What is the Alt-Right? Maybe you should ask one.

[jamil]

It's something I learned in my churchier days that if you ask one of YOU what one of THEM believes, you'll get straw monster tales about what they believe. And, not surprisingly, if you ask someone who IS one of THEM, you'll initially hear an apologists viewpoint. However, if you show a general interest in what they really believe, they'll be much more candid about it than the people telling you the straw monster tales. In short, if you really want to know what a XYZ believes, ask one.

I've observed that the same is generally true about political viewpoints as well. If you really want to know what the Alt-right is. Ask someone who is one.

I'm sure many of you have already heard of Vox Day, a pseudonym of a prominent Alt-Right evangelist. He wrote a blog outlining 16 points of the Alt Right. I think this is probably one of the most honest descriptions of the Alt-right I've seen. So, straight from the keyboard of a man who unapologetically claims to be alt-right, THIS is the Alt Right:

Vox Popoli: What the Alt Right is

I posted this to open a discussion about the Alt Right and not to argue about what people who aren't alt right say it is. Let's start from the basis of what the Alt Right actually states that it is.






This thread is dedicated to Kut and Chip.

 

[Birds Away]

I heard it described on CNN last week. You have news and you have alt-news. News is what's carried by the regular MSM, you know, very definitely leftist. The alt-news is anything else you find out there. That means anything that isn't leftist. The alt-right is the originators of the alt-news which, at least in CNNs case, means anti-news.

 

[jamil]

I heard it described on CNN last week. You have news and you have alt-news. News is what's carried by the regular MSM, you know, very definitely leftist. The alt-news is anything else you find out there. That means anything that isn't leftist. The alt-right is the originators of the alt-news which, at least in CNNs case, means anti-news.

Read the article I posted. The Alt-Right is more than that. In a way it's a rejection of traditional conservatism. It's certainly nationalistic. Is it racist? I think that will end up being subjective depending on how you view the 16 points. I think Alt Right will say it's not. The not-alt-right will likely say it is.

 

[Birds Away]

I will read it. But there's not doubt it will be tagged as racist by the media. That's their go-to label for anything from the right. They also know they don't have to prove it, just hang the label and many people will turn away.

 

[Nazgul]

The description was very specific. Full of words not commonly seen. "Scientody", "Graeco-Roman Legacy", "Scientodific, "The Human Patrimony".

Unfortunately it sounds like something from a liberal academic, or lawyer. It will not go anywhere unless it is explained in common language.

I fully agree with its' principles and , thanks to a good education when young, can understand the language.

My 2 cents of observation.

Don

 

[Expat]

Thanks jamil. I had not read a good explanation of the alt right and still didn't understand what it was we were supposed to be so outraged by. I can see why they are so hated now.

 

[jamil]

I will read it. But there's not doubt it will be tagged as racist by the media. That's their go-to label for anything from the right. They also know they don't have to prove it, just hang the label and many people will turn away.

It's already been tagged by the media as racist. The media has shown themselves to be reliably biased against anything that does not promote progressive/liberal causes. Ignore them.

What does the alt-right claim to believe? Do they act like they really believe it? That's what is important in determining what they're about. Then you can decide what, if anything, you agree with. It's like a Venn Diagram. I've found myself agreeing with some things that they have in common with conservatarianism, while disagreeing, mostly on the nationalistic stuff.

 

[spec4]

Until a couple months ago I never heard the term. Now, with the libs pushing it as a derogatory term, it is heard/read about daily. I fear it will soon be ensconced in our lexicon the way "assault rifle" is. Let's not help them.

Soon, "alt right" will come to define anything the left disagrees with.

 

[jamil]

Until a couple months ago I never heard the term. Now, with the libs pushing it as a derogatory term, it is heard/read about daily. I fear it will soon be ensconced in our lexicon the way "assault rifle" is. Let's not help them.

Soon, "alt right" will come to define anything the left disagrees with.

Not only that, but everyone else will latch onto it for their own political purposes, much like what happened to the TEA Party. If it becomes successful, politically, expect many Republican candidates to run claiming they are alt right just so they can win a primary against another establishment Republican.

 

[ATM]

Until a couple months ago I never heard the term. Now, with the libs pushing it as a derogatory term, it is heard/read about daily. I fear it will soon be ensconced in our lexicon the way "assault rifle" is. Let's not help them.

Soon, "alt right" will come to define anything the left disagrees with.

I wonder if it will be as readily adopted and popularized by the masses as "truther" was.

Quite possibly, we are rather "adopty" as a herd.

 

[ATM]

Not only that, but everyone else will latch onto it for their own political purposes, much like what happened to the TEA Party. If it becomes successful, politically, expect many Republican candidates to run claiming they are alt right just so they can win a primary against another establishment Republican.

The larger it grows, the less distinct its "identity" can easily be identified, despite its origin.

 

[chipbennett]

It's something I learned in my churchier days that if you ask one of YOU what one of THEM believes, you'll get straw monster tales about what they believe. And, not surprisingly, if you ask someone who IS one of THEM, you'll initially hear an apologists viewpoint. However, if you show a general interest in what they really believe, they'll be much more candid about it than the people telling you the straw monster tales. In short, if you really want to know what a XYZ believes, ask one.

I've observed that the same is generally true about political viewpoints as well. If you really want to know what the Alt-right is. Ask someone who is one.

I'm sure many of you have already heard of Vox Day, a pseudonym of a prominent Alt-Right evangelist. He wrote a blog outlining 16 points of the Alt Right. I think this is probably one of the most honest descriptions of the Alt-right I've seen. So, straight from the keyboard of a man who unapologetically claims to be alt-right, THIS is the Alt Right:

Vox Popoli: What the Alt Right is

I posted this to open a discussion about the Alt Right and not to argue about what people who aren't alt right say it is. Let's start from the basis of what the Alt Right actually states that it is.






This thread is dedicated to Kut and Chip.

All points are fairly reasonable (as far as I understand the alt-right), except for #14. It is merely an extreme extrapolation and exaggeration of #4. As far as I understand it, the alt-right focuses on culture, not skin color. (See also #5, #10, and #15.) Having said that, I recognize that there is a tiny subset of the alt-right that supports #14: the 1488ers, that are roundly rejected by the rest of the alt-right.

 

[chipbennett]

Until a couple months ago I never heard the term. Now, with the libs pushing it as a derogatory term, it is heard/read about daily. I fear it will soon be ensconced in our lexicon the way "assault rifle" is. Let's not help them.

Soon, "alt right" will come to define anything the left disagrees with.

Already there, except it's not just the left, but the globalist/UniParty/GOPe right who use it as a similar pejorative.

 

[jamil]

All points are fairly reasonable (as far as I understand the alt-right), except for #14. It is merely an extreme extrapolation and exaggeration of #4. As far as I understand it, the alt-right focuses on culture, not skin color. (See also #5, #10, and #15.) Having said that, I recognize that there is a tiny subset of the alt-right that supports #14: the 1488ers, that are roundly rejected by the rest of the alt-right.

My take on #14: If the sentiment of "black lives matter" is not racist, then #14 is not racist either. They are essentially the same sentiment. That a race has a right to ensure its own survival is the sentiment. That is not inherently racist, because it doesn't assert the superiority of their own race, and to be concerned with its continued existence, it does not require the extinction of other races. But it does require separation. And again I find a great similarity with the BLM movement, as they want to be separate as well. We've seen that in many of their demonstrations. I do find that kinda racist for both groups.

I reject the idea that race is important at all. It's just DNA. Race and culture are not intrinsically connected. Cultures are associated more by proximity, and therefor initiate on racial lines. But remove the proximity and a race can be culturally diverse. I also reject the idea of the need for cultural homogeneity. Different customs aren't necessarily a problem. Different ideologies, however, are.

For example, consider a traditional family who regularly eats meat, and a family of vegetarians. Both can coexist peacefully until the vegetarians decide to protest against the meat eaters. Or the meat eaters start protesting against the vegetarians. There is only ever a problem with cultural diversity when people insist that everyone else must be just like them. And that's where the ideological part comes in.

So, said in a nutshell, my problem with the Alt Right is that they can't not care that other people are in local proximity who are culturally different. Cultural difference doesn't matter as much as ideological difference. For example, Individualists and Collectivists can't find much common ground upon which to build a mutually agreeable governing body.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

So the Alt-Left would be the opposite?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thanks for posting that, Jamil. I'd never heard of the author and those bullet items are enlightening. Like you said, some things I can agree with and some are potentially disturbing.

 

[jamil]

So the Alt-Left would be the opposite?

Is there an alt-left?

One thing that needs to be made clear. The alt-right is on the ideological right. It just describes people on the right who agree with the lion's share of the bullet points. If there is an alt left, I'd say it's the SJWs.

 

[chipbennett]

My take on #14: If the sentiment of "black lives matter" is not racist, then #14 is not racist either. They are essentially the same sentiment. That a race has a right to ensure its own survival is the sentiment. That is not inherently racist, because it doesn't assert the superiority of their own race, and to be concerned with its continued existence, it does not require the extinction of other races. But it does require separation. And again I find a great similarity with the BLM movement, as they want to be separate as well. We've seen that in many of their demonstrations. I do find that kinda racist for both groups.

BLM is racist - not so much for what they profess to believe, but for what their actions portray. #14 is similar, but not in sentiment. BLM professes to promote the survival of black lives, but chooses to do so by focusing not on the cause of over 90% of unjustified murders of black people (other black people), but on the cause of a fraction of a percent of (often justified) deaths of black people. An appropriate analog would be a "WLM" movement that ignores the over 80% of white people who are killed by other white people.

I am more in-line with you, regarding the desire of self-segregation not being inherently racist (even if I personally disagree with that sentiment); but many people (mostly on the left) would consider such sentiment - at least, when expressed by white people - to be racist.

I reject the idea that race is important at all. It's just DNA. Race and culture are not intrinsically connected. Cultures are associated more by proximity, and therefor initiate on racial lines. But remove the proximity and a race can be culturally diverse. I also reject the idea of the need for cultural homogeneity. Different customs aren't necessarily a problem. Different ideologies, however, are.

Being someone who believes that all human DNA is the progeny of two humans - not once, but twice (the original, Adam and Eve; and then again, through Noah and his wife) - I see skin color as nothing more than the inherent variability of the human genome, and not a value/moral quality factor in any way. But I believe there is great value in maintaining culture - especially culture that is borne out of millennia of human struggle and change, to find what works best for society. Rejecting millennia of experience, knowledge, and understanding of human nature is counter-productive.

For example, consider a traditional family who regularly eats meat, and a family of vegetarians. Both can coexist peacefully until the vegetarians decide to protest against the meat eaters. Or the meat eaters start protesting against the vegetarians. There is only ever a problem with cultural diversity when people insist that everyone else must be just like them. And that's where the ideological part comes in.

So, said in a nutshell, my problem with the Alt Right is that they can't not care that other people are in local proximity who are culturally different. Cultural difference doesn't matter as much as ideological difference. For example, Individualists and Collectivists can't find much common ground upon which to build a mutually agreeable governing body.

...which is a very nice defense for the wisdom of the Electoral College.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Is there an alt-left?

One thing that needs to be made clear. The alt-right is on the ideological right. It just describes people on the right who agree with the lion's share of the bullet points. If there is an alt left, I'd say it's the SJWs.

There is a alt left. They are publicizing their definition or the right to disguise what they themselves are doing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is that a legit list Jamil? I have my doubts. But nevertheless, I wonder how many people can tell me with a straight face, that the list you put up isn't disturbing.