Is it possible that Richard Spencer a shill ?

Post Reply New Topic

Every time I see Richard Spencer, I feel he's acting. He's not authentic to me. Something about him- very narcissistic too. But i often wonder if he's actually a leftist that is trying to evoke a faux narrative of the alt right movement , or what liberals consider 'alt right'. Perhaps a well paid George Soros shill. Liberals lump everything "alt right" into race wars and identity politics. Which isn't really accurate. Richard Spencer is considered verging on Neo Nazi (he will deny this claim) , or talking about "white nationalism". The alt right movement was never really about that. But I wonder if its a ploy to draw in the white nationalists so they can trace and peg them onto the alt right. Could he be an imposter?

Pull your head out of the sand. The alt-right has always been a racist movement. The term "alt-right" was invented in 2008 by a white nationalist site called Alternative Right.

It is entirely possible that Richard Spencer doesn't actually believe in the crap that he spews ... but he likely isn't a "deep cover liberal". A liberal wouldn't promote black genocide just to troll mainstream conservatives. That's ridiculous.

Spencer could be an unscrupulous, money-grubbing megalomaniac who is spewing crap in order to become famous ... but he probably isn't a "deep cover liberal".

I think we might need a 'Paranoid Conspiracy' discussion section here at W.P. I will admit to not knowing a single thing about Richard Spencer (never heard of him before), but if you have any evidence to present that could shine some light on how this person is a "Soros shill", that might be helpful. Otherwise, there is nothing one can say, nothing to add to this discussion, and the topic becomes completely pointless.

These Soros conspiracy theories are hypocritical.

It is true that Soros funds the Democratic Party (which is a fake "liberal" organization), but there are plenty of other rich bastards who do the same thing.

Soros is just singled out due to his Jewish ancestry.

Anti-Semitism is largely engineered and funded by gentile bankers who want to cover their own asses and corrupt anti-authoritarian movements.

That's literally what happened in Nazi Germany. During the depression, Socialism because very common in Weimer Germany. Wealthy German corporations funded the Nazi party because the Nazis were drawing attention away from goyim bankers in order to shatter class consciousness.

Fascism is usually created by wealthy elites when they get desperate. It's just another type of capitalism. Right-wing populism is usually created to counter and destroy left-wing populism, which is the only legit form of populism.

You're missing one important point: national socialism was the core of the Nazi party, they just never got around to the socialism part. The backing of the German industrialists came after Nazi ascent to power. Look up Ernst Röhm, a leading nazi socialist (and head of the SS) who was very anti-capitalist, until he was murdered during the night of the long knives.

The term alt-right has always been a cover term to help with mainstreaming reactionary, white nationalist, illiberal ideology. He's only at odds with this movement if you've convinced yourself the alt-right wasn't always about making neo-Nazis the dominant force on the right.

If you wish to avoid being seen as a fellow traveller with people who are fairly described as Nazis, maybe it's time to consider getting out of their box car instead of trying to insist the people who built the box car are only there to make their fellow travellers look bad.

Are alt-right sympathizers who try to pretend they're not participating in a white supremacist movement shills or dupes? They're clearly one or the other.

Ernst Röhm was leader of the SA, not the SS.

The Nazi party had been dominated by 'national-socialists', those who might have been sympathetic to some socialist ideas, but overall supported them because they viewed them as the German state investing in the German people.

Since day one the party had also attracted socialists who had nationalist sympathies and didn't feel at home in left wing parties, Ernie Röhm falls into this later category. The first type I described never trusted this wing, worrying they were too sympathetic to left wing socialism and worried they'd make the party unattractive to German conservatives. The Night of Long Knives effectively can be viewed as the point where socialists ceased to matter within the NSDAP.

Which at that point in time also made him the leader of the SS since it was a sub-group of the SA until after the night of the long knives. I prefer using SS since that's the paramilitary group most people are familiar with. Is it factually accurate? No, but ask most people who the SA were and you'll see blank faces, ask them about the SS and they'll have some clue. Only other thing I'd note is that the night of the long knives wasn't just about eliminating the socialists, it was about eliminating anyone Hitler deemed a threat including non-political military leaders, opposition leaders, and powerful allies.

The SS was a separate organization from day one, it was intended to be entirely distinct from the bulk of the party since Hitler didn't trust the SA and wasn't sure how much of the party was loyal to him. Prior to Himmler taking over the SS some of the leaders of the SS came from the SA.

EDIT: I seem to be conflating the history of the Stabswache (abolished in 1923) with the Schutzstaffel (founded in 1925). While the Stabswache can be considered the forerunners of the Schutzstaffel, they were a distinct entity from the SA; the Schutzstaffel was considered a group within the SA from '25-'29.

You are right (and I could have been more clear) that it wasn't only socialists targeted on the Night of Long Knives, it was political opponents in general. Within the NSDAP, the socialist-sympathizing Nazis were the main opposition he was concerned about though.

Back on topic - DarthMetalKnight is absolutely right. Conservatives don't want to believe that their political movement has co-opted white separatists, though that's what's exactly happened. The whole point of conservatism is to hold onto the good old days - even though in those good old days, white supremacy was the rule, and so nothing less could be expected from the right than to embrace a pack of racists. That's not to say every conservative is a racist; far from it. But as the old saying goes: not every conservative is a racist, but every racist is a conservative.
George Soros has become the right's bogeyman. Something doesn't go their way, whether it's in America, or somewhere in the world, it's George Soros' doing. He's become their Ernst Stavro Blofeld, in that they imagine him to be this evil genius who controls an organization with tentacles everywhere.
I don't know if Richard Spencer believes 100% of what he preaches. My opinion is is that he's actually a bigot, but that he's more interested in his own personal self-aggrandizement. And he knows he can use his higher education, and his psychopathically winning personality to repackage race hatred and nationalism in hipster wrapping, in order for it to seem more palatable to mainstream America, thereby keeping the spotlight focused on himself.

I think you may have it backwards. The white nationalist/white supremacist/white separatists/whatever euphemism they're using this week/Nazi types have co-opted the GOP and mainstream conservatives.

Some mainstream conservatives are sympathetic to defending an old order based on white supremacism, but some others appear to genuinely believe in the same colour-blind society that liberals preached about for decades. Either way though, as the GOP invited both the Spencer types into their fold (tagging along as part of the tea party, and then as Trump's base), mainstream conservatives who don't support explicitly white supremacist rhetoric are increasingly in a position where they'll talk about being uncomfortable with those people while giving them cover or pivoting to pretend that somehow their opponents are engaging in an equivalent behaviour.

Basically the Duke and Spencer types have been working for decades to package Nazi/Klan ideals in such a way that they're palatable folks who wouldn't want to be associated with brown shirts or white robes. By being careful with the language they use they've succeeded at making conservatives who oppose them afraid of being labelled as cuckservatives or RINOs or whatever and have succeeded at getting guys sympathetic to their ideals elected and accepted by mainstream conservatives as 'firm conservatives', forcing their opponents on the right into a situation where they can't be too critical of the Sturmtroopers in their midst (have to cave to right wing political correctness, can't call a Nazi a Nazi anymore) for fear of losing credibility with their supporters for caving to 'left wing political correctness'.

I think it's highly regional as well. I live in a red area of a purple state, and most of the conservatives here aren't fire-breathing racists, nor do they want to be seen as such. We had a candidate for county commissioner a few years back that had ties with 'questionable' groups and the local GOP ditched his ass well before there was even a primary, and when I say ditched, they didn't allow him in meetings and asked him to leave the party. My county votes ~70/30 Republican in elections, and they haven't voted for a D since Roosevelt, it's very conservative, and here they just won't accept it. I don't necessarily think that's the case in other regions, especially ones that have a long history of race issues, which we do not.

On a side note, to give people a gauge of Trump's current popularity if you don't believe polls: I can't find a Trump supporter in town now, the best I've gotten is someone claiming "I voted Republican". The only place I see Trump defenses is online, where the veil of anonymity emboldens people to say things they'd never utter in public. Again, I'm in an area that's as conservative as it gets.

Maybe, but it is clear from sites like Stormfront that people really believe this crap.

You're both right simultaneously. Most right-wing stormtroopers won't admit to those beliefs in public, but that doesn't mean they don't hold them. Instead they post them online where they feel braver and like they're surrounded by a like-minded community.

Really brave, those Stormfronters, and Daily Stormers.

He's a nobody in charge of nothing who's managed to make a name for himself as bogeyman to the left.



Oh well if it was invented on the internet.... No wonder it doesn't actually seem to exist outside of 4chan.