Archive for the ‘Alt-right’ Category

This Word Means: Extinction Rebellion – Yahoo India News

Extinction Rebellion protesters dig up a lawn of Trinity College. (Reuters photo)

On Monday, members of an environmental activist group dug up a part of the lawn of Trinity College Cambridge while sparing an apple tree that descended from the one that inspired Sir Isaac Newton. According to news reports, the digging was to protest the colleges alleged role in the destruction of nature, but the protesters symbolically protected the famous apple tree to highlight the colleges collusion in the destruction of farmland.

The group calls itself Extinction Rebellion (XR) and claims to follow the principles of non-violent civil disobedience movements. It was launched in the UK on October 31, 2018, as a response to a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that implied we only have 12 years to stop catastrophic climate change and our understanding that we have entered the 6th mass extinction event, XR says on its website.

Critics have referred to the groups supporters as environmental fanatics. In its FAQ section, the website raises the question whether the group comprises law breaking anarchists or economic terrorists or eco-fascists; the answer posted is that the members are strictly non-violent and reluctant law breakers.

Before the Trinity College vandalism, another widely reported instance of law-breaking happened in April 2019. The group held a large demonstration in London over a course of 11 days that led to more than 1,100 arrests. Activists caused damage of an estimated over 6,000 at the Shell headquarters and glued themselves and sat on top of trains on the citys light railways.

For the UK, the group lists three demands to tell the truth, which means that the government must declare a climate and ecological emergency; that it must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by the year 2025; that the government must create and be led by a Citizens Assembly on Climate and Ecological Justice to meet big, wide-ranging and complex challenges. Such a Citizen Assembly would bring together ordinary people to discuss, investigate and make recommendations on ways to respond to climate change emergencies.

The group says it does not want to rely on traditional systems like petitions or writing to MPs and is more likely to take risks, which includes getting arrested. It claims its movement is to demand adequate action for the unprecedented global emergency, for which polite lobbying, marching, voting etc havent yielded the desired results from decision-makers.

On Wednesday, The Guardian reported that a man and two women have been charged with criminal damage after the digging of the Trinity College lawn. Three others have been charged with criminal damage over another protest that took place the following day. All six people have been released on bail to appear at Cambridge magistrates court on March, The Guardian said quoting police.

Why is it that toxic propaganda posts are shared so widely? In Antisocial: How Online Extremists Broke America, Andrew Marantz, a journalist with The New Yorker, explores how online fringe ideas spread fake news; how truth becomes fake news; and how a candidate who was dismissed as a joke was eventually elected US President by the dark side of the Internet.

To write this book, Marantz spent time with alt-right groups and propagandists who are experts in using social media to their advantage, and he learnt how to make content go viral. Everyone knows the most basic rule of the internet: Dont feed the trolls, and dont take tricksters at their word. The trolls, of the alt-right called themselves provocateurs, or shitposters, or edgelords. And what could be edgier than joking about Hitler? Marantz writes in the book.

Marantz has written extensively about technology, social media, the alt-right, the press, comedy and pop culture.

Pulitzer-prize winning author Elizabeth Kolbert has praised Mrantzs latest book, writing: Antisocial is at once funny and scary, antic and illuminating. Its a must-read for anyone still struggling to understand the last election or hoping to make sense of the next one.

In its review, The Guardian calls it an absorbing and disturbing book that raises two awkward questions. One is whether digital technology now constitutes an existential threat to liberal democracy. Second, was the old media ecosystem, with its elitist gatekeepers, editorial control, political bias and other flaws, really worse than what we have acquired? Or, pace Winston Churchill on democracy, was it just the worst system apart from all the others?

Read the original:
This Word Means: Extinction Rebellion - Yahoo India News

Could Mbali Ntuli save the DA? – News24

Ntulis decision to join the partys leadership contest is timely. She has the credentials to help it return to its liberal roots, writes Imraan Baccus.

There are serious questions about whether the DA will recover.

Despite the leadership of John Steenhuisen, the DA has a significant presence of right-wing zealots who, like Helen Zille, have decisively moved from the South African liberal tradition embodied by Helen Suzman, towards a version of the libertarian wing of American alt-right politics.

Mbali Ntuli has entered the leadership race at a critical time in the DAs history.

She joins when there is likely to be no black constituency for a right-leaning DA.

Ntuli represents the kind of steady momentum that could spring a few surprises come the next elections

The recent draft policy document of the DA reads: Individuals, when free to make their own decisions, will not be represented in any and every organisation, sector, or level of management according to a predetermined proportion. The DA, therefore, opposes race, gender and other quotas.

It is clear that we now have the race denialism of Zille and DA policy head, Gwen Ngwenya and their ridiculous fantasy that non-racialism is a liberal concept that they now embody.

Zille, Ngwenya and others in that camp engage in a form of race denialism that masks enduring racism and functions to legitimate ongoing white domination.

It comforts the powerful and afflicts the oppressed.

In a country in which poverty is a deeply raced and gendered phenomenon, to pretend that race and gender are no longer relevant considerations in policymaking and public discourse is to implicitly endorse the status quo.

It is clear that the party has collapsed into forms of reactionary politics.

In this regard, Zille will go down in history as the person who both extended the DAs reach after Tony Leons time at the helm, and then, after her turn to the right, destroyed everything that she built.

Time will tell, but she may go down as the person who finally broke the liberal tradition in South Africa, despite her courageous past.

So if ever the party needed refreshed leadership it is now. Ntuli offers the opportunity for the DA to reconstruct itself.

She has steadily risen through its ranks from baptism as a youth activist through to councillor, seasoned parliamentarian and senior party worker.

Credit must go to her for fearlessly building the DA brand in Durban townships as well as in the northern reaches of the KwaZulu-Natal province closer to her St Lucia home base.

The latter is a region the Inkatha Freedom Party considers its domain and one that the ANC also prizes.

Her father Big Ben Ntuli was considered the boss of taxi bosses. His untimely demise shook up the young Mbali

Ntuli worked her way into a deeply hostile and patriarchal environment, frequently facing personal danger.

There must be something coded in her genes when it comes to the gangster swagger and signature nail art.

Her father Big Ben Ntuli was considered the boss of taxi bosses.

His untimely demise shook up the young Mbali. Then came the family feud for control of his taxi empire.

It was a storyline straight out of a political thriller complete with charges of poisoning.

For Ntuli, having survived both the taxi underworld and a nasty family feud, liberal politics sound like walking a poodle.

Her schooling was a training ground that the traditional DA cognoscenti dare not scoff at.

She went to a posh girls school followed by the bastion of white liberalism Rhodes University in Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape.

So she is not someone plucked out of the township with rough edges as some might want to paint her.

Her entire makeup is that of a good South African success story of a streetwise young black woman who has chosen an unconventional path into politics.

It surely could not have been easy for her meandering the dizzy minefield of DA politics over the past decade especially.

Unlike the fallen from grace Mmusi Maimane and embarrassingly eager Bongani Madikizela, Ntuli has held her own as a freethinking, sometimes undisciplined spirit.

At this moment in time the DA could very well do much worse than Ntuli

At this moment in time the DA could very well do much worse than Ntuli.

That is not to say that there are not enough bright cadres to attend to its immediate dilemmas.

Steenhuisen for one is as bright as a button but his clear shortcoming is that he cannot take the DA beyond hollering from the opposition benches.

In his personal choices at volatile moments, Madikizela has hitched his wagon too close to the Zille runaway train headed to the cliffs edge.

Ntuli has the right kind of hunger to have a go at what is still the second prize in South African politics.

A decade of building a challenge to the dominance of the ANC was wasted by Zille and Maimane in the main.

Ntuli represents the kind of steady momentum that could spring a few surprises come the next elections.

Whether the DA grandees, funders or rank and file are ready for a youthful, savvy black woman remains to be seen.

Baccus is a senior research associate at ASRI, research fellow in at the University of Kwa-Zulu-Natals School of Social Sciences and academic director of a university study abroad programme on political transformation

View post:
Could Mbali Ntuli save the DA? - News24

Why #NeverTrump Conservatives Shouldn’t Back the Democrats in 2020 – Caffeinated Thoughts

Former Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL)pledgedto back the Democratic nominates even if its socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Walsh is the latest in many prominent #NeverTrump Republicans to declare that hell back the Democratic nominee. Former Dan Quayle Advisor Bill Kristolrecently proclaimed, But for the time being, one has to say: We are all Democrats now.

Walsh, Kristol, and many other #NeverTrump conservative leaders have been willing to take a hard stand in opposing President Trumps many misdeeds and his debasing of American institutions. I respect that. However, I disagree with backing the Democrats for the following four reasons.

Many of us have decided against remaining in the GOP. Ive been saying our country needs a new political partyfor some time. #NeverTrump leaders like Kristol hung onto the GOP label so they could undermine the president and criticize the president as members of the presidents party. They didnt seek to wrest control of positions within State and Federal parties. They just saw to use the affiliation to give credence to their criticisms with groups likeRepublicans for the Rule of Law.

Republicans for the Rule of Law began as an effort to push the Mueller Investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. Trump-opposing Republicans like Kristol saw the Mueller investigation as the vehicle that dispose of Trump or at least weaken him to the point that a primary challenge might have a chance. This failed mainly due to the over-hyping of potential findings by Mueller. The Mueller investigation may have found several possible obstructions of justice, but it couldnt match the over the top hype that Trump was directly working for the Kremlin.

Also, Trump-skeptical Republican leaders began to back Democrats. Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie took a Trump-like turn when running for Governor of Virginia, engaging in a healthy amount of race-baiting in the 2017 Virginia Governors race, and Kristol backed his opponent. Trump critics like columnist George Will urged for voters to hand control of Congress to the Democrats. Both strategies succeeded as Ralph Northam was elected Governor of Virginia, and Democrats took the House.

On the plus side, House Democrats have made efforts to hold the president accountable.

However, their partisan motives undermined the credibility of their investigations. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.) took the lead on impeaching President Trump. Schiff was skating on thin ice credibility-wise due to his overselling of the Mueller and Russia investigations. Evenmany conservativeswho favored impeachment thought the Democrats flawed processed doomed it. The Democrats botched the investigation of Ukraine due to a politically driven Impeachment by Christmas timeframe. This led to an impeachment case whose only hope of success was Republican Senators having a sense of honor and duty that exceeded House Democrats. Of course, Senate Republicans showed they didnt.

Also, the Democrats political gains have driven more conservatives into the arms of Trump. Ralph Northam pushed a radical pro-abortion agenda thatcountenanced infanticidedespite being touted as a moderate. With the new Democratic Majority in the House, we saw the rise of the radical squad of four far-left Democratic Congresswomen. Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed helpless to reign them in. Pelosi has refused to stand up Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) over Omars bigotry. Stopantisemetism.org named OmarAnti-Semite of the Year. Well done, House Democrats, and those who helped bring you to power.

For three years, those on the right who opposed Trump have spent their influence on a strategy that leaves challenging Trump to prosecutors and Democrats. Its time to ask that classic Doctor Phil question: Hows that working for you?

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won the popular vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. However, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg won more delegates and therefore won the Iowa caucus. Former Vice-President Joe Bidens campaign is on life support as he finished fourth and fifth in the first two contests. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is fading, and neither Buttigieg nor Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has jumped into the lead anywhere based on their early state performances. The most likely candidate to stop Sanders is a late entry, billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

At present, theres an eighty percent chance the Democratic nominee will be either Bloomberg or Sanders. Both candidates are comparable to Trump in their own ways.

The definition of a race between Trump and Bloomberg is as follows: One candidate is a wealthy New York oligarch with authoritarian tendencies, ahistory of racially insensitive remarks,problems respecting women, and whodefended Russias invasion of the Crimea.The other candidate is Donald Trump.

One of Bloombergs supporterssaid, at an event this weekend, that she was aware of his issues with women, but he should be given a bye because the alternative is four more years of Trump. Republicans used the same argument in 2016 to back Trump.

Sandershas a long history of backing authoritarian regimesin places like Cuba and Nicaragua. He even spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. Many #NeverTrumpers have been shocked at the hatefulness of Trump-supporting groups like Turning Point USA, as well as the many racist and alt-right groups that embraced Trump. Bernies most extreme backers, known as Bernie Bros, arejust as bad.

You can make an argument over whether Trump is worse than either candidate. However, that is a debate over degrees, not a debate over kind. If youre concerned by the type of person Donald Trump is, Michael Bloomberg is the same kind of person. If youre worried about the type of anger and hatred that Trump inspires in others, Sanders is the same kind of candidate. Supporting either Bloomberg or Sanders in the name of getting rid of Trump damages the credibility of anti-Trump conservatives.

With two men who are older than the president being the Democratic frontrunners, President Trumps re-election chances look good. The best opportunity for either Bloomberg or Sanders to win is an economic collapse or foreign policy fiasco. Barring that, with prosperity at home and relative piece abroad, I see little chance that the country will vote for either Bloomberg or Sanders.

So Walsh and Kristol are not only asking Trump-opposing conservatives to compromise our values and our credibility to stop Trump, theyre asking us to do it in whats most likely a doomed effort. While theres an 80 percent chance that Bloomberg or Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, theres a 20 percent chance that someone else does. Biden may make a comeback. All those editorial board endorsements could do more for Amy Klobuchar than they did for John Kasich four years ago. A brokered convention might nominate Michelle Obama even though she doesnt want to be president. These would still not be great outcomes, but at least they wouldnt be bad in the same way Trump is. Kristol and others are trying to influence the Democrats to such a result.

It was equally possible after Donald Trump won three of the first four contests in 2016, that #NeverTrump Republicans could stop Trump. In the case of 2016, I felt obliged to try to save my then-party from Donald Trump against all the odds. As an independent, its not my job to protect the Democrats from themselves, and efforts to do so are likely pointless.

To some, Donald Trumps political career is the white whale; they are determined to kill at all costs. However, Trump is only a symptom of much larger problems in American politics. Voting for either Trump or his opponent will only make these problems worse. Spending the next eight months bickering over who would make America worse is like debating which venomous snake you want to bite you.

In his famous Give Me Liberty speech, Patrick Henry said the battle didnt belong only to the strong, but to the vigilant, the active, the brave. America needs a conservative Independent challenger to inspire voters to reject all venomous partisans. An excellent independent showing could serve as the foundation of a new major party and would be far healthier than trying to pick which of two evils is worth supporting.

Read the rest here:
Why #NeverTrump Conservatives Shouldn't Back the Democrats in 2020 - Caffeinated Thoughts

A Jordan Peterson Biographer Missing the Mark – Merion West

Jim Prosers new biography on Jordan Peterson portrays him as a Christlike figure plagued by personal demons. Yet the real devil here is in the details.

What does one say about Jim Prosers new biography of Jordan Peterson, Savage Messiah: How Dr. Jordan Peterson Is Saving Western Civilization? The first thing is that its not a biography, at least not in the modern sense of Boswells Life of Samuel Johnsona text thats extensive leveraging of archival records, eye-witness accounts, and interviews effectively bestowed the genre with a veneer of objectivity thats defined it ever since. By contrast, what Proser offers us hereas can be inferred from the titleis essentially a Christ allegory: one in which Peterson is portrayed as being the lone individual capable of saving Judeo-Christian Enlightenment values from the vipers of postmodern neo-Marxism, resurgent since the anti-Western movement of Occupy Wall Street. And should one dispute Petersons candidacy for comparison with Christ on the grounds that the latter was put to death for his sermons whereas the former has become rich off of them, Proser constantly reassures us of the mental anguish Peterson has endured on account of neo-Marxist aggression, which at one point, literally surrounded him, invaded his classroom, threatened his career and the future stability of his family.

Given the apocalyptic sense of importance Proser assigns to Peterson, many readers may be curious as to just who he is. In 2016, Peterson first attracted widespread notoriety for his publication of a video on YouTube, Professor Against Political Correctness: Part 1. The video, which featured Petersons voiceimagine Kermit the Frog trying to evince the air of a truth-telling patriarchdubbed over a handful of black-and-white PowerPoint slides, was austere. It was also factually dubious: in it, for instance, Petersona Canadian, who currently teaches at the University of Torontoconfuses Canadian jurisdictions, waxing on about the threat posed to academic freedom by the Canadian governments effort to legislatively protect gender-nonconforming individuals seemingly unaware that his own vocation falls under provincial mandate. Naturally, few noticed, and Petersons was able to parlay his burgeoning star as a professor capable of legitimating the intellectual pretensions of the alt-right into a best-selling book two years later, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. 12 Rules for Life, which builds on Petersons efforts to map Jungian archetypes onto neuroscience in his earlier book Maps of Meaning isat bottoma pop psychology book sprinkled with a few inchoate philosophy references (Peterson succeeds in misreading numerous thinkers throughout the book, including Heidegger and Derrida). However, by this point, the question of Petersons academic bona fides was largely a moot one. His nonstop polemicizing against the leftwhose ideology he coined the neologism postmodern neo-Marxism to describe, sloppily compounding differences a more rigorous thinker wouldve bothered to delineatesupported by his nonstop lecture tours, had already resonated with a mass audience. 12 Rules was just the tour souvenir.

That Petersons elevation to fame occurred relatively recently poses a distinct problem to Proser as a biographer. Jordan Peterson is 57 years oldhardly an upstart. Yet as he was not a public figure prior to his fiftieth year, writing a genuinely comprehensive biography wouldve required undertaking substantial research to supplement Petersons own accounts (part of the appeal of Petersons books and lectures lies in the way he frequently recounts stories supplied from personal experience). But whether out of laziness (or whether out of a desire not to impinge upon the soupcon of prophecy Peterson has built up around himself), Proser instead elects to use the books first half to furnish his readers with an assemblage of chronologically organized anecdotes about Petersons life derived from none other than Peterson (and virtually all readily available elsewhere). The best thing that can be said about this part of the book is thatin so far as the events in question occurred prior to his transformation into the public intellectual par excellence of the Rightits impossible to say categorically that theyre wrong (though one does get the sense that taking them at face value would be a bit like seeing a long cut of Purple Rain and mistaking it for authentic biography). The worst thing that can be said is that Proser here does the exact opposite of what a biographer should do, inflating Petersons personal mythology rather than slicing through it.

The word mythology is not used here loosely. Peterson, who believes that the world is not made of matter but out of what mattersdeep, brohas in his past works compared his travails to those of mythological and religious figures. Given that Peterson makes clear in Maps of Meaning that he believes there is a symmetry between neurobiological structures and mythic archetypes, it can be argued that this is less preposterous than it seems (even as this argument itself is complicated by the fact that the mythological examples Peterson makes to use it are disproportionately Western). For Proser, however, it is not enough that Peterson simply be an avatar of common experience. Instead, his stress on Petersons world-historical confrontation with SJWs (social justice warriors) infuses even his relaying of the events of Petersons early life. When Peterson refuses to go to church and rejects religion, he, may have felt something like Dantes Inferno. When he experienced depression as a young man, he was, Odysseus traveling through the land of the dead to learn of his future. To top it all off, in Prosers account, Peterson was dogged as a youth by none other than Satan (!) himself, who decided to,be patient with the young man who was so bright and seemed so enthusiastic. Not that his patience was infinite: after Peterson interrupts a college drinking party by shouting about God and war and love and other things he didnt know a lot about, the, Prince abandoned his drunken prospect to suffer in his well-deserved vomit. These kinds of descriptions, coupled with the books title, make you wonder if Proser hasnt forsaken the vocation to which he wouldve been best disposed: that of a metal lyricist.

Petersons reception during the early stages of his academic career, was, as Proser explains, not much different than the one he encountered assailing besotted college students with his philosophic theses at house parties. At least so far as his colleagues were concerned. After serving as an assistant professor at Harvard for five years, Peterson failed to acquire a tenured position there due to, in his own words, a lack of presence of mindwhatever that means. Even at the University of Toronto, a prestigious albeit considerably less prestigious institution, Peterson was nearly rejected by the psychology departments search committee on the grounds that he was too eccentric. Throughout his description of these events, Proser is so committed to portraying Peterson as a concentrate of titanic significance that he fails to countenance the possibility that his academic work just might not be that good. But while hardly a model of intellectual rigor, whats also clear from this part of the book is the way that Petersons indisputable skills as an orator furnished him with opportunities well above his academic station. At Harvard, he purportedly built up a cult following among his studentswho also nominated him for the Levenson Teaching Award in 1998, which he subsequently won. And a few years into his stint at the University of Toronto, he landed a gig delivering lectures on Maps of Meaning for a publicly-funded broadcaster, TVOntario (which also invited him to frequently serve as in interlocutor on The Agenda with Steve Paikin). Predictably, Proser fails to notice the irony thatwhile Peterson frequently rails against the oppressive diktats thrust upon him by politically correct government apparatchikshe is also a product of government, having received a quotient of support throughout his career denied to many of the postmodern neo-Marxists whom he regularly decries.

Its at this point in Prosers bookas Petersons public visibility begins to increasethat it degenerates into deep nonsense. Absent extensive research, and unmoored from the coming-of-age narrative that undergirds its first half, the latter part of Savage Messiah is a mess of phrases copied verbatim from public websites, tidbits of Petersons lectures, and Prosers crass polemicizing. Much of it is, moreover, factually inaccurate. The competition for the worst burst of prose in Savage Messiah is a fierce one. But in Prosers description of the political ascent of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we seem to have found a winner:

Arriving just in time, young Justin ascended quickly to the leadership of the NDP. Then riding the wave of progressive outrage over the repeated defeat of their agenda and the rise of traditionalist voices like Jordan Peterson, he led the Liberal Party to a sweeping national victory in 2015. The Liberal Party went from third place with 36 seats to a dominating 184 seats, the largest increase by a party ever in a federal election. He was sworn in as prime minister of Canada on November 4, 2015.

To be clear, the Liberal Party and NDP (New Democratic Party, though Proser elsewhere refers to it in the text as the National Democratic Party) are, in fact, completely different political organizations. Nor is this the only example of Proser sloppily conflating different political traditions: at another point, he declares that Sartre and French pro-fascist writer Louis-Ferdinand Cline as exponents of different forms of Marxism (though perhaps Cline is indicted here because he actuallyunlike Peterson or Prosertook the time to read Capital). And for the coup de grace, we learn that anti-fascist Antifa fighters are none other than the modern-day version of the violent Black Shirts, the voluntary, paramilitary wing of Benito Mussolinis Fascist Party of Italy. Oh, and in case you wondering: the cause of the violence of Antifa is possibly the theory of toxic masculinity.

Whats disturbing about these kinds of claimsapart from the fact they made it by an actual copy editoris that its not clear that describing them as errors fully does justice to the mind in question. Some may be oversights. But one also harbors the suspicion that Proser is so in the thrall of a conspiratorial vertigo that he thinks hes offering up the unvarnished truth. This speaks to the fundamental flaw of Savage Messiah: that it never even momentarily allows the facts to stand alone. Of course, narrative structuration is the essence of biography, and it would be unreasonable to expect any author to not bring some kind of predisposition to a project dedicated to a figure as divisive as Peterson. But if Prosers goal is to honor Petersons work, his exaggeratedly hagiographic approach actually has the opposite effect. If Petersons brilliance is so self-evident, why is it necessary for Proser toin arguably the most surreal moment in a book rife with themcite student ratings on ratemyprofessor.com in order to attempt to discredit one of his ideological opponents? Moreover, one gets the sense that Proser, who identifies openly as a follower of Petersons work, has not even fully assimilated it. Where Peterson, for instance, has criticized the adoption of identity politics by both the right and leftalbeit been more severe in his condemnations of the latterProser is alarmed by an Amazon.com product review that refers to a two-decade-old journal as, seeking to abolish the white race. Likewise, where Peterson couches his misogyny in improperly applied statistical data, Proserwhos elsewhere described women as having a last fable dayis hardly so discreet. For him, should we examine the subtext of one of Petersons lectures, it is clear that its not right-wing authoritarians, but women who most wanted to control speech.

Savage Messiah is a colossal embarrassment. But if its most disquieting passages can credibly pass themselves off as analyses of Petersons work, is it solely Prosers? Petersons has mastered the art of disavowal: of selectively deploying statistical data in order to infer bigotries he then can subsequently distance himself from. This book is just another example: as Proser explains in the books epilogue, Peterson gave it his assentbut never in a way that would impede him from later disowning its contents. Maybe, then, its not Peterson but, rather, Proser who manifests the archetypal traits of the Messiah. Jesus, after all, let himself be pinned down.

Conrad Bongard Hamilton is a PhD student based at Paris 8 University, currently pursuing research on non-human agency in the work of Karl Marx under the supervision of Catherine Malabou. He is a contributor to the text What is Post-Modern Conservatism, as well as the author of a forthcoming book, Dialectic of Escape: A Conceptual History of Video Games. He can be reached at konradbongard@hotmail.com, and a catalogue of his writings can be found on Academia.edu.

Visit link:
A Jordan Peterson Biographer Missing the Mark - Merion West

Conservatives, Time for Us to Renounce the New Alt-Right – The Michigan Review

On August 11, 2017, hundreds of alt-right white nationalists marched in Charlottesville, VA in the Unite the Right Rally. The next day, their calls for a white ethnostate drew counterprotesters. At first, the meetings were mostly peaceful. Later on, however, one white nationalist turned the situation violent when he drove a car through a crowd of opposing demonstrators, injuring 19 and killing one. After the attack, the public saw the true evil that was present in the alt-right, and its members retreated. However, recent months have seen this racist ideology rear its ugly head again.

Members of the alt-right 2.0, the groypers as they call themselves, have started to become a nuisance for Young Americas Foundation (YAF) and Turning Point USA (TPUSA), two conservative student organizations who have denounced their movement. One groyper website, The Daily Stormer, published a calendar of YAF and TPUSA college lectures and called for its soldiers to challenge the mainstream conservatives who came to speak. When Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) came to Texas A&M, one groyper asserted to him that America should not be giving aid to the Jewish state of Israel because they hate Christianity. Another asked TPUSA Chairman Charlie Kirk, who was holding a panel with gay Iraq War veteran Rob Smith, How does anal sex help us win the culture war? Even the University of Michigan was a target in the Groyper War. Among the speaking events on The Daily Stormers calendar was YAF Speaker and Daily Wire author Elisha Krausss Pro-Life is Pro-Woman lecture. Luckily, none came to disrupt the event.

The commander-in-chief of the Groyper War is YouTuber Nicholas J. Fuentes. TPUSA Chief Creative Officer Benny Johnson has created an effective Twitter thread that catalogs Fuentess misdeeds. For one, he has heaped heavy praise on the Unite the Right Rally (which he attended). He has claimed that racial segregation was better for [black people]. He has called Daily Wire host Matt Walsh a race traitor who works for Jews. Finally, he has stated that there is little difference between himself and Richard Spencer in terms of evaluating the problem.

The problem for him is that there are too many minorities in America. Fuentes and his ilk claim that as our population becomes more diverse, it becomes more difficult to elect Republicans. As evidence, they point to the overwhelming tendency of minorities to vote for Democrats. However, this argument relies on a false assumption that correlation equals causation. Data from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies suggest that black people, for example, have not always voted Democratic. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, African-Americans were split in party identification, with as many associating with Democrats as with Republicans. 1948 represented the start of the disparity. One main reason for the split was that Democratic president Harry Truman desegregated the military just months before the election. Later, Lyndon B. Johnson issued the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These policies allowed Democrats to cater especially well to black voters and paint themselves as civil rights champions. The right should take note. In order to get more conservatives elected, Republicans need to focus on better marketing to minorities, not create movements that claim that minorities should not be allowed into the country because of their race. The Republican Party platforms of the early 1940s called for the fostering of free enterprise, lower taxes, and a strong national defense. They backed up these ideas by appealing to the values of the Founding Fathers. African-Americans can resonate with these policies; they have in the past. The first step in winning over minority voters is debunking the far-left lie that Republicans are racist. That becomes much more difficult if we embrace movements like Fuentess.

The problem for him is that there are too many minorities in America. Fuentes and his ilk claim that as our population becomes more diverse, it becomes more difficult to elect Republicans.

So what caused the rapid rise of the groypers? First, these new alt-righters have a different core philosophy than their predecessors. Conservatives could easily fight back against the first wave by pointing out that these people were simply not conservatives. The first alt-rights members were radically pro-abortion, heavily opposed to an alliance with the Jewish State of Israel, and highly critical of Christianity and its message that all people are created in Gods image. Now, Fuentes followers espouse a much more seductive message. They claim to be trying to save American conservative values under an apparent America First ideology. Indeed, their philosophy is better described as White People First. They espouse a racist message which masquerades as conservative, and their supposed fervor to elect more Republicans has fooled many.

While the right must put its own house in order, the radical left also shares culpability for the growth of the groyper movement. On the far left, a tendency exists to label ordinary conservative thought-leaders as racists. For example, when conservative pundit Ben Shapiro came to speak at Stanford University, the schools Coalition of Concerned Students released a statement calling Shapiro a white supremacist. Shapiro is one of the alt-rights strongest critics and, according to the Anti-Defamation League, the number-one journalistic target of anti-semitism online. Moreover, the Coalition decided to interrupt Shapiros speech at the most inopportune time possible. As Shapiro was condemning the same racist movement that I am now, the protestors shouted him down. Shapiro responded to the hecklers by asking them if they were responding to the part where he condemns Nazis.

As conservatives, we must cast off any hint of bigoted cancer that exists in our movement and stay true to the exceptional American ideals of liberty and justice for all.

The far-left has created a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario. By levying unfounded accusations of racism on mainstream figures, it has allowed actual racists to slide under the radar. When YAF and TPUSA came out against them, groypers claimed that the allegations were characteristic of those conservatives hear generally and labeled members of the two organizations whiny leftist snowflakes.

As both sides learn lessons from the movements rise, conservatives especially must note the difference between the bigoted ideology of blood-and-soil nationalism and that of credal patriotism. The former presumes that American exceptionalism is intrinsically connected to the race of the people and the land they live on. According to those who subscribe to this theory, the Founding Fathers could not have created a liberal democracy if they were not white. This idea simply does not have a connection to reality. Japan, for example, has seriously liberalized since World War II. The Hong Kong protests would also undercut this viewpoint, as they exhibit a case of non-white people demanding their rights from a tyrannical government. Russia, however, has had a long history of standing in opposition to western ideals despite being a majority white country. The country did not abolish serfdom until the mid-19th century, and any attempt to liberalize it failed, eventually leading to the formation of the Soviet Union. Credal patriotism, on the other hand, connects the love of country to the ideals on which it was founded. For Americans, these ideals are Jeffersons self-evident truths that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The philosophy that Fuentes and his followers espouse is antithetical to American founding values, and, therefore, antithetical to conservatism. As conservatives, we must cast off any hint of bigoted cancer that exists in our movement and stay true to the exceptional American ideals of liberty and justice for all.

(Visited 138 times, 20 visits today)

Read the original here:
Conservatives, Time for Us to Renounce the New Alt-Right - The Michigan Review