Nativism and the Alt Right/Alt Lite

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Okiefreak, Aug 11, 2018.

  1. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,556
    Likes Received:
    10,126
    AltNormal people is of course a nonsensical term. Just because the word alt(ernative) is put in front of left or right doesn't mean the people affiliated/following it aren't normal. Being alt-right merely means they're supposedly part of an alternative or different form of right leaning politics. It could be abnormal or extreme, sure. But isn't so by definition.
     
  2. Monkey Boy

    Monkey Boy Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,908
    Likes Received:
    391
    I thought his interview with Jeffery Mishlove about Zarathustra was pretty interesting.
     
  3. Running Horse

    Running Horse A Buddha in hiding from himself

    Messages:
    2,773
    Likes Received:
    2,260
    Not concerned. Idiots will be idiots. They'll kill themselves off eventually, always do
     
  4. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Where to begin? Maybe with mention of the pathetic turnout for the Unite the Right march in Washington, D.C. yesterday: fewer than two dozen, badly outnumbered by hundreds of counter-demonstrators, and they went home early because of the rain. But white racism is the tip of the iceberg. It rests on a broader base of ethno-nationalism (aka nativism, aka xenophobic populism) that's gaining ground not only in the U.S. but in Canada and Europe, as well.
    Why Populism Is Sweeping Europe
    More ‘warmth’ for Trump among GOP voters concerned by immigrants, diversity
    The rise of European populism and the collapse of the center-left

    A couple of articles help to put the ethno-nationalist movement in perspective What Is a Nativist? - The Atlantic https://www.europenowjournal.org/2018/01/31/nationalism-nativism-and-the-revolt-against-globalization/
    The first article talks about key concepts of nativism, populism and authoritarianism-- how they relate to nationalism and patriotism, and whether or not Trump is a nativist. The second relates the phenomenon of ethno-nationalism or nativism to globalization and immigration--the driving forces. Concern about immigrants, diversity, and globalization seem to be drivingTrump voters and also supporters of ethno-nationalism in Europe and Canada.
    It's important to keep in mind that this isn't just an American thing but an international movement that didn't just come out of nowhere. Trump is only a symptom of the disease.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2018
  5. quark

    quark Parts Unknown

    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    783
    I'm alt-native.
     
  6. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    I got that.
     
  7. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Much as I hate to do it, I think at this point I need to use the F-word and the N-word, namely Fascism and Nazism. Godwin's law tells us that whoever is the first to bring up Nazis loses, but he more recently said:"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician." So I hope to get by with that. Why bring it up? Because what we see in Europe, the U.S. and Canada with the euro-nationalists is "déjà vu all over again".

    Fascism was introduced by Benito Mussolini and perfected by Hitler to describe their, at the time unique, political systems based on seven elements: Populism+Nativism+Nationalism+Authoritarianism+Scapegoating of out groups+leadership principle+Statism=Fascism. Add racism and we have Nazism. Fascism is populist in gearing its messaging to the little guy who feels left out of the distribution of wealth, status and power in society. It is nativist in being against foreign influence and immigration, It is nationalist in stressing national glory and superiority (for Mussolini, restoring the glory of the Roman Empire; for Hitler, fulfilling the destiny of the Aryan Master Race embodied in the Third Reich; for Trump, "Make America Great Again"). Its adherets display authoritarian personality characteristics in believing in absolute submission to a leader's authority while dominating their subordinates. It scapegoats out groups (for Mussolini, socialists and communists, who were beaten up by his blackshirts; for Hitler, Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, who were beaten up by his brownshirts). as the source of society's evils. (Now its Muslims ansdimmigrants. It puts it's faith primarily in a Leader instead of policies or institutions (IL Duce, for Mussolini's followers; Der Furher, for Hitler's). And it advocates Statism, in which the government is given totalitarian control over people's lives. In sum, Fascism is demagoguery at its most extreme form. We aren't there yet, but I think we're moving in that direction. Mussolini and Hitler didn't get there all at once either. So wake up and smell the coffee.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2018
  8. wooleeheron

    wooleeheron Brain Damaged Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    8,927
    Likes Received:
    2,360
    Money and guns are doing all the talking worth listening to in modern Babylon, and the idea that protests do more than delay these bastards is a joke in bad taste. The US doesn't have anything remotely like actual politics anymore, and the EU is headed in the same direction, with the banks and corporations encouraging them. Addressing the symptoms or screaming the sky is falling is beyond pathetic. What we require is concerted action and that requires promoting unity outside of the usual political platforms.

    Fuck em if they can't take a joke, and joke em if they can't take a fuck, but humor is mathematical and its time to wake the bastards up. The truth hurts for a reason, but its better to pull the damned splinters out before they get infected.
     
  9. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Au contraire. The U.S. is up to its eyebrows in politics--Who gets what, when, how? So how would your go about promoting unity outside of the usual political channels?
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Here is something I posted way back in 2005 in a thread entitled ‘Why do National libertarians keep reminding me of the Nazis’

    There are people that come to the forum that I have begun to think of as national libertarians. They mix a bastard libertarianism with the whiff of nationalism about it. It is a strange mix it seems to wish to protect Americans from the effects of free market capitalism while promoting free market economics.

    Lets us look at a few of the trends I’ve noted.

    They seem to talk of the US ‘regaining’ power from international organisations and being ‘free’ once again.

    Can be isolationist

    Can be against immigration and blame immigrants for talking away ‘American jobs’ lowing educational standards and increases in taxation.

    Talk of ‘conspiracies’ undermining the ‘American’ way of life.

    Much talk of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ and how they will bring more (without explaining what they mean)

    Claim that the present system is corrupt.

    Claim to be neither of the right or left.

    Talk of some past golden age.

    In a lot of ways it reminds me of National Socialism the underlying ideological principle might be very different but many of the buttons that the Nazis used to attract people are being pushed by the national libertarians (the Nat-libs).

    For one thing it is the scapegoating, how the two seem to blame the problems of their society on either external powers or internal ‘traitors’

    How they appeal to the elite’s while simultaneously claiming to be looking after the interests of the common people against those of those same elite’s.

    Nazis imagery was all about the past glory of the Teutonic races of the once proud power of the German volk that never really existed. The Nat-libs seem to talk a lot about the past of the founding fathers in almost reverential terms and associate it with a true ‘American’ way that never really existed since they seem to forget just what a compromise and a fudge the US constitution was.

    First up I would like to point out I’m not saying that national libertarians are Nazis or have the same views as Nazis.

    I make that point very plain – “the underlying ideological principle might be very different but many of the buttons that the Nazis used to attract people are being pushed by the national libertarians (the Nat-libs).”

    What I’m getting at is not the ideology but the methods they seem to be using to attract people to the ‘movement’.

    The National Socialist’s learnt not to dwell on their political policies they found they made a lot more headway if they appealed in other areas.

    They could never really hid the policies they espoused but they could try and camouflage them behind concepts with greater appeal such as ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’ slogans that often appeared on early Nazis posters.

    The other thing they could do was try and misdirect people by scapegoating others. Blaming all problems on a shadowy conspiracy of Jewish bankers, claiming that political opponents even the whole system was corrupted or controlled by the conspiracy, and accused the media of the day of lying to the people.

    These things seem to me to be very similar to what some so-called libertarians are doing on these very forums.

    Here are a selecting of captions that appeared on early Nazis posters.

    [Hitler] - “is ruthless in uncovering the rulers of the German economy, the international bank Jews and their lackeys, the Democrats, Marxists, Jesuits, and Free Masons!”

    "Citizens! Do not believe that the Germany of misfortune and misery, the nation of corruption and usury, the land of Jewish corruption, can be saved by parties that claim to stand on a foundation of facts. Never!"

    Freedom and food for every decent working German! The gallows for profiteers, black marketeers and exploiters, regardless of religious faith or race!

    "Germany's Liberation."

    "Freedom and Bread."

    “The big-wigs are living high on the hog, the people are wretched."


    In the early part of the 20th century socialist ideas were popular in Europe amongst those who were disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of governments of the time, which they saw as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests. But while there were many legitimate socialist organisations there were others who were just using the guise of socialism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

    National Socialists may have used some of the words and ideas of regular socialism but to me Hitler’s goals had more to do with seizing power than socialist reform.

    **

    In the US of the 21st century libertarianism seems to me to be attractive to many Americans who are disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of government, which they see as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests.

    So while there may be legitimate libertarians I feel that there are those that might just be using the guise of libertarianism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

    Now this is just an impression, an opinion or a theory, and I’m not accusing all libertarians (although it is a philosophy I personally dislike) of only faking their beliefs, most are genuine (if misguided in my view). But sometimes talking to others I get the impression that just like many of the Nazis they are less interested in genuine political thought and debate and more interested in trying to misdirect and scapegoating others.
     
    scratcho and Okiefreak like this.
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    What I’d add 13 years later to the list is the desire of such people as the Trumpets to have a leader they can worship (as the followers of Mussolini and Hitler did).

    The thing I noted back then that is still there are the many seeming contradictions in the Nat-libs thinking. Asked and most if not all would say they believed in capitalism and the free market, liberty and freedom, the US constitution and ‘American’ values.

    But when examined they often make it plain they only want a form of capitalism that favours their concerns and rewards their group. They claim to hate the globalism and corporations while saying they are in favour of free market ideas that brought about globalism and increased the wealth power and influence of corporations and now seem to believe that tariffs and protectionism are free market values.

    They say they are champions of liberty and freedom, but shout for the innocent and even children to be locked up.

    The talk of the US constitution in the same breath as saying the press are the enemy of the people for criticising the great leader.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018
    scratcho and Okiefreak like this.
  12. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    I think what you're describing may be the phenomenon of "libertarian populism" that's been receiving a lot of attention from conservative, liberal and libertarian critics lately.Josh Barro, Jonathan Chait, Paul Krugman, Michael Lind, Matt Yglesias Matt Lewis, Ramesh Ponnuru. Oxymoroanic as it might seem, this hybrid is catching on with politicians of the right, and has become especially prominent in the so-called AltLite movement, thanks to the influence of Milo Yyannopoulos , Lauren Southern, and Gavin McGinnes. It combines a libertarian emphasis on individualism and liberty (read self indulgence) with nativistic populism exploiting fear of foreigners--first cousin to Nazism. Unlike Nazis, libertarian populists are, as the term suggests, libertarian instead of the typical Nazi pattern of authoritarian. They are rebels who resist perceived limits on their personal autonomy. As you suspect, some are disingenuous in their populism or libertarianism--using it as a means of attracting a mass base for an ideology that might otherwise seem off putting. as "Anarcho Capitalist Jeff Deist of the Mises Instituteput it, channelling his guru, the late Murray Rothbard: "any successful libertarian strategy must contain a healthy dose of populism. Austrian economics and libertarian theory often don’t lend themselves to easy sound bites and simplistic memes. But intellectual arguments alone won’t carry the day. Effective populist messages contain an implicit answer to the question of “What’s in it for me” that satisfies the average Joe or Jane. It’s easy for Bernie Sanders simply to say, “I want to make college free so that all young people have an equal chance at success.” It’s not so easy to hand someone 900 pages of Human Action and say, 'Read this, you’ll understand” (but try it anyway)'." Rothbard on Libertarian Populism | Jeff Deist Micheal lind put it bluntly" Question: What is a libertarian populist? Answer: A libertarian in disguise." “Libertarian populism” = Ayn Rand in disguise Unfortunately, the xenophobic brand of libertarian populism pushed by Milo, Laure, and Gavin verges on Nazism, especially when Milo lapses into his reverence for "Daddy" Donald.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2018
    scratcho and McFuddy like this.
  13. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Typos: the word (line 2) should be oxymoronic. And the last line, first word should be Lauren, as in Lauren Southern.
     
  14. pineapple08

    pineapple08 Members

    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    35

    Has Antifa been banned as a terrorist organization. Is it a terrorist organization?
     
  15. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    To the best of my knowledge, the answer to your first question is "No", although the Department of Homeland Security refers to some of their activities as "domestic terroroist violence". The feds reportedly have formally classified antifa activities as “domestic terrorist violence” Apparently, this designation is contained in documents not released to the public.

    Is it a terrorist organization? Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." On that basis, I think it's possible to classify Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. I personally have trouble with the definition, because terrorism in its classic formulation by writers like Frantz Fanon, involved the use of deadly violence to stir unmanageable fear in a society--which would fit groups like ISIS, AlQaeda, and the KKK but not, in my opinion, Antifa. Antifa's purpose seems to be what it says it is: to oppose what it perceives to be fascism, but it seems to be willing to use non-lethal violence to accomplish that end, and to be willing to obstruct expression of views by speakers it deems to be fascist. I consider that neither terrorist nor fascist, but if used offensively instead of defensively, I think it's wrong. Is it as much of a menace as the white supremacist groups? I don't think so. Antifa hasn't murdered anyone yet that I'm aware of. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ https://www.theroot.com/white-supremacists-killed-more-people-in-2017-than-musl-1822193008
    So I think all the hype about Antifa being terrorist is largely politically motivated.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
    GuerrillaLorax and fraggle_rock like this.
  16. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    What is the Trump Base? A “Coalition of Restoration” Against Demographic Change: Nativism Resurgent

    Trump won with forty-nine percent of the voters. During his first year, his average approval ratings in public opinion polls were mostly below 40%, but during the past couple of months they seem to have stabilized at about 43% approval and 52% disapproval. https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html Some commentators think that two-fifths of that approval may be “soft” (the ones who “somewhat approve”) but a “hard core” of some 25% who strongly approve is likely to remain loyal to him whatever he does. (that was about the size of Nixon’s hardcore too.) These are the folks who say they "trust all or most of what they hear from the White House"; say they approved of Trump's use of Twitter, say they thought Trump had "acted in a way that is fitting and proper for a president"; or "cannot see Trump doing anything that would make them disapprove of him." In each case, on various polls, some 24-25% have expressed such views.
    Data show that Trump's real base is 24 percent of the electorate
    John Dean: Trump’s incredible shrinking base
    Halfway through the GOP primaries, Trump claimed: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone and I wouldn’t lose voters.” He was emphasizing the loyalty of his supporters. Is that a cult of personality, or what?

    Who are these voters? The hardcore seems to consist mostly of the same kinds of people who voted for Trump in the primaries. After he became the Republican nominee, he attracted more of the regular conservative Republicans, “never Hillary” voters, and voters fed up with the party system who wanted something new—many with college degrees and higher incomes--some of whom also became hardcore. But the hardcore seems to consist mainly of the kinds of voters who brought Trump to power.
    Geographically, they tend to come disproportionally from small cities, rural communities and working class suburbs in less urbanized states of the Plains, Appalachia, and Deep South, and parts of the Midwest—a “revolt of Middle America”, as Forbes columnist Joel Kotkin described it. Richard Florida described it as “a geographically concentrated band of working class, white, suburban, and rural support that is bent upon restoring a bygone America.” It is positively associated with the share of workers in blue-collar working-class jobs (0.76), and negatively associated with income (-0.72), wages (-0.79), education (measured as the share of adults with a bachelor’s degree and above, -0.86), and the share of workers doing knowledge, professional, or creative work (-0.72).” Trump’s approval is overwhelmingly concentrated in less affluent, less educated, more working-class states.
    Trump's Approval Rating Reflects a Divided Country - CityLab
    Ronald Brownstein describes it as a “coalition of restoration”—united against demographic change.
    Donald Trump's Supporters Represent a Statistical "Coalition of Restoration" - The Atlantic
    A "coalition of restoration" is the essence of nativism.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2018
  17. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Socio-demographically, the base is best analyzed in terms of its different components. Dr. Emily Ekins, a Cato Institute researcher (Yes, that right wing Libertarian think tank founded and funded by the Koch brothers), identifies five clusters of Trump supporters. The Five Types of Trump Voters | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group This breakdown, of course, is based on a 2016 snapshot in time that may no longer be accurate but may still be historically significant in showing who elected Trump. There is no reason to think that the political demographics have changed that much since the election. The first three of these share a common antipathy toward immigrants. According to a Boston Globe (Nov. 9, 2016) exit poll, 64% of Republican voters, compared to 33% of Democrat voters, saw immigration as the most important policy issue in the 2016 election. According to Ekins, 56% of Trump supporters, consisting of the first three clusters, are anti-immigration.

    The first cluster Ekins calls American Preservationists (20 percent of the total)—“the core group that propelled Trump to the nomination”. They are populist and protectionist, and take a dim view of immigration. Nearly three quarters of them say it should be much harder for foreigners to immigrate to the United States legally. These are the loyalist part of the Trump hardcore, and seem to fit the earliest demographic profiles of Trump supporters: older , white, more male than female”; lacking a college education ; typically earning less than $50,000 a year in “old economy” blue collar jobs; and not part of the traditional Republican base. (Once they were the Democrat base, and include many “Reagan Republicans”). They favor protectionism in trade matters. Before the 2018 election, they were feeling powerless.

    The second component, called Disengaged, (5 percent of Trump voters), also mostly under-educated, un-inclined to follow politics, and alienated from institutions, tend to be particularly concerned about Muslims and favor a Muslim travel ban. They tend to be younger and more female.

    The largest cluster consists of the Staunch Conservatives (31% of the total) who rallied to Trump after the nomination. These evidently include the Tea Party, Evangelicals, and NRA members who were previously torn between Trump and Ted Cruz. They largely correspond to the right wing Republican Party—more college educated and affluent—yet fearing encroachments of immigrants and minorities into their schools and suburbs, and determined to preserve their traditional privileges and status against the demographic changes favoring minorities and immigrants. They differ from the American Preservationists in embracing traditional Republican free trade policies and rejecting economic protectionism.

    The remaining two clusters don’t share the anti-immigrant outlook of the other three, but rallied to Trump for different reasons, especially because they opposed Hillary Clinton.. The Free Marketers (25%) are a more libertarian cluster of Republicans who supported Trump mainly because he was the party nominee and is not Hillary. They are anti-protectionist and seem to be the least secure backers of Trump. The Anti-Elite cluster (19%) tend to be the most moderate on issues of race and immigration, and the youngest of the clusters. They were turned off by Hillary Clinton and looking for a change from the “business as usual” system controlled by the party establishments and big donors. They thought Trump might be the lesser of evils in that regard.

    The takeaway is that no one issue unites all five clusters of Trump supporters, but the anti-immigration issue unites a majority of them. Three of these clusters (the first three listed supra), accounting for a majority of the base, are anti-immigrant, i.e., presumably nativists. They share common a fear of both legal and illegal immigration. They seem to show the strongest pro-Trump support, and roughly correspond to the “one in four” of the electorate who are hard core Trump loyalists. There is one potential fissure even in the ranks of the hard core: economic protectionism. The American Preservationists are protectionist, but the Staunch Conservatives are not, and the Free Marketers by defintion don't like tariffs. We'll see after the upcoming elections if these clusters continue to hold.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2018
  18. GuerrillaLorax

    GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    228


    "In rhetoric that is familiar again today, the general manager of the American Iron and Steel Association insisted that the depression of the 1880s was aggravated “by the presence among us of thousands of idle and vicious foreigners who do not come here to work for a living but to stir up strife and commit crime.” This predecessor of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen is hardly unique in capitalizing on economic failure to divide the working class—Hitler did the same a few decades later. Nativism is always present among the xenophobic and privileged; it becomes most vicious when a large number of people are swayed to look for someone weaker than themselves to blame.

    The US economy has been recovering over the last seven years; unauthorized immigration is not increasing; Obama deported 2.5 million people, far more than any previous president. None of these facts matter. Nativists can appeal to those disenfranchised even in the face of market growth—the real problem they are capitalizing on is not the limits of the economy, but the economic inequalities that result when the rich profit on the poor. It is no coincidence that we find dramatic economic inequality in every country that is experiencing a turn towards nativism and fascism." - Nativism and the Foundations of US Xenophobia
     
    Okiefreak likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice