Who are the alt-right, exactly? (An open letter)

[Manfred Belheim]

Doesn't that definition include the mainstream left though?

 

[Lexicus]

6 - because "extreme misogyny and the active promotion of rape" is a stance I've seen literally nobody espouse, ever.

People on this board have espoused that stance.

1 - because it suddenly injects Transhumanism into the mix!! Where the hell did that one come from?! That's a bit out of left field isn't it?

You should read the full essay if you want to know more. It actually acknowledges that transhumanism is something of an "odd man out" in this list, and has a specific section explaining why it was included.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

People on this board have espoused that stance.

Well I'm not going to quibble over "extreme misogyny" because that's not really well-defined and I strongly suspect you would set the bar for that much lower than I would. But "active promotion of rape" is quite a specific claim. Please, please link me to an example of this on this board. It's not like I've read every post ever, so I can't be sure this never happened, but I would be very, very surprised.

You should read the full essay if you want to know more. It actually acknowledges that transhumanism is something of an "odd man out" in this list, and has a specific section explaining why it was included.

Well... okay, maybe later. Having not yet read it I can only say that it feels wrong/useless as a criterion in that a) being an adherent of transhumanism surely cannot be enough in and of itself to be considered alt-right, and b) not being an adherent of transhumanism surely cannot be enough to disqualify an otherwise prime alt-right candidate.

 

[Lexicus]

Well I'm not going to quibble over "extreme misogyny" because that's not really well-defined and I strongly suspect you would set the bar for that much lower than I would. But "active promotion of rape" is quite a specific claim. Please, please link me to an example of this on this board. It's not like I've read every post ever, so I can't be sure this never happened, but I would be very, very surprised.

So for example when you imply that you disbelieve all rape victims because they "might be lying" that in my view is de facto promotion of rape.

Well... okay, maybe later. Having not yet read it I can only say that it feels wrong/useless as a criterion in that a) being an adherent of transhumanism surely cannot be enough in and of itself to be considered alt-right, and b) not being an adherent of transhumanism surely cannot be enough to disqualify an otherwise prime alt-right candidate.

Your objections strike me as sort of silly considering that this list isn't meant to be a logically airtight definition of the alt-right. Indeed, that list is actually of the core beliefs of neoreactionaries; the alt-right is only a tendency within neoreaction.

 

[Kyriakos]

Fascistic just seemed to flow better in the sentence. *shrugs*

Anyway, @metatron, you should read this: https://ia800403.us.archive.org/25/items/the-silicon-ideology/the-silicon-ideology.pdf

This is my tentative answer of who the alt-right is. I'll quote the most immediately relevant passage:

Thus, here is a perhaps more comprehensⅳe list of the backbone of neo-reactionary values:

1. Transhumanism and faith in the power of technology as a means towards other ends.

2. An authoritarian form of government. In more “moderate” or “reasonable” forms, this takes the form of running the country as a joint-stock corporation (this, for example, is [Mencius] Moldbug’s position), which is well within the norm of neoliberal thought. This, however, blends into calling for monarchy and aristocracy in more “extreme” variants (if we can classify them as “moderate” and “extreme”), with the ruler usually in either case being either a tech CEO (with several proposals being floated to make Eric Schmidt or Elon Musk or Peter Thiel “CEO of America”) or a super-intelligent machinic mind. The neo-reactionaries hope to be the aristocrats, or, sometimes, monarchs of their own in a patchwork of principalities somewhat reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire.

3. The belief in a “Cathedral”, similar to the role ideology plays in Leftist theory, but one that pushes progressⅳe ends (feminism, multiculturalism, democracy, equality)– and a hostility towards this “Cathedral”

4. White (or, less frequently, East Asian, or, still less frequently, South Asian) nationalism, accompanied by scientific racism, eugenics, social Darwinism, degeneration theory, biological determinism, and a belief that ethnic uniformity increases social capital. Very frequently accompanied with anti-Semitism and the anti-Semitic canards of the early 20th century. Almost always accompanied with Islamophobia.

5. Faith in the Austrian School of Economics, or, less frequently, its more ’respectable’, less obⅵously astrological, cousin the Chicago School

6. Extreme misogyny based in evolutionary psychology, the actⅳe promotion of rape– stemming from this belief in traditional gender roles, extreme homophobia and transphobia

7. Cultural touchstones in war-based ⅵdeo games and tabletop games (such as the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000) along with “The Matrⅸ” (a moⅵe, ironically, written and directed by two ans women partially about gender theory–one, in any case, that the NRx-ers have unfortunately clinged on to in bad readings)

8. Among the less academic, an obsession with ****oldry and the use of mass harassment tactics (death threats, rape threats, DDoS, doxⅺng, swatting, misinformation campaigns &c) to silence enemies

There are two poles within neo-reaction, the “academic” pole, exemplified in LessWrong and the blogs of the main theorists of the movement (Unqualified Reservations, More 9 Right, Outside In), and the “alt-right” pole, exemplified in ***** (especially the /pol/ board), *****, My Posting Career, and The Right Stuff. The two poles meet on Reddit, Twitter, and Tumblr, among other sites. In addition, neo-reactionary ideas are quite common in Silicon Valley, though often without explicit allegiance to its theory, as can be seen in the statements of Peter Thiel and Balaji Srinⅳasan, among others.

Emphasis mine, and I also added [Mencius] near the top. Mencius Moldbug is the pseudonym of Curtis Yarvin, among the most important neo-reactionary thinkers. I've run into his writing before in my internet travels. Indeed, I was previously familiar with much of what's discussed in this piece but I didn't know the full story or how to synthesize the information into a coherent narrative or theory. As you can probably see, it has already informed my response to Gori.

As Manfred noted, regardless of who believes what, transhumanism is actually something some known alt-right people are outspoken against. Eg the Alex Jones.

You lost. Next time build more Fema camps

 

[Lexicus]

Is it too much to ask for you people to read the bit of the essay that deals with transhumanism before commenting on it?

 

[Kyriakos]

Is it too much to ask for you people to read the bit of the essay that deals with transhumanism before commenting on it?

You can quote it here; we are all lazy by non-transhuman nature

I mean transhumanism usually means wanting to merge with machine parts and live for ever - even 500 years would be good, to paraphrase.
Now if in the article it is some metaphor for being schizotypal (odd man out )... well...

 

[Lexicus]

Well I would, but copy-pasting from the thing is laborious due to the weird characters it uses probably to deter people from copy-pasting large parts of it.

 

[Kyriakos]

I will read it later on, ok. (have to go out now...) That said, schizotypal people can be anything, from far right to far left to completely apolitical. The defining thing isn't a stable trait but a will to be the different one. (thus the problem).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So for example when you imply that you disbelieve all rape victims because they "might be lying" that in my view is de facto promotion of rape.

Well... a) it still wouldn't be, and b) that isn't my stance and I've never said it was. But if you say I've "implied" it then I guess you're doing that thing where you... think I might be lying?

Your objections strike me as sort of silly considering that this list isn't meant to be a logically airtight definition of the alt-right. Indeed, that list is actually of the core beliefs of neoreactionaries; the alt-right is only a tendency within neoreaction.

Well why did you post it in a thread about defining the alt-right then?

 

[Lexicus]

Well... a) it still wouldn't be, and b) that isn't my stance and I've never said it was. But if you say I've "implied" it then I guess you're doing that thing where you... think I might be lying?

All I can do is logically conclude from the information you gave. You said that you assume rape accusers might be lying, the only necessary condition for this being that they are human. Since I'm unaware of any non-human rape accusers, it follows that you must have a blanket policy of disbelieving rape accusations because the accusers might be lying.

Well why did you post it in a thread about defining the alt-right then?

You don't think listing some of the core beliefs of the group of which the alt-right is a subset might be useful in defining the alt-right?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

All I can do is logically conclude from the information you gave. You said that you assume rape accusers might be lying, the only necessary condition for this being that they are human. Since I'm unaware of any non-human rape accusers, it follows that you must have a blanket policy of disbelieving rape accusations because the accusers might be lying.

I agree that all you can do is logically conclude what I think from what I say, it's just that you're not doing that. Not wishing to automatically believe any and all accusations doesn't equate to an active disbelief of them. Moreover, my (clearly stated) stance has always been about not being willing to positively "convict" an accused person on the basis of an accusation or hearsay alone, not about making any definite judgement about the accuser. This also is not some stance I hold uniquely for rape cases either. So you might as well say that I'm guilty of actively promoting all crime.

You don't think listing some of the core beliefs of the group of which the alt-right is a subset might be useful in defining the alt-right?

Only if those core beliefs are common to the subset, which you've just said they aren't in this case. That's a bit like listing "blonde hair" as a qualifying criterion for brown haired people, just because they're a subset of all people.

Also you haven't defined "neo-reactionary" either, other than state that it's a superset that includes the alt-right, which also hasn't really been defined.

 

[metatron]

Points 1 and 6 are interesting.

1 - because it suddenly injects Transhumanism into the mix!! Where the hell did that one come from?! That's a bit out of left field isn't it?

6 - because "extreme misogyny and the active promotion of rape" is a stance I've seen literally nobody espouse, ever. So if you really consider that to be a fundamental backbone of the alt-right (or neo-reactionaries, whatever that means) then you're saying that essentially no people qualify. Either that or you're claiming that the people already identified as alt-right in this thread actively promote rape, which is a ludicrous and blatantly false claim.

Re 1:
It's basically meant as a tangent to eugenics (and related concepts) and, in my view more imjportantly, neo-monarchism. You know, a lot of the rather crippling problems with a benevolent overlord appear temptingly easier to solve when you can just build one.

Re 6:
It's a fallacy. The good old goal posts. The extreme position is: You have to be ready to agree that all men should be killed as a precaution. If you are not ready to agree to that you are a "rape apologist", you want rape to happen.
This is obviously absurd, but it's merely the extreme end of a continuum of absurd demands, the absurdity of which i merely less obvious.

Anyway, @metatron, you should read this: https://ia800403.us.archive.org/25/items/the-silicon-ideology/the-silicon-ideology.pdf

1. This falls squarely in the realm of fictional propaganda.
2. I have skated through this quickly, seeing the sites, as it were, but i will not expend any significant labor studying this, mostly on account of 1. But also because it's largely unneccessary for our purposes here.
3. I find the bulletpoints on page 6 quite entertaining, mostly because they match my would-be characterisation of contemporary popular American "feminism" relatively closely.

1. Transhumanism and faith in the power of technology as a means towards other ends.

2. An authoritarian form of government. In more “moderate” or “reasonable” forms, this takes the form of running the country as a joint-stock corporation (this, for example, is [Mencius] Moldbug’s position), which is well within the norm of neoliberal thought. This, however, blends into calling for monarchy and aristocracy in more “extreme” variants (if we can classify them as “moderate” and “extreme”), with the ruler usually in either case being either a tech CEO (with several proposals being floated to make Eric Schmidt or Elon Musk or Peter Thiel “CEO of America”) or a super-intelligent machinic mind. The neo-reactionaries hope to be the aristocrats, or, sometimes, monarchs of their own in a patchwork of principalities somewhat reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire.

3. The belief in a “Cathedral”, similar to the role ideology plays in Leftist theory, but one that pushes progressⅳe ends (feminism, multiculturalism, democracy, equality)– and a hostility towards this “Cathedral”

4. White (or, less frequently, East Asian, or, still less frequently, South Asian) nationalism, accompanied by scientific racism, eugenics, social Darwinism, degeneration theory, biological determinism, and a belief that ethnic uniformity increases social capital. Very frequently accompanied with anti-Semitism and the anti-Semitic canards of the early 20th century. Almost always accompanied with Islamophobia.

5. Faith in the Austrian School of Economics, or, less frequently, its more ’respectable’, less obⅵously astrological, cousin the Chicago School

6. Extreme misogyny based in evolutionary psychology, the actⅳe promotion of rape– stemming from this belief in traditional gender roles, extreme homophobia and transphobia

7. Cultural touchstones in war-based ⅵdeo games and tabletop games (such as the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000) along with “The Matrⅸ” (a moⅵe, ironically, written and directed by two ans women partially about gender theory–one, in any case, that the NRx-ers have unfortunately clinged on to in bad readings)

8. Among the less academic, an obsession with ****oldry and the use of mass harassment tactics (death threats, rape threats, DDoS, doxⅺng, swatting, misinformation campaigns &c) to silence enemies

Here, we have same the problem as earlier. Your very own characterisation of the individuals i inquired about doesn't match the criteria. There are frequently made accussation against users on this board, to at least imply that they are in some way part of or associated with the alt-right. The views of those posters don't match this list all that well either.
Never mind that most of these point contain fallacies in and of themselves, there is no credible case being made that these things naturally go together.
This is further complicated by the fat that people of Ms. Armistead's ilk are more guilty of sev eral of these items - particularly #8 - then the vast majority of their detractors i.e. who is commonly understood as their opposition.

Neither from the article nor from your comments do we gain any additional insight into 1. who exactly can be lumped into this alt-right thing, 2. why exactly and 3. what's the extend of the thing.
The impression remains that it is potentially everybody who doesn't want to bring about a deep red utopia by wave of a magic wand (or violence) and that it is in practical terms anybody whom Ms. Armistead and you want to browbeat or siloence at any given time for the above end or merely for your convenience.

Most tellingly, it still near-perfectly obscurred to me, whether i should count as a par of the alt-right (not to mention many other people where i would be wandering).
By your earlier characterisation of the thing i very clearly should count as a member.
Yet you refuse to say that, presumably for courtesies sake.
By Gori's characterisation i would be supert-distant to the alt-right and be part of their hated opposition.
If i read Ms. Armistead's bullet points the way i understand language and with facts in mind, i similarly should be counted not even as a bystander but as an enemy of the alt right.
But if i read those with the code you people use and the relevant lore in mind, i clearly should be counted as a member.

This is to a varying degree true for anyone who a) has any opinions on any of the touched upon issues and b) is not either a Neo-Nazi, White Suppremicist, or some sort or another of revolutionary leftist.
Seeing last night's conversation, Ms. Armistead and Cutlass (never mind you, Gori and the resident social justice experts on this board) can't even agree on whether Bill Maher is a member of the alt-right.
That's a problem.
Please address this problem in an effective fashion.

 

[Lexicus]

1. This falls squarely in the realm of fictional propaganda.

Well, if that's what you think there is little point in further discussion, because that is easily the best analysis of the alt-right I have yet seen.

3. I find the bulletpoints on page 6 quite entertaining, mostly because they match my would-be characterisation of contemporary popular American "feminism" relatively closely.

Fascinating. I have little doubt that the author would consider that mainstream US feminism (cf the "imperial" or "white" feminism of Hillary Clinton) is largely in service of political goals that are, in essence, fascistic.

This is to a varying degree true for anyone who a) has any opinions on any of the touched upon issues and b) is not either a Neo-Nazi, White Suppremicist, or some sort or another of revolutionary leftist.
Seeing last night's conversation, Ms. Armistead and Cutlass (never mind you, Gori and the resident social justice experts on this board) can't even agree on whether Bill Maher is a member of the alt-right.
That's a problem.
Please address this problem in an effective fashion.

You seem to be laboring under the entitled delusion that it is somehow the job of the posters you named (including myself) to come up with a grand unified theory of the alt-right which determines exactly where its boundaries lie, and then present this theory to you. Well, that's not happening. This is now the third time I'm telling that it's not happening. Cutlass, Gori, and the others are perfectly at liberty to come up with whatever theories they want about how to define the alt-right, and if you see the fact that the three of us disagree as a "problem" that needs to be "addressed" I don't know what to tell you. It's not a problem and we're under no obligation to come to any kind of agreement on a theory that can satisfy you.

The impression remains that it is potentially everybody who doesn't want to bring about a deep red utopia by wave of a magic wand (or violence) and that it is in practical terms anybody whom Ms. Armistead and you want to browbeat or siloence at any given time for the above end or merely for your convenience.

If your opinion of me is really so low, I again don't see the point in continued interaction with you.

Remember this from your OP:

1. You set up some sort of casual definition of the term. Nothing fancy, no PhD thesis required, we will take it in good faith.

I am not seeing that promised good faith right now.

 

[onejayhawk]

I am not seeing that promised good faith right now.

That comment cuts both ways.

If I were to believe this thread, there is a huge alt-right conspiracy. Reality is more a handful of not-very-influential bloggers.

J

 

[metatron]

I am not seeing that promised good faith right now.

Well, my patience is similarly strained.

Fascinating. I have little doubt that the author would consider that mainstream US feminism (cf the "imperial" or "white" feminism of Hillary Clinton) is largely in service of political goals that are, in essence, fascistic.

I am quite aware of that.

Well, if that's what you think there is little point in further discussion, because that is easily the best analysis of the alt-right I have yet seen.

You seem to be laboring under the entitled delusion that it is somehow the job of the posters you named (including myself) to come up with a grand unified theory of the alt-right which determines exactly where its boundaries lie, and then present this theory to you. Well, that's not happening. This is now the third time I'm telling that it's not happening. Cutlass, Gori, and the others are perfectly at liberty to come up with whatever theories they want about how to define the alt-right, and if you see the fact that the three of us disagree as a "problem" that needs to be "addressed" I don't know what to tell you. It's not a problem and we're under no obligation to come to any kind of agreement on a theory that can satisfy you.

You are misrepresenting the requirement. Nobody is demanding said unified theory.
What is demanded, and in fact required - this is not an "entitlement" - is some loose framework as to what the term is supposed to actually mean.
In concrete terms, not in theory.
E.g. as i mentioned: Neo-Nazi is a relatively well defined type. There are loose ends, fuzzy edges. There may be debatable cases. There may be some - some! - disagreement about the scope, and there isn't necessarily a unified theory. But there is a pretty clear set of criteria that allow us to see Mr. Spencer and his Hitler-salute-minions and call it with relative ease, lack of need for debate or aforementioned grand theory.

 

[Lexicus]

What is demanded, and in fact required - this is not an "entitlement" - is some loose framework as to what the term is supposed to actually mean.
In concrete terms, not in theory.

You have already been given that. Some (not necessarily all!) of the core beliefs of neoreactionaries combined with the chan/trolling aesthetic is what I am offering as the 'loose framework' of the alt-right. I don't see what's insufficient about it.

E.g. as i mentioned: Neo-Nazi is relatively well defined type.

Well, duh. Neo-Nazis have been around for decades. The alt-right is relatively new. If you're expecting the term to be as well-defined as "Neo-Nazi," you are again, sorry to say it, doomed to disappointment. Wait three or four decades and maybe it will be.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well could you at least specify which of the core neoreactionary beliefs apply and which do not? I guess we can drop the transhumanism one, but do you still agree with the "actively promote rape" one? And... could you define neoreactionary as well, or do we not need to know that?

 

[Lexicus]

Well could you at least specify which of the core neoreactionary beliefs apply and which do not?

No, I cannot, because different ones may apply in different cases.

I guess we can drop the transhumanism one, but do you still agree with the "actively promote rape" one?

No, we're still going with both of those.

And... could you define neoreactionary as well, or do we not need to know that?

Oh my god I cannot believe that a person can actually be this dense. The quoted text we've been arguing about the last page and a half is literally the definition of neoreactionary. A neoreactionary is someone who holds most of the listed beliefs.

If you're looking for clear-cut, dictionary-style definitions in this thread, you are not going to get them. These terms are subject to theoretical contention, reasonable people can disagree on how to define them, and it's probably only possible to define them loosely in any case.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No, I cannot, because different ones may apply in different cases.

Fair enough.

No, we're still going with both of those.

Okay. Bizarre, but again fair enough.

Oh my god I cannot believe that a person can actually be this dense. The quoted text we've been arguing about the last page and a half is literally the definition of neoreactionary. A neoreactionary is someone who holds most of the listed beliefs.

Lol, okay. I mean to me it looks more like a list of qualifying criteria and/or warning signs for some categorisation that has a more distilled definition that exists outside of the list. As a definition in and of itself it's a bit... weirdly specific and meaningless isn't it? I mean it's a rather odd grab-bag of very specific criteria - Being an adherent of transhumanism, actively promoting rape, participating in DDoS attacks and enjoying a nice game of Warhammer, all while subscribing to the Austrian School of Economics. And those are just the greatest hits. Does there really need to be a specific term to describe such a person?! What use does that serve? And then the alt-right are only a subset of these people?