z****z
发帖数: 2054 | 1 对了解alt-right应该有帮助.
An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right
by Allum Bokhari & Milo Yiannopoulos29 Mar 20164584
A specter is haunting the dinner parties, fundraisers and think-tanks of the
Establishment: the specter of the “alternative right.” Young, creative
and eager to commit secular heresies, they have become public enemy number
one to beltway conservatives — more hated, even, than Democrats or loopy
progressives.
The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous
movement. Some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more
than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white
supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set. They’re wrong.
Previously an obscure subculture, the alt-right burst onto the national
political scene in 2015. Although initially small in number, the alt-right
has a youthful energy and jarring, taboo-defying rhetoric that have boosted
its membership and made it impossible to ignore.
It has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both
Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press,
always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown
these young readers and voters to the wolves as well.
National Review attacked them as bitter members of the white working-class
who worship “father-Führer” Donald Trump. Betsy Woodruff of The Daily
Beast attacked Rush Limbaugh for sympathising with the “white supremacist
alt-right.” BuzzFeed begrudgingly acknowledged that the movement has a “
great feel for how the internet works,” while simultaneously accusing them
of targeting “blacks, Jews, women, Latinos and Muslims.”
The amount of column inches generated by the alt-right is a testament to
their cultural punch. But so far, no one has really been able to explain the
movement’s appeal and reach without desperate caveats and virtue-
signalling to readers.
Part of this is down to the alt-right’s addiction to provocation. The alt-
right is a movement born out of the youthful, subversive, underground edges
of the internet. 4chan and 8chan are hubs of alt-right activity. For years,
members of these forums – political and non-political – have delighted in
attention-grabbing, juvenile pranks. Long before the alt-right, 4channers
turned trolling the national media into an in-house sport.
Having once defended gamers, another group accused of harbouring the worst
dregs of human society, we feel compelled to take a closer look at the force
that’s alarming so many. Are they really just the second coming of 1980s
skinheads, or something more subtle?
We’ve spent the past month tracking down the elusive, often anonymous
members of the alt-right, and working out exactly what they stand for.
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.
The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as
Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the
paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of
Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration
for many leaders of the alt-right.
The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around
Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer
founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right
thought.
Alongside other nodes like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American
Renaissance, AlternativeRight.com became a gathering point for an eclectic
mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some
form or another. All of these websites have been accused of racism.
Razib Khan, who lost an opportunity at the New York Times over his views on
human biodiversity, now writes for the alt-right publication Unz Review.
Razib Khan, who lost an opportunity at the New York Times over his views on
human biodiversity, now writes for the alt-right Unz Review.
The so-called online “manosphere,” the nemeses of left-wing feminism,
quickly became one of the alt-right’s most distinctive constituencies. Gay
masculinist author Jack Donovan, who edited AlternativeRight’s gender
articles, was an early advocate for incorporating masculinist principles in
the alt-right. His book, The Way Of Men, contains many a wistful quote about
the loss of manliness that accompanies modern, globalized societies.
It’s tragic to think that heroic man’s great destiny is to become
economic man, that men will be reduced to craven creatures who crawl across
the globe competing for money, who spend their nights dreaming up new ways
to swindle each other. That’s the path we’re on now.
Steve Sailer, meanwhile, helped spark the “human biodiversity” movement, a
group of bloggers and researchers who strode eagerly into the minefield of
scientific race differences — in a much less measured tone than former New
York Times science editor Nicholas Wade.
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.
Elsewhere on the internet, another fearsomely intelligent group of thinkers
prepared to assault the secular religions of the establishment: the
neoreactionaries, also known as #NRx.
Neoreactionaries appeared quite by accident, growing from debates on
LessWrong.com, a community blog set up by Silicon Valley machine
intelligence researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky. The purpose of the blog was to
explore ways to apply the latest research on cognitive science to overcome
human bias, including bias in political thought and philosophy.
LessWrong urged its community members to think like machines rather than
humans. Contributors were encouraged to strip away self-censorship, concern
for one’s social standing, concern for other people’s feelings, and any
other inhibitors to rational thought. It’s not hard to see how a group of
heretical, piety-destroying thinkers emerged from this environment — nor
how their rational approach might clash with the feelings-first mentality of
much contemporary journalism and even academic writing.
Led by philosopher Nick Land and computer scientist Curtis Yarvin, this
group began a gleeful demolition of the age-old biases of western political
discourse. Liberalism, democracy and egalitarianism were all put under the
microscope of the neoreactionaries, who found them wanting.
Liberal democracy, they argued, had no better a historical track record than
monarchy, while egalitarianism flew in the face of every piece of research
on hereditary intelligence. Asking people to see each other as human beings
rather than members of a demographic in-group, meanwhile, ignored every
piece of research on tribal psychology.
While they can certainly be accused of being overly-eager to bridge the gap
between fact and value (the truth of tribal psychology doesn’t necessarily
mean we should embrace or encourage it), these were the first shoots of a
new conservative ideology — one that many were waiting for.
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.
Acclaimed 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.
The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable
from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between
peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an
English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to
alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation
is necessary for distinctiveness.
Some alt-righters make a more subtle argument. They say that when different
groups are brought together, the common culture starts to appeal to the
lowest common denominator. Instead of mosques or English houses, you get
atheism and stucco.
Ironically, it’s a position that has much in common with leftist opposition
to so-called “cultural appropriation,” a similarity openly acknowledged
by the alt-right.
It’s arguable that natural conservatives haven’t had real political
representation for decades. Since the 1980s, establishment Republicans have
obsessed over economics and foreign policy, fiercely defending the Reagan-
Thatcher economic consensus at home and neoconservative interventionism
abroad. In matters of culture and morality, the issues that natural
conservatives really care about, all territory has been ceded to the Left,
which now controls the academy, the entertainment industry and the press.
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. It’s true that Donald Trump would
not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left,
but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new
movement has emerged.
For decades, the concerns of those who cherish western culture have been
openly ridiculed and dismissed as racist. The alt-right is the inevitable
result. No matter how silly, irrational, tribal or even hateful the
Establishment may think the alt-right’s concerns are, they can’t be
ignored, because they aren’t going anywhere. As Haidt reminds us, their
politics is a reflection of their natural inclinations.
In other words, the Left can’t language-police and name-call them away,
which have for the last twenty years been the only progressive responses to
dissent, and the Right can’t snobbishly dissociate itself from them and
hope they go away either.
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.
Just as the kids of the 60s shocked their parents with promiscuity, long
hair and rock’n’roll, so too do the alt-right’s young meme brigades shock
older generations with outrageous caricatures, from the Jewish “Shlomo
Shekelburg” to “Remove Kebab,” an internet in-joke about the Bosnian
genocide. These caricatures are often spliced together with Millennial pop
culture references, from old 4chan memes like pepe the frog, to anime and My
Little Pony references.
Are they actually bigots? No more than death metal devotees in the 80s were
actually Satanists. For them, it’s simply a means to fluster their
grandparents. Currently, the Grandfather-in-Chief is Republican consultant
Rick Wilson, who attracted the attention of this group on Twitter after
attacking them as “childless single men who jerk off to anime.”
Responding in kind, they proceeded to unleash all the weapons of mass
trolling that anonymous subcultures are notorious for — and brilliant at.
From digging up the most embarrassing parts of his family’s internet
history to ordering unwanted pizzas to his house and bombarding his feed
with anime and Nazi propaganda, the alt-right’s meme team, in typically
juvenile but undeniably hysterical fashion, revealed their true motivations:
not racism, the restoration of monarchy or traditional gender roles, but
lulz.
It’s hard to know for certain, but we suspect that unlike the core of the
alt-right, these young renegades aren’t necessarily instinctive
conservatives. Indeed, their irreverence, lack of respect of social norms,
and willingness to stomp on other people’s feelings suggest they may
actually be instinctive libertarians.
Certainly that’s the case for a joyful contingent of Trump supporters who
spend hours creating memes celebrating the “God Emperor” and tormenting
his adversaries, such as Yiannopoulos ally @PizzaPartyBen, who has amassed
40,000 followers on Twitter with his raucous antics.
Were this the 1960s, the meme team would probably be the most hellraising
members of the New Left: swearing on TV, mocking Christianity, and preaching
the virtues of drugs and free love. It’s hard to imagine them reading
Evola, musing at St. Peter’s Basilica or settling down in a traditional
family unit. They may be be inclined to sympathise to those causes, but
mainly because it annoys the right people.
Young people perhaps aren’t primarily attracted to the alt-right because
they’re instinctively drawn to its ideology: they’re drawn to it because
it seems fresh, daring and funny, while the doctrines of their parents and
grandparents seem unexciting, overly-controlling and overly-serious. Of
course, there is plenty of overlap. Some true believers like to meme too.
If you’re a Buzzfeed writer or a Commentary editor reading this and
thinking… how childish, well. You only have yourself to blame for pompously
stomping on free expression and giving in to the worst and most
authoritarian instincts of the progressive left. This new outburst of
creativity and taboo-shattering is the result.
Of course, just as was the case in history, the parents and grandparents
just won’t understand, man. That’s down to the age difference. Millennials
aren’t old enough to remember the Second World War or the horrors of the
Holocaust. They are barely old enough to remember Rwanda or 9/11. Racism,
for them, is a monster under the bed, a story told by their parents to
frighten them into being good little children.
As with Father Christmas, Millennials have trouble believing it’s actually
real. They’ve never actually seen it for themselves — and they don’t
believe that the memes they post on /pol/ are actually racist. In fact, they
know they’re not — they do it because it gets a reaction. Barely a month
passes without a long feature in a new media outlet about the rampant sexism
, racism or homophobia of online image boards. For regular posters at these
boards, that’s mission accomplished.
Another, more palatable, interpretation of these memes is that they are
clearly racist, but that there is very little sincerity behind them.
The funny thing is, being Millennials, they’re often quite diverse. Just
visit a /pol/ thread, where posters’ nationalities are identified with
small flags next to their posting IDs. You’ll see flags from the west, the
Balkans, Turkey, the Middle East, South America, and even, sometimes,
Africa. Everyone on the anonymous board hurls the most vicious slurs and
stereotypes each other, but like jocks busting each other’s balls at the
college bar, it’s obvious that there’s little real hatred present.
That is, until the 1488ers show up.
Anything associated as closely with racism and bigotry as the alternative
right will inevitably attract real racists and bigots. Calmer members of the
alternative right refer darkly to these people as the “1488ers,” and for
all their talk of there being “no enemies to the right,” it’s clear from
the many conversations we’ve had with alt-righters that many would rather
the 1488ers didn’t exist.
These are the people that the alt-right’s opponents wish constituted the
entire movement. They’re less concerned with the welfare of their own tribe
than their fantasies of destroying others. 1488ers would likely denounce
this article as the product of a degenerate homosexual and an ethnic mongrel.
Why “1488”? It’s a reference to two well-known Neo Nazi slogans, the
first being the so-called 14 Words: “We Must Secure The Existence Of Our
People And A Future For White Children.” The second part of the number, 88,
is a reference to the 8th letter of the alphabet – H. Thus, “88” becomes
“HH” which becomes “Heil Hitler.”
Not very edifying stuff. But if you want to use the 1488ers to tarnish the
entire alt-right, you need to do the same with Islamist killers and Islam
and third-wave feminist wackos with the entire history and purpose of
feminism. Which you might well be fine with — but let’s be consistent.
Alt-right vlogger Paul “RamZPaul” Ramsey describes them as “LARPers” or
Live-Action Role Players: a disparaging comparison to nerdy nostalgists who
dress up as medieval warriors. Paul even goes as far as to suggest some in
this “toxic mix of kooks and ex-cons” may be there solely to discredit the
more reasonable white identitarians.
Hitler is dead. Quit larping that it is perpetually 1933 Germany. https:
//t.co/Qg6vXRZkdX
— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) December 29, 2015
1488 is primarily about:
1) LARPING
2) discrediting White identity via guilt by association https://t.co/
vuO8ZvJ1mg
— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) February 24, 2016
I have no interest in the 1488 crowd. A toxic mix of kooks and ex-cons
turned informants. LARPing the Third Reich. https://t.co/xEwPdONnlF
— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) February 24, 2016
Every ideology has them. Humourless ideologues who have no lives beyond
their political crusade, and live for the destruction of the great. They can
be found on Stormfront and other sites, not just joking about the race war,
but eagerly planning it. They are known as “Stormfags” by the rest of the
internet.
Based on our research we believe this stands in stark contrast with the rest
of the alt-right, who focus more on building communities and lifestyles
based around their values than plotting violent revolution.
1488ers are the equivalent of the Black Lives Matter supporters who call for
the deaths of policemen, or feminists who unironically want to #KillAllMen.
Of course, the difference is that while the media pretend the latter are
either non-existent, or a tiny extremist minority, they consider 1488ers to
constitute the whole of the alt-right.
Those looking for Nazis under the bed can rest assured that they do exist.
On the other hand, there’s just not very many of them, no-one really likes
them, and they’re unlikely to achieve anything significant in the alt-right.
What little remains of old-school white supremacy and the KKK in America
constitutes a tiny, irrelevant contingent with no purchase on public life
and no support even from what the media would call the “far-Right.” (
Admittedly, these days that includes anyone who votes Republican.)
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.
For decades – since the 1960s, in fact – the media and political
establishment have held a consensus over what’s acceptable and unacceptable
to discuss in polite society. The politics of identity, when it comes from
women, LGBT people, blacks and other non-white, non-straight, non-male
demographics is seen as acceptable — even when it descends into outright
hatred.
Any discussion of white identity, or white interests, is seen as a heretical
offence. It’s a fact observed as early as 2008 by Yarvin:
Ethnic pride is one thing. Hostility is another. But – as progressives
often observe – they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite
incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and
collate expressions of hostility toward human subpopulations in Western
culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-
Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse
most certainly is not.
So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, “dynamists
,” and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no
more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European
hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike
you as, um, slightly cool?
The current consensus offers, at best, mild condemnation of identity
politics on the Left, and zero tolerance for identity politics on the right.
Even for us – a gay man of Jewish descent and a mixed-ethnic half-
Pakistani – the dangers of writing on this topic loom large. Though we do
not identify with the alt-right, even writing an article about them is akin
to prancing through a minefield.
The pressure to self-censor must be almost overwhelming for straight white
men — and, for most of them, it appears to be, which explains why so much
of the alt-right operates anonymously.
While movements like third-wave feminism and Black Lives Matter often draw
criticism from conservatives and libertarians, advocacy on behalf of those
causes is not a career-ending offence. Quite the reverse. It’s possible to
build successful and lucrative careers off the back of those movements. Just
look at Al Sharpton, Anita Sarkeesian and Deray Mckesson.
In the past five years, left-wing identity politics underwent a renaissance
just as the crisis of white males – especially young white males – in the
west became obvious. As feminism entered its “fourth wave,” obsessed with
trivialities like online trolling, “sexist t-shirts” and “
microaggressions,” male suicide rates were reaching crisis levels.
As minority advocates on college campuses raised Hell about offensive
Halloween costumes and demanded safe spaces in which they could be insulated
from differing points of view, working-class white males became the least
likely group to attend university in the U.K. To politically alert
Millennials, the contrast between the truly marginalized and those merely
claiming victim status has become stark.
The Establishment bears much of the blame. Had they been serious about
defending humanism, liberalism and universalism, the rise of the alternative
right might have been arrested. All they had to do was argue for common
humanity in the face of black and feminist identity politics, for free
speech in the face of the regressive Left’s censorship sprees, and for
universal values in the face of left-wing moral relativism.
Instead, they turned a blind eye to the rise of tribal, identitarian
movements on the Left while mercilessly suppressing any hint of them on the
Right. It was this double standard, more than anything else, that gave rise
to the alternative right. It’s also responsible, at least in part, for the
rise of Donald Trump.
While the alt-right is too sophisticated to be mistaken for a mindless knee-
jerk reaction, opposition to this prevailing consensus is the glue that
holds it together. Some enjoy violating social norms for shock value, while
others take a more intellectual approach, but all oppose the pieties and
hypocrisies of the current consensus — from both Left and Right — in some
form or another.
In that, the alt-right has much in common with the cultural libertarian
movement first identified in these pages. And there are many people who
would identify with both labels.
THE MASK OF RACISM
To young people and the politically disengaged, debate in the public square
today appears topsy-turvy. The regressive Left loudly insists that it stands
for equality and racial justice while praising acts of racial violence and
forcing white people to sit at the back of the bus (or, more accurately, the
back of the campus — or in another campus altogether). It defends absurd
feminist positions with no basis in fact and ridicules and demeans people on
the basis of their skin colour, sexual orientation and gender.
Meanwhile, the alt-right openly crack jokes about the Holocaust, loudly —
albeit almost entirely satirically — expresses its horror at “race-mixing,
” and denounces the “degeneracy” of homosexuals… while inviting Jewish
gays and mixed-race Breitbart reporters to their secret dinner parties. What
gives?
If you’re this far down the article, you’ll know some of the answers
already. For the meme brigade, it’s just about having fun. They have no
real problem with race-mixing, homosexuality, or even diverse societies: it
’s just fun to watch the mayhem and outrage that erupts when those secular
shibboleths are openly mocked. These younger mischief-makers instinctively
understand who the authoritarians are and why and how to poke fun at them.
The intellectuals are animated by a similar thrill: after being taken for
granted for centuries, they’re the ones who get to pick apart some of the
Enlightenment’s dead dogmas. The 1488ers just hate everyone; fortunately
they keep mostly to themselves.
The really interesting members of the alt-right though, and the most
numerous, are the natural conservatives. They are perhaps psychologically
inclined to be unsettled by threats to western culture from mass immigration
and maybe by non-straight relationships. Yet, unlike the 1488ers, the
presence of such doesn’t send them into fits of rage. They want to build
their homogeneous communities, sure — but they don’t want to commit any
pogroms along the way. Indeed, they would prefer non-violent solutions.
They’re also aware that there are millions of people who don’t share their
inclinations. These are the instinctive liberals, the second half of Haidt
’s psychological map of western polities — the people who are comfortable
with diversity, promiscuity, homosexuality, and all other features of the
cultural consensus.
Natural conservatives know that a zero-sum battle with this group would end
in stalemate or defeat. Their goal is a new consensus, where liberals
compromise or at least allow conservative areas of their countries to reject
the status quo on race, immigration and gender. Others, especially
neoreactionaries, seek exit: a peaceful separation from liberal cultures.
Should the liberal tribe (and let’s not deny it any longer – that’s both
the Democratic and GOP Establishments these days) do business with them?
Well, the risk otherwise is that the 1488ers start persuading people that
their solution to natural conservatives’ problems is the only viable one.
The bulk of their demands, after all, are not so audacious: they want their
own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own
values.
In short, they want what every people fighting for self-determination in
history have ever wanted, and what progressives are always telling us people
should be allowed — unless those people are white. This hypocrisy is what
has led so many Trump voters — groups who have in many cases not voted
since the 1970s or 80s — to come out of the woodwork and stand up for their
values and culture.
The Establishment need to read their Haidt and realise that this group isn’
t going away. There will be no “progress” that erases the natural
affinities of conservatives. We can no longer pretend that divides over free
trade and the minutiae of healthcare reform really represent both sides of
the political spectrum in America. The alt-right is here, and here to stay.
| z****z
发帖数: 2054 | 2 个人认为里面关于移民的说法实际上还是很客观的.
the
amorphous
【在 z****z 的大作中提到】
: 对了解alt-right应该有帮助.
: An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right
: by Allum Bokhari & Milo Yiannopoulos29 Mar 20164584
: A specter is haunting the dinner parties, fundraisers and think-tanks of the
: Establishment: the specter of the “alternative right.” Young, creative
: and eager to commit secular heresies, they have become public enemy number
: one to beltway conservatives — more hated, even, than Democrats or loopy
: progressives.
: The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous
: movement. Some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more
|
|
