*The New Right: A Journey to the Fringe of American Politics*

That is the new book by Michael Malice, and I have to say it will go down as one of the more important albeit objectionable books of this year.  Imagine an well-informed anthropological treatment of Gamergate, PUA, Ann Coulter, Mike Cernovich, Milo, and all the rest of “that stuff,” both its history and how it fits together.

Just to be clear, this book is not written from the perspective of a journalist trying to make these movements look weird, rather it is written from the perspective of an anarchist trying to make these movements look (relatively) normal.  You might find that approach is not affiliated with the proper mood.  I don’t get the sense that Malice is “one of them,” but his “objectivity” might not be the right kind of objectivity.  I’m not going to try to resolve that meta-issue here, I’ll just say that a “normalizing” treatment of “the New Right” has some descriptive virtues, and you might end up more scared and more concerned than if you read a journalistic expose.  That said, I am not sure the author really grasps the non-niceness of so much of this stuff, or the import of that non-niceness.

Every page of this book is interesting, and so I am going to recommend it.  Here is a Kirkus Review, otherwise MSM doesn’t seem to be touching this one at all.  Here is the Amazon link, 79 reviews and an average of five stars.  The reviews themselves are not entirely reassuring.

I thank an MR reader for the pointer.

Comments

There's a tendency for people to imagine that something's a trend or a movement just because it has a name. Often it's more like a bunch of cats unwillingly ensnarled by a lasso with a label on it.
It's fitting that an anarchist wrote this; anti-state thought is really the only common thread for the subjects he's covering here, and he himself would find some comfort in creating a kind of survey course of the different flavors that anti-statism can come in. They are, however, not flavors that will ever be as popular as the plain vanilla of the Overton Window.

Seen elsewhere, "Alt-Right = Trump voters."

You are too dismissive.

Think in terms of, "an unremitting hatred of evangelical progressivism and the so-called 'Cathedral' from whence it pours forth." Then, dismiss it if you will.

In other news, liberals sue to force doctors to violate their religious beliefs on transgenderism. Find another doctor, Sheila.

This exactly. Gamergate, PUA, Ann Coulter, Mike Cernovich, Milo, and all the rest of “that stuff,” are no more a part of "the Right" than "safe spaces, trigger warnings and cultural appropriation" is part of "the Left" Its 99% nonsense that the media is pushing on us.

Intelligent people aught to be rejecting the narrative wholesale, not treating it as if it were fact.

...”than "safe spaces, trigger warnings and cultural appropriation" is part of "the Left"...

But these are exactly parts of the bricolage that is at the very least the academic left. Maybe not the labor movement left circa 1960, but yeah the academic left.

He offered you a way to distance your side from the crazy fringe, but you wouldn't accept. So if you really think the crazy left is 'the Left' then you have to think the crazy right is 'the Right'

Although to be fair, the terms do shift over time.

"if you really think the crazy left is 'the Left' then you have to think the crazy right is 'the Right'"

good point, the terms 'left' and 'right' are just about as made up as these non-issues.

If Milo, Ann Coulter, GamerGate, and Cernovich are "crazy right," and the equivalent to it is the far-left - those who believe in victimhood of certain groups to the point that they support and push policies that are equivalent to supremacists, push explicitly anti-white and anti-male crap, support mass migration (aka, figuratively raping the country & its people) - then that's a non-choice.

That's ignoring that Cernovich isn't really right wing, and Milo is mostly an entertainer, not a leader. GamerGate (itself not a right-wing thing) was good - w/ far-left journos and others shielding themselves by invoking -isms and demonizing it in process - and Ann Coulter is excellent.

Also, if he actually believes that it's "muh media" pushing it and that it doesn't have influence on its own, then he's nuts. Companies don't go out of their way to support anti-white, anti-male discrimination solely because of media, neither does Hollywood, its agencies, or fuckin' hell, soccer leagues in fuckin' England.

Twitter has "hate speech" rules - a far-left concept (May I suggest "A case against postmodern censorship theory"?) concept, Canadian law... something something society recently pushed through a rule that lawyers *have to* personally value "muh diversity" and equality, yada yada. Some companies in UK are doing the same - and so are some universities in US.

No matter how much one tries to compare cultural marxist far-left & and "muh crazy right," they will never be able to even bring it close, given actual "crazy right" (sorry sweaty, Ann Coulter and Milo don't really count), don't have any comparative influence or power to far-left.

That's, to add, "crazy right" doesn't have and comparatively subversive ideology, nor are they trying to teach kids about any of it.

If one teacher was teaching kids about why America should remain a white-majority country, most of libs & lefties would be losing their minds. Meanwhile, they are perfectly happy to teach kids about far-left conspiracy theories, and concepts - like "white privilege" - which aren't just anti-white, but are based on muh "white supremacy" existing society-wide, where whites are oppressing every non-white person.

So let's not even.

I know tons of liberals and not one of them has ever so much as mentioned an interest in these topics. Maybe my peer group is different than the US at large, but absent a bunch of hyperventilating articles in the usual click-bait infotainment sites, i see no real world proof that any of these things are something many people care about.

Sure, I know a ton of progressives and they've never heard of a Bias Response Team. But universities have those now.

Universities.

Not 3 guys named cooter, two of whom are FBI agents.

Universities have long been on the cutting edge of dip shittery and unreality. The fact that none of the progressives you know have heard of BRTs should tell you something.

I'm a progressive and I've never heard of it. I don't have a problem if people push back on some of these things happening in universities. There's only so much you can keep up with and my bread and butter issues are housing, and healthcare.

"Malice, who is also Jewish, doesn’t miss a beat when told by one after another that in the ideal new right state, he would not be allowed citizenship."
He comes off very naive for a guy 42 years of age and born in the USSR.

Nonsense. Conservatives love Jews and Israel too.

Just another smear.

EdR, you don't seem familiar with the alt-right. Most conservatives do not think they are conservatives in the slightest. They are nihilists whose binding ideology is to troll everyone. There are some who hold deeper views which are very much racist, antisemitic, and illiberal.

I am very familiar with conservatism, both the ivory tower version and the plain old fashioned conservatives that just value traditional norms and institutions. There is nothing scary about it. I gave met thousands of conservatives - I am not one - over my lifetime and the number of racist comments I have heard I could count on one hand.

The left basically creates an ugly archetype of a conservative in their own mind and then tries fit anyone who opposes their policies into that archetype. It is a very human thing to do, but it is invalid.

Soooooo Trump, the KKK, Charlottesville nazis, Bolsonaro, Orban, Farage, Le Pen, Wilders... they're either leftists in your eyes or not racist and terrible scum?

Or you're one of them and just posted a bunch of troll nonsense.

Orrrrrrrrr, in a world of 7 billion people, you listed 2 - TWO - legitimately racist things, in the KKK and the Charlottesville nazis, and then you smeared a bunch of people with politics you don't like as racist, and tried holding that up as some sort of evidence to your argument.

No, reading this page for the first time, that's not what I see.

Someone correctly says the alt-right has racists within it.

Someone else says, oh you are calling the whole right racist now.

Are you confused, or just deflecting?

I can correctly say that the mainstream left has child molesters in it. So there! 20-30 Charlottesville nazis showed up. Are you unable to keep things in perspective, or are you just trying to fool the rubes?

Trump was the first American president not to be full and clear in his denunciation of the hundreds of racists at Charlottesville.

“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

- Donald Trump

That’s a fake quote from hours after the fact.

MSNBC and John Oliver had a great take on this. It’s not enough to denounce it. He equivocated. The correct response, the moral response, was to say that anyone protesting the destruction of Statues is a white supremacist and will be unpersoned.

I guess I do have to say "impostor!"

Something I hate doing.

That is the imposter.

Trump said there were good people on both sides. One side was Nazis. Draw your own conclusions.

He didn’t denounce the rally until hours after.

Same press conference as "both sides:" comment.

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Right, in context the both sides comment was one of the only admirable things about this stupid presidency. Everyone is nuts.

The party hurtling to anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism is the Democrat party.

In NYC, alt-right black youths are making a sport of assaulting Jews.

There is no moral difference between Zionism and Nazism. Bothpreach racial supremacy.

It's all in the Bible.

Imagine thinking you actually made a decent points.

Look past Trump's rhetoric, and he's basically a centrist - not to mention, a fuckin' former democrat. He is in no way, shape, or form comparative to neo-con & neo-libs, who've figuratively raped foreign countries and killed millions of people.

Similarly, he's not comparative to democrats and some conservatives that support mass migration for cheap labor and power, and thus, figuratively raping their own country.

Thirdly, he's not comparative to Democrats who support abortion - and who've supported taking more human lives than Holocaust has.

Fourthly, he doesn't support society-wide discrimination - affirmative action, diversity policies - that was Obama & democrats. He doesn't support "reparations," that's two democrat presidential candidates who think blacks - who've benefited trillions of dollars at the backs of whites, and to extent asians - deserve even more money.

- KKK is basically non-existent.

- Charlottesville is one person; are you seriously using it as an example, or are you just taking a piss?

- Bolsonaro is somewhat of a neo-con, although fairly decent. Again, rhetoric =/= policies.

- Orban isn't great but he definitely supports his country remaining Hungarian, and not becoming a third world hellhole. I'm sorry, but if you object to that, you're the extremist.

- Farage isn't really right-wing bro, he's just anti-EU lmao. He kicked out more than few members for saying slightly controversial or mean things. Are you far-left? Seriously, if you equate him to some of the others... such a joke lmao.

- Le Pen is decent. What's the issue? She doesn't support becoming a minority in her own country? Le horror.

- Wilders, likewise. He's pretty good.

In other words, you listed a bunch of decent people/politicians who are standing up for their own countries. Imagine being bothered by that. If anything, you should be praising them. If it wasn't for people like them, you wouldn't be able to be so delusional.

The left definitely does this, but the right makes it SO EASY.
If you don't want to be associated with Nazis, don't associate with Nazis.

How exactly would you do that? Daily denunciations of the alt-right? That would only achieve the exact opposite

Well, not exactly daily, but yes, make it clear to them that they aren't welcome. Denounce them in no uncertain terms. (i.e. not like Trump's "good people on both sides" comment). Moderate websites and delete racist comments.

Maybe you could start off by reading the entire Trump quote.

You know, where he explicitly says "not the Neo-nazis."

That part.

It sure seems like you *enjoy* your ignorance, though.

There was a week of vacillating messages, and not just one press conference.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/politics/donald-trump-charlottesville-lines/index.html

(There are two or more "Anonymous" on this page now, so I guess take each one as whatever.)

pick a less anonymous name

Why, does that come with a password lock?

less confusion for you and your readers.

I think it's more confusing when I do have an semi-unique name, and then the imprimatur is stolen. What does it do to your expectations of who "I" am? No one is here to shout "impostor!" all the time.

No, it's better to just be some form of "anonymous" and let people sort it out on their own.

BTW, if Tyler has a comp sci major he can assign or cajole to this, he doesn't have to use passwords, just a 1:1 email to name binding. Use a live email to register, confirm by clicking an email, you're in. Totally open to everyone, no limits other than uniqueness. When you put in "email and name" and they don't match you're redirected. Since the email address is secret, no one can shoulder hop.

But maybe Tyler is down on all of us, and doesn't want us to have that kind of consistent voice.

"No, it's better to just be some form of "anonymous" and let people sort it out on their own."
+1 sorta like when they make violin pickers audition behind a curtain
it removes the identity politics from the equation&
makes people more objective

By the way, I'm certainly aware of the irony of you trying to tell us this with a constantly rotating "user name."

I am sorry Hazel, I don't even consider myself on the right, rather centrist, but I will associate with Nazis remorselessly when their adversaries are worse. In Charlotteville's you had demonstrators among which some
where stupid people playing nazis, against another crowd of stupid people playing civil servants of the Ministry of Truth of 1984, trying to destroy monuments (that is, literally, "reminders") to erase the history, in this case the strong involvement of their party (the Democratic Party) in support of slavery and racial segregation. As Orwell explains, Ingsoc is worse than the Spanish inquisition, worse that Stalinism, even worse than Nazism. So in this Charlotteville's affair, I'd rather choose the camp containing the neo-nazis than the other side.

Republicanism circa 2019 in one phrase:

“I will associate with Nazis remorselessly”. Trump 2020 campaign slogan?

No, you are not remotely centrist.

What do you know? Maybe "centrist" is not the right word, maybe I should have said "bipartisan (in US politics)". On this very comment section I have defended Obama and Trump, Sanders and W. Bush (but not his father),
Krugman and Friedman, abortion rights and free trade, universal single-payer health care and the lunar society describes in "the moon is a harsh mistress" (and the unforgettable character of Hazel Meade). Now if you want to classify me in one of your little boxes, do as you please.

Liberals are literally worse than Nazis!!!

If comparing people to Nazis is to be verboten, what shall we say of comparing people unfavorably to Nazis?

I never said that comparing people to Nazis was to be forbidden. I have been here and everywhere a defender of free speech.

Now I am not convinced that the bunch of less than half-brained people who call themselves Nazis are an imminent and real danger for America.
I, like Malice, "wouldn't miss a beat [if] told by one after another that in the ideal new right state, [I] would not be allowed citizenship." What has America become, if been afraid by those clowns is the expected reaction?
When there were real, powerful, monstrous Nazis out there, your grand-parents (and mine) fought them with courage and crushed them. We'll do that again if needed.

Now, denying that there could be things worse than Nazism is a lack of imagination or of abstract thinking. Ingsoc, the society described by Orwell in 1984, is (literally, indeed) worse than Nazism (you have the right to disagree, and if you do I would be happy to know why). Again, on the Charlottesville's rally, there were clowns playing Nazis on one side, and clowns playing Ingsoc on the other. As for there aim, it follows from what I have said above that the second is worse (and I'd like to see my argument criticized, if you can, and not only its logical conclusion).

There are another aspect to consider, however, which is how close are those two sides to really change America in the direction of their will.
I think that actually both sides are very far, but again, the second-side (the pro-Ingsoc crowd) is somewhat closer to their aim than the neo-nazis, so more worrisome. May be this opinion is influenced by my being a scholar working in Academia. But here is what I see, since a few years: statues and commemorative plaques are removed, names of buildings and programs are changed, professors (of all level) are discouraged or outright forbidden to teach controversial courses, free speech and academic freedom restricted by (very real) fear of loosing one's job. All of this strongly restrict the ability of people (young people especially) to learn History by themselves, and force them to believe what they are told by an ideologically one-sided group of professors and activists.

I should add, to the risk of appearing to be a paranoiac, that I am frightened by the fact that the universities in the country have removed tens (hundreds?) of millions of book from their public-access libraries, to put them "off-campus", that is to say, no one knows where. This is discouraging reading because you have to wait to get a book (they say 24 hours, but in practice in my university it is more than a week); because you cannot wander in the library anymore and see, near the book your teacher has recommended to you, dozens of other books on the same subject but from different perspectives and written at different times and browse them. In fact, with the electronic catalogue, you can only find what you were explicitly looking for, you have practically no chance to find an interesting book by chance. What makes things worse is that the catalogues are far from being perfect. (For some reason I don't know, and that the librarians can't or wouldn't explain either, very important books in mathematics like Bourbaki's "elements of mathematics" or Grothendieck's works are not on the catalogue of my university and thus completely inaccessible; though my library had them, as I know well since I used to borrow them regularly when they were on campus.) Now I am not saying that this is the conscious making of Ingsoc partisans, but it is worrisome, because do you sincerely believe that it is impossible, or even implausible, that some university libraries, under the pressure of Ingsoc activists, remove from their catalogue many books that are considered controversial or otherwise "inappropriate"?

"Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past control the future."

"Now I am not convinced that the bunch of less than half-brained people who call themselves Nazis are an imminent and real danger for America."

Because you aren't the ones in synagogues, mosques, or black churches getting shot at. Lucky you. You seem like a rational person but please don't dismiss the concerns of others offhand. White terrorism in the US has surpassed Islamic terrorism under Trump. One step forward, one step back.

Oh, I go sometimes to synagogues. But point taken.

"Under Trump."

Hmm.

See, bud, neither Islamic terrorism nor white terrorism are an actual issue. You want to know why?

Whites right-wing terrorists have killed about... ~107 people since 2002.

Islamic terrorists have killed about ~110/112 people, I forgot the exact number.

In Chicago alone, there's more murders in a few months. The former is US as a whole; Chicago has few million people.

Secondly, for whites to commit terrorism at the rate of Islamic terrorists - remember, whites are 60-76% of US population, and muslims <1% - they'd need to kill 6000-7600+ people in the same time period. That's discounting 2001.

Terrorism itself has greatly decreased in past decades.

Like the left does with Marxist revolutionary groups?

No. Be better than the left on this subject.

Marxist revolutionaries today commit less terrorism in the USA than either white or muslim terrorists. Racist whites are leading the pack of knuckle draggers here.

The word Fascism [Nazi/racist] has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'

When everybody that disagrees with your counterproductive progressive nightmare is a Nazi, nobody is a Nazi.

Except we both know that's bullshit and you're trying to redefine the terms to defend actual fascism.

isn't he actually the same Blair fella
that got shot through the neck by fascists
while fighting fascists in spain

I'm not a progressive and I'm reserving the word "Nazi" for a group limited to actual Nazis, white nationalists, and white supremacists.

so Nazis plus some non-Nazis.

Plus some people who are just as bad as Nazis and it takes longer to spell.

try looking at it from a less reductive angle
if hitler and a harvard graduate both believe that
borders are morally arbitrary
it doesn't mean that the harvard graduate is a nasty nazi!

The beauty of what you're saying is that by saying it, you're revealing your own shortcomings that no amount of socialism ever could make you equal to an average person.

Firstly, lmao, guilt of association is a fallacy.

Secondly, guilt of association as an ad-hominem is a thing. But then again, those things only mean something if you believe in reason.

Thirdly, according to lefties, Ben Shapiro & Jordan Peterson are nazis; christina hoff sommers a white supremacist & fascist; and so forth.

The issue is, by constantly invoking social constructs that carry stigma, so you can attack and smear people, you've rendered the words useless, or best case, extremely suspect. But what can you expect from an average leftist? While the ideology/es are certainly somewhat brilliant - being cultural marxism, after all - most of those subscribing to those beliefs... aren't. There are some, leaders and abusers, who are quite aware of the power of it and use it for their own goals, but majority are nowhere close.

See, words get meaning from their use, not from some magical dictionary - dictionaries merely record the words as they are commonly used and their meanings. And leftists have successfully re-defined "nazis" to mean "people who I don't like/oppose ideology, but won't bend the knee."

As an ancestor of victims of nazis - a slav - good job. It's certainly entertaining.

As someone recently said... if most people who fought ww2 against nazis were alive today, they'd be called nazis.

The alt-right's ideology is more or less America's ideology from 1776-1965, which worked out pretty well, until leftists transformed the country into a macrocosm of JFK airport.

'The alt-right's ideology is more or less America's ideology from 1776-1965'

No it isn't.

Pillars of the alt-right:
#1 by far is keeping America a majority white country by ending mass immigration and enacting mass deportations. America was 80-90% white for almost 200 years until the social changes of the 60s and their attendant laws changed that. The 1924 Immigration Act formalized this into law, and the 1965 Immigration Act was the beginning of the end. Because this is 2019 and people can't think clearly, I'll state the obvious: multi-ethnic states don't have a great track record historically.

#2 is grappling with and repairing the damage feminism and the pill have inflicted on the sexual marketplace and family formation. Women are hypergamous by nature, and when their economic status is raised above that of men, large swathes of the male population become unattractive to them. Many men respond by dropping out of the labor force (unemployed incels) or pursuing non-careerist avenues to romantic success (PUAs).

#3 is spreading awareness of human biodiversity and enacting policies that recognize it, rather than try to paper over it with platitudes about how racism from the 1950s is holding back certain groups today.

There are more, but those are the big three. I would argue that those points were de facto recognized en masse by America's leaders and populace until the 1960s.

"Women are hypergamous by nature, and when their economic status is raised above that of men, large swathes of the male population become unattractive to them."

Hahahaha. "If only they hadn't a choice, they would take me." I guess it is a great ideology for a horny man-child.

I think it's entirely reasonable to point out, under a completely free market, female hypergamy means approx. 30% of men won't be getting any. We're not as bad as pea hens, but we are designed such that a good proportion of males in each generation are superfluous. This proportion rises with greater female economic and physical security.

Deal with the social consequences of biological fact as you see fit.

So, let us try to parse this - 'I think it's entirely reasonable to point out, under a completely free market' that 30% of the men will be paying to get any.

Somehow, I don't think that was the intention, even if it were completely accurate to point out that markets involve transactions.

Of is that 30% somehow expecting to get something for nothing within a free sexual market?

We haven't legalized polygamy yet, so even if most women are nothing but opportunistic gold-diggers there's still a very limited amount of gold to dig. Women who are not A-listers themselves will have to settle for men who not A-listers.

'by far is keeping America a majority white country by ending mass immigration'

Well, the definition of white has been remarkably flexible since Founding Father Benjamin Franklin was writing about how swarthy Swedes, Italians, and Germans (with a few exceptions) were not white enough to immigrate to the U.S. This particularly applied to the threat of Germans, who would soon Germanize America unless measures were taken to keep them out.

'multi-ethnic states don't have a great track record historically'

Well, odd how the U.S. is proof how utterly false that belief is. And hard as it might be to imagine, the UK is also a multi-ethnic state, at least in the eyes of those consider themselves English, Irish, Welsh, or Scottish first.

And that the U.S. was doomed to failure would come as a real surprise to Americans in the 1890s, who were astounded at how multi-ethnic America had become, filling up with Poles, Irish, Italians, Germans, Norwegians.

'inflicted on the sexual marketplace'

Um, Americans between 1776-1965 did not believe in a 'sexual marketplace.'

'about how racism from the 1950s is holding back certain groups today'

Strange how an American from 1850 would have considered it obvious that a group defined as property due to their skin color was 'being held back.'

'There are more'

Please do share - your first three were hilarious, no reason not to continue.

Women are hypergamous by nature, and when their economic status is raised above that of men, large swathes of the male population become unattractive to them.

Then why is it that the most patriarchal societies (i.e. Saudi Arabia), are the ones where polygamy is the MOST common?
Women practice hypergamy when their only way of rising is through marriage - when they can't work or own their own property. Being the third wife is not a great time, as you get bossed around by the other wives and your kids don't get much of an inheritance anyway - it gets split up among many children with the lions share going to the children of the first wife.

When women become financially independent, they often choose to stay single rather than marry down. But they do not chase rich men.

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of hypergamy. Your second-to-last sentence is full agreement with the comment you are responding to. Your last sentence is false. Polygamy is illegal in the U.S. so pretty irrelevant.

I did. The definition of "hypergamy" is " the action of marrying a person of a superior caste or class."

The -gamy in "hypergamy" etc. means "marriage" so in a monogamous nation most women will either have to settle for men more or less in their case social class or remain single (or maybe have a lesbian relationship if they're so minded)

Is it? I don't remember the Founding Fathers getting too upset about their video game reviews. You can make a stronger case that America's ruling ideology from 1776 to today is social justice. Look at all those freed slaves, expanded suffrage, better conditions for labor, civil rights, progressive taxation, massive immigration, feminism, freedom of religion, etc.

Social justice is certain skin colors (and other unalterable attributes) being discriminated against as undesirable, so yeah 1776-1965 sounds about right.

Not true. Here's a speech given by a progressive Republican named Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 on the topic of "Social and Industrial Justice". Notice that the term is used to mean more than just unalterable individual traits but also social conditions (here, labor and legal system) which are much more alterable:

"Our purpose is not to impugn the courts, but to emancipate them from a position where they stand in the way of social justice; and to emancipate the people, in an orderly way, from the iniquity of enforced submission to a doctrine which would turn constitutional provisions which were intended to favor social justice and advancement into prohibitions against such justice and advancement."

https://www.loc.gov/collections/theodore-roosevelt-films/articles-and-essays/sound-recordings-of-theodore-roosevelts-voice/#SIJ

To 1965?

I think the most interesting idea is that WWII forced Americans into common cause against racially supremacist fascism.

We fought "master races!"

It's only now, as that generation dies out that movements within the right, and not the whole right, flirt with the master race idea again.

Oh sure, nobody goes to actual Nazi rallies, but

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King

Is the master race Asians?

No, right? In 1940 it was specifically Japanese, meaning not Chinese or Korean.

Racism always has a meaning specific to the racist.

To further elucidate: opposing the abolishment of the Specialized High School Admissions Test is racism.

California Proposition 209, prohibiting race as a factor in admissions to the UC system, is racism.

All of these are examples of white supremacy in action.

Nonsense. Conservatives love Jews and Israel too.

The conventional starboard is congenial to Jews. The alt-right is a collecting pool of people both obsessed and hostile. See the Unz comboxes.

Nonsense. Conservatives love Jews and Israel too.

As them if Jews go to heaven. A nice dividing line for the kind of conservative you are dealing with.

A nice dividing line for the kind of conservative you are dealing with.

'Conservative' describes a political persuasion, not a theological one. This isn't that difficult.

Of course there is a huge and important religious-political binding in America.

https://stjudasmaccabaeus.wordpress.com/category/rabbi-joshua-ben-joseph/

You can love Jews and not think they go to heaven. You can love your mother and not think she is going to heaven. You can love yourself and not think you are going to heaven.

The Alt-Right wishes America was governed like Israel.

The more congenial members of the alt-right wish America was governed like Israel. The less congenial are in the business of flashing their middle fingers at blacks and Jews and fussing and fuming over the number of Yids employed as bond traders and studio executives.

And then they swivel their Hula-Hoops and dash off on their scooters while flipping everyone the bird!

you and the kirkus review sed
""Malice, who is also Jewish, doesn’t miss a beat when told by one after another that in the ideal new right state, he would not be allowed citizenship."

mebbe the reason he didn't "miss a beat" is because is it not an accurate statement
it is postmodern bullshit

In what sense are Gamergate and PUA even part of politics, the activities and policies of government, let alone part of right-wing politics? Is there a Gamergate or PUA caucus in Congress? What do GamerBros generally think about NAFTA? Are PUAs pro-union or anti-union?

Is Sex in the City left-wing fringe politics because the show features single women living in an East Coast city?

Gamergate was a thing for a large group of teenagers on 2014. They are relevant just because those teens from 5 years ago are the voters from today.

You describe above the leadership of right-wing politics. However, passive (taker) people is also needed to make things work. They are not supposed to think about free trade with Canada or Mexico. They just need to be emotive at rallies, give one of their kids to appear on a photo with the leader and vote, no more.

Lots of things were relevant to teenagers 5 years ago. Any proof that this one was and is still relevant or are you just pushing a narrative that suits your needs?

Hi, mouse!

Not me. You gotta wonder about the sanity of someone who tries to impersonate a fake identity.

Yeah, I don't appreciate that annoying Brazilian who pretends to be me.

Yes Thomas and his sidekick and alter ego This go.

At least you are funny - and that's gotta be worth some money.

I meant to write "Thiago" and not "this go".

Here mousey mousey!

I had to Google both gamergate and PUA. Who cares about the gamer world - the whole industry and the activity is a waste of time. As for PUA, if they aren't a spoof they are a bunch of clowns. The whole premise is rediculous.

None of this has anything to do with conservatism, a perfectly reasonable force to preserve traditional norms and institutions and a counter balance to the push from the left to change those norms and institutions. Both the left and right make valuable contributions to the whole.

The left has captured academia, the media, Hollywood, the entertainment industry in general, and the deep state, especially at the local level via government employee unions. Their excesses have triggered a predictable backlash.

Big deal.

Calm down.

The gaming industry is bigger than Hollywood's movie business. Gaming is new - and it's resistance to SJW thugs, however imperfect, is a blueprint for stopping them elsewhere.

I'm as old as the Atari 2600, so I don't think gaming is new.

Gaming is quite important for teenagers because it accompanies them along the transition to adulthood. When you're 12-15 YO, all you desire is to do grown-up stuff. When you're that young beer tastes bad and smoking is unbearable. However, first person shooters are fun and marketed as "for adults". That's why games are so important to gamers, they help to define their identities.....look I don't play Mario or Kirby anymore, I'm an adult, I play video games with gore in poorly lit fictional environments =)

The gaming industry is not fighting SJWs. They're after profits as any other self-respecting business. They want the largest customer base possible, not only hardcore fans.

The funny thing is that the young guys who are angry at SJWs thugs today, are the ones who will buy sanitized and politically correct Nintendos 5 years down the road for their kids.

'is a blueprint for stopping them elsewhere'

Well, the Sad and Rabid puppies were stopped - the template mainly seems to involve being aware of a certain bad faith element, and dealing with it openly.

Oh wait, you probably meant that a minority of whiners should be able to triumph over their enemy du jour, even while the gaming industry is actually interested in profit first and foremost?

The first sentence in your reply reveals all: go to bed old man, you know nothing about today’s culture OR politics.

You are clueless about the world today. How is PUA ridiculous or fake? I personally don't like it but what about young men wanting to get laid and swapping tips on the internet is so unbelievable to you? Your grip on reality is tenuous.

PUA is not fake, but it is certainly ridiculous. The whole premise is that instead of improving yourself, making you look more valuable to a potential mate, you just degrade your potential mate until you think she's on your level.

Stop with the "deepstate" nonsense. If there actually is a "deepstate" it is certainly not working for one party or the other, but in using both the parties to keep the status quo for the very rich.

”The worst tyrant is better than anarchy”、so it has been said to have been said in the Arab world, historically. In other words, one big tyrant is better than many smaller tyrants or a world full of people and small gangs who can do anything they want and can get away with.

Yeah, that's a load of bullshit. Even complete destruction of all life is better than living under tyranny.

The biggest psychological failure of authoritarians is that they consider violence acceptable if, and only if, it is official and centrally commanded. I think, if we're going to embrace the violence needed to sustain tyrannies, we might as well use it for the destruction of those tyrannies, and everything they value.

Better Dead than Red.

Not me again

You are a sicko. Get some help quick.

Is "Michael Malice" a real name?

Perhaps it's like Max Boot.

Wikipedia says it's some kind of punk thing, like Sid Vicious. Michael Krechmer.

Thanks.

Max Boot, by the way, which sounds like Homer Simpson read Waugh's "Scoop" and then came up with a name for a journalist, is a real name.

The New Right is an extension of the old dispute between Sohrab Ahmari and David French as to the proper method for addressing the differences between religious persons (in particular evangelical Christians) and secularists/progressives. Ahmari blamed secularists/progressives for an approach to the culture war that is intended to discredit their opponents, while French had a more civil view. Or as Stanley Fish put it: "The religious person should not seek an accommodation with liberalism; he should seek to rout it from the field, to extirpate it, root and branch."

What does the New Right have to do with the differences between religious persons and liberalism? Today, politics/ideology is the new religion, with the New Right on one side and liberalism on the other. In his book, Malice writes of "evangelical progressivism", much like Ahmari once wrote about secularists/progressives. What he has done is conflate the intolerance of both persons of religion and liberalism into one adversary, for which the only response can be that of Stanley Fish: "The New Right should not seek an accommodation with liberalism; the New Right should seek to rout it from the field, to extirpate it, root and branch."

In other news, the fundamentalists still hate college.

https://nypost.com/2019/05/31/pc-insanity-may-mean-the-end-of-american-universities/

from wickedpedia
"Michael Krechmer, better known as Michael Malice, is a New York City-based author, columnist, and media personality"

heard him on the radio for about an hour
sounded like just another not so original
pundit trying to sell a book

Did you attend the Charlottesville rally, and were explicitly told that your race was problematic? If anyone is in a position to quantify how "non-nice" this stuff is, it's probably Michael.

don't go to rallies
most rallies pretty dumb

It's an interesting book to read. For readers who can't read an entire page at once, this is one where I would recommend the audio book instead. When quoting various new right personalities Malice does imitations. It's quite entertaining and adds a lot to the experience.

Note that the book is about the New Right, not simply the Alt Right. He includes in the New Right any of the groups right of center that are not traditional GOP conservatives, where the only thing they may have in common with each other is their opposition to progressivism.

As such, if you're looking for a thorough categorization and systematization of these groups, you won't get it his book, which might be unsatisfying for some readers.

After reading, it helps to listen to several of the podcast interviews about the book that Malice has participated it. Some of the better hosts ask some of the same questions that you'll have after reading.

Skip the Rogan interview if you want any substance and don't have time to waste. Rogan can be entertaining, but as an interviewer he's the opposite of Russ Roberts.

Sure, Democrats might be replacing the population with Mexican peasants to ensure California-style one party rule, and Angela Merkel may have unilaterally ripped up EU-immigration policy and permanently altered European demographics, but what really matters is that critics be _nice_ about it all.

I think this fits the style guide.

Sure, the left may have closed the overton window so effectively that mainstream immigration policy in all non-white countries, (and white countries from 20 years ago) can no longer be spoken in polite company, but just be nice about it and maybe they'll slow things down a little?

Yeah, the "non-nice" framing was an open invitation for trolls like you to create strawman arguments. Not very politically savvy.

Some people view screeching racist at the top of their lungs as some major moral/intellectual feat

And some people try to argue "there is no racism," because "only the left even complains about it."

Ponder that.

I’ll give you a hint:

Racist: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tEwnMTaXTys
Not racist: Tibetans complaining about the Han influx

The first is clearly racist, the second probably is as well.

The highest form of government is market democracy, and in the highest form does not differentiate by race, color, or creed.

Anybody who wants to differentiate is just dragging us down.

The highest form of government is market democracy, and in the highest form does not differentiate by race, color, or creed.

If the market can sort all this, then the shelves of civil rights laws, court rulings, and regulations all need to be repealed as uneconomic. It will never happen because even liberals will pay higher prices to have white neighbors.

A "market democracy" is forever searching for a balance between the two. It is and must be an unending question.

All the OECD countries (to name a bundle) search for the efficient frontier.

In a market democracy, you get to vote with your feet and your dollars for your individual preferences. When that starts happening, then economists magically transform from gimlet-eyed realists to Kantian idealists.

"Housing" in particular is one of those areas that economists' wives understand better than economists do.

What is "market democracy"? By the way, the market rationally discriminates based on all information-bearing attributes, including race and creed. Anyone who doesn't is dragging us down. That's why we get cries of unsolvable "systemic racism" instead of charter schools and body cams.

I guess democratic capitalism is the more conventional way to say it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism

Which is what the Democrat 2020 candidates support, by the way. But with the addition of the forced transfer of company shares to the employees, to create worker cooperatives in lieu of traded companies or private ownership. Instead of Wall Street and tradable securities, workers will own the company they work for, with the board of directors replaced by a workers council.

Also the immediate nationalization of 20% of the economy. Details TBD.

Aside from those small changes, it’s just regular ‘ole American capitalism.

Nobody was saying there is no racism. But people like you—for ideological convenience—shoehorn things u dont like under the banner of racism. Immigration skepticism, desire for demographic continuity. These are seen everywhere, but are only called out selectively

People .. like me, rather than the guy who talks "Mexican peasants" and "permanently altered European demographics?"

Don't pretend that is a call for colorblind points based immigration.

Not a fan of the language he used, but dont act like there arent major implications for surges of low income migrants with different culture and politics. Of course low inclme whites will feel anxious and resentful, espc as elites welcome their demographic demise because of gains in low wage labor and electorally.
Really great job at defysing replacement conspiracy theories.
(SPLC has chart enthusiastically showing when non hispanic whites become a minority). If anyone spoke about the shrinking of any other demographic group in that manner theyd rightly be called a bigot. But woke white bashing is socially fashionable

We might find some common ground if we say (1) any nation may define its own immigration policy, and (2) a points based system is a good way to select productive individuals.

But I do think we have to stay away from "demographics" because it is too often "white" in American discourse,

If you want to prefer 20-30 year old college graduates, just say that.

1 is illegal under international law. The US cannot under international law return amnesty seekers to their country of origin, if unsafe. Unsafe is not spelled out, hence all Central Americans are legally entitled to reside in the US. There is absolutely no support among Democrats to redefine this.

2 was rejected out of hand by the Democrat Party. There is only a fraction of one party that supports a points based system, and ironically its coming from Trump.

1. If the US congress ratified any treaties, that too was choosing a policy.

2. The Democratic Party has a lot of voices, but nothing becomes law without going through the congress, see 1.

Sure.

As long as you admit that the Democrat Party is 100% committed to both de facto open borders on the southern border, and a restrictionist policy towards educated foreigners.

We can argue the merits, but not the facts. FWIW I support open borders period.

But, Schumer and Pelosi made it clear that a points system, or prioritizing English fluency or education, or prioritizing immigrants who do not need welfare is both immoral and DOA.

Do you take yourself seriously?

Cool. You’ll give us the quotes then, from Schumer and Pelosi supporting a points based system. Or you’ll give us quotes supporting the current proposed policy change regarding welfare use of green card holders.

Or, you’ll give us quotes supporting deportation of migrants from said party leaders.

You won’t, of course. Because, like Trump, your entire shtick is based on lies.

But we will wait for your quotes nonetheless. And they won’t be forthcoming, will they? Because you’re a liar.

AP style guide: "the hatred of a race, or assertion of the superiority of one race over others"

So, nope

I hate to break it to you, but if you prefer immigrants by racial demographics, you have a racial preference.

Also, if you prefer immigrants by characteristic that’s correlated with race, you have a racial preference. IQ, SAT scores, standardized tests, and neurological speed reaction tests that correlate with IQ are essentially white supremacy. Even though Asians score higher than whites, it’s white supremacy.

Asians are white now, and have officially lost person of color status.

This is what I mean, when I talk about how the right has turned into this bizarre bunch of paranoiacs with a persecution complex. California is a one-party state because of Hispanic immigration? Yeah, cause white Californians are a bunch of flag worshipping God-fearing Republicans.
(Hispanics are actually pretty socially conservative.)

And of course, Hispanics hate Republicans, until they don't, because Trump has SO MUCH support among Hispanics! Just cherry pick different facts on an ad hoc basis to fit the narrative - they're all out to get us. It's a plot to destroy our white European cultural heritage (Spain doesn't count as European by the way, and Hispanics aren't white - unless they vote Republican.)

Trump has higher Hispanic support than Romney did.

California Hispanics don't vote Republican and we have very liberal social laws here. So, your thesis seems...weak.

That said, I am not sure the author really grasps the non-niceness of so much of this stuff, or the import of that non-niceness.

Tyler is quietly woke.

"I am not sure the author really grasps the non-niceness of so much of this stuff, or the import of that non-niceness."

There's so much in the world that's not nice, though, and contra Lucky Jim, people don't particularly seem to prefer nice things to nasty ones anymore. What currently gets called out as not-nice, however accurately, can make you feel you're in cloud-cuckoo-land, when you consider the things that don't merit even a shred of that paranoia.

If you believed in the devil, you might begin to suspicion that "the use of fashions in thought is to distract men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is in the least danger, and fix its approval on the virtue that is nearest the vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood; and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gone under."

If you didn't, you might simply take it as evidence that we generally prefer the easy path to the hard, but armor ourselves against that knowledge, because it is unflattering.

Where I depart from Lewis, I suppose (perhaps - who knows what he'd make of the contemporary scene), is that I consider that both the fashionable thought, and the "contrarian" reaction to it, to which I am obviously much more sympathetic, can make one vulnerable in this way.

My husband, no matter his foibles, is perhaps the closest thing to a guru I'll ever find, as a non-religious person, and it is probably not coincidental that he wouldn't get nor care to google any of the references in posts like this.

according to google & a renowned brazilian cosmetic surgeon
brazilians are "butt worshipers"
mebbe brazilians just have sore butts

He's been making the rounds of the podcast circuit lately, a book to sell I suppose. I hadn't heard of him before.

What he talks about are the strategies and patterns that what he calls the new right have been using over the last half decade or so. They aren't nice, but neither are their equivalents on the left.

In a nutshell, their strategy isn't to reform or press for improvements of a group or whatever. Their goal is to push in a way that brings forth the full expression of leftism, which ultimately demolishes the whole thing. There are multiple examples of this, and we are seeing one in Twitter as we speak. They have made it impossible for Twitter to not be responsible for their content, and inevitably due to the ideological predilections of the organization they go hard left. When they are called on it, they go harder, which discredits the platform and will lead to it's collapse by both the costs of monitoring and the loss of users seeking something more predictable and rational. That happened with the award structures in fantasy literature. It is happening with various media organizations as well. It has happened with the institutional right.

Let me describe how they did that. It is very ugly, extremely so, but Machiavellian in both effectiveness and execution. Remember too that there is lots to work with here; the Buchanan branch was hated by the National Review branch, vigorously and loudly. When Trump showed up and was decried by the GOP standard bearers (who now by the way are quite vigorous in their disavowal of anything GOP) these rabble rousers would go after these writers and opinion makers viciously with personal insults that were nasty, racist and personal, as well as continuous. The reaction to these insults was vigorous as well, and these people all took a hard line against Trump who they saw as a leader of these people. This was the core of the Never-Trumpers, and the insults and attacks hardened their opposition, which eventually turned into irrelevance. Was this organized by Trump or was he an unwitting beneficiary of the dismantling of his vocal opposition? Who knows.

Another strategy that has worked very very effectively is how they have hardened the media against conservatives. Again, this was fertile ground; the media is facing it's own demise and preoccupied, as well as leaning predominantly left. Plus they mostly live on Twitter partly due to the paucity of investigative reporting budgets, and experience the full vitriol of these rabble rousers. Which produced the same reaction as the Conservative media. Anti Trump 24/7 over the top, and blitheringly stupid stuff like the investigations do dig out who made an insulting video of Pelosi. I would suggest that this strategy is destroying the media as a source of information, and we are seeing real results in the layoffs and shrinking of both reach and influence.

Would these have happened without the rabble? Probably not to the extent that it has. Gamergate was a learning ground for lots of these people, and they were successful at stopping the intrusion of radical feminists into that sphere. If there is something very strange you read in the media, makes you wonder where that came from, it likely is the reaction to this undercurrent.

We all remember from school some kid who had the knack of pushing the right buttons to elicit a response. Construct a mass communication medium where there is an open line to people of influence, and as was said in a different context 'build it and they will come'. The responses from their point of view are very satisfying.

Another secondary effect of this strategy is a hardening of the right. Inevitably the overreaction of various players spills over into harm to bystanders. One example. Anita Sarkeesian was in the middle of gamergate and bore the brunt of much of the vigorous pushback. A young woman named Candace Owens was caught in some battle she didn't even knew existed, and resented the ugliness. She now is a vigorous conservative promoter, and I suspect we will hear more from her as time goes on. There are many others.

The crazy thing about this nonsense is if you aren't on twitter it doesn't exist. But the people on twitter, journalists and policy makers are right in the middle of it and it is their world. If you wanted a strategy to isolate people of influence and incite them to withdraw into their green zone mentality, which ultimately makes them out of touch and irrelevant, I can't think of a better way.

Ex-media and ex-twitter here. Your observations are interesting; you identify factors that I had not considered. Thx.

Yes, good post.

Twitter is the hornet's nest. We see drones breaking rank, trolling and triggering the blue checks of the colony. Blue checks lashing out in fits of hysteria, revealing their smugness and disdain. More and more drones jump into the fray and soon the hive is swarming.

It's not all going in one direction of course. Many different actors with mixed motives, but you nailed the essential strategy.

However, the collapse of twitter is certainly not inevitable. Jack only needs permaban the most uppity drones to get the swarming under control, which is already being done. The only question is how many need to get cancelled. Plus, they're introducing more and more features that allow the blue checks to render the drones completely invisible, as it is in real life.

Comments for this post are closed