Crucial for opposing Anglo-American hegemony is the ability for expansion, e.g. of the French language, into the sea. Both the North Sea & the Mediterranean are possibilities. Here France makes unique use of its Pacific territories.
Crucial for opposing Anglo-American hegemony is the ability for expansion, e.g. of the French language, into the sea. Both the North Sea & the Mediterranean are possibilities. Here France makes unique use of its Pacific territories.
There is a great irony for anyone trying to learn about ‘far right’ movements – a massive amount of research on them has been done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organisation often accused of being part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy America. That’s rather far from the truth today, but it remains so, that this is an organisation to the Left of the political spectrum.
The greater irony is that it is a useful source, with absolutely no intellectual authority…. That’s right, it is a fraud organisation, and to recommend it is something like a Catholic suggesting, a new convert will be well served in the faith through following the guidance of the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is heavily distorted toward anti-Augustinian themes). Actually, it’s quite a bit worse than that, and one suspects the major players at the SPLC suffer from mental illness, or an oddly concealed enthusiasm for the German Reich.
I try to explain to students, Wikipedia lacks intellectual authority, but still this does not prohibit it from being the case, that an article in its might be quite truthful. The SPLC is similar in this regard, although with the SPLC, truth content does not usually extend beyond the paragraph limit.
One simply has to know what is true in advance of reading the SPLC. Truth and lie mixed together, can at best remind one of truth. Still, reminding can be useful.
LewRockwell.com carries a range of articles dealing with the shannanigans over at the SPLC: https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=010115542726049794836:lpyn2ylmqe8&q=southern%20law%20poverty%20center&oq=southern%20law%20poverty%20center&gs_l=partner.3…4051.10142.0.106220.127.116.11.18.104.22.1681.6490.3j4j7j5-1j2j0j1.18.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13…0.6028j3995374j27..1ac.1.25.partner..24.3.438.rNA33KumPL4#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=southern%20law%20poverty%20center&gsc.page=1
The core of it is simply this: ‘When the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., sponsored a public debate on immigration policy, the left-wing hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) smeared and denounced AEI by claiming that it was “mainstreaming hate” by sponsoring the debate. Of course, Americans have been debating immigration policy ever since the Louisiana Purchase. The SPLC is the leading leftist group that engages in this kind of totalitarian behavior.’ https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/06/thomas-dilorenzo/racial-racketeering-for-fun-and-profit/
What was once the SPLC long ago, during the Civil Rights movement, has no real connection to what it is after the Carter era. What was a movement about Black rights, has been turned – via an intervening turn to focus on ‘hate groups’ such as the KKK – to an organisation focused on demonisation of the Western interest in national borders.
Even today many liberals are taken in by the past image of the organisation, though Dees is the only holdover from the earlier days, and we have little evidence, the personality of Dees has survived over the years. While I do not have access to his medical files, ethically there is a case to be made, the public would be best served by making his medical history known. Dees has collected a very large amount of money for his fraud purposes and the news media regularly cites his fraud organisation as an authority on others. While I believe in privacy, given the many signs of mental illness in the SPLC’s activities, I cannot believe that this is a case where privacy ought to be an absolute right.
What is the basis for trusting the SPLC’s claims? Nothing at all. All they can do is, as I say, remind – or inspire, e.g., inspire you to look up a quotation offered, from some other source.
Still people are time and again taken in by the image of the SPLC as a credible source.
It is an organisation fulimating for Center-Left policies – with a focus on liberalism regarding borders, but then also with other foci, e.g. Bernie Sanders healthcare – which seeks to promote these policies by accusing Right-of-center political opponents of a sin. The major ‘sin’ had in mind is obviously anti-Semtism, but also at times it seems suggested that independents of connection among Black and Jew, it may be an inherent evil to place’s own interests before those of Black people (hater!).
The documentation regarding the irrationalism and concealment of Leftist political bias in supposed ‘objective’ monitoring of ‘hate,’ is quite extensive, and extends beyond what LewRockwell.com has to offer:
It is as if with the presses treatment of the ‘alt right,’ writ large. Violent, criminal, or very unpopular Right-wing groups are first selected to fill a category – ‘alt right,’ ‘hate groups,’ etc. – and then the category is rounded out with enemies of the Center-Left, using arbitrary standards. It is simple smear. But again and again, Democrats give this group money and laud it with rewards. I wonder if they have ever heard the saying, ‘you reap what you sow?’
Initially, it was quite difficult to make any sense of what this movement might be. It seemed to only repeat a previous 1980’s situation, where ‘movement’ conservatism opposes itself to non-conservatism, i.e. the radicalism of anti-Catholic and anti-middle-class American Zionism.
What had occurred earlier, after Reagan, had been a situation where many conservatives had begun to say the Republican Party was not any longer run by conservatives, but rather by ‘neoconservatives.’ With time, the idea of ‘neoconservative’ took on a very specific meaning, referring to people who called themselves ‘conservatives’ while suggesting, national borders were not a normal part of conservative tradition. Matters were only made worse by an additional feature of the ‘new’ neoconservatives: all these neoconservatives were greatly in favour of the State of Israel and in U.S. efforts to support that Mideast state. So, originally a ‘neoconservative’ was something like a recent, moderate convert to ‘conservatism’ – i.e., to the thinking of pro-free market types, of Burke, of Russell Kirk, etc. – but by the end of the 1980’s the term meant: a proponent of mass immigration from the developing world and a staunch ally of Israel, who nonetheless did not feel at home in the Democrat Party.
Ordinary and humdrum conservatives, believing in common sense and Catholicism, a good dose of markets and Burke, etc., felt themselves totally exiled from the Republican Party and its ‘neoconservatives.’ For some reason, many of them then began calling themselves ‘paleoconservatives,’ i.e. the old conservatives, not the new. However, despite this fancy label, the ideas defended were as boring and traditional as possible, straightforward Tory thinking, and nothing radical at all. Nonetheless, soon it is seen as appropriate to begin to suggest ideas along the lines of ‘Tories are “alt right”, and normal conservative Republicans think it is fine and good to allow demographic catastrophe to happen.’ In other words, it is now said to be somehow ‘radical’ to imagine, reducing the former majority ethnic group to minority status, might be socially disruptive.
So, what has occurred, is that an idea, which is just a simple idea of ‘conservatism,’ as expounded at length by Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk, is soon no longer allowed to be left at that, but must be called new things, such as ‘paleoconservative,’ ‘alt right,’ etc. There is a fraud shift of labels, allowing the installations of policies and cultures traditionally at home only in Communist parties, as normal for GOP, etc. The anti-Communist ideas, are exiled to ‘the fever swamps.’ The half-Communists, now call themselves ‘mainstream conservatism.’ Etc. At the same time, it is not entirely a victory for the far-left, as indeed, only some Leftist ideas are inserted into the Republican DNA: definitely no ideas that have anything to do, with restraining the power of the ultra-wealthy!
The ‘alt right’ carries over many ideas of historic conservatism, and re-announces the ‘paleoconservative’ disdain for the fraud of neoconservatism. Regardless, in terms of how the term ‘alt right’ is typically used, it seems to be more specifically a question of a social network revolving around the far-right American figure, Richard Spencer. It can be difficult to separate alt right thinking from Spencerism. My investigation of this Spencer does not place him as a ‘neo-Nazi,’ but as coming out of the Ku Klux Klan movements of the American South. Likewise, less than there being a new alt right ‘philosophy,’ Spencer is more of a street fighter and activist, who relies on what went before him, e.g. Friedrich Nietzsche, Julius Evola, Alain De Benoist, Francois Duprat, Jared Taylor, Patrick Buchanan, Thomas Fleming, etc. Spencer has his ‘philosophy,’ which seems somewhat Nietzschean and also biological-reductionist and Darwinian, but largely he is a kind of specialist in media relations, fulminating for his own brand of white nationalism. There is a significant amount of anti-Semitic content via Spencer’s praise for Kevin MacDonald.
‘The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization. Characterized by heavy use of social media and online memes, Alt-Righters eschew “establishment” conservatism, skew young, and embrace white ethno-nationalism as a fundamental value.’ –Southern Poverty Law Institute
I will further add: ‘The Alternative Right blames Jews as principle agents of “social justice” ideologies tied to mass immigration from the developing world, and in general tends to cast Jews as the cause of otherwise-inexplicable, negative social phenomena, e.g. supposed media bias against conservative politics.’
Conservatism is one thing, and the ‘alt right,’ something else. The second label is somewhat up for grabs but it seems now heavily tied to Spencerism. The media has a tendency to label conservatism, as ‘alt right,’ and neoconservatism, as ‘conservatism.’ Conservatism shares with the alt right, an interest in border control and some normal ideas of national interest, but further has many differences, most notably in that postwar period conservatives have tended to try to hide their anti-Semitism – and now many so-called ‘conservatives’ are not even anti-Semitic with which to begin. Likewise, neoconservatism shares very little with either the alt right or conservatism, excepting a (supposed) rejection of ‘hard Left’ economics.
LINKS: ‘How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War’ by Michael Lind, 2003, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html , provides some background on neoconservative Zionism. ‘AVOIDING THE ISSUE,’ Lawrence Auster, National Review, February 21, 1994, provides some information on the open borders side of the equation. ‘Among the Neocons,’ by Scott McConnel, in the American Conservative, April 21, 2003, provides a more synthetic treatment: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/among-the-neocons/
There’s alternate music, an alternate Right, also potentially – alternate worlds. Any connection? One thing I point out in INVESTIGATING THE ALT RIGHT – a whole industry of ‘alternate history’ has opened up in academia, taking in many serious historians. They wonder, ‘if Germany had won the war, what then is postwar “history”? (And then one can ask – would it give rise to ideas, such as Richard Spencer’s?)
…I am very interested in ‘many worlds theory’ and ‘multiverse theory,’ but unfortunately, I have tended to think these would not be popular topics and so have not paid as much attention to the major names in Philosophy as I might. Sometimes the physicists offer us philosophical themes of causation between multiverses, but I cannot say what the major articles here. If anyone has some good leads, let me know. We do get some more humdrum theorizing from Scientific America (concerning causation from a parallel universe): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/ Likely, Vonnegut would also be a good source, but there are more academic sources out there – somewhere!
It is possible to maintain, for certain critical junctures, both possible events ‘happen.’ However, physicists are notorious for failing to explain their ideas of ‘happen.’ What does ‘happen’ mean? Does it mean, there is a self that experiences, D-day succeeded, and a near identical self, that experiences that it failed? Or does it mean, D-day succeeded and this is experienced, but also it failed though this is not (directly) experienced? What could ‘happen but not directly experienced’ mean in a case like this?
Also one can hold, alternate ending in critical junctures, have effects on the chains leading from the near-to-hand ending. I do not know what the evidence could be, as for example, ‘an inch is as good as a mile,’ i.e. one does not feel sore from almost getting hit by a car. Or at least – not usually. Maybe we ought to ask Richard Spencer about these kind of things? I guess he would be the sort of person who would know….
We imagine our bodies, practically speaking, are in only three dimensions of space, and that we all live in one space. Then minds are affected by changes to the sense organs in this one space. Leibniz of course offers a totally different model, which fits the available evidence, just as well. To decide for the ‘three dimensions, one space model,’ is not supported by the evidence. There is then a question of how ‘happens’ and ‘experience’ relate, since different individuals might experience different things, though both are effected by an event to have particular experiences. If you (or ‘you’) experience, hitting someone with a car and also just missing them, and another experiences that you just missed them but also strange pains, then we might say, two alternate events ‘happened’ but as giving rise to experiences not seeming to fit the model, of three dimensions and one space. There is an alternative present, where you experience collision but the other does not directly experience this.
So, things are potentially especially complex, as not only is there a possibility of alternate ‘happenings,’ but also even our own happenings, we do not really understand. We have a model of bodies in one space, but also we could say, there is simply an ‘experience machine’ present for all, etc., with rules of commonly inhabiting one space, a mere Newtonian approximation.
The upshot seems to be, if someone experienced Germany winning the war, that does not imply it is a ‘hallucination’ if not all alternate selves did….
Then, too, as I suggest, we have a more mysterious case, of an alternate happening, that is just not directly experienced at all, a kind of black whole in human reality. A tree falls in a forest, but no one is around. Later, a lumber jack comes across the fallen tree. There is no direct experience of the falling, but still an indirect one….
It is difficult that global society, has not reconciled itself to the possibility of Axis victory. What happens in such a victory? …Would the Russians all be hiding out in Siberia? One imagines, things might go particularly poorly for Russia. Then, too, look where Russia is heading, with the land so often poisoned, fertility dropping, etc. Will Russia one day look back, and say, it is just as if Germany had won the war, only, we never experienced this?
Is it going to be ‘alt right’ for them? 😊 Who can say. I doubt things will be too pleasant, but then I am sure, the Russians (collectively) are prepared for a bad time after Khrushchev, etc.
As to our own situation – obviously, there is very little evidence, recent ‘happenings’ of, e.g., a Clinton Presidency, have much reality to them. Why believe, the effects on parallel universes, will be notable for those universes? And as to our experiences – who knows what is ‘happening’? Indeed, what lies behind experience? Tradition counsels, took look back to causes in the three dimension of a common space. Yet tradition is another thing than evidence. It is very hard to know (in a philosophical sense of the term) where experiences are heading. This may be a source of hope, but also – regardless of how absurd Clinton was – of fear.
Then too – new directions! – with death, I see no evidence, it brings an off button for ‘the machine.’
At least not for everyone. But of course, these are matters, we cannot bring into our ethical calculations. They seem to play very little role, e.g., in the outward discourse of the Roman Catholic Church, which tends to imagine, all people are equal in experiencing after death. Yet – I remain, as ever, rather sceptical of this outward discourse, significant though it has been.
…Philosophy is a strange pursuit, yet it seems in the end to lead to these questions, of whether one can believe, anything one is told. Perhaps philosophy is not the best pursuit, after all?
I notice the ‘alt right’ Radix Journal offers some attacks on libertarians so I thought I ought to reply.
First off I ought to note, as my Essay on Pragmatic Libertarian suggests, my interest in libertarianism is empirical and (thus) contingent in character. However, I doubt this is atypical of those seen as having ‘libertarian’ interests. Still, I wonder if I ought to call myself a ‘libertarian.’ This could be a confusing label for some. And yet, since I advocate – for all currently existing nation-states – a very small night-watchman state with no spending on education or other welfare, I think it must be an apt label.
Radix offers, in a review of Hawley’s RIGHT-WING CRITICS OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM, some extended criticism of libertarianism. …But before we get to this, also I ought to note, I see Hawley has a book coming out in September, MAKING SENSE OF THE ALT RIGHT, which looks like it has quite a lot of overlap with my INVESTIGATING THE ALT RIGHT: RICHARD SPENCER IN AMERICA. However, I fear there may be a bit too much credulity toward the media present in Hawley’s work, a kind of ‘we are all the Establishment’ sentiment. Sorry, Hawley – the New York Times, etc., is not an appropriate source for academic writing any longer. Then too with Hawley, I see he does some interviews with ‘alt right’ figures, which I am sure will be valuable as Hawley, all things considered, seems a smart cookie. But I do wonder how he can write an entire book about the ideology of the ‘alt right’ movement. I guess we will have to wait and see. Personally, I have found much of the story here to be, the media’s own story about AR, and then too the opportunity that people such as Richard Spencer give us, to reflect on basic questions regarding, why we engage in political activism at all, given how bizarre our culture is…. I don’t know how AR could be a sufficiently defined label to sustain a book-length, ‘political science’ treatment, as opposed to a mix with Philosophy and media studies, etc. But of course, new interviews could do much…. We will just have to wait to September.
Anyway, back to Radix. Gregory Hood writes many negative things regarding libertarianism, and to much of it I would respond – hey, buddy, perhaps we cannot get all the way to libertarian ‘pipe dreams’ but cutting spending is always progress, cutting regulations is always progress, and this is not true in the other direction, when it comes to getting real gains for meaningful socialism, etc. Libertarianism is happening all the time, and we see useless programs and regulations cut all the time. True, government does grow rather a lot, yet its growth is not unstoppable.
Hood: ‘It’s questionable whether libertarianism can ever really be a movement for itself as opposed to either a phase in a person’s ideological progression. After all, groups like Students for Liberty now proudly proclaim they don’t care about freedom of association, because homosexual rights, and fighting nationalism is the most important thing.’ A lot of libertarians are nutters. But the same is true of conservatives, far-right ‘alt right’ thinkers, etc. So what? Personally, I find things end with libertarianism much more than progress through it. However, in saying this, I would add – but this is only because politics can barely matter today, when, e.g., there is no democracy at a national level. If things were more ‘serious,’ then perhaps Hood would have more of a point. Libertarianism is not a very satisfying resolution, but then practically speaking, nothing but libertarianism with border controls is useful today. –And if so-called ‘libertarians’ deny freedom of association among citizens, then they would seem to reject a core libertarian idea. I doubt they in fact do have, very libertarian politics, whatever they call themselves.
I do not know how we can discuss a more substantial set of possibilities for political change, as they are not present. True, different empirical circumstances would argue away from libertarianism and would also be more engaging for ‘mature’ culture. But as these possibilities are not present, what is the purpose now of attacking libertarianism?
Hood goes on: ‘But as Richard Spencer argued, libertarianism itself was a kind of mask on white identity for some time. That is being abandoned as we get closer to the real thing. Those libertarians who put egalitarianism first, like Cathy Reisenwitz, eventually just become SJW’s. The majority move in our direction.’
Is libertarianism just a mask for white identity? Of course not. The free market offers jobs and liberties for people of all colours, and many of these merely think they benefit from socialism and government-based, anti-white revanchism. The same is true of many, e.g., Mexicans’ interest in open borders.
If white identity were the only interest for white libertarianism, some other position might be more attractive, e.g. State-based genocide. In any case, there are many ways to express one’s ethnic interests, and how would most white libertarians see libertarianism as the only way? And isn’t libertarianism just their calculation of what is best for their interests, taking into account they have special concerns for some others? How is it notable for politics to express national interest? That is not a ‘mask,’ that’s an assessment of what is best for groups that concern one, using reasons also endorse-able by all groups interested in utility and fairness. There’s nothing deceptive or ‘mask-like’ involved, except insofar as abstraction is always about a bit of occlusion. What is the evidence libertarians think libertarianism is best for ‘whites’ but not other groups? Today, it’s best for everyone.
Libertarianism is boring… or it can be boring. That is true, it is hard to sustain this theme. Our time is boring. Better, our world did not exist. However, in terms of real success for libertarian aims of cutting spending and regulations…. the ‘boring’ has little import. The movement is powerful. It will not go away. Capital loves control through government more than generating yet more capital, true. But capital does love more capital…. Less government is a proven route to increasing growth, so long as property rights can still be protected. Capital likes libertarianism, even if it has other loves it does not talk about…. (Capital is so shy! It barely even recognises its tryst with political correctness!)
Review of Time-Travelling Zombies by Lance Snyde, CreateSpace, 2017
Time-Travelling Zombies is a post-apocalyptic tale about a staple of science fiction, the mass zombie ‘turning.’ The idea seems to be to find the most common themes of science fiction and mix them together, as it eventually emerges in the novel, that time-travel is also a theme, and there is a struggle to intervene temporally to stop the catastrophic zombie outbreak.
The ‘zombie’ is described in terms of an unfeeling creature. Also it turns out, zombies can be commanded with the right technology, and were developed by the Soviets. Thus the novel centers on an attempt to harness the Soviet technology in a post-Soviet era – and, of course, on this added dimension of using time travel to control the zombie technology. Sort of Stephen King meets Dr. Who. The work seems suitable for juveniles, but of course the line between juvenile adventure novels and ‘adult’ science fiction is a bit hard to draw.
The political backdrop for the novel involves several elements: an out of control Federal government; a newly seceded, Christian Texas; and a Russia that has been further divided after the fall of the Berlin Wall, along new North-South ethnic lines. Russia is basically toast in the novel, but then there are all those Russian zombies…. It does not go well for Texas. Some of the Christian folk there do volunteer for ‘zombification,’ as part of a process of going back in time as zombie information devices, but it is not clear how that turns out for them…. Or at least, I do not want to give away the plot. Anyway, the Christians, the Feds, and the Russians are all fighting.
The Russians apparently developed a complex system of ideological and technological controls, to keep the Revolution – and the zombies! – going long after the patriots of the Revolution died. Even Ukrainians and Poles are recruited to be zombie handlers, but this process of allowing humans to communicate with zombies through radio waves, has some unpleasant effects on the Warsaw Pact patriots. The account of the Soviet technological and ideological research, seemed the most interesting part of the novel, pointing to many lost Cold War issues and taking things a bit past the ‘generic,’ zombie meets Tardis setup.
L. Snyde has been known to me for some time as a fellow native of California, though now he has moved further east…. I think I have encouraged him to publish on CreateSpace, but in any case, the book is available for $8 on Amazon. Approx. 170 pages, 6 x 9 paperback. I found it a rather gripping narrative, but it is definitely something only for the fan of the SF genre.
In this essay (above), I argue that appealing to natural rights is not the most attractive way to defend libertarianism. As Bentham puts it, natural rights are ‘nonsense on stilts.’ That is going rather far, but still it is obvious, many ask, ‘Where are these rights? Were they there at Auschwitz? Were they there when the Soviets invaded?’ Whatever the truth of the matter – and, indeed, is does not make ought – there is a rhetorical issue present. Can we not appeal to something besides rights, in defending the free market?
On the other hand, much of the specifically philosophical appeal is lost when natural rights go, and, indeed, I am no opponent of Revolution, etc. I offer no universal defense of ‘liberty.’ But still some philosophical questions remain to the pragmatist, and I argue that a concern for utilitarianism with side constraints still leads us to accept a very full-blooded libertarianism.
I mention side constraints of: 1) concern for a stable property order, and 2) a concern to avoid, arbitrary inequality. Then I suggest a la Mises, that even if we value very much, equality, still we see in socialism, many self-defeating attempts to achieve this goal. Equality is no objection to libertarianism, if the available non-libertarian systems lead to greater de facto levels of inequality in power, and only very marginal gains for economic equality. Libertarianism is the only viable political form today.
I argue for the ‘minarchist’ position, with government courts, police, armies, and roads, but reject a place for public schooling, UBI and other non-educational welfare spending, etc. I suggest, there is no available justification for bans on: face veils; heroin; private racial discrimination in employment and housing, etc.
In grounding my notions of side constraints or ‘fairness,’ I appeal to Aristotelian traditions and divine command theory tradition. I point out, natural rights theories and utilitarianism, are only two of many possible philosophical bases for ethics and political life.