TOTW: the Alt-Right

  • Posted on: 28 November 2016
  • By: thecollective

Over the past few years and especially proceeding Trump's election, there has been a lot of debate about the growth of right-wing authoritarianism. One of the items on the table is the use of terminology to describe relatively new forms of ideology and practice throughout Europe and the United States. In the USA, pundits are taking positions on the label "alt-right;" whether a variety of different sorts of authoritarians ought to be recognized in their particularities, or rather exposed as (or lumped into) an undifferentiated camp that we simply call "fascists" or "white nationalists". A standout article on this topic titled, "Calling them "alt-right" helps us fight them" can be found on the blog Three Way Fight. As the title suggests, the author(s) take the position that we'd be better off recognizing these authoritarians with the new label.

Of particular interest to this thecollectivist is this bullet-list that covers the composition of the Alt-Right:

* The alt-right encompasses rightist ideologies that don’t center on race. White nationalism has been the alt-right’s center of gravity, but the movement also overlaps with other political currents, including:

- the so-called manosphere, an internet subculture of men’s rights activists, pick-up artists, and others focused on destroying feminism and re-intensifying men’s dominance over women;

- the neoreactionary movement (also known as the Dark Enlightenment), a network of authoritarian intellectuals who regard popular sovereignty as a major threat to civilization;

- the right-wing anarchism of Keith Preston’s Attack the System, which blends opposition to big states with a kind of Nietzschean elitism;

- Jack Donovan’s male tribalism, which envisions a system of patriarchy based on close-knit “gangs” of warrior men.

While these four tendencies have had a debatable impact in the official sphere of politics, anarchists have also been dealing with their interventions for some time. It ought to go without saying that as anarchists, authoritarianism isn't seen as contained within the right-wing, with any particular presidential candidate (be it Trump, Clinton, or Sanders), or that "alt-right" ideologies represent a complete summary of contemporary authoritarianism. However for this week, we are inviting you to participate in a conversation on these particular sorts of authoritarians:

What are your thoughts on terminology?

How do you shape your tactics in response to these tendencies?

In your estimate, to what extent does all of this signify a growing Authoritarian International, not a phenomenon bound by the borders of nation-states?

What do you think of the centrality the internet plays in the growth of the Alt-Right?

etc. etc.



He just has a very wide palate for what he will accept in the service of decentralization and ending empire.

This is the line he takes, but Preston's been caught saying homophobic and racist shit and he prominently hosts and prioritizes "national anarchist" content on his site to the point where all pretense of being distinct from those fucks is really lost.

When "caught saying homophobic and racist shit," how soon and by whom is one's left wing membership revoked? If I want to not be "caught" myself, should I just learn new vocabulary or do I need to reformat my thoughts? If the latter, can you recommend a program—not too expensive, ideally with a certifcate provided at the end. In the meantime I will try to pray away the isms and phobias skulking about in my subconscious.

"how soon and by whom is one's left wing membership revoked?"

That's kinda like asking "who decides that trees aren't dogs?" There's no "plant police" wandering around enforcing these rules, just some (somewhat) agreed-upon definitions which are available to anyone with half a brain.

Preston is a fucking fascist. He writes essay after essay about the need to include white nationalists in anarchy while holding a "purge or a pogrom" (his words) for queers, etc. His rants are sometimes more tame than the most hardened nazis, as his focus is third-positionist entryism, but you can still find them with little effort by following the ads/links all over his site. Anyone who denies this is either a complete fucking moron or totally fucking dishonest and probably both.m

Interestingly, this is something that right-wingers have no problem recognizing as these two reviews of my work from the Right indicate:

Let this forever be remembered as "that time Keith Fucking Preston showed up to back up Zig".

Just keep telling yourselves that this place isn't becoming a haven for alt-right entryism tho.

And that entails what exactly?

Do you offer alternatives or are you your enemy's creation?

Some found anarchism through the right, some through the left. Some have passed through it from one to the other. Thus we could describe this website as not only an entry, but also an exit, a crossroad, a stasis, or limbo.

But, but, but - these alt right racist trolls have something interesting (in our estimation) to say about leftism! Um, yeah, leftism is fucked, but maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities when you start making bed with neo-fascists (a more accurate moniker than Alt-right). these accusations of fascism by leftists considering that I've also been attacked by Nazis as a anti-racist, Marxist, hippie (which is actually closer to the truth, lol). Shit like that is all over the internet:

I'm just glad that the collective is open-minded enough to let posts from actual fascists stand while they run around deleting comments from people critical of the alt-right direction the site's going in. So nice of them to provide a safe space for these boneheads.

...the two links in my post above you will get an accurate view of what my relationship to the Right actually is.

There's nothing in those links with you or your views in them. Unless your real name is Carolyn Yeager?

I don't get what you are referring to.

is a satirical piece I wrote some years back criticizing efforts by LGBT activists to hijack anarchist or left/progressive movements generally and convert them into branch offices of their own movement. That was something that was actually going on with some groups I was involved with at the time, and there were anarchists who vehemently criticized me for writing that piece at the time whose subsequent experience in other milieus (Occupy, for example) led them to the conclusion that perhaps I had a point.

The national-anarchists have generally been very supportive of my own work, so naturally I give them a greater platform than some other anarchists who go out of their way to attack me. I consider national-anarchism to be a legitimate branch of anarchism but no more so than Christian anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-transhumanism, anarcho-pacificism, etc.

The wider objective of Attack the System is to develop a society-wide consensus towards pan-decentralization (just as Antiwar.Com wishes to develop a consensus towards a non-interventionist foreign policy for the USA), and developing methodologies for achieving this objective. Naturally, this kind of project will draw the sympathies of many from the far right given the context of the political culture of North America. It's as simple as that.

Btw, I recently gave a talk where I discussed the ways in which anarchism and the far right overlap or have influenced one another: I don't necessarily endorse any of the ideas being discussed in this. It's just an overview of what's out there.

I think that certain political/philosophical tendencies have migrated online as mutable but fairly stable conglomerates of thought that revolve around certain lynchpin concepts and thanks to technology, can spontaneously manifest anywhere in the physical world.

Reactionary islamic jihadism is a good example, militant antifascism is another. Note that these tendencies are relatively complete in their praxis, whether or not we agree with them. They provide a body of thought AND a set of tactics to apply. If the Alt Right is actually new, and not just a rehashing of old ideas, it must be in the process of experimenting with tactics at this moment.

The "alt-right" has got several similarities with '20s-'30s fascist movements if you actually draw a point-by-point comparison. It is just being reframed in the current context of globalization and neoliberalism to which it brings its same old set of answers. The major difference with old-school Far Right is how it has one or two contradictory characters from one group/movement to the next. Not all neonazis or WP are antisemites, while some, like in Florida, have been buddying with radical Muslims, for instance.

The biggest danger with contemporary antifas is the superficiality and one-sidedness that many demonstrate when it comes to be identifying fascists. I, for once, have been called an islamophobe and even a Nazi just because I dared talking about the unquestionable reality of Islamic fascist tendencies, and how so easily they are feeding from cultural conservatism predominant in many parts of the Muslim world.

So you end up with Leftists mindlessly supporting the most ultra-conservative and even fascist tendencies within the milieu...

This mindset which gives a full waiver for the shittiest politics to people from some minorities has to FULL stop. Being gay is not an excuse for sexism and sexual harassment, being Muslim is no excuse for keeping the women at home, being Black is no excuse to be a cop.

If you are against political and religious oppression, for gender equity and against racism, go for it all the way, and fuck your liberal double standards. They only makes matters worse.

So, I've only been reading on the site for a few days. I have a small problem, this week I joined speech right? It's literally full of tea party'rs and crazies. I thought perhaps I might suggest that as many comrades as we can muster join and post as well.

I've found the same mostly. However I am on so you can always add me.

I first heard the term 'alt-right' around six months ago. Seems like it originated from liberals, seeking to wrap their heads around a broad and diverse group of people who existed outside of the neocon/neolib political paradigm they were familiar with. As such it's used as a label of diminution and disregard. Considering the invisiblized women and POCs that voted for Trump, the term 'alt-right' can be easily framed as liberal racist/sexist hate-speech. The term's creation and use seem naive, but then again the left has been failing at propaganda in 2016. Perhaps they are relegated to doubling down on failed tactics.

Some people now use the term for self-identification, and the phenomenon of 'reclaiming' rears its head again. As pervasive amongst the right as the left. All is owned and we become the insults & containers fabricated for us by others, because defeat, compliance, and an uncreative vocabulary are seen as empowerment. Behold the self-identified: deplorable, racist, slut, faggot, nigga, hillbilly, redneck, bitter clinger, cuckold, infidel, beta male.

A wardrobe change, speech primer and a haircut are all you need to become any of the aformentioned. Can't escape our modern destiny, we delusional highfalutin consumers of things anarchic. #cyborgpride

I don't see the current political movement around Trump, Le Pen, Farrage, etc, as any more or less worshipful of authority than Obama-ites, and the US administrations from the past few decades. Perhaps the OP can clarify their use of the term.

I do see a move away from totalitarian PC vocabulary control, with these nationalist movements though.

Sitting in a trendy hipster cafe today, I was pleasantly surprised to overhear a grizzled octegenarian veteran at the table next to me disturbing the peace—denouncing democrats and harping on about 'draining the swamp.' He is the new revolutionary figure. The new vanguard. Revcoms, demsocs, maoists, may never admit it, but this is the inevitable result of decades of neocon/neolib administration & authority.

I think many who read this site, post-lefts, nihilists, anarchs, antipolitical types, have seen it this way for a while. Its been interesting & satisfying to watch it all play out this 2015/2016 election cycle.

you were pleasantly surprised to hear the same old nonsense mainstream American political sectarianism of the 'conservative bashing the liberals' variety? why? the things he said aren't new at all and are definitely not the appearance of some new revolutionary figure, its just the same old shit.

'Pleasantly surprised' by the contrast of the old fellow in an environment usually populated by obama & clinton drones, 'reasonable' bernouts, and academic neolibs. The snowflakes were melting in his radiant thoughtcrime. Yes, some of his statements we've heard before. Criticism of immigration policy, islam, democrats, swamp draining, liberalism, etc. But I've never seen folks with such views so closely connected to a candidate who seems to honestly agree with them, and who wasn't expected to get a party nomination let alone the presidency. Previous republican candidates in living memory were neocons who only paid lip-service to nationalist, patriotic or conservative voters.

I think the 2016 election and, correspondingly, what's happening behind the scenes in the intelligence agencies, are all unique compared to the past few decades of republicrat control. The 'silent coupe' Snowden has alluded to. And what Assange & Dotcom have partially corroborated. Ready to be disappointed though. It all remains in the realm of spectacle for me, sadly...

I maintain that anything resembling a revolutionary reaction to existing power structures can only come from the right. If parts of the military and intelligence agencies are also supporting them, they may well pull it off. Consider that revolution leads to nothing anarchic. It is only a reformulation of hierarchies and power. From monarchy to state communism is some instances, from liberal 'globalist' totalitarianism to conservative nationalism, in this instance.

Snowden and his revelations in this respect should be talked about more. Thanks for bringing it up, a good point for sure.

I maintain that anything resembling a revolutionary reaction to existing power structures can only come from the right.

"revolutionary reaction" - an oxymoron for submissive morons, those for whom "all remains in the realm of spectacle...sadly " (very sadly). Anything involving looking to an external authority is "revolutionary" only for those for whom "all remains in the realm of spectacle" including "revolution" - and all those endlessly repeated Trumpesque cliches about "draining the swamp" are merely a subtext for purifying the American race (yet another myth) infused with demagogic attempts to play to the submissive desires of impotent white workers who do nothing independent to combat their impotent situation. And the longish-term disaster to hit them, even if short-term Trump might provide them with the infrastructure to make them feel more "secure", will be just as great as that which hit the vast majority of Germans in the second half of WWII, because it's all leading to war.

What the fuck is this mostoppressed complacent cretin doing spewing out reasonable-sounding vomit on this site if not to confuse people with Trumpisms dressed as "revolutionary" ?

I agree with you that I am "reasonable-sounding." To your other statements: don't shoot the messenger. Describing a situation doesn't mean I'm its creator. The US government has been liberal/leftist for decades, in policy & in structure (bureaucratic). The reaction has to come from conservatives, as such.

You do not hold ownership of what is or is not, as you say, "independent" or authentic revolutionary/reactionary activity. The left certaintly hasn't displayed knowledge of such tactics. All they have done is marches/sit-ins/window-breakings with police oversight, and formed nonprofit/NGOs for which to extract guilt-money from naive donors. This does not threaten the existing power structure.

The militia movements of the 80s/90s is the last thing I can think of that had really drawn the domestic ire of the US gov't, because they had tactics, land & firepower. Three things leftists lack.

I am not a leftist or liberal - so don't lump me (or most people striving to oppose this society) in with NGOs and rubbish like that. Moreover, to describe the Democrats as "leftist" merely indicates how colonised you are by dominant idiocies: "reasonable sounding" does not mean "reasonable" in any meaningful way, it merely means you have adopted the forms of "correct" politeness to hide the fundamental irrationality of the acceptance of false choices and of being content to be a spectator of these false choices and of avoiding getting practically and theoretically angry with your, and other people's, miserable fate before these false choices.

Please pardon we colonized and downtrodden, we are but learners upon the path toward feral purity. Consider that most democrats & republicans are leftist for decades now—this helped lead to interest in alternatives: conservatism (a more real type, questioning fundamentals of 20th century liberal society), nationalism, patriotism, someone like a Trump to acknowledge such.

Regarding spectacle, it is no weakness nor a complacent mindset to recognize mainstream politics in a mass society is largely approached via the same means one approaches netflix & facebook. You and I *watched* the 2016 election happen. That was the extent of our involvement in the process, was it not?

Oh you got bored with me? I'm crushed! Heart-breaker of a troll, you are!

You don't understand anything fundamental, don't want to understand anything fundamental and don't want to put yourself in a position that you could begin to understand anything fundamental.

and that makes you sound no different from the panic-stricken liberal left, accusing those who disagree of being ignorant, stupid, etc.

There's a million different facets to the conversation really, it is both new and old. Adapting to the internet age and borrowing ideas from the past. Reacting to the present globalized world in ways that they don't really understand. As the commenter right above me says, there is a big hunk of the situation that is resulting from decades of neoliberal rule. That part at least, is shared globally.

And that neolliberal rule and its contradictions has *helped* to give rise to the authoritarian minded. It's why Trump VS Clinton was so perfect, and Trump winning was the icing on the cake. It was the best example of why pick the authoritarian trying to be me when you can have the real deal.

The alt right is a present day fascist type movement. The younger people involved also don't see any real reason or choice in being coy about their belief in superiority. Whether racial, sexual, ethnic, national etc. Its hard to hide anything in 2016. They believe it and act on it for the same reasons as always. No need to dive into that.

That said, I think it's important as anarchists who reject the left and it's puritan influence to pinpoint the contradictions large and small giving rise to authoritarian movements worldwide. Immigration and it's impacts, neo liberals were unable to respond honestly. The right wing swooped in. As anarchists we can talk about ideology, capitalism and migration. Or at least we should try to be honest. Anarchist Memes types won't do it. So it's up to us to parse what needs to be parsed. It's obvious to the common person when someone is bullshitting about whats in front of their own face.

Identity politics of all sorts have been latched onto by the younger right wing. It's not just them cracking jokes at delusional otherkin identities on Tumblr. There are things that as anti-authoritarians we are fucked if we don't recognize. Specifically the social politics of sex. If the young alt right is able to turn around and point the finger at us and say "here are the purity squads, boring virgins scared of their own shadows" they win. Basically, we have some purges to go through or at least some uncomfortable growth if the anti authoritarian movement is going to survive or reconstitute as a serious force in the future.

A good example was seeing an argument on Facebook the other day between two young college "radical" liberal IP types. One posts a picture of a french philosopher with Castro. Probably thought it was cool or whatever. Immediately, the first comment from another younger person is "that (dead) french philosopher is super sketchy in his personal behavior." Like, not about Castros politics, not that some french philosopher doesn't mind being entertained by a dictator, none of these interesting insights matter. Not even "you hear about what that guy did in his personal time?" It was hey, why are you even considering this person due to X bad behavior.

If we can't extricate these people and the ridiculousness we are really fucked.

"Identity politics of all sorts have been latched onto by the younger right wing. It's not just them cracking jokes at delusional otherkin identities on Tumblr. There are things that as anti-authoritarians we are fucked if we don't recognize. Specifically the social politics of sex. If the young alt right is able to turn around and point the finger at us and say "here are the purity squads, boring virgins scared of their own shadows" they win. Basically, we have some purges to go through or at least some uncomfortable growth if the anti authoritarian movement is going to survive or reconstitute as a serious force in the future."

Let the purge begin and may anarchy find good minds again.

Also concur. I take pause with terms like "anti-authoritarian movement," though. We may all express and consider resistance to authority & privilege in our lives, in specific instances. But I don't consider such acts to be a movement, organization, or mindset. Bad authority gets resistance, or at least we might attempt at it. But across-the-board? To be an anachist at all times regardless?

I recall that for decades I've never witnessed an inspiring leader, authority figure, father figure or mother figure, nor teacher figure. The boomers and neocon/neolib nepotism-complex did not produce such characters, if only in rarity. I feel like gen X/Y/Millenials, some of us, are becoming what was lost or withheld. And its being labelled as 'alt-right' or 'fascist' by the masses of talentless cowards excreted from the education centers, who are capable of neither creativy nor love.

How to maintain an anarchist identity in the light of a boss you actually see as talented and worthy?

the noun-subjects of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar such as 'boss' and 'movement' serve the purpose of imputing local sourcing of causal agency.

in the physical reality of our actual experience, there are no local sources of causal agency. they don't exist in a world given only once as a transforming relational continuum. there are, of course, 'relational forms', such as 'rebels' who are pushing back against 'oppression' perpetrated through relational social dynamics which deny a person access to essential resources and situations that inductively actualize creative potentials. That is, as participants in a relational social dynamic, it is possible to use the conditionability of the common relational living space to selectively opportunize cronies and disopportunize non-cronies.

There is no need, in physical reality, for a local action sourcing causal agency; i.e. there is no such thing in modern physics.

but there is such a thing in the constructions of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar; in fact, nouns that signify local authoring of causal agency are the primary means used by noun-and-verb semantic discourse, to depict dynamics. this invoking of local causal agency delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach] by breaking up the indefinitely deferred sourcing of action implicit in a world that is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum.

'boss' and 'movement' imply local jumpstart causal agent sourcing of actions. they are just 'expedient words' or 'pragmatic idealizations' of things that do not really exist other than in our intellectual thought-play. they make it easier for 'bosses' (sic) to 'manage things'; e.g. since the rebel boss is seen as the local jumpstart author of eruptions of violence, ... in order to 'restore peace', one need only eliminate the 'rebel boss' since he is, in the noun-and-verb semantic reality we construct, the jumpstart source of the rebellious eruptions of violence. the causal chains depicted by noun-and-verb language are materialist and do not address purely relational dynamics; i.e. relational dynamics (gravity, electromagnetism, thermal fields) derive from influences that are non-local, non-visible and non-material. it is easier to look for answers in that which is local, visible and tangible, even if such local phenomena are secondary 'appearances'.

the semantic attributing of actions to notional local authoring sources such as 'bosses', 'movements' (alt-right etc.) delivers a lot of 'economy of thought' but such a mapping is a radical departure from the [relational] 'territory' of our actual experience.

"How to maintain an anarchist identity in the light of a boss you actually see as talented and worthy?"

how about not thinking in terms of "identity"? if your ideas and desires are truly anarchic, act on them as such - and forget the fucking identity labels. otherwise, just wear your @-uniform of black carhartt's and a black hoodie, and accept that you have been acculturated by the @-spectacle.

Yeah … it's all just fashion choices anyway, right? You're a fucking idiot ...

Correct. We all have the option to adopt a wide variety of aesthetics or politics. Now give back the Carharts and stop appropriating the culture of America's indigenous rural farmers. Or at least double down and trade your bicycle for a diesel pickup with 35" tires.

That's cute troll face, you just so happen to be talking to a working-class, part-native kid who happens to drive a pickup truck and wear cheap knockoff black workgrubs most of the time. Are you as mindfucked by the meta as I am?! Whoa ...

As for farming, I used to grow weed, does that count?

We're all native to somewhere. Your mother disgorged you whilst straddling a border line somewhere?

You claim meta-ness there in your okcupid-tier self assessment, but you're still well within the confines of the great industrial machine, purchasing necessities with money. Valorized economic precariousness, indian hand waving, & marijuana use don't alter the fundamentals of the situation which you share with the rest of metastasized humanity.

nationalists and realists think humanity is a definite thing like their deluded God-identity
there is no "great industrial machine" ,
only a relational habitat in reciprocal flux.
yours will be smashed by our imminent cosmorganic dance.
fundamentally, everybody must get stoned.

"Relational habitat in reciprocal flux," or "Great industrial machine," we are describing, with words, the same landscape. You feign transcendence, decrying conceptual delusions and identities, whilst invoking your own.

You know someone's a "rightwing nationalist" when you hear them overly using the word "globalism". And you know someone's a "radical leftist" when you hear them overly use the word "globalization". With both words sounding so damn similar, how could one outside the political loop distinguish one from the other? It's almost as if the far right created the word "globalism" not only to further their agenda but to deliberately confuse apolitical types as well as millennials. They couldn't be that clever could they?

globalism: a far right wingnut conspiracy theory where corporations main agenda is to force free trade policies down the world's throat not because they want to maximize their profit margin but because they want to bring about a new world order i.e. one world government. The idea is to flood the nations borders of the world's immigrants to foment interracial intercourse/marriage so that the next generation of racially diverse kids will be more accepting when the elites propose elimination of national sovereignty under a Council of the United Nations type world model. The melting pop will with time blur the lines between color, race and cultural ethnic backgrounds and everyone will morph into one culture of people. The people under one government can then be more easily subjected to accepting totalitarian communism all at once. This fear based theory aims at white nationalists and right wing money minded conservative people in hopes of springing forth a new civil war of left against right in the streets. The right-wing armed to the teeth intend on surviving a war with an agenda to rapidly nationalize everything. Under a state of isolationism, the poor will continue to exist and be subjected to the same inequalities under policies that have always promoted them. it wasn't too long ago that today's "alt right", did not accept this idea that their "free trade" policies were promoting all the things they hate so much. That being being mass immigration, war, class divisions, drug wars, street crime and mass incarceration not to mention the public health crisis.

globalization: 1) the rise of corporations under a well acknowledged system of unfettered world capitalism i.e neo-liberalism/free trade/free market economics, etc. 2) An archaic for profit system/system of labour exploitation that sees humans as expendable tools only there to serve the capitalist class. 3) a state of existence where humans are bred to sell themselves as valuable commodities to the highest bidder! Every person is a commodity with varying labour skill and buying power giving rise to perpetual social inequality and classism. Endless wars and lies of wars being waged constantly to validate the military industrial complex as well as military operations worldwide. The competitive nature of capitalism further divides the nation into urban vs suburban vs the upper class. A constant state of fear leads to never ending crimes of desperation and war on the streets further validating the police state giving the upper class exactly what they want. It is the army of the rich vs the poor and themselves. mainstream media is owned by the very few and free speech is limited so that it will not interfere with policy. a heightened technological police state ensures to maintain order for those who control everything at the top. Riot squads are always on the alert waiting to put down first signs of insurrection.

Maaan, you're a full Leftist idiot or what? Globalism and globalization are very close words that don't carry such heavy loads of right-wing/left-wing ideology. It's fucking stupid if you think it's somekind of wisdom to be labelling anyone upfront as either this or that just because they use one or the other suffix after "global".

So let's de-fuck those terms down to their accepted meaning...

Globalism: the ideology, discourse or paradigm defining a collective goal and desire to further develop a "global village" of human and computer interaction beyond the former divisions of Nation-States.

Globalization: the movement towards the global web of interactions, and all the power dynamics and infrastructure making it happen. And no, that isn't just about the rise of transnational corporations, but also the related development of global superstates like the UN, the EU, the Customs Union, the BRICSA and NATO to regulate international relations, trade, politics and disputes. The State is a necessary framework to the development of capitalism and its exploitation gimmicks.

So stop with that purely irrational and overly judgemental associations of socio-political identities with concepts that represent NO PEOPLE at all. That's mediocre sociology.

Not the OP but I really can't let this pass. If you haven't noticed the vast differences between the types of people who use "globalization" and "globalization" it's gonna be kinda hard to have any conversation about this stuff. What OP said about words like this is true - they tend to have massively loaded meanings and reveal a lot about who's using them. "Globalization" isn't just a term used by American leftists, it's the standard academic term, and the one used internationally. "Globalism", in contrast, is almost completely limited to various reactionary populist nutjobs.

Dare I suggest that the indignation at the labeling of various @news characters as "alt-right" comes in large part from a similar inability to distinguish alt-right (or generally right-wing) arguments, signifiers and dog-whistles when they appear?

That's the same fucking reason why I think you're thwe typical Leftist idiot who disregard basic principles of logic, using the very same totalitarian intellectual shortcut of forcibly associating ideas or even wording with their presumed agency.

"Globalists" only means the political-social-financial-cultural actors that have been promoting globalization. No matter how hard you try to twist it to your discursive micro-control gimmicks won't change a thing. You can't remove from my memory over a decade of counter-summits during which Leftist protesters -including me- have been referring to the corpocrats signing dirty deals behind closed doors at G7-8-20, Davos or SPP as what they are... i.e. "globalists". Those were the same capitalist ideologues who've been promoting globalization as some new phase in the evolution of the mankind, through their linear and evolutionist view of History.

"I really can't let this pass"

Just too bad this ain't /r/anarchism and you ain't a mod. :-/

Better luck perhaps on Tumblr or Facebook maoist pages?

"Totalitarian intellectual shortcut" Jesus fucking Christmas you lot are sensitive, aren't you? A bunch of people made an observation about who tends to use the word "globalization" versus "globalists" and that's "totalitarian"? Well, I may not be a mod but obviously I must have some sort of fantastical power to rate language like that.

I'm sorry if you don't want to hear it, but there's a reason people make this association and we're far from the first ones to notice it. I am curious, tho, as to why it's such a taboo to point out glaringly obvious right-wing signifiers? You obviously don't have a problem with "forcibly associating" people with allegations of leftism, why is it different with the right?

Nononono... THe one or two Leftie bigot(s) above clearly associated each term with a particular crowd, and completely disregarding other contexts of use, as well as the goddamn semantics of these words, as they are both valid according to all dictionaries I could come across.

Protip: Next time use "dictionary globalist" in a web search, instead of just "globalist" that brought you a string of right-wing clickbait sites.

I can also explain you how to open a can with the tool in a Swiss knife if you need... that one's trickier than understanding web searches.

I guess it didn't occur to you that us "leftie bigots" were basing our observations on years of actual experience? Why would you ever consult a dictionary for this kind of context?

Why should you consult a dictionary? Or why should people consult YOUR glossary as any more reliable source?

Because YOUR experience is not everyone's experience, and linguistic conventions like those represented in dictionaries are relevant -not authoritative- to forming a more exhaustive and informed opinion about stuff. My experience is that of anti-globalization Leftists using the term "globalist" as well. Because, semantically, it's got nothing to do with any claim of a global NWO conspiracy. That's just an interpretation promoted by the Far Right.

So the correlation isn't 100%. Few are. So what. I'm sure there's plenty of "leftists" out there who use the word, as leftists are hardly a homogenous group, and I'm sure that Alex Jones has said "globalization" on at least a few occasions, but that doesn't really say much. Political and cultural connotations are not dictionary definitions and sometimes not everyone sees them. That doesn't mean they're not real. Once you start looking at which word gets the focus (titles, placards, etc) and the context in which they're used, the distinction becomes pretty clear. Leftists, even if they occasionally say "globalist", tend to obsess over "globalization" and the inverse tends to be true of the right. This tends to mirror the way in which leftists focus on systems and phenomena whereas the populist right tend to focus on a conspiracy of a few individuals.

If this distinction seems murkey that's because it is. All of this shit is. When you boil down thousands of pages of political theory into a slogan they all tend to sound pretty similar, especially when fascists borrow so heavily from the left and try so hard to obscure their actual intent. Still, it ain't all that hard, once you know what to look for, which a fair number of people here obviously don't.

Still, it ain't all that hard, once you know what to look for, which a fair number of people here obviously don't.

please inform us! first you say it's murky, and you acknowledge that fascists yank shit, then you say it's not too hard, you just have to know what to look for? how does that work? are you afraid to say what to look for because then the fascists will yank your clues too, and then you won't know either?

"Globalism" implies a "new world order conspiracy"; a subject of obsession made up by the lunatic fringe far right maniacs who listen to too much Alex Jones on their spare time. Anyone in the left-wing community will tell you that is a well accepted and established fact of recent history...fuckwad!

Same thing with "globalization"; a word made famous by the leftwing anti-globalization movement of the 90's who orchestrated civil disobedience actions in Seattle to disrupt the (WTO) World Trade Organization. Leftist book writers like Noam Chomsky made terms like "globalization" and "neo-liberalism" famous while Alex Jones made words like "new world order" and "globalism" famous.

Many things are synonymous with "globalization" such as "capitalism" "oppression" "free trade" "sweatshops" "third world labour exploitation" etc. Capitalism gave rise to corporate American neo liberal policies which is freedom for corporations to rape and pillage the wrath and its inhabitants. That is why the world is in utter chaos and why so many people associate government with peace, order and freedom while associating anarchy with chaos, disorder and mayhem. Tactics of havoc are necessary on the battlefield but that is just a tactic and not a way of life envisioned by anarchists 24/7 until the earth stops spinning.

Policies that empower corporations like monsanto hurting indian farmers...that's associated with "globalization". Globalization is a tool to will the earth into submission at gunpoint by armies of cops and military soldiers if it so chooses depending on how wide the insurrection. The World Bank/IMF fall into the same category. Killing jobs in America under the NAFTA agreement falls into that same "globalization" category.

We know who the enemy is. Don't try to come on here and redefine our world for us with your cognitive dissonance. Don't try to turn well established definitions and terminology on its head. Don't try to diminish our connection with words that define us and their connection to the struggles of the past and present or you will be called out.for the fucking dumbass that you are!

Wipe that arrogant smirk off your face.

Globalism also gets used by Alex Jones to describe communists anarchists and leftist liberals. Basically anyone who doesn't go along with nationalist patriotism and wants to do away with borders is a "globalist antagonizer/threat to the republic"

"Globalization" also got used massively by Michel Chossudosvky, who's been a regular at the Alex Jones show, while also being referenced and interviewed by tons of Leftist outlets... so by your logic, it' about, say... 54% a term also connoting right-wing conspiracy nuts.

So maybe these Leftists were crypto-alt-right? The plot thickens.

"Many things are synonymous with "globalization" such as "capitalism" "oppression" "free trade" "sweatshops""

oppression is synonymous with globalization? really? you might be a bit more careful with your words, if you are trying to actually be understood. you might have meant "associated with", which i would agree with. but "synonymous"? not a chance.

alt-right, regressive left, .... peas in a pod with glossy new names. they all gotta go

The "alt right" former gop voters will never take responsibility and apologise for the creation of "free trade". They were the main people behind "free trade" all under a banner of "free market capitalism". Fucking assholes. They think they can just distance themselves from the republican party now and say they "had nothing to do with it" even though they all were behind Ronald Reagan's manta "let the bull loose" i.e. deregulate wall street. YOU FUCKIN HYPOCRITES! You oppose free trade but still nevertheless push for free market. That's not an oxymoron. Sure the democratic party and their voters are much to blame for the same shit under NAFTA and bank deregulation which did later lead to the mortgage crisis. But the party of big business gop corrupt as hell corrupted the democrats even more with their lobbyist jumping in business into government and back n forth. Everything is worse than before. Trickle down economics trickled up and continues to do so. This is why coming to DC on J20 #DISRUPT J20 and FUCKING SHIT UP is more important than ever. "For every regulation, we will two regulations" said Trump. Sounds like more Reaganomics bullshit to me. FUCK DONALD TRUMP! and he'll be giving tax breaks to the rich to even thought they hoard all the fuckin money in the world in their banks. even though the statistics show that more opportunities are created when you tax the shit out of the rich and increase the fuckin wages nationwide. FUCK THIS ALT RIGHT FAKE AS MOVEMENT! It's nothing but a staged event created to help the state by and for the state and the business people who created this hell we live in. LET'S FUCK THEIR SHIT UP ON J20 NATIONWIDE!

words are not real things. our projections of what's in-here on the 'out there' do not constitute an 'objective reality out there'.

what's it going to take to rid us of the absurd habit of using observations from a small sampling to generalize and conjure up a whole new race of 'folk-devils', this time 'alt-rightists', ... to put ourselves in a moral panic so we can launch pre-emptive strikes at back-reflections from our own internal sensory perceptions.

'categories' are abstractions based on throwing together a bundle of 'common properties', pinning a label on the so-defined 'category', and then speaking about exemplars of such simplistic generalizations as if they were 'real things'.

does the category of 'male' as defined by the list of common properties assembled by feminists capture the nature of a particular individual randomly selected from a population of billions that are roaming the globe? Or, are these folk-devil males feminist folklore? It doesn't make sense for a generalization based on a limited sample to be extended globally.

we need antidotes to break such "bewitchment of our understanding by language"; e.g. listen, for example, to Robert Anton Wilson - Language and Reality

The 'map of alt-rightism' is nothing like 'the territory', largely because what we are looking out at derives from 'in-here' rather than from 'out there'.

The Manosphere is just an umbrella term to lump together anything on the Internet that appeals primarily to men. Whoever wrote the bullet points clearly had no first-hand knowledge of the Manosphere. It is in no way limited to right-wingers, much less the Alt Right. The Manosphere not only contains left-wingers, anarchists, libertarians, and everything else, it also contains women such as Alison Tieman, Karen Straughan, and Hannah Wallen of Honey Badger Radio. The most revered figure in Men's Rights is feminist Warren Farrell, PhD., who was thrice elected to the board of directors of the NYC chapter of the National Organization for Women, only to be excluded from feminist circles when he applied a feminist-style analysis to issues faced by men and boys, and discovered that males have significant problems as well. Dr. Farrell is a life-long Democrat.

"the so-called manosphere, an internet subculture of men’s rights activists, pick-up artists, and others focused on destroying feminism and re-intensifying men’s dominance over women"

This pretty well describes Roosh V's website Return of Kings. They are pickup artists, although most other pickup artists are apolitical. There is a high degree of animosity between PUAs and MRAs.

In some ways, the split between MRAs and feminism is a false dichotomy if one goes by the dictionary definition of feminism. I think of the men's rights movement as what feminism would look like if feminism were sincere about its desire for equality. The real dichotomy is demonstrated in this poll which shows 82% of Americans supporting gender equality, while only 20% identify as feminist. Feminism as actually practiced (as opposed to the ideal) can be observed to be pursuing the goal of gaining as many short-term advantages and liberties as possible for women, no matter what, while offloading their responsibilities onto men, and keeping men's social role largely unchanged, except that the praise men once got for fulfilling the expectations of their role has been replaced with shame, destroying the incentives that once perpetuated men's role. At least the MRAs I am familiar with in no way want dominance over women. They actually want to fulfill the promise of feminism. And that means advancing social change, and having men take on non-traditional social roles, rather than turning back the clock.

Of course, feminism is not a monolith, and there are exceptions such as the Equity Feminism of Christina Hoff Sommers, the Individualist Feminism of Wendy McElroy, the Amazon Feminism of Camille Paglia, and other 2nd Wavers who were more sincere about equality requiring give and take, responsibilities as well as rights. In contrast, most feminists bearing the label nowadays (one could call them "Victim Feminists") subscribe to the conspiracy theory called the Patriarchy, which is similar to the Jewish Question, only with the word "Jews" replaced with the word "men" The men's rights movement is dedicated to discrediting the Victim Feminists because they are hypocritical: they depend on old-fashioned attitudes about gender such as the damsel-in-distress trope, ladies-first chivalry, and the expectation that women are owed provision and protection from men because they're too weak to protect and provide for themselves. Nothing highlights this conflict better than the new documentary The Red Pill by Cassie Jaye (a woman).

Then there are Men Going Their Own Way, who have many of the same complaints as MRAs, but who believe that trying to change laws is a futile endeavor, and justify their cynicism by appealing to Evolutionary Psychology. Some of the leading lights of MGTOW such as the YouTube channels "bar bar", "CS MGTOW" and "Thinking-Ape", produce content is focused on self-improvement and the pursuit of knowledge, and their attitude toward women is indifference.

What's essential to understand is that MRAs, PUAs, and MGTOWs all hate one another because their worldviews are not compatible. With the exception of Return of Kings, there's nothing I'm aware of in the Manosphere that resembles the Alt-Right. Instead, if one dares to look, one will find some anarchists, and even among those who are not anarchist, a general anti-authoritarian streak.

not a bad analysis, although i am not familiar enough with any of the groups/tendencies referred to, other than the various waves of feminism.

You will find a general anti authoritarian streak in a lot of cultures and currents. It should obviously be exploited through action and words. I find it more interesting these days when you find more of an anti authoritarian streak on the right than on the left. Now that the culturally libertarian social politics of the 60's are gone, there is a shift happening. As I mentioned above, the sexual political sphere is becoming a battle ground. There is a glimmer of hope in that anarchists in the USA have a recent history of attempting to break with the left.

What I see on the ground is hopeful signs that even young marxist type leftists and others are slowly getting the memo. The get the fuck away from us memo.

To me, this post reeks of counter-insurgency narratives deliberately propagated by demagogues. I see this sentiment constantly articulated online and find it almost nowhere in the real world. Granted, sincere people who feel this way are presumably hermits but why shriek so long and loud at everyone if you desire total isolation? Just go do it.

Your subreddit's are not movements.

The Return of Kings is about going back to medieval times and treating women as dependent damsels. It's about picking up women and using them, then throwing them away. Or if the man wants a relationship, then the men should live out their biological imperative and dominate women, who's only role is to support them by staying at home and having babies. Men are the 'kings' and the relationship is like that of a sultan to a harem of one or many.

MRA dovetails into Return of Kings and there is some cross over. But they are mostly distinct. Any ideology that sees men as downtrodden by feminism will attract revenge-seeking misogynist types, and some of these types will gravitate to MRA or RoK or both.

So I decided to take a trip over to RoK and the first article is "Stockholm’s “Feminist” Snow Removal Program Causes The Entire City To Shut Down". Next is "the path men took to trump" and "Women Only Hate Female Objectivication When they can No Longer Profit FromIt". The next bunch continue along those lines. Part way down the page there's "Cuckservatives Have Started to Adopt Manosphere Narratives" with the subtitle "We have won a major battle in a much larger scale war".

Still wanna claim that this is not part of the "Manosphere" or the broader alt-right milieu?

"Still wanna claim that this is not part of the "Manosphere" or the broader alt-right milieu?"

Where the fuck did I say that?

I believe in the precedence of physiological determinates!

How about instead of this tired ass liberal discussion:
Let's call the alt-right and the liberals what they are: authoritarian statists.
People who want pigs to keep on jailing and killing, the military yo keep on bombing, billionaires, bosses, and banks to keep on exploiting.
The discussion over what to call these Trump supporting idiots misses a chance to critique all statist scum who support a system that allows people like Trump to gain power.

Gee - no one ever tried that critique before!

There's actually 3 kinds of globalization

1) global capitalism =bad
2) global totalitarian communism =bad
3) global totalitarian socialism = bad
4) global anarcho communism = good

According to "New World Order" conspiracy theorists, the world is transforming rapidly from 1) to 2) and believe corporations are part of the agenda. The only problem is that Alex will never make a distinction between communism and totalitarian communism because of his pro government bias meaning he does not believe in "no government". Totalitarian communism in practice is the promise of communism by governments with no intention to deliver or failure to deliver.

Rightwing nationalist socialists want 3). Only catch is they only want socialism for their own people in their own land or nation state but want to subject the rest of the world to war, exploitation and misery for the benefit for their people and their country. For reference, see WWII Adolf Hitler Nazi Germany.

Not all anarchists are globalists. Some only believe in the commune and the rules of the commune are no body rules over anybody and everyone organizes through consensus and direct participation. Everything is done as a team as opposed to appointing leaders. The globalist anarchists on the other hand are more likely to want to battle with the power structure so that global anarchism can become a reality killing all borders and bringing everyone together. Not a bad idea but it doesn't take a nationalist to pick it a part. Take cultural preservation for instance. Not every country is ready to become a melting pot which is why ethnic wars/riots are exploding in parts of the world.

Globalism is the theory of globalists. Globalization is the process of that idea into action. Globalized means post/after it has already been established. A google search reveals that the word globalist can be used to describe any group with a world view which could be world communism, world capitalism, world socialism and anarchism. It's still a world view and all are globalists.

The misunderstanding with globalism vs globalization has to do with lack of discernment and discussion on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides are at fault.

So you are indeed a Reddit anarcho-liberal fool...

"1) global capitalism =bad
2) global totalitarian communism =bad
3) global totalitarian socialism = bad
4) global anarcho communism = good"

How the fuck are you supposed to know!? What have you experienced in terms of "anarcho-communism" to know that is it not only a good model, but a good model for the whole world?

I'd be curious to see how a global anarcho-communist regime would become a reality... how the fuck are people supposed to be making everything and everyone Red & Black? Oh wait.. maybe Fedbook is the way!

because automation (never you mind externalies) will mean we'll have plenty of time to labor at hours of meetings helmed by a chomsky hologram in a highly organized industrial global worker state.

...but an anarcho-communist worker State!

There can't be an anarcho communist worker state without appointing a police force to enforce border laws of that state. which is why "anarchist state" is an oxymoron. once you appoint people to positions of power and enforce a wall or boundary,anarchy breaks down into government. you can only have groups but you can't have property and law enforcement. you can have volunteer groups communes or a world without borders without violating your own principles. .

What's good for the nation is good for the world but what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. Judgy Wudgy! Woo Woo Woooooo!

There is nothing really "alt" about them, this is a strategic move on their part to distance themselves from accurate labels like white supremacist to gain more mainstream appeal. If someone is a self identified neo-nazi who is out proselytizing to your average "white person" about why they need to "save their race", then they likely won't be well received, to say the least. However, they know that isn't very effective anymore, so they've changed things up a bit, doing things like calling themselves "white nationalists" and saying phrases like "I'm not racist, I just care about my own". Its one thing to have a nuanced understanding of different facets of fascist ideology but it's another thing to acquiesce to not calling a fascist a fascist. Fuck em.

This outlet is liberal and not without faults but they put out a good video covering this subject-

True. Millenials should full stop with this dangerous tendency at neologisms and look back at the history behind the tendencies they attempt to tackle. The only thing that's original with the neofascist tendencies of today is how they grown out or were given new life through the paradoxically globalized channel that is the internet. But that was just AFTER the new Left demonstrated their inability to take down neoliberalism. Hence Trump, the most unlikely and despised character from the Right, finished what they started.

Let me correct you, "the new left demonstrated their ability to become neoliberals"

You know … on the one hand, there's some sketchy characters that seem to have shown up to debate this topic, on the other hand, this is one of the better discussions I've seen on this site in awhile?

As for the topic, while I hear the warning about neologisms, there's enough of a difference with these new forms of hipster social-media authoritarianism to require a new definition, without forgetting the history. Obviously a lot of the motivation behind alt-right propaganda is a very deliberate smoke screen so that's why it needs to be pinned down.

"Neologisms" commenter here... I agree that a better would be perhaps "newspeak". As unlike neologisms which are a cultural constant, this one reflects a context of totalitarianism ingrained within all social relations, and tends to be coming in batches, or waves, and openly aims at reforming the whole language spectrum, motivated by herd tactics (through social media and then in real life). Remember how social media is an answer rather than an instigator to a social context. As terrible as it is, Facebook's massive spread in the form of a techno-fascist regime is only such because a set of social alienation and isolation has paved the way for it.

That's why I got over reminding other people about how bad using Facebook is. Like fighting a yeast infection by only washing with soap. It's never enough, it keeps coming back, and can go even further as you get sanctimonious about it.

What matters, and what is the hardest, is to create a social relation which renders this shit uninteresting and useless, where people realize by themselves how its been some terrible voluntary submission all these years.

I remember, don't worry. I suggested at the top of this thread that whatever lead to the rise of social media, it's definitely powerful enough to be birthing it's own young at this point. That's what "Alt Right" appears to be to me, not a vague accusation for whatever as Emile suggests (stfu as usual, Emile) or an unnecessary rehash of the same old shit but a powerful camouflage and reframing of rhetoric to be able to infect younger demographics that aren't as susceptible to the older, less sophisticated mindfucks of yesterday.

Therefore, name thy enemy.

Also, you veered off topic at the end but I agree. I'm mostly spending energy on building relations that make Facebook seem irrelevant and of course, that's definitely one of the most important things anarchists should be doing.

" this is one of the better discussions I've seen on this site in awhile?"

Agreed and I think it has a lot to do with the IP types who can't engage in an honest discussion to save their lives being in complete and utter disarray and confusion right now. Essentially the entirety of their world view and how they perceived life outside their circle just collapsed around them.

As I said in another thread this is the positive silver lining of Trump's victory.

"Self dermination":

What is meant by this is a fundimental contradiction.

What is really meant by their use of this phrase isn't self-determination at all, but the policing of everyone to boundary maintanence their exclusion to a definition, a construct to be held above all heads.

Submission and subserviance to an identity construction, a membership in an ideological cult, where the cult matters more than the self.

They don't give a fuck about individuals, or even individual nations, or membership in nation (only one category of american citizen matters to them). "Greatness" means at everyone's expense. "Self determination" means making sure to Otherize everyone else's reminds me of that seen in 'The Dictator' where sacha baron cohen's character pulls out the gun at the track race and shoots his other competetors so he can take credit for winning as if he one via his own running skills...


In the big picture there is only Alt-?, well its the existentialist individualist view.

The culture and identity industrial complex is no different to the military one which it has replaced as a tool of control, right/ left are all the same, redneck cowboys are as offensive as white privileged 2nd wavers or whining indigenous peoples who have sold out yet playing the guilt card for a mish mash of token symbolism and new-age spirituality whilst having Christian values and surviving off modern agriculture. There are some remaining few tribes who are legit, who aren't immersed and dependent on the modern Western medicine and food, but the resy should just get on with it, 99% of people, from my unique perspective, are moronic slaves to their masters, despite their admirable human qualities. I'm proud to be a Nietzschean superman, and I look on with a bemused sardonic smirk at the drama-queens espousing the merits of their decaying and putrid version of civilization. I must emphasize that I am not a primitivist, I am superior to their blind adoration of primitive life and its saurian status as an ideology..

Has the administrator or designer of this site thought about changing the font from grey to black? My eyes hurt. I want to keep reading. Or does anybody know a way to see all fonts in black via changing browser setting? Thanks!

To Victor: don't count on it... suggest them several time to change for a dark background but they'll rather have us SUFFER because they probably get the kicks out of it. Hence why they firmly kept the accounts of "people" like Emile.

But but but, health tip... Everyone's supposed to be using blue light filters on their screens these days (there's many programs and apps doing that in any OS out there), hopefully in combination with blue filters on their glasses or contact lenses, or filtered computer glasses.

(LCD screens are proven unhealthy, causing damage both to the photoreceptors to the neuroreceptors.. hence why that terrible pain some people feel right behind their eyes when watching shitty quality screens). The 60 hz refresh rate is also equally proven noxious for the nervous system. Rates of at least 75 hz are recommended.

Yikes! I'd like to see the proof or it doesn't happen. This is huge, the fate of mankind. C'mon.

Proof is first off the pain "communicated" by your body which tells you that something wrong, potentially destructive, is going on. Do you listen to your body or think you're in some sort of brain vat?

Then there is the loads of research done on the matter, which you can have access to with a search engine (not Facebook, I mean the open internet) -some of which for free without academic IP controls- in order to realize I'm not talking out of my ass, but on stuff that I've taken the time to read.

Sunglasses help, no really, I'm not fooling with you, try it.

As much as I despise and laugh at the alt-right, here is a thoughtful analysis of the Trump victory from an alt-right blog:

That's a good analysis with some interesting political insights, the idea that Trump is further left than Clinton and an excellent description of the 3 types of liberalism, very accurate. A good link thnx.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.