What the alt-right is.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,152
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
28 Aug 2016, 7:39 pm
beneficii wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
beneficii wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
I take issue in particular with:
4.The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
This sounds a bit racist to me.
I don't care about Christianity, I don't care about nationalism, and I'm not really sure what the Rule of Law is supposed to mean. I suppose alt-right thinks of themselves as virtuous warriors in some abstract battle of good vs. evil.
Alt-right thinks of themselves as good people. That doesn't mean I think of them as good people. Not even sure what they are really but not liking this list.
4.The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
This sounds a bit racist to me.
I don't care about Christianity, I don't care about nationalism, and I'm not really sure what the Rule of Law is supposed to mean. I suppose alt-right thinks of themselves as virtuous warriors in some abstract battle of good vs. evil.
Alt-right thinks of themselves as good people. That doesn't mean I think of them as good people. Not even sure what they are really but not liking this list.
Same here, and they take too much credit for Western civilization. I've been reading a book by Classically-trained historian Hyun Jin Kim, who is also an Inner Asian studies scholar, called "The Huns, Rome, and the Birth of Europe" (Cambridge University Press, 2013), where he argues that much of the culture we consider to be that of modern Europe today had major contributions by the Huns, of late a group demonized as "primitive savages" and used to imagine Yellow Peril.
And, really, only through erasure of Inner Asians and Central Eurasians can you say there is a separate European continent at all.
It's a fascinating book, if anyone is interested.
The notion that Europe and Asia are separate continents is a fiction based on skin color, ethnicity, and language. In fact, the Indo-European migration that had remade Europe genetically had had it's origins in Asia.
While I'd have to read Dr Kim's book to understand his argument that the Huns were major players in the creation of modern western civilization, it's absolutely true that the Barbarians who had invaded and remade Roman Europe - most of whom were Germanic rather than Huns or other steppe nomads - had had incalculable influence on the evolution of the western world.
Actually, Kim argues that a lot of those "Germanic" leaders were actually of Hunnic origin. The Huns didn't go away after Attila's death; only they became harder and harder to differentiate from Europeans. He provides an impressive body of evidence for his assertions, so it's definitely worth the read.
To be sure, that can be argued to a point, such as in the case of Odavakar, the Barbarian mercenary who had dispensed of the western Roman Emperor he had formerly served all together, and declared himself king of Italy. Odavakar was apparently of mixed Germanic and Hunnic parentage, his grandfather being one of Attila's lieutenants. Also, as the Longobards, who eventually replaced the Ostrogoths in Italy, and defeated the Byzantines, showed signs of having intermixed with the Avars, who may have been descendants of the Huns. The Thuringians of central Germany definitely had adopted Hunnic cultural influences, and the presence of Hunnic graves among them shows that they had mixed freely with the Huns. That said, I have never heard of any major influence of the Huns in regard to ethnic admixture or otherwise with Clovis and his people, the Franks, or among the Anglo-Saxons. The Hunnish influence among the Ostrogoths was probably more militaristic than anything else, and in fact had exerted a great deal of their own cultural influence on the Huns. Doubtlessly, there had been a degree of ethnic intermixing as well. Their Visigothic cousins may not have had any Hunnish influence on them at all, as they had been forced to flee from the Hunnish onslaught to the Roman Empire, setting off the Great Migration period.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
28 Aug 2016, 7:53 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
beneficii wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
I take issue in particular with:
4.The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
This sounds a bit racist to me.
I don't care about Christianity, I don't care about nationalism, and I'm not really sure what the Rule of Law is supposed to mean. I suppose alt-right thinks of themselves as virtuous warriors in some abstract battle of good vs. evil.
Alt-right thinks of themselves as good people. That doesn't mean I think of them as good people. Not even sure what they are really but not liking this list.
4.The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
This sounds a bit racist to me.
I don't care about Christianity, I don't care about nationalism, and I'm not really sure what the Rule of Law is supposed to mean. I suppose alt-right thinks of themselves as virtuous warriors in some abstract battle of good vs. evil.
Alt-right thinks of themselves as good people. That doesn't mean I think of them as good people. Not even sure what they are really but not liking this list.
Same here, and they take too much credit for Western civilization. I've been reading a book by Classically-trained historian Hyun Jin Kim, who is also an Inner Asian studies scholar, called "The Huns, Rome, and the Birth of Europe" (Cambridge University Press, 2013), where he argues that much of the culture we consider to be that of modern Europe today had major contributions by the Huns, of late a group demonized as "primitive savages" and used to imagine Yellow Peril.
And, really, only through erasure of Inner Asians and Central Eurasians can you say there is a separate European continent at all.
It's a fascinating book, if anyone is interested.
The notion that Europe and Asia are separate continents is a fiction based on skin color, ethnicity, and language. In fact, the Indo-European migration that had remade Europe genetically had had it's origins in Asia.
While I'd have to read Dr Kim's book to understand his argument that the Huns were major players in the creation of modern western civilization, it's absolutely true that the Barbarians who had invaded and remade Roman Europe - most of whom were Germanic rather than Huns or other steppe nomads - had had incalculable influence on the evolution of the western world.
Actually, Kim argues that a lot of those "Germanic" leaders were actually of Hunnic origin. The Huns didn't go away after Attila's death; only they became harder and harder to differentiate from Europeans. He provides an impressive body of evidence for his assertions, so it's definitely worth the read.
To be sure, that can be argued to a point, such as in the case of Odavakar, the Barbarian mercenary who had dispensed of the western Roman Emperor he had formerly served all together, and declared himself king of Italy. Odavakar was apparently of mixed Germanic and Hunnic parentage, his grandfather being one of Attila's lieutenants. Also, as the Longobards, who eventually replaced the Ostrogoths in Italy, and defeated the Byzantines, showed signs of having intermixed with the Avars, who may have been descendants of the Huns. The Thuringians of central Germany definitely had adopted Hunnic cultural influences, and the presence of Hunnic graves among them shows that they had mixed freely with the Huns. That said, I have never heard of any major influence of the Huns in regard to ethnic admixture or otherwise with Clovis and his people, the Franks, or among the Anglo-Saxons. The Hunnish influence among the Ostrogoths was probably more militaristic than anything else, and in fact had exerted a great deal of their own cultural influence on the Huns. Doubtlessly, there had been a degree of ethnic intermixing as well. Their Visigothic cousins may not have had any Hunnish influence on them at all, as they had been forced to flee from the Hunnish onslaught to the Roman Empire, setting off the Great Migration period.
He doesn't really discuss the Anglo-Saxons or Franks, but he argues that the Huns finally ripped Western Europe from Mediterranean dominance. He argues that Attila won in Gaul in 451, and picks apart Jordanes's account (which itself is worthy of discussion), and that other Germanic groups with Hunnic influence like the Vandals ended up in various places in Western Europe, including Spain. He argues that with this division of Western Europe from the Mediterranean and the Hunnic Empire's subsequent collapse, "the Huns essentially both allowed and forced the western rim to develop a separate identity, an artificial 'European' one" (p. 157). Previously, there were the Mediterranean world defined by the Roman Empire and the Eurasian world which stretched from the Rhine River to Mongolia.
Doubtless, many of these points are worthy of discussion, part of what makes it such a worthy read.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,152
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
28 Aug 2016, 8:00 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
I'll have to look for the book, as it sounds enticingly fascinating.
I'll have to look for the book, as it sounds enticingly fascinating.
I've got it checked out on interlibrary loan, as I couldn't find it at my local library. But if money is no object, I suppose you could buy it, too.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,152
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
28 Aug 2016, 8:41 pm
beneficii wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
I'll have to look for the book, as it sounds enticingly fascinating.
I'll have to look for the book, as it sounds enticingly fascinating.
I've got it checked out on interlibrary loan, as I couldn't find it at my local library. But if money is no object, I suppose you could buy it, too.
While money is definitely an object with us, it wouldn't be the first time I splurged on a book.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
29 Aug 2016, 5:44 am
Mikah wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:
Christianity, overall, has been a disaster to Western Civilization. The only reason why the West survived it is because secular thing based on naturalistic science has displaced Christian theological thought from its political and economic dominance. Do you like life saving medicine, computers and machines to do the hard work? If Christianity had prevailed you would have none of these things. You would still be living in the Middle Ages. Back in those times most people where covered with sh*t and most people did not live to be 40 years old.
Saving this gem in my "This is what atheists actually believe" folder.
BallChatzaf is right here. Western Civilization has prospered despite Christianity, not because of it. Ancient Greece comes under 'Western Civilization', and Christianity had nothing to do with that. Christianity is an alien religion to Europeans, and it's poison. It teaches Christians that anybody can become 'one of them' just through holding a ridiculous set of beliefs, and that through holding the right 'beliefs' the dregs of this world will somehow prosper after death and "inherit the kingdom of heaven" (where they will presumably rule over their betters whom they despise). If some people on the alt-right still want to cling to this nonsense, it suggests they still haven't really moved on from conservatism. I suggest that if you want to see what Christianity is really about read what Nietzsche said about it, or just look at a picture of the Pope in Europe kissing the feet of Muslim interlopers.
Mod edit: anti-Semitic remarks removed
Last edited by The_Walrus on 29 Aug 2016, 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.: Removing anti-Semitic remarks
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,157
Location: Adelaide, Australia
29 Aug 2016, 8:15 am
Dox47 wrote:
Of course they don't think they're regressive, they're just protecting us from ourselves because they know best.
Right on.chessboxer wrote:
It teaches Christians that anybody can become 'one of them' just through holding a ridiculous set of beliefs, and that through holding the right 'beliefs' the dregs of this world will somehow prosper after death and "inherit the kingdom of heaven"
The meek shall inherit nothing while the ambitious will make the Earth theirs.
_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
29 Aug 2016, 9:49 am
Quote:
BallChatzaf is right here. Western Civilization has prospered despite Christianity, not because of it. Ancient Greece comes under 'Western Civilization', and Christianity had nothing to do with that. Christianity is an alien religion to Europeans, and it's poison. It teaches Christians that anybody can become 'one of them' just through holding a ridiculous set of beliefs, and that through holding the right 'beliefs' the dregs of this world will somehow prosper after death and "inherit the kingdom of heaven" (where they will presumably rule over their betters whom they despise). If some people on the alt-right still want to cling to this nonsense, it suggests they still haven't really moved on from conservatism.
Except Europe as it is now is inextricably tied up with Christianity.
Christianity was the first big movement to offer the idea that the future might be different from - indeed, better than - the past. An awful lot of people have never forgiven it this.
Quote:
I suggest that if you want to see what Christianity is really about read what Nietzsche said about it, or just look at a picture of the Pope in Europe kissing the feet of Muslim interlopers.
HmmmmMMMMM?
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
29 Aug 2016, 10:03 am
I am looking forward to "John Stuart Mill is not a good political philosopher, and I myself am a highly respected political philosopher".
Mikah wrote:
4.The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
Although I think that Western civilizations are currently amongst the best in the world, I don't think non-Western countries are necessarily worse. For example, Japan and South Korea are probably better places to live than Alabama or Greece.
I also don't think Christianity is a foundational pillar of Western civilisation. The best bits of it owe more to non-religious thought. Additionally, Christianity is not a Western invention, nor is it exclusive to the West.
The Rule of Law applies in many non-Western civilisations too.
I am unsure what is meant by "nations" here. Nation states, sure. Peoples? Erm, no.
Quote:
5.The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
All nations have the right to exist, sure.
Nationalism is generally a bad thing that leads to violence and division. There's also nothing wrong with immigration - it often enriches a country.
Quote:
6.The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
13.The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
13.The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
Globalism is good for most people; the economic benefits of international free trade are well established. This is like denying common descent.
Quote:
7.The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
It's a good null hypothesis. The burden is on the alt-right to show that moral equality does not exist.
Quote:
8.The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
The scientific consensus is not based on democracy. It is based on the best interpretation of complex data.
Quote:
10.The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
Does the alt-right want to return the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii to their native peoples? That seems an extreme and impractical solution.
Does it support the seizure of white property in Africa? That seems rather more practical, but perhaps counter-productive and immoral.
Quote:
11.The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
Not with liberalism and tolerance, two of the most important principles of the Western civilisation that the alt-right holds so dear. Or is it actually opposed to Western civilisation?
Quote:
14.The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
While white individuals have rights, no groups have rights other than those derived from the rights of the members. If races die out, then they die out, and that's OK.
Quote:
15.The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
This seems to contradict point #14, which gives special status to white people, as well as point #4, which gives special status to the West.
There aren't human sub-species, so I'm curious as to why Mr Day thinks that there are.
Quote:
16.The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
Immigration and genetic assimilation are not "efforts to exterminate nations". They are the result of individuals exercising their liberty.
29 Aug 2016, 11:17 am
Quote:
Although I think that Western civilizations are currently amongst the best in the world, I don't think non-Western countries are necessarily worse. For example, Japan and South Korea
Not the best examples, both were militarily occupied by the West, their systems of government practically designed by the West. They were effectively culturally "colonised", for lack of a better word by the United States in the post-war period.
Quote:
I am unsure what is meant by "nations" here. Nation states, sure. Peoples? Erm, no.
I can't give a definitive answer, I am only just beginning to climb down into the rabbit hole of Vox-world. He mentions genetic nations a lot, but genetically identical nations can also have disparate cultural practices, which should also be protected from outside influence.
Quote:
Globalism is good for most people; the economic benefits of international free trade are well established.
There is more to life than money, and these things do matter to many people.
Quote:
Does the alt-right want to return the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii to their native peoples? That seems an extreme and impractical solution.
No I don't think so, it's a forward looking view. It wouldn't support for example the creation of Israel today in the manner it was created, but it's done now, it exists, it has a right to exist and a right to continue to be "genetically" and culturally Jewish.
Quote:
Does it support the seizure of white property in Africa? That seems rather more practical, but perhaps counter-productive and immoral.
I think it would if Vox were in charge.
Quote:
Not with liberalism and tolerance, two of the most important principles of the Western civilisation that the alt-right holds so dear. Or is it actually opposed to Western civilisation?
These things don't seem to be working right now in Europe. Western ideas of tolerance were originally about tolerating various Christian sects within our societies, the alt-right would see extending that to non-Christian faiths, at least on this scale, as a corruption and not a true pillar of Western Civilisation.
Quote:
This seems to contradict point #14, which gives special status to white people
Only in their own nations I guess, not worldwide. Others noticed apparent contradictions in the list, which Vox himself half-answered at least. He thinks there is a genetic component to Western civilisation, which logically leads to point 14. Though I suspect he had other motives for including the 14 words in this list at point 14.
_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,132
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
29 Aug 2016, 11:51 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
It all really depends on where, when, and who when it's about the peaceful vs the violent spread of Christianity. Early on, Christians were the victims of violence in their urge to gain converts, and today Christianity is being spread through peaceful means in the third world. That of course was hardly the case with mass conversion by the sword in the Middle Ages, or during the wars of religion fought between Catholics and Protestants in the west's early modern period. With the exception of fanatics in the radical pro-life movement, or among the Orthodox Serbs bent on ethnic cleansing of Non-Orthodox neighbors not many years ago, or among IRA terrorists, the vast majority of Christians actually conduct their lives much closer to the values they were always meant to espouse.
I don't know that is really true of the vast majority, if we are talking specifically about what Jesus advocated. But yes I was more talking historically......sure now it gets spread about more peacefully but that doesn't really erase the very dark and grim history of it. I mean yes now that most old pagan cultures are all but dead and out of the way and it's a dominant religion.
I don't hate all Christians or anything like that but it would be very dangerous to allow the religions influence in the government, since it wouldn't be the ones advocating the principle of jesus who'd be seeking positions of power and influence, it would be the fundies and the fanatics.
_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,152
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
29 Aug 2016, 12:43 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It all really depends on where, when, and who when it's about the peaceful vs the violent spread of Christianity. Early on, Christians were the victims of violence in their urge to gain converts, and today Christianity is being spread through peaceful means in the third world. That of course was hardly the case with mass conversion by the sword in the Middle Ages, or during the wars of religion fought between Catholics and Protestants in the west's early modern period. With the exception of fanatics in the radical pro-life movement, or among the Orthodox Serbs bent on ethnic cleansing of Non-Orthodox neighbors not many years ago, or among IRA terrorists, the vast majority of Christians actually conduct their lives much closer to the values they were always meant to espouse.
I don't know that is really true of the vast majority, if we are talking specifically about what Jesus advocated. But yes I was more talking historically......sure now it gets spread about more peacefully but that doesn't really erase the very dark and grim history of it. I mean yes now that most old pagan cultures are all but dead and out of the way and it's a dominant religion.
I don't hate all Christians or anything like that but it would be very dangerous to allow the religions influence in the government, since it wouldn't be the ones advocating the principle of jesus who'd be seeking positions of power and influence, it would be the fundies and the fanatics.
I absolutely agree; that's why most of us Americans support separation of church and state.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,152
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
29 Aug 2016, 12:53 pm
chessboxer wrote:
Mikah wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:
Christianity, overall, has been a disaster to Western Civilization. The only reason why the West survived it is because secular thing based on naturalistic science has displaced Christian theological thought from its political and economic dominance. Do you like life saving medicine, computers and machines to do the hard work? If Christianity had prevailed you would have none of these things. You would still be living in the Middle Ages. Back in those times most people where covered with sh*t and most people did not live to be 40 years old.
Saving this gem in my "This is what atheists actually believe" folder.
BallChatzaf is right here. Western Civilization has prospered despite Christianity, not because of it. Ancient Greece comes under 'Western Civilization', and Christianity had nothing to do with that. Christianity is an alien religion to Europeans, and it's poison. It teaches Christians that anybody can become 'one of them' just through holding a ridiculous set of beliefs, and that through holding the right 'beliefs' the dregs of this world will somehow prosper after death and "inherit the kingdom of heaven" (where they will presumably rule over their betters whom they despise). If some people on the alt-right still want to cling to this nonsense, it suggests they still haven't really moved on from conservatism. I suggest that if you want to see what Christianity is really about read what Nietzsche said about it, or just look at a picture of the Pope in Europe kissing the feet of Muslim interlopers.
Mod edit: anti-Semitic remarks removed
Despite the fact that Christianity came from outside the west, it's been part of our culture for two thousand years. It is an indelible part of western culture.
And yes, anyone can come from the outside to join our society, and has always been a practise in the west. That was the case with ancient Rome, when citizenship was extended to anyone deemed worthy of it. Or in the case of Barbarian tribes, who extended membership in the gens to anyone who was willing to fight for the chief of king, or fragments of defeated peoples or neighbors were added to the tribe in order to replenish their own losses from endemic war or famine.
As for so called Muslim interlopers - their grandchildren will be Europeans. Europeans have never been racially pure. Ever hear of hybrid vigor? Well, that goes a long way to explain the west's success.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
29 Aug 2016, 1:06 pm
Mikah wrote:
He thinks there is a genetic component to Western civilisation, which logically leads to point 14. Though I suspect he had other motives for including the 14 words in this list at point 14.
Motives such as being racist due to having low self-esteem and probably unsatisfactory genital size? How do you talk of this 'vox' (who wants to take away others' 'voices', how ironic) as if he was some scholar when in fact he's simply a thug behind a keyboard. If you seriously think it's only other religions are bothersome then you probably need to talk to the victims of the Spanish Inquisition, or the various witchhunts all the family can enjoy... really, christianity should be doomed along with every other delusion, including nationalism and speciesism. No one can talk of the irrationality of religion 'x' without discounting the same delusions present in religion 'y'.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,152
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
29 Aug 2016, 1:08 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
I am looking forward to "John Stuart Mill is not a good political philosopher, and I myself am a highly respected political philosopher".
Although I think that Western civilizations are currently amongst the best in the world, I don't think non-Western countries are necessarily worse. For example, Japan and South Korea are probably better places to live than Alabama or Greece.
I also don't think Christianity is a foundational pillar of Western civilisation. The best bits of it owe more to non-religious thought. Additionally, Christianity is not a Western invention, nor is it exclusive to the West.
The Rule of Law applies in many non-Western civilisations too.
I am unsure what is meant by "nations" here. Nation states, sure. Peoples? Erm, no.
All nations have the right to exist, sure.
Nationalism is generally a bad thing that leads to violence and division. There's also nothing wrong with immigration - it often enriches a country.
Globalism is good for most people; the economic benefits of international free trade are well established. This is like denying common descent.
It's a good null hypothesis. The burden is on the alt-right to show that moral equality does not exist.
The scientific consensus is not based on democracy. It is based on the best interpretation of complex data.
Does the alt-right want to return the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii to their native peoples? That seems an extreme and impractical solution.
Does it support the seizure of white property in Africa? That seems rather more practical, but perhaps counter-productive and immoral.
Not with liberalism and tolerance, two of the most important principles of the Western civilisation that the alt-right holds so dear. Or is it actually opposed to Western civilisation?
While white individuals have rights, no groups have rights other than those derived from the rights of the members. If races die out, then they die out, and that's OK.
This seems to contradict point #14, which gives special status to white people, as well as point #4, which gives special status to the West.
There aren't human sub-species, so I'm curious as to why Mr Day thinks that there are.
Immigration and genetic assimilation are not "efforts to exterminate nations". They are the result of individuals exercising their liberty.
Mikah wrote:
4.The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
Although I think that Western civilizations are currently amongst the best in the world, I don't think non-Western countries are necessarily worse. For example, Japan and South Korea are probably better places to live than Alabama or Greece.
I also don't think Christianity is a foundational pillar of Western civilisation. The best bits of it owe more to non-religious thought. Additionally, Christianity is not a Western invention, nor is it exclusive to the West.
The Rule of Law applies in many non-Western civilisations too.
I am unsure what is meant by "nations" here. Nation states, sure. Peoples? Erm, no.
Quote:
5.The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
All nations have the right to exist, sure.
Nationalism is generally a bad thing that leads to violence and division. There's also nothing wrong with immigration - it often enriches a country.
Quote:
6.The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
13.The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
13.The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
Globalism is good for most people; the economic benefits of international free trade are well established. This is like denying common descent.
Quote:
7.The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
It's a good null hypothesis. The burden is on the alt-right to show that moral equality does not exist.
Quote:
8.The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
The scientific consensus is not based on democracy. It is based on the best interpretation of complex data.
Quote:
10.The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
Does the alt-right want to return the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii to their native peoples? That seems an extreme and impractical solution.
Does it support the seizure of white property in Africa? That seems rather more practical, but perhaps counter-productive and immoral.
Quote:
11.The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
Not with liberalism and tolerance, two of the most important principles of the Western civilisation that the alt-right holds so dear. Or is it actually opposed to Western civilisation?
Quote:
14.The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
While white individuals have rights, no groups have rights other than those derived from the rights of the members. If races die out, then they die out, and that's OK.
Quote:
15.The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
This seems to contradict point #14, which gives special status to white people, as well as point #4, which gives special status to the West.
There aren't human sub-species, so I'm curious as to why Mr Day thinks that there are.
Quote:
16.The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
Immigration and genetic assimilation are not "efforts to exterminate nations". They are the result of individuals exercising their liberty.
As for point (14 - We must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children, it should be pointed out that that is a slogan promoted by the white supremacist movement, originating with the leader and originator of the white supremacist terrorist group called the Order, Robert Mathews. Mathews was a known murderer and thief who died in a gun battle with law enforcement here in Washington state. Does anyone in their right mind seriously want to be tossing around the slogan dreamt up by the fevered imaginings of a sack of roaches like Mathews? Anyone making use of that slogan should be regarded with the utmost apprehension and contempt.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
29 Aug 2016, 1:18 pm
I find it interesting that "anti-equalitarian" or alternately "anti-egalitarian" usually means that women aren't given equal consideration under the law. An anti-equalitarian society wouldn't consider women as people like men are people, women would have fewer rights (like rights to make decisions over their own bodies/health) in an anti-egalitarian society. I and the majority of other women would have a HUGE problem with that, as I am pretty fond of being considered a full person with full rights under the law and would not be willing to give that up. Anyone who tried to force us back into indentured servitude in the home and reduce our rights would have a full-scale war on their hands.
You can't go back in time and take rights that women have earned in the past 100 years or so in the West away, that will just not fly. I'm amazed no one has brought this up yet.
_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War
(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)
