The Alt-right

[Perianne]

National Review attacked them as bitter members of the white working class. They are reviled by establishment conservatives. They are solidly behind Donald Trump for president.

Who are they? They are the alternative right.

Breitbart.com divided them into different categories, as not one can fully describe this movement.

First we will look at:
THE INTELLECTUALS
There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.



They tend to be paleoconservatives who like Patrick Buchanan. I have found Pat Buchanan to be right all of the time, or at least close to right all of the time, so I tend to associate with this group.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9351&stc=1

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

[fj1200]

Alt-right = not conservative

[Abbey Marie]

Just read the entire article. Why are they not Conservative?

[Perianne]

National Review attacked them as bitter members of the white working class. They are reviled by establishment conservatives. They are solidly behind Donald Trump for president.

Who are they? They are the alternative right.

Breitbart.com divided them into different categories, as not one can fully describe this movement.

Secondly, we will look at:

NATURAL CONSERVATIVES


Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.

In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts — the same instincts that motivate conservatives across the globe.

These motivations have been painstakingly researched by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, and an instinct keenly felt by a huge swathe of the political population: the conservative instinct social psychologist Jonathan Haidt described the conservative instinct in his 2012 book The Righteous Mind.

The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.


An establishment Republican, with their overriding belief in the glory of the free market, might be moved to tear down a cathedral and replace it with a strip mall if it made economic sense. Such an act would horrify a natural conservative. Immigration policy follows a similar pattern: by the numbers, cheap foreign workers on H1B visas make perfect economic sense. But natural conservatives have other concerns: chiefly, the preservation of their own tribe and its culture.


For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe. Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters. The natural conservative tendency within the alt-right points to these apotheoses of western European culture and declares them valuable and worth preserving and protecting.


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


This follows decades in which left-wingers on campus sought to remove the study of “dead white males” from the focus of western history and literature curricula. An establishment conservative might be mildly irked by such behaviour as they switch between the State of the Union and the business channels, but to a natural conservative, such cultural vandalism may just be their highest priority.


In fairness, many establishment conservatives aren’t keen on this stuff either — but the alt-right would argue that they’re too afraid of being called “racist” to seriously fight against it. Which is why they haven’t. Certainly, the rise of Donald Trump, perhaps the first truly cultural candidate for President since Buchanan, suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the western European and American way of life.


Alt-righters describe establishment conservatives who care more about the free market than preserving western culture, and who are happy to endanger the latter with mass immigration where it serves the purposes of big business, as “cuckservatives.”


Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.


The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.


You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.


For those who believe in the late Andrew Breitbart’s dictum that politics is downstream from culture, the number of writers, political candidates and media personalities who actually believe that culture is the most important battleground can be dispiriting. (Though Milo is trying his best.)


Natural liberals, who instinctively enjoy diversity and are happy with radical social change – so long as it’s in an egalitarian direction – are now represented by both sides of the political establishment. Natural conservatives, meanwhile, have been slowly abandoned by Republicans — and other conservative parties in other countries. Having lost faith in their former representatives, they now turn to new ones — Donald Trump and the alternative right.


There are principled objections to the tribal concerns of the alt-right, but Establishment conservatives have tended not to express them, instead turning nasty in the course of their panicked backlash. National Review writer Kevin Williamson, in a recent article attacking the sort of voters who back Trump, said that white working-class communities “deserve to die.”



Although the alt-right consists mostly of college-educated men, it sympathises with the white working classes and, based on our interviews, feels a sense of noblesse oblige. National Review has been just as directly unpleasant about the alt-right as it has, on occasion, been about white Americans in general.


In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction.


Drummond, you will love this.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

[Perianne]

"Dangerous Faggot", Milo Yiannopoulos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHd7cbNQ6DI

[fj1200]

Just read the entire article. Why are they not Conservative?

I'm not sure how they could really be described as conservative in the first place:


THE INTELLECTUALS

There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.

Their intellectuals are smarter than skinheads. That's a high bar.


NATURAL CONSERVATIVES

Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.

I don't see how identity politics is conservative.


THE MEME TEAM

Earlier, we mentioned the pressure to self-censor. But whenever such pressure arises in a society, there will always be a young, rebellious contingent who feel a mischievous urge to blaspheme, break all the rules, and say the unsayable. Why? Because it’s funny!
As Curtis Yarvin explains via email: “If you spend 75 years building a pseudo-religion around anything – an ethnic group, a plaster saint, sexual chastity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster – don’t be surprised when clever 19-year-olds discover that insulting it is now the funniest fucking thing in the world. Because it is.”
These young rebels, a subset of the alt-right, aren’t drawn to it because of an intellectual awakening, or because they’re instinctively conservative. Ironically, they’re drawn to the alt-right for the same reason that young Baby Boomers were drawn to the New Left in the 1960s: because it promises fun, transgression, and a challenge to social norms they just don’t understand.

That speaks for itself I think.


THE ESTABLISHMENT’S FRANKENSTEIN

Not all alt-righters will agree with our taxonomy of the movement. Hacker and white nationalist Andrew Auernheimer, better known as weev, responded in typically jaw-dropping fashion to our enquiries: “The tireless attempts of you Jews to smear us decent Nazis is shameful.”
Delving into the depths of the alternative right, it quickly becomes apparent that the movement is best defined by what it stands against rather than what it stands for. There are a myriad of disagreements between its supporters over what they should build, but virtual unity over what they should destroy.

Do they stand for anything remotely conservative?

But overall it was a good attempt at being a self-sanitizing puff piece.

[Drummond]

National Review attacked them as bitter members of the white working class. They are reviled by establishment conservatives. They are solidly behind Donald Trump for president.

Who are they? They are the alternative right.

Breitbart.com divided them into different categories, as not one can fully describe this movement.

Secondly, we will look at:

NATURAL CONSERVATIVES


@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), you will love this.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

I've never heard of the 'alt-right' ... they must be American, and a group our Press doesn't care to advertise.

Far be it for me to oppose any good, decent Conservatives, of course. But I do have a concern that they could prove to be a distraction in the upcoming election. Would they act as a kind of grounding-rod, attracting people away from the GOP, at the very time the GOP will need their votes ?

Anyway, this is one time I am discussing a subject I'm unfamiliar with. I hope I'm wrong.

[Perianne]

I've never heard of the 'alt-right' ... they must be American, and a group our Press doesn't care to advertise.

Far be it for me to oppose any good, decent Conservatives, of course. But I do have a concern that they could prove to be a distraction in the upcoming election. Would they act as a kind of grounding-rod, attracting people away from the GOP, at the very time the GOP will need their votes ?

Anyway, this is one time I am discussing a subject I'm unfamiliar with. I hope I'm wrong.

The alt-right is solidly behind Trump. Drummond They are not solidly behind Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs. The alt-right will vote (I would guess) 100% GOP.

[aboutime]

Just another example of how low, miserable, and uninformed so many people are today in this country. WHY does everything some people hate in our society NEED a brand, a name, or new identity?
People are so flustered, confused, utterly dumb in so many cases. They no longer have the capacity to speak honestly FACE TO FACE with other people. So, like Obama. They create a DIVIDING LINE...in this case..another Divisive Descriptive Word to separate AMERICANS from AMERICANS.

It's the same kind of divisiveness that brought about our CIVIL WAR.
Today. Those in power who want more power, have no problem making excuses to further DIVIDE a nation, and the people when the OUTCOME becomes beneficial to those in POWER, because the entire society of divided people....remain IGNORANT, and EASILY LED.
That's the political value of PREVENTING human beings from being educated. Because KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, and the politicians do not want the people to have KNOWLEDGE.

[Drummond]

The alt-right is solidly behind Trump. @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) They are not solidly behind Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs. The alt-right will vote (I would guess) 100% GOP.

I sincerely hope you're correct, @Perianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2722) ..

I've seen this from your link, though ...


Isolationists, pro-Russians and ex-Ron Paul supporters frustrated with continued neoconservative domination of the Republican party were also drawn to the alt-right, who are almost as likely as the anti-war left to object to overseas entanglements.
Ex-Ron Paul supporters ?

What happens if America goes through another 9/11 ? Trump, I feel sure, would do what it took to make the perpetrators pay an extremely heavy price for what they'd planned and done. But would part of the alt-right object, hoping instead for a minimal response, rather than risk an 'overseas entanglement' ?

Bear in mind that I've only just learned of alt-right's very existence. I could be way off. Even so, the link you offered DOES state what I've quoted.

[Perianne]

I sincerely hope you're correct, @Perianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2722) ..

I've seen this from your link, though ...


Ex-Ron Paul supporters ?

What happens if America goes through another 9/11 ? Trump, I feel sure, would do what it took to make the perpetrators pay an extremely heavy price for what they'd planned and done. But would part of the alt-right object, hoping instead for a minimal response, rather than risk an 'overseas entanglement' ?

Bear in mind that I've only just learned of alt-right's very existence. I could be way off. Even so, the link you offered DOES state what I've quoted.
Drummond

When they speak of avoiding overseas entanglements, it means crap like intervening in other nations' business. We have no business in Syria. Let them fight it out themselves. THAT is what it means. We have too many irons in the fire. Ron Paul believed that and so do I.

But on the other hand, like all conservatives, if someone wants to fight us, we will let them have it!

[Drummond]

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287)

When they speak of avoiding overseas entanglements, it means crap like intervening in other nations' business. We have no business in Syria. Let them fight it out themselves. THAT is what it means. We have too many irons in the fire. Ron Paul believed that and so do I.

But on the other hand, like all conservatives, if someone wants to fight us, we will let them have it!
@Perianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2722) .. quite right, too ! Sounds good to me.

Still ... there are those who also argued that America (and the UK, and others) had no right to invade Iraq, back in 2003. What if there are some in alt-right who'd take that line, and regard it as being one of those 'entanglements' they would've wanted to see avoided ?

I have long since argued that the 2003 Iraq invasion HAD to happen, that it was a legitimate part of the War on Terror, and that the policing action America committed itself to there, over years, was (and is) highly necessary. What if there are certain alt-right types who'd have drawn a line there, regarding Iraq as a great 'no-no' .. perhaps they regard Iraq as evidence that their anti-entanglement sentiment was justified ?

[Perianne]

@Perianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2722) .. quite right, too ! Sounds good to me.

Still ... there are those who also argued that America (and the UK, and others) had no right to invade Iraq, back in 2003. What if there are some in alt-right who'd take that line, and regard it as being one of those 'entanglements' they would've wanted to see avoided ?

I have long since argued that the 2003 Iraq invasion HAD to happen, that it was a legitimate part of the War on Terror, and that the policing action America committed itself to there, over years, was (and is) highly necessary. What if there are certain alt-right types who'd have drawn a line there, regarding Iraq as a great 'no-no' .. perhaps they regard Iraq as evidence that their anti-entanglement sentiment was justified ?
Drummond

I am sure there are differences of opinion among the alt-righters about Iraq. I have no idea their stance as I, too, am learning more and more about the movement. I just know that so far, I am all in.

[Drummond]

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287)

I am sure there are differences of opinion among the alt-righters about Iraq. I have no idea their stance as I, too, am learning more and more about the movement. I just know that so far, I am all in.
Perianne ...

OK, and I hope they are all you'd wish them to be.