We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day These idiotic terms such as “extremist”, and “ALT-Right” are simply euphemisms for “people who don’t agree with us.” Still, it’s nice to think I had such influence that I helped the Donald get the keys to the White House. Not too much hyperbole, eh?
No, what got him there wasn’t people like me bemoaning the vile identity politics espoused by Hope not Hate, it was that a critical mass of American voters realised that these people and their allies are themselves the purveyors of hatred – hatred of them and their kind. So they voted for the other and who can blame them? And, after the Brexit vote driven by a similar realisation, these people still don’t get it.
– Longrider
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Best bit of political geek humour I have seen on twitter for a while: “it is the alt-right vs. the ctrl-left”
yawn, the quoted author does not really know what they are talking about. The term ‘alt right’ was coined not by those wanting something with which to label “people who don’t agree with us.” It was invented by (amongst others) Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon to identify themselves and their followers.
I have searched the linked article in vain for the term “coined” so I must say you are simply wrong. He is discussing how it is used, not who the fuck coined it. The term alt-right is indeed used by people to describe “people who don’t agree with us.” If you have not noticed this, rosenquist, you have not been paying attention.
He calls it an “idiotic term”, (not an “idiotic term when used by people who disagree with me”) so presumably the idiocy would lie with those who invented the label with which to describe themselves.
Them too really 😆
But there is no need to ‘presume’ as it is abundantly clear Longrider is actually discussing how the term is used by the media and twitterati.
One suspects that the etymology and the semantics of such terms are separate issues and thus a debate about them could be an irrelevant distraction to a discussion of the sense of what has been written and quoted – that is, unless one was attempting to make a genuinely important pedantic point about the meaning/definition of terms used in the discussion, a point which (say) could help the discussion by making the definition of terms used more precise or less ambiguous.
It doesn’t usually help to be dogmatic about these things. A loosely-defined term that was generally comprehensive and of acceptable use would probably suffice for most purposes, but stating that a term needs to be defined differently would not of itself seem to be grounds for invalidating the argument per se in which the term was being used. That could be a fallacious rebuttal – e.g., (say) “Your argument is invalid because you are using the wrong term or colour”.
That could be a bit like saying (say) that the use of the word “nigger” in a discussion about the book “The Nigger of the Narcissus” was invalid because of the use of the (now) politically incorrect term. The term meant simply something else in the temporal context (the period when the book was written or about), compared to it’s perceived meaning nowadays. Perceptions do not of themselves constitute a defined truth.
We’d never get anywhere if we tried to knock terms about like that. In fact, it might stop all debate in its tracks “You can’t say that because…”.
As the professor used to say on The Brains Trust, “it all depends on what you mean by [insert the term]”. One then proceeds from there to see if the argument still stands up with a newly-defined term that is suitable.
And lest we forget the other nomination contenders that Mr. Trump simply flicked
off like boogers, one at a time.
Yes. This. Precisely.
I do humbly apologise and grovel and self-flagellate to those who feel that my text was insufficiently precise. Meh! Get over yourself!
Yup. Sadly. They simply gave their enemies a useful term to use against them. It worked perfectly because that is precisely what they do.
@Slartibartfarst
Words are important because of how they are used and abused. Where they came from or their original etymology becomes lost along the way. So we have terms such as left and right or extremist and alt-right. All are used like a scatter gun to label a whole group of people simply because they do not conform to the progressive viewpoint. Even “liberal” has become so thoroughly bastardised, that if I use it to accurately describe my political position, no one will understand that I am not, actually, a nasty control-freakish authoritarian…
Now that Richard Murphy is describing himself as a libertarian, that’s another one about to go down the pan.
When you control the language, you control the people – as I said in my post, these people have taken Orwell’s works and used them as an instruction manual and very effectively too.
Yes, I noticed that. One by one, and with seeming ease and rapidity. They just simply disappeared – like swatted flies – and I thought, “How the heck did he do that?” However when I heard him during his thankyou speech when the votes had been counted and he had been declared the winner, and he mentioned that he had about 80 generals, or something, supporting his campaign staff, it rather made sense of things Any campaign would have a head start if it had a Brains Trust of such experienced tactical and strategic military thinkers on board.
In particular, military techniques include a methodical and systematic approach to communications planning and counter-propaganda (e.g., for target audiences, what are the conditioning and “want-to-think” conditioning objectives needed to get that audience thinking on a particular topic). These are things which used to be cornertsones of marketing theory and practice and constitute VBM (Value-Based marketing, à la Holden Consulting), but seem to be no longer de rigueur in many of the more modern and flaky marketing courses.
The difficulty with VBM is that it offers a process at CMM (Capability Maturity Model) Level 3 which rather entails considerable mental effort to learn, understand, practice and “get it right”, so it probably falls into the “too hard” basket for the prevalent armies of marketing communications and sales people, spin doctors and other “once over lightly” and “wing it” brigades. However, if one is a hardened military tactician/strategist, then one has been in situations where one can’t afford to NOT get it right.
The incredible self-revealing statement about the “basket of deplorables” by Hillary Clinton could well be a sure sign of egregious mistake that’s could not have happened with a decent strategy.
@Longrider: Thankyou, yes, I was/am aware of the general truth of what you say.
What I was getting at was that:
This was in response to the shuttlecock game that briefly ensued when @rosenquist wrote,February 11, 2017 at 6:53 pm:
I mean, it was a bit of a yawn, yes, but the author’s points/argument stood as valid nevertheless and regardless of the origin of the definition of terms. Yet the comment made would seem to want to invalidate the argument because of an apparently unsubstantiated and specious red herring that did not refute the argument.
Therefore, one could not easily refute the argument, and to attempt to turn it into a discussion about the validity of the terms introduced a distraction, and I am always wary of the possible motives for people who might do that.
People did indeed reject the Identity Politics (Group Hate Politics) of the left – at least some people rejected it.
Remember many (perhaps most) people voted for a far left campaign run by John Podesta – and not all the Hillary Clinton voters were illegal immigrants, or fake votes manufactured in Detroit and other places.
The left were overconfident (they will not make that mistake again) – for example they only lost Michigan by LAZINESS, the left manufactured fake votes in Detroit (some people have finally been arrested for voter fraud, in spite of desperate “mainstream” media cover up campaigns, – but it is the tip of the iceberg) but, insanely, not-enough-fake-votes to carry the State. They were just too lazy (and over confident) to create the number of fake votes it turned out they needed.
In 2018 and 2020 unless voter I.D. laws and proof of citizenship are passed and enforced (cue for the Economist magazine and the Frankfurt School “Judges” to scream “racist, racist, racist”) the left will swamp the system with voter fraud and win everything. And then impose the collectivism that is the dream of the education system and the media – especially the entertainment media.
Even if voter fraud is defeated by enforcing visual I.D. and proof of citizenship laws, the left may still win in 2018 and 2020.
Remember the Credit Bubble economy must eventually crash (the crash is years over due – I thought it would happen years ago).
The “Identity Politics” of the Frankfurt School education system (the schools and the universities – both dominated by Marxist ideas) and media (ditto) will be joined by Classical Marxism i.e. blaming the economic collapse on “the rich” and “Big Business” Classical Class War rather than just Frankfurt School “racism”, “sexism” (John Bercow and other trash are playing this game already with false charges) and “homophobia”.
As for the “Identity Politics” of the “Alt Right” (Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan and so on) – playing the “White Power” card will not work. What people care about is “the economy stupid”.
Unless the coming economic crash is strongly blamed on the FEDERAL RESERVE (which is actually responsible for boom-bust Keynesian “economics”) then the Republicans are dead meat in 2018 and 2020.
The same is true here – the Conservative Party government needs to start to attack Mark Carney and the Bank of England (and the rest of the “Economist reading classes”) and attacking them NOW.
It is the economy that matters (not Alt Right “White Power” and all that nonsense) – and so the coming crash must be blamed on the Central Bankers.
After all – they are to blame, it a matter of telling-the-truth. Just telling the truth very loudly – so people can hear.
@Slartibartfarst
Yes. Precisely. Hence my derision in response. 😉
@ Paul Marks: The left were overconfident (they will not make that mistake again) . . . .” I’m not so sure about that. The leopard doesn’t change its spots, and it will take a radical restructuring of the Democratic Party’s leadership before any meaningful change occurs there. The Republicans should have won in 2012 (was there ever a more damaged incumbent?), yet by following their old ways they managed to find one of the few candidates who could have lost (and he ran a tired old-style campaign which ensured that occurred). Yet they learned nothing from the experience (or, for that matter, from running McCain and Dole in previous elections), and were well down the path of doing precisely the same thing in 2016 but for the emergence of a true change agent who rescued them (against their will, it must be noted). It’s still very early, of course, but I see no evidence of any introspection or indications of change by the Democrats. My guess is that in 2020 they will again fight “the last war”. Whether that succeeds will depend entirely on how Trump performs over the next 3+/- years.
I agree Laird, the left are if anything doubling down rather than rethinking. Thus far the evidence is not only will they make the same mistakes, they will more and more spectacularly.
So what, then, is the non-idiotic term for people on the right who have decided that protectionism and identity politics are now a good thing?
That’s easy, Jib: neo-fascist.
Well, the Nazis didn’t coin the term “Jew” either, but they certainly put a spin on it that resembles the spin Progs now put on ‘alt-right’.
One of my many quirks is that from time to time I go exploring in the highly musty, dusty stacks of Usenet and the BBs of the ’90’s. As the owner of an active, if peculiar, imagination, this “Alt-Right” cognomen strikes me as inspired by the argot of that era.
As a result of the latest exploration, I was overcome by an attack of sneezing (oy! by siduses!); but I also found this “Alt-___” (among several others), updated per Google’s relatively new format:
alt.politics.radical-right
Of course, Google busted its “Groups” software so badly as to make Yahoo Groups look like a masterpiece of reworking. (Believe me, it’s not — it’s another disaster.) I got tired of dealing with it by the time I got back to 2/2010, so I don’t know how far back it goes.)
The postings seem to include a shedload (Britishism, that) of anti-Jewish dreck.
*BLEEP*
The left were overconfident (they will not make that mistake again) – for example they only lost Michigan by LAZINESS, the left manufactured fake votes in Detroit (some people have finally been arrested for voter fraud, in spite of desperate “mainstream” media cover up campaigns, – but it is the tip of the iceberg) but, insanely, not-enough-fake-votes to carry the State. They were just too lazy (and over confident) to create the number of fake votes it turned out they needed.
In 2018 and 2020 unless voter I.D. laws and proof of citizenship are passed and enforced (cue for the Economist magazine and the Frankfurt School “Judges” to scream “racist, racist, racist”) the left will swamp the system with voter fraud and win everything. And then impose the collectivism that is the dream of the education system and the media – especially the entertainment media.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/24630-vote-fraud-monitoring-group-says-three-million-noncitizens-voted-in-presidential-election
An organization formed back in 1996 to publicize computerized vote fraud, and which continues to monitor election results to detect vote fraud, has issued a statement that it has uncovered evidence of more than three million people who are not U.S. citizens casting votes in this past presidential election
Ooops, sorry about the link:
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/alt.politics.radical-right
I still say that “Left” and “Right” aren’t as much confusion factors as much as they are muddle factors. For example, arguing whether totalitarian fascism is “right wing” or “left wing” and comparing it to Russian Marxist Communism, etc is just a waste of time. It gets worse when one understands that the term Nazi represented an alleged socialism.
The Totalitarianism–Freedom scale is the only meaningful metric IMO.
Slartibartfarst: My “favorite” (infamous) example is the banning of Huckleberry Finn from pubic school libraries because they refer to Jim as a “nigger”. BUT what is conveniently ignored is that is (a) that’s what he would be called by white boys in the antebellum south, and (b) Huck and Tom disapproved of slavery, and (c) There was a “scene” or moment in the book where Huck pondered about what the preacher said about helping escaped slaves and how it literally meant eternal torture in hell fire as a consequence. Huck sat down and pondered the problem gravely and seriously, then decided that he would indeed choose to burn in hell forever rather than to turn his back on his friend in need. But kids today won’t know that because Jim was a “nigger” in the book, set in the mid to late 19th century deep south. That’s what happens when small group-think minds decide what to do with a genius’ literature.
Paul Marks, yes the Slithery campaign were lazy. They didn’t even campaign in the rust belt at all from what I understand and that was stupid considering that, of course, the unions love the idea of Trump Tariffs and the elimination (supposedly) of cheap illegal labor.
Thailover, the DoI and the American Constitution don’t mention the n-word OR African-American even once! Not once! Grounds for banning them, maybe? Any SJWarriors out there?
What the left want is to say “Donald Trump lost the popular vote” (whether he did or not – after all the Frankfurt School of Marxism media and academia are only going to chant “racist, racist, racist” at any investigation of voter fraud) and “he had no right to impose his free-market-fundamentalist policies”.
That the economic bust will be caused by the Federal Reserve Credit Money “boom” (just as the 2008 bust was) will be carefully hidden.
The bust, and the terrible suffering, will be blamed on “deregulation” and “tax cuts for the rich and big business”.
And many rich people and big business enterprises will help with this leftist agitprop campaign – partly out of fear of the left (trying to ingratiate themselves with the left) and partly out of half remembered leftist doctrines that they themselves were taught at school and university – and which are endlessly reinforced by the media and in social life.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that they favour the popular vote in this instance, yet decry it when applied to the EU referendum. If they didn’t have double standards, they would have none at all.
I confess: I am an extremist. That is, if you threaten to poke me in the eyes 100 times, I will NEVER–not once–let you do so. Even if you and your gang overpower me, and force me to submit to your eye-poking, I will never grant you the right to do so–not for the Common Good, the Good of Society, to help the Rich, to help the Poor, to help Management or to help Labor; nor for any other superstition or shibboleth. NEVER.
A “moderate” would, I guess, let you poke him in the eyes some of the time, if you gave a good reason; and a middle-of-the-roader or centrist would let you poke him in the eyes half the time.
President.
bobby,
Caustic. Very caustic.
;>)
Julie, that’s exactly where I always thought the “alt” came from – from the disorganized, non-hierarchical Usenet groups in the “alt.whatever. . . . ” groups. That was where one used to go to find anything and everything unacceptable and disagreeable and fattening.
The Infogalactic entry for UseNet’s “alt” starts in part with this:
To me, that captures the essence of the “alt” in “alt-right”. It was the original anarchistic grassroots.
Quite true in a certain sense
Longrider said:
I find these kinds of terms useful. eg ‘fascist’ is thrown around by all and sundry. Consider who is saying it, who is the target and whether the term is appropriate. Is it ‘extremist’ to want to restrict the flow of unverified migrants into the USA? According to some people it is and those people readily highlight their own values by saying such things.
My general impression of left v right is that they use labels differently. Left tends to use them as insults to be thrown at other people whether the label fits or not. They try to shame their opponents and reinforce authority over left supporters with a sense of ‘I say this person is bad and you should trust my judgment’. Right uses labels to pass on information by more often correctly using those labels.
bobby, Johnny-5 here is always looking for I-I-INput!, so much appreciates the page on alt.*. Thanks!