They Still don’t get it…The New Right as defined by The Old Left

#Berkeley #coulter #proudboy @jennyhatch68

A post shared by Jenny Hatch (@jennyhatch68) on

Hillarious article at the NYMagazine attempting to define me and my peeps. (This article entitled Beyond Alt is a huge mish mash of post modernist reaction to the age of Trumpism. The subtitle says it all – THE EXTREMELY REACTIONARY, BURN-IT-DOWN-RADICAL, NEWFANGLED FAR RIGHT.)

“Much as the tea party (a small group punching above its weight class through lunatic obstinacy and support from the Koch network) hijacked the Republican Party from inside by appealing to its sense of purity, the alt-right (a small group punching above its weight class through sheer lunatic web-savvy) swerved the party off its plotted course by an obsessive focus on some of the uglier, and often unofficial, aspects of the GOP platform that had been used for decades to appeal to the ever-poorer and less-educated base of the party.”


Sheesh, this quote made me chuckle out loud.

And a quote from the inimitable Andrew Sullivan from his piece titled Why the Reactionary Right must be taken seriously.

“Reactionism is not the same thing as conservatism. It’s far more potent a brew. Reactionary thought begins, usually, with acute despair at the present moment and a memory of a previous golden age. It then posits a moment in the past when everything went to hell and proposes to turn things back to what they once were. It is not simply a conservative preference for things as they are, with a few nudges back, but a passionate loathing of the status quo and a desire to return to the past in one emotionally cathartic revolt. If conservatives are pessimistic, reactionaries are apocalyptic. If conservatives value elites, reactionaries seethe with contempt for them. If conservatives believe in institutions, reactionaries want to blow them up. If conservatives tend to resist too radical a change, reactionaries want a revolution. Though it took some time to reveal itself, today’s Republican Party — from Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution to today’s Age of Trump — is not a conservative party. It is a reactionary party that is now at the peak of its political power.”

More from Sullivan (I thought he retired???)

“I know why many want to dismiss all of this as mere hate, as some of it certainly is. I also recognize that engaging with the ideas of this movement is a tricky exercise in our current political climate. Among many liberals, there is an understandable impulse to raise the drawbridge, to deny certain ideas access to respectable conversation, to prevent certain concepts from being “normalized.” But the normalization has already occurred — thanks, largely, to voters across the West — and willfully blinding ourselves to the most potent political movement of the moment will not make it go away.”

And one more from Sullivan (the dude can WRITE!)

“Neo-reactionary unease with mass immigration is exacerbated by what they see as the administrative state’s shift from belief in a “melting pot” model in which all immigrants assimilate to a common American culture to the multicultural model, where the government, business, and society recognize different languages and celebrate ethnic diversity over national unity. Anton notes that America is now “a country in which Al Gore mistranslates e pluribus unum as ‘Out of one, many’ and in his error is actually more accurate to the spirit of our times.” The problems of ethnic division are further compounded by the view growing among the elites that America itself is at root a racist white construction, and that “assimilation” is therefore an inherently bigoted idea.

This notion of a national culture, rooted in, if not defined by, a common ethnicity, is even more powerful in European nations, which is why Brexit is so closely allied to Trumpism. In the case of Britain, the question of race is framed within a euphemism used by the British government itself: a “visible minority” versus an “invisible one.” “Since 2001, Britain’s ‘visible minority’ population has nearly doubled, from 8 percent to 14 percent today,” Benjamin Schwarz, the national editor of The American Conservative, noted last year. “It is projected to rise to about 38 percent by mid-century.” Is Britain changing so fast that it could lose any meaningful continuity with its history and culture? That is the question now occupying the British neo-reactionaries. Prime Minister Theresa May has not said many memorable things in office, except this: “If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere.”

A year ago, Anton took issue with an article I wrote for this magazine in which I described Trump as reminiscent of Plato’s description of a tyrant emerging out of a decadent democracy and argued that we should do what we could to stop him. Anton’s critique was that I was half-right and half-wrong. I was right to see democracy degenerating into tyranny but wrong to see any way to avoid it. What he calls “Caesarism” is already here, as Obama’s abuse of executive power proved. Therefore: “If we must have Caesar, who do you want him to be? One of theirs? Or one of yours (ours)?” Krein put it even more plainly: “Restoring true constitutional — or even merely competent — government requires a fundamental transformation of the underlying culture and elite opinion. It requires, in a certain sense, regime change in America.”

And finally this little gem from Andrew Sullivan about the great divider in chief Barack Obama. (If those on the left would get in an honest place about what Obama wrought on the world these past 8 years, we might be able to have a real conversation.)

“Our job in these circumstances is not to condescend but to engage — or forfeit the politics of the moment (and the future) to reaction. Lincoln got the dynamic exactly right with respect to the Trump voter: “Assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and tho’ you throw it with more than Herculean force and precision, you shall be no more able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.”

“The tragedy of our time, of course, is that President Obama tried to follow Lincoln’s advice. He reached out to those who voted against him as often as he could. His policies, like Obamacare, were aimed at helping the very working poor who gave Trump the White House. He pledged to transcend the red-blue divide. He acknowledged both the necessity of law enforcement and the legitimate African-American fear of hostile cops. A black man brought up by white people, he gave speech after speech attempting to provide a new narrative for America: one of slowly integrating moral progress, where racial and class divides could be overcome. He criticized the reductive divisiveness of identity politics. And yet he failed. He couldn’t prevent the disappearance of the American middle class; he couldn’t calm the restive anxieties of the white working class; he couldn’t stem the reactionary tide that now washes ever closer ashore. If a man that talented, with that biography, found himself spitting into the wind, a powerful storm is indeed upon us.”

As beautifully articulate as the above paragraph is, it makes me roll my eyes and chortle with laughter. Bwa ha ha ha… So much irony. Andrew, do you have complete amnesia? Barack Obama was the most divisive and identity politicized person in a position of power that America has ever experienced!

The one common theme I found with all of the voices in the article was fear.

Here are a few more quotes:

This election was said to be about two contradictory things. The end of identity politics and simultaneously without a sense of contradiction the reassertion of the white working class. As if the white working class is not rooted in identity politics. Whiteness is our culture has been pretty consistent. It’s been denying its particularity and its roots in a specific economic or cultural or class formation as a race and sees itself as a universal. When white people hear race, they think black, brown, red, and yellow; they don’t think white. That’s why white people can say, “Why don’t you people stop talking about race?” They believe that they are Americans. They don’t have a race. They think they don’t have a commitment to a particular ideology other than an ostensible neutrality and objectivity.” 

Michael Eric Dyson, professor of sociology, Georgetown University


…Which brings us to the tea party

“Ideas about white dispossession, the rise of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and nativism — these ideas were held by the majority of national tea party factions. It got to their core brand, the idea of taking America back. From its outset, that idea is racially charged: taking things back from an African-American president whom they viewed as illegitimate. White people being squeezed from above by the internationalist elite. The frame in which they were promoting these ideas was clear even as far back as 2010. It created the bridge from the margins to the mainstream. The tea party has anywhere between 18 and 35 percent of the American public supporting their ideas. Ideas about and identity politics are percolating throughout that movement, and there is very little opposition to those ideas. You see it in everything from their opinions about Black Lives Matter to immigration. Everything has been infected by this notion of white identity politics. It dramatically changed the landscape in the course of eight years.” 

Devin Burghart, co-author of Tea Party Nationalism


“Cuckservative, the portmanteau that insults moderate Republicans by accusing them of being cuckolds — men whose wives cheat on them — started trending in the alt-right two years ago. The day after Donald Trump announced his candidacy, a thread on 4chan’s /pol/ page titled “Jeb Bush the cuck” featured a photo of Trump yelling, “You’re fired,” alongside a slew of sexually and racially charged insults. The metaphor gained momentum when, one month later, Rush Limbaugh marveled at Trump’s refusal to become an “average, ordinary, cuckolded Republican.”


The article ends by profiling a few New Right personalities.

“Peter Thiel

Dreaming of the Übermensch.

Thiel, a major Trump backer, has been preaching #MAGA for years. He argues that sweet, unfettered capitalism hasn’t existed in America since 1920, and also that the tech industry hasn’t done much to improve the lives of everyday Americans since the 1970s. Fearing a looming societal collapse, he has placed his hope in a handful of moon-shot ideas, including immortality.”

I will share Gavins profile because I absolutely adore him. 

Gavin recently outed the Antifa leadership as  bunch of pedos. 

https://twitter.com/jennyhatch/status/861604795534147584

This bio of him is spectacularly distorted.

“Gavin McInnes

Hipster racist.

Vice co-founder who left the company a decade ago to be a full-time racial provocateur with a boutique ad firm and a gig on Fox News. We should have known. In 2003, McInnes told the Times that he loved being white and didn’t want his culture “diluted.” In a world gone PC, chauvinism was the last punk taboo. But after he left Vice, the line between irony and prejudice began to blur: He wrote screeds against Muslims, transgender people, and women. McInnes found new purpose in Donald Trump’s candidacy, starting up a Brooklyn-based “pro-West” fraternity called the Proud Boys.”


This quote about the new right view of women is an absolute lie.

I have heard more passionate defenses of the home maker from these dudes than anywhere else on the web.

They are like listening to LDS General Conference circa 1977 but with lots of F bombing metaphors thrown in for color.

What they have zero illusions about is the impact that feminism has had on society.

As the original anti feminist, why wouldn’t I wholeheartedly endorse, defend, and love the New Right for the clarifying role they are playing in society?

Here is the quote:

“The movement has a real problem with women.

Possibly because its members tend to be rejected by them.

First came the pickup artists, men who thought of women as conquests and shared tips on how to bed as many of them as possible, culminating in Neil Strauss’s official PUA manual, The Game. Eventually, as the PUA community drifted onto Reddit, members began to spend less time sharing seduction techniques and more time lodging bilious grievances against women. PUAs advocated a practiced machismo that would teach beleaguered males to combat a “feminized” society that sought to neuter them. When Donald Trump won the presidency, manosphere blogger Roosh V, who advocates the repeal of women’s suffrage, wrote, “I’m in a state of exuberance that we now have a President who rates women on a 1–10 scale in the same way we do.” Some #MGTOW (men going their own way) have decided to abstain from female company altogether. Instead, MGTOW enjoy sharing “pictures of hitting the wall” — before and after photos of women aging.”

And finally the article finished with a few media stories fueled by new rightish bloggers…

Pizzagate or Pedogate as we now call it has been one of my main areas of focus since Nov. 4th 2016.

The thing is the new right wants to nurture our children and the old left wants to rape and eat them…literally. 

The two sides have a different take on child rearing, one that will NEVER be reconciled.

Here is what the article had to say about it:

“Pizzagate: The theory that Hillary Clinton and her cronies were keeping child sex slaves in the basement of a popular D.C. pizza parlor, which went from “laughable joke” in October to “belief of armed man (above) arrested at popular D.C. pizza parlor” in December.”

The article summed up The New Right with these words:

“The New Left and its fellow travelers did not “win,” in any concrete political sense, in 1968, but they did realign global and American politics — and so shook the core of the country that we spent the next 50 years fighting each other over its legacy. 

Remember when it was the dewiest hope of millennial Obama supporters that the baby-boomers would finally exit stage death and leave the country in the waiting hands of a new rainbow coalition? 

Trump himself is a candidate of the elderly, the Republican Party is aging, and political polarization around the world is still driven by the oldest voters. 

But the new right is, all of a sudden, young. And it’s advancing on new fronts in the culture war where it is actually fought, among the kids (which means on the internet). As Paul Joseph Watson, the conspiracy theorist turned new-right hero, puts it, “I’m not sure the left understand the monumental ass-whupping being dished out to them on YouTube” — a boast that sounds pathetic until you realize that teenagers and young adults watch more YouTube than TV. 

These days, no matter how small its avowed membership might be, the alt-right attracts the most breathless media attention and the most dangerous protests; its journalists, like Lucian Wintrich, are more eye-catchingly transgressive than anyone on the left (including Glenn Greenwald); its comedians, like Sam Hyde, induce the most bafflement and rage in Mom and Dad (Dave Chappelle is being fêted by the Establishment he criticizes). 

It helps that it’s very well funded for a counterculture, as Milo Yiannopoulos, touring America’s colleges on Robert Mercer’s dime (and now launching a for-profit professional trolling organization with what he says is $12 million in secret funding), could tell you. There is power in transgression — power that liberals lost when they won the culture war and began to set the boundaries of social and cultural acceptability. 

The new new right may never swallow the American cultural mainstream, especially so long as social-justice and socialist movements on the left challenge its rise, but that doesn’t mean the country isn’t going to be wrestling with its influence, and its bomb-throwers, for a generation. 

But who wants the culture when you’ve got the counterculture? Who needs the presidency when you’ve got YouTube? 

Max Read”


Here is a list of those who contributed. (And yes, I read the whole damn thing).

SIMON VAN ZUYLEN-WOOD

NOREEN MALONE

MAX READ

ANDREW SULLIVAN

PARK MACDOUGALD

 JASON WILLICK

MARK JACOBSON

MAUREEN O’CONNOR

GABRIEL SHERMAN

BEN CRAIR

NICK RICHARDSON

MARK O’CONNELL

With Claire Landsbaum, Jordan Larson, Amelia Schonbek, Matt Stieb, Nick Tabor, James D. Walsh


Illustration by Chris Cristiano and map photograph by Bobby Doherty

My takeaway?

I have been a vibrant voice of the New Right since I was in high school in 1986, spouting Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson in my school papers and to anyone else who would listen.

My thoughts and views came to full fruition when I gave the opening speech at the First Denver Tea Party and encouraged those in attendance to Go Galt in three areas of their lives.

First to shrug off the need for healthcare by taking personal responsibility for their own health.

Second to become more self reliant with their food production.

And third to barter and trade with neighbors rather than doing a cash transaction.

The old left taught the old sins as new sins to our little ones in schools and through cultural brainwashing and then freaked when society melted the same way history has shown it always does when sexual nihilism takes over and babies become disposable and bothersome.

To fix the tidal wave of human suffering that resulted, the old left attempted to fix things by getting the feds to pay for the mess.

As if government cheese could replace the loving care of a father who provides for his own.

The New Right recognizes and honestly identifies the many unintended consequences that the destruction of the family has wrought and is attempting to educate young people of the happiness that could result from sticking with historical norms and raising a family in a loving, monogamous situation where Mom the Home Maker reigns as queen of her little castle and Dad protects and provides.

This recent tweet from Gavin is a good example of the tone from new right voices:

He snarked on women raising dogs instead of children in response to this tweet from Stefan:

Again, why wouldn’t I love and defend these New Right voices who have so much respect for my lifestyle choices?

Yes, I know that they all use profanity, and for this mormon mama, it is difficult to reconcile the blunt earthy tone of my ideological travelers.

But I would rather clink arms with Milo, Ann, Gavin, Stefan, Mike, and President Trump and attempt to restore Western Civilization than stand idly by while the soft spoken well modulated tone of the elites soothes and entices humanity carefully down to hell.

Jenny Hatch

Healthy Families Make A Healthy World!

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

  • Follow Jenny Hatch on Social Media

  • Home Making Video Tutorials by Jenny Hatch

  • Instagram

    Identity Politics and the Marxist LIE of White Privilege - a Lecture by Jordan B Peterson hosted on my Blog here: https://jennyhatch.com/2017/11/16/excellent-identity-politics-and-the-lie-of-white-privilege-professor-jordan-peterson-jennyhatch/ @jennyhatch68
  • Click to listen to the Podcast!

%d bloggers like this: