The problem with Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie is that it propagates the myth of American exceptionalism and the related “proposition nation” dogma.
Here is Jack Kerwick at TownHall.
Here is Paul Gottfried at Unz.
Gottfried is particularly harsh.
Jack Kerwick gets it. Here is his recent column on American Exceptionalism. He mentions a Jonah Goldberg column, but I suspect it is also motivated by Dinesh D’Souza’s new film, America. I’m surprised that Townhall prints his columns.
The crisis in Iraq has dealt a major blow to consolidated government. The Kurds are now on board to partition Iraq:
The collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul and the spread of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) to cities seems to have strengthened the positions of those demanding independent Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. The Kurds, who support this division, declared yesterday [June 17] they don’t intend to withdraw from Kirkuk and “the disputed areas.” The Kurds emphasized they will avoid a confrontation with ISIS “except for self-defense.”
Telegraph columnist Daniel Hannan wonders how much better it would have been if the Western powers had allowed the Middle East to self-organize naturally:
How much disorder, horror, fear and mutiny might have been avoided had Iraq been divided along ethnographic lines in 2003 – or, better yet, in 1920. (If you don’t like the word “ethnographic”, substitute “democratic”: it amounts to the same thing.)
Re-read that last sentence. It will be the guiding principle of politics for the 21st century.
I’m not entirely sure what to make of controversial Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. What I am pretty sure of is that this interview refutes the claim that Russia is substantively less free than America.
Can anybody imagine Steve Sailer getting interviewed by Katie Couric? Donald Livingston by Dan Rather?
Apparently they’re has been a longstanding rift between postmodern conservatives (PoMoCons or PoMos) and Front Porch Republic types (Porchers). Who knew? The occasion for the increased discussion of this rift is the fact the Peter Lawler is moving his Postmodern Conservative blog from First Things to NRO.
I think that all of us in what you might call the alternative conservative (meaning outside mainstream conservatism) community have some things in common and mutual enemies, the left and stale mainstream conservatism, but I think the description of the Porchers that is being tossed around describes something much more radical than the reality. The Porchers, at least as represented by FPR, are, as far as I can tell, a bunch of PC phobes. How can you talk about localism and community and “place” without talking about immigration? Doesn’t an influx of non-natives have a pretty big impact on place? Here is the comment I left at Dreher’s post.
The description here of the Front Porch folks actually sounds an aweful lot like paleocons to me, but I think that may be giving the Porchers more credit than they deserve. My impression of the Porchers is that they are pretty PC squemish. How can you talk about localism, organic community, corporatism, etc. and not address immigration? The Porchers want to be faux radicals but they strike me as scared to be thought of as wrongthinkers. In other words, they’re harmless.
A new translation is up at Soul of the East, whereby we learn what Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin has to say about chivalry.
Recently there was a dust up in libertarian land over an article by Jeffrey Tucker which essentially struck a PC pose, and seemed clearly intended to distance himself from his former colleagues at the von Mises Institute. I never got around to discussing it at the time, although it is mentioned in the comments of this post about another libertarian squable.
To be honest, I was not even aware that Tucker had left the von Mises Institute, so I was prompted by the squable to search for news/gossip related to the separation. I found surprisingly little. I am certainly not privy to the inner workings of the von Mises Institute, but I was under the impression that Rockwell and Tucker were friends, so I presumed the lack of gossip was an indication that the parting had been amicable. When this squable first broke out, I went to LewRockwell.com to see what they had to say about it. While they addressed the issue, by my memory and current searches, they did so less than I expected. I took this as evidence that the Rockwell crowd might be holding its fire to some extent out of deference to Tucker. (Similarly, I have a hunch that LRC holds their fire at Rand Paul somewhat out of deference to his father.) I couldn’t decide whether to consider this honorable or unwise, since the Tucker article was so clearly aimed at the Rockwell orbit.
With this in mind, it was with interest that I stumbled upon this tidbit at the Economic Policy Journal. The article is about a separate but related post Tucker brutalism article PC dust up, where some PC suck up hack was whining about libertarian racism. Of interest is that Rockwell orbit heavyweight Tom Woods weighs in in the comment section with a direct attack on Tucker. As best as I can recall, this is the most direct addressing of Tucker specifically that I have seen. (Let me know if I’ve missed something.)
To continue in that vein, she would have had to break with Tucker, and that gig is evidently too lucrative to give up.
Meanwhile, Tucker, who from his recent writing appears to be a delicate flower who feels pain at every unkind word or thought entertained by anyone at any time, couldn’t spare three seconds to stand up in defense of Ron Paul, who has done so much for him, or for Walter or the others. Let’s hope this phase passes soon.
Ouch. That stings a bit. I would really like to know if anyone has any inside intel on all this business because Tucker’s new found persona seems to have come from out of the blue.
Rights in general should be based on tradition, but I’d like to attempt a rational approach regardless:
Free speech should never extend to matters that undermine the faith a society is built upon. To say Anglo-Saxon man (the tradition our free speech originates from) should have the right of free speech isn’t to say Piss Christ is a tolerable expression of art. Piss Christ should be destroyed, the owner not compensated for the lost asset. Similarly, gay marriage is anti-Christian. It should not be tolerated for violation of the Faith.
Treason shouldn’t be tolerated, obviously. Cicero gives the example that a child shouldn’t turn his parent in for robbery or planned robbery; but murder and treason are matters he should betray his parent over. So, free speech doesn’t cover treason. Planning a crime should of course be illegal, even if the good son shouldn’t betray his father for it; but the point here is to emphasize the extreme wrongness of treason.
In addition to Faith, a society might be founded on other things. I’m a nationalist. In the ideal, one has a nation-state composed solely of citizens of a single nation. Foreign workers would be tolerated, but they would not be capable of obtaining citizenship. Free speech, under such a society, should not extend to calls for granting citizenship. Such limited citizenship would be a bedrock foundation of a true nation-state. Any change would inevitably create a new society. Citizenship could be less important to other types of society.
On every other matter though, a free Anglo-Saxon should have the right to speak his mind. Leaders should be open to criticism. History should be questioned. Heroes should be questioned. Children should be taught truth, not myths. Faith is beyond question, but a recent war should not become Faith.
As a specific example: Germans should be free to question the extent of the Holocaust and other facets of WWII. WWII should not have become part of the German Faith. The off-limit areas should be few and clearly defined.
To be clear, I don’t have anything against NeoReaction and the Dark Enlightenment except those elements that are hostile to Christianity and Christian morality. And I don’t entirely accept Steven’s main premise that DE/NR is really just people power against the new elite (the Cathedral). They want to replace the new elite because they think the new elite is hostile, but that they want to replace them with a people power “bizarre” is less clear. Some seem to actually desire a better non-hostile elite.
My dog in this fight is that I recognized some of the Southern Nationalist new guard that I have clashed with before in his description. While I don’t think the New Direction Caucus explicitly embraces the DE/NR label, they definitely model themselves on the European New Right identitarian movements. Here is more from Steven’s reply:
My point to the DE/NeR was basically that if your philosophy is functionally similar to conservatism, and you don’t admit it, you’re avoiding the truth out of some personal pretense…
… but the ugly fact is that the DE and Neoreaction are terminally broken. Underneath some promising ideas, there’s the ugly skeleton of liberalism (editor’s note: I don’t necessarily agree with this) and a pretense about avoiding conservatism. Same old jive, same old song and dance!…
Thus the big surprise here is: we don’t need a new idea. All of the ideas we need to look toward are in Plato and other writers from the fall of the Greco-Roman empires. (editor’s note: and the Bible, and the Reformers and some of the Framers, etc.) ~ emphasis mine
Here is a very good essay discussing the Dark Enlightenment and to a lesser degree the (religious) Orthosphere. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he expresses a couple of points I have tried to make in the past. The first is that “third ways” and “fourth ways” and/or whatever new name you want to give your project are not really new when you get below the surface. What they are are combinations of old ideas, perhaps with different proportions and emphasises but old ideas nonetheless. The second point is that regardless of how much people want to fool themselves otherwise, our project is essentially conservative, which is why it is so counter productive to bash conservatism (authenic vs. phony) or concede to the modern definition of what conservatism is.
But enough Dark Enlightenment bashing. When we remove its drama, what do we find?
- Recognition of inequality
Dark Enlightenment types will often explain their philosophy as a reversal of The Enlightenment, and a return to the darkness and Ragnar Redbeard styled “might is right” that came before the fancy do-gooder notions of the Cathedral. Then they proceed to list the three items above, all of which are found in… wait for it… paleoconservatism, and even more strongly, found in the aristocratic years before the French Revolution. On its surface, the Dark Enlightenment may be some new form of entertainment product. When you pop the hood and look at the engine, however, you’ll find the shocking truth — it’s conservatism rewarmed.
This story is a couple of days old now, but someohow I was asleep at the wheel and missed it. Once I started hearing about it I looked into the details and was outraged, but I wasn’t outraged at the naivete of an newly elected and obviously green Paulesq Campaign for Liberty backed Georgia House member. I was outraged by the calculated attack by Establishment hack Republicans who staged a piece of grand political theater to attack their right flank and put in his place a upstart who threatened to upset their old boys club.
In brief, Rep. Sam Moore submitted a bill to the Georgia legislature that was intended to decrease the authority of the police to arrest people based on vague anti-loitering laws. It contained language that would have loosened some restrictions on sex offenders and the hacks saw their chance to pounce on an uppity new House member whose focus on liberty threatens their reason for being. Whether that particular language was good law or not, what is at issue here is not a particular piece of legislation. What is at issue is the fact that a bunch of shameless hacks chose to grandstand rather than attempt to govern rightly. If the language was bad, either from an actual legislative standpoint or from a looks bad politically standpoint, then just calmly suggest to Rep. Moore that he might want to make some changes. For several House members to take to the floor to publically express outrage reeks of an orchestrated political hit job.
Here is some commentary on this travesty that gets it right.
And here is one that gets it wrong.
I include this particular example, among many that get it wrong, because I posted a comment below it. My comment is a bit harsh, but hardball from hacks begets hardball back.
Give me a break Jason. The Establishment Republicans deliberately used this opportunity to attack someone they see as a threat and not part of the old boys club and YOU KNOW IT! To pretend like this was all a legitimate uprising because of some truly awful offense is a deliberate sham. Any issues with the bills, whether actual or just potential opportunities for grandstanders to make rhetorical political hay, could have been addressed in a measured sensible way in a back room somewhere as is usually the case. More senior members of the party who were actually interested in right governing instead of striking a blow against their right flank would have quietly made suggestions to Rep. Moore with an eye toward protecting a new member rather than grandstand like a bunch of shameless peacocks. They have taken a page stright from the PC Cultural Marxist rightthink enforcement playbook with their “point and sputter” and feigned outrage game playing. Pretending not to recognize this does not make you a “statist” or a “patsy.” It makes you a co-conspirator. And I dare you to forever sacrifice your credibility as a political commentator to here for all the world to see pretend that you don’t realize that this was about political game playing and not about the merits or lack thereof of any piece of legislation.
I hate it when the left uses these tactics, but I expect it from them. It’s what mindless morally stunted leftists do, but when supposed conservatives do it to their right flank, it makes my blood boil.
Update: Here is an article that gives an explanation of the background of the bill.
This is how Thomas Fleming announced his new column on FaceBook:
I’ve posted a deliberately provocative piece on our website. It should offend all respectable people. https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/kansas-bleeds-again/
Well, provocative it is, but he is right. Take a look. The right in America is so whipped by its fear of being called bad names, that they can’t make logical arguments. The arguments they need to make are inherently illiberal, but they are afraid to make them. Partially because they have absorbed so much of the ambient liberalism that they believe it, and partially because they fear reprisal. So they often end up making convoluted liberal arguments toward an illiberal end. The argument against gay “marriage” for example, is inherently illiberal because it is based on the rejection of absolute equalism and the defense of righteous discrimination. Reading this you can just see some movement con getting his back up. “I don’t want to discriminate! How dare you!” But yes he does and rightfully so.
Apparently the faculty at Layola University, including the University President, has their panties in a bunch again because Walter Block won’t play by their PC rules. Of course, this is, as usual, entirely feigned outrage. They know good and well that an anarchist libertarian doesn’t think slavery is peachy, and if they don’t know that then they are too ignorant to be teaching at the local elementary school, much less at a respected university. They are just jumping on an opportunity to do the PC “point and sputter” because Block is clearly not a PC rightthinker otherwise.
To address the Presidents’ childish letter (I guess they don’t make Jesuits like they used to) specifically, since Block is a libertarian it logically follows that he doesn’t support anti-discrimination laws such as the Civil Rights Act because he supports the right of private individuals and entities to discriminate, whether he agrees with it morally or not. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be a consistent libertarian. You know, like the cosmotarians at Reason. So again, spare me the feigned outrage that’s obviously calculated to protect you and your institution from charges of wrongthink from the PC though cops, rather than make a sound argument. And spare me the claim that you would fail Block for illogic, when you just wrote a whiny letter to the school paper that is full of its own illogic as I point out above.
Here is the faculty letter which is a little more substantive than the President’s, but still a classic example of “point and sputter” feigned PC outrage. Just to address one point, the letter rants “Block not only attacks the legitimacy and constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…” Well yeah … because the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and from a libertarian perspective was illegitimate for the reason I explained above. (For the record, I consider myself more of a paleocon than a libertarian, but you don’t have to be one to understand logical consistency.) If he didn’t think it was illegitimate then he wouldn’t be a proper libertarian now would he? As for it being unconstitutional, you have to understand that not everyone turns off their intellect and genuflects before the determinations of a modern Court. I assume Block is speaking from an originalist perspective, which would argue that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because there is no constitutionally delegated power to prohibit private discrimination. If these PC cloistered academics would actually educate themselves instead of just repeating approved platitudes, they would know that such a thing as originalism exists, and then they might actually be able to attempt to counter it rather than run to the student newspaper saying essentially “Mommy, Mommy, Mr. Block uttered wrongthink! Please make him stop!” like a bunch of kindergarteners.
Tom Woods explains the situation below:
Here is the Walter Block resource page Woods speaks of.
Here is Woods’ blog post containing the above video.
The only slavery the faculty and President of Layola University should be concerned about is their own PC thoughtslavery.
The New York Times recently ran a front page hit piece against Rand Paul and the usual cast of boogeymen the centrists and liberals trot out every time they have one of their periodic spasms about alleged extremism. They attack a lot of different people and groups, but Rand Paul is the obvious target. He must have them running scared. It would probably blow their poor little pristine mainstream minds to know that some of us don’t think Rand Paul is extreme enough.
Lew Rockwell responds here
Tom Woods responds here (on FaceBook so I’m not sure everyone will be able to see it)
Ralph Raico here
Chris Rossini here
Update: Walter Block replies here
Tom Woods replies here on YouTube
Walter has already commented below on Mark Shea’s recent PC rant against the Dark Enlightenment. Shea’s post is a virtually content free denunciation of wrongthink, but I want to comment on one of the comments. That comment is by Jordan Bloom, and is an eminently sensible response to Shea’s rant. What stands out about it is that Jordan Bloom (or J. Arthur Bloom) is the same guy who recently wrote a hit piece against Richard Spencer and the National Policy Institute for the Daily Caller. We discussed that hit piece here. I replied to Jordan in the comments. I should have replied specifically to his comment, but I wasn’t thinking at the time and just commented in general, so who knows if I he has seen it. So what gives? Does Jordan oppose PC denunciations of wrongthink, or does he engage in them? Will the real Jordan Bloom please stand up.
Here is his announcement copied from his FaceBook post:
IT’S OFFICIAL – Daily Caller’s Jordan Bloom announces “Sad to lose Jack Hunter to Rare Liberty, but excited to announce that next week Mike Church will be debuting a weekly column at The Daily Caller!”
I am humbled to accept this tremendous opportunity to inform and inspire our fellow citizens in the cause of [r]epublicansim and though I fear my meager composition skills are inadequate to the task, I will exert all my energies to the task on behalf of Our Cause. Deo Gratias.
This is a big deal because Mike Church is substantially on our side. He is no shrinking violet. It is good that he will be exposed to a wider and more “mainstream” audience outside our usual echo chamber.
Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.
MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.
The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.
First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.
That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.
Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.
The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)
Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.
Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.
Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.
Here is an interesting article from The Libertarian Alliance blog, a libertarian organization based in England. The article does a good job of chronicling the “paleolibertarian” phenomenon of the ’90s. Paleolibertarianism seems to mystify some people, so I thought it was worth posting.
In January 1990, Lew Rockwell wrote in the magazine ‘Liberty’ on ‘The Case for Paleolibertarianism’. In this manifesto, he argued that while libertarians are often correct in their criticisms of conservatives, conservatives are often right in their criticisms of libertarians. He cites people like Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet, with the latter claiming that libertarians were drifting so far from conservatism that they were coming to view the “coercions of the family, church, local community and school” as almost as corrosive of liberty as that of the state.
In this paleolibertarian manifesto, Rockwell states that if libertarianism is to make any real progress, then it must do away with its “defective cultural framework”, stating that Western civilisation is worthy of praise and that social or ‘natural’ authority – like the authority of the family, the church, the local community and the school – is essential to a free society. Libertarianism’s cultural framework had become a blend of moral relativism, egalitarianism, modernism and libertinism with the modal libertarian often conflating legality with morality. In addition to the error of assuming that because X must be legal, X must also be moral, the modal libertarian had conflated freedom from aggression with freedom from social authority, tradition, and bourgeois morality.
Hat tip to my FaceBook friend Rex May, whose post directed my attention to this article.
Cross posted with some slightly different wording at Independent Political Report.
This post is inspired by New Year’s Eve.
If libertarians really want to broaden their appeal to redneck types, they should focus their legalization battles on fireworks. A lot of self respecting rednecks aren’t going to want to be associated with legalization of pot and prostitution even if they might secretly want to indulge on occasion*, but every red-blooded American wants the legal right to set off fireworks free from the fear of snitching neighbors and pesky police.
* Present company excepted, of course.
Alternative Right has a statement up on it’s FaceBook page.
The FaceBook statement as well as some additional explanation can be found here at the new temporary home of AltRight.
It is not the intention of this website to take sides here. We simply intend to report on issues of interest to our sphere. The alternative (small a) right sphere is unfortunately full of contention and we generally try to remain above the fray and retain friendly relations with all sides. We have a friendly relationship with Richard Spencer, and I assume Andy Nowicki and company have no issues with us either. While we represent a more traditional paleo perspective than Spencer or AltRight, we have no desire to be part of a chorus denouncing either.
Update: Colin Liddell, the co-editor of Alternative Right along with Andy Nowicki, is not at all happy with the way things went down. He expresses his displeasure in a comment here.