

From the Connecticut Post:

White nationalist Richard Spencer spoke in a crowded auditorium at Auburn University on Tuesday after a federal judge blocked the school from banning his appearance.

Only a few chairs were empty in the more than 400-seat room as Spencer and other speakers railed against ethnicity and racial diversity, liberals, the media and more. They say they want to promote white pride.

Spencer previously made news by addressing a far-right gathering where audience members gave a Nazi salute.

Supporters and opponents engaged in shouting marches beforehand. Auburn police spokesman Capt. Lorenza Dorsey said three people were arrested on disorderly conduct charges.

From the New York Times:

Last week, Richard B. Spencer, a white nationalist and one of the leaders of America’s so-called alt-right movement, announced that he would be giving a speech on the campus of Auburn University in Alabama. Auburn, a public university, has a policy of permitting anyone who wants to rent meeting space to do so.

Mr. Spencer is a controversial and divisive figure who has been decried as racist, anti-Semitic, un-American and hateful. . .

Given the sometimes disruptive responses to other controversial speakers on campuses recently, Auburn’s concern is certainly credible. But is that justification for canceling the speech constitutionally permissible? [The author concludes that it is not.]

These aren’t the only such examples I have seen. In fact, I would say that most of what I see written about Richard and the Alt-right now sounds something like this. While it would certainly be untrue to say that these descriptions are meant to be positive, they lack the outrage and viciousness that has hitherto accompanied MSM narratives about pro-White people and ideas. They are shockingly neutral and dispassionate. The restraint is palpable.

Instead of describing Richard Spencer in monstrous terms, or calling him a bigot or a racist or a skinhead, Richard has simply become “controversial” and “divisive”.

The vitriol is gone. All the self-righteous arrogance is gone. The hatred, though still very much alive, is less prominent; the bias, though far from gone, is muted.

Moreover, some of them seem to be losing their formerly unshakable faith in the unassailable righteousness of their own moral assessment. Increasingly, when I read news pieces about Richard Spencer or the Alt-Right, the journalist eschews the old-style attack method of calling Spencer or the movement “racist” “White supremacist,” etc. and instead writes with considerably more caution and humility, noting  that Spencer or the Alt-Right have been accused of being these things by others.

I also couldn’t let the fact go by that at least one outlet, the Auburn student newspaper no less, is now actively distinguishing between White Nationalism and “racism”. For the first time ever, I have read an article from a non-pro-White media source that expressly distinguishes between the two, and therefore doesn’t try to argue or even suggest that White Nationalism = racism. This is a first. Hopefully there are many more to come.

Notice too that Spencer has “supporters and opponents” just like any other speaker, not mobs, thugs or skinheads and not pro-human rights protesters, or “everyday Americans” against him. Just “supporters and opponents” nothing else.

Everyday, Richard Spencer, and the Pro-White movement generally, are being treated more and more like any other right-wing speaker or movement. And although I will grant that the entire right-wing never got great treatment in the press (and still doesn’t) treating us as just another right-wing faction is vastly different from painting us as the monsters both sides can agree to hate that was our experience of yesterday. Hopefully those bad dreams can be consigned forever to the past.

Even silly notorious Buzzfeed, which still insists on labeling Richard with all the names that have been proven not to work,  has to admit that he has “risen to prominence” and has “many” supporters.

Just as little as a year ago, all of this would have been pretty much unimaginable. We have come a very long way. But we still have so many miles to go.

This change in attitude is the first step, but left to itself, it accomplishes nothing. Action is what accomplishes things. Attitude change is crucial for action, but by itself, it will not stop our dispossession. It will not stop our children from being murdered in the streets. It will not stop our rights from being trampled upon.

It lifts up our spirit, and frees our souls, and gives us ourselves back. But all of these things, great, and beautiful, and wonderful as they are—for surely they are a precious thing unto themselves to be looked for and cherished—are incapable of saving us. We must move from the inner attitude to the outward actions of saving our race and people.

We must not stop until we have spread to the whole society not only our attitudes, but our actions.

The fight goes on.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s