This blog had some concerns about sacrificing Silicon Valley to the post-Calexit People’s Revolutionary Republic of California, but that might be exactly the educational experience it needs.
Given that the Alt-Right is primarily paleo-fascist, that sounds like an impractical strategy. (Still, it’s complicated.)
((Blame Kek for the header.))
You have 60 seconds to ideologically decrypt this meme.
Worth recording for posterity as a 2016 schizophrenia thing:
Inevitable quibbles aside, it’s quite shocking how well this works.
Just putting this out there:
Lets just be honest here and state the fact that the “altright” is essentially a neo-nazi movement.
(As you can see in context — despite the weak pseudonym that I’m not going to dox — it’s from a sympathizer rather than a critic, if that makes any difference at this point.)
(Sorry, couldn’t resist the comedy stack-effect.)
Xenosystems likes proposition nations so much it wants to see a lot more of them.
America is a problem for the world for two main (and conflicting) reasons:
1) Its proposition contains enough productive innovation to be scary. Independence war, foundational liberalism, constitutionally-restricted government, and laissez-faire capitalism have been a memetic-cocktail-from-hell for those in thrall to competitively-inferior ideas. But, undoing all of this, is the legacy of the American Civil War (in particular) —
2) The suppression of the propositional principle — i.e. geopolitical ideological sorting — under an idealization of national unity. Upon this pyre the liberal tradition has been incinerated, until it exists only as a charred parody of itself. The Proposition is by now little more than the State of the Union. Mandatory agreement, within an undivided territory, is policed by the democratic mechanism. That we remain one is left as the only strictly axiomatic propositional content (as the Trump and Sanders presidential candidacies in their different ways illustrate).
Spatial Metapolitics recommends that America do both Trumpist ethno-nationalism, and Sanderista democratic socialism, and a large number of other (more interesting) things, even also more stupid ones, if such can be devised. The critical point is the precise inverse of the late-modern axiom: As long as mandatory unity is dissolved, ideological tolerance can be extended without definite limit — across a disintegrated territory.
First-order ideological preferences, elaborated under an assumption of dominant unity, are a trap entirely irrespective of their specific content.
Here’s a proposition: Abolish the Union. Only disintegration is worth doing.
Gregory Hood on George Hawley (on Paul Gottfried?) on the Right / Left distinction:
Hawley has to not only describe the history of the American conservative movement, but define what he means by “Left” and “Right.” Hawley easily dismantles classification schemes based on a person’s view of human nature or the old “individualism vs. collectivism” canard. Borrowing from Paul Gottfried, Hawley says, “The political left will be defined as containing all ideological movements that consider equality the highest political value.” In contrast, the Right is defined as: “[E]ncompassing all of those ideologies that, while not necessarily rejecting equality as a social good, do not rank at the top of the hierarchy of values. The right furthermore fights the left in all cases where the push for equality threatens some other value held in higher esteem.”
One realistic outcome of this classification scheme:
… this means thinkers as diverse as Murray Rothbard, Wendell Berry, Pat Buchanan and Alain de Benoist can all be meaningfully characterized as on the “Right,” though they have little else in common. It also implies action – you are only on the Right if you are part of something which “fights the left.” […] Though Hawley does not say this, this suggests there are many “Rights,” as each right wing movement has its vision of The Good, The Beautiful, and The True it will fight for. We can talk about the Islamic State or Polish nationalists as both being “right-wing,” even though they would gladly slaughter each other. Though every right wing movement will hold its own source of excellence or morality as supreme, in truth there are as many as there are peoples, faiths, and ideologies.
This isn’t the sort of question that’s going to be definitively settled, but the criterion sketched here has an impressive flexibility.
(XS still likes this. Some previous Right / Left remarks and linkage here, and here.)