What positive vision for the future does the right / alt-right have? - educate me on political theory

starborn427614 said:
I'm not as staunchly against conservatism as other liberals (after all, too much of anything is bad for you), but I've wondered for a long time about what the right has to offer society that the left doesn't already. Obviously there's less of this, less of that, but for example you don't need to be conservative to be part of a nuclear/traditional family which has often popped up as a selling point for the right.

Until that question is answered, I can't really see the current culture changing all that much.
Click to expand...
I think I can answer this, as a reactionary that's very staunchly against conservatism.
What a (functional) right has to offer is order, hierarchy and basically boring stability. I am describing not a libertarian right, but a right that embraces the state and uses its tools in full, similarly with how socialists did. A right that is centered around very common principles, like ethnos, family, community cohesion, law, order.
The left is typically unable to deal with entropic tendencies and always succumbs to its anarchy wing, slowly. The mainstream right eventually embraces that new status quo and idiotically tries to preserve it.
This is not a sustainable state of a society and it will eventually fall apart, the moment a right wing movement that embraces technological progress and science appears.
Harbinger of Kali Yuga said:
Society is so fucked up that merely being against and rolling back many of the left's programs is enough of a platform to form an ideology off of.
Click to expand...
It won't work. You need a platform and honesty if you want things to last. Reaction is never enough. You must be able to build and create.
But reaction is a needed component, that much is true.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Winner
Reactions: Geddy Lee's Fee and See and starborn427614
I once saved a document about the Alt Right:

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
12. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.
13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with everything, but at its core that people are responsible for their own nation. One of the first things we need besides get immigration and deportation under control is that we can't have dual citizenship anymore. Take an oath of loyalty and keep your American citizenship, or pack your bags for Israel and don't come back here without a tourist visa.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Wright, Jarch6 and Johnny Apple Sneed
Every political movement has as its end the realization of its values. I bang on about Haidt's moral foundations theory a lot, and I'll do it again here. Haidt conceptualizes "moral foundations" as five or six values that can be quantified or ranked through survey instruments. Liberals and conservatives produce very different results on these surveys, and that tells us about their values. Their values, in turn, predict their political programs.

(I am using liberal/left and conservative/right interchangeably, without regard to classical liberalism, Overton windows, etc.)

Liberals overwhelmingly endorse two of the moral foundations:
  • Care/harm. This is the value that drives people to help others, to improve their well-being. It finds harm offensive.
  • Fairness/reciprocity. This is the value that drives people to make others equal with one another. It finds unequal distribution of resources, or any impediment to the redistribution of resources, offensive.
Seen through the lens of these values, everything about leftist programs makes sense. They are anti-hierarchy because it's not fair that one person might be greater or better than another. The more delusional leftists imagine the state itself will be dissolved one day, but the more pragmatic ones accept the necessity of a state, as long as they're in charge of it. Their vision for the state is an entity that cares for everyone; over time, this has evolved from the safety net programs of the early 20th century to the worldwide philanthropy of the modern left. They believe that not only can you have both open borders and universal benefits, but that you must. Anything less is uncaring and unfair.

Conservatives also endorse those two foundations, but they endorse the other three foundations at approximately the same rate:
  • Ingroup/loyalty. This is the value that causes people to look more favorably upon those closer or more related to them, to sacrifice more for them and grant them more privileges.
  • Authority/respect. This value causes people to defer willingly to authority, and to have a positive view of authority.
  • Purity/sanctity. This value, which probably evolved from a disgust reaction to dangerous substances, is why people consider some things to be just off-limits, especially regarding the human body but also institutions and abstract things.
The addition of these values explains at a low level the right's critique of the left, but it also gives us the skeleton of a conservative vision of the future. It is one in which you can trust your country or your government to work for you, because you are part of the ingroup. It is one in which rampant crime is not tolerated by citizens or their government, because the law (including limitations on the government itself) will be respected. It's one in which children will not be groomed, because their sanctity will be respected. And it's one in which the government will care for you and give everyone a fair shot, but in a tempered, reasonable manner--not in the suicidal manner of the left.

This skeleton has occasionally been fleshed out. The most recent attempt was MAGA. It was obviously strong on ingroup/loyalty, putting great emphasis on border security, more favorable trade practices, and "America first" policies. It attempted to restore authority/respect by reigning in the deep state and going after bad guys, to more or less effect. Trump wasn't as good at the purity/sanctity thing, but bless him, he tried. Reagan's Morning In America campaign was another attempt. It's often viewed as a meaningless slogan repeated over footage of happy people, but it must be viewed in light of the years of prep work Reagan put into that. Reagan In His Own Words is important reading (or listening) to understand late 70s/early 80s conservatism. He wasn't going for soundbites or focus grouped slogans, he just spent ninety seconds talking about politics in a way the average person could understand, in an upbeat and affable manner. I am bemused by the fact that no politician has managed to repeat that.

There is some validity to the idea that the right is fundamentally negative. Its conception of rights is almost entirely negative rights. You have a right to be free of government interference. Government carries out the limited functions assigned to it in the Constitution and leaves everything else alone. The left's idea of rights is 180 degrees out of phase. They focus on positive rights, which is where the government interferes with other people to enforce your rights, usually rights they have made up--for example, the right to get a gay wedding cake. If a baker won't make that cake, the government forces them. The right doesn't really conceive of rights that way.

And of course there is Buckley's famous definition of a conservative: someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it. I guess that seems negative to those who like where history is going.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Jarch6 and Ser Prize
Lone MacReady II said:
For starters, NEVER use the language your enemies have chosen for you, i.e. Alt-right etc.

It's like a conquered nation using a flag that their conquerors chose for them. See the modern flags of occupied Germany (White Removed), Italy (Culture Removed), and Japan (Rays of the Sun Removed) to see what I mean.

Not wanting fags raping your kids is seen as "reversing progress" to some.
Click to expand...
The Alt-Right was a term the Alt-Right created for itself.
 
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
The Alt-Right was a term the Alt-Right created for itself.
Click to expand...
Indeed, pretty sure Spencer coined it or at minimum popularized it.

DDR Yoga said:
Does anybody refer to themselves as 'alt-right' these days? I think 'dissident right' is the best term to go with because it's a harsh reminder for lefties and shitlibs who is in lockstep with capitalist power and who is silenced, deplatformed and suppressed by capitalist power.

As for "Get the government out of our lives", the government is out of your life. Your country is run by bankers, oligarchs, media moguls and trillionaire paedophiles. The return of actual governments are what we need. There was an Austrian painter who once wrestled power back from the bankers using, you guessed it, government.

Failing that, just give me a Kaczynskian anti-civilisation revolution. The strongest apes will survive.
Click to expand...
I see Dissident Right and Reactionary thrown around more nowadays as well.

Regarding OP, I think we need less pie in the sky thinking and more pragmatic planning towards seizing the reins of power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DDR Yoga
Chicken of the woods said:
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places but the modern right seems very negative. It's against globalism, transgenderism, uncontrolled immigration, censorship, mandatory vaccination, technocracy and rule by NGOs, the list goes on. But what is it for? What should a right-wing government do to improve things? Or does the right believe that its ultimate goal is just to put an end to the bad stuff?
Click to expand...
The majority of them are spergy, sexless losers who just want to moan about how awful life is, their goals begin and end at that.
Bloodthirsty Nosenigger said:
>We have to cut out the tumor.
Click to expand...
lmao, I've seen those attempts, and they always end up with some autistic dipshit shooting a bunch of people at a public place that has nothing to do with whatever culture war thing they were frothing mad about.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Angry Alt Right Nerd
Xarpho's Return said:
I don't agree with everything, but at its core that people are responsible for their own nation. One of the first things we need besides get immigration and deportation under control is that we can't have dual citizenship anymore. Take an oath of loyalty and keep your American citizenship, or pack your bags for Israel and don't come back here without a tourist visa.
Click to expand...
The Jew Derangement Syndrome of the alt right will forever be their downfall. You just gave a long list of beliefs and then immediately go to "need to against muh Jewish Congressmen". Not only is it ineffectual to actual massive lobbying issue, it is also repels centrists, since nobody wants to risk to be next in line once the Jews are taken care of.

The list itself is also spergy. "We're against international free trade" is fucking the entire economy (maybe argue you are against moving American industry outside, which actually makes sense). Against free movement ("live in your pod!"). No wars, which means you basically wait for another country to fuck you over. And for the future of white people, which how is still up to question (nevermind the fact that most Americans aren't white).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL
wtfNeedSignUp said:
The Jew Derangement Syndrome of the alt right will forever be their downfall. You just gave a long list of beliefs and then immediately go to "need to against muh Jewish Congressmen". Not only is it ineffectual to actual massive lobbying issue, it is also repels centrists, since nobody wants to risk to be next in line once the Jews are taken care of.
Click to expand...
Yeah, once you start asking people if they want American citizens to be deported is not a good look. On the other hand, voting on Israeli issues is absolutely a conflict of interest.
 
There is none, the alt-right does not think strategically, you may as well ask an angry bull what its strategy is. I guess the closest thing they have to a strategy is this:
- Be angry
- ???
- Civil war
 
Xarpho's Return said:
Yeah, once you start asking people if they want American citizens to be deported is not a good look. On the other hand, voting on Israeli issues is absolutely a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
What, for the 10% of Jewish senators? That's not enough to vote for any change. Why not talk about actual monetary conflicts of interests, that are way more prevalent, damaging, and are actual popular topics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back