David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Elsewhere (213) | Main | Just Stand There Silently While I Scold You »

September 07, 2016

Comments

Rafi

As with much of the left, the alt-right remains policed by a kind of mob shaming and an enforced intellectual correctness

Minutes later JG gets mob shamed for his heresy.

Microbillionaire

This article is bullshit. Muh constitution, muh horseshoe, muh "the people asserting their self-interest and historical property in the nation they created are A MIRROR IMAGE OF the ones trying to tear it down and parcel it out so they can be holier-than-thou", muh classical liberalism, muh "if only we are principled", and strawman upon strawman, with a parting shot at the banjos.

No Goldstein, you are the real leftist.

Microbillionaire

It occurs to me that my previous comment may have been a little intemperate. To perhaps raise the tone a little, let me reference Orwell's "Pacifism and the War":

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be!

In similar fashion, I would hold that Goldstein is objectively pro-BLM. He's a pacifist complaining that it's somehow "un-conservative" to raise one's own weapons against an armed foe, Britain is just as bad as Nazi Germany because both of them employ armies of hardened killers to shoot people, and oh, did you hear about Churchill's Satanic inclinations?

To reclaim our birthright, we need only reclaim the Constitution.

What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? It's a great applause light; but do you mean embracing the Constitutionally decided Wickard v. Filburn? Submitting to the dictates of the Nine Nazgul, increasingly chosen for being Sotomayors?

This exceptionalism is found not in its genetic makeup (after all, we fought other white Europeans for our independence)

That's why "you" (ahem?) fought other white Europeans: they were also exceptional. Kenya never colonized America, nor threatened America's independence, after all. There was no use in allying Ethiopia as a counterweight in the Old World.

Similarly, it speaks of a “cultural tradition” it can’t possibly define. Cultures are amalgams. To distill them down to that mythical moment of original purity is to pick a particular point in time to declare the culture the culture.

And here we see the slippery slope fallacy in action: we don't have an atomically precise definition of the boundaries between our respective properties, so let me just move into your house.

David

It occurs to me that my previous comment may have been a little intemperate.

I’m glad you noticed. Having read his (sadly now defunct) blog for years, the idea of Jeff Goldstein as a “real leftist” (or “pro-BLM”) seems quite silly. His analytical demolitions of leftist conceits were often a highlight of the week. I, for one, miss them.

As I said in a previous thread, there are real concerns about porous borders, demographics, the failure to assimilate, ethnic balkanisation, criminality and lawlessness, generational welfare dependency, the endless accusations of white devilry, etc. Subjects we’ve touched on here more than a few times. There’s also the fact that bad social and political decisions, often inspired by leftist conceits, may ultimately leave one painted into a corner with no good options in terms of correction, only marginally less horrible ones. Which is why one should be wary of the left’s negligent unrealism.

I’m just not sure how addressing any of the above concerns is helped by a hair-trigger tribalism and swarms of morons sending obnoxious racial tweets to people they assume are Jewish – sorry, (((Jewish))) - and therefore, apparently, suspect. So far as I’m aware, despite the surname, Jeff isn’t in fact Jewish and yet the anti-Semitic slurs have piled up on his doorstep quite quickly. And this isn’t a case of ironic trolling or a few aberrant loons; this is something more.

Microbillionaire
I’m just not sure how addressing any of the above concerns is helped by a hair-trigger tribalism and swarms of morons sending obnoxious racial tweets to people they assume are Jewish – sorry, (((Jewish))) - and therefore, apparently, suspect. So far as I’m aware, despite the surname, Jeff isn’t in fact Jewish and yet the anti-Semitic slurs have piled up on his doorstep quite quickly. And this isn’t a case of ironic trolling or a few aberrant loons; this is something more.

I forget where I saw the quip "you call us Hitler, we hurl a swastika", but I think it sums up much of the situation. After Bush was Hitler, McCain was Hitler, Palin was She-Hitler, Mitt bloody Romney, generic suit incarnate was Hitler, and now (of course) Trump is Hitler, all restraint is breaking down. If one's opponent in a brawl is biting, gouging, and going for the nuts, I can see how imprecations to be the better man and not strike below the belt might be less than convincing - you either get out of there or you start gouging back.

What you're seeing, I think, is people gouging back. I suppose I could speculate about what sort of concern it might address, but I don't think it's supposed to address any of the above concerns. It's part indiscriminate retaliation in kind, part "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" from people who have little left to lose. What are they going to do about it, call you Hitler?

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

Hullo David,

I liked the article from Jeff Goldstein, but it seems a trifle naive to me.

American exceptionalism, which neither Barack Obama nor Donald Trump understand or can articulate, was born of our founding. This exceptionalism is found not in its genetic makeup (after all, we fought other white Europeans for our independence) but in a collage of Enlightenment ideas our Founders pulled together to create what became our national portrait.

I mean... is he 'avin a larf? I'm not even sure where to begin with this one. I had a history teacher once, a twitchy, irascible little guy. He used to get a throbbing vein on his forehead and his face would turn a remarkable shade of crimson when we got things badly wrong.

Then he'd scream and throw jotters while shouting "RRRRUBBBIIISSSHHH!"

I don't mean to be all "how can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?" but Anglo Saxon derived limited constitutional government is the pudding.

These Enlightenment values didn't coalesce at random. The US founders weren't delving into a pick n mix of Chinese, Swaheli and Eskimo political and legal traditions to build that collage.

Can't have that sort of confection without the right meat first. If the US was colonised by Syrians, Somalis, or Sontarans it'd be a very different society with very different ideals.

Which is what's happening now. Apart from the Sontarans. But if an armada of unpleasant and suspiciously Welsh aliens showed up over a Hillary Clinton occupied White House, she'd definitely let them all stay.

To reclaim our birthright, we need only reclaim the Constitution.

Eh. Rilly? Is it a magic constitution? Can you wave it over double digit IQ Guatemalan hillmen or pygmy negritos and - presto changeo! - they'll turn into Jeffersonian republicans?

This seems like a bad plan, if you can call it a plan. It reads more like extolling the virtues of prayer though. If you say the right words piously enough, disaster might be averted!

I don't mean to be unkind to prayers, they can't hurt. But God helps those who help themselves.

Jeff's idea that constitutional autism will save America has already been tested in the political marketplace, and failed.

Chester Draws

The pacifism analogy is particularly unfit. Orwell wasn't a pacifist, sure, but he wasn't a Tory either.

In the same way you can oppose the alt-right and still be on the right.

That the alt-right can't define culture is not a problem. That "culture" to it is often what is ugliest in the West is actually a concern, however.

Microbillionaire
Having read his (sadly now defunct) blog for years, the idea of Jeff Goldstein as a “real leftist” (or “pro-BLM”) seems quite silly. His analytical demolitions of leftist conceits were often a highlight of the week. I, for one, miss them.

How about if I phrase it as follows? Goldstein is firing rightwards. I'm not saying he's cheerleading for BLM any more than Orwell says pacifists are cheerleading for Germany (although they sometimes did); I'm saying that the net result of Goldstein's actions is to the benefit of the left much as British pacifists were Fascist advantage on net.

The send-off about incest and banjos could have come out of the mouth of any leftist lampooning rednecks; it's not the sort of thing a conservative would ever say about Marxists.

Leftism is historically characterised by blank slatism, Lysenkoism, the New Soviet Man, and the fantasy that you can regulate people into being good rather than have to deal with inborn human nature; Goldstein asserts a similar fantasy that proclaiming the Constitution loudly enough will americanise non-americans, and you mustn't listen to the alt-right saying that race and genetics counts for something.

Never mind the inconvenient fact that Goldstein's beloved federalists, founding fathers, declaration of independence, and early constitution were quite loud on the Rights of Englishmen, of admittance to America only of free whites of good character, and how 'Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs'.

Jimmy

I don't understand the principled conservatives of America anymore. The lost the culture war. They lost badly. They keep losing. All they have left is MUH CONSTITUTION and their fantastical proposition nation, which is doomed to balkanisation and inter-ethnic conflict. They are embroiled in a war of identity politics but refuse to fight on its terms, instead clutching their precious values even as the door to power is about to shut on them for good. And when poor white americans turned away from them, toward trump, neocons wasted no time in driving the shiv deep into their pasty backsides while aligning themselves with Hillary, a career oligarch who dares to lecture whites on their privilege as they face demographic suicide.

I mean, jfc, Joe Biden had this to say about the matter:

Folks like me who are Caucasian, of European descent, for the first time in 2017 we'll be an absolute minority in the United States of America. Absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then and on will be white European stock. That's not a bad thing. That's a source of our strength.

Source of OUR STRENGTH? Whose strength? What black magic is this? He implies that a US with more Europeans would be a BAD thing. WHY? How do Republicans square that circle with their precious founding principles? Would the founding fathers be so enthusiastic about Biden's sentiment? (LOL!) American euros have seen the writing on the wall and are organising, and Jews like Goldstein have the audacity to criticise them for it; as if Jews are exemplars when it comes to outgroup preference and the shedding of their ethnic chauvinism and nepotism.

David

How about if I phrase it as follows? Goldstein is firing rightwards.

Presumably, then, that isn’t allowed, irrespective of what lies to one’s right? Would Jeff be more principled if he mocked tactics and conceits on the left but excused and even championed much the same tactics and conceits if mouthed by people ostensibly on the right? Is that how it works?

I forget where I saw the quip “you call us Hitler, we hurl a swastika”, but I think it sums up much of the situation… all restraint is breaking down… It’s part indiscriminate retaliation…

And hence the unpleasant taste it leaves in the mouth. As underlined by Jimmy’s “ Jews like Goldstein,” immediately above.

David

To clarify, I agree that Biden’s comments – and similar sentiments – are eye-widening and delusional. I’m trying to imagine the vice presidents of other nations mouthing the same things – South Korea, for instance, or Japan – as if a massive demographic racial transfusion, as it were, had no practical and cultural consequences, no worrying connotations.

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

I don't understand the principled conservatives of America anymore. The lost the culture war. They lost badly. They keep losing.

There's an old joke about the Scotland football team manager being asked if he's planning any changes.

He replies "Naw, I'll stick with the tactics and players who've let me down before."

Conservatives lost the Culture War as surely as drugs won the Drug War. The - plan, if you can call it that - is to keep retreating while insisting whatever the Left captured 10 years ago is the new Line That Must Not Be Crossed.

I saw a lot of Ted Cruz in his quixotic run for the presidential nomination, and his strategy seemed to be "This time with feeling!"

We're only a few years away from these chaps declaring polyamorous transgender marriage for babies to be a Conservative Value.

The root of this comprehensive failure is probably their desperate need to be respectable. As if the Left will stop calling them racists if only they fellate the memory of Marxist race hustler Martin Luther King earnestly enough.

But Mel and Kim were right.

Jimmy

And hence the unpleasant taste it leaves in the mouth. As underlined by Jimmy’s “ Jews like Goldstein,” immediately above.

I couldn't care less that this gives people bad feelings in their tummy. In a world where WASP society had NOT suffered continuous, withering criticism from Jewish intellectuals I would be more sympathetic, but that world does not exist.

They (Jews) are the most successful group in America, wielding enormous power in proportion to their real number, and yet they seem to foster a deep resentment toward the founding stock that created the country in which they prosper.

Hal

If the US was colonised by Syrians, Somalis, or Sontarans it'd be a very different society with very different ideals.

Errrr . . . If the US was colonized by Which individual members of [ insert assorted cultural references ] doing said colonization???

For merely one of many handy examples of why the rather required precision, with the recent final reports on the the New Year's attacks in Germany, what is thus rather established instead of casually noticed is that the criminals totaled about two thousand altogether, and that two thousand or so having to be assembled from several cities worth of attackers.

In turn, the fantasy of the right wing---and therefore extreme---is basically OMG The Non Europeans Got Into Germany And All Is Wrong!!!!! where such hysterical screaming very much requires that the rest of us can't do the simplest form of math: Actual arrivals in Germany were apparently somewhere around one million, so that the two thousand criminals come out to about point two percent . . . not even as much as two percent, but point two percent.

A very easy---and perfectly correct---observation is that the newcomers are not those they have arrived among, and therefore are not interchangeably identical, and also among the immediate reports of the attacks in Germany were the equally immediate reports of refugees being quite opposed to the criminals who were clearly quite separate from them and separate from the natives.

Therefore, the issue is never where some general lot comes from, the issue remains what the individuals then do.

Equally the same, of that equally extreme and limited left wing instead of right wing, a quoted bit is indeed that . . .

This counter-trend, make no mistake, is every bit as identitarian as anything Edward Said ever wrote, and just as toxic. Said enormously influenced Western academics. His Orientalism laid out the case for identity politics, declaring who controls particular group narratives and how, and who and what comes to count as “authentic” and thus permitted to represent a given identity group and its (collectivist) narrative. Identity politics necessarily brackets and minimizes individualism. As with much the Left does, it remains policed by a kind of mob shaming and an enforced intellectual correctness that is linguistically incoherent.

Sooo, instead of Said, or whomever may get quoted by the right wing, yes, for we conservatives who are thus annoyingly bookended by the merely right wing or merely left wing, there is indeed David Cannadine. Or, very particularly, Cannadine's observation that Said is full of it and therefore that one may note and then relatively ignore Orientalism, because the reality is Cannadine's Ornamentalism

Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire is a book by David Cannadine about British perceptions of the British Empire.[1] Cannadine argues that class, rank and status[2] were more important to the British Empire than race.[3] The title of the work Ornamentalism is a direct reference to Edward Said's book Orientalism, which argues the existence of prejudiced outsider interpretations of the East, shaped by the attitudes of European imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. It has also been argued to borrow tones from the title of Joseph Scumpeter's "Imperialism and Social Classes[4] which some historians see as the origins of the 'Ornamentalist' perspective in academic history'

---That last pulled from Wiki . . .

David---Thompson, that is---has that very nice link in the upper right that he would like you to make use of. Granting in turn that I'm about to quote from the Amazon.com site, rather than UK, commentary for the book is also entertaining:

His argument apparently has taken his PC readers so much by surprise that they cannot comprehend it, but to someone, like myself, who lives in Hawaii, it is a commonplace. Hawaii was colonized by Americans, not Britons, but they behaved exactly the same -- despising, or at least keeping their distance from, the commoners; but happily intermarrying with the 'natural' aristocracy. Once Hawaii became a republic and the aristocracy was extinguished, they stopped intermarrying with them, as all natives were then 'common.'

This little story from the islands was written large in the British Empire. Cannadine does not pretend there was not a color line, but he notes -- and any Australian would say, 'Right, mate!' -- that the elite in the metropole despised the white colonists more than the black elites they chose to cosset and use in the policy of indirect rule.

Kevin B

This rather long and well argued piece on the failure of conservatism and the hypocrisy of the #neverTrumpers may be of interest at this point.

Microbillionaire
How about if I phrase it as follows? Goldstein is firing rightwards.

Presumably, then, that isn’t allowed, irrespective of what lies to one’s right?

Of course it's allowed. And then one should expect to get lumped with leftists by one's right, and receive corresponding hostility.

Would Jeff be more principled if he mocked tactics and conceits on the left but excused and even championed much the same tactics and conceits if mouthed by people ostensibly on the right? Is that how it works?

Jeff would probably be more principled on that score if he first stopped *using* tactics and conceits of the left like snarking about incest and banjos. But I fear a fuller argument here would be getting deep into the weeds of mixed metaphor and overstretched analogy.

--

But Mel and Kim were right.

Who?

Hal

I saw a lot of Ted Cruz in his quixotic run for the presidential nomination, and his strategy seemed to be "This time with feeling!"

Back in about April or so I jotted down some notes.

Particularly,

For the 2016 election, only the blind and the desperate still attempt to claim that right wing and left wing are the only choices, and that right wing means conservative. The most evident proof is that there are three conservatives fighting for the two presidential nomination seats of the Democrats and the Republicans. Very little has come out of the left wing liberal gutter, and from the right wing liberal gutter, the right wing liberal candidates have been reduced to hoping for a VP slot and assessing how to pay off campaign debts.

As I recall, that got posted online about April 24th. On April 27th, Cruz announced that Fiorina was going to be his VP . . .

David

Who?

Brace yourself.

David

They keep losing… The root of this comprehensive failure is probably their desperate need to be respectable. As if the Left will stop calling them racists...

Yes, I think that’s true, at least it’s a big chunk of the picture. And ditto our own Conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives. I suspect we’d broadly agree on the problems at hand. (Otherwise, presumably, you wouldn’t be frequent visitors.) It’s a question, then, of how to correct those problems, to whatever extent is practical, without indulging in knuckleheaded racial tribalism and “indiscriminate retaliation,” or generally being an arse.

Kevin B

I should point out that in the article I link to upthread, the comparison between the Conservative establishment and the Washington Generals, (who turn up every week to get thrashed - indeed humiliated - by the Harlem Globetrotters), is probably racist.

Apt, but probably racist.

Jonathan

Every 'conservative' article about the Alt-Right:

Alt-right is white identity politics.
Identity politics are bad.
Thus, the alt-right is bad.

Kevin Riches

This is merely an article about group-think. He seems to always be alluding to the idea that sharing a sense of identity or common understanding is somehow faintly reprehensible. That doesn't seem so Conservative to me. There is a time for belonging and a time for questioning. The great questions of politics are based upon this idea. His only response to the question of identity crisis to those who feel that their identity is threatened, is for those people to clump together with people outside of that identity in order to err.. regain a sense of identity. That seems to me to be the central tenet of leftist thought. He isn't saying anything new about radicalism either is he. All that really happens is that if radicals gain more ascendency in a political narrative or movement, then there are the inevitable ruptures, sunderings and subsequent re-groupings. I don't feel he's answered anything really, but has only alluded to some abstract solutions. He talks about the impossibility of cultural nativity, but then mentions the birth of the American idea as the inspiration for a sense of collective identity.He talks in another faintly sniffy way about national identities being 'local', but doesn't appear to have any problem with America being a nation separate from the rest, even to the extent of 'exceptionalism'. Going by his own precepts, that also suggests a certain desire for a kind of superiority, wouldn't you say? By the way, I'm an Englishman, and I don't care much for jazz, sushi or basketball. I like cricket, tea, Constable and G K Chesterton. Does that make me a gauliter of the worst stamp?

pst314

"Of course it's allowed. And then one should expect to get lumped with leftists by one's right, and receive corresponding hostility."

So you are back to labeling him a leftist?
For decades I have condemned liberals' morally corrupt practice known as "no enemies to the left".
Now you are proudly advocating "no enemies to the right".
No thank you.

Furthermore, Trump is in many ways not on the right. Note for instance his long approval of big government, and indeed big government cronyism in which eminent domain is lawlessly used to benefit wealthy developers while squashing individuals who have no political influence.

Sporkatus

Jeff, you ignorant slut!

The trouble here is that JEFF! would rather curse the darkness than light a candle. He's had a lot of practice cursing the darkness, and it's what he's familiar with, as the left have cut the electricity and then been putting out the gas lanterns and flashlights one by one. Objectively, candles provide pretty poor light - just as simple reaction and clinging to one's "tribe" are poor vessels for enlightenment - but fellow feeling and understanding one's neighbor and nation a la Kipling's description of how he understands his fellow from his own land are the basis of the trust of community.

Other people have lit a candle. JEFF! in this metaphor has been looking at the worst things lit *by* it and is complaining that the sudden light and smoke both irritate his eyes - he wishes to extinguish both. Rather than see a use for light (in this metaphor, revived patriotism and self-interest), he creates calumnies against it because he hates the smoke so very much. It's the wrong sort of light, you can tell by the smoke, he explains. Must put the candle out before our eyes are ruined or someone catches the drapes on fire.

JEFF! has been in the funhouse mirror world of Twitter too long. The world where all feelings of national pride are held by enthusiastic racists and all enthusiastic racists are Nazis - or purport to be. On poking his head above water he offers himself a wholly false choice between "Nazi" and "respectable", picks the "obvious", then tries to content himself on how this could have happened by playing a perverse version of Dorothy Parker's Who Goes Nazi by trying to figure out who has been a secret Nazi all along. Why, of course it's been those hick Southerners. None other!

Wrapped in the warm blanket of his own ironic bigotry, he goes back to sleep.

The alt-right has been a nascent movement for some time, and to believe it (like the Tea Party) can be smothered by the Alinsky tactics of tearing down its respectability - from the right! - is foolish in the extreme. It has arisen because the interests of the Tea Party were not met, and other interests long buried have become more painful and risen once again. It is a force of last resort which has no respectability to lose, so any attempt to defuse it without understanding it is not only foolish, but an insult.

William F. Buckley was largely the mold for conservative commentary and left his imprimatur on the movement of respectability, education, wit, and calm reserve, but he did not lack in passion - nor was he a blind man. The political will of conservatism depended on recognizing the pains and travails of those without a voice (just as the left pretended to do) and offering practical intersect between first principles and needs. Needs best served most often by standing in the way yelling "stop", but also clever enough to recognize means to ends.

The modern writer's class has held onto that repectability, education, wit, and reserve label as it's the comfort held when they're with their lefty friends - "I'm actually better than you at those things you pretend at" - but somewhere has lost all meaning of what they should actually be doing with themselves. By failing to control what is and is not respectable through real guidance in the cause, they've fled the battlefield. "I'M RESPECTABLE!" screams JEFF! as he turns and realizes the footsoldiers in the ranks behind look... peevish. Could JEFF! have spent time on how nationalist-leaning motives best serve the country? Or rather than decrying BLM, explored ways of recovery for the crushed manufacturing base? Musing about profiling - whether it's worth the cost in some cases? No, because the next thing is that you're a Derbyshire and un-personed. Better to ignore where Taki is succeeding and dismiss any attempt to route that sort of thing through better angels. I've held JEFF! up here as an example, but he's been better than most - which may be one reason he hasn't realized how exceptionally toxic the Kristols and other have become.

To conclude: JEFF!, "you're just saying that because you're a bigot" has never once won an argument. It has ended many, and what comes after is not continued good feeling between parties involved. You had an opportunity to use tools given to you for the restoration of conservatism, freely given, but got in a snit because of mean things that teenage trolls were saying. You dolt.

Tim Newman

But I guess the world could always do with more banjos.

Good to see I'm not the only one who takes issue with this. Being an amateur bluegrass guitarist and singer, I know a fair few Americans who play the banjo and a finer, more upstanding bunch of people you could not hope to meet. I'd certainly rather spend time with them than the sneering intelligentsia of New York, anyway.

Franklin

They (Jews) are the most successful group in America, wielding enormous power in proportion to their real number, and yet they seem to foster a deep resentment toward the founding stock that created the country in which they prosper.

I'm reminded of the masthead of Heeb Magazine in its heyday, which pleaded with anyone who had contacts with the Jews who control the media to please get in touch with them. Personally I look forward to having enormous power in proportion to my real number.

Speaking as the author of yesterday's essay about cultural Marxism in The Federalist, the aggressively secular and bonkers-leftist Jews associated with it were a marked exception to the gently secular and moderately liberal Jews who came here in the 20th century. The latter were assimilationist and worked their asses off, precisely out of respect to the people who founded the country. My people went to Dallas, of all places, where they encountered no anti-Semitism to speak of because Texans understand what hard work and respect look like.

Franklin

William F. Buckley was largely the mold for conservative commentary and left his imprimatur on the movement of respectability, education, wit, and calm reserve, but he did not lack in passion - nor was he a blind man.

And he pointedly threw the Birchers and anti-Semites out on their ear.

Sporkatus

@Franklin: Noted, but he arguably had the political capital to do so. Anyone proposing to lose to Hillary in order to (in theory) hand the rebellious elements a defeat and excise them from politics has not gamed things out very well. A conservative movement can only function so long as it is seen as other than useless. I grew up since near infancy watching Firing Line, reading Buckley, Novak, Cal Thomas, and even George Will, but there is a gap between what Buckley's movement was meant to be and the the self-sabotaging sinecures of a moribund faux-intelligentsia.

For the record, throwing anti-Semites out of the party was absolutely required, but the Bircher affair... we've had some long-term repercussions. It is imperative to be lucid when one is an anti-Communist, which the Birchers were not, but in the conservative movement's enthusiasm for finding a common-ground national face, all anti-Communism for decades was funneled into foreign policy and what might be termed anti-Russian public posture. Anti-Communism within the domestic sphere was strangled in the crib and this enabled the Gramscian March like little else. Worse still, such conflicts for direction of conservatism and efforts to displace what came to be known as paleo-conservatism helped the spin of Goldwater as some type of radical and put in place Johnson's Great Society.

So, while I hold Buckley high as what the movement was, I cannot hold him completely faultless - nor can I claim that throwing out all nationalistic tendency at this time in history is a reasonable act. Nor still are his supposed successors of his stature as an original thinker or leader - they couldn't lead an infant to a diaper-changing station.

Jib Halyard
How about if I phrase it as follows? Goldstein is firing rightwards.

Do forgive me if I fail to distinguish between people who denigrate due process or freedom of speech from people who denigrate the colourblind nature of the US Constitution.
If I fail to distinguish between those who fault said constitution for being written by white men, from those who see its authorship as its only redeeming feature.
If I fail to distinguish between those who claim the rule of law is a structure of oppression from those who claim it is a civilisational death warrant.
I'll punch up, I'll punch down, I'll shoot left, I'll shoot right; as long as it is in the direction of stupid...

Trevor

It’s a question, then, of how to correct those problems, to whatever extent is practical, without indulging in knuckleheaded racial tribalism and “indiscriminate retaliation,” or generally being an arse.

David, I suspect that we share a broadly similar - in many ways a very 'English' - temperament. However, with every insult and outrage that is visited upon us I find myself growing less squeamish about the possibility of losing the odd baby with the increasingly foetid bathwater that is accumulating. I do fear the time may come when we are forced to take sides: I know where I should be standing, and even if some of my fellows turn out to be not as appetising as I'd like I'm pretty confident their company will be preferable to abject surrender.

Sporkatus

@Jib: How about this? There are a continuum of people from outright bigots through people with latent bigotry through people who have concerns tarred as bigotry through to people who merely allow themselves to wonder if cultural consistency and inertia are important, at all. JEFF! has chosen, rather than risk any contact with any point along that continuum that might fall on a leftist's "BIGOT" side of their "BIGOT/NOTABIGOT" detector (hint, all of them), he will make cracks about banjos.

In so doing, he is signaling to anyone who is status-conscious that any such concerns are held by those who are Not Our Kind, Dear, and signaling to anyone who feels particularly shat on that he considers shit their lot in life and most such shit to be their imagination. This has not even the slightest chance of healing the divisions on the right, and consigns him either to be an ignored pariah (if a more nationalist/populist spirit wins out), or an impotent smuggery in a Beltway club, ever having to tack leftward for the legitimacy he craves.

But OH THERE ARE SOME NAZIS ON TWITTER

David

David, I suspect that we share a broadly similar - in many ways a very ‘English’ – temperament

Yes, I think that may be part of it. I’m not temperamentally inclined to the kinds of crude tribalism on show. But for me it’s not an issue of manners, status or fretting about how one seems in supposedly respectable company, and certainly not for the benefit of people who will scold and name-call anyway because that’s what they do. It’s the narrow and emphatic ‘with us or against us’ mindset that jars, the quest for purity, especially when it repels so many people with whom one has common ground. When partial dissent and even measured qualification is met with instant denunciation and (((crap like this))), it’s not a happy state of affairs. Nor does it bode well for a glorious future, of any hue.

Hammond Aikes

"I would emphasize that by necessity the alt-right is a “big tent” philosophy. Ideally this means that it functions as an intellectual alliance between other philosophies that embrace most or all of its core principles. Therefore it is counter-productive for any of these philosophies (to) attack one another more than they attack outside philosophies. Some people call this no enemies on the right or no enemies to the right, the latter being less inclusive, but what is most important ultimately is to not throw competent people who agree with you on major issues to the wolves. Having clear battle lines is crucial because it ensures we are our own moral authority rather than a third party that is opposed to most or all of our beliefs, which is a major problem if not the problem with the mainstream right."
---Lawrence Murray
This quote at Vox Day along with some other stuff of interest, perhaps.
Trevor says it in fewer words.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/

Wilbur Hassenfus

The first and most important difference between us and them is we're us and they're them.

True Conservatives are just about the only people in history, aside from libertarians, who can't figure that out.

Franklin

rather than risk any contact with any point along that continuum

When writing about politics one is always forced to deal in spurious aggregates, and Goldstein's lede ought to have made it clear that he is dealing with a range of opinion. Many of Vox Day's criticisms of conservatism may be fair, but he's proposing an alternative that is incompatible with the Enlightenment. Aren't we usually mocking the leftist denigration of Enlightenment values in this forum?

This quote at Vox Day along with some other stuff of interest, perhaps.

Oh joy, there's a "vast range of opinions across the Alt-Right" regarding whether I should be gassed. Where do I sign up with this magnificent movement?

Sporkatus

I'm not onboard with Vox, certainly. That being said, if it's taking a crazy person to raise buried issues, just how sane is the common discourse in the first place?

On the other hand, Franklin, Milo certainly doesn't believe you ought to be gassed - 'twould be rather odd if he did. I'd tend to regard him as more influential in the real world than Ted Beale without question. I would like to take people on board for white identitarianism only out back and shoot them (metaphorically), but if it's impossible to figure out where the line is other than letting the left come up with one, we're going nowhere fast. Which is why I think a fight for the leadership and influence over the (very broad) alt-right *base* (perhaps not the alt-right itself) is more productive than to put everybody possibly carrying an imagined alt-right contagion in a box and nuke them.

A lot of people out there are really worried. The alt-right has picked up on some of their worries in a semi-credible way. The answer is not to channel hatred of some elements of the very loose alt-right into a with-us-or-against-us request to either sit down and shut up or be called mean names. Anyone wondering where the with-us-or-against-us drawing of lines on alt-right twitter came from needs look no further than the ongoing Crusade of Our Betters to control. It's reactive - a mirror of many purges of old. A whole spectrum from the Buchanans to the Derbyshires have been ejected, silenced, and - most importantly - left to grow, outside.

It's no use pointing out to people acting like a peasant's revolt that they're dragging things toward feudalism when there are actual landed gentry being rebelled against. So to speak.

Microbillionaire

@pst314, how did Trump get into this? Were you perchance having an argument with someone else and decided to continue it with me?

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

Hal - Actual arrivals in Germany were apparently somewhere around one million, so that the two thousand criminals come out to about point two percent . . . not even as much as two percent, but point two percent.

Good point. You're more likely to win £25 on the Lottery than be raped or murdered by a Muslim.

David

That being said, if it’s taking a crazy person to raise buried issues, just how sane is the common discourse in the first place?

Quite.

Should we fist-bump?

Franklin

@Sporkatus: Milo and I followed each other on Twitter, before he was ejected for wrongthink. I'm also led to understand that as soon as he started speaking for the Alt-Right, large segments of the Alt-Right disowned him. That is what it is. Your point -

A whole spectrum from the Buchanans to the Derbyshires have been ejected, silenced, and - most importantly - left to grow, outside.

- is well taken, and I very much subscribe to the notion of considering people one at a time. That said, we're talking about a movement in which (according to Beale, who would know) the Overton window includes the Final Solution. Is blanket disgust a wholly inapt response to that?

Microbillionaire
It’s a question, then, of how to correct those problems, to whatever extent is practical, without indulging in knuckleheaded racial tribalism and “indiscriminate retaliation,” or generally being an arse.
Well, my favored alternative is the return of the kings, and this time they pass out hemlock when the philosophes start having weird ideas, or at least decree the abolition of sociology departments at the first sign of communist infestation.

I'm aware that probably sounds preposterous to a lot of people here, but kings did do most of the work bringing us up from the Migration Period (sometimes aka "dark ages") to modern times, where democracy now seems to be stirring up Migration Period II: Intercontinental Edition.

And I'm not aware of any non-preposterous alternatives. Constitutionolatry is an ongoing failure on a level with Canute trying to command the tides. Trump is preposterousness incarnate. Continuing on the current path to turning the US into a global Yugoslavia, this time with even less commonality, is only funny because I enjoy gallows humor.

So we're probably going to get the alt-right's knuckleheaded racial tribalism and indiscriminate retaliation in kind, likely phrased in a somewhat less dysphemistic manner such as "clearly identify friends and enemies", followed by "do unto enemies as they attempted to do unto us".

There just doesn't seem to be any good way out. The Tea Party tried polite protest and got nowhere. A lot of its remnants went into assembling the Alt-Right, which is now trying rude protest. If it gets nowhere too, its remnants will probably feel legitimized about going Weathermen for the third round, and ... while I think that is only going to result in civil war and the burning of large swathes of the West, rather than any restoration, I can hardly blame them for preferring scorched earth to Zimbabwe-on-the-Potomac.

Sporkatus

@David: Fistbump transferred to TCP/IP. Should arrive shortly.

@Franklin: Blanket disgust is certainly apt, and it's hard not to let disgust color things. I for one am deeply disgusted by George Will's fetishization of baseball. Jokes aside, I do not have any associations other than being white (ish) and American southern causing people to generate malformed malediction toward me, so I can't begin to imagine.

It is deeply unfortunate that lines are drawn as they typically are, given that the Jewish friends I have are (per axiom) quite conservative in their matters of expertise. Politically, doctrinaire to middling leftists all, despite no personal advantage (several are poor) - they're not Part Of The Conspiracy, certainly, but the long-term poisoning of the Marxist movement in the upper middle class has left its mark. On the other hand, they are absolutely not the New York Set or the Hollywood set.

These people are not The Jewish Issue, they're my friends, and not more leftist than anyone else in their social set and upper middle class backgrounds - but they're visible, leftist, and Jewish, which is enough to seem to make them seemingly an identified type. Which for someone unhinged looking for a villain behind the curtain...

On the other hand, the anti-semitism of the far left has been so rampant for decades that it isn't even contained or confined to areas - though some show concentration. Zombie's photo-essays of events in Berkeley are enough to curdle the blood.

It's certainly true, isn't it - that axiom that all forms of crazy eventually come back around to conspiracies of THE JEWS. I comfort myself that a movement of outcasts containing a few crazies must have some inevitability in that until the next (true) Buckley comes along.

Lisboeta

In Britain, the history goes thus:
Those Romans, coming over here, polluting our pure Brittonic language with their vulgar Latin. By Toutatis!, they even corrupt our bloodlines by intermarrying.
Those Anglo-Saxons, coming over here, polluting our pure Romano-British with their brutish Germanic. By Lugus!, they even corrupt our bloodlines by intermarrying.
Those Normans, coming over here, polluting our pure Germanic with their bastard Norman-French. By God!, they even corrupt our bloodlines by intermarrying.

Most of those invading foreigners may've been light-skinned, but not all were: Roman soldiers were drawn from every province, including Africa. (It's not unknown for members of occupying forces to have, er, carnal relations with the locals.) Since the Norman conquest, Britain has attracted -- nay, sometimes sought -- other immigrants: Huguenots, Jews, Yemenis, West Indians, Ugandan Asians, etc. And, dammit, they've all corrupted our bloodlines! The truth is that Brits are a mongrel race.

In North America, it's a slightly different narrative:
Those Vikings, coming over here, trying to establish settlements. But, this time, we defeated them!
Those Europeans, coming over here, appropriating our lands, killing our people (or, if they didn't kill 'em, enslaving them).
Those Europeans, who'd come over here and appropriated our lands, now bringing in their African slaves.
But, honest injun, there were no carnal interactions whatsoever during those centuries that could have diluted the pure white immigrant bloodline! Seriously, does anyone believe that? Americans are just as much a mongrel race as the Brits.

Indeed, the intermixing has existed for millennia: everyone (apart from Africans) carries a small proportion of Neanderthal genes in their genome. Alas, Neanderthals tend to get bad press. But, if you're white, it's an incontrovertible part of your genetic make-up.

What does baffle me is this upsurge, in the 21st century, of highly vocal groups who claim that they alone are the custodians of 'their culture'. It matters not whether their skin is black or white, or what their professed religion is: they are all usurpers. It's become a case of s/he who shouts loudest wins.

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

I was hoping this discussion would come around to Star Trek.

Microbillionaire
Many of Vox Day's criticisms of conservatism may be fair, but he's proposing an alternative that is incompatible with the Enlightenment. Aren't we usually mocking the leftist denigration of Enlightenment values in this forum?

Mostly, but then -- "Enlightenment values" include the Reign of TerrorReason! and the Noble Savage, so I am quite prepared to trim off the occasional Enlightenment value here and there for incompatibility. Surely one of the Enlightenment values was the approach of applying scrutiny to the individual content of things, rather than accepting them as package deals on the strength of name or reputation?

David

I was hoping this discussion would come around to Star Trek.

The night is young.

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

Lisboeta - thanks for that, so brave. I don't know what that fuss about in Rotherham is over either. No doubt future Britons will laugh and say حَوّامتي مُمْتِلئة بِأَنْقَلَيْسون

Franklin

I said once, regarding Joy Karega, that eventually all anti-rationalist movements conclude that The Real Problem Around Here Is The Jews.

Sporkatus

@lisboeta: And yet, in both English and American cases, each successive forcible mass arrival tended to wholly reshape the dominant culture to one more akin to the source of the arrival, for good and ill. Those periods with more cultural continuity and what one might term a slow trickle has tended to distill elements from multiple cultures and blend - productively - rather than replacement by force or mass. The most successful cultural elements can outcompete others. To gloat - as Biden did - that a mass displacement is occuring is the height of insanity. I do not want the current culture in this country, however replaced/distilled in the past, to be replaced wholesale with that of Mexico or Syria or even Norway. "It's a mongrel culture" absolutely does not impute "and therefore cultures cannot be superior or worth saving". Borrowing and blending is one thing, overwrite quite another.

@Steve 2: What's most important about Klingon immigration is to be below the critical assimilation rate. Our police aren't trained in the least to handle an uptick in bat'leth murder.

Microbillionaire

Hey Lisboeta, your vegetables are less than perfectly washed of sand and soil, so by the same token I'm sure you have no grounds for complaint if served gravel for dinner. Right?

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

Those Normans, coming over here, polluting our pure Germanic with their bastard Norman-French. By God!, they even corrupt our bloodlines by intermarrying.

I hate to quibble, but perhaps, given their brutal subjugation at the hands of their new Norman overlords, and the resulting destruction of their culture, their language, their way of life - even their names - the Saxons might've had a teeny, tiny point?

Perhaps the lesson from history is don't end up like the Saxons or the Red Indians?

I'm pretty sure this was covered in an episode of Star Trek.

Microbillionaire

@Steve 2: A better wit than me once said on that matter "Ah yes, Britain, a nation of immigrants, like William the Immigrant, who arrived at the head of the Norman Immigration."

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

What's most important about Klingon immigration is to be below the critical assimilation rate. Our police aren't trained in the least to handle an uptick in bat'leth murder.

You daft racist. They'll do the jobs our security officers won't, like Worf son of Mogh.

Sporkatus

Well, certainly that Worf chap was vetted, right? Brought in through existing measures (adopted) and completely acculturated. These "refugees" coming in from planets pledged to the clone of Kahless might be worth a bit more scrutiny, yeah?

Sporkatus

Plus which, for a professional, he seems to get thrown about a lot. If we're going to import Klingons, maybe ones that have had a bit of military training and have served as expert trackers for men serving in the Neutral Zone. This Worf, bit of a dud on the security officer front.

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

"Ah yes, Britain, a nation of immigrants, like William the Immigrant, who arrived at the head of the Norman Immigration."

It's always startling to be told that despite one's British ancestry stretching back to the Domesday Book and likely much earlier, we're actually a "mongrel race".

How come nobody lectures the Japanese or the Chinese or the Indians that they're "mongrels"? Probably too afraid of being arrested.

These "refugees" coming in from planets pledged to the clone of Kahless might be worth a bit more scrutiny, yeah?

But think of all the vibrant new restaurants serving gagh and blood pie.

pst314

"how did Trump get into this?"

My error: I was switching back and forth between this blog and an email thread.
But my prior comment stands: If "no enemies on the left" is reprehensible then so too is "no enemies on the right".

pst314

"Perhaps the lesson from history is don't end up like the Saxons"

Hastings 1066: Not Enough Saxon Violence
(seen on a t-shirt)

Franklin

Microbillionaire: my favored alternative is the return of the kings, and this time they pass out hemlock when the philosophes start having weird ideas, or at least decree the abolition of sociology departments at the first sign of communist infestation.

I am, up to a point, willing to consider that proposition. If only the monarchist economic track record were better. Dierdre McCloskey has been arguing convincingly for many years (in the WSJ for instance) that we owe our relatively enormous wealth compared to the rest of history to the burgeoning of liberal ideas in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

Hastings 1066: Not Enough Saxon Violence
(seen on a t-shirt)

That's an awesome tshirt.

I've always pictured the Saxons as cool, chilled out guys with long hair and big moustaches like a 70's prog rock band.

William the Bastard's guys were like punk rockers.

I hate punk rockers.

Spiny Norman

Well, thus far this thread has certainly been enlightening, and not necessarily in ways I would have expected.

Sporkatus

@Steve 2: Well, you know how it is. It'll take American audience marketing to really come up with a form of gagh that everyone will enjoy. I suspect it's all in the seasoning, though there'd probably be something to do with flatbread. I expect Klingon purists would call it gaghqoq or "so-called" gagh, but sometimes cultural cuisine needs to adapt for its audience. I'd expect a Chicago gagh to have more cheese than most, for one.

I sneeze in threes

Without comment.

"Chinese airline magazine in racism storm over article warning tourists to avoid parts of London 'populated by Indians, Pakistanis and black people'"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/chinese-airline-in-racism-storm-over-article-warning-tourists-to-avoid-parts-of-london-populated-by-a3338501.html

Microbillionaire

If only the monarchist economic track record were better. Dierdre McCloskey has been arguing convincingly for many years (in the WSJ for instance) that we owe our relatively enormous wealth compared to the rest of history to the burgeoning of liberal ideas in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Paywalled; but I see it opens with "The Great Enrichment of the past two centuries has one primary source: the liberation of ordinary people to pursue their dreams of economic betterment" and I'm curious now as to how the argument goes.

Because my impression is that the Great Enrichment was a combination of manymanymany things: automated production, mass production, production lines, ease of transportation, the idea of science, small contracts, eugenic downward social mobility, the joint-stock corporation, various efficiency increases in various processes, and other innovations and inventions, -- some of which were no doubt facilitated by the liberation of ordinary people, others of which were facilitated by the royalty that had e.g. the concentrated capital to afford large amounts of experimental basic research, and the clout to override entrenched guilds and unions.

Magical Dismembered Albino Finger

Jonathan -

Every 'conservative' article about the Alt-Right:

Alt-right is white identity politics.
Identity politics are bad.
Thus, the alt-right is bad.

That's actually about right. To all those who carp about "firing rightwards" - the left isn't truly the enemy. It's possible to be left-wing and sensible (although no names are springing to mind...). The real problem is identity politics itself, as well as social justice and all the rest of that codswallop. People are fond of war analogies, like the Orwell quote upthread, but perhaps the better analogy is to a viral epidemic. Or a zombie movie. The enemy is anyone who's been bitten by the Rage-infected monkeys, and the alt-right's solution is to get bitten too. And sure, those zombies can run fast and kick arse, but becoming one is counter-productive. You might be better able to kill zombies yourself, but you won't be capable of rebuilding civilisation.

Magical Dismembered Albino Finger

Whoops - somebody's grasp on html isn't as firm as he thought

Spiny Norman

Happens to the best of us. ;-)

Fruitbat44

This comments section seems even more "rumbly." :-)

Hmmm . . . some random witterings:

1. Just 'cos something upsets the SocJus types, it doesn't mean it's automatically a "good thing."

2. If you go far enough in one political direction you'll eventually bump into opposite direction.

3. I like Western Civillisation, and yes I beleive it is under attack both from without and within, but . . . but being open to knew ideas is a very important part of Civillisation. (NB This is not the same as embracing anything new just 'cos its new.) The alt-right's assumption of automatic superiority and emphasis on genetic purity is against this. Example: what have non-Western civilisations done for the world? Zero. No, zero. It's a vital mathematical concept, and it didn't originate in the Western Europe.

Well that's my two pennyworth of random witterings/JIMHO

Franklin

my impression is that the Great Enrichment was a combination of manymanymany things

Her argument is that those other things, primarily the technological advances, had happened in other places and other under conditions but didn't take off until they were explored in an atmosphere of equality and freedom under the law. I subscribe to apriorism and as such concede that there's no way to completely prove that argument. Sorry about the paywall, I didn't notice it or I would have found something else for you.

Microbillionaire

2. If you go far enough in one political direction you'll eventually bump into opposite direction.

I hear this a lot, but it does not appear to be borne out by the evidence. The Khmer Rouge went about as far as it was possible to go into the depths of communism, but I could swear they stopped because they were bumping up against "everyone is ruddy well dead" rather than because they realized they were on the verge of turning capitalist.

Magical Dismembered Albino Finger

Microbillionaire -

I forget where I saw the quip "you call us Hitler, we hurl a swastika", but I think it sums up much of the situation. After Bush was Hitler, McCain was Hitler, Palin was She-Hitler, Mitt bloody Romney, generic suit incarnate was Hitler, and now (of course) Trump is Hitler... If one's opponent in a brawl is biting, gouging, and going for the nuts, I can see how imprecations to be the better man and not strike below the belt might be less than convincing...

What you're seeing, I think, is people gouging back.

I don't think that's it.

Let's imagine a typical Trump supporter, or UKIP voter, or whatever: the kind of person that the alt-right claims to be speaking for. This person, knowing that they will be called a racist no matter what they say, decides they "might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb". What do they say when they're no longer restrained by political correctness? Well, I see them saying stuff like: the police aren't racist, it's just that blacks commit more crimes than whites; there's a problem with fatherlessness in the black community; that sort of thing.

But now consider the alt-right - the ones using triple brackets and pouring scorn on interracial marriages. Having decided to be hung for a sheep, what do they say? From what I've seen, they say things like: black people are fundamentally inferior to white people; it's best for white people that they don't co-mingle with blacks; things of that nature.

The former bit of plain-speaking is all perfectly agreeable, as far as I'm concerned, and I think it's a big problem that those views are so frequently dismissed as racism. The latter simply is racism.

The alt-right is claiming to speak for these UKIP-voting ordinary people, but there's actually quite a fundamental difference between the two. One group is sick of being called a racist precisely because they're not racist, and the other... well, I guess they just don't like the negative attention.

I think what's happening here is that there's a trend in politics at the moment - an anti-PC wave, let's call it, and the crest of that wave, perhaps, is the alt-right. But trying to ride that wave are all sorts of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Kremlin stooges who seem to think that this alt-right thing represents their chance at sneaking into the mainstream. I think what we're seeing is something akin to entryism: the alt-right is an opportunity to get back in the game for the various people and ideas that National Review kicked off the team, so to speak.

To be clear, that's not to say that everybody who considers themselves alt-right is a Nazi. But, well, I've read a lot of Vox Day, and while you can never be totally sure that he means what he says, lately it feels like there's been a slipping of the mask. I'm starting to worry that it'll turn out that he was always a Nazi, but he just hid it well.

I hope I'm making myself clear, I've been going back and forth struggling to make my point. Let's try another tack:

Vox Day, I'm sure, will justify (((this nonsense))) with recourse to the argument made above, i.e. "they'll call me a Nazi no matter what I say, so I might as well be a Nazi, yeah?", i.e. "lol I'm just trollin'". But once you start putting every Jewish name in triple brackets, haven't you crossed the line between ironic comedy anti-Semitism and actual anti-Semitism? Have you not just given away the fact that you're not trolling, and that actually you've just found a way to get away with saying something you've always wanted to say? I too have political beliefs that mean I get compared to Hitler in arguments - but the unfair comparison doesn't inspire me to hate Jews.

Again, hope this makes sense.

Daniel Ream

The only watchable episode of Star Trek: Enterprise surprised me by finally explaining the great Klingon mystery - to wit, how a bunch of overly macho space biker Vikings managed to form an empire and the sophisticated technology necessary to keep it together.

Turns out Klingon culture used to be much more diverse, with great achievements in art and science, before a retrograde cultural element espousing the values of a mythical Klingon Golden Age based on warrior culture and a form of racial and ideological purity took hold and swept the Empire.

I have to admit, I did Nazi that coming.

Hal

It's become a case of s/he who shouts loudest wins.

Well, granting for both the right wing as well as the left, tries to shout the loudest.

At the very least for us bookended by alt-right, et al, through whomever are the maoists these days, also et al, they do provide entertainment . . . and the googlemancy is getting nowhere: David?

Where's that clip of wannabe leaders standing in a circle and vehemently arguing who gets priority based on the made up precedence of the moment?

David

Where’s that clip of wannabe leaders standing in a circle and vehemently arguing who gets priority based on the made up precedence of the moment?

Did you mean this? The one with the bare-breasted lesbian and the cacophonous shrieking?

David

but being open to new ideas is a very important part of Civilisation.

I think what we’ve been seeing is the ideological exploitation of a more general desire to be, or be seen as, welcoming, cosmopolitan, not fixated by race, etc. This general tendency – which some might regard as a marker of being civilised - is being perverted into a self-abasing mindset, a kind of pretentious collective atonement, in which ethnic identities are to be loudly affirmed and deferred to - except one, of course. By this thinking, or emoting, our borders should be flung open to “the other” indiscriminately and regardless of compatibility, or number, and regardless of the economic, cultural and social consequences. Because, being pallid and fairly successful as tribes go, we, The Great White Oppressor, deserve punishment.

dicentra

You morons.

JEFF.

IS.

ITALIAN.

He was adopted by a family with a Jewish surname. They didn't even PRACTICE.

How come nobody lectures the Japanese or the Chinese or the Indians that they're "mongrels"? Probably too afraid of being arrested.

Kim Jong Il and his spawn do all the time. Only North Koreans are racially pure, you see. South Koreans are mongrels (especially from a certain southern region). You want unabashed racism? Go to east Asia or India.

The first and most important difference between us and them is we're us and they're them.

That statement is no damn good unless you can define US and THEM in a way that leaves no ambiguities.

Lisboeta

@Steve2
I'm having difficulty in translating your Arabic sentence. Might it equate to "my hovercraft is full of eels"? If so, I do sympathise with your predicament.

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

I have to admit, I did Nazi that coming.

Hmmm...


South Koreans are mongrels

Well, you are what you eat, I s'pose.

Might it equate to "my hovercraft is full of eels"?

That's insane. Who would say a thing like that???

Steve 2 - A Touch of Stevil

I think what we’ve been seeing is the ideological exploitation of a more general desire to be, or be seen as, welcoming, cosmopolitan, not fixated by race, etc. This general tendency – which some might regard as a marker of being civilised - is being perverted into a self-abasing mindset, a kind of pretentious collective atonement, in which ethnic identities are to be loudly affirmed and deferred to - except one, of course.

Yarp.

And as unedifying as it might seem, it was inevitable whites would jump on the identity politics bandwagon at some point. Especially as we are increasingly blessed with marvellous diversity like from those Muslims who show such a keen interest in our children.

Identity politics is a bit like Affirmative Action in the US: perfectly sustainable when only 10% of the population qualifies for it, the 90% hardly notices the difference. But when it shifts to 30%, 40%, 50% plus of the population demanding special treatment at the expense of the rest, well... that's not a recipe for a happy ending.

Hal

Did you mean this? The one with the bare-breasted lesbian and the cacophonous shrieking?

Yes!!!, that's the one . . . and then the right wingers try to claim that Oh, no, no, there's no resemblance whatsoever, we don't look the least like that . . . .

Microbillionaire
This person, knowing that they will be called a racist no matter what they say, decides they "might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb". What do they say when they're no longer restrained by political correctness? Well, I see them saying stuff like: the police aren't racist, it's just that blacks commit more crimes than whites; there's a problem with fatherlessness in the black community; that sort of thing.

But now consider the alt-right - the ones using triple brackets and pouring scorn on interracial marriages. Having decided to be hung for a sheep, what do they say? From what I've seen, they say things like: black people are fundamentally inferior to white people; it's best for white people that they don't co-mingle with blacks; things of that nature.

The former bit of plain-speaking is all perfectly agreeable, as far as I'm concerned, and I think it's a big problem that those views are so frequently dismissed as racism. The latter simply is racism.

Define racism. Because as far as I can tell, it really is best for white people that they don't co-mingle with blacks, on average, due to factors such as the excessive black criminality you mentioned; whites are at greater risk of being murdered by their spouse if they marry blacks than if they marry whites; and I can't find anyone on Google actually saying "black people are fundamentally inferior to white people", only people attributing it to their opponents.

(Or don't - I personally ban cant such as "racism" at my own blog, and require commenters to express their point in other words, as a means of occasioning more thoughtful expression.)

Vox Day, I'm sure, will justify (((this nonsense))) with recourse to the argument made above, i.e. "they'll call me a Nazi no matter what I say, so I might as well be a Nazi, yeah?", i.e. "lol I'm just trollin'"

I sorta doubt that. Vox's line seems to be much more "I don't care. I have no reason to justify myself to you."

But once you start putting every Jewish name in triple brackets, haven't you crossed the line between ironic comedy anti-Semitism and actual anti-Semitism?

No.

Because there's no anti-Semitism there. Jews might not like the attention, but 'anti-Semitism' doesn't mean 'anything Jews dislike'. Triple brackets might occasion anti-Semitism among those who object to the high Jew density in the halls of power, but so might reading Who's Who or Category:American Jews. Doesn't make them anti-Semitic.

I too have political beliefs that mean I get compared to Hitler in arguments - but the unfair comparison doesn't inspire me to hate Jews.
You don't have to hate Jews to think that e.g. "my interests are not Jewish interests, in fact my interests are at odds with Jewish interests" and then wish that your country's leadership wouldn't contain so many Jews seemingly working for Jewish interests. (Compare how much attention American politics devotes to Israel compared to, say, India.)

Or, working for leftist interests, for that matter. Here's a Jew writing in the Jewish Journal that Jews are forever and always on the left, it's in their blood. A non-Jew accusing Jews of the exact same stuff described here would probably provoke screams of "anti-Semitism!!!" from anti-semanticists before getting halfway through. And a rightist non-Jew reading it might reasonably draw conclusions along the lines that the Jews have always cautioned about -- "when your enemy reveals himself, believe him".

(I don't believe a word of it myself, for the record. I believe it's more a matter of Jews defaulting to trying to make nice with power and public opinion, for all the obvious reasons that an oft-hated minority might do that. If tomorrow the right took over all power the left holds over media, bureaucracy, academia, and the like, I predict the Jewish Journal would swiftly change its tune to saying "Judeo-Christian" a lot and talking about the inborn traditionalism of Jews who go back four thousand years and giving wall-building tips and so on and so on. But since the left dominates those institutions, the JJ will be prone to flatter the left at present.)

I think what's happening here is that there's a trend in politics at the moment - an anti-PC wave, let's call it, and the crest of that wave, perhaps, is the alt-right. But trying to ride that wave are all sorts of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Kremlin stooges who seem to think that this alt-right thing represents their chance at sneaking into the mainstream.
Agreed.

OTOH, I think it should be acknowledged that there really is an issue with Israel and Jews where some pointed questions are in order. As a quick crude proxy, a search of the Congressional Record turns up some 20k references to Israel and 7k references to India. This is absurd on the face of things. India is far more important: population, nukes, neighbors, geographically, strategically, you name it. Likewise with another quick example, Jews are 33% of the US Supreme Court and 2% of the US population, and similarly overrepresented elsewhere in the halls of power. Why?

And is the answer to that "Why?" perhaps one which might also explain/justify why blacks are underrepresented? When is it legitimate for representation to be not proportionate to population?

Something something sunlight, disinfectant, etc. Give a reasonable answer to the question, and you undermine the ability of neo-Nazis to claim it must be for nefarious reasons. Unfortunately, I don't have one myself, my last two hypotheses both having been hacked apart by contradictory data in arguments elsewhere.

Jeff G

I suppose I should address some of the rank imbecility I've just read here and do it in a way that won't, I hope, strike anyone as if I'm being either naive or leftist -- both of which traits I can assure you I lack.

First, no one believes in magic dirt, nor does anyone believe had Somalis, say, formed this nation, things would be as instantly "meaty." The civil society is a prerequisite for the kind of procedural country our Founders envisioned, and they were well read men in western philosophy. Liberia, for instance, lacked this base -- and as we've seen in ill-fated democracy projects, you can't simply slap a Constitution onto a people and expect them to understand it.

The civil society formed in colonies began a century and a half plus before the Revolutionary War. It was a collection of various religions, from Quakers and Anglicans to deists and so forth, all of whom shared certain Judeo-Christian values that underlay the morality side of the western Enlightenment and the civil society built in what would soon become the United States. So. There's the historical backdrop. It is my contention that anyone who abides the compact forged by our Founders and Framers is capable of useful citizenship, regardless of their DNA markers.

It is clear to me that we are living in post-constitutional era, and I've advocated for ways to re-group, be it a Convention of the States or simply state nullification of fed judiciary rulings that are on their face unconstitutional or beyond the purview of the courts as laid out in the Constitution.

There have been innumerable poor court rulings, but the leftist activism is getting even worse, and state Governors need to find the balls to tell the feds to keep their money and stuff their bathroom demands, eg. This is hardly "pacifist," and we may well soon see a kind of soft civil war I've been writing about as inevitable since at least 2005. I reject stare decisis as necessary and believe only originalists / intentionalists have a right to interpret law, because it is only they who are actually interpreting in the first place.

What I don't want to see as a battle strategy is "my side" becoming what the left wants it to become: just another competing identity group vying for special dispensation. That is the wrong way to go, in my opinion, no matter how good it makes you feel or how cathartic it might be. White nationalism is left-progressivism in its bones. It devalues the individual and requires tribal loyalty.

Fuck that and fuck anyone who needs it.

Secondly, I'm no pacifist, and I'm familiar with the "muh Constitution, muh principles" bullshit certain people who fancy themselves fed up FIGHTERS! throw around. Seems an odd thing to mock -- after all, we're talking about the central document to our country and its governance, and the desire to adhere to it, in such a way as to make it seem somewhat silly -- but then, these are strange times, where people like I've who've spent decades fighting the scourge of PC leftism, faux-diversity, and pernicious multiculturalism, are suddenly lumped in with BLM.

The fact of the matter is, I've spelled out the reasons why white identity politics is no different than any other identity politics in terms of how it is organized and where it must necessarily leave. You may wish to bleat about how you're FINALLY FIGHTING BACK, but that's just self-serving garbage. I defended Stacy McCain when he was called racist; I defended Trent Lott (whom I detest); I've defended Bill Maher; I've defended David Letterman. I'm an aggressive proponent of free speech, and I don't much care what political letter it wears behind its name. I'm also a tenacious enemy to PC in any of its forms. I was never known not to fight, and in fact, when I wasn't fighting the left I spent most of my time bashing the quisling Rs. I'd link but my site was hacked and my archives removed by Trumpers. For freedom! This will have to do as an example: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-f-bomb/

Calling something what I believe it to be -- and the AltRight is rife with racialism, racism, antisemitism, and batshit crazy pseudo-scientific white nationalist "sociology"-- then drawing out the argument to make the case, doesn't make me PC, or a "pacifist," or someone who advises against raising our weapons against a foe. I just believe we need better weapons, not the shared shit weapons imported from socialists. In fact, the very idea I play by Queensbury rules is completely ludicrous, given how I've spent years teaching people just how to combat the left, and how to disentangle ourselves from the linguistic traps institutionalized in how we believe language works that were always going to bring us to this point of competing identity blocs. Whether it's more nuanced racialists or outright racists within the AltRight, the fact remains it's there, it's ugly, and it is inherently anti-individualistic. As such, it is anti-American.

The undercurrent here, be it pointing to early Naturalization Acts or "our posterity" -- two of the go-to bits whipped out ever so proudly by racialist morons -- is that the US was formed as a discriminatory country. To believe this, one must believe that both the Constitution and the Declaration were somehow mis-written, and that the Founders and Framers simply forget to build in firewalls to prevent citizenship to anyone not, eg., born in one of the original colonies. You must believe that Jefferson's "all men" line was an oopsie, and that what he REALLY meant was "all free white Christians only" and was just self-conscious at being overly verbose. You must believe the Framers forgot, during the drafting and ratification processes, to include discriminatory language in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It forgot to set up a state church, for instance, when it was crafting 1A.

All of which would be in keeping with how progressives view the Founders: racist slave holders who cared only for themselves and built a country on the backs of disenfranchised chattel slaves and on the bones of Natives. The difference being, you'd be celebrating what the progressive left uses as a cudgel. And yet both of you are basing your positions on lies and slanders.

Now, some of you can pretend that what was of necessity (given the venue) a brief essay doesn't answer certain key questions about what to do, and you can trot out the now ubiquitous line from the AltRight that conservatism and classical liberalism hasn't conserved anything, but the truth is, Coolidge, Reagan, and Gingrich's Contract all lead to prosperity, while for most of the last 100 years, dating back before Nixonian free trade and 1965's Hart-Celler Act, a 90% European "meat" white country elected repeatedly progressives informed directly by Fabianism imported here from white Europe.

It was conservatives who opposed Hart-Celler, incidentally, and as anyone who's read me knows, I'm a proponent of a border fence (just not a fantasy King Kong enclosure promised by an old orange Mondale Democrat); I believe we need to enforce our own immigration laws, including sponsorship, means testing, and required assimilation; that we need periodic moratoriums, particularly on low-skilled workers; and that I'd refuse any refugees from countries that are tied to terrorism unless and until we have a means to accurately vet petitioners.

David

Hi, Jeff. In case you hadn’t heard, or heard often enough, Protein Wisdom is sorely missed.

Fruitbat44

Hi Microbillionaire,

"2. If you go far enough in one political direction you'll eventually bump into opposite direction."

Try thinking of it as if you go far enough in one direction, you'll become indistinguishable from those who have gone too far in the opposite direction i.e. there isn't really any difference between the extreme right and the extreme left; both are evil. (Although the extreme right probably has shinier jackboots.)

David

Right, it’s time for me to be horizontal. Place nicely. Use coasters.

Jeff G

Hi, David. I keep trying to get in touch with Pixy Misa to get the site back online, but he's not returning my emails. Maybe he, like Ace, is blocking me because of "muh principles."

Jeff G

Also, gotta love the "Jews like Goldstein" bit above. Nope. These aren't anti-individualists leftists playing Euro-righties at all. No sir!

David Gillies

The alt-righters are extremely dangerous to those of us on the conservatarian spectrum in large part because they give our enemies a cudgel with which to beat us.

Magical Dismembered Albino Finger

Define racism. Because as far as I can tell, it really is best for white people that they don't co-mingle with blacks, on average, due to factors such as the excessive black criminality you mentioned... I can't find anyone on Google actually saying "black people are fundamentally inferior to white people", only people attributing it to their opponents.

One of the defining features of these alt-right entryists is disingenuousness, and here we might have an example. I shouldn't accuse you of that, of course, but I hope you can understand why I might suspect such: you seem like an intelligent person, and yet you apparently don't think that there exist people who think that whites are better than blacks, even if they didn't use my exact words. You also want me to define racism. I thought it was pretty clear from what I wrote that I'm not someone who throws the term around where it's not warranted, and that I'm not trying to pin a label on people to shut them up.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'd define it as an irrational animus based on race. The alt-righters I'm talking about are of the opinion that black criminality is innate and incorrigible, rather than, say, a product of the welfare state and a noxious culture. And there's a nasty edge to their comments on the subject. We're talking about people who are disingenuous about what they truly believe, so to a certain degree we're left to draw inferences from their tone. But to me at least the irrational animus is often clear. They may hide it behind reasonable concerns like those mentioned above, or behind legitimate science like that on intelligence, but I've often been left with the impression that there are no improvements that blacks could make that would satisfy them. It's not rational, they just hate niggers.

Jews might not like the attention, but 'anti-Semitism' doesn't mean 'anything Jews dislike'. Triple brackets might occasion anti-Semitism among those who object to the high Jew density in the halls of power, but so might reading Who's Who or Category:American Jews. Doesn't make them anti-Semitic.

You really don't think there's anything behind those triple brackets? Who else would feel the need to clearly identify every Jew when their Jewishness was totally irrelevant, except somebody who had an irrational animus towards Jews?

There are obvious reasons that politicians from lots of countries pay more attention to Israel than to India. I would also wager that not all congressional references to Israel are positive.

As for why Jews are more successful and blacks are not: I've seen various arguments and I don't know which is right. What I think is wrong is when people read something nefarious into those discrepancies. This applies as much to those who think black people are conspired against as it does to those who think that Jews have conspired to succeed. It's one thing to note that Jews are "overrepresented in the halls of power", and another to say that they're all working towards "Jewish interests".

As for the Jew who wrote that Jews are always leftist, that's his opinion. Ironically, he submits to the same fallacy that an anti-Semite does, namely that Jews are a monolith working towards a common interest. I've actually already seen that article linked at Vox Popoli, and they are drawing the conclusion you mention, i.e. "when your enemy reveals himself, believe him." I would disagree that that was a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Here's the problem with people who worry about Jews:

When Mitt Romney ran for President, I didn't see many complaints that his religion meant he'd put Mormon interests ahead of everything else. But if a Jew rises high, people question his loyalty. Why? Is there something different about being a Jew than being a Mormon? I suppose it's an ethnicity as well as a religion; and, sure enough, there are lots of alt-righters who'd make the objection based on ethnicity: I recall people who insisted on referring to Nikki Haley as Nimrata Nikki Randhawa, ignoring that she was married. But still, these people never seem to think Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal or Ted Cruz's loyalties are quite as divided as a Jew's would be. Why? Is there something different about being a Jew than being Indian?

Once you hack away at it, you're usually left with nothing but that definition of racism I used earlier: an irrational animus.

Magical Dismembered Albino Finger

Perhaps I'm a bit touchy on the anti-Semitism at the moment (does the "s" get capitalised?), but I remember Vox Day making that exact point about Israeli influence in the American government, and I thought, by gum, that's perfectly reasonable. And then he started doing (((this))), and now I have to wonder: wait, was he being reasonable? Or did I just get tricked into accepting the thin end of the wedge?

Jimmy

Also, gotta love the "Jews like Goldstein" bit above. Nope. These aren't anti-individualists leftists playing Euro-righties at all. No sir!

So what of it? It seems like even recognising Jews as a group, in any capacity that isn't purely positive, immediately relegates one to the status of a jackbooted thug. I find that very curious. Cue the cries of individualism. Your precious individualism! It's all or nothing, isn't it? Yes, yes, we're all individuals after all, but to pretend that society is composed entirely of individuals alone is to improperly reduce society to something it is not; a bunch of aimless satellites occasionally bumping into each other through the aether. Further, this focus on individualism as the defining aspect is magically untethered from the fact that it is a belief held collectively and enforced as such, though it seems many moderns are clueless of this fact and assume their individualism just is because it's just so inherently right.

Darleen

Hi Jeff

What David said at 22:31 .... turned up to 12 because that's two more than ten.

Darleen

Here's a Jew writing in the Jewish Journal that Jews are forever and always on the left, it's in their blood.

A response to Dennis Prager, an observant Jew who writes, and lectures, extensively about Left-Jews have given up Judaism for Leftism (even coupled with atheism.

Franklin

It seems like even recognising Jews as a group, in any capacity that isn't purely positive, immediately relegates one to the status of a jackbooted thug.

When you recognize us as a group for the purpose of making invidious claims about us, the problem of course is with the claims, not the aggregation. We then ponder where we've heard these sorts of things before.

When I complemented Texans en masse above I did so knowing that there are numerous exceptions, and neither I nor anyone else felt the need to issue reservations. That's because praise and blame set off entirely different dynamics. That something so obvious needs explaining is the real curiosity here.

Franklin

"Complimented," of course. Some of my best friends are homophones.

Jimmy

When you recognize us as a group for the purpose of making invidious claims about us, the problem of course is with the claims, not the aggregation. We then ponder where we've heard these sorts of things before.

Here's another invidious claim for you: Jews have a neurotic obsession with victimhood and imagine Nazis around every corner. No wonder you're such ripe targets for trolling on the Twitter.

Darleen

Jews have a neurotic obsession with victimhood and imagine Nazis around every corner.

Oh the irony.

Andy Krause

Jeff has spend his life debating language deconstruction. "Alt-right" is a language construct just like "social justice". The language game is to argue the constructs and not the reality. Don't play. America offered color blind and it was refused. If color matters than color matters.
Trigger warning!
Trump will win a landslide if he ever uses words "white children".

dicentra

THIS =====> "It devalues the individual and requires tribal loyalty. Fuck that and fuck anyone who needs it." <===== THIS

The difference being, you'd be celebrating what the progressive left uses as a cudgel.

The alt-right is an eerie photo-negative of the identitarian left that makes my skin crawl.

Yeah, that's virtue signalling, and I'll own it, right now. Brand me. Brand me as a non-racialist ALL DAY. I BEG YOU.

Cripes, people, if all it takes to be virtuous is to NOT hew to a movement that embraces ~90% of Hitler's views on race (EVERYTHING BUT SUPREMACY), then you've set the bar too #$*%@ low.

dicentra

They may hide it behind reasonable concerns like those mentioned above, or behind legitimate science like that on intelligence

Permit me to interject that there is ZERO correlation between IQ and virtue.

Stupid criminals commit stupid crimes: robbery, assault, murder. Those crimes scare us because they're scary things to experience.

Smart criminals commit crimes that are actually WORSE in their scope and impact but not as scary because there's no precipitous instant of violence against its victims: identity fraud, insurance fraud, hacking into the NSA, securities fraud, accounting fraud, embezzlement, indoctrinating college students with clever lies, holding Senate seats forever, writing seminal lies (aka "damned lies") about your struggles or capital, occupying the Oval Office, crashing national currencies, staging coups against Batista or the Shah, maintaining death camps and gulags, pillaging vast swathes of Eurasia with your Mongol Horde...*

If you expand your definition of "crime" to include all of the horrible things that people do, across history, you're not going to see a racial signal in all that noise.

Humanity sucks. Always has; always will.

That's all there is to it. Sticking with people you are comfy with won't change that.

*Crushing your enemies. Seeing them driven before you. Hearing the lamentations of their women.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll