Alt Right vs Great Power Saec Nazi Symps

[X_4AD_84]

Here's one PoV:

[Kinser79]

(03-13-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In all seriousness, let us debate whether or not today's Alt Right faction are equivalent to the Nazi Sympathizers during the Great Power Saeculum's 4T.

Looking for our more strident commenters to weigh in.

There really isn't much to debate. The charge of the actual Alt-Right [Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor and the like] (not to be confused with people just rejecting the Globalist Uniparty) has nothing to do with the Nazis at all. Rather they are applying identity politics, identity politics for the specific benefit of white people [and sometimes specifically white straight people].

I would liken them to a so-far non-violent form of BLM rather than the Nazis. They aren't even particularly authoritarian never mind fascist which is a particular type of authoritarianism. Which is why I've said repeatedly on this board for the past couple of months we need to decide if identity politics is for everyone (which means Spencer, Taylor and company must have a seat) or identity politics is for no one (which means there is no "gay lobby" and no "black lobby" and no "jew lobby" and so forth).

The vast majority of people who are called alt-right by the Globalist Uniparty (Regressive Leftists in the Dems and the NeoCons in the GOP) are simply those who've rejected an old out warn political ideology arising out of the GPS that isn't working, indeed hasn't worked for a long time, probably never worked to start with.

Those who are called alt-right by the likes of the NeoCons and Regressive Leftists include such disparate groups as: Classical Liberals, Civic Nationalists, Libertarians, Traditionalists and the list goes on. It should be noted that those groups are not mutually exclusive, just like it is not mutually exclusive to be both a NeoCon and a Regressive Leftist.

[Galen]

(03-13-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In all seriousness, let us debate whether or not today's Alt Right faction are equivalent to the Nazi Sympathizers during the Great Power Saeculum's 4T.

Looking for our more strident commenters to weigh in.

I am libertarian in outlook which means that I little patience for the globalist technocrat uni-party.  Anyone who has actually read what I write knows the contempt with which I hold the major parties in.

[Eric the Green]

(03-13-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In all seriousness, let us debate whether or not today's Alt Right faction are equivalent to the Nazi Sympathizers during the Great Power Saeculum's 4T.

Looking for our more strident commenters to weigh in.

Oh my goodness, you got two of those. Even Strident Kinser (or is strident his MIDDLE name!)

Sure, I think they are. That's doesn't mean they would end up butchering millions of folks, and in any case I hope their power will never rise enough for them to start.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-13-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In all seriousness, let us debate whether or not today's Alt Right faction are equivalent to the Nazi Sympathizers during the Great Power Saeculum's 4T.

Looking for our more strident commenters to weigh in.

Let’s start with a firm no. They are not ‘equivalent’. I have no difficulty distinguishing the policies and practices of the old mid 20th century fascists, nazis and tyrants and modern alt-right activists. They work for different enough goals using different enough methods that I’m having no trouble telling the two approaches apart. Not so long ago it was fashionable to assert all Democrats were communist, or all Republican fascist. This is great if you visit political web sites as a troll, and that one’s purpose is to create trouble and strife. It is not at all great if one is seeking out meaningful discourse and understanding.

This does not mean that nazi and alt right values and philosophies haven’t common elements. If I say with firm prejudice that they are different, it is still meaningful to seek out commonalities.

The base commonality is tribal ethics, or lack thereof. One looks after one’s own. One’s own might be a tribe, a nationality, a race, a world view, a region of origin, or many other things. One is expected and justified to defend, protect and advocate for one’s group while disregarding the hopes, desires and feeling of those outside the group. Both the Nazi and Alt right embrace such ethics, or lack thereof.

Both nazi and the alt right are also intensely into identity politics. They know who their own are, and in very different ways oppressed groups that are not of their own tribe.

The modern alt right use doublethink to get there. Those following Enlightenment values are apt to believe that governments exist to protect the rights of the people, and that equality is an important value. Thus, it is considered a normal practice to make sure that all citizens are treated well and equally. The alt-right is fond of redefining working for equality for all as tyranny and oppression. The alt right rejects equality, advocates prejudice and treatment of some as not-of-our-tribe, and in general works to oppose the notion of government working for equality and good treatment of all.

The above paragraph doesn’t make a good match for the old nazis. The old nazis openly took their prejudice and hatred to genocidal levels not often seen. Hatred of such behavior was well and truly inserted into American culture by World War II and its aftermath. Thus the hatred and prejudices of the modern alt right have to be hidden behind a degree of indirection. Modern alt-rightists can’t proclaim tribes that are not-us and start openly oppressing them. They have to do doublethink, declaring that protecting human rights and equality is oppression and tyranny. While their central issue is defending privilege and inequality in advocating for their own tribe, they have to pretend not to be practicing identity politics. In fact, it is all about identity politics. They are the most intense and open group of identity politics advocates around.

One must learn to tell the difference between various identity politics groups. The alt right is based on a tribal variation of identity politics. One generally advocates for one’s one tribe, opposing any mechanism that diminishes it. The opposing approach presses for human equality rather than pushing for advantages and privileges for specific identity groups.

Me, my favorite bit of woo is Jefferson’s self evident truths. All men are created equal. It’s the government’s job to protect human rights, to make equality so. I expect advocates of tribal non ethics to come out and make their case for continued prejudice and oppression. That’s what they do. Values are stubborn things. However, my own Jeffersonian values are just as stubborn.

I have often spoken against how stubborn values and world views can be. I’m not immune. To me, there is a direction of progress, and equality is an important part of that direction. It is important to treat everyone well. It is not my obligation to fix every wrong in the world, but I should do what I can and I should not be part of these wrongs. Governments are created among men in order to maintain that progress. That puts me in opposition to those who practice tribal ethics. “I’ve got mine, up yours.”

So, no, the two groups are not identical. They pursue different goals by different means. However, a lack of concern for those outside their own group unites them. That much should be recognized and remembered.

[Warren Dew]

(03-13-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In all seriousness, let us debate whether or not today's Alt Right faction are equivalent to the Nazi Sympathizers during the Great Power Saeculum's 4T.

Looking for our more strident commenters to weigh in.

First you have to figure out who the actual Nazis are.  Russia?   The Islamic State?  If the latter, you might conclude that the Antifa are today's equivalent of Nazi sympathizers.

[Eric the Green]

No, the antifa are not Nazi sympathizers at all. They are specifically against Nazis. Now, you could successfully argue that their tactics are as fascist as those of their opponents.

[Warren Dew]

Fine, I added a couple of words for specificity.

[beechnut79]

(05-15-2017, 11:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-13-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In all seriousness, let us debate whether or not today's Alt Right faction are equivalent to the Nazi Sympathizers during the Great Power Saeculum's 4T.

Looking for our more strident commenters to weigh in.

Let’s start with a firm no.  They are not ‘equivalent’.  I have no difficulty distinguishing the policies and practices of the old mid 20th century fascists, nazis and tyrants and modern alt-right activists.  They work for different enough goals using different enough methods that I’m having no trouble telling the two approaches apart.  Not so long ago it was fashionable to assert all Democrats were communist, or all Republican fascist.  This is great if you visit political web sites as a troll, and that one’s purpose is to create trouble and strife.  It is not at all great if one is seeking out meaningful discourse and understanding.

This does not mean that nazi and alt right values and philosophies haven’t common elements.  If I say with firm prejudice that they are different, it is still meaningful to seek out commonalities.

The base commonality is tribal ethics, or lack thereof.  One looks after one’s own.  One’s own might be a tribe, a nationality, a race, a world view, a region of origin, or many other things.  One is expected and justified to defend, protect and advocate for one’s group while disregarding the hopes, desires and feeling of those outside the group.  Both the Nazi and Alt right embrace such ethics, or lack thereof.

Both nazi and the alt right are also intensely into identity politics.  They know who their own are,  and in very different ways oppressed groups that are not of their own tribe.

The modern alt right use doublethink to get there.  Those following Enlightenment values are apt to believe that governments exist to protect the rights of the people, and that equality is an important value.  Thus, it is considered a normal practice to make sure that all citizens are treated well and equally.  The alt-right is fond of redefining working for equality for all as tyranny and oppression.  The alt right rejects equality, advocates prejudice and treatment of some as not-of-our-tribe, and in general works to oppose the notion of government working for equality and good treatment of all.

The above paragraph doesn’t make a good match for the old nazis.  The old nazis openly took their prejudice and hatred to genocidal levels not often seen.  Hatred of such behavior was well and truly inserted into American culture by World War II and its aftermath.  Thus the hatred and prejudices of the modern alt right have to be hidden behind a degree of indirection.  Modern alt-rightists can’t proclaim tribes that are not-us and start openly oppressing them.  They have to do doublethink, declaring that protecting human rights and equality is oppression and tyranny.  While their central issue is defending privilege and inequality in advocating for their own tribe, they have to pretend not to be practicing identity politics.  In fact, it is all about identity politics.  They are the most intense and open group of identity politics advocates around.

One must learn to tell the difference between various identity politics groups.  The alt right is based on a tribal variation of identity politics.  One generally advocates for one’s one tribe, opposing any mechanism that diminishes it.  The opposing approach presses for human equality rather than pushing for advantages and privileges for specific identity groups.

Me, my favorite bit of woo is Jefferson’s self evident truths.  All men are created equal.  It’s the government’s job to protect human rights, to make equality so.  I expect advocates of tribal non ethics to come out and make their case for continued prejudice and oppression.  That’s what they do.  Values are stubborn things.  However, my own Jeffersonian values are just as stubborn.

I have often spoken against how stubborn values and world views can be.  I’m not immune.  To me, there is a direction of progress, and equality is an important part of that direction.  It is important to treat everyone well.  It is not my obligation to fix every wrong in the world, but I should do what I can and I should not be part of these wrongs.  Governments are created among men in order to maintain that progress.  That puts me in opposition to those who practice tribal ethics.  “I’ve got mine, up yours.”

So, no, the two groups are not identical.  They pursue different goals by different means.  However, a lack of concern for those outside their own group unites them.  That much should be recognized and remembered.

Let it for now suffice to say that there really is no way that Trump, or Pence for that matter, can be another Hitler. We have a Constitution in place to prevent that. And while we're at it, how many of you feel as though Trump is creating a Constitutional crisis worse than Watergate?

[David Horn]

(05-17-2017, 01:52 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Let it for now suffice to say that there really is no way that Trump, or Pence for that matter, can be another Hitler. We have a Constitution in place to prevent that. And while we're at it, how many of you feel as though Trump is creating a Constitutional crisis worse than Watergate?

A Yale professor on this morning's Morning Joe made the argument that a slide to authoritarianism is not impossible in the US.  His argument centered on the power of institutions, including the rule of law.  All of them consist of real people, who may rise to the occasion or not.  Failure to respond early in the process of degradation can make any response impossible later. 

Fun stuff on a Wednesday morning. 

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-17-2017, 01:52 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Let it for now suffice to say that there really is no way that Trump, or Pence for that matter, can be another Hitler. We have a Constitution in place to prevent that. And while we're at it, how many of you feel as though Trump is creating a Constitutional crisis worse than Watergate?

Interesting question.  I've been trying to avoid passing judgement and joining the shrill ongoing cries of denunciation, but since you ask...

Nixon stepped outside of the law relatively few time, then tried to do a cover up.  The few break ins, as blatant as they were, didn't really hurt anyone.  The might have shifted the political balance of power a bit.  You certainly didn't want the government getting into the habit of doing such things.  Nixon's vice was paranoia.  He thought folks out to get him.  Of course, being what he was, people ought properly be out to get him.

He shares that much at least with Trump.  People are and ought to be out to get him.

Trump's vice is narcissism.  He has an exaggerated opinion of himself, his abilities and his authority.  In things like health care and the environment, he will blatantly harm a lot of people.  He is also an intuitive person not a procedural person.  He doesn't seem to get that you don't do certain things, or that a president cannot do certain things.  If something feels good to him, it is done, whether he is dropping bombs or wandering into a woman's changing room.  He lives spontaneously off the top of his head.

Nixon had a few incidents plus lies and cover up.  Trump is an ongoing slow motion train wreck.  Most of the Trump incidents aren't as bad as Nixon's, but there is a whole ongoing string of them going on week after week after week.  When will it stop?  How long will he stay in office?

To me, the worse single incident is violating war powers.  It might have been satisfying and manful to bomb the poison gas airport, but there was no act of Congress authorizing it.  No doubt about it, he did it, and it was a violation.  However, we have new incidents weekly, often more than one a week, and I didn't get a feeling of repentance.  It feels like he would do similar things again.

But impeachment only happens if one becomes enough of an embarrassment and liability to one's own party that they turn on you, that they vote for impeachment.  Nixon's getting caught in repeated lies involving the cover ups got to that point.  The question is whether modern Republicans have any shame.  How many things are they willing to tolerate?  Unless the White House assigns an Integrity Coordinator who edits Twitter posts and has the power to say, "No, Mr. President, you can't do that," the frequent disasters are apt to continue.

Nixon got through a full term and well into a second.  It doesn't feel to me that Trump will last that long.

It is my hope that Trump's role in history will be to utterly discredit the unraveling memes: borrow and spend, trickle down, government is the problem, boost the military.  I have considered it a possible problem that he might not stay in power long enough to thoroughly trash the unraveling memes.  What if a competent unraveling meme person takes over?

'Worse' is a vague enough word that I'm not sure what scale to weigh things on.  I suspect that if Trump remains in power very long he'll run away with it, though.

[Warren Dew]

(05-17-2017, 02:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-17-2017, 01:52 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Let it for now suffice to say that there really is no way that Trump, or Pence for that matter, can be another Hitler. We have a Constitution in place to prevent that. And while we're at it, how many of you feel as though Trump is creating a Constitutional crisis worse than Watergate?

A Yale professor on this morning's Morning Joe made the argument that a slide to authoritarianism is not impossible in the US.  His argument centered on the power of institutions, including the rule of law.  All of them consist of real people, who may rise to the occasion or not.  Failure to respond early in the process of degradation can make any response impossible later.

The biggest threat of authoritarianism isn't Trump but the federal establishment.  If the bureaucrats manage to get rid of Trump through their whisper campaign of illegal leaks, the voters will never matter again.

[Galen]

(05-18-2017, 02:45 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-17-2017, 02:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-17-2017, 01:52 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Let it for now suffice to say that there really is no way that Trump, or Pence for that matter, can be another Hitler. We have a Constitution in place to prevent that. And while we're at it, how many of you feel as though Trump is creating a Constitutional crisis worse than Watergate?

A Yale professor on this morning's Morning Joe made the argument that a slide to authoritarianism is not impossible in the US.  His argument centered on the power of institutions, including the rule of law.  All of them consist of real people, who may rise to the occasion or not.  Failure to respond early in the process of degradation can make any response impossible later.

The biggest threat of authoritarianism isn't Trump but the federal establishment.  If the bureaucrats manage to get rid of Trump through their whisper campaign of illegal leaks, the voters will never matter again.

The administrative state effectively creates and enforces laws all on its own through rule making authority so voters largely don't matter already.  So the outcome you describe is quite possible.

[pbrower2a]

(05-18-2017, 02:45 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-17-2017, 02:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-17-2017, 01:52 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Let it for now suffice to say that there really is no way that Trump, or Pence for that matter, can be another Hitler. We have a Constitution in place to prevent that. And while we're at it, how many of you feel as though Trump is creating a Constitutional crisis worse than Watergate?

A Yale professor on this morning's Morning Joe made the argument that a slide to authoritarianism is not impossible in the US.  His argument centered on the power of institutions, including the rule of law.  All of them consist of real people, who may rise to the occasion or not.  Failure to respond early in the process of degradation can make any response impossible later.

The biggest threat of authoritarianism isn't Trump but the federal establishment.  If the bureaucrats manage to get rid of Trump through their whisper campaign of illegal leaks, the voters will never matter again.

It is better that he resign as news media and bureaucrats gut his credibility than he either establish himself as a full-blown dictator  or be toppled in a military coup.

Should he be impeached, then the one certainty will be that a Republican will replace him (unless the chaotic situation of having a Democratic Speaker of the House being in the line of succession as the President and Vice-President resign nearly together after January 3, 2019.

Things are going so bad so fast that we may be unable to wait until January 2019. All that the Democrats can do is to serve as a block against a very bad VP choice in the event that either Pence or Trump resigns or dies.

I do not want a military coup. Our political system is badly broken.