Let’s cut to the chase. This article is trash. First of all, it does not know what it is about. Is it about defining the ‘alt right’ or about looking ‘beyond’ the alt right? Since these two ideas are just merged, one never learns what is supposed to be about the ‘alt right’ proper, and so it is just not clear what the term means, or what connects the figures mentioned in the piece, other than that they do not vote Democrat.
So, it’s smear trash, design to harm academics such as Paul Gottfried by linking him to Pepe the Frog, etc. It is no different from a review of John Rawls that finds it necessary to also examine what Pol Pot has been up to.
Then there are more specific problems. Let’s start with the obvious. ‘The alt-right — or the new right, if you prefer to sound more like Tom Wolfe than Kurt Cobain, or the radical right, to properly acknowledge its break from mainstream conservatism — is a coalition comprised of movements like neo-reaction, certain strands of libertarianism, tech triumphalism, and even the extreme-populist wing of the Republican Party. All share with Spencer’s white-ethno-nativism the ideals of isolationism, protectionism, and nationalism.’ What’s the problem here? Libertarianism is not compatible with protectionism, and the libertarians the article goes on to mention, are totally against protectionism. How can protectionism be an essential feature of the ‘alt right’ while libertarianism is also somehow included?
Indeed, what is the basis for mentioning these supposed essential properties of isolationism, protectionism, and nationalism? (Then too nationalism is a funny thing to mention in connection with well-known anarchist libertarians.) If these properties do take in a long list of movements, that is one thing, but as we have seen they fail in this regard, it is evident the matter is arbitrary. It would be reasonable to make the matter all about Spencer, but that is not what is done, and in any case, I cannot see why one would take trade protectionism to be central to Spencer’s way of thinking. It is at least obvious, he is not against trading with other ethnic groups.
Then also I have to ask: how is it exciting to classify groups as sharing features of isolationism, protectionism, and nationalism? Even if this worked out, how is this going to understand the ‘alt right’ or even just the far right in general? While I am not a protectionist, and my love of isolationism is not pure, still I cannot quite see what is wrong with or notable about these political stances that others offer. Surely the issue is this ‘white ethno-nativism’ that is assigned to Spencer? But as we know, nativism does not have to be isolationist, etc. This was certainly not British colonial policy in the Victorian Era. So what is the meaning here at all, other than to note, some people do not vote Democrat?
Though the article totally fails to establish any kind of essence or nature, still there is discussion of ‘this far-right movement.’ Which one?
And how so, ‘far right’? Paul Gottfried is mentioned here as a ‘thought leader’ but last time I checked, what he argued for was a Hegelian conservatism that is about as normal as possible. What is the standard for calling this ‘far right,’ that it criticizes feminism and ‘multiculturalism’? Most of us had the idea, such criticisms were typical and normal staples of mainstream conservative thought since the 1960’s. I would agree, Gottfried’s are rather sharper, but I do not see anything ‘far right’ in him. It is a bit odd to call a Jew, ‘far right,’ when he doesn’t live in Israel.
I do not know Gottfried very well, and this is even more so the case with Nick Land, but simply looking at his recent work suggests, he is more far out than far right. But whatever….
Sailer I have never even met, though he is a ‘friend’ of a friend, and we have a lot in common, e.g. as CA natives. I can easily say – this guy is not by any reasonable use of the term, ‘far right’! What is far in favour of, is favouring a border, i.e. he has the most normal and long-standing conservative political idea possible. (Note to NY: ‘far right’ is a term we normally reserve for people such as Nick Griffen and Marine Le Pen, who are tied to notions of big government, militaristic nationalism, reimigration and nationalist ethnic cleansing.) Then he further has some ideas for science, which are newer and more positivistic, but that’s another story.
Of course, the real gem here is the account of Hoppe, as it took me only about 4 seconds – 4 seconds apparently too many for the ‘researchers’ at NYMAG – to see that Hoppe had already responded to the sort of attack NYMAG offers, over eight years ago.
‘My Battle With The Thought Police… In my book Democracy, The God That Failed I not only defend the right to discrimination as implied in the right to private property, but I also emphasize the necessity of discrimination in maintaining a free society and explain its importance as a civilizing factor. In particular, the book also contains a few sentences about the importance, under clearly stated circumstances, of discriminating against communists, democrats, and habitual advocates of alternative, non-family centered lifestyles, including homosexuals.
For instance, on p. 218, I wrote “in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, … no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant … such as democracy and communism.” “Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. … [violators] will have to be physically removed from society.”
In its proper context these statements are hardly more offensive than saying that the Catholic Church should excommunicate those violating its fundamental precepts or that a nudist colony should expel those insisting on wearing bathing suits. However, if you take the statements out of context and omit the condition: in a covenant… then they appear to advocate a violation of rights.’ https://mises.org/library/my-battle-thought-police
But what does NYMAG offer? ‘In Hoppe’s supposedly libertarian utopia, those advocating “individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism” would be “physically removed” from society.’
Read the full link above for a complete account of Hoppe’s dealings with psychotic Center-Left individuals. It is quite an entertaining read.
Anyway, no, he does not seem ‘far right.’ Normally, we do not count libertarians as ‘far right,’ since they have ideas like not allowing the State to gas Jews just because it wants to, etc. There is a kind of tension between liberty and fascism. Normally, then, we call fascism ‘far right’ but not libertarianism. Libertarians such as Hoppe believe in human rights, e.g. the right to property. A far right thinker such as Francois Duprat, does not (to my knowledge) offer any such idea. On the other hand, neither does Bentham or Marx: rejection of human rights is a characteristic of far right thinking, but not its entire essence. So, there is nothing necessarily far right about rejecting human rights, it is merely that failing to do so, tends to exclude one from this category.
…But wait, there’s more: ‘Alternative for Germany’s leader, Frauke Petry, has suggested German border police should have the right to shoot refugees illegally crossing the border. Last year, her party doubled its representation in regional parliaments.’ Suggesting harsh or even wrong ideas for law-enforcement, does not make one far right.
Another thing: far right is one thing, being anti-EU is another. Last I recall, a work called Imperium Europa had some suggestions for combining elitist, nativist politics with a pro-EU stance.
The article goes on to inform us, ‘this’ movement is just re-hashed white supremacism, so therefore, e.g. Paul Gottfried is implied to be a white supremacist. Well, I’ve seen The Believer, but this all sounds rather unlikely to me. …Could it be that while the ‘alt right’ is a white nationalist movement, but Gottfried is just a normal Hegelian, who happens to believe French culture ought to be French, German, German, etc.?
No, it doesn’t stop:
‘The movement has a real problem with women. Possibly because its members tend to be rejected by them.’
No, that’s not ad hominem, that’s journalism!
Then there is the account of ‘slang.’ It is shit. Why even get into slang if this is the nonsense you are going to write?
Let me provide a handy guide, as NYMAG is just taking your money.
Cuck – A cuckold, i.e. someone lacking sufficient manliness to protect his girl. Refers primarily to East Germans; can refer to those who believe Howard Stern ‘just wants to talk’ with their girlfriend (sorry, Mr. Trump…).
The Cathedral – Those who are not far out; those making The Matrix; drug pushing Establishment; ABC-CBS; Cronkite.
Bobo’s – ‘Straights’; people who work normal jobs like dumb assholes; people using the Establishment’s drugs; people who watch television; cuck’s.
‘How to Use in a sentence.’ Example: David Neiwert’s new book on the ‘alt right’ is totally bobo, straight from the Cathedral. Major cuck.
Now practice at home!
‘Marcus Aurelius, Meditations: The unfashionable “dead white men” are heroes to the alt-right.’ To think, I had been teaching fascist literature all along! And I don’t even like the Emperor….