Richard Spencer’s Jewish Mentor Paul Gottfried–Godfather of the Alt-Right


The full history of Paul Gottfried, conservatism, and the alt-right offered at the link below is significantly longer than the excerpt presented here. It’s well worth the read if you care to understand where Richard Spencer came from and how the alt-right evolved.

This excerpt has 1250 words, which is about twice as long as most posts.

Excerpt from (Jewish) Tablet Magazine

Gottfried doesn’t resolve the alt-right’s contradictions so much as he embodies them. He’s a sniffy traditionalist, a self-described “Robert Taft Republican,” with a classical liberal bent, and a Nietzschean American nationalist who goes out of his way to exaggerate his European affect. He opposes both the Civil Rights Act and white nationalism. He’s a bone-deep elitist and the oracle of what’s billed as a populist revolt. “If someone were to ask me what distinguishes the right from the left,” Gottfried wrote in 2008, “the difference that comes to mind most readily centers on equality. The left favors that principle, while the right regards it as an unhealthy obsession.”

Inequality is the alt-right’s foundational belief. In this view, there are inherent, irreducible differences not only between individuals but between groups of people—races, genders, religions, nations; all of the above. These groups each have their own distinctive characteristics and competitive advantages; accordingly, inequality is natural and good, while equality is unnatural and therefore bad and can only be imposed by force. In practice, it is typically a belief in white supremacy and a rejection of universalism.

To the ancient idea that the world is ordered by natural hierarchies the alt-right adds new wrinkles. It shows a nerdish enthusiasm for data-driven attempts to classify group cognitive abilities, an update on the social Darwinist “race science” popular before WWII that often resolves into a genes-are-destiny outlook. It also embraces concepts from the controversial field of evolutionary psychology, which attempts to explain the behavior of groups in terms of Darwinian natural selection. Because equality is both impossible and a kind of civic religion as Gottfried sees it, government attempts to enforce it are only pretexts for the state to increase its power and reach.

Railing against meddling bureaucracies and the threats they pose to liberty is a staple of conservative politics, but Gottfried’s arguments are more esoteric and more radical than anything you’d hear at a tea-party convention. Condensed, Gottfried’s theory holds that America is no longer a republic or a liberal democracy—categories that lost their meaning after the postindustrial explosion of bureaucratic apparatuses transformed the country into a “therapeutic managerial state.” Today, we are ruled by a class of managers who dress like bureaucrats but act like priests. This technocratic clerisy justifies its status by enforcing Progressive precepts like multiculturalism and political correctness, which pit different groups against each other as if they were religious edicts. As Gottfried tells it he was banished from the mainstream of political discourse for rejecting this liberal catechism. Now, versions of the same ideas that Gottfried says got him banished will be gospel in Trump’s White House.

“I view it as a partial vindication,” he told me just over a month before the presidential election, about the rise of the alt-right. “Much would depend on what Trump would do if he became president.”

n his book Fascism: The Career of a Concept, Gottfried argues that Spanish and Italian “generic fascism” belonged to a different genus than German Nazism. Hitler, the argument goes, was not really a fascist in the generic sense, but a far-right counter-revolutionary response to Stalin. A few years ago this might all have been interesting enough, grounds for contentious but seemingly abstract historical debates. Today, it’s clear that it also serves a political purpose. It takes away the power of “fascist” to stigmatize far-right politics. At the same time, it also helps to rescue a whole host of concepts tainted by association with fascism, like ethnic nationalism and “race science,” making it safe again for the right to openly advocate them.

Trumpism has revived a longstanding disagreement between the paleos and neocons over the basis of nationhood. Where neocons subscribed to the “propositional” nation, in which national identity is a function of political principles and creed, the paleos took a different view. They argued that nations were defined by the specific cultural and historical heritage of their founders. So “Americanness,” for instance, is not established by political ideals as much as by the legacy of Protestant English settlers from whose characters and milieu those ideals emerged naturally. The implications for immigration policy are clear—the more new immigrants’ backgrounds differ from the culture and belief of the original English settlers, the more they will transform Americanness. Some paleos like Gottfried framed this idea in cultural and civilizational terms, while others, like the influential Samuel Francis, advocated explicitly for white nationalism.

Spencer had moved toward the revolutionary wing of the new movement by 2010 when he created the website Alternative Right, which helped shape and popularize the loosely-knit alt-right movement. In the early 2010s, Spencer’s site and a handful of other influential outlets defined the aesthetic and political motifs of the current alt-right. A mix of shock-and-meme culture, metapolitics, right-wing social values, and anti-bourgeois posturing, it appealed to an audience of young reactionaries. It gave them something to do with their vast amounts of time online and sharpened their “fuck the normies” rage to a radical edge. Ethnic identitarianism anchored that rage and defined their enemies. Appealing to the nerdier inclinations of these adherents, the racial mythos was complemented by the biological determinist part of the program with its strong data bias. If, in a sense, white-nationalist identity politics was just another form of the left-wing identity politics that they claimed to despise, so be it; let the minorities and liberals have a taste of their own medicine.

“American society today is so just fundamentally bourgeois,” Spencer told me over the phone. “It’s just so, pardon my French … it’s so fucking middle-class in its values. There is no value higher than having a pension and dying in bed. I find that profoundly pathetic. So, yeah, I think we might need a little more chaos in our politics, we might need a bit of that fascist spirit in our politics.”

The fight over the degree of adherence to white-nationalist doctrines was an open one within the alt-right. “The Alt-Right Means White Nationalism … or Nothing at All” read the headline of an August 2016 editorial by Greg Johnson, editor of the influential alt-right publication Counter Currents. Johnson was responding to attempts to redefine the movement away from that position by people like Milo Yiannopoulos, the Breitbart journalist who insists he’s only a fellow traveler and not a member of the alt-right. “Milo seems to be defining European identity as hyperliberalism,” Richard Spencer tweeted in June. “This leads nowhere.”

While Gottfried calls Yiannopoulos his favorite figure on the alt-right for his opposition to government-led social policy and political correctness, this puts him awkwardly in the position he once accused the neocons of occupying—diluting the authentic core of right politics. “I am not beloved by the alt-right,” Gottfried told me. “I’m sort of somebody who remains aloof.” He has some hope for “collaboration among all the elements of the dissident right,” but within limits. “Where I would draw the line personally is white nationalists. They are not people I would want to include in my alliance. They sometimes say outrageous things and they are sitting ducks for the Southern Poverty Law Center and other leftist groups.”

11 thoughts on “Richard Spencer’s Jewish Mentor Paul Gottfried–Godfather of the Alt-Right

  1. Not too long for me to read. As usual and almost always, the word Jew does not appear even though it is from a Jewish magazine.
    I would like to see more articles written by right wing people and less by their enemies, though they might get less comments. The article above is mostly true but has a lot of slanders and as I said avoids the real issue – Jew power.

    “a longstanding disagreement between the paleos and neocons:.Paleo is an insult made up by a Jew (I think) to attack the likes of Pat Bucanan last Century. Paleo is a term for some 2.7 million years ago to 10,000 years ago. Implying that Pat Buchanan is a million or so years out of date – what a crock of shit.
    Neocon – those are the Jews who have wrecked half the Middle East using aggressive US military power and the lives of young whites. The (((Neocons))) have also liberated tens of millions of rapefugees to invade white countries. But this number is not enough – they want hundreds of millions of rapefugees to enter, and destroy, the West. It is farcical to call Neocons right wingers – they are extreme Marxists and Fascists,

    Yep the Neocons are mad because Country Clubs would not let the hook nose kikes join, and they are out for revenge…….Neocons are Jews……
    From Wikipedia…….
    “The reason the left prefers the neocon “right” to a paleo alternative is, quite simply, that the neocons are essentially of the left themselves and, thus, provide a fake opposition against which the rest of the left can shadowbox and thereby perpetuate its own political and cultural hegemony unchallenged by any authentic right.[“

    • Check out the link to Radix Journal in the blogroll. Spencer is set to talk at Texas A & M University on Dec 6. Thousands have signed a protest petition. The university president has reseerved the football stadium that seats 80,000 to hold an event of “inclusion” at the time Spencer speaks. Spencer will draw 50 plus hundreds of raucous protesters. Several thousand will show up at the stadium to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. I’ll do a post on it after it all plays out.

  2. “Where I would draw the line personally is White nationalists.
    They are not people I would want to include in my alliance.”
    Because Whities “say the most outrageous things”. So? Why care Jew?
    “They are sitting ducks for the Southern Law Poverty Center”. So? A Jew run op.
    This Jew, like all Jews, hates Nationalists, and especially White ones. Jews don’t thrive in a cohesive, self contained ethnic group. They don’t belong, because they are parasites and need to divide and conquer.
    Outrageous speech can’t be controlled by Jew rhetoric like, ‘racist’ and ‘anti-semitic’.
    SLPC can’t control White Nationalists. Jews lose out.
    So, another kike at the shoulder of another cuckservative. R Spencer? Another dot joined. His salute to Trump seemed a bit lame. A tame shabbas goy? A Jarred Taylor replacement, perhaps?
    And bringing up Milo Y as a spokespoof for the Alt Right, is Jew ploy. Why is every Jew a pervert? Are they all Podesta off cuts?

    • I like what MILO has to say about PC, feminists, and Trump. But he’s not our leader. As far as I can tell from reading Radix Journal, Spencer does good work. I guess we have to wait and see how much indirect influence WN will have in a Trump presidency. Trump has disavowed David Duke, but not very convincingly to me. We’ll see.

    • “Why is every Jew a pervert?”
      This is a very good question. Also, why are perverts favoured and promoted by Jews over normal married family people with no shameful and secret sex life? One idea is that Jews like to promote people who they can control via blackmail.

  3. Jews have no place in our movement or any political movements relating to European people, how could anyone trust a Jew after what their people have been responsible for throughout the ages? by the way I thought Richard Spencer was a faggot?

    • Spencer has a couple of kids and an ex-wife. He’s from a wealthy family. His mother’s money supports him to a large degree.

      Andrew Anglin at the Daily Stormer supports him since Spencer is kind of a “Nazi.” Anglin is controlled opposition, say some WNs.

      As for me, I appreciate conservative Jews, but agree that our movement should belong to whites and whites only. 80 percent of Jews are liberal. They are the enemy as are liberal whites and all the parasites of color.

      • ” 80 percent of Jews are liberal.” Yes, but many of those are actually Communists, which is the opposite of liberalism. The liberal Jews of South Africa are a good example. Jew commies like Joe Slovo wrecked the country, while one day the black puppets carrying out their orders will be blamed as Mugarbage already is.
        Jews never take the blame for anything, even 1917 in St Petersburg and what happened afterwards,

  4. Yet another definition of the Alt-Right that is completely wrong, jews have nothing to do with it, they are the enemy and will always remain so as they are incapable of change. Alt-Right is a white nationalist movement and it always has been, there’s no place for jews in the Alt-right.

    • Interestingly, Jews created the NAACP and dominate it behind the scenes even today. I’ve always wondered whether Jews control La Raza too. Anyway, I don’t mind people like Paul Gottfried offering their thoughts, but it is we who must control our own destiny. Gottfried would be a better ally than a white liberal though. I would listen to him before I would listen to Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, etc. Keeping closeted white liberal saboteurs out of our movement is also important.

Leave a Reply. Comments Policy Forbids Insulting Other Commenters.

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

You are commenting using your 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