Despite some successes, the Alt-Right still has much to learn from the Left when it comes to fighting them in the political arena. Various elements of the Democrat party is currently pushing for radical Black Muslim Socialist Keith Ellison to lead the DNC into the Trump era, which would be a wonderful choice to cement the Democrat party’s obvious trajectory into the official vehicle for non-White political power. Ellison is quite a solid pick; he combines actual intelligence with a radical political perspective, all wrapped in a convenient victimology narrative that warms the hearts of Liberals across the nation.
Ellison is a Nation of Islam sympathizer who wrote several articles in support of Black Separatist Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam organization itself. As a law student, he wrote under the pen name Keith E. Hakim in the Minnesota Daily, where he advocates for cash reparations to be paid to Blacks from Whites, claims that the Constitution is the “best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples,” and admits to being a Black separatist himself through calling for a separate country for Black people.
“Since no one but the WASP elite really appreciates affirmative action, I have a challenge for all fair-minded middle- and working-class white people: I will urge black people to abandon white-dominated, integration-oriented, give-away programs, if you urge white people to justly compensate black people for 250 years of slavery, 90 years of Jim Crow and 25 years of neo-Jim Crow.
The settlement could be a straight cash transfer for all the black exploitation. This means just compensation for all the labor hours put in by the slaves and just compensation for all the intellectual and artistic property ripped off by all the Elvis Presleys and Pat Boones. It means compensation for all the money ripped off through sharecropping and just compensation owing to all the black athletes of yesterday, such as Jack Jefferson and Joe Louis. It means back payment of the ‘black tax,’ which is the price hike that ghetto merchants and pawnbrokers charge black consumers.
Finally, blacks would have the option of choosing their own land base or remaining in the United States. Since black people toiled most diligently in the southeastern section of the United States, this land, quite naturally, would be most suitable. That means Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. Blacks, of course, would not be compelled to move to the black state, and, of course, peaceful whites would not be compelled to move away.
This is a bargain.
Whites would be relieved of the burdens of the black-faced but white-dominated social programs. Blacks would employ themselves, teach their own children the truth and control their own neighborhoods. Black-white interaction would be voluntary instead of compelled. No more busing, no more affirmative action and, best of all, no more white guilt. White people could righteously say they have ‘settled their debts with blacks. Urban blacks, long alienated from society by poverty, forced segregation and media-vilification, would no longer strike fear in whites. Think of it, whites could reclaim their cities — without dispossessing anyone.
Now the liberals may oppose this reparations program because, of course, they justify their existence by championing so-called lost causes.”
In another column praising the Nation of Islam for its drug-fighting techniques, which he claims are better than the Police’s response, he defends the opinion that asserting interests of a racial group doesn’t make one a racist. He states that:
Racism means conspiracy to subjugate and actual subjugation. That means planned social, economic, military, religious and political subjugation of whites.
My point, with highlighting Ellison’s radical political views, isn’t to disagree; on the contrary, I think “radical Ellison” (as opposed to the publicly tempered “politician Ellison”) is the kind of opponent the Alt-Right would likely rather have. My point, in highlighting Ellison’s previous work and his radicalism, is to address the Richard Spencer question and #HailGate. Many people are still complaining about the optics of the recent NPI conference, nearly two weeks after it has concluded. Most are worried about the optics of the event, and are wondering how the ever-skiddish “Eternal Normie” will view the event.
I don’t want to give theoretical examples of how you should feel, but rather, to point out to you how far the Alt-Right and Conservatives are behind the Left and its Coalition of Color in handling political radicalism. The Daily Caller ran an exclusive story today on how Black Congressmen, including the members of the Black Congressional Congress, responded to Ellison’s radical political vision. Let’s take a look at how they responded to media inquiries and hopefully learn a little bit along the way.
Ellison’s office responded to questions of whether he still believes in these ideas by providing no response. No disavowal of previously (privately) held positions.
Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson:
I don’t see anything really objectionable. What he apparently proposed was a partitioning of the United States into a southeastern section.
This is false – he exclusively called for a Black ethnostate, but the point remains. When asked if what Rep. Ellison proposed was Black nationalism, Johnson said:
I don’t know what to call it. It seems to have been born out of academia, a thoughtful discussion on possibilities. These are not ideas that have not been discussed by black folks throughout history. While I do not support these ideas now, there was a time when I would have been, during college.
Not only did Mr. Johnson NOT disavow Ellison, he explicitly stated that he agreed with Ellison’s radical vision and did so with confidence. No disavowal; explicit agreement.
Georgia Rep. John Lewis:
“I don’t know what condition he wrote it in, so it’d be hard for me to comment. But many years ago there was other groups suggesting that there was some part of America that would be like a homeland or a state or something. Other groups espoused similar ideas for a black state, the New Black Panther Party currently supports it.”
The Georgia Democrat said he wouldn’t comment on whether Ellison would have to denounce these comments. The Black Panther Party’s co-leader proposed an idea very similar to Ellison’s. He said that African-Americans should claim a “black nation” in “Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.” Ellison’s black state would be in Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. I’m sure they can work out the details amongst one another. No disavowal; not even disagreement.
Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson:
Claimed that he would need to read the whole article by Ellison before he could comment, as the two paragraphs calling for a black state could have been taken out of context. No disavowal; neutral tone.
Indiana Rep. Andre Carson:
Mr. Carson looked over Ellison’s writing for multiple minutes and still refused to comment. No disavowal; not even disagreement.
Missouri Rep. Lacy Clay
Refused to comment when told Rep. Ellison wrote articles supporting cash reparations & a black ethnostate when he was a law student. No disavowal; not even disagreement.
Congressional Black Caucus chairman NC Rep. G.K. Butterfield:
Butterfield responded to the Daily Caller reading out the content of the articles by saying:
I have to find out if he said it. It doesn’t sound like Keith Ellison to me.
The Daily Caller informed Rep. Butterfield that it was indeed confirmed to be Ellison who wrote the column, to which Butterfield then said he “had to go” and climbed into his car. No disavowal; not even disagreement.
Democrat Party Leadership:
Among the people who have endorsed Ellison’s run for chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is such high-profile Congressmen as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. What we have here is the thought leaders of the Democrat party explicitly endorsing a political radical to lead the party into the future. No disavowal; not even disagreement.
The point in this article is that radicalism is en vogue. Ellison refuses to denounce his privately held radical politics, and the rank-and-file do the same. Does this scare off Democrat voters? No. Those still in the Democrat party are there with a full knowledge of what it has become. Not a single elected Democrat so far has disavowed Ellison or his beliefs. They embrace it. When they don’t embrace it, they merely deflect or refuse to answer. They never punch left, and they never disavow their radicals – they promote them. It would behoove you to learn to do the same. In that spirit,
Hail Trump! Hail Our People! Hail Victory!