Mediaboss Marketing

Among this loose coalition includes a hardcore white nationalist contingent, consisting of think tanks like the National Policy Institute and American Renaissance, as well as intellectual figureheads and movement leaders like Occidental Dissents Kevin MacDonald, AmRens Jared Taylor, Daniel Friberg of Arkos Media, and, of course, Spencer himself. While this big tent approach comes at the expense of ideological purity, many within the white nationalist old guard have admitted, reluctantly or otherwise, that this doddery coalition has benefited their cause tremendously. As Greg Johnson, editor-in-chief of the white supremacist publishing house Counter Currents, wrote shortly before Trumps inauguration, while white nationalists need to remain realistic about the fault lines that exist between them and so-called alt-light, they ought to treat this brief alliance as an opportunity. Even though the alt-light is driven by civic nationalism as opposed to racial nationalism, they ought to be looked upon as potential converts to white nationalism. For a movement plagued by websites that look they came from 1997, that is a hefty boost.

When it comes to online culture wars, few groups are as well-known or well-recognized as the channers. Racist, sexist imageboards on 4chan and 8chan have been both embraced and viewed with some skepticism by the alt-rights more overtly white nationalist contingent, but they helped usher the far-right into the broader public consciousness. What we call the alt-right today could never have had any connection to the mainstream and to a new generation of young people if it only came in the form of lengthy treatises on obscure blogs, Nagle explains. The memification of the alt-right, its transformation into rapidly reproduceable images and short phrases, was what allowed it to spread so contagiously. It was the political discussion board /pol/ (i.e., politically incorrect) on 4chan and 8chan, and the subreddit /r/The_Donald that gave the alt-right its youthful energy, with its transgression and hacker tactics. It was the channers, too, who facilitated the alt-rights move into mainstream internet culture, whether through raids (coordinated efforts to disrupt the content on a site, through, say, extended and vulgar comment threads), memes, or trolling. Memes like Pepe, (((echoes))), and Kekistanall of which are now commonly referenced by young white nationalist groups like Identity Evropa or the youth contingent of the National Policy Institutehave even become a staple at far-right protests throughout the country.

This tentative allyship between a wide variety of bigots and regressives flies in the face of the onetime consensus that the internet would usher in an information utopia. Instead of encouraging our best impulses, the internet has enhanced our worst ones, and the alt-right may be the clearest proof. As Nagle sees it, the cooption of 4chans more sinister racialist elements by a broader political movement is a natural outcome of the troll-happy culture that gave rise to, say, Anonymouss 2008 war against Scientology. The leaderless anonymous culture that once enchanted scholars such as Gabriella Coleman ended up becoming characterized by a particularly dark preoccupation with thwarted or failed white Western masculinity as a grand metaphor, says Nagle. This breed of internet trollwhich flourished on both the chans and Redditheld such a disdain for mainstream social norms that anything, no matter how noxious, that could be conceived as countercultural was welcome. Who cares? It is all ironic anyway!

As older conservatives fought out the 2016 election in the pages of the National Review and the Weekly Standard, a younger, more tech-savvy generation of neoreactionaries, white nationalists, ultra-conservatives, and traditionalists took to some of the darkest corners of the web to stake out their role in American political life. To do so, they embraced a transgressive and performative approachone that, Nagle writes, is more Fight Club than family values, more in line with Marquis de Sade than Edmund Burkeinspired not by the work of conservative ideologues but by the tactics of left-wing vanguards. Soon, those heeding the ideas of the left most closely . . . and applying them most strategically [were] the right. Rightist troll culture embraced the notion outlined by critical theorists such as Michel Foucault and the New Left thinkers like R.D. Laing that madness is a political and cultural rebellion, and in their hands this idea meant that a position of contrarianism and opposition to consensus values became an end unto itself. Indeed, Nagle explains, the libertinism, individualism, bourgeois bohemianism, postmodernism, irony, and ultimately the nihilism that the left was once accused of by the right has found fertile ground in segments of the new far-right.

The alt-right has also demonstrated a proclivity to steal and distort pieces of left-wing theory at will, all the while unironically harping on the dangers of so-called cultural Marxism. Much like one of its ideological forerunners, the French New Right, the alt-right has embraced a Gramscian approach to political change by focusing almost laser-like on what they view as left-wing cultural hegemony. The point is ultimately to redefine the conditions under which politics is conceived, Friberg explained in an excerpt from his book The Real Right Returns. Only by understanding this tool, countering its misuse, and turning it to serve our own ends, can we overcome the miserable situation that our continent is in. He is referring to Europe, but the same could easily be said of the United States, where the far-right is well aware it lost at least one stage of the culture wars. It is posed to turn its enemies tactics against them.

Go here to read the rest:
What the Alt-Right Learned from the Left - New Republic

On much of the American left, a pernicious, conspiracy-minded view of the Civil War and its outcome has taken hold. The ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, is in particular held in low esteem by many on the identitarian left today. This view, as put forward in the much-praised Netflix documentary 13th, holds that the amendment was phrased in such a way as to allow, sneakily, for the continued bondage of black Americans through penal servitude. This means slavery continued after the war, some argue. And of course, Confederate apologists likewise view the Unions abolition of slavery as a cynical ploy, as being more about the preservation of Northern power than expanding liberty.

While modern-day leftists may, rightfully, despise the Confederacy, they show little reverence for the Union and the men who ended slavery. The cause of defending the Republic is not something that animates many on the anti-Confederate left today. They do not see the promise of the Declaration of Independence, which was reiterated by Lincoln at the battlefield of Gettysburg, as, an uncashed cheque, in Martin Luther Kings memorable phrase; they are more likely to see it as an outright lie.

As should be clear from the absence of pro-Republic sentiment, this phoney Civil War re-enactment isnt about the Civil War at all. Indeed, many of the Confederate apologists at Gettysburg seemed all too happy to fly the Star-Spangled Banner the flag their supposed heroes took up arms against. On the other side, antifa and other leftists, supposed opponents of the Confederacy, are far more likely to burn it. The Civil War has been turned into yet another battleground for Americas interminable culture wars. Attitudes towards the Civil War are really a proxy for something else entirely.

Its virtue-signalling on old battlefields. Showing a favourable attitude towards the Confederacy, or at least being comfortable with its symbols, is now a way of sticking up two fingers to the liberal establishment in the big cities. This is clear from how popular it has become to fly Confederate flags in rural areas of states as far north as Oregon and Michigan. Likewise, letting the world know you find the Confederate flag offensive is a way to show you oppose racism, and more importantly that you are Good even if you dont actually admire what the Union and Lincoln did and said. Lost in all of this is any appreciation for the ideals that fuelled the Union and its defeat of the Southern rebellion: the ideals of liberty and self-government.

Tom Bailey is a spiked columnist. Follow him on Twitter: @tBaileyBailey

Picture by: Getty

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

Go here to see the original:
The culture war over the Civil War | USA | spiked - Spiked

My laptop has decided to stop charging, so this will be a quick one, whilst I have battery-life before I can go out and resolve the issue (hopefully its just the cable or power-pack/transformer).

I have been thinking about the key differences between the left and the right in general. And I noticed something which seems remarkably obvious, but that doesnt seem to be talked about much.

http://www.carlsontoons.com

In very broad strokes, the left believe in big government; the right believes in limited government.

By big government, the left generally means a body that does what is needed to secure the freedom of the citizenry by doing its best to quash systemic unfairness; the social safety net, free healthcare, free education, etc. In effect, it should be possible to have a decent life, even if youre in poverty.

By limited government, the right generally means doing what needs to be done to limit taxes and the government programs they fundand maximise the individuals ability to spend their own money as they see fit, with as few limitations as possible. Of course, maximising the ability to spend means precious little to people who are in poverty, they already spend, on average, 100% of their income.

Its worth noting that the left in one sense wants the same as the right, they want to spend their money in ways that benefit society as a whole and, in particular, elevates those at the bottom, so they elect the politicians that will do that.

Simplified even further. The left believes that life is not fair, and that, as fellow human beings, we should do what we can to support people when they are negatively impacted by that unfairness. The right believes that life is fairand that people get what they deserve. They will do what they can to improve their lives, and if that happens to benefit others, well thats just peachy.

This means that the right is voting for people like them, but at the same time voting for people who do not represent their interests because their representatives are looking to get into the government that they believe should be minimised. A politician with a long tenure, therefore, benefits from the incumbency effect, despite that incumbency being illustrative of failure to achieve the stated goal of their ownpolitical beliefs.

By contrast, the left is voting for people like them, who do represent their interests, because their representatives are looking to get into government in order to improve the standing of their constituents by expanding government. A politician with a long tenure, then, is a good thing except that politicians are almost invariably more right-leaning than the average left wing voter, especially in the States (because, as I have noted before, politics and religion are primarilyright-wing activities).

Of course, this is not something that those on the right believe, so whilst the liberal politician is almost invariably centrist, they are often painted as 70s-era unionists (in the UK), or outright socialists (in the US), when they are in fact, for the most part, more like the right, than the left-wing voter really wants.

Let that sink in.

The right is voting for people that they dont want in office, at all. The left isvoting for people that will do in the meantime, and who are more representative of the centre ground than the right-wing would care to admit.

Indeed, there does seem to be a trickle of more genuinely left-wing politicians coming through, particularly in the UK (and theyre mostly youngand female). So, there is the possibility that left-wing voters will be able to vote for people that represent their views (though not in the States, until the entrenchment of the two party system is addressed).

In the meantime, the right continues to be the people most likely to vote, and they continue to successfully elevate, and be apologists for, people they dont actually want to have as representatives.

Read the original:
The absurdity of the Culture Wars - Patheos (blog)

The nod to Orthodox political pressure enraged the organized non-Orthodox Jewish establishment. From cries of boycott Israeli leaders to claims that Israel gave U.S. Jews the finger,liberal journalistic pundits and organizational leaders alike seemingly competed to express the depth of their outrage and disgust.

(A second decision negating a provision that made conversion to Judaism somewhat easier within Israel was also made, though it's attracted much less attention outside of Israel, where conversion requirements are generally less stringent than they are in Israel.)

Consider all this the Jewish worlds internal culture war --a struggle between strict adherence to traditional religious practice versus broadening the practice to accommodate contemporary sensibilities.

Ironically, the brouhaha is of little concern to the average Israeli Jew, the majority of whom are by no means strictly Orthodox, if not outright secular (though culturally staunchly Jewish). Only the minority of ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews are deeply invested in the struggle, resistant as they are to all religious liberalization.

But it's another story for liberally religious North American and other diaspora Jews, who are overwhelmingly non-Orthodox. (In the United States, the vast majority of religiously involved Jews are connected to the Reform and Conservative movements -- the latter, despite its name, is also left of center.)

For them --and I count myself among them --the issue goes to the core of their increasingly fraught relationship with an Israel seen as religiously dominated by a myopic Orthodoxy more devoted to pushing its narrow political agenda than caring about international Jewish support for the nation that, when threatened, has looked to this same external backing for its very survival.

If you need some basic background on the dispute, click here (The New York Times)>, or here (The Times of Israel),or here (Jewish Telegraphic Agency).

Why would the Israeli coalition government led by Benyamin Netanyahu take this step?

Wily politician that he is, he knew the reaction it would generate at a time when legions of diaspora Jewish leaders have warned that Israels right wing political leadership has alienated non-Orthodox, non-Israeli, liberal Jews --the young in particular --straining their needed support for Israels national survival.

The answer is simple: Israel is more than the Historical Jewish homeland. It's also a modern nation with its own distinct political system and perceived needs. Jerusalem --and certainly not Amirim, for that matter --is not New York or Los Angeles, the bi-coastal centers of American Jewish life.

This analysis piece from The Forward, North Americas premier liberal Jewish newspaper, lays it out.So does this opinion piece distributed by Religion News Service. Note that both these pieces were written by prominent liberal Jews.

Both make the point, in much greater and important detail, of course -- which is why I'm not making it easy for you by simply pulling out a nut graph or two -- that I made above. Read one or both of them to gain a full understanding of the issues backstory.

Religion journalists: Your stories on Jewish reaction in your neck of the woods will be enhanced by accessing this background.

Also read this news release issued by the ultra-Orthodox America Jewish organization Agudath Israel to better understand the strict traditionalist argument.

To reiterate: Israel is not the Upper West Side of Manhattan or the west San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles.

Additionally, Israels religiously right wing ultra-Orthodox Jews care little about the cries that international Jewish support for the State of Israel --or Zionism itself --is at stake. For them, it's more about faith, the religion of Judaism and it's survival in its most traditional form.

Lastly, Israeli politicians act as politicians do world wide. Priority number one is self-preservation.

As I said, it's a culture war. And like the parallel conflict convulsing the United States over issues of gender, sexuality and public spending, how it all ends has the potential to divide international Jewish society just as its American equivalent has the potential to further tear apart the already divided larger American society.

For the moment, though, I'm going back to staring at the view from my guest house deck.

I need the break.

View original post here:
Western Wall battle: Viewing Jewish culture wars from a balcony in Israel's Galilee region - GetReligion (blog)

June 28 2017

by Rachel DiCarlo Currie

Everyone agrees that Americas political and cultural debates have become viciously polarized, and everyone has an explanation for how that happened. No explanation is complete unless it mentions the prominent role played by unelected judges in general and the Supreme Court in particular.

For decades now, the judiciary has been declaring that certain hot-button social issues fall outside the boundaries of democratic politics. Indeed, rather than allow the people and their elected representatives to reach some type of compromise on, say, abortion or same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has chosen to make policy by judicial fiat.

As a result, the losers in Americas culture wars millions and millions of people across the country feel theyve been disenfranchised. Quite understandably, they question the legitimacy of court rulings that have no real basis in the text or history of the U.S. Constitution or American law.

Alas, the Supreme Courts current swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, has contributed to this erosion of democratic government. Whether Justice Kennedy announces his retirement this year, or next year, or four years from now, cases such as 1992s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Court reaffirmed its central holding in Roe v. Wade, and 2015s Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, will be a significant part of his legacy. (Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell and co-authored the plurality opinion in Casey.)

Examining that legacy, Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn explains how Kennedy has exacerbated Americas political and cultural divisions:

[start block quote]

What makes issues such as abortion and marriage so contentious is that the opposing moral positions cannot be reconciled. The beauty of democratic politics, however, is its recognition that what free people want and what they will settle for as reasonable are two different things. Justice Kennedys unfortunate legacy on these hot-button issues is to take compromise off the table and thus ensure anger and ill will.

And why not, when the sides are depicted as the enlightened versus the bigots? Though he walked it back in Obergefell, in which he conceded that many who opposed same-sex marriage were acting from honorable religious or philosophical premises, in the 2013 decision overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Kennedy asserted that the only possible motivation for such a law was a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group.

Anthony Kennedy is an educated man who writes in the smooth tones of Stanford and Harvard Law. The effect, alas, is no less noxious. Next time Americas corrosive politics comes up, its worth remembering that the justice so often hailed as a moderate or centrist has done as much as any to fan the flames of Americas raging culture war.

Read the whole thing.

See the original post here:
How the Supreme Court Has Inflamed America's Culture Wars - Independent Women's Forum (blog)