What used to be known as the lunatic right wing fringe of the Republican Party is now called the “alt-right.” They’ve been greatly legitimized under the Donald Trump campaign, something that the Hillary Clinton campaign has been pointing out a lot lately. On the really terrible policies that they espouse, there is frighteningly little daylight between them and the Clinton campaign.

29 thoughts on “Alt-Center

  1. I think the righties are in for just as rude an awakening as Clinton. The minority endorsement is picking up steam, especially as Laura Caceres gets in contact with more domestic latinos. Really, the most amazing thing about Trump is how a billionaire got so far for SO LITTLE MONEY. Clinton has made so many enemies there are thousands out there working on his behalf free of charge, unconnected (or most likely not even registered as!) republicans. This is especially true online, as Berner strongholds like Reddit (S4P) and imgur, and the war that erupted in the Kosnian Principality. (oooh like what I did there?) After much introspection and soul-searching, flipped from AnyoneButTrump to AnyoneButHillary (or for anyone that knew of Jill Stein, they went #Never/NeitherTrumpOrHillary)
    Clinton’s propagandists, meanwhile, have pulled a Baghdad Bob reassuring our would-be dictatoress that she still carries 90% of them, and 100% of the minorities amongst them. (of course if you constantly claim to have 90% of the vote it doesn’t look so suspicious when you wind up with 90% of the vote, even if 60% of the people confusedly recall voting the other way, which will eventually devolve into finger-pointing and blaming Johnson as the spoiler that caused it. Crafty ploy.)

    One of the strangest ‘converts’ of all, David Duke is polling moderately well in Louisiana, having more black people behind him than white last polling. America First it seems, is not just about white America anymore. He hasn’t given up many of his views, but talks a good game about being inspired by Trump’s run to pledge upon putting the country first. He is to date the only one to find the sweet spot where he receives coloured endorsement while still retaining his views. The rest are left in much the same turmoil as the post-DNC Berners. Do I renounce fully? Do I agree to work with MLK’s family to stop Clinton? Can I really handle being in the same room as Mike Tyson? Am I ready to bury the hatchet with lgbt? Will we work with Quanell X as Rockwell worked with the previous X? Many of the alt-right ‘leaders’ have stuffed cotton in their ears to avoid having to ask themselves the tough questions.
    They will surely be surprised come the lead in to November to find the alt-right has already splintered after so short a time as an ‘organised umbrealla’ and formed a more inclusive national restructuring movement, leaving them wholly behind. It’s already begun on the Iron March, where attempting to link stories of minorities supporting Trump have been barred. One of the reasons Milo and Breitbart are getting so popular is specifically exploiting the backpatting of pseudo-racists that ‘they’re not so racist’ by throwing every black guy for Trump to the front page. Probably going to end up with an odd ‘antiracist nationalist” group where the core/leadership IS racist but don’t actually do anything racist.

    Wouldn’t be surprised if someone up there suddenly sports a Condie-esque secretary following them.

    • Those would be ‘plain old commies.’ (and other assorted -ists)

      (they were also beating the crap out of Clinton before repubs even started)

      One thing that was pretty interesting to note though was some of them that worked at MSM press started getting edged out the closer primaries came to an end, until they were all gone. The only one that managed to avoid that fate far as I know is Stephen Zunes on HuffPo. They all got kicked onto the likes of Common Dreams, The Progressive, Counterpunch, The Nation, and DemocracyNow.

    • Mein verehrter Lehrer, allow me to offer a view from a distant land : the way I see it is that Mr Sanders’ greatest asset during his campaign was his enormous credibility, based on a consistent record during more than four decades of running for and occupying political office. At the beginning of the primary campaign, for reasons which may seem sufficient to some and insufficient to others, he pledged to support the successful Democratic candidate. Ms Clinton, by hook or by crook – and as we know, the latter was greatly in evidence – became that candidate. Had Mr Sanders then disavowed her and ran on, e g, the Green ticket, I suspect that he would have lost much of that credibility and failed to gain the US presidency. He did what he could to reform the Democratic Party, but alas, the party wasn’t for reforming….

      On the other hand, the movement he energised was not, as he himself so often pointed out, about him, but rather about the millions that flocked to the banner. It is what they do which will largely determine the future of US politics – in the event that Ms Clinton’s warmongering tendencies do not lead to a conflagration that puts an end not only to US but to all human politics on the planet. We shall have to see whether your and my generation gets to exit state right or left as the case may be with what is left to us of grace, or whether we all – our generation and the following ones – will exit with a great bang….


      • And therein lies a tale for the green party. Even though the word “Socialist” has extremely negative connotations in the US, Bernie managed to get very close to taking the nomination.

        He did it over those four decades. Jill Stein hasn’t even been a governor. (Not to disparage her, she’s got my vote.) But it should be a lesson Green Party’s strategists – they’re not going to get the presidency overnight. Take over a few state legislatures, get a governor or six in place for a few years and THEN they’ve got a real chance at the presidency.

      • «But it should be a lesson Green Party’s strategists – they’re not going to get the presidency overnight. Take over a few state legislatures, get a governor or six in place for a few years and THEN they’ve got a real chance at the presidency.» If one reads the major corporate press – NYT, WaPo, etc (I don’t read local newspapers in the US) – one can easily get the impression that the Green Party in the US is only or primarily engaged in the presidential election, but I wonder, «CrazyH», if that is not a misimpression- deliberately fostered or otherwise. The following report from the US Green Party after the 3 November 2015 election gives a rather different impression :
        «At least 100 Green candidates competed throughout the U.S. in the November 3, 2015 general election. For a list of results, see the party’s 2015 election page ( and Facebook page (
        So far, at least 18 out of 93 Greens candidates are known to have won on Nov. 3 and 10 out 18 won in races earlier in 2015. (The Green Party is still awaiting news about some results.) 21 Green candidates received 20% or more in their races. Overall, at least 28 out of 112 Greens were elected throughout 2015, all to local offices.»

        The conclusion I draw is that it’s not the Green Party engagement that is the problem, but rather, as noted earlier, the election system. This is strengthened by the following item from the above report :
        «Francisco Herrera, in his run for Mayor of San Francisco (, took second place with 31.1% in a ranked choice vote.»

        In a system with proportional representation, Mr Herrera and the local Green Party would almost certainly be playing a major role in the governance of the City. I suspect that at present, however, their effective input is almost null (please correct me if I am wrong). Given the present first-past-the-post system, it is hard to imagine that a third party can «[t]ake over a few state legislatures, get a governor or six in place» ; rather, the system is designed to prevent the emergence of such parties….

        This doesn’t mean that change can’t happen in these systems – it certainly can – but the means differs ; instead of a third party arising, a major party is taken over by a new force more or less from the inside. Consider this year’s US primary campaign : Mr Trump took over the Republican Party from its accustomed leaders and Mr Sanders came close to doing the same in the Democratic Party. Another example from a country in which first-past-the-post is employed is the UK, where Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and his faction managed to take over the Labour Party in 1994….

        My conclusion : the local struggle should be focused on changing the electoral system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation. Here I agree with CrazyH (I think) ; if a few localities and then a few states were to go over to proportional representation, the ground would be prepared for a Constitutional Amendment to make even national elections proportional. Imagine how different the US House of Representatives and Senate under these circumstances !…

        Of course, I’m dreaming…. 😉


      • > The conclusion I draw is that it’s not the Green Party engagement that is the problem, but rather, as noted earlier, the election system.

        True, dat. However, as shown by your/my example of Sanders – the war is not yet *completely* lost. Were the Lizard People in complete control, Sanders would not have made it as far as he did.

        While the corporate press does tend to under-represent the Greens, they also do not hold one, single, major political office in the US. Running a candidate for president buys them some much-needed publicity, but what kind?

        They ran Ralph Nader over & over again to the point where he became a symbol of losing. They’re only hurting themselves with that kind of strategy.

      • “[I]f a few localities and then a few states were to go over to proportional representation, the ground would be prepared for a Constitutional Amendment to make even national elections proportional.”
        I’m unschooled in such matters as these, but why do you think a Constitutional Amendment would be required?

      • derleher – I think his reasoning is that because the Electoral College is defined in the constitution, it would take an amendment to change it. However, the constitution does not state that the electors must be winner take all, as they are in 48 of the fifty states.

        However, there are a couple of other states that have already promised to allocate their representatives proportionally just as soon as other states do the same. If we could all agree on such a system at the state level, it wouldn’t take an amendment to change. (not that it wouldn’t be a great idea, but it’s damned hard these days)

        Who benefits from the current system? Why, the duopoly, of course. They’ve got it down to a science where they only have take a few battleground states to win. Most of the rest of the electorate can be counted on to toe the line.

      • @ CrazyH –

        I think you’ve explained it the way I have understood it to be.

        There were multiple parties contesting for the Presidency for decades, if not centuries. Today, the system is rigged so that only two parties are taken seriously.

        There was no Constitutional Amendment required to change it to what exists today; therefore, no Constitutional Amendment would be required to change it back and allow multiple parties to participate. That was the purpose of my asking.

  2. I must write my British friend that, if he would just read the Telegraph, he’d know that Brexit was GREAT!

    Britain will soon have the Raj as a mercantile ‘trading partner’ (colony is no longer the preferred term), along with the Antipodes. And, with Hillary and Trump as the only viable choices, I think 13 North American colonies will soon be begging for re-admission to the Empire.

  3. Somewhere (I can’t find it) I read an article that defined Alt-Right and proved that Trump isn’t one. The Dilbert blog gave Hillary full marks for pinning that repulsive label on Trump when he is definitely NOT Alt-Right (but the Dilbert blog didn’t explain why Trump is not Alt-Right). The London Economist said the Alt-Right label makes Trump unacceptable to college-educated white voters who have voted Republican in every election since 1952. So (as the Dilbert blog wrote) it was a brilliant tactical move, and execution was perfect!

    Dilbert was sure Trump would win in a landslide. Now he says that will be a Hollywood ending, and he’s hoping the third act will start soon (but no sign of it yet, and we’re getting mighty close to the last reel).

  4. There is so much to point out as bad with Democrat and Republican right now. That can be a pessimistic thing – as in pretty much the entire tone of this campaign. Or it can be an opportunity thing: who can really argue that the 2 party system is overdue for a change? This is the Republicrats at their weakest, yet who is taking advantage of that now?

    Stein and Johnson should ally and win! I realise that is naive but why? Why is it so hard for you Americans to come up with a legitimate 3rd choice? I thought the USA is supposed to be the Land of Opportunity and Choice? Do it already! Form coalitions. Compromise with those you disagree with but who are also wanting a less corporate system.

    • Johnson would never do that, he’d probably rather be a repub spoiler.
      He thinks Hillary is “a wonderful public servant” and his VP is her old law firm comrade. Bad mojo afloat there.

    • If only it were that easy. There are at least two things limiting the electoral success of a third party ticket for the Presidency in the US.

      First, and most importantly, is the entrenchment of the two major parties. Ross Perot’s legacy has been to ensure that the only thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on is in minimizing access to the public by third parties. Whether it is in national debates, ballot listing, or any other measure, the deck is stacked against third parties, by design.

      Second is the first past the post voting system used in the US. As such, a claim that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the likely winner in your state is correct. When the likely winner is less palatable then the likely runner-up, you are voting against your interests when you vote for a third party candidate. A good explanation of this problem can be found here:

      • That video completely ignores the possibility of two or more parties joining forces for common goals (a coalition) in order to oust leopard and gorilla. This is practiced in other countries to rid government of the undesirables.

      • CP Grey’s video, while oversimplified (as, indeed, it must be given the venue), is instructive. Note that the target is not third parties or third party voters, but rather the system of first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all voting. Proportional representation is no panacea – here in Europe (I’m excluding Britain, which seems to be excluding itself), most countries employ different variants of such a system, and look at the lick-spittle governments we managed to elect, but it is undeniable that the system better represents the views of voters than the alternative above and thus better merits the term «democratic» (whatever that means)….

        From my vantage point outside the belly of the beast (on a hair on one of the paws, perhaps ?), I see little prospect of Ms Stein and Mr Johnson combining their campaigns, given the very different political views they espouse. A pity perhaps, but on the other hand, when dear Ms Clinton leads the world into a thermonuclear conflagration – which Michael has kindly taught me not to call «war» – this discussion will become moot….


      • @ mhenriday-
        In my opinion, it would have made a world of difference had Bernie accepted Jill’s invitation to join forces (and take the top slot on the ticket). I believe that team could have broken the back of the 2-party system, while giving the American people a real hope for the future.

    • The question is, Which billionaires will be served?

      The Donald, who is not predictable on pressing for war, or the other battle heart-hardened billionaires served by Hillary and the Republican defectors to Hillary, who are predictable by their consistent record of pressing for war.

      • Those with their fingers in the MIC.

        He-e-e-ey, if elected, Trump would be commander in chief. Maybe he can do for the war machine that which he did for Airlines, Casinos and Steaks.

        Good news: no more war machine

        Bad news: we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves when the chickens came home to roost.

  5. In a speech at West Point on 28 May 2014, Mr Obama uttered the immortal words : «I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre [he will have to excuse my deviant orthography] of my being»» and those of us who are a little older will recall Marie Jana Korbelová’s (aka Madeleine Albright) (in)famous remark to the effect that «But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us».

    Thinking the US is special, standing tall, and seeing the dangers to us all seems for some strange reason to frequently involve the use of extreme violence against brown people – although one must admit that at times the US is an equal-opportunity killer, as demonstrated by its war on the «white» people of Serbia. On the other hand, they were mostly Orthodox (as are, nota bene the Russians), so maybe they don’t really count as «white»….

    This is not to defend Ms Clinton, but she does have her predecessors (like the German Emperor Wilhelm II, who was determined that «hereafter no Chinese will ever dare to look cross-eyed at a German» ( daß niemals wieder ein Chinese es wagt, etwa einen Deutschen auch nur scheel anzusehen). Isn’t tradition grand ?…


    • The thing that’s interesting about Obomber’s “American Exceptionalism” speeches is that he’s trying to define it as “America is exceptional” rather than “the rules don’t apply to us” (Just like the righties do!)

      I makes for a purdy speech, yet he goes right on ignoring the Constitution and international law as he drones people and makes war on our ostensible allies. (Just like the righties do!)

      • As you pointed out to the non-native English speaker mhenriday, Obama has NEVER made war on anyone (and nor did Bush, sr as president or Clinton or Bush, jr, or Reagan as president or Johnson as president or Ike as president). And Senator Hillary never voted for war and Secretary Clinton never urged Obama to wage war in Libya.

        Military actions? Yes. Regime changes? Yes. Peacekeeping missions? Yes. War? NO! (As you pointed out, and I agreed, only non-native English speakers like, e.g., Brits or Aussies would call it war.)

  6. Ozzy is wise in comparison to these relatively pleasant appearing killers:

    Heirs of a cold war
    That’s what we’ve become
    Inheriting troubles I’m mentally numb
    Crazy, I just cannot bear
    I’m living with something’ that just isn’t fair

    Mental wounds not healing
    Who and what’s to blame
    I’m going off the rails on a crazy train
    I’m going off the rails on a crazy train

Leave a Reply