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

[gregr]

Personally, I`m a fiscal, social conservative, Independent, Evangelical Baptist, who supports the Word of God through His Holy Scriptures, and the Constitution of the United States, in that order. While, based on the piece you provided, that would align in a great many aspects with this definition of the so called, "alt-right", my stance is that Biblical, Christian Doctrine overrules any man made law that goes counter to first, Gods` Holy Word, and after that, the Law of the Land in the US, the United States Constitution. There is an awful lot happening in America currently. Government has become overbearing and burdensome, there is nearly anarchy in the streets, what with the brazen attacks on police officers, and even in some cases, the brazen assaults by police officers against citizens. I don`t believe there has ever been such a sharp division of the people, into two distinct and ideologically separate camps, and there appears to be no way to reconcile the American people. In America today, generally, you`re either very conservative, or very liberal, and those two philosophies just cannot mesh. I believe that without complete revival across America, without the people truly repenting of their sin, and humbling themselves before the Lord God, America will fall in spectacular fashion, and with it, the hopes for freedom and liberty throughout the world.

 

[HoughMade]

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.

There's plenty disturbing to me on that list.

Is this one guy's musings about his own vision, or an accurate description of the base principles?

Either way....I'll not be signing on.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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.

Didn't the article by Milo state that in the view of the alt-right that race and culture were inseparable?

 

[chipbennett]

Didn't the article by Milo state that in the view of the alt-right that race and culture were inseparable?

No, that's not actually what the article said:

An Establishment Conservative's Guide To The Alt-Right - Breitbart

But natural conservatives have other concerns: chiefly, the preservation of their own tribe and its culture.


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.


Needless to say, natural conservatives’ concern with the flourishing of their own culture comes up against an intractable nemesis in the regressive left, which is currently intent on tearing down statues of Cecil Rhodes and Queen Victoria in the UK, and erasing the name of Woodrow Wilson from Princeton in the U.S. These attempts to scrub western history of its great figures are particularly galling to the alt-right, who in addition to the preservation of western culture, care deeply about heroes and heroic virtues.

It is about Western civilization, not race:

The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: 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.

Here's where you've selectively quoted out of context. One subset of the alt-right would argue that culture and race are inseparable:

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.

Some alt-righters make a more subtle argument. They say that when different groups are brought together, the common culture starts to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Instead of mosques or English houses, you get atheism and stucco.


Ironically, it’s a position that has much in common with leftist opposition to so-called “cultural appropriation,” a similarity openly acknowledged by the alt-right.

It really isn't about race. "White" and "western civilization" are not synonymous or interchangeable.

Some just use race to be provocative in mocking progressive authoritarians:

If you’re this far down the article, you’ll know some of the answers already. For the meme brigade, it’s just about having fun. They have no real problem with race-mixing, homosexuality, or even diverse societies: it’s just fun to watch the mayhem and outrage that erupts when those secular shibboleths are openly mocked. These younger mischief-makers instinctively understand who the authoritarians are and why and how to poke fun at them.

And if I'm misreading any of that, well: I'm not "alt-right", so I could be misinterpreting.

 

[jamil]

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.

You can say that *some*, or perhaps even the leadership, of BLM is racist based on their statements and actions, and I would agree. But you can also say the same thing about the Alt Right. I think the Breitbart piece brought out the point that the kind of ideology behind #14, though not inherently racist, appeals to racists. But I will admit that BLM is much different. I think some leftist ideologues latched onto the hashtag and coopted it for their purposes, turning it effectively into a racist advocacy when the original idea wasn't necessarily racist.

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.

It is not the desire to be among a familiar culture that I think tends to be racist, but being among people who merely look like you. I think that isn't a thing to be sought, but I do see why people would tend to hang out with the same culture.

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.

I mostly agree, but here is the point of difference. A culture developed over decades or centuries surely has perfected some things, but yet isn't perfect. I reject the idea of not changing because it's the way you've always done things, but I also reject the idea of always changing because "newer" is "better". It's like I tell people at work, we do things this way because it works. I'm open to changing that, but there needs to be a compelling reason why the new way is better. And the new way sometimes IS better. And in such cases we do change the way we do things. For example, adopting an Agile development process IS better. We are less stressed, more happy, and more productive. But at first, people were reluctant to adopt it because it was different. I see culture the same way.

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

I now feel I need to remind you--again--what I have against the Electoral College. I don't think the need for protecting rural communities from urban leaders is obsolete. I think the EC is obsolete in its ability to accomplish that. I would like to see rural vs urban votes re-weighted to make them more equal, because either way, popular or today's EC, the advantage goes to urban. I'd like to see the rural people in super-states have a vote for one thing. But inso doing, I don't want to see urban or rural people impose their world views on the other.

 

[jamil]

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.

As far as I can tell, it's legit. The guy behind the name Vox Day is Theodore Beale. As far as I can tell, he's a prominent advocate for the alt right. If you read what he says from your world view you might think he's saying things he isn't saying. If I read it from my world view I probably would not understand it the way he does.

Now. To the second part, while I utterly reject many concepts in that list, some of which I've explained, I'm not going to say it disturbs me. These are just concepts. Principles. Stuff. I'm not generally disturbed by much stuff. It's just stuff. Add a call for violence or hinder rights by force, because of that stuff, and that I will find disturbing. Call for dead cops. Disturbing. Call for killing dissenters. Disturbing. Physically attack people for how they vote. Disturbing. Stifle free speech, including dissent. Disturbing.

Now, maybe you have a different threshold of what disturbs you. If you'd like, post what you're thinking and we'll talk about it. And I promise I am saying all this with a straight face.

 

[printcraft]

Made up term for anything not progressive leftist.
Just like TeaParty meant evil etc.
I refuse to participate in the.....

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, lemme see if I have this part straight: Homogenous areas for each (group of) people, right? So America, theoretically, for Whites, Africa for Blacks, Asia for Asians, Mexico for Mexicans, and, according to one person on that site, Israel for Jews, and the other Arab countries in the Middle East for Arabs, etc.

So who's paying for all of the relocations to put everyone back where they belong like a kid sorting Skittles in a bloody muffin tin?

For that matter, what happens when the "areas" are blurred, say, for example, a Jewish American or a Catholic Japanese? I'm supposing that all the Catholics need to move to Rome, since America is apparently for White Protestents only, after the (long ago, get over it) taking of this land from the Native Americans.

Some of their ideas are not so bad. I don't even argue with nationalism in the sense of patriotism. The problem is that these guys take White Supremacy, expose it to gamma radiation and **** it right the hell off.

Check, please.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

As far as I can tell, it's legit. The guy behind the name Vox Day is Theodore Beale. As far as I can tell, he's a prominent advocate for the alt right. If you read what he says from your world view you might think he's saying things he isn't saying. If I read it from my world view I probably would not understand it the way he does.

Now. To the second part, while I utterly reject many concepts in that list, some of which I've explained, I'm not going to say it disturbs me. These are just concepts. Principles. Stuff. I'm not generally disturbed by much stuff. It's just stuff. Add a call for violence or hinder rights by force, because of that stuff, and that I will find disturbing. Call for dead cops. Disturbing. Call for killing dissenters. Disturbing. Physically attack people for how they vote. Disturbing. Stifle free speech, including dissent. Disturbing.

Now, maybe you have a different threshold of what disturbs you. If you'd like, post what you're thinking and we'll talk about it. And I promise I am saying all this with a straight face.

First, the disclaimer. I'm not saying Trump believes that stuff.

My question. Would you vote for a candidate that fully subscribes to all the points of that list? I guess I can open that question up to everyone.

 

[jamil]

The term "Alt Right" was made up by the Alt Right. It wasn't handed down by the left. It was meant to be an Alternative to traditional conservatism, which they feel failed in its mission.

In many ways it can be compared to the TEA Party. When the TEA Party gained political power the left made a pejorative of that. But there are some differences too. Because the Alt Right has some controversial tenets, the left has capitalized to try to marginalize them, and say every Trump voter is Alt Right. And that is simply not true. Maybe you might agree with some Alt Right principles, and that does not make you an Alt Right supporter. And that does not make the Alt Right necessarily bad or good.

And the left is playing a bad hand trying to marginalize them, because they are drawing attention to the Alt Right which will probably will help them grow. I think the left thinks it defeated the TEA Party by marginalizing it. But that's not why the TEA Party died. It died because it didn't achieve its goals.

Made up term for anything not progressive leftist.
Just like TeaParty meant evil etc.
I refuse to participate in the.....

 

[Alpo]

I've read their points.

It's fascism, redefined. If you don't think so, please compare and contrast each point.

 

[jamil]

First, the disclaimer. I'm not saying Trump believes that stuff.

My question. Would you vote for a candidate that fully subscribes to all the points of that list? I guess I can open that question up to everyone.

In a binary electoral system, it depends on the other candidate. If the Alt Right candidate is not a leftist, a criminal, and a pathological liar, and the other candidate is, I might have to wear a clothespin and vote for the Alt Right guy.

But lets say we had a ranked order voting system where there's 15 candidates, one of which is alt right, and another is a leftist, criminal, and a pathological liar. I would rank the criminal last, and depending on the other candidates, I might rank the Alt Right candidate just above the criminal.

Does that answer the question?

So, can you answer mine? What parts of the Alt Right do you find disturbing?

 

[jamil]

I've read their points.

It's fascism, redefined. If you don't think so, please compare and contrast each point.

It seems obviously in that spectrum, but not to the Hitler or Mussolini extreme.

 

[HoughMade]

"proximity+diversity=war"

Yeah.

 

[jamil]

OK, lemme see if I have this part straight: Homogenous areas for each (group of) people, right? So America, theoretically, for Whites, Africa for Blacks, Asia for Asians, Mexico for Mexicans, and, according to one person on that site, Israel for Jews, and the other Arab countries in the Middle East for Arabs, etc.

So who's paying for all of the relocations to put everyone back where they belong like a kid sorting Skittles in a bloody muffin tin?

For that matter, what happens when the "areas" are blurred, say, for example, a Jewish American or a Catholic Japanese? I'm supposing that all the Catholics need to move to Rome, since America is apparently for White Protestents only, after the (long ago, get over it) taking of this land from the Native Americans.

Some of their ideas are not so bad. I don't even argue with nationalism in the sense of patriotism. The problem is that these guys take White Supremacy, expose it to gamma radiation and **** it right the hell off.

Check, please.

Blessings,
Bill

Like most ideologies, they're not always practically well thought out. For example, if they're serious about #10, they should all move back to Europe and give America back to the natives.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

*snip*

I mostly agree, but here is the point of difference. A culture developed over decades or centuries surely has perfected some things, but yet isn't perfect. I reject the idea of not changing because it's the way you've always done things, but I also reject the idea of always changing because "newer" is "better". It's like I tell people at work, we do things this way because it works. I'm open to changing that, but there needs to be a compelling reason why the new way is better. And the new way sometimes IS better. And in such cases we do change the way we do things. For example, adopting an Agile development process IS better. We are less stressed, more happy, and more productive. But at first, people were reluctant to adopt it because it was different. I see culture the same way.



*snip*

We have just started using the Agile process, and while some aspects of it are "better" (getting the customer involved in the design process from the beginning for example), much of is it is just incompatible with a large complex system (a payroll system in my case). Delivering a "minimally viable product", which is a large selling point for Agile, really isn't practical or wise with such a large system, where a seemingly small change at the beginning of a process can affect a drastic change at the end of the process. Testing the system from beginning to end really can't begin until all components (code and JCL) are in place. It has been a source of great frustration. /rant and thread jack

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Let's step through each one, and see. I'll also consider how much I align with each point.

In the interest of developing a core Alt Right philosophy upon which others can build.

Important caveat here: this list is but one person's attempt at formulating a set of defining principles of the alt-right. It certainly is not a definitive or consensus list.

[*]The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. I am politically right, in the American sense of the word (and understand the difference between American and European right-left spectra). As such, I disagree with the characterization. The alt-right, as self-described, is much more European right than it is American right.

[*]The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. I generally ascribe to Kirk's 10 conservative principles, and do not devolve toward progressivism. I have libertarian leanings, but have some significant disagreements with some big-L Libertarian policy positions.

[*]The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. I generally ascribe to this characterization, though am not generally a provocative or confrontational person. I prefer dispassionate, reasoned approaches.

[*]The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. I agree with this characterization. Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement, of which America is is the pinnacle of the pinnacle (i.e. I believe in American Exceptionalism). I would also couch that statement in the context of the fallibility and imperfectibility of human nature, to say that there always remains room for improvement.

[*]The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. Nations are sovereign, and have a right to be. This view is enshrined in our own constitution, which protects the right of association.

[*]The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. I am anti-globalist.

[*]The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. Life isn't fair. I believe in equality of opportunity, and that one of the purposes of the state is to ensure that there are no systematic hindrances to equality of opportunity. So, I do not know how closely I align to this characterization.

[*]The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. Insofar as it is true, I do not know if I align with the alt-right.

[*]The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

I see nothing wrong with this characterization. I think I've heard Kirk Freeman preach it often here at INGO, and generally agree with it.

[*]The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

There are certainly reasons for concern with this characterization, especially depending on what conclusions/actions are to be drawn from it. There is not a far leap from this characterization to the Nazi stance toward non-natives and Jews in post-Weimar Germany. As for me: I am not a nativist/tribalist/whatever. I believe in meritocracy, and cultural assimilation (where such assimilation leads to a greater, synergistic whole).

[*]The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

If this is a statement of historical precedent, then I see nothing inherently disturbing about this characterization. I disagree that it *must* always be so.

[*]The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. I generally don't care what others think of me, either.

[*]The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. I generally oppose free trade, and believe that each nation has the right to serve the best interests of its own people and economy.

[*]The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

Clearly disturbing. Also, I am not convinced that this is accurate as a mainstream characterization of the alt-right (see caveat above). I do not ascribe to such a characterization, and disagree that preservation of skin color is a relevant concern.

[*]The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. Generally speaking, I agree with it - though, I believe that American Exceptionalism is a result of assimilating the best of myriad, diverse cultures into what is uniquely the American culture.

[*]The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

I see nothing disturbing about this characterization. I can't say I agree with it. If I did, then I would, on principle, have to oppose the US's involvement in both World Wars.

So: was this a fair assessment?

 

[printcraft]

The term "Alt Right" was made up by the Alt Right. It wasn't handed down by the left. It was meant to be an Alternative to traditional conservatism, which they feel failed in its mission.

In many ways it can be compared to the TEA Party. When the TEA Party gained political power the left made a pejorative of that. But there are some differences too. Because the Alt Right has some controversial tenets, the left has capitalized to try to marginalize them, and say every Trump voter is Alt Right. And that is simply not true. Maybe you might agree with some Alt Right principles, and that does not make you an Alt Right supporter. And that does not make the Alt Right necessarily bad or good.

And the left is playing a bad hand trying to marginalize them, because they are drawing attention to the Alt Right which will probably will help them grow. I think the left thinks it defeated the TEA Party by marginalizing it. But that's not why the TEA Party died. It died because it didn't achieve its goals.

I haven't spent much of any time looking into it......
however.... YES, the leftists/progressives (main stream news) are attempting to link it to EVERY ideology that is not their chosen one.

 

[Alpo]

It seems obviously in that spectrum, but not to the Hitler or Mussolini extreme.

4 guys at a table in Denny's talking about the Alt-Right over pancakes is not extreme. Anything larger than that only needs a match. There are sufficient combustibles available.

 

[chipbennett]

The term "Alt Right" was made up by the Alt Right. It wasn't handed down by the left. It was meant to be an Alternative to traditional conservatism, which they feel failed in its mission.

In many ways it can be compared to the TEA Party. When the TEA Party gained political power the left made a pejorative of that. But there are some differences too. Because the Alt Right has some controversial tenets, the left has capitalized to try to marginalize them, and say every Trump voter is Alt Right. And that is simply not true. Maybe you might agree with some Alt Right principles, and that does not make you an Alt Right supporter. And that does not make the Alt Right necessarily bad or good.

And the left is playing a bad hand trying to marginalize them, because they are drawing attention to the Alt Right which will probably will help them grow. I think the left thinks it defeated the TEA Party by marginalizing it. But that's not why the TEA Party died. It died because it didn't achieve its goals.

I guess I always assumed that "alt-right" was derived from Reddit?