Ever since World War 2, there’s been no label worse than “Nazi”. By now, it might also be the most irrelevant. It’s so fluid that even as someone who could be tarred with the current definition, I really have no idea what to think of anyone else who gets called one.
When I was a kid, it was simultaneously documented in the books on history I loved reading, and also joked about in the lunchroom by my classmates. They were referencing some episode of Seinfeld involving soup. I never bothered to watch that sitcom because I can’t stand laugh tracks. Walker Texas Ranger and Baywatch were my principal delights. I’m still friends with a lot of them on Facebook, and most are as clueless now as they were back then.
Therefore, I doubt my classmates understand what the actual Nazis are these days any more than they did 20+ years ago. What I do know is that almost none of them live in the half-black city we grew up in, and zero have put their kids in the fucked-up, post-integration public school system that we passed through. So, through their actions, they have proven themselves to be Nazis according to the current definition. That’s all it takes at this point.
As Nazis, they can find good company with a man who resides in the White House. This is one of the central problems that the MSM has created for itself. The label “Nazi” is deployed to silence us, to whom the actual term does not even apply. However, most of the time it gets thrown at people still clinging to forms of common sense, like refusing to dress their male toddler up as a girl. These people can be put in papers to grovel, but we’re basically ignored. Our guys don’t apologize and just keep articulating their rational viewpoints on reality. This is precisely why you don’t want to feature one in a newspaper that shills blatant propaganda.
That’s why I was surprised to see that one of us was interviewed in the NYT this past weekend. Of course, it was a transparent hatchet job on Tony Hovator of the Traditionalist Worker Party. But, the story did feature bits of his cogent discussion of what motivates the Alt-Right. That’s an incredible fuck-up that I found truly shocking. And so did the entire MSM.
There was a severe spaz out. The NYT was widely denounced by a multitude of MSM personalities, including the totally-honest clairvoyant Nate Silver. Perhaps rightfully so, because Tony pointed out to the reporter how their utterly false coverage of interracial violence really helped a lot of white Americans to become cognizant of the state of siege under which they live. The last thing the NYT should have done is to put his name out there and then mention that he writes articles and does podcasts on a website. Haha, too late.
Any honest discussion of the Alt-Right absolutely can’t be allowed, since factually-countering the talking points would require the journalistic equivalent of alchemy. That’s why the MSM is forced to call us the same names while simultaneously avoiding our actual platforms and strategies, which can vary between groups. The NYT article failed to completely follow that game plan. So now interested readers know that there is a website where they can go and learn in detail about the party’s platform, which is nothing like it was described in the story. It’s also hilarious reading the party’s talking points and contrasting them with the hysterical comments section for the article, many of which are about people being butchered in death camps. It doesn’t hurt us that the people who hate us are mentally residing on another planet.
I’m not sure what prompted this colossal fuckup by the NYT. It’s far more productive to go after Alt-Lite people who will say something like “I’m not as bad as those guys, but I’d rather not embrace whatever lunacy you’re pushing this week.” Usually that’s what they do, which is why these normie targets of opportunity constantly get strafed. Even an apolitical pop star like Taylor Swift is under fire for not saying anything about anything.
I find this madness amusing because it demonstrates how hard it is to keep a lid on reality these days. What headline will convince people that what they can see in front of their very eyes isn’t going on? Moreover, how bad must it feel to have a livelihood that depends on people reading these headlines when you know damn well that most people are not? The NYT isn’t a company in good financial health. There’s a sweet stench of desperation wafting through the air.
“What makes people start fires?” Asks the guileless hack who wrote the article. I guess that makes the Alt-Right somewhat analogous to Billy Joel. “We didn’t start the fire”, as they’ve been burning since before the vast majority of us were even born. Eventually, they’ll burn down the entire rotten edifice and no amount of propaganda discredited media institutions will change that. He’ll probably be out of a job well before then.
-By Tommy Shackleford