Showing posts with label alt right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alt right. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Antony P. Mueller — Is Cultural Marxism America's New Mainline Ideology?


Most of the posts are Mises Daily  are looney (in my opinion), but this one takes the cake. Huge claims, zero references.

Why am I posting this for reference? Because "cultural Marxism" is a very influential meme on the right that is used to attack "social justice warriors," "political correctness" and "identity politics" as "Communists."

Propaganda and persuasion (think marketing and advertising, for example) operates largely by creating memes that dominate the narrative and capture it. "Everyone does it" because it is effective. No matter than much of it is either misleading, unsubstantiated, or outright lying.

How does this affect economic policy and MMT?
The demand for social justice creates an endless stream of expenditures deemed essential — for health, education, old age, and for all those people who are "needy," "persecuted" and "oppressed," be it real or imaginary. The flood of never-ending spending in these areas corrupts the state finances and produces fiscal crises. This helps the Neo-Marxists accuse "capitalism" of all evils when, in fact, it is the regulatory state that provokes the systemic failures and when it is the excess of public debt that causes the financial fragility.
Mises Daily
Is Cultural Marxism America's New Mainline Ideology?
Antony P. Mueller, German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil

See also
What is clear is that the same hatred in Mein Kampf is being openly discussed in the advocation of violence from the left.
Armstrong Economics
Are we Rewriting Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf

Hillary Advocates Violence Unless Democrats WinMartin Armstrong

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Sam Kriss — The Myth of the Alt-Left

After Trump announced the existence of the alt-left on live TV, media outlets scurried to tell the world exactly where the term emerged from. CBS explains that it “came out of the conservative media.” CNN, quoting a director at the Anti-Defamation League, describes it as a “made-up term used by people on the right.” Heavy.com writes that “the term ‘alt-left’ began being used by the online conservative media in 2016 before it slowly migrated to more mainstream conservative voices, like Fox News’ Sean Hannity.” (Hannity, who repeatedly uses the term on his TV show, seems to be getting widespread credit.) The British Telegraph newspaper, meanwhile, flatters the president with a power of logodaedaly he definitely doesn’t have, claiming the phrase was “coined by Mr Trump” himself.

None of these explanations is really true. The term “alt-left” was probably simultaneously invented hundreds or thousands of times, always bearing a slightly different meaning depending on its inventor. But up until now, the people who most forcefully pushed the idea of an alt-left weren’t Nazis or 4chan posters or anyone else in the orbit of Trump and pro-Trump Republicans trying to invent a mythical opposite to the alt-right. The alt-left is, first and foremost, a figment of centrist Democrats....
The invention of the alt-left allowed centrist liberals to pretend that something entirely different was going on: They were sandwiched between two sets of frothing fanatics who secretly had a lot in common with each other. It established their particular brand of liberalism, possibly encompassing a few “moderate Republicans,” as the only reasonable ground, besieged by alts....
Politico
The Myth of the Alt-Left
Sam Kriss

Friday, August 18, 2017

Andrew Prokop — Steve Bannon’s exit from the Trump White House, explained

What will — and won’t — change in a post-Bannon White House.
The establishment and deep state win. Mike Flynn and Steve Bannon gone. What's next?

Vox

Thursday, August 17, 2017

But what should be more troubling to Antifa is that its strategy of participating in violence provides a unique opening for right-wing extremists. We are hearing more and more about Antifa not because its anti-fascist message is being disseminated more effectively. Instead we are hearing about it as the bogeyman of white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other far-right groups.
Antifa is, in this context, the violent provocateur of the alt-right. Unless and until the left acknowledges this political vulnerability, being able to distinguish Antifa from its ideological opponents will increasingly become a blurry enterprise.
This was true back in the Sixties and Seventies when the Black Bloc provoked violence at otherwise peaceful demonstrations. There was a theory that the perpetrators of violence were was agent provocateurs, and there likely was some truth to that in cases. However, it was not true of all cases and perhaps most. The people perpetrating the violence were far left. They self-identified as anarchists. Later this became known as the black bloc.

I knew some of these people back then. They were predominantly anarchists, although it seemed to me that some were just thugs looking for a fight with The Man. This was a fringe group at the periphery of the much larger antiwar movement, when most demonstrations were organized as protests against the Vietnam War. This was the extent of their interest for some, but there were also a lot of people that were also peacefully protesting a system that they viewed as exploitive and corrupt. This can be viewed as a dialectical response to the status quo at the time that considered "normal" in America. A lot of younger people didn't want to sign up for that future.

Among the protesters were fringe groups of socialists and even a few communists, but they were also generally peaceful in my experience. It was the self-styled anarchists that were into bashing, and their target was the riot police. Most of the policing of the demonstrations was by regular forces, but there was also a contingent of riot police in the background and violence would work to draw them out. The mainstream media never reported on this, and the rest of the demonstrators mostly ignored it as an aberration, if they even encountered it at all. It was not a widespread phenomenon.

But now the media is on it, and it is also on the Internet. The peaceful opposition needs to be aware that this is an issue and not try to cover it up or deny it, or it will become toxic.

Fortune
Antifa Needs a New Way to Fight the Alt-Right
James Braxton Peterson is professor of English and director of Africana studies at Lehigh University

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Sandwichman — Deep Structures of the Cultural Marxism Myth

Jeet Heer has posted a timely and excellent essay at New Republic titled "Trump's Racism and the Cultural Marxism Myth." In his essay, Heer recounts much of the background to the Higgins memo that I have documented here, here and here. Heer credits William S. Lind as the major popularizer of the myth, as have I in my blog posts. What I'm posting here extends the analysis and reveals significant background about personnel and timelines to the story....
There is a subtext to this that one needs to know and many American that were born later than 1980 and most non-Americans probably don't know much about it. A key element of the history is the influence of Herbert Marcuse on the countercultural revolution of the Sixties and Seventies that carried dynamcially by the antiwar movement against the Vietnam War. The participants in this were characterized by the opposition as "dirty fucking hippies" (acronym DFHs).

I am only too well aware this since I was one of the DFHs. After I left active duty in the US Naval Reserve as an officer serving in the Western Pacific (yes, I am therefore a Vietnam vet) I joined the antiwar movement based on what I had learned from my experience, as did John Kerry and other Vietnam vets. We were the butt of a great deal of vituperation from people that did not serve and sought deferments to keep from serving.

The DFHs became the enemy along with totalitarian communism. The right characterized the DFHs as at least pink if not red, indicating an overlap between antiwar Americans and the commies. Jane Fonda was the poster child. We adopted the term "DFH" proudly for ourselves to counter the insult, but actually called ourselves "freaks" since our task as countercultural revolutionaries was to freak out the squares. We dressed and acted accordingly, as in "sex, drugs and rock and roll." Good times.

When the US lost the Vietnam War by withdrawing rather ignomineously, the narrative on the right was that the antiwar left had "stabbed America in the back." This was reminiscent of Hitler and the Nazis scapegoating "the Jews" for stabbing Germany in the back, purported resulting Germany's loss in WWI. I don't want to overemphasize this parallel, but it is there, and it should not be ignored, especially in light of present politics.

Since that time, US politics has been characterized by the attempt of the more extreme right to characterize the left as a whole in this light in its narrative. This is the origin of the term "cultural Marxism."
At last we have a doctrine, a vanguard organization, and a timeline. But most importantly, courtesy of the Larouche cult, we now have a suitably unitary devil-function. The "basic Nazi trick," as Kenneth Burke labeled "the 'curative' unification by a fictitious devil-function, gradually made convincing by the sloganizing repetitiousness of standard advertising technique." Helpfully, in a 1988 address to the Heritage Foundation,William F. Campbell explained why conservatives need such a devil-function: 
But as first and second generation conservatives have always known, and had to live with as an unpleasant skeleton in the family closet, there is sharp tension, if not contradiction, between the traditionalist and the libertarian wings of the conservative movement. They have been held together primarily because of their common enemies, modern egalitarianism and totalitarian collectivism, which they both abhor.
In 1988, when Campbell made those remarks, the Soviet Union still existed and could serve the primary role of common enemy, symbolizing the alien totalitarian destiny of domestic egalitarianism. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a new enemy had to be conjured. The Higgins memo is testament to the contortions that must be endured to conjure that devil.
BTW, I was sitting that the center of the left at the time as a grad student in philosophy. I can say from experience that Herbert Marcuse's influence on the antiwar movement and DFHs was marginal. So most of the cultural Marxism myth based on his supposed influence is simply nonsense. This may have been true, to some degree at least, in the youth movements in France and Germany at the time. But Americans are not much interested in philosophy and tend to be action-oriented. They don't need elaborate justifications for action.

EconoSpeak
Deep Structures of the Cultural Marxism Myth
Sandwichman

Monday, August 14, 2017

Sandwichman on the Higgins Memo


Now that the US Civil War 2.0 has broken out in violence, it is good to be aware of this. The background is given in the links Sandwichman provides at the beginning of the first post. The AltRight is livid that Gen. McMaster is cleaning house, and it seems that Gen. Kelley is too, having sidelined Steve Bannon.

Econospeak
The Higgins Memo, Anders Breivik and the Lyndon LaRouche Cult

The “Narratives” of Higgins’s “Warfare”
Sandwichman

The full text of the memo that Sandwichman links to at FP is behind a pay wall. The full text is not widely available. Here is a link to the full text of the Higgins Memo that Mike Cernovich obtained.

Here is a link to Kenneth Burke's "The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'." Note: "Hitler's Battle" signifies Mein Kampf, which Burke is critiquing.

See also

Angry Bear
In light of Charlottesville, I noticed…
Dan Crawford

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Reeves Wiedeman — The Duke Lacrosse Scandal and the Birth of the Alt-Right

It not only launched [Richard] Spencer’s career, but that of White House adviser Stephen Miller, too.
Richard Spencer has become somewhat of a fringe Alt-Right character if not caricature. Conversely, Steve Miller is a presidential adviser in the Trump administration with a West Wing office adjacent to the Oval Office along with Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway, in addition to VP Mike Pence. Miller is the youngest of the group and an up-and-comer in US politics. He is a person to watch.

New York Magazine
The Duke Lacrosse Scandal and the Birth of the Alt-Right
Reeves Wiedeman

See also
Miller parlayed his experiences as a conservative activist at Duke into a job on Capitol Hill, where he worked for former Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, then for Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for attorney general. It’s in Sessions’s office where he came into his own in Washington.
Miller was someone on whom Sessions “relied very heavily,” said Andrew Logan, who worked as Sessions’s press secretary while Miller served as communications director. “He sort of necessarily became involved in all of the policy areas as well.” According to Logan, Miller was involved in writing nearly all of Sessions’s speeches.
Miller quickly became associated with the hardline anti-immigration, anti-globalist views that characterize Sessions and which became a main theme of the Trump campaign....
Miller is also closely connected with Bannon.
Though Miller preceded Bannon on the Trump campaign, they got to know each other while Bannon was still running Breitbart.

“I know Bannon feels the same way that I do about him,” said one Breitbart News staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Always expressed a lot of admiration for him.”
The staffer referred back to a speech Jeff Sessions gave at a Breitbart-sponsored CPAC event two years ago in which Sessions spoke about being a populist, and tied it to Miller.
“That Sessions speech at CPAC was basically Breitbart laying down the ‘This is what we believe on immigration’ and that’s pretty much inseparable from Miller,” the staffer said.

Asked to describe Bannon and Miller’s relationship, a former Breitbart Newsstaffer said “Sponsor-client relationship from what I can tell, or mentor-mentee, which is the policy Bannon regularly adopts with younger people.”
“You could not get where we are today with this movement if it didn’t have a center of gravity that was intellectually coherent,” Bannon told Politico Magazine last year. “And I think a ton of that was done by Senator Sessions’s staff, and Stephen Miller was at the cutting edge of that.”
The Atlantic
How Stephen Miller's Rise Explains the Trump White House
Rosie Gray

Monday, April 10, 2017

Greg Johnson — God Emperor No More

For the Alt Right, it’s Mourning in America. We believed in this guy. We liked this guy. And now he just seems stupid. Frankly, so do we....
Now they know what progressives felt when they realized they got had by Obama.

Counter-Currents Publishing
God Emperor No More
Greg Johnson

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Hunter Wallace — How The Alt-Right Broke Up With Donald Trump


Timeline. Things started falling apart soon after the election.

Alt Right
How The Alt-Right Broke Up With Donald Trump
Hunter Wallace,  founder and editor of OccidentalDissent.com

Friday, April 7, 2017

Hunter Wallace — Reports: Bannon Argued Against Syria Strike


Kushner for, Bannon against. At least this is how the alt right views it.

Alt Right
Reports: Bannon Argued Against Syria Strike
Hunter Wallace

Also
The calculation we made was that even if he ended up betraying his own stated “America First” platform, he was still a better choice than Hillary Clinton and by pushing those ideas into the “mainstream” he would open the door for someone else to move into the vacuum and pick up the mantle of nationalism.
No Regrets

Moar at Alt Right:

Peter Beinart: Trump’s Establishment Approach To Syria

Trump Train Derailed: Sells Out to Neocon Globalists & Attacks Syria

The Trump Betrayal

Welcome Back, Mr. President!

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Adam Garrie — The problem with intellectualising Steve Bannon


Adam Garrie makes the valid point that Steve Bannon has become the focus of the intellectual aspects of Traditionalism but that Bannon himself is not an intellectual, or so his previous life would suggest. Moreover, he has not commented on the various intellectual aspects of Traditionalism other than briefly and in a cursory manner that suggests he is not interested in being a thought leader. Moreover, it is not clear what the primary influences on him may be. 

Therefore, it would be a mistake to view either Bannon or Trump as Traditionalist thought leaders or heavily influenced by Traditionalist thought instead of as chiefly political agents that can be broadly identified as Traditionalist in their analytic and governing approach. 

The Left appears to be making this mistake, or attempting to identify Steve Bannon and Donald Trump as extremists based on flimsy association. Some are making them out to fascists when Fascism is one of the four major political theories along with Liberalism, Marxism, and Traditionalism, and Traditionalism is opposed to Fascism. Instead, the Left needs to put its own house in order if it aims to be taken as more than an opposition.

The Left also needs to wake up to the fact that Traditionalism strongly supports the family rather than the individual and therefore it aligned with "the little people," that is, ordinary workers with no political voice in the present system. The Left wrongly assumes that this is cohort is naturally aligned with the Left but that was not the case in the recent presidential election.

This is not to minimize the significance of the various cohorts of Traditionalism that are in play nationally in the US and internationally among the rising Right. They are part of the Trump-Bannon coalition domestically and potential allies internationally. As such they are part of the political mix as such their views and aspirations will be a factor in politics and policy. But rolling all this into Steven Bannon as a symbol is not supported by evidence, and less so for Donald Trump.

The Duran
The problem with intellectualising Steve Bannon
Adam Garrie

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Neal Gabler — Who’s Really to Blame for Fake News


Worth reading for background on alt right fake news. But it is marred by linking to the Craig Timberg article at the Washington Post.
Consider for a moment the oxymoronic concept of “fake news,” which we have been hearing so much about lately. This isn’t your typical disinformation or misinformation — generated by the government, or foreign adversaries, or corporations — to advance an agenda by confusing the public. It isn’t even the familiar dystopian idea of manipulated fact designed to keep people lobotomized and malleable in some post-human autocracy. Those scenarios assume at least an underlying truth against which nefarious forces can take aim.
Fake news is different. It is an assault on the very principle of truth itself: a way to upend the reference points by which mankind has long operated. You could say, without exaggeration, that fake news is actually an attempt to reverse the Enlightenment. And because a democracy relies on truth — which is why dystopian writers have always described how future oligarchs need to undermine it — fake news is an assault on democracy as well.

What is truly horrifying is that fake news is not the manipulation of an unsuspecting public. Quite the opposite. It is willful belief by the public. In effect, the American people are accessories in their own disinformation campaign.
That is our current situation, and it is no sure thing that either truth or democracy survives....
Bill Moyers & Co.
Who’s Really to Blame for Fake News
Neal Gabler

Also 

Scott Adams' Blog
Scott Adams