A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of its Members and Leaders, edited by George T. Shaw, Arktos Media Ltd., 2018.

Reviewed by K R Bolton

The Alt-Right became a part of the US political lexicon during the Trump-Clinton presidential campaigns, when Clinton, like Obama and Trotsky, wanted to appear as the people’s champion rather than the oligarch’s choice. Looking about for a red-herring, a bogeyman and a scapegoat she – or her scriptwriters –chose the Alt-Right, a hitherto obscure, broad movement that could be depicted as a neo-Nazi or revived Klan threat because its agenda included white survival. Because Alt-Right pioneers were well-educated, articulate and presentable, and had their foundations prepared by the traditional Old Right that had become marginalized partly by the mainstreaming of the misnamed “neoconservatives,” there had been a fertilized ground from which the Alt-Right grew, rather than just cropping up from nowhere. These origins are often obscure in stating that the Alt-Right, as in Europe, is a New Right. It is actually, as Daniel Friberg, CEO of Arktos Media has stated in his own book “the return of the ‘real right’.” (Friberg, The Real Right Returns, Arktos Media Ltd., 2015). The “Right” does not need reinventing, it needs reiterating. What was called “Right,” especially in the Anglophone states, is a reanimation of Liberal-Whiggery that subverted and obscured the traditional Right. The Right is organic, Liberal-Whiggery and Communism alike disrupt organic bonds, the former with the fracture of individualism, the latter with the fracture of class, and both with the primacy of economics. Hence one now sees the revival of interest of Rightist philosophers such as Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola among the Alt-Right.

The interregnum between the traditional Right, which Dr. Paul Gottfried termed “palaeoconservative” to distinguish it from the bastardous misnomer, the “neoconservatives,” was maintained by certain traditional-Conservatives such as Paul Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Sam Dixon, Jared Taylor, et al. The two latter are included in this anthology of Alt-Right activists and writers. The inclusion of a chapter from Dr. Gottfried would have perhaps been apt given that Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s expertise on Jewish matters as they pertain to Western culture, are included, and Dr. Gottfried is an example of a Jew whose sincerity and contribution to the Right (whether called “palaeo,” “true,” real” or “Old”) might only be questioned by the most obsessive Judaeophobes of which the Right, Old, Alt and New, has many, as distinct from a justified and rational “Counter-Semitism,” defined in George T. Shaw’s “Alt-Right Counterrevolutionary Lexicon” as “suspicion of or distaste for Jewish behaviors and agendas as a response to initiatory hostile actions from Jews.”

The Clinton-Psychotic alliance was trumped because Americans en masse saw Hilary as obnoxious, arrogant, and distant. She needed a scapegoat for her loss; or more than one, when we consider Russia’s alleged but elusive “interference in the US elections,” never mind that a vast network called “civil society” and mainly US based stretches over the world, and regards Russia as the primary target. (K R Bolton, Russia’s Fight against Globalisation, Black House Publishing, 2018).

The editor, George T Shaw, introduces this collection of essays with his chapter “An Alternative to Failure.” His immediate definition of Al-Right is that of race survival for whites like any other distinct human population. This primary moral imperative of the Alt-Right is expressed as ethnostates, to which everyone is entitled. The Alt-Right as a US phenomenon is of course predicated on the American experience. Race separatism is long part of that heritage, and Sam Dixon, a Southern lawyer who bridges the time-factor between the Old Right and Alt-Right, is cited by Mr Shaw, who writes that “the actual spiritual and philosophical struggle that has been taking place in America since World War II… has been racial.” Shaw lists three fundamental, interrelated concerns of the Alt-Right: demographic destiny, the Jewish question, and white genocide. (Shaw, A Fair Hearing, xi, xii). The “mainstream right” has been inadequate in dealing with these questions, or really one big question; but a new generation has awoken to find demonized what were only a few generations ago normal values.

Gregory Hood’s “The New Kulaks: Whites as an Enemy Class,” examines this demonization and marginalization of whites per se, as a “social construct” based on privilege and exploitation of “people of color,” without any other identity, in contrast to all others, whose identity assumes profound significance. (Hood, A Fair Hearing, p. 3). Such blind hatred leads to irrational claims such as the notion of “white privilege,” and “white” itself becomes an “insult.” One might note that like “identity politics” for “people of color,” the appendage of “white privilege” was unknown to the Left until recently. Friedrich Engels, in writing of the poor of Britain, did not see anything of “white privilege.” And to conclude that the White working class has tagged along with the oligarchy, or that the oligarchy has any loyalties other than to money, is typical of the way the Left has historically served the interests of money, as Spengler pointed out in The Decline of the West , Prussianism and Socialism and The Hour of Decision, decades ago.

So pervasive is the obliteration of “whiteness” that even when a supposedly “conservative” columnist, Brendan O’Neill, argues in The Spectator that the term “white men” has become “the most dehumanizing insult of our times,” he explains that he does not want to be called a “white man,” as he searches for an identity that includes those of different “color or gender.” (Hood, A Fair Hearing, p. 5). Mr O’Neil began with the Revolutionary Communist Party in Britain and shifted to become a libertarian, as many Communists did. He writes also for the American Conservative, and some of it is quite good. Ultimately libertarianism is not “Right” as “race” is a collective entity, prompting Ayn Rand to call “racism” the “lowest form of collectivism.” (Rand, “Racism,” 1963, https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/more/Racism). Hood continues that “white identity” is conceded only so far as there is “white privilege.” Hood sees this as paralleling the Stalinist demonization of the “kulaks” as the exploitative wealthy farmers who required eliminating as “class enemies.” “White privilege” inexorably leads to “white supremacy” and to genocide, according to this line. Hence, even the most gutless mob action of Antifa, and the cry of “no platform of Nazis,” can be rationalized as a purely defensive measure for the good of humanity. “Deconstructing a group’s identity as entirely negative is a precursor to politically, economically, and physically destroying that group.” (Hood, p. 8).

One might also ask, when the class warriors of the Left cry that “white racism is divisive,” and has no place in a plural, democratic society, as per the present brouhaha about letting Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux into Australia, Britain, and New Zealand, to speak about multiculturalism, what exactly is “class struggle” if not divisive? Indeed, what is multiculturalism if not intrinsically divisive, when the name itself refers to a multiplicity of cultures within a given ecological niche, where in any other niche one would expect conflict over resources? Such awkwardness is answered with doublespeak phrases such as “unity in diversity.” The Left, having also jumped onto the ecological bandwagon in recent decades, despite their ideological foundation being that forces of social production transcend nature, now claim that mankind must be part of the eco-system, like any other species. However, when it comes to intra-species competition within an eco-system, the Left revert to their 19th century theories about social production and mankind suddenly rises about nature Faustian style.

In “A Normie’s Guide to the Alt-Right” Colin Liddell states that the Alt-Right rejects the simplistic dichotomy of Republicans vs. Democrats; Conservatives vs. Liberals. Before Trump the two parties were indistinguishable. The Alt-Right exists to challenge Leftist globalism, states Mr Liddell. The basic assumptions of this Leftist globalism are not challenged by Conservatives. (Liddell, A Fair Hearing, pp. 17-18). Whether this really can be called “Conservativism” is debatable. Paul Gottfried coined the term palaeoconservative to distinguish the Right from the neocons, whose legacy is not any in sense from the “Right” but from Wilsonian internationalism, and the Trotskyites and other Marxists who went en masse over to the U.S. side during the Cold War, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) being a continuing legacy of this. Such was the exodus of Trotskyites that even Natalia Sedova, in keeping with the judas legacy of her husband, resigned from the Fourth International over the issue of the Korean War, regarding the USSR rather than the USA as the greater threat to world socialism, (Natalia Sedova, 1951, https://www.marxists.org/archive/sedova-natalia/1951/05/09.htm) which indeed it was, as Trotsky had lamented in The Revolution Betrayed. From the start of Trotsky’s ouster from the Soviet state, Trotskyites, Mensheviks and Social Democrats poured in multitudes into the ranks of the anti-Soviet cause, and later the CIA and its front the Congress for Cultural Freedom, in what has become known as the “cultural Cold War.” Marxists such as Dr Sidney Hook and Carl Gershman became celebrated U.S. “cold warriors,” the NED, whose chief target remains Russia, was established by Trotskyites to pull down the Soviet bloc. This is the legacy of what is often misnamed “conservativism” in the USA, but which continues to coin typically Trotskyite sounding terms such as “Islamo-fascism,” and sees the USA as the herald of a “world revolution,” where once it was – briefly – the USSR. They talk of a “revolutionary mission” in the same manner as the old Trotskyites spoke, and this is called “conservativism.”

With Sam Dickson we approach a veteran who spans the generations of the Right, with 55 years involvement. Indeed, his chapter is aptly called “From Generation to Generation.” Mr Dickson identifies the election of Franklin Roosevelt as an epochal event (Dickson, A Fair Hearing, p. 24). Mr Dickson states that the nationalist wave represented by the America First movement erred in folding up, to “patriotically” support the war effort, on the assumption that after the war, and with the return of a mass of veterans, the movement could be resumed. (Dickson, p. 25). The wartime propaganda did not cease with the end of the war, but continued apace (Dickson, p. 26). It can be added that the Letfward surge was greatly assisted by lifting en masse the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, the Jewish-Freudian-Marxist refugees from Fascism, to the USA, where they became ensconced throughout academia, courtesy of Rockefeller sponsorship. This emigration was to have far more significant and enduring ramifications than the Anglo-U.S. sponsorship of Trotsky’s return from New York to Russia in 1917. The latter was ousted in short order; the former never were and their influence endures. The Cold War, as mentioned previously, provided an impetus for Trotskyites and Social Democrats, who entered the ranks of conservativism courtesy of the anti-Soviet preoccupation of the Right. The Right because of its intrinsic anti-Marxism was readily co-opted by the Establishment and rendered harmless. Here we resume Dickson’s narrative with his allusion to the founding of National Review in 1955 by William F. Buckley. This was safe conservativism, embracing Wilsonian interventionism, and discarding whatever might have remained of the America First ideology. As Mr Dickson states, the American Right conformed to the platitudes of the present, agonized over “godless Communism” in Korea and Vietnam, while the USA was “colonized by racial aliens.” (Dickson, A Fair Hearing, pp. 26-27). When Natalia Sedova Trotsky broke with the Fourth International, publicly stating that it was the USSR and its allies that represent the greatest bulwark against the world revolution, the Right could have learnt something from that, but apart from Francis Parker Yockey and his several mentors, the periodical Common Sense, TRUD, and the eccentric National Renaissance Party, few did. Mr Dickson states that the “‘Red Menace’” was a critical factor in the misdirection of a whole generation of European Americans…” “Fighting communism,” states Dickson, was a comfortable distraction,” and prevented the cultivation of “race loyalists.” (Dickson, p. 27). This is precisely what Yockey, TRUD and Common Sense were trying to say at the time, and they regarded much of the U.S. Right as a sham and a con.

It was a “controlled opposition,” including The John Birch Society, which the media and the Kennedy Administration turned into a looming menace, and a witch-hunt against nationalist officers such as General Edwin Walker, (who later led the fight against school de-segregation) proceeded in the aftermath of Senator McCarthy’s aborted crusade against Communist subversion. Opposition to the USSR was the Establishment line. This was different from opposition to domestic Marxism, which had the potential for seeding a genuine nationalist rebellion on American soil. Hence the real Right was stunted and diverted, General MacArthur was sacked, as was General Walker (who was put into a lunatic asylum) and Senator McCarthy was driven to his death. Although Mr Dickson does not allude to those details, he does allude to the marginalization of “race loyalists” from this era. The John Birch Society played its part as well, condemning “race loyalty” as serving the “Communist conspiracy.” There were however, significant pockets of resistance, and Mr Dickson mentions The Putnam Letters Committee founded by Princeton graduate and Northerner Carleton Putnam, who infused the segregation fight with scientific arguments, with bestselling books The Reality of Race, and Race and Reason. Others of significance in keeping the Right alive were Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby and Spotlight, and Wilmot Robertson’s Instauration magazine and his well-documented book The Dispossessed Majority (Dickson, p. 32) during the 1970s, which provided an intellectual foundation. During the 1990s “transition figures” appeared, primarily Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, and the columnist Sam Francis.

Reaching the present, Mr Dickson sees the new generation of the Alt-Right as a spontaneous phenomenon. The existential crisis that defined the generation of the 1960s, albeit a crisis and reaction created and controlled by the “Establishment,” has assumed other forms outside of Establishment control, among another generation that sees the bankruptcy and failure of liberalism. Mr Dickson sees the ideological foundations more akin to that of the Right of the interwar era than the post-1945 era. It is this Right that has a metaphysical quality that appeals to real idealism, and that is not only a rejection and a reaction, but a transcendence.

Evan McLaren, executive director of the National Policy Institute, analyzes “Ground Zero at Charlottesville.” He points out that NPI was not an organizer of this “Unite the Right” event, but that Richard Spencer was an invited speaker. What was clearly a set-up in which the police were used to ensure that the event would not proceed peaceably, and that participants would be required to confront the Left, was used as justification to close the event, in the interests of public order. Many, including those on the Right, have called the event a major tactical mistake, a defeat that has damaged the Alt-Right label beyond repair. Evan remains optimistic.

To what extent should the Right acquiesce to Establishment miscreance, media lies, and Leftist hysteria? President Trump had it near right when he said there were decent people on both sides, near right, because the assumption that there might be decent people on the Left is one that has not been demonstrated. The other option is to claim that any public action by the Right will be a provocation and should not proceed in case the “normies” get a bad impression. There have been many such confrontations between the Left and Trump supporters. The masses who support their President are necessarily aware that the submen causing the violence against them are the same as those at Charlottesville. What’s more, if the catalyst for the rally, to oppose the dismantling of monuments to the Southern heritage, is not a reasonable and legitimate aim, then nothing the Right attempts ever will be; and of course that is precisely the situation: whatever the Right does or does not do, and however it is framed, will still be demonized. The death of Heather Heyer could not have been foreseen, regardless of how the rally was planned. Miss Heyer chose to participate with a violent and gutless mob against the Right, and somehow died while a young man was attempting to leave the area in his automobile whilst pursued by elements of that mob. In Britain, during the 1970s Blair Peach, part of a Trotskyite mob, was similarly martyrized, when he died while rioting against the police, in a protest with overtly violent intent, against a lawful National Front march.
He has a school named in his honor.

Hungarian-American writer, You Tuber, Arktos Media editor and wife and mother Melissa Mészáros in “Lessons from Homeless Feminists” considers the adverse impact feminist ideology has had on women, contrasting the modern woman with her hard drinking, straight-talking, fun-filled Hungarian Great-Grandma. Like other versions of the Left, feminism is a mental aberration, and Miss Mészáros provides examples of its misandric obsessions.

In any other context such misandry would be called “hate,” but the traditional “patriarchy” is apparently an obstacle, like everything traditional, to the oligarchy, regardless of its own male-dominated hierarchy. In this instance, feminism serves to fully integrate women into the economy, analogous to the manner by which early Bolshevism sought to fully integrate women into the labor force by attempting to abolish parenthood. Feminism, like the rest of the New Left, would not have gained traction without sponsorship from the CIA, from the CIA-connected Washington Post, and from other U.S. power centers, as part of a Cold War strategy. How this continues to play out can be discerned by the support given by Soros’s Open Society network to “women’s issues,” including “reproductive rights.” Is the ultimate objective the replacement of genders per se, like the replacement of races, by creating a nebulous mass of economic automatons, without gender or race or attachment to a homeland? Is transgenderism the next step in that process? Since sexual dimorphism is increasingly pronounced the further one goes up the scale of species hierarchy, one might wonder whether the aim of those who sponsor feminism and what is becoming referred to as “gradients of sexuality” is to establish an amorphous mass that is raceless, sexless, landless, and cultureless. Why do economic automatons need any of those attachments, when they get in the way of maximum exploitation? Again, this is done doublespeak style in the name of “opposing exploitation.”

Miss Mészáros cites Australian feminist Polly Dunning writing in the Morning Herald over her revulsion of being pregnant with a son, which she later tempered by saying that he would be raised as a feminist. (Mészáros, A Fair Hearing, p. 55). But after over 50 years of feminism women are in a declining position according to the feminists, never mind that feminism has assisted in the destruction of the traditional protection-and-sustenance male-female pair bond. We are told that the patriarchy has made women “homeless.” If feminism sought to destroy the home, I suppose homelessness might be a by-product of neurosis- and psychosis-induced women who have sought meaning as part of the economy rather than as wives and mothers, and if the economy malfunctions, as it inherently does under the debt-finance system, then women in the workforce are going to take the consequences like men: surely an example of equality?

Marcus Follin (a.k.a. “The Golden One”) is a bodybuilder and You Tube commentator who seeks to provide an example to young folk. His message is one of ironing out individual weaknesses to succeed in one’s aims rather than making do with something lesser. Use failures and drawbacks to identify what needs correcting in oneself and surmount it, states Mr Follin in a chapter called “Cut off the Path of Retreat.” It seems to suggest a Nietzschean type of self-overcoming, or a Jungian individuation, where the total being is integrated mentally and physically, or the Classical ideal of balance.

Jared Howe is an example of the many who are coming to the Alt-Right form the “liberty movement,” in this instance from the Ron Paul presidential campaigns. There have been sundry notables among the Alt-Right or New Right in the USA originating as libertarians, one example being Dr. Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents/North American New Right. These libertarians embark on routes that take them to White advocacy. While Dr. Johnson has purged himself of all things libertarian and, most laudably, the silly notion of Free Trade being compatible with the Right, other converts to the Right from libertarianism seem to retain the Free Trade doctrine which derailed the Old Right during the 1960s. Nonetheless, Howe’s “Regarding the Insidious Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline” is an interesting explanation of the phenomenon from his experiences. Hence his initial sentence is from Matt Lewis of the Daily Beast that “Libertarianism has an alt-right problem. Many prominent leaders of the alt-right have, at some point, identified as libertarians. I am curious as to … why?” (p. 64). What Mr Howe saw was the manner by which Left-liberals subverted the libertarian movement, and in particular condemn the “fascist,” “statist” character of border controls and immigration restrictions. Mr Howe and others such as Lew Rockwell argue that such “open borders are an assault on private property.” (Howe, A Fair Hearing, p. 67). I am not convinced that an appeal to property rights is a strong argument, but if it can get intelligent libertarians thinking, that is to be welcomed, so long as they do not subvert the Right as they did post-1945 with their preoccupations about private property versus “socialism,” where what the Right traditionally argues for is what Spengler called “Prussian Socialism.” (Spengler, Prussian Socialism and Other Essays, Black House Publishing, 2018).

Ethan Edwards uses a comment by actor/director Rob Reiner, of Archie Bunker memory, to examine how the Left sees the Trump presidency in their ongoing attack on White America, quoting Mr Reiner: “Make no mistake, this shutdown boils down to one thing: RACISM. GOP frightened to death of the browning of America. They will lose this last battle of the Civil War. Diversity is our strength.” The interregnum was the Civil Rights Movement. (Edwards, A Fair Hearing, p. 77). Never mind that desegregation has been a disaster for everyone. Facts should not undermine dogma, and the Left is nothing if not dogma-driven. Mr Reiner is an interesting example of the Leftist elite: of Jewish origin, but an atheist, conforming to Hollywood clichés, a supporter of Hilary Clinton, the oligarch’s choice; this good liberal has joined the Left-oligarchic-neocon axis against Trump, as a member of the advisory board of the Committee to Investigate Russia, hobnobbing with former CIA directors and the like, in a shared hatred of both Trump and Putin. (Committee to Investigate Russia, Advisory Board, https://investigaterussia.org/advisory-board). Mr Edwards states that Mr Reiner et al “know that something important has been unleashed, and that this may well end in their being knocked from their perches and set upon by angry mobs.” “We have seen the little man behind the curtain, and he looks a lot like Harvey Weinstein. The leftist dream, the promise of a someday color-blind, gender-blind, multicultural utopia, is dead and starting to smell.” (Edwards, A Fair Hearing, p. 83). What we might also be reminded of, however, by this reference to a Hollywood identity, is that the President Trump victory shows that a political grassroots revolt is not sufficient; not by a long shot. What is required is a cultural revolution, or what the Alt-Right and New Right call metapolitics. Trump is showing how little a U.S. president, or any nation’s political leader, can actually do. The state is only one part of a pervasive apparatus that the New Left called “The System,” (despite the irony of the New Left being a controlled opposition of that “System”). The entertainment industry, news media and Hollywood, music and now social media, are an essential part of that System. When someone is perceived as opposing any aspect of that “System” he is destroyed on a multiplicity of levels, as shown by the fate of Senator Joseph McCarthy, General Patton, or Edwin Walker. Reiner is an essential part of that “System,” with the posturing typical of a liberal lackey, like the gaggle of other “entertainment celebrities” who jump on to any such bandwagon, to pose as “radicals” in the pursuit of causes that are thoroughly conformist.

Bre Faucheux, a novelist and former feminist who “red pilled,” and now hosts 27 Crows Radio, explains “How the Alt-Right Benefits Women.” The Left and its System masters portray the Alt-Right as not only a male phenomenon but anti-female. Those women who are attracted to the Alt-Right are presented as “psychologically defective,” [which we should recall is a strategy that was contrived by Theodor Adorno et al in the epochal study The Authoritarian Personality, with his “F” for “Fascism” scale that classified hitherto normal attitudes as intrinsically genocidal]. Given that feminism had sponsorship from The Washington Post, CIA, and sundry Foundations, one should question the motives. Miss Faucheux provides an answer: 71% of women in the Western world are working mothers. (Faucheux, A Fair Hearing, p. 89). The number goes up when it is considered that stay-at-home mothers are mostly non-white immigrants. While the Western patriarchy has been targeted, paradoxically, the multicultural immigration programs sponsored by the same power cabals that sponsor feminism are importing a “patriarchy” that, states Miss Faucheux, has no respect for women.

The contradictory character of liberalism and the Left has seen homosexuals and feminists come over to the Right on the matter of multiculturalism, because they see Western Enlightenment liberalism being undermined by Third World migration. Unfortunately ,this seeming advance of the Right is rather another subversion and diversion, as Western Enlightenment liberalism is not “Right,” so we get a plethora of pseudo-Right parties, some having done quite well on the anti-immigration bandwagon, such as UKIP and Geert Wilder’s Freedom Party, that are far removed from the “Right” in everything but a reaction to immigration. We might be reminded that the assassinated Dutch anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn came over from the Left to the “Right” because of Muslim attitudes towards homosexuality. His party remained thoroughly liberal, despite being labeled as “Right,” and of course diverted what would otherwise have been support for the actual Right. Staying with The Netherlands, as an example, Geert Wilders’ Party of Freedom unequivocally states that it is a “liberal” party.

Miss Faucheux states that given the violent character of the opposition to the Right, it is often not a good place for women to be, while the Alt-Right males maintain the protective instincts that are part of an ancient legacy. Miss Faucheux has noted that the tactic of the Left is to put their women at the front in any confrontation with the Right. As she states, it lacks class and chivalry. (Faucheux, A Fair Hearing, p. 91). Such notions are beyond the comprehension of the Left; that is the nature of those attracted to it. Chivalry would be dismissed as “reactionary.” “Women build the nests. Men reshape the world,” and they are most successful in doing so when women build “a strong nest,” she writes. (Faucheux, p. 92). That there are women who find such a prospect abhorrent states something of their mental state, rationalized as an ideology. It was not always that way: the Suffragettes in Britain, prior to and during World War I, were authoritarian, martial, patriotic, and notable figures such as Adele Pankhurst, Norah Elam and Mary Allen (founder of the women’s police auxiliary) supported the inter-war radical Right, with Elam, Allen and other Suffragette notables committing themselves to Oswald Mosley. Women such as Elizabeth Dilling were notable as leaders in the pre-World War II American Right, and remained so soon after the war. Miss Faucheux concludes with: “In the final telling, the alt-right benefits women by allowing them to be who and what they actually are.” (Faucheux, p. 93).

Richard Spencer, whose name is synonymous with Alt-Right, considers the etiolating impact of spectator sports, with particular focus on the Black-dominated National Football League. He makes an interesting point, quoting Robert E. Lee that slavery degrades both master and slave, adding that the “black playing sees himself as a kind of thuggish fool, a high paid slave who puts his body and ego on the line for overweight white fans who call him abusive names if he drops a pass…” (Spencer, A Fair Hearing, p. 99). As for the spectator life, Spencer states that “The system does not want us to do; it wants us to watch. It doesn’t want us to create but consume… ‘Fandom’ is the collective identity the system is willing to offer us.” It weakens, while providing revenue. “So be a man. Stop being a fan.” (Spencer, p. 111).

Jared Taylor, starting American Renaissance as a print magazine in 1990, is one of the links between generations. The focus is on race, with both its biological and sociological ramifications, in the chapter “Race Realism,” a term that confronts such Left/Liberal words as “racism,” and “white supremacists.” Mr Taylor’s position, and that of the Alt-Right generally in the Anglophone world, the world of Darwin, Galton, Madison Grant, et al is one of genetic determinism, in seeking to confound the Leftist definition of race as a “social construct” that can be deconstructed, albeit only if it is “white.” For the European New Right, with a legacy of Spengler, Voegelin, Jung, Fichte and Herder, the concept of “race” is an historical construct rather than primarily a question of genetic clusters. (Bolton, The Decline and Fall of Civilisations, Black House Publishing, 2017). Nonetheless, however one wants to proceeds, “race” is a “reality” which gives meaning and identity, something that is recognized as much by the Left as the Right, with the exception that it is only the “White” who is denied that identity with the use of semantics rather than science. Taylor points out that “pride” for a non-white “becomes “hate” for a “white.”

Roderick Kaine, a biochemist, considers breeding patterns in “The Sexual Prisoner’s Dilemma.” His approach is sociobiological and one of long-term group interest versus short-term individual interests. The high divorce rate in the West, mainly initiated by women, is a reflection of fundamental sociobiological premises.

Bill Matheson in “Irreconcilable Differences” goes through the fundamentals of human race differences, analogous to other forms of speciation. He confounds the assumption that being able to reproduce fertile offspring is necessarily an indicator of a common species. He asks why Black differences that account for their success in certain sports for example, are celebrated, while failures in other areas are blamed on White oppression?

Emeritus professor of psychology Dr Kevin MacDonald outlines the issue for which he is most widely known – the Jewish Question, in “The Alt-Right and the Jews.” He approaches the question of Jews within the “Right,” which usually means the neoconservatives, pointing out that here too Jewish interests over-ride American, (MacDonald, A Fair Hearing, p. 148), albeit behind a façade of “patriotism,” as distinct from the traditional Jewish involvement in the Left. Yet even within the Jewish “Right” there is still the promotion of open borders, and despite Trump’s zeal for Israel and his Jewish family connections, Jewish neocons such as Daniel Pipes largely remain as adverse to President Trump as Jewish Leftists and for the same reasons. (MacDonald, p. 150). When Jews exerted influence over the Old Right they used their positions to purge real nationalists, as happened to Revilo Oliver, Patrick Buchanan, and more recently Joe Sobran, Samuel Francis, and Richard Spencer.

Dr MacDonald cites the role of Jews in entering the conservative movements in Germany and Austria and attempting to derail these from a völkish doctrine, analogous to the present Jewish background of the neocons claiming to represent the American Right. (MacDonald, pp. 158-159). However, there seems to be a trend, hopefully marginal, within the Alt-Right that is intent on placing Jews in a no-win situation, by damning not only the Leftists and neocons, but those in the Alt-Right as cunning infiltrators. It is enough for some that Dr. Paul Gottfried is a Jew, whatever his other qualities, and that Oswald Spengler had Jews in the family tree. Dr MacDonald concludes that “In guarded optimism, we might look to the future and hope that some influential Jews… come to see that their own best interests lie with a renewed European America.” (MacDonald, p. 161). Yet when some do so, they are still regarded not just with suspicion but with anathema. In the USA Benjamin H Freedman and Henry Klein endured much in confronting the Jewish agenda, and supporting nationalists. It is forgotten history that there were many Jews in Weimar Germany that participated in German-Jewish nationalist and veterans’ association, that abhorred both Communism and Zionism, that the head of the Stahlhelm was a Jew, that prior to Hitler few German-Jews supported Zionism, and regarded themselves as Germans of Jewish descent, not as Jews in Germany, and that German-Jews, certain allegations to the contrary, generally had an impressive war record. (Bolton, Zionism, Islam and the West, Black House, pp. 79-101).

Ryan Faulk of the Alternative Hypothesis argues that biological evolution can happen quickly within a generation, and that an entire population can gain a new trait within a short period. This has had a eugenic impact. Faulk sees the modern world as a vast improvement on the Medieval era, now that we have free markets rather than trade regulation. He sees economic progress as occurring in tandem with eugenic processes. A “New European” appeared that created “modern government, modern conceptions of human rights, modern manufacturing and technology, and the generalized economy we are all familiar with,” (Faulk, A Fair Hearing, p. 170). – to which I suggest this also means the ineptitude of parliamentary democracy, the dissolution of the rights of association and co-operation, the dominance of usury and monopoly, longer working hours, alienation and futility, distortion of form in art and architecture, and the forgetting of medical and other techniques through the disparaging of the “Gothic” in favor of an obsession with reviving the Graeco-Roman, that served as a model for the Western Enlightenment, which diverted the West from its High Culture into something inane and fractured. While I would not wish to return to the brute savagery of a past era, the psyche of man often lags behind his social environment, as Jung and others have stated, with a multi-layered unconscious that remains in different phases of his ancestral past. We need not revive what Faulk states was the Medieval practice of cat-burning, for example, to return the guild and its social ethos, and ban usury.

Daniel Friberg explains “The Metapolitical Warfare of the Alt-Right.” Mr Friberg begins by abjuring those who regard withdrawing from society, rationalized by Julius Evola’s dictum, “ride the tiger,” in the hope that they can maintain their inner integrity [for perhaps several centuries?] while the System implodes and a new era emerges. Mr Friberg states that this might include “accumulating empty beer bottles and binging on porn in a seedy apartment…” They might venture, thanks to the internet to criticize others who are trying to do things, as being too moderate, too liberal, or criticize some characteristic they discern in someone who is trying to do things. (Friberg, A Fair Hearing, p. 177). I suggest that one practical means that could be employed is a stricter approach by editors to website forums, where the inane and the outright abusive are permitted free-flow in the name of free-speech.

George T. Shaw, the editor of the volume, offers some semantic strategies in “Dismantling Anti-White Newspeak,” referring to Orwell’s description of “newspeak” in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The Left and its System controllers use newspeak continually, where slogans are now regarded as intellectual discourses, such as “diversity is our strength,” (Shaw, A Fair Hearing, p. 185) or telling a debt-ridden, overworked, underpaid, White laborer that he rides the crest of “white privilege.” Shaw explains that “a Newspeak term is a vessel for delivering absurdities past our logical defenses…” (Shaw, p. 188). This vessel is reinterpreted to fit an agenda. Hence, “racism” becomes an implicit evil, rather than a world-view that might have a scientific predicate. “Sexist” is someone who holds an outlook that was “normal” until Theodor Adorno and the American Jewish Committee decided otherwise (The Authoritarian Personality, which the AJC sponsored), although Orthodox Jewish attitudes towards women do not seem to be included in such studies, nor why Jewish women are so prominent in “feminism.” Shaw suggests that the Newspeak of the “shitlibs” (sic) be confronted with analytical precision as to definitions: “One can simply say ‘Define x’.” (Shaw, p. 191) Shaw includes “A Counterrevolutionary Lexicon,” with definitions of “Bugman,” “Cat Lady,” and “THOT.”

Conclusion

The multiplicity of views and backgrounds of the Alt-Right are well captured in A Fair Hearing. As one would expect from this American manifestation of the European New Right, albeit with origins going back to the Old Right in the USA, it has its own foci. These in particular revolve around race and biology. This is not surprising given the relationship between whites and blacks since the founding of the American Colonies. Also relevant is the Anglophone legacy of race theory deriving from Darwin and Galton, and developed by Anglo-Americans such as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard. On the Occident the New Right has developed along different lines, with the legacy of Spengler, Nietzsche et al. What remains overlooked are socioeconomic and financial issues, which seem hardly discernible in the Alt-Right, but which have a legacy in Father Coughlin, Congressman McFadden, and Ezra Pound. While the attitude is generally that “race is the issue,” and that financial questions can be considered after race survival is secured, Spengler and Brooks Adams (The Law of Civilization and Decay, 1896) pointed out that the rise of plutocracy is a symptom of certain epochs of civilisation, and it is hence a culture problem. Such questions are the soft underbelly of the Left, which does not aim to transcend capitalism, as Spengler and Evola showed.