Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Alt-Right?

[Anthony '58]

Surprisingly - at least according to some here - not me!

It's a massive improvement over the Ayn Rand Right.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29...alt-right/

[Odin]

LOL, Breitbart.

[Anthony '58]

This article's "natural conservatives" sound a lot like Michael Lind's national liberals.  In my "Baby Busters" emanation - which seems like a century ago - I more than once lamented a system that discarded "TOttenville 8-2120" and "Staten Island 7, New York" in favor of "868-2120" and "Staten Island, NY 10307" respectively, while concomitantly saying "No, no, a thousand times no" to the metric system.  These dudes appear to be tapping into that sentiment.

I've had some contact with the "manosphere" as well.  Jack Donovan would be quite familiar to a two-decades-plus resident of San Francisco, as I was until 17 months ago.  That a gay man would be editing AltRight's articles about gender issues says a great deal about AltRight.

Hillary might want to think twice about using AltRight for guilt-by-association purposes against Trump.

[Anthony '58]

But like Trump, AltRight is actually less threatening than the Koch brothers and their neo-Gilded Age sycophants.

Just like Bashar Assad is infinitely less threatening to the West than either Iran or ISIS - which is why we should join Russia in siding with Assad.

[Eric the Green]

(08-26-2016, 03:44 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: But like Trump, AltRight is actually less threatening than the Koch brothers and their neo-Gilded Age sycophants.

You are quite-possibly correct on that.

Quote:Just like Bashar Assad is infinitely less threatening to the West than either Iran or ISIS - which is why we should join Russia in siding with Assad.

You are extremely incorrect about that.

[Eric the Green]

Reading that interesting article, I am struck by this paragraph:

Quote:"The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions."

Hmmm. I'm reading this article because I am curious about this new unfamiliar term "alt.right" and the ideas and people it represents...... I don't know, it might be better for me to be wary.

Quote:"For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe. Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters. The natural conservative tendency within the alt-right points to these apotheoses of western European culture and declares them valuable and worth preserving and protecting."

Hmmm, I can agree there, but....

Quote:"just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.

You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.

The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness."

I totally disagree, as someone who thinks that the quality of cultural expression is to some degree objective, and that good and bad culture exists. I disagree with Taramarie and others on this. But just as I as a white person can appreciate some black jazz artists and Motown and other black musicians, and the elaborate designs on Muslim mosques, and the amazing spiritual power of Buddhist and Hindu arts and temples, and the colorful weavings of Mayan artists, and so on and so on, and am influenced by them and want to preserve them, I am sure that Asians and Africans and Muslims and Latinos and whoever can appreciate Bach and Beethoven and Chartres Cathedral and Michaelangelo, etc., and want to preserve and be influenced by them and perform them and support them, and so on.

Separation is not necessary for distinctiveness at all. In fact, you trace the history of any culture back far enough, and you find other cultures at their roots. And cross cultural stimulation is often what creates the best culture. No, I prefer kumbaya; although specifically I would not choose it as one of the best songs ever Or "Imagine" either, for that matter. But I like the sentiments expressed!

War, such as the alt-right thinks is the natural result of non-separation, results from their own attitudes of tribalism. It's this that causes war, just as it did 60 and 100 years ago, as if these alt-righters seem to have forgotten the most unforgettable and horrible history.

No, the real trend of today is toward one people on one earth, and it's silly and foolish to resist it. We are each inheritors of all the traditions of humankind. That's exactly what makes our age special.

And the best culture is not a product of race, or of separate, distinct peoples. It's the product of spiritual inspiration, and/or physical energy, and/or heart-felt emotions (IOW, "Oooh Eee OOh Ah-AAH" read my page if you don't get the meaning). Another special quality of our time is how much more freely more people are open to and receive these inspirations than in past times when most peoples' noses were strictly confined to their grindstones. Or, at least, such is the case during or near to the times of Awakening/2T periods.

[Eric the Green]

Why do you call it "red-brown?" What do those colors stand for (I assume red is Bolshevism, although now it has the opposite meaning in the USA)? Brown for brownshirts?

Bolshevism seems to get the shorter side of this combination. Just as "National socialism" didn't have much socialism, and just as Trump's "national populism" doesn't have much populism.

[pbrower2a]

[quote pid='7845' dateline='1472251144']

Eric the Green Wrote:Reading that interesting article, I am struck by this paragraph:

Quote:"The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions."

Hmmm. I'm reading this article because I am curious about this new unfamiliar term "alt.right" and the ideas and people it represents...... I don't know, it might be better for me to be wary.

Quote:"For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe. Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters. The natural conservative tendency within the alt-right points to these apotheoses of western European culture and declares them valuable and worth preserving and protecting."

Hmmm, I can agree there, but....

But except to hear the great symphonies of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, and even Bruckner as they were originally performed would one want to return in a time machine to Vienna in their time? A warning that one blogger said of traveling to parts of the Third World

"Sadness will follow you everywhere you go"

applied to places now generally recognized as sophisticated and wealthy, like Florence, Paris, and Vienna today.

Of course culture is wonderful! The conservative part of me recognizes that the entertainment 'culture' of our time offers entertainment as the opiate of the masses. We need culture more than we need entertainment. We need remember that William Shakespeare]s plays had competition for the entertainment coin of the time -- animal-baiting. Dogs tearing bears and bulls apart? 


My concept of Paradise is one great Chautauqua, maybe alternating some great visual art, opera, symphony, ballet, and drama with some hikes in nature, horseback riding, and sailing... but that is my idea. (Horseback riding and sailing have never been part of my life, but they sound very good). But that is my concept. For many people such would be Hell. They would alternate between rock concerts and motorcycle riding. Maybe they would love to see dogs ripping livestock and wildlife to death.

Quote:

Quote:"just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.

You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.

The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness."

I totally disagree, as someone who thinks that the quality of cultural expression is to some degree objective, and that good and bad culture exists. I disagree with Taramarie and others on this. But just as I as a white person can appreciate some black jazz artists and Motown and other black musicians, and the elaborate designs on Muslim mosques, and the amazing spiritual power of Buddhist and Hindu arts and temples, and the colorful weavings of Mayan artists, and so on and so on, and am influenced by them and want to preserve them, I am sure that Asians and Africans and Muslims and Latinos and whoever can appreciate Bach and Beethoven and Chartres Cathedral and Michaelangelo, etc., and want to preserve and be influenced by them and perform them and support them, and so on.

Yes. Quality matters, and the Good Stuff has not all been created in western Europe and America.
If one speaks of Western Civilization, one must recognize that the largest part of Western Civilization is to the south of San Diego, El Paso, Brownsville, and Key West. Let's also remember that defining peoples as decadent denies one the opportunity to enjoy some great achievements in culture, but even worse pu7ts such people at risk of dispossession, exile, enslavement, and even extermination. 

Quote:Separation is not necessary for distinctiveness at all. In fact, you trace the history of any culture back far enough, and you find other cultures at their roots. And cross cultural stimulation is often what creates the best culture. No, I prefer kumbaya; although specifically I would not choose it as one of the best songs ever Or "Imagine" either, for that matter. But I like the sentiments expressed!

War, such as the alt-right thinks is the natural result of non-separation, results from their own attitudes of tribalism. It's this that causes war, just as it did 60 and 100 years ago, as if these alt-righters seem to have forgotten the most unforgettable and horrible history.

No, the real trend of today is toward one people on one earth, and it's silly and foolish to resist it. We are each inheritors of all the traditions of humankind. That's exactly what makes our age special.

And the best culture is not a product of race, or of separate, distinct peoples. It's the product of spiritual inspiration, and/or physical energy, and/or heart-felt emotions (IOW, "Oooh Eee OOh Ah-AAH" read my page if you don't get the meaning). Another special quality of our time is how much more freely more people are open to and receive these inspirations than in past times when most peoples' noses were strictly confined to their grindstones. Or, at least, such is the case during or near to the times of Awakening/2T periods.

[/quote]

Much greatness is synthesis. The greatest achievers in culture typically make their national and 'racial' origins irrelevant.

[Anthony '58]

But why is it that homogeneous societies like Iceland, and even large, populous ones like Japan, are so peaceful?

Maybe because if someone in those countries cuts you off on the freeway you don't even have the opportunity to call him/her a n***er, k**e, s**c, etc.?

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-26-2016, 07:31 AM)Anthony Wrote: Surprisingly - at least according to some here - not me!

It's a massive improvement over the Ayn Rand Right.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29...alt-right/

It also looks a lot better than the regressive left:

 

We also have the neoCONs.

http://neoconbastards.com/chickenhawkcards/index.html

and

http://original.antiwar.com/branko_marce...acked-her/

Now.....  As far as going all the way in pissing in folks' Cherios , how about the color black , from anarcho-syndicalism as the way to do that to neoliberalism?

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-26-2016, 06:49 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The so called Alt-Right is simply what National Bolshevism (aka Duginism) is called in the US. It is the Red-Brown alliance. It is evil.

Really? In any event, the real focus of evil in the universe are the neoCONs. They worship at the Pentagram and offer up human sacrifices known as "soldiers".  They even have a weird concept in their holy scriptures.  "American Exceptional ism" - the only true religion.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-27-2016, 01:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [quote pid='7845' dateline='1472251144']

Eric the Green Wrote:Reading that interesting article, I am struck by this paragraph:

Quote:"The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions."

It sorta depends on time reference.  After a while it seems, folks from whereever end up raising mutts.

"Sadness will follow you everywhere you go"

I think it's actually, "no matter where you go,  you can't leave yourself behind".
 For many people such would be Hell. They would alternate between rock concerts and motorcycle riding.

Rock concerts and poker junckets are more my thing.

Quote:The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness."

I totally disagree, as someone who thinks that the quality of cultural expression is to some degree objective, and that good and bad culture exists. I disagree with Taramarie and others on this. But just as I as a white person can appreciate some black jazz artists and Motown and other black musicians, and the elaborate designs on Muslim mosques, and the amazing spiritual power of Buddhist and Hindu arts and temples, and the colorful weavings of Mayan artists, and so on and so on, and am influenced by them and want to preserve them, I am sure that Asians and Africans and Muslims and Latinos and whoever can appreciate Bach and Beethoven and Chartres Cathedral and Michaelangelo, etc., and want to preserve and be influenced by them and perform them and support them, and so on.


The above seems correct.

Yes. Quality matters, and the Good Stuff has not all been created in western Europe and America.
If one speaks of Western Civilization, one must recognize that the largest part of Western Civilization is to the south of San Diego, El Paso, Brownsville, and Key West. Let's also remember that defining peoples as decadent denies one the opportunity to enjoy some great achievements in culture, but even worse pu7ts such people at risk of dispossession, exile, enslavement, and even extermination. 

I don't like cheap plastic stuff that wears out that one finds on the shelves at Wallyworld.

Quote:Separation is not necessary for distinctiveness at all. In fact, you trace the history of any culture back far enough, and you find other cultures at their roots. And cross cultural stimulation is often what creates the best culture. No, I prefer kumbaya; although specifically I would not choose it as one of the best songs ever Or "Imagine" either, for that matter. But I like the sentiments expressed!

Eric knows what Rags likes.


War, such as the alt-right thinks is the natural result of non-separation, results from their own attitudes of tribalism. It's this that causes war, just as it did 60 and 100 years ago, as if these alt-righters seem to have forgotten the most unforgettable and horrible history.


Every ideology has its foibles, Eric.

Quote:No, the real trend of today is toward one people on one earth, and it's silly and foolish to resist it. We are each inheritors of all the traditions of humankind. That's exactly what makes our age special.

You might want to tell the folks in the Middle East that.  They hate each other.

Quote:And the best culture is not a product of race, or of separate, distinct peoples. It's the product of spiritual inspiration, and/or physical energy, and/or heart-felt emotions (IOW, "Oooh Eee OOh Ah-AAH" read my page if you don't get the meaning). Another special quality of our time is how much more freely more people are open to and receive these inspirations than in past times when most peoples' noses were strictly confined to their grindstones. Or, at least, such is the case during or near to the times of Awakening/2T periods.

It depends on the person.  Rags does hard rock, poker junkets, gardening, home cooking [pinto beans with garden fresh onions, chopped ham, and spices is awesome with green sauce prepared with tomatillos, onions, garlic, and cilantro.] and tobaccy processing.

Much greatness is synthesis. The greatest achievers in culture typically make their national and 'racial' origins irrelevant.
[/quote]

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/02/scienc...rills.html

Yup.  It's in the genes man.

[pbrower2a]

(08-27-2016, 05:34 PM)Anthony Wrote: But why is it that homogeneous societies like Iceland, and even large, populous ones like Japan, are so peaceful?

Maybe because if someone in those countries cuts you off on the freeway you don't even have the opportunity to call him/her a n***er, k**e, s**c, etc.?

Eighty years ago, homogeneous Japan was a violent society of coups and violent demonstrations.

[gabrielle]

Quote:LessWrong urged its community members to think like machines rather than humans. Contributors were encouraged to strip away self-censorship, concern for one’s social standing, concern for other people’s feelings, and any other inhibitors to rational thought. It’s not hard to see how a group of heretical, piety-destroying thinkers emerged from this environment — nor how their rational approach might clash with the feelings-first mentality of much contemporary journalism and even academic writing.

Wow that sounds really healthy.  Yeah, get rid of that little inner voice telling you that maybe you might be behaving like an asshole.  

And interesting that these supposed champions of "rational thought" are appealing to their readers' "natural instincts" instead of reason:

Quote:Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.

In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts...[which] includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.

Those of you who yearn for a "homogenenous" society in the 21st century can forget about it, it ain't happening.  The world is getting smaller all the time.  You might as well get used to your neighbors and learn to like them.  At least tolerate them.

[Eric the Green]

Amen to that, old chum

[Anthony '58]

If Alt-Right is "neo-medievalist" because it advocates that everybody go back to their "own" continent, then they are "pacifists," relatively speaking - because the Middle Ages were peaceful compared to both antiquity and modernity, the latter slated to end with this Crisis, as per the Prabhat Sarkar/Ravi Batra Theory (?).

So maybe Alt-Right is doubly in step with reality - in that its agenda appears to also be friendly toward the upcoming warrior age?

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-28-2016, 10:21 AM)Anthony Wrote: If Alt-Right is "neo-medievalist" because it advocates that everybody go back to their "own" continent, then they are "pacifists," relatively speaking - because the Middle Ages were peaceful compared to both antiquity and modernity, the latter slated to end with this Crisis, as per the Prabhat Sarkar/Ravi Batra Theory (?).

So maybe Alt-Right is doubly in step with reality - in that its agenda appears to also be friendly toward the upcoming warrior age?

I'm seeing them as more neo-victorian than neo medieval.  They seem closer to 'the white man's burden' or 'manifest destiny' than the notion of launching  a crusade.

I'm also dubious about the upcoming warrior age.  Given nukes, major powers are still avoiding taking each other head on.  Bush 43's adventures illustrated how insurgent conflicts and proxy support make attempts to occupy colonies difficult.  I can see how civilians who can't be drafted to serve and whose country is avoiding direct conflict might strut macho and beat chests, but that's just an offshoot of chicken hawk mentality.

If the Republican Party is faltering, I am looking for something to replace them.  You have to at least look at the possibility that the Alt Right might grow into the replacement. I can sympathize with the notion that if every racial, ethnic, gender role group can celebrate their place in society, the heterosexual write males should be allowed to strut and preen if they want to.  I find that mildly distasteful, but we don't have to watch if we don't want to.

But they have an awful lot of growing up to do before I take them very seriously.

[Mikebert]

(08-27-2016, 05:34 PM)Anthony Wrote: But why is it that homogeneous societies like Iceland, and even large, populous ones like Japan, are so peaceful?

Maybe because if someone in those countries cuts you off on the freeway you don't even have the opportunity to call him/her a n***er, k**e, s**c, etc.?

America has never been a homogenous country.  We have always been 13-14% black from colonial times down to now.  Here is a graph of percent foreign-born:


Add on the black contribution and more than 28% of the country was non-white.  This same calculation yields about the same value as today after you add in the undocumented immigrants.  To this you can add the American-born children of immigrants at both times.  Thus, the racial makeup of America for the sixty years after the Civil War was not dissimilar to today.

[pbrower2a]

(08-28-2016, 12:34 AM)gabrielle Wrote:

Quote:LessWrong urged its community members to think like machines rather than humans. Contributors were encouraged to strip away self-censorship, concern for one’s social standing, concern for other people’s feelings, and any other inhibitors to rational thought. It’s not hard to see how a group of heretical, piety-destroying thinkers emerged from this environment — nor how their rational approach might clash with the feelings-first mentality of much contemporary journalism and even academic writing.

Wow that sounds really healthy.  Yeah, get rid of that little inner voice telling you that maybe you might be behaving like an asshole.  

And interesting that these supposed champions of "rational thought" are appealing to their readers' "natural instincts" instead of reason:

Quote:Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.

In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts...[which] includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.

Those of you who yearn for a "homogenenous" society in the 21st century can forget about it, it ain't happening.  The world is getting smaller all the time.  You might as well get used to your neighbors and learn to like them.  At least tolerate them.

Rationality has its virtues for problem-solving, but it offers no means of judging whether the object of problem-solving merits the efforts. At the extreme I think of the Nazis who had a problem to solve and did it with consummate rationality. The problem, of course, was the existence of persons against whom the Fuehrer had a grudge and wanted to rid the world of.

Self-censorship? An autistic person must suppress some behaviors just to seem adequately normal to cope in society. In any event we are all wise to avoid using racial and ethnic slurs and such other nastiness as f-bombs.  I do not want to sound like the late 'comedian' Sam Kinison or the mobsters in Goodfellas. I can reasonably accept that someone else's feelings are at least as legitimate as mine unless those are certifiably delusional. Concern for social standing? Maybe it is a good idea to not try to live a class or two above one's standing (it is expensive and it fools nobody, least of all those who really are in the Upper Crust) -- but concern for self-image is legitimate. Of course it is best that one live up to one's self-image, so don't stiff waitresses, obey traffic laws if one wants to claim to be an upstanding citizen, don't default on debts...

There is no "white culture" to defend. I have no qualms about pushing the music of Johann Sebastian Bach to black people who try to push 'their' rap upon me.  If black people can have images of a black Jesus and a black Santa Claus, then why not a "Black Bach"? Culture may have an ethnic flavor (there is no question that Degas is French, Dvorak is Czech, or Dostoevsky is Russian) but the really good stuff is accessible even with its ethnic flavoring. I do not have to be Japanese to recognize Hokusai as part of 'my culture'.

The attempt to achieve purity of culture as a cause of identity of a people is absurd. Racial homogenization is going on whether one likes it or not, and nobody can be sure what cultural  identity the very black-looking child of a black man and a white mother has. Melanin does not have culture.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-28-2016, 03:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: There is no "white culture" to defend. I have no qualms about pushing the music of Johann Sebastian Bach to black people who try to push 'their' rap upon me.  If black people can have images of a black Jesus and a black Santa Claus, then why not a "Black Bach"? Culture may have an ethnic flavor (there is no question that Degas is French, Dvorak is Czech, or Dostoevsky is Russian) but the really good stuff is accessible even with its ethnic flavoring. I do not have to be Japanese to recognize Hokusai as part of 'my culture'.

The attempt to achieve purity of culture as a cause of identity of a people is absurd. Racial homogenization is going on whether one likes it or not, and nobody can be sure what cultural  identity the very black-looking child of a black man and a white mother has. Melanin does not have culture.

I hope you don't think that because you are open minded about artistic culture that everybody is as open minded. Some among the Alt Right are the sort to make a stink. I just don't know that they are making enough of a stink for me to care. Thus far, no. I'll let them make their teapot tempests on the net, and start taking them seriously when and if they start electing enough of their kind to actually try to do something.