Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Invictus2017 said:

 Instead, we're beating up one another for the sin of saying/not saying "White lives matter".  

No. The "sin" of apologizing for the use of a neo-Nazi meme. In your own words, "we need to wake up". So here I am saying: wake up to the threat of the alt-right and white nationalism alongside their neo-Nazi allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

No. The "sin" of apologizing for the use of a neo-Nazi meme. In your own words, "we need to wake up". So here I am saying: wake up to the threat of the alt-right and white nationalism alongside their neo-Nazi allies.

Yes, they're dangerous.  However, you'll have a whole lot of convincing to do to persuade me that I should give any mind-space to fighting what is, in essence, a criminal gang.  They'll become more violent, whether or not people innocently propagate their memes, and eventually they'll step over the line.  At which time the government will squash them like the cockroaches they are. Problem solved, and there's nothing in particular we need to do to see that it happens.

 

And, ultimately, they're not the gang we need to worry about.  That would be the government....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Invictus2017 said:

However, you'll have a whole lot of convincing to do to persuade me that I should give any mind-space to fighting what is, in essence, a criminal gang.

In essence it is one of the most evil and popular political ideologies ever created by man. And it's being spoon-fed to white people by law-abiding intellectuals like Richard Spencer from the National Policy Institute, the anonymous meme-makers at 4chan, and the international hordes at Stormfront. This is not a criminal gang. It's the next iteration of hell on Earth. And if you believe Peikoff, we have mere decades before it assumes power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

In essence it is one of the most evil and popular political ideologies ever created by man.

Go read some American history.  Or, for that matter, world history.  There's nothing new or special about the alt-right, nothing that justifies the panic I see here.

 

And stop confusing the volume of noise in the media for what the public actually thinks/feels. I spend an inordinate amount of time listening to ordinary Americans (as opposed to media types, Objectivists, and inhabitants of various political and other offices) and I can tell you that few people have even the slightest sympathy for the alt-right.  And that includes plenty of outright racists.  They may hate Blacks, but they have no trouble seeing that the alt-right is not their friend.

8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

And if you believe Peikoff, we have mere decades before it assumes power.

There is indeed catastrophe looming, and I'm sure that the alt-right will play a bit part in the coming nastiness, but they won't be the cause or the worst perpetrators. Let's not take our eyes off the fact that, in the competition for force, the American government has no in-country peers or even near peers, and that in the ideological realm, the chief danger is the collectivism preached by all segments of society (including, to be sure, the alt-right) and implemented by our masters in government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Invictus2017 said:

There's nothing new or special about the alt-right, nothing that justifies the panic I see here.

7 hours ago, Invictus2017 said:

...in the ideological realm, the chief danger is the collectivism preached by all segments of society (including, to be sure, the alt-right) and implemented by our masters in government.

In the span of one post, the Alt-Right went from being nothing special to part of the chief danger. I guess we half-agree after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

In the span of one post, the Alt-Right went from being nothing special to part of the chief danger. I guess we half-agree after all.

No change at all.  It is nothing special, just one tiny part of the collectivism that endangers us.  In itself, it's nothing to get all bent out of shape about. We certainly do not need to check our words to see if they might persuade one batch of sheeple that they'd rather be Nazis than Democrats or Republicans -- they're all out to gut our rights and then our lives....
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am honestly having trouble seeing the same threat from the neo-Nazis that you all (except Invictus) see. There are currently zero neo-Nazi countries, with the possible exception of Ukraine. Whereas there are many, many socialist countries, mixed-economy countries or countries where socialism isn't seen as the evil that it is. Neo-Nazism does not have the power to rule, one because of their terrible marketing image from WWII and the Holocaust which will never go away in the public's minds. Two, because it does not serve the globalist interest, and the globalists are the ones who hold most of the political and economic power among all enemies of Objectivism. Neo-Nazism, on the contrary, is antithetical to the globalist threat, because it places the white race and white nations above the plans of globalists of browning the West with immigration. That does not make neo-Nazism our ally, or conservatism's ally, and the alt-Right's alliance with neo-Nazis should be seen as more of a marriage of convenience just as Hitler's original alliance with Stalin.

While I agree that if neo-Nazis were ever to attain power, the consequences would be catostrophic, I don't see it happening. Peikoff envisioned a theocracy taking over, which I also do not see, unless you count the technocracy AI folks like Ray Kurzweil and former Google director's new "church" to be a religion.

The real danger to this country is left statism, and the bulk of the right will continue to be nothing more than reactionaries. The election of Donald Trump was a reaction to the left, not really representing a core conservative philosophy in himself. The left, on the other hand, DOES have a core philosophy... just look to Kant, Hegel, Marx, and other leftist philosophers. Thus they control academia, they control the media, they control the narrative because they actually have a playbook they're reading off of. Trump's playbook is by-and-large informed by his rudimentary America-first philosophy... I would again assert that this is a reactionary stance. There would be no need for an "America first" philosophy if there were not those out there--the globalists--who were interested in putting America last, disarming us, censoring us, flooding and replacing us, etc. "America first" should indeed be a true component of a larger philosophy of rational self-interest for individuals, and national self-interest for nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2017 at 5:52 PM, DonAthos said:

But it is another thing altogether to be aware of what "black lives matter" means in context, and yet argue that the context doesn't matter. That you should be able to wear the shirt, or post the sign, and not care about the real world consequences of your action. That's arguing for the intentional dropping of context, and it is a very bad idea.

Who's arguing this? I'm arguing that the "context" is idiotic, doesn't matter to me, and that I choose to ignore it. I wrote earlier that the best way to change crap culture is to act like it doesn't exist - ignore those morons to their faces. The people who make the culture crap are going to be followers of the people who change it by accepting and acting on new ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Invictus2017 said:

It is nothing special, just one tiny part of the collectivism that endangers us.  In itself, it's nothing to get all bent out of shape about.

From Journals of Ayn Rand:

Quote

You say, what can one man do? When the Communists came to power in Russia, they were a handful of eighteen men. Just eighteen. In a country of [170,000,000] population. They were laughed at and no one took them seriously. According to their own prophet, Karl Marx, Russia was the last country in which Communism could be historically possible, because of Russia's backwardness in industrial development. Yet they succeeded. Because they knew what they wanted and went after it--historical destiny or no historical destiny. Adolf Hitler started the Nazi Party in Germany with seven men. He was laughed at and considered a harmless crank. People said that after the Versailles Treaty Germany could not possibly become a world power again, not for centuries. Yet Hitler succeeded. Because he knew what he wanted and went after it--history or no history. Shall we believe in mystical fates or do something about the future?

Shall we believe that tiny groups of collectivists are nothing special, or do something about the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention, Hitler and the Nazis used the political tactic of "entryism" to gain parliamentary control. He and his tiny cadre started by infiltrating the center left DAP (German workers party) and began slowly filling it with antisemetic and racist ideology, partly by alluding to allegedly "scientific" studies done in the early 20th century regarding IQ and eugenics. We should be aware of alt-right collectivist attempting to do the same with libertarianism and objectivism for our own tiny movement sake, even if it's not for the sake of argument, as of right now, a political threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2017 at 4:14 PM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I am honestly having trouble seeing the same threat from the neo-Nazis that you all (except Invictus) see. There are currently zero neo-Nazi countries, with the possible exception of Ukraine. Whereas there are many, many socialist countries, mixed-economy countries or countries where socialism isn't seen as the evil that it is.

You just said a narrow political philosophy is less threatening than three broad categories of political economy. A better comparison is authoritarian countries, of which there are many. There is the Phillipines to name one. The better idea is to squash authoritarianism while it is small. On the one hand its numbers are small but gaining apologists. On the other hand, neoliberal democracies are philosophically weak.

The threat of globalism is a myth. The left has no unified philosophy. There is no Marxist conspiracy in academia. Basically, you didn't identify neoliberals and other nuanced analyses of global politics. Once you recognize neoliberals, it's easier to see how little they can withstand. "The Left" is a powerful illusion. Neoliberalism is real, and spineless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 2046 said:

Not to mention, Hitler and the Nazis used the political tactic of "entryism" to gain parliamentary control.

In addition to the IQ stuff, which is a bone tossed to the "science" lovers, the whole white nationalism movement is the neo-Nazi form of entryism. Hitler could get away with bold anti-Semitism and Aryan supremacy, but today's neo-Nazi has to tone it down and distance himself from such beliefs and historical imagery in order to be taken seriously. So the white nationalist focuses on racial immigration control and rebuilding the white national identity. People like Richard Spencer reject the labels "white supremacist" and "neo-Nazi." Yet they believe that America became great because of its white European heritage and that non-white immigrants are ruining this nation. Listen to how Spencer answers the last question in this interview. 

He believes that only white Europeans can be enlightened reformers, frontiersmen, and conquerors. And he thinks immigrants are pathetic people who wash up on our shores and take advantage of what other people have built. This is all semi-fancy talk for what Hitler said in much plainer language: Aryans are creators and builders, non-Aryans are parasites and destroyers. But Spencer needs to appeal to post-Hitler American conservatives and liberals. Thus, to the conservatives he talks about ending non-white legal immigration. And to the liberals he talks about promoting racial pride. His goal is to get conservatives to shut down the border to colored people, and to get liberals to accept white pride as a valid movement, like black or gay pride. Once that is done, the white nationalists will have little else to do but work on segregating and purifying the white nation.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, none of these things will matter because, when confronted with a right wing collectivist threat, they will just point out some left wing collectivist event or action, as if this cancels out the right wing one, or as if the existence of one negates the other. The possibility that we should oppose both leftwing postmodernism and social constructivism and alt right racial identity politics escapes them. They are not radical individualists of the enlightenment variety, they are essentially right wing deviationists that have sided with the right cop to defeat the left cop.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 12:32 AM, Eiuol said:

You just said a narrow political philosophy is less threatening than three broad categories of political economy. A better comparison is authoritarian countries, of which there are many. There is the Phillipines to name one. The better idea is to squash authoritarianism while it is small. On the one hand its numbers are small but gaining apologists. On the other hand, neoliberal democracies are philosophically weak.

The threat of globalism is a myth. The left has no unified philosophy. There is no Marxist conspiracy in academia. Basically, you didn't identify neoliberals and other nuanced analyses of global politics. Once you recognize neoliberals, it's easier to see how little they can withstand. "The Left" is a powerful illusion. Neoliberalism is real, and spineless.

"Globalism" is just "Workers of World, Unite!" all over again.  There were leftists who were globalists (communists) and leftists who were not (fascists) and their difference on this is the chief point on conflict in their civil war on the left.  The civil war on the left is the essential history of 20th century and is still essential early in the 21st century.  The "Left" is the air you breathe and that is the only reason you don't notice it. 

"There is no Marxist conspiracy in academia", really?  There are so many Marxists is academia they don't need to conspire, they are the establishment and the conventional wisdom on every campus.

The only thing the "Left" is weak in comparison to is a confident and evangelizing religion such as Islam.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Grames said:

"There is no Marxist conspiracy in academia", really?  There are so many Marxists is academia they don't need to conspire, they are the establishment and the conventional wisdom on every campus.

The point is that neoliberalism does not equal the same left politics as real radical leftists. I didn't say there is no left, I said there is no Left.

If there are "so many" Marxists in academia, show me how. I need numbers. I've only heard vague accusations elsewhere that "cultural Marxism is all over" as if the majority of people being neoliberals is plenty. The air we breathe is neoliberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The point is that neoliberalism does not equal the same left politics as real radical leftists. I didn't say there is no left, I said there is no Left.

If there are "so many" Marxists in academia, show me how. I need numbers. I've only heard vague accusations elsewhere that "cultural Marxism is all over" as if the majority of people being neoliberals is plenty. The air we breathe is neoliberalism.

Liberal professors outnumber conservatives nearly 12 to 1, study finds

 

How Liberal Professors Are Ruining College In New England, they outnumber conservatives 28 to 1. Why that’s bad for everyone.

I fail to note a distinction that makes a difference between liberal and socialist.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have the time or desire to go over how liberals differ from Marxists, and how both are different than socialists. I know and don't doubt liberalism is pervasive, the whole time I've been saying that liberals are distinct and hated by Marxists and the most hardened Communists. Neoliberalism is the mixed-economy system we live in mostly worried about tolerance, equal playing field, and both capitalist and anti-capitalist.

Indeed there may be some notable philosophical similarities across all of these, there are enough differences that there is hardly even an implicit unified philosophy. That leads to them being different degrees of threats.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's avoid using memes and stick to actual discussion.

Grames, you claimed that there are "so many Marxists" then when I pressed you on it you cited a study that quantifies liberals. This is disingenuous, you would know that either this requires you to explain how liberals are the same as Marxists, or rely on Cart's (perhaps innocent) ignorance that any two self-identified leftist is working with the same philosophy. They're not. This distorts the political landscape.

The Statism we know today is more like the kind started  by Otto von Bismarck, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Marxist a more honest term for Progressive? I mean, at this point, who do they think they're fooling? Sure, there are some old school liberals out there. But they are basically being excommunicated by the Progressives, who are in the process of tearing down the deviant Establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. "Tearing down the Establishment" is what any politics seeks in the long run - a new establishment. The part that'd differ is how they seek those ends. A Progressive (when people say liberal, they usually mean progressives or neoliberals) is more like Woodrow Wilson, mostly worried about fixing the perceived problems of capitalism. It's not like a Marxist or Communist who sees capitalism as the core issue - there's nothing about capitalism to fix. For sure there is overlap with supporting laborers and identifying the working man's plight, but that's superficial.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10.1.1.147.6141.pdf

I downloaded a 2007 Harvard study, The Social and Political Views of American Professors (attached above) which asked professors in various fields whether they identified as Marxist. 17.6% of social scientists did. And 5% did in the humanities. Very few were found in other fields. In total, only 3% of all respondents identified as Marxist.

It's a long, detailed study by a sociologist. This is the relevant Table 12:

Screenshot_20171203-225419.thumb.png.634942f7c40a0fed28f5c09bc534fd51.png

The non-Marxist columns are percentages of survey respondents who identified as radical or activist liberals. So, let's say we lump all three strongly liberal categories into a "Progressive" or "Neo-Marxist" category, that gives us 27.7% of total professors, and 62.2% in the social sciences.

Edited by MisterSwig
Corrected the year of publication. This is not a "recent" study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you even do that? All of us here would be either radical or activist. You can't play with stats that way. You might get some Communists in there, but who knows how many libertarians of all stripes. It's a survey of labels professors would choose for themselves. It doesn't say "radical or activist liberals". Besides, I just went over why Progressives can't be lumped with Marxists... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

It doesn't say "radical or activist liberals".

Yes, it does, if you read the study. The percentages specifically exclude non-liberals. But I did make a mistake. Each respondent could have self-identified with more than one label. So you can't combine the percentages like I did. The report claims that in social sciences, for example, about a quarter of the respondents self-identified as "radical" or "activist." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I misread it so I see now it said non-liberals were excluded. Still, my last sentence applies. We can't lump all left-types, they have different goals. It'd be like saying all right-type activists are the alt-right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×