[Verv]

Lmfao I'm so glad a rightwing philosopher is finally tackling difficult subjects like whether or not the Holocaust happened. Lets all pretend we love ideas and that this is a conversation worth having, lmfao.

I used to think you following people around and yapping about Nazis and white supremos was a total waste of time but it has breathed new life into the thread twice now.

You're like a right wing bodhisattva using skillful means to enlighten people to the alternatives to neoconservatism.

[SpecialOlympian]

You're kind of coming off like a bitch now, Verv.

[B0ycey]

I became really interested in any sort of conservative or reactionary idea that was not based on classical liberalism because it has appeared to be the case that the Neocons really are, ultimately, just a different brand of liberals pumping the brakes. They're ultimately just 10-15 years behind the left, and perhaps the only things that do not change are just fiscal conservatism.

So, I got very interested in trying to understand what is actual, real conservatism, not just the conservatism of classical liberalism, the conservatism of business liberals, which has led to looking a lot of these ideas.

These guys remind me a lot of Islamic fundamentalists back in the late 90s / early 2000s, when everyone was talking about them, but nobody actually understood any of the ideas that these guys believed, and people would pretend to be experts on them without having ever heard the name Sayyid Qutb. Of course, Islamism is a lot less relevant to us, especially now, but I'll never forget the way people would get all of their wires entangled when talking about these issues.

And that is the very same thing you get from the hare brained politicians in Washington and the even more moronic journalists, who treat the Proud Boys as a white supremacist organization who happens to be led by a black person, and denounce them as a terrorist organization, knowing virtually nothing about them.

So, I've always just been curious to see what they are actually saying.

However, my own politics I think of are post-right, as in someone who is right wing / right leaning but does not deal with the right wing norms & paradigms of the 20th century anymore. I am not delusional, for I can imagine myself dying of old age and seeing little change in the mainstream right wing, but it matters to me to distinguish myself entirely from the right wing paradigms that exist because I am not a Neocon at all.

And, for that matter, I do not support ethnic nationalism.

Without parroting what SO has said, you are not telling me what ideas you like. You have told me you are interested in them, that you follow them and you want to understand them. But not what you like. There is nothing the Groypers are saying that someone who denounces ethnic nationalism should be interested in given their memo is white supremacy. But even so, Furente is a commentator, his aim is to convince and convert. If you don't want converting and merely want to understand then I suggest don't look at white supremacy as an answer. Perhaps listen not to the commentators but the voters and what they have to say.

[SpecialOlympian]

Like the Joe Rogan/Gavin McInnes interview is fantastically dumb because Joe Rogan is a soft ball pitching interviewer. If you were the PR person managing Gavin McInnes you would have one note: Don't say you're coordinating violent crimes with people. And like, somehow creating deniability is too much for McInnes.

[Verv]

You're kind of coming off like a bitch now, Verv.

Come on, bruh. Need a bit more content to volley.

I've been out of high school a minute.

What comes next?

"You're being such a douche right now.."

Or do I need like some cool reference?

"Tina, come get some ham!"

[SpecialOlympian]

I really don't care what you have to say man. You're stupid enough to fill your head with jingoistic and racist thoughts and then revel in it like a pig rolling in its own shit. I just feel bad for you.

I've known you for over a decade and it's really sad for me to see you embrace nazi thoughts. Like, I'm massively dissapointed in you right now.

[Verv]

Without parroting what SO has said, you are not telling me what ideas you like. You have told me you are interested in them, that you follow them and you want to understand them. But not what you like. There is nothing the Groypers are saying that someone who denounces ethnic nationalism should be interested in given their memo is white supremacy. But even so, Furente is a commentator, his aim is to convince and convert. If you don't want converting and merely want to understand then I suggest don't look at white supremacy as an answer. Perhaps listen not to the commentators but the voters and what they have to say.

I follow Fuentes specifically because I thought his invasions of turning point USA meetings were amazing and I like his economic populism and cultural takes.

But sure, we don't have that much in common. I emphasized this by pointing out that I also follow Korean Greens and a random Indian journalist whose commentary on Indian politics I like.

Believe it or not, Orthobro post right Twitter isn't that big and I'm already following everyone.

[Verv]

I really don't care what you have to say man. You're stupid enough to fill your head with jingoistic and racist thoughts and then revel in it like a pig rolling in its own shit. I just feel bad for you.

I've known you for over a decade and it's really sad for me to see you embrace nazi thoughts. Like, I'm massively dissapointed in you right now.

It's OK Bros

Diversity is the fruit of life and its our strength.

We're getting better as we speak.

[B0ycey]

I follow Fuentes specifically because I thought his invasions of turning point USA meetings were amazing and I like his economic populism and cultural takes.

Umm. Not much context here. Perhaps I would advice you to watch American History X.

But sure, we don't have that much in common. I emphasized this by pointing out that I also follow Korean Greens and a random Indian journalist whose commentary on Indian politics I like.

Believe it or not, Orthobro post right Twitter isn't that big and I'm already following everyone.

Then there is hope. It isn't that you have much in common, but that you think what he has to say has merit. This isn't aimed at you specifically but what happens with populism in general. When there is an issue, people want someone to blame. And the solutions or answers are not very clear. So what occurs is parties that should be united end up fighting amount themselves whilst the culprits who are guilty of the ills inflame the tension so the focus is off them completely. Donald Trump for example is more responsible for illegal aliens entering your country by hiring them to build his tower than the trafficker who sent them there initially. If there is no incentive to go to America, then nobody would go there. No wall is going to stop anyone who has a desire to enter America. They will just sail around it if needs be. And that is just one problem of many. The other problem again comes back to greed. Healthcare, greed. Poor wages, greed. Steal factories closing, greed. China, greed. Fuentes isn't going to explain that to you properly. He will just blame it on racism and that is dangerous for the impressionable.

Why people voted for Trump is obvious. What isn't obvious is why they think Trump is going to make a difference. He is part of the swamp and as such part of the problem. You're religious right? What do they say about false prophets again?

[ingliz]

@Verv

Seeing as we are going all Godwinian.

Your posts bring to mind the apocryphal fashion-conscious homosexual who joins the Nazi party because he likes the Boss designer uniform and ends up a shapeless brown turd in the SA.

The story doesn't end well.

[Verv]

Umm. Not much context here. Perhaps I would advice you to watch American History X.

Watch a Hollywood film to get a better grip on reality?

Not really my thing.

Then there is hope. It isn't that you have much in common, but that you think what he has to say has merit. This isn't aimed at you specifically but what happens with populism in general. When there is an issue, people want someone to blame. And the solutions or answers are not very clear. So what occurs is parties that should be united end up fighting amount themselves whilst the culprits who are guilty of the ills inflame the tension so the focus is off them completely. Donald Trump for example is more responsible for illegal aliens entering your country by hiring them to build his tower than the trafficker who sent them there initially. If there is no incentive to go to America, then nobody would go there. No wall is going to stop anyone who has a desire to enter America. They will just sail around it if needs be. And that is just one problem of many. The other problem again comes back to greed. Healthcare, greed. Poor wages, greed. Steal factories closing, greed. China, greed. Fuentes isn't going to explain that to you properly. He will just blame it on racism and that is dangerous for the impressionable.

Why people voted for Trump is obvious. What isn't obvious is why they think Trump is going to make a difference. He is part of the swamp and as such part of the problem. You're religious right? What do they say about false prophets again?

I think you don't give the dissident right enough credit. All of these things are completely acknowledged, which is why they offer a more robust critique of Capitalism than many leftists do these days. Of course, this is hyperbolic, but there's truth to it as I've never seen so many leftists discuss the inalienable property rights of mega corporations until the last few years.

Of course, President Trump is deeply morally flawed.

Indeed, the conservative Christian right was saying that all along. James White, Fr. Josiah Trenham, everyone. Even Al Mohler said he could not in his right mind vote for Trump in 2016 because it'd have made him a hypocrite.

But people voted for him because they understand he was the lesser of two evils and represented potential change from the status quo.

Part of the swamp, sure, but not part of the establishment

[Verv]

@Verv

Seeing as we are going all Godwinian.

Your posts bring to mind the apocryphal fashion-conscious homosexual who joins the Nazi party because he likes the Boss designer uniform and ends up a shapeless brown turd in the SA.

The story doesn't end well.

What a great film idea.

Reminds me of Europa, Europa, kind of. You seen it, yes?

I'll try to digest the content here and get to the bottom of what you're saying.

If you think I'm a sharp dresser, thanks. I'll let you in on something... a good suit is just a pair of pajamas in disguise.

[Igor Antunov]

You know when you really truly need to take a dump, your fudge is packed, your asshole is throbbing, shit is about to go down. So you get to the toilet in time, pull down your pants and plop, nothing. Just a whiff of unsatisfying air, as the compacted stool barely even shifts, rendering your colon obsolete for yet another afternoon. Constipation is your life now. You don't remember a time when you used to lay down entire logs. Your shitting days are over.

That is US politics in a nutshell. So much build up, so little release. This is why polarization is growing. People aren't getting the outlet they require. It's either some dumb corporate miga shill or the clinton cabal. Nothing in between. Any sane candidates like that tulsi chick or that chinese gibs guy are mere sideshow attractions, transitory entertainment.

Don't try to digest anything here, it's not even digestible. Ya'll need some fiber in your diets. The US system must go.

[B0ycey]

I think you don't give the dissident right enough credit.

Or perhaps you give them too much credit. I don't hear anything from them about the ills of capitalism. Most, if not all are asking for more of it.

Have you heard what they think of Obamacare? Perhaps there is irony of people dying from needless death due to poverty and the same people being against something that makes it affordable due to "Socialism".

But people voted for him because they understand he was the lesser of two evils and represented potential change from the status quo.

Part of the swamp, sure, but not part of the establishment

Well he is part of the establishment as well. Any fool can say they aren't but ultimately he is. But I digest, there is an understand why people voted for him in 2016. He is after all a false prophet. But he didn't deliver and in many cases made things worse. And he lost in 2020 because the moderates that voted for him in 2016 didn't in 2020 because they knew he didn't fulfil his promises. His approval rating after leaving office was the worse of all time. Hardly winning material. But that doesn't mean much when white supremacists are blaming immigrants on the failure of the system. It detracts the issue and lays blame somewhere else. Perhaps you have the intelligence to understand you are being lied to. Perhaps you don't. But I wouldn't associate myself with white supremacy due to "ideas" because I am aware how harmful they are. I suggested a movie you can watch to explain why associating with the wrong people is bad. You don't want to watch it, that is fine. But if you get called a nazi due to reciting white supremacy linguistics, you shouldn't be surprised. You might think that Fuenetes is just presenting ideas, but most rational people understand that he is presenting an agenda.

[Verv]

Or perhaps you give them too much credit. I don't hear anything from them about the ills of capitalism. Most, if not all are asking for more of it.

Have you heard what they think of Obamacare? Perhaps there is irony of people dying from needless death due to poverty and the same people being against something that makes it affordable due to "Socialism".

I think you are unfamiliar with the influences on the New Right/Dissident Right, such as Third Positionism, which actively seeks an alternative between Capitalism & Communism. This is something that deeply effects all of the nationalist movements in the Western world.

Well he is part of the establishment as well. Any fool can say they aren't but ultimately he is. But I digest, there is an understand why people voted for him in 2016. He is after all a false prophet. But he didn't deliver and in many cases made things worse. And he lost in 2020 because the moderates that voted for him in 2016 didn't in 2020 because they knew he didn't fulfil his promises. His approval rating after leaving office was the worse of all time. Hardly winning material. But that doesn't mean much when white supremacists are blaming immigrants on the failure of the system. It detracts the issue and lays blame somewhere else. Perhaps you have the intelligence to understand you are being lied to.

I do not think it is the case that you can easily say that Pres. Trump was part of any kind of political establishment.After all, Pres. Trump was greatly criticized by his own party and could not depend on them for much of anything. Some of his most famous critics are outspoken Republicans. This is something that the Left selectively celebrates, but conveniently forgets when it is time to talk about whether Trump was part of the establishment or not.

Perhaps you don't. But I wouldn't associate myself with white supremacy due to "ideas" because I am aware how harmful they are. I suggested a movie you can watch to explain why associating with the wrong people is bad. You don't want to watch it, that is fine. But if you get called a nazi due to reciting white supremacy linguistics, you shouldn't be surprised. You might think that Fuenetes is just presenting ideas, but most rational people understand that he is presenting an agenda.

Alright, I see.

It's strange to think of ideas as harmful, to me, as I grew up hearing about the value of free speech and free inquiry, and the marketplace of ideas. I am not used to people cowering from differing views.

Bring out the ideas, and let the best arguments win.

Calling people names, shouting them down, hoping that all debate and discussion can be stifled through this is anti-intellectual and undemocratic. Or, hell, maybe it is actually hyperdemocatic and rule by the mob really is the true character of democracy.

I grew up thinking that I have to defeat an idea by confronting it directly & honestly. I do not think it is proper to dismiss it based off of accusations that it violates a social taboo in our society. I think this was a popular attitude people said they believed in in the 20th century bourgeoisie, but perhaps no more.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not think it is the case that you can easily say that Pres. Trump was part of any kind of political establishment

Sure he was. He was part of that political establishment that colluded with lobbyists and politicians to keep the border open, and to prevent companies that hired undocumented workers from being charged. He did this because he made tons of money from undocumented workers.

He also capitalized on racism and spreading racist lies, like supporting the whole birther thing. This is pretty standard establishment practice for the right.

[Yggdrasill]

Sure, I understand. It's designed to be confrontational because toptoeing about with those ideas will not get you anywhere. You'll just be engaged by whiny children who talk like @SpecialOlympian , and never let the issue drop, so you need to be prickly and unabashed.

It's not for everyone.

But this is what is ultimately partly behind the election of President Trump, and it represents the shift in conservatism towards populism.

I don't understand the point of following someone like that - or Rush, or Tucker etc. - because I don't hear anything new or interesting or revealing. You can read speeches from Hitler or Goebbels, or Le Pen or any number of nativist facists and get the gist. It's all been done before. Same ideas and methods, different setting and targets of animosity.

I don't think it has anything to do with traditional conservatism, rather that "conservatism" has been hijacked by its worst fringe thinkers. And it is fascist, not populist. One definition of populism reads, "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." This resonates in the United States because the concerns of the majority are in fact largely disregarded by financial elites.

This page has an interesting essay on the similarities and differences between populism and fascism. https://qz.com/847040/the-key-differenc ... d-fascism/

From this essay:

Federico Finchelstein, a professor of history at the New School in New York City, pointed out to Quartz that the two political doctrines share some core traits.

Here’s what makes a figure like Trump a text-book populist:

division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”
a proud antagonism toward intellectuals
the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct
the promotion of polarizing views
demonization of one’s opponent
a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers
a strong intolerance of free press

A key distinction is that while populism undermines democracy, "fascism outright rejects democracy." This is one reason why the theme of a "stolen election" is so dangerous.
Again from the essay, elements of fascism include:

the cult of tradition and the past, of action over thought, of machismo
the fear of difference
the appeal to a frustrated middle class
the obsession with international conspiracies
an exaggeration of the power of enemies
the demonization of “rotten” parliamentary governments
the use of simple, impoverished language
the glorification of the people as a monolith holding common views

And there's more. Fascism requires a leader who claims to be persecuted (that's what resonates with people who feel disenfranchised). Truth is not important; obedience is. There is very little "conservatism" in this approach.

[Verv]

Sure he was. He was part of that political establishment that colluded with lobbyists and politicians to keep the border open, and to prevent companies that hired undocumented workers from being charged. He did this because he made tons of money from undocumented workers.

He also capitalized on racism and spreading racist lies, like supporting the whole birther thing. This is pretty standard establishment practice for the right.

That makes sense to think of him as part of the establishment in that regard. Indeed, he even talked about how he was someone who used to buy politicians. It is what he himself admits. However, he did admit this in terms of saying he would not be like that.

Yet, it is said that he was partly bought out by Sheldon Adelson, not necessarily in terms of collecting money... but in terms of using Adelson's influence for other things, and therefore he had to back Israel.

But that's all inside baseball. I don't know.

He certainly was different than any previous candidates, by a mile, so I consider him to be anti-establishment, though if you twist my arm maybe I would laugh and say alt establishment?

[Verv]

I don't understand the point of following someone like that - or Rush, or Tucker etc. - because I don't hear anything new or interesting or revealing. You can read speeches from Hitler or Goebbels, or Le Pen or any number of nativist facists and get the gist. It's all been done before. Same ideas and methods, different setting and targets of animosity.

I don't think it has anything to do with traditional conservatism, rather that "conservatism" has been hijacked by its worst fringe thinkers. And it is fascist, not populist. One definition of populism reads, "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." This resonates in the United States because the concerns of the majority are in fact largely disregarded by financial elites.

The bold part is 100% true.

But I disagree with yuor characterization of Fascists. Honestly, I've never paid much attention to anything Goebbels ever said, or to much of Hitler, but the Fascists, proto-Fascists, and all sorts of other folks lumped in with them left us a great deal of writing.

Some of it is kind of crazy and shallow, like Moseley's 100 Questions. But some of this is really stuff that needs to be studied, like the work of Evola or Guenon. I am not well read in this regards, though.

But this same thing can be said of the left.

I remember hearing about Emma Goldman and thinking she must be amazing -- a female anarchist and "political philosopher." A few of the blurbs on the internet also seemed good... But if you ever do read her works, they are boring, repetitive, and hopelessly trapped in the happenings of her day. Yet, she gets a long and reverant Wikipedia shrine.

Marxism completely face-planted in terms of being a theory that could be implemented, murdering a magnificent pile of people... Yet, Communist writers & thinkers can be treated seriously and discussed open mindedly, while proto-Fascists and third position writers, whose ideas cannot be said to directy contribute to any violent regime in some cases, are treated like pariahs. It's a weird double standard.

This page has an interesting essay on the similarities and differences between populism and fascism. https://qz.com/847040/the-key-differenc ... d-fascism/

From this essay:

Federico Finchelstein, a professor of history at the New School in New York City, pointed out to Quartz that the two political doctrines share some core traits.

Here’s what makes a figure like Trump a text-book populist:

division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”
a proud antagonism toward intellectuals
the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct
the promotion of polarizing views
demonization of one’s opponent
a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers
a strong intolerance of free press

A key distinction is that while populism undermines democracy, "fascism outright rejects democracy." This is one reason why the theme of a "stolen election" is so dangerous.
Again from the essay, elements of fascism include:

the cult of tradition and the past, of action over thought, of machismo
the fear of difference
the appeal to a frustrated middle class
the obsession with international conspiracies
an exaggeration of the power of enemies
the demonization of “rotten” parliamentary governments
the use of simple, impoverished language
the glorification of the people as a monolith holding common views

And there's more. Fascism requires a leader who claims to be persecuted (that's what resonates with people who feel disenfranchised). Truth is not important; obedience is. There is very little "conservatism" in this approach.

Let's really look at some of these things:

division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”

The left can be said to do exactly the same, the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie. Likewise, the American right does it -- the patriots versus the Communists or leftists who want to sell America out.

a proud antagonism toward intellectuals

Today, everybody would say that the intellectual institutions were dominated by white men who discriminated against everyone else in America... Is it hard to believe that the intellectual classes in different countries at different times, and in the West today, are not likewise dominated by single narratives and groups?

It can be a completely fair claim.

Indeed, one of the popular left narrative sis that institutions remain unfairly dominated by certain groups.

the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct

Where are the Fascists doing that? You do see this in the writings of F. T. Marinetti, but this happens right alongside the glorification of marching into future technologies, and it is accompanied by efforts to return to blood and honesty, simply overflowing with romance & visceral imagery:

I ask you that the defeated bulls are conceded a funeral procession, solemn and pompous of bull men horses harnessed with gold in an Andalusian noon, a painstaking embalming in shining salts with compressed algae and a vast tomb of granite equal to the one of the Sacred Bulls of Egypt.

the promotion of polarizing views
demonization of one’s opponent

... These accusations brought to you by people who gave you the Cold War and make claims that Proud Boys are a white supremacist terror group.

Which group of people do not end up doing this?

The "Center", where polarization does not exist, is an illusion.

LEt's skip some...

the cult of tradition and the past, of action over thought, of machismo

It is true that tradition is given a much higher place. But the counter-claim that Capitalism leads to intense atomization and the creationof a cult of the individual can be just as persusive, IMO.

"Action over thought" is basically just saying "deeds over words."

"Machismo" is not a pejorative, IMO; we can just make the counter-claim that Capitalism & Liberal Democracy promote emasculation.

... Which is why maybe we should end it here.

None of these claims are persuasive unless you already buy into the conclusion.

None of these claims are fully honest, unless you would allow for people to paint an equally dreary picture of lib. democracy or Communism through a series of quick catch-phrases.

More importantly, they just aren't that accurate to me.

[B0ycey]

I think you are unfamiliar with the influences on the New Right/Dissident Right, such as Third Positionism, which actively seeks an alternative between Capitalism & Communism. This is something that deeply effects all of the nationalist movements in the Western world.

I am fully aware of it actually. Although I do not see it in America at all. Perhaps a few radical voices like Third Worldism but not enough to say they are making a significant difference to the views of the Capitalism in America.

I do not think it is the case that you can easily say that Pres. Trump was part of any kind of political establishment.After all, Pres. Trump was greatly criticized by his own party and could not depend on them for much of anything. Some of his most famous critics are outspoken Republicans. This is something that the Left selectively celebrates, but conveniently forgets when it is time to talk about whether Trump was part of the establishment or not.

He may not act like a president but he is part of the establishment. He knew he had to take care of his sponsors for example.

Alright, I see.

It's strange to think of ideas as harmful, to me, as I grew up hearing about the value of free speech and free inquiry, and the marketplace of ideas.

But I am also sure you have been taught about Nazism, eugenics, slavery, religious radicalisation and concentration camps - all ideas and all ideas that were harmful.

Nonetheless I assume you were also taught about hate speech in any case. If you hear any "idea" long enough without any form of fact check, you accept that idea as normal. That is dangerous unless you have the intelligence to ignore it. So in that sense you shouldn't associate with it. Or if you do, don't reference it. How you interpret something, someone else interprets it as something else, especially as these ideas are associated with white supremacy and have an agenda attached to them.