National Review vs. the Alt-Right

Hawthorne mentioned the #NRORevolt phenomenon in the post below. Perhaps we should bring people up to speed who haven’t been following this. I’m not exactly sure what article started it all or if there was even a specific initial article that did so, but some alt-right websites have apparently put out the word on several recent NRO pieces and then swarmed the comment sections, much to the chagrin of NRO and the regular commenters there.

I haven’t commented at NRO in many years, except maybe a comment here or there that I don’t recall, so it took me a while to figure out how the game is played. I made a few deliberately pretty benign comments on a recent article, and was then accused of being an “@troll” in some of the replies. At least I thought I was being accused of being a troll. It turns out, it was actually an attempt to censor me.

From what I have picked up reading some of the comments, NRO delegates policing the comments section to senior commenters. Apparently two @troll replies from designated commenters below a comment gets the comment deleted and the Disqus user identity banned for a week.

What boggles my mind is that there are obviously some commenters who see it as their duty to police against wrongthink sneaking into the comments section and seem to relish the task of @trolling comments and getting them deleted. I simply cannot fathom this mindset. I think trolling comment sections of left and faux right websites is a useful strategy, but I have expressed concerns about the crudity of some alt-right trollers. But the censorship going on in the comment sections at NRO is not just about crudity, it is also (primarily) about the content of the thought expressed. Censoring comments to me is an expression of intellectual cowardliness. I would never think of doing such for fear that someone might think I was afraid of an intellectual fight. When I see a comment that raises my ire, I don’t think “I’m going to delete that comment.” I think, “I’m going to refute that comment.” It seems obvious to me that the former response is based on intellectual fear and the latter is based on intellectual strength.

So stand up and act like men, NRO comment section. Stop being a bunch of intellectual girly men.

7 thoughts on “National Review vs. the Alt-Right

  1. hawthornecht

    Jonah Goldberg wrote an article saying that he didn’t want to be part of a conservative movement that supported Trump. Then lots of people wished him well, and good bye. Not sure what the issue was–something about a stain on a dress making him famous, while Sobran died broke and in terrible pain–but a man, nevertheless. Not like a cuckservative or anything.


  2. karsten

    As far as I’m concerned, the comments at NRO can’t be crude enough. That entity is as bad as any Leftist site — worse, actually, as it serves to curb and contain and neuter traditionalist elements and make them palatable to Judeocons.

    As far as I’m concerned the “Alt Right” doesn’t even need the prefix “alt,” as it is the ONLY actual “right.” It’s the Alt Right on one side and just varieties of Leftism on the other (and that includes the Judeocon Trotskyism of NRO).


  3. William R

    I was one of the original posters when National Review started allowing people to comment on articles. Banned in early 2015 for taking on some of the extreme Neocons that are allowed to police the comment section. Anything that’s not 100 pro Israel is met with the Troll reply. Not sure who but someone at the site protected me for awhile, but when I posted an article about the USS Liberty I was quickly banned for life.


  4. redphillips Post author

    Hawthorne, I think Salon is all about the clicks which is why they published the pedophilia article in the first place, and it would have been better had they just not published it, and had the writer just kept his issues to himself. There is an old joke the punchline of which is “I don’t believe I would have told that brother,” and there is much wisdom to that. But I also hate feigned outrage campaigns. Given the environment, the NRO guy, Cooke, probably should have left well enough alone, but what he wrote was not really out of line. The problem with this topic is that people lose their minds about it so it is difficult to have any sort of nuanced discussion of the issue. I’m not sure it is helpful for a group that is often the victim of mindless outrage campaigns to engage in the same.

    What I do find interesting about Rich Lowry and what Trump was responding to is that Lowry was using language that would normally be coming from his alt-right nemeses. I think this suggests they are getting to him.


  5. hawthornecht

    That is what they will say–like Mickey K. And it misses the point. Trump is the wrecking ball to conservative inc and as he takes on NR and Fox News, while Gentlemen in England still now-a-bed shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,.

    Yes on the first point–no, on the second. Why say anything? Why even comment unless you have agenda? My post focused rage on National Review–not Salon.



Leave a Reply

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 )

Connecting to %s