Plagued The Alt-Right

[Felon's Apprentice]

I was going to make this exact point but I don't know the background of most of the people on the list. Of the people I do I see: a government employee, an internet marketer, an autodidact, a scifi author/professional shitstain, a programmer, a failure of a PR woman and someone who I assume is an actual housewife. Is there anyone on that list that is an academic, researcher or some kind of profession/background that would justify being so authoritative?
Normally I would argue that you don't need training to be a thinker but considering it's such a common theme and some of their ideas are quite destructive, in this case I think it matters very much.

Sorry, I realise this is a pretty old post now. However, of all the people shown on the map you're referring to, Charles Murray probably comes closest to having that sort of academic/research background i.e. he has a Ph.D. in political science, a lengthy career working in various research institutions and was quite well-known for his books decades before the Dark Enlightenment stuff started up.

On the other hand, the research institutions include right wing outfits like the American Enterprise Institute and the best-known of the books is The Bell Curve, in which he argued that intelligence is the best predictor of socio-economic success and that there were genetic differences between the intelligence of different races. You could call it notoriety as much as fame.

He probably doesn't think of himself as part of the Dark Enlightenment either. Not everyone mentioned on the map does, apparently.

 

[AnOminous]

he has a Ph.D. in political science

Permit me to pause and laugh a bit.

A political science degree is something you get as a B.A. or a B.S. (emphasis on bullshit) on the way to getting a real degree.

 

[TowinKarz]

It may be a "soft" degree, but, it's at least a degree, I would assume from an accredited institution. Meaning he had to at least conform a nominal amount for 4 years in a structured academic setting, i.e. not a TOTAL whackjob.

He might be wrong, but he's still miles ahead of the diploma-mill agitators running a one-man think tank "institute" that doesn't exist outside of the internet. I'd at least read his stuff from beginning to end before dismissing it, as opposed to the cranks who have YouTube accounts full of videos that begin with titles like "2009: End of ........" or "The Death of Western...." and so on.

 

[AnOminous]

I'd at least read his stuff from beginning to end before dismissing it

I wouldn't! I'd read it until it went full retard, which it apparently did in the first sentence or so.

 

[TowinKarz]

Well, okay, I'd probably give up then too, but I'd at least crack the book and read until three "crackpot idea" warning lights went off in my head.

Give a crank a forum, and he'll eventually blow his cover.

 

[Felon's Apprentice]

I wouldn't make any kind of claims for Murray myself, to be fair.

The difference between him and most of the rest of these people is really just the difference between the pre- and post-internet eras, which is the difference between having to persuade a few influential people that you aren't an idiot before getting to publish your opinions and just being able to publish them even if everyone is convinced you're a total idiot. The old system didn't always guarantee quality.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

There was a time a while ago that I was sort of into the neoreactionary movement because I saw it as an alternative to SJW moonbattery. Now However I have realized that SJWism is not the same thing as democracy and decided that its attempts to pretend to be true democracy actually are a serious threat to democracy because it means that anti-democrats who are essentially the same as SJWs will get a rationale for their politics.

Allow me to power level for a bit here:
I'm a contrarian, I have been and probably always will be. This is why some of these philosophies attract me simply because of how opposed they are to my morals. I would very much like to have a polytheistic theocracy, or a return to living in caves though, preferably if I'm in charge.
Here's the maybe-not-as biased Rationalwiki to give their two cents on the matter, it's actually a very informative article:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement

I would say that is a very natural thing for humans to want. It is because we sometimes don't see the arguments for commonly held ideas (very few people read enlightenment era pro democracy books) and as a result think that they don't have a good foundation if they are someone who is prone to questioning ideas.
my favourite quote from the article

Neoreactionaries are the latest in a long line of intellectuals who somehow think that their chosen authoritarian thugs wouldn't put them up against the wall. Possibly using sheer volume of words as a bulletproof shield.[3] Or that they are somehow too competent, virtuous and useful to end up one of the serfs.

Not quite. In the leadup to a fascist state, you often need a bunch of lowlife thugs to beat up the opposition. Think Ernst Röhm and his brownshirts, used by Hitler during the rise to power. They were mainly comprised of degenerates and criminals, ironically basically scum of the sort the Nazis promised to purge from society.

Then once they're no longer useful, Hitler "discovers" by God, there are degenerates and even, gasp, homosexuals in the group. Then you have a Night of the Long Knives and no more Ernst Röhm and no more brownshirts.

So you need these throwaway degenerates for a while, and you need them to be dumb enough not to realize they're disposable. They get their little time as super duper supermen before the knives come out.

It is not just the case if they are degenerates. Even legitimate intellectuals who managed to disprove a former government out of existence would be eliminated. The only government which would tolerate the existence of such intellectuals who could be a legitimate threat is a democratic one in which civil liberties are respected. If you want a government with different policies so be it but a dictatorship will always become corrupt simply because it will always value its own survival at the expense of the people. Short term preference is a trait of a badly functioning democracy but its still better to have a government that cares about the short term interests of the people rather than only its own interests

Neo-fascists and reactionaries always strike me as being more hopelessly romantic than anything else. They take after simplistic authoritarian ideologies because they're easy to understand and look good from a logistics viewpoint. It's easy to idealize the monarchies and dictatorships of old because they didn't have the rigorous complexities and nuances of modern political institutions.

The ancient formula of "one guy with a sword/gun is in charge of everything, so you'd better do what he says" can be appealing to some. It's easy to look at that model and find the lack of complexity enamoring. Without all those silly rules and checks on power, surely the government is more effective at governing, right? Well, no, because history has shown that people granted unlimited power will typically abuse it and not act in the best interests of their subjects. The fascist strongmen that these Dark Enlightenment chumps idolize were all horribly incompetent bullies that caused their own ruination. One only has to look at the pictures of Mussolini getting murdered and strung up by the Italian common folk to get the impression that his administrative skills were severely lacking.

You see, romantics like the Dark Enlightenment are doomed to fail because they oversimplify things. They think despotism is the way to go because they're either oblivious or apathetic to the nuances that effective governments require.

I would say that that is the case with all extremists. When one is young this is the way one always thinks because other types of thought need to be learned and is absolutely essential that a democracy have an educational system that teaches citizens not to think in this manner

I was going to make this exact point but I don't know the background of most of the people on the list. Of the people I do I see: a government employee, an internet marketer, an autodidact, a scifi author/professional shitstain, a programmer, a failure of a PR woman and someone who I assume is an actual housewife. Is there anyone on that list that is an academic, researcher or some kind of profession/background that would justify being so authoritative?
Normally I would argue that you don't need training to be a thinker but considering it's such a common theme and some of their ideas are quite destructive, in this case I think it matters very much.

That's why I decided to actually become a social philosopher/economist rather than just sit in my room all day whining on the internet. Although they call themselves the dark enlightenment its clear that they have never actually read any enlightenment era philosophy which thoroughly debunks their ideas

Do these Facists realize they won't attract any members or regular people if they want to associate with edgy stuff like "dark" and "sith"?
The number one thing a reactionary group needs is to have Charisma and give people the impression that they're respectable people and not edgy teenagers.

They probably think that nazi propaganda looked like this

When in reality it looked like this

This is something most right wing moments lack in these modern times, Charisma.
if the right wing wants to succeed, they must first silent the degenerates that give them a bad name so they won't be seen as laughing stock, then they must find ways to show people their ideology is the best to follow. This can be mostly done by infiltrating the media, just like their enemy, the leftists have don for decades now.
As much as I sympathise with the Right and Dictators like Porfirio Diaz, I feel like the modern right has become the embodiment of the main guy from A Confederacy of Dunces.
any right winger should read that if they want to be a little self aware and humor themselves.

I would say that the reality of the situation is that democracies fail because a non democratic force is able to infiltrate them and discredit them. This often occurs due to people having an inherent authoritarian nature and thus not being able to properly react to feelgood propaganda. Although it is unlikely any authoritarians are self aware enough to acknowledge this and keep their ideologies they still in many cases will acknowledge the propaganda reaction. The modern right doesn't even do that but rather just invokes paranoia to mobilize those who already agree with them. SJWs at least know how to implement propaganda even if they don't realize that they themselves are ba

This might shed some light on the matter:

Who Falls for Conspiracy Theories?

I think this fits both the Aurini-style reactionaries and the tumblr SJWs to a T.

That is why despite what one side says about an issue it is crucial to always ground yourself to avoid becoming an extremist. Horseshoe theory may not be the best way to describe it as there can be some very radical ideas with merit but rather the better way to describe it may be being able to acknowledge when you are wrong.

 

[AnOminous]

It is not just the case if they are degenerates. Even legitimate intellectuals who managed to disprove a former government out of existence would be eliminated.

These are different than the brownshirts who are by definition disposable, though. This is Lenin's vanguard party. And if you want a functional society after your revolution, you still need some of those, but their numbers will be culled significantly on an ideological basis. Unless you go full Khmer Rouge, but that ends badly. Of course, most fascist states do end badly, sooner or later.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

These are different than the brownshirts who are by definition disposable, though. This is Lenin's vanguard party. And if you want a functional society after your revolution, you still need some of those, but their numbers will be culled significantly on an ideological basis. Unless you go full Khmer Rouge, but that ends badly. Of course, most fascist states do end badly, sooner or later.

What I am trying to say is that even if they are the vanguard party and not the brownshirts they still will have a bad end for opposing democracy. They see themselves as the vanguard party and are probably all for killing the brownshirts but even if that is the case they still will be on the receiving end of the barrel of a gun by the time the revolution is over assuming that they create an authoritarian/totalitarian state as opposed to a free democracy. If you want a revolution against SJWs make it a democratic one not a fascist one.

 

[Bungleboy]

That's the saddest part, they're not only ignorant, but proudly ignorant, we've reached a point in history where it's easier than ever to get information on anything, and yet, those who would benefit the most from it refuse to be "tainted" by it. The "Conspiracy" just grows to discredit it, 50 years ago it was universities that were looked upon with suspicion by these folks, 15 years ago it was "liberal cities" where the big TV networks and newspapers were based, and now, it's everything, "media" that can't be trusted..... even though you can get access to it and comment on it like never before..... ironic.

The internet also allows narcissistic manchildren to build echo chambers where they're safe from the stressful torture of dissent and criticism, especially if said narcissist has no life. Every fuckwith with a blog and a chromosome surplus can form their own e-dictatorship where they can live the fantasy of being a philosopher furher in-between custodial shifts at Safeway.

Don't forget that most of the original supporters of authoritarian movements tend to be social washouts.

 

[TowinKarz]

@Bungleboy

Indeed, professional malcontents thrive when countries destabilize, it's just that they also tend to be the first lined up and shot when it restabilizes, you'd think the Quislings of the world would remember that. Jean-Paul Marat would've died an unknown had it not been for the Reign of Terror.

ANd he probably would've died of disease in a comfortable bed, instead of being stabbed through the heart in his own bathtub. (Look it up folks, it's true!)

 

[Bungleboy]

@Bungleboy

Indeed, professional malcontents thrive when countries destabilize, it's just that they also tend to be the first lined up and shot when it restabilizes, you'd think the Quislings of the world would remember that. Jean-Paul Marat would've died an unknown had it not been for the Reign of Terror.

ANd he probably would've died of disease in a comfortable bed, instead of being stabbed through the heart in his own bathtub. (Look it up folks, it's true!)

Also to note: Reactionary authoritarian leaders like Kim Il Sung and Saddam Hussein rewarded the thinkers and OGs who put them in charge by giving them early retirement via bullet.

People like Moldbug and Tunney are what authoritarians call 'Useful Idiots". Which is especially funny considerign Moldug is an idle wannabei ntellectual and Tunney's a trannie, both are groups that actual fascists don't like at all.

If the Dark Enlightenment manchildren got their ideal government, they'd be pitched into death camps so fast their fedoras would spin.

 

[K>C]

The Fascists were all about action and strength and not dilly-dallying in ivory towers, Moldbug would be mocked in a fascist regime and forced to work.

 

[TowinKarz]

I don't think there's ANY totalitarian regime ANYWHERE at ANY TIME that liked "intellectuals"

Ironically, the only system that doesn't summarily shoot them as "dangerous subversives" is the same populist democracy that they denounce....

That reminds me of a joke, how many Soviet policemen does it take to solve a crime?

Three, one to ask the questions, one to write down the answers, and one to keep an eye on two dangerous intellectuals.....

 

[autisticdragonkin]

httpſ://juſtinetunney.com
juſtine tunney haſ probably the moſt obnoxiouſ poſſible typeface for her webſite
ſhe uſeſ the long ſ not only in its proper uſage in the middle of a word but everywhere
it makeſ her writing almoſt unreadable

 

[AnOminous]

I don't think there's ANY totalitarian regime ANYWHERE at ANY TIME that liked "intellectuals"

Ironically, the only system that doesn't summarily shoot them as "dangerous subversives" is the same populist democracy that they denounce....

Pretty much no government at all really likes intellectuals. But yeah, those that at least have democracy as an aspirational goal tend not to shoot them as often.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

I don't know if it's been said already, but even if socially inept and immature basement dwelling neckbeards got into a position of power in a literal "return of kings," they'd be manipulated or even usurped by people with real charisma (and hygene) in pretty short order.

ſ

When I was a kid, I noted how easily the word "suck" looked like a certain other word when using "ſ." Anyway, I love how Firefox can make any text all one font of one's choice.

 

[Ron Paul 2024]

you'd think the Quislings of the world would remember that.

The actual Quisling was an establishment man and made off pretty well when the takeover happened.

 

[Doctor Druid]

I wouldn't call being put against the wall when Norway regained independence and having your name become a byword for "traitor" making off well.

 

[AnOminous]

I wouldn't call being put against the wall when Norway regained independence and having your name become a byword for "traitor" making off well.

Literally against the wall, too. He was shot by a firing squad.