tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post2679600465443242509..comments2024-03-22T17:35:52.045-04:00Comments on Extra Thoughts: Bannon, etc.Lydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-14967412062927736032016-11-29T11:30:29.027-05:002016-11-29T11:30:29.027-05:00No, I don't think it was the absence of an int...No, I don't think it was the absence of an intelligent, immigration-hawkish movement within conservatism that led to the GOP's dismal nominations and the media's demonizing of the right.<br /><br />I think the media is determined to demonize the right, period. See my above comments about Cruz, etc. A movement just gives them a target. It wouldn't really matter to the media if an immigration hawk (much less someone who has strong things to say about the truth about Islam) is intelligent, well-informed, balanced, etc. If a candidate had, say, the knowledge about Islam of Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, the charming good looks of Marco Rubio, and the quickness of Rand Paul, and if he represented a substantial number of conservatives (a movement, even), and wanted to advocate immigration policies the media disliked, they'd demonize him just as much as anyone. <br /><br />Similarly, the GOP "establishment" (which does exist, even though it doesn't include everybody that the crazed alt-right wants to put in that basket) was irresponsibly Borking reasonable candidates in previous election cycles. Richard Mourdock's comments several years ago that a child conceived in rape is nonetheless a "gift from God" were perfectly good, pro-life comments. They were not objectionable at all, there was nothing remotely misogynistic, nothing even insensitive about what he said. It was standard, mainline pro-life doctrine, if I may put it that way. But many conservatives threw Mourdock under the bus just because they were in the mood to throw somebody under the bus to keep Todd Akin company that year! It was disgraceful.<br /><br />In general, the GOP leaders' attitude toward Tea Party candidates was similarly adversarial, even when they were good candidates. The Tea Party may have been our opportunity to do what you have in mind (though I'm sorry to hear of Bannon's destructive and silly intentions in guiding the Tea Party), but it hasn't worked out. Instead it's just given rise to more extremism and bitterness.<br /><br />I'm not a political strategist and don't have a "big picture" suggestion to make about all of this. But just having observed several decades of politics, I'm doubtful that any attempt to start a "movement to represent those people in the U.S. farther to the right than the RINOs but *not* the alt-right" is a good strategy.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-12783289677079470472016-11-29T11:08:39.023-05:002016-11-29T11:08:39.023-05:00Yes, immigration is the main policy issue I had in...Yes, immigration is the main policy issue I had in mind.<br /><br />It sounds like you and I agree on race and its proper role in the conservative argument. In fact, I'm probably even more charitable to racial minority groups than you are in some ways.<br /><br />The problem with not having a movement that represents us is it allows anyone to the right of John McCain to be depicted in the mainstream as gap-toothed Bible-thumping hillbillies, and what's more, it allows the GOP to nominate a continuous stream of dimwitted ineffectual pushovers like...well, John McCain. What are your thoughts on the notion that these are the very conditions that helped Trump happen?Power Childhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13365109338643310492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-2105799703441163822016-11-29T10:14:29.703-05:002016-11-29T10:14:29.703-05:00It is an interesting question whether we need an a...It is an interesting question whether we need an alternative conservative *movement* on issues surrounding race. Having now observed attempts to do just that over the past fifteen years or more (the paleoconservatives, the human biodiversity theorists, the alt-right), I'm inclined to say that the verdict of observation is "No, that doesn't work out well."<br /><br />The more I've thought about it, the more I have realized how little relevance there really is for policy in the most *minimal* and (possibly) well-supported statements about the relationship between biology, race, and intelligence. Suppose that there is *some* biological effect upon *mean* IQ differences between identifiable human racial groups. It's amazing how little we need a "movement" to proclaim this from the housetops and spin out supposed policy implications. For example, one could *believe* that and still *support* affirmative action. (It used to be thought that if you convinced people of biological differences amongst races in intelligence they would drop their support for affirmative action, but they wouldn't actually have to do so.) Conversely, one could *disbelieve* it and nonetheless consistently *oppose* affirmative action. Or one could *disbelieve* it and still see, as an empirical matter, that the Head Start program has been a dismal failure. Or one could disbelieve it and still hold that the Ferguson riots were inexcusable and that inner-city cultural dysfunction is to blame for most black woes in the country. Indeed, ironically, there is a whiff of determinism about much "sociobiology" that would actually *erase* personal responsibility! So one could argue that it is the ardent, racialist sociobiologist who should hold that blacks are excused for rioting and burning their own communities, since they can't help it! <br /><br />What I would say we need in conservatism on issues of race is a return to ideas that were *mainstream* conservatism even twenty years ago: An emphasis upon personal responsibility and hard work, a willingness to call out dysfunctional portions of society, a refusal to blame group problems upon oppression, and so forth. This doesn't require a heavy theory of race at all, and it avoids the severe problems that have dogged every attempt to incorporate such theories into conservatism. Let me stress that this isn't just a pragmatic issue, because one of these problems is the sheer idiocy of many of the theoretical ideas that the "human biodiversity theorists" take seriously. I swear, I saw one giving the *entire history of the world* and the *development of democracy* in terms of a "gene for out-group altruism." It reminded me of this John Cleese skit:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo<br /><br />Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-76137908300777755182016-11-29T10:02:05.952-05:002016-11-29T10:02:05.952-05:00"Over the past year I noticed that the Alt Ri..."Over the past year I noticed that the Alt Right was getting increasingly difficult to distinguish from SJW Leftists."<br /><br />Here's a similarity: So much as criticizing the alt-right is this horrible affront, but for them to use the vilest harassment against their enemies is no big deal. Much like the left. An alt-right follower who used to comment at W4 literally told me, with apparent seriousness, that using the word "racist" to describe anyone is "vile." He was treating the term "racist" as some kind of swear word. Never mind whether or not it might just be a *descriptive* word. Similarly, Vox Day will write as though David French's criticizing Ann Coulter in a column where he said that he thought her tweets were dog-whistling the alt-right was tantamount to some kind of horrible *attack* on her, as though French had been sending Coulter rape fantasies or something. The term "John Birching" was the verb used, as in "French John Birched Ann Coulter." Sounds bad, right? Um, but all it means is, "He said that some of her tweets sounded like they were appealing to the anti-semitic wing of the alt-right and that she shouldn't do that."<br /><br />This is very SJW-like behavior. Criticism is personal attack and deserves the harshest possible response, but nothing done by "our side" is ever that bad. They apply the same to all of their heroes, including Trump.<br /><br />"It's too bad, because there is definitely a need for an alternative to what the mainstream media deems an acceptable American Right."<br /><br />The mainstream media doesn't believe that Ted Cruz's conservatism is an acceptable American right! The mainstream media doesn't believe that just being an ordinary, mainstream pro-lifer (for example) is an acceptable American right. So in a sense, we already *have* an alternative to what the mainstream media deems acceptable: It's called conservatism. The mainstream media thinks Ben Shapiro is a horrible h8ter because he called a man "sir" when the man was insisting that everyone pretend he was a woman. <br /><br />So I suggest that we consider Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and so forth to be our alternative to what the mainstream media considers acceptable.<br /><br />Now, it may be that part of what you mean is that we need a more, say, immigration hawkish movement that doesn't have all of these problems that the paleocons and the alt-right have. Perhaps there is some particular policy issue you're thinking of where it's hard to find dissenting voices on the right except in dark corners.<br /><br />I don't know about that. Even Breitbart *used* to like (or pretend to like) Ted Cruz because of his contrast with Marco Rubio on the issue of immigration. I would guess that there are serious senators and congressmen who would have smart *and workable* ideas about immigration that would be a definite improvement upon the current situation.<br /><br />In general, though, I think that conservatives like myself who are a little "un-PC" on a handful of issues need to be contented *not* to have a movement that represents us. Take Muslim immigration, for example. Whatever the practical prospects for banning Muslim immigration, I fear Trump has now poisoned that issue by associating it with himself. And if the majority of the people who agree with me that we need to take Islam into account in immigration are icky kooks, then I guess I don't need a movement.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-76003810276024522342016-11-29T09:01:33.372-05:002016-11-29T09:01:33.372-05:00Over the past year I noticed that the Alt Right wa...Over the past year I noticed that the Alt Right was getting increasingly difficult to distinguish from SJW Leftists. One Alt Right guy even told me flat out that's where he took his cues. If the veil of internet anonymity could be lifted and it revealed that 90% of Alt Right participants are under the age of 25 and live in big cities, I would not feel very surprised.<br /><br />It's too bad, because there is definitely a need for an <i>alternative</i> to what the mainstream media deems an acceptable American <i>Right</i>. I just hope the Alt Right hasn't permanently poisoned that well.<br /><br />The good news is that over the past year and a half the Alt Right seems to have decided to obsoletize itself by ditching everything that could be remotely called "Right" and squeezing onto a tiny piece of intellectual real estate shared by neo-Nazis and the Klan. Identitarianism is the last refuge of those who have nothing to stand for, nothing to hope for, and no plans to continue.Power Childhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13365109338643310492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-60390399685501324652016-11-28T19:00:02.410-05:002016-11-28T19:00:02.410-05:00You're completely right about the importance o...You're completely right about the importance of posture and methodology in our understanding of the current alt-right. As an aside, is it really true that Milo "does not believe that ethnicity is inseparable from Western civilization"? I have no idea what he believes on that score, and I admit that I have trouble drumming up much interest in finding out. Be that as it may, you are correct that one can be an alt-rightist by being willing to *use* those kinds of epithets and that kind of crude, personal attack regardless of one's personal ideological beliefs about race, the Jews, etc.<br /><br />Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-51177155937696696212016-11-28T18:57:31.200-05:002016-11-28T18:57:31.200-05:00Obviously Ben is giving a quick definition there f...Obviously Ben is giving a quick definition there for purposes of the interview. I think it's fair enough as far as it goes, but as your further discussion shows, there are all kinds of nuances. Auster was a racialist of sorts (and I think he would not have denied that), and the core of his racialist ideas, which (as you say) is similar to what Shapiro describes, would be considered completely unacceptable by most mainstream conservatives.<br /><br />In that sense, he did have affinities to *some* of the *ideas* of the current alt-right. But he would never in a million years have countenanced their tactics, he also would have nothing to do with neo-Nazis or anti-semitism (which the alt-right seems to be happy to welcome into their "big tent"). Auster was unique. Because he was unique, and because he was, in fact, somewhat racialist in a way that he considered nuanced, it's not surprising that a quick definition of a really bad movement would include some views that overlap with his views. So I can hardly blame Shapiro for giving a quick definition of the alt-right based on what *really is* one of their most cherished core ideas that, as it happens, would also sweep in people who wouldn't qualify for the term "alt-right" in today's world.<br /><br />On the other hand, I think it's useful to realize that, historically, the alt-right *did* arise quite explicitly out of a more genteel racialist movement with a lot of affinities to Auster's idea. For example, I found a fascinating post in which Auster was (with his characteristic shrewdness) commenting that John Zmirak seemed clueless about how many racialists he was consorting with. Zmirak was simultaneously speaking out loudly against racialism and at the same time praising Peter Brimelow, who was strongly promoting Jared Taylor!! Auster was amused by that and suggested that Zmirak needed to realize when he was praising a racialist and then decide whether or not he was really against racialism or only against some types thereof.<br /><br />Paul Gottfried was, quite deliberately and explicitly, a bridge between the paleoconservative movement and the alt-right.<br /><br />The main reason that Auster can't be pegged into *any* of these boxes is because his own set of ideas was too eclectic--his pro-Israel stance, for example.<br /><br />I shd. add, though, that there are alt-rightists who aren't anti-Israel. They like to praise Israel as a self-consciously ethnic nation. Indeed, some of them consider it okay to dislike Jews as long as they can recommend that the Jews go to Israel ("their" nation) instead of staying in the West. This is just one of the more bizarre oddities of some corners of the alt-right.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-64000887528033838562016-11-28T18:22:02.348-05:002016-11-28T18:22:02.348-05:00Lydia,
A couple of random thoughts.
1) I read on...Lydia,<br /><br />A couple of random thoughts.<br /><br />1) I read one of your Ben Shapiro links in which Shapiro explains that the basic view of the Alt Right is that Western civilization is inseparable from European ethnicity, or white-ness. Shapiro is on the right track, but if you apply that definition, then Lawrence Auster was part of the Alt Right, because Auster *did believe* that Western civilization was inseparable from European ethnicity. There are nuances to Auster's position of course, but I don't think he would have objected to his view being characterized that way. Yet, Auster was also very pro-Israel and was very perceptive about what motivated the anti-Israel polemics of the paleo-conservatives. In that sense, Auster was hardly Alt Right. Indeed, the Alt Right loathes anyone who believes in the standard account of World War II, let alone anyone who supports Israel.<br /><br />2) So in addition to their actual beliefs and positions, it seems right to make posture and affect part of a working definition of what the Alt Right is. That's a tweak of Shapiro's definition, but a helpful one. That way you can put Milo in the Alt Right, because while Milo is pro-Israel and while Milo does not believe that ethnicity is inseparable from Western civilization, Milo *does* adopt the affect of the Alt Right. He enables it. He's part of the "mood" of the Alt Right.<br /><br />3) The Alt Right is a coarse movement. It makes use of racial and sexual epithets; it has a penchant for personal attacks instead of rational argument. That a movement characterized by these behaviors would go along with a vulgar man like Trump makes a great deal of sense. If you get into the actual positions of the Alt Right, their devotion to Trump doesn't make sense because Trump is not a white nationalist or an Israel hater--not in an obvious way at least. What's going on is something more visceral. That's what should really concern conservatives, because, long term, that could really derail the American conservative movement. <br /><br />It's not that I fear that conservative organs are going to be publishing Jared Taylor in 10 years, or considering Holocaust revisionism on drive time talk radio. That seems like a remote possiblity. But it does seem probable that conservatives will become coarse and totally separated from traditional Christian morals. They will lose an important part of what they are supposed to be conserving. <br /><br />4) The coarseness of the Alt Right, or the "Milo-fication" of conservatism, is a sign of the abandonment of Christianity in American culture. For a time, conservatives and Christians seemed to be natural allies. As American culture devolves, as it continues in rebellion against God (absent a revival), we should expect moral standards and political standard to decline together in some sense. IOW, if you didn't like the Religious Right, get ready for the post-Religious Right, because a post Religious Right will be a vulgar Right, a Trumpified Right, a Right more prone to race-baiting. A post Religious Right wants power not virtue. It may be useful in that it will stop the Left and buy Christians some time, but can it advance the good? Doubtful.<br /><br />If I am right about (4), and I admit the returns aren't in quite yet, the prospect of advancing in the culture wars, or of making progress on the "social issues," has become nearly impossible. How can a coarse, unfeeling conservatism really care about human life? We may see a few symbolic victories, maybe some things done on immigration, but overturn Roe? Or Obergefell? With President Trump? Are you kidding me?Ben Carmackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689868508463357958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-15602933176806338252016-11-26T09:43:48.791-05:002016-11-26T09:43:48.791-05:00Thanks, RC. I'm hoping this post will be read ...Thanks, RC. I'm hoping this post will be read by non-alt-right people, just ordinary conservatives, who really had never heard of the movement and might have thought it was a fake or non-existent or whatever.<br /><br />Just so you know, I'm super-happy to have full moderation here enabled and have no qualms about using it and probably won't moderate through alt-righters claiming to boast for the "accomplishments" of their movement. I'm also totally unamenable to their claims of unfairness or censorship or whatever. (Now to my mind, at a personal blog especially, those claims *are* whining.)<br /><br />However, I can say what some camp followers seem to think are accomplishments. Every one of them is either something that wouldn't be a worthwhile accomplishment (such as those you discussed) or has been entirely possible to accomplish for other bloggers, politicians, pundits, etc., without being remotely alt-right. For example,<br /><br />--Making it okay to be politically incorrect. Of course, one might define "politically incorrect" to _mean_ the sort of disgusting abuse they hurl, but let's be charitable and define it just to mean things like, e.g., stating that black inner-city culture is highly dysfunctional and that this sort of bad cultural baggage, rather than white racism, is to blame for the failure of blacks to get ahead in the U.S., including the dragging down of kids who are innocent and are caught up in the vicious cycles of the inner city. There. I said it. It's a "politically incorrect" statement. It's the kind of politically incorrect statement I've been making for years. Without being remotely associated with the alt-right. And the same for "Islam is not at all a religion of peace," "Martin Luther King was not a wonderful role model," and so on and so forth. It's just pathetic excuse-making to say that one has to turn to the vicious alt-right in order to make statements that would make liberals uncomfortable or even somewhat progressive or guilt-tripped Christian evangelicals uncomfortable. Heck, I'm on some liberal blogger's list out there of crazy right-wingers for my views on Muslim immigration, which I was opposed to *years* before Trump decided to talk about it. (An unfortunate advocate for the view.) I never needed the alt-right.<br /><br />In fact, I took this paragraph out of the main post, but it's been really amusing to me in a wry way to see on Facebook that one or two people are trying to make out like the Bannon appointment isn't so bad (or just throwing tu quoques around at the left, or other shallow things like that) when they were the very people who previously called _me_ too extreme for my views on Muslim immigration or things like that. I guess I never became President or the adviser to the President, so that's the difference? When someone is in power, suddenly the mainstream right decides to make excuses? But in any event, it's quite easy to be politically incorrect without being alt-right, without the alt-right baggage. And if you are looking for legitimate "political incorrectness," that's what you should do.<br /><br />--Providing strong male role models (I seriously had someone suggest this to me in correspondence.) C'mon, look around. The targets of the alt-right (Shapiro, French) would make better male role models than their cowardly attackers. Or Matt Walsh. Or, if you have the eyes to admire a godly man, someone like William Lane Craig. You can find *much* better male role models in the world if you just look and if your standards aren't warped. I can think of several people who qualify who are just quietly living their lives and aren't on the Internet at all, and probably most of these alt-right young fools know such men as well but just don't feel drawn to them because they aren't chest-thumping boors.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-73049232348699242872016-11-26T09:14:51.619-05:002016-11-26T09:14:51.619-05:00Hi Lydia:
Thanks for writing about this. As some...Hi Lydia:<br /><br />Thanks for writing about this. As someone who doesn't use social media much, it is nice to know what's floating around. <br /><br />For anyone who is tempted to sympathize with the alt-right, ask yourself, "What good has this movement done?" <br /><br />Elect Trump? Even if this is a good thing (it isn't), they were a tiny minority of Trump supporters, who won less votes than Mitt Romney (hardly an outstanding candidate himself). <br /><br />Booing Ted Cruz? Even if you aren't a huge Cruz fan (I'm not), this hardly counts as an accomplishment. The commenter Lydia references in the main post went further and claimed that the alt-right had essentially finished Ted Cruz as a politician. This seems both laughably false and, again, not an accomplishment. <br /><br />Harassment? Even if you think you should threaten and harass people online (I don't), this seems like a pretty paltry accomplishment. It also seems ironic to claim someone is a "whiner" or a loser or unmanly when your movement literally cannot accept the slightest criticism without immediately resorting to personal attacks. <br /><br />Can the alt-right point to one positive thing they've accomplished? "Here's something we've built, here's what we're proud of"? <br /><br />The alt-right constantly trumpets free speech, but the best they can come up with is nasty personal insults and defending mass murderers (I won't link to it, but Vox Day has done this.) <br /><br />They are barbarians, with only destructive instincts. They seem to lack the patience and imagination to do anything but roll around in filth, slinging it at anyone who disagrees.<br /><br />(And if any alt-right people disagree, please do correct me on your accomplishments.)<br /><br />If your best achievements as a movement involve photoshop, your movement probably isn't worth much.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12349898313985208747noreply@blogger.com