Jesse Singal argues in a recent New York Magazine article that “all of this should be seen not as a shocking parting of ways, but as a sensible move for the media personalities of the alt-right. Renouncing Trump, and eventually abandoning him, might actually be the most advantageous play for alt-right celebrities trying to maintain their peculiar online kingdoms, while handling the weird ramifications of having won.”
Singal conflates the Alt-Lite (Paul Joseph Watson and Mike Cernovich) with the Alt-Right and gives three reasons we are parting ways with Trump over his missile strikes against Syria’s military:
1) It gets us attention. Here Singal is correct if we are talking about the Alt-Lite and Watson and Cernovich. Singal correctly points out that “They are constantly growing their brands, growing their followers, and trying to poke their way into every conversation.” Cernovich is first and foremost a brand – a way for him to make money and get attention. He has jumped from one thing (Gamergate, manosphere, Alt-Lite) to another to get followers. That is not us. Sure, we want to spread our views and see them gain popularity with the public. But we do so as believers in our cause, not to make money. We work real jobs, support our families and promote Right-wing identity politics in our spare time because we believe in the message. We are not primarily a commercial brand.
2) It allows us to stay in the opposition. This is incorrect. We always based our support of Trump on what he could do for us in restricting immigration, breaking political-correctness taboos, protecting our industries and jobs, promoting identity politics for Whites and opposing the Neo-cons’ foreign policy. We want to win on these points. The prospect of winning animated us. We were excited about defeating our enemies. Unlike the cuckservatives we do not like losing for “muh principles.” Having Hillary or Jeb in office would be better for us if we just wanted to be in opposition to everything the US president did. We agree with them on practically nothing.
3) It feeds our narrative on Jewish control of the System. Singal is basically correct on this. Trump campaigned on an openly anti-globalist platform and then surrounded himself with globalists (both Jews and mainstream globalist GOPers like Nikki Haley) once in office. We never expected pure nationalist leadership from Trump but to say that he has been a disappointment of late would be a gross understatement.
The big point that Singal misses is that our opposition to Trump’s attack on Syria is consistent and principled. I opposed the US war against White Christian Serbia in the 90s which made the Balkans safe for Muslim expansion and terror. I opposed the US war against Iraq which destabilized the country, took out a secular leader who kept the radical Islamists down and unleashed an awful civil war. I opposed US attacks on Libya that took out a secular leader who was holding back the African hordes who wanted to flood into Europe. I opposed US intervention in Syria on behalf of the so-called “moderate rebels” (ISIS). That intervention led to a civil war, the migrant crisis in Europe and the expansion of ISIS. It also nearly toppled a Christian-friendly, Western-educated and moderate leader who held the country together and was helping to make it prosperous. None of these wars were good for us or in any way bettered our lives. And none of the alleged bad guys (Serbia, Iraq, Libya or Syria) was a danger to us here.
We have long opposed US intervention on behalf of Muslim radicals and the Neo-con agenda of taking out Israel’s potential competitors in the region in the name of “spreading democracy.” The wars mentioned above were a massive waste of blood and treasure. This is not to say that we are against war in any and all cases, but we are against wars for Israel, wars to spread democracy and wars to line the pockets of the military-industrial elites. The Alt-Right grew out of that opposition and its present position against Trump’s aggression is principled and consistent.