Sunday, March 14, 2010

The New Racist Right

From David Frum's Frum Forum:

The problem with the conservative movement, say the founders of the new webzine, Alternative Right, is that conservatives no longer want to ‘go there’.

“The conservative establishment is… brain dead,” said contributing editor and VDARE.com proprietor Peter Brimelow. “We’re trying to do something cutting-edge,” says editor Richard Spencer.

That’s all well and good, save the fact that the cutting-edge ideas that Alternative Right seeks to promote are actually tired, reactionary ideas that harken back to when people found out there were other races. In fact, their new ideas include concepts that the right largely exorcised fifty years ago, like denying women the right to vote.

The site’s frustration lies in their view that white, male conservatives lack the courage to address issues of sex and race with a sense of superiority. “There are races who, on average, are going to be superior,” says Spencer, with implication in tow.

The problem with conservatism today is that, as Spencer puts it, “the conservative establishment is full of politically correct purists” who lack the courage to take up the mantle of what should be a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant America.

It’s tremendously ironic that Alternative Right’s charge against the conservative movement is political correctness, when they themselves hide their sexist and racist ideologies behind the gloss of sweet-sounding, pseudo-intellectual terms.

Instead of spouting racism, Alternative Right is engaging in the much more respectable-sounding analysis of ‘human biological diversity’ and ‘socio-biology’.

Rather than railing against the beast that is first-wave feminism, Richard Spencer’s magazine is actually writing about ‘paleo-masculinity’.

He’s not reactionary – he’s a ‘radical traditionalist’; He’s not castigating race X’s culture – he’s being ‘literary’.

What makes this all the more ironic is that, despite his critique of the right, Spencer was strikingly skittish when I asked if his goal was to make conservatism more ‘racially conscious’. “Racially-conscious? That’s a little bit of a ‘hot word’,” said Spencer.

The academic-sounding terminology might be impressive if backed up with anything but hysterics. Instead, Spencer comes out with statements like:

I would actually oppose mass Japanese immigration for the reason that they would most likely push out my children from getting into college. We might have a new Asian ruling class.

And that having women in the workplace contributes to:

… the wussification of society [and] an economy [that is] far more tame, bureaucratized and far less entrepreneurial.

It’s tough to classify Alternative Right’s ideology as either left or right, when really the ideas belong in some sort of padded room.

Spencer, however, plants his feet squarely in the right’s camp. “We are on the right in some fundamental way,” says Spencer, before admitting that his ideas have been “outside of the bounds of respectable left and right as it has been defined over the last fifty years.”

Exorcised from the mainstream decades ago, where does Alternative Right fit in now?

Spencer is not a Paul-istinian, for Ron Paul too suffers from the failings of political correctness. “Ron Paul is really not a man who is going to discuss some of these more ‘literary’ issues. He’s not going to discuss, say, America as a Western European or Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation,” Spencer says.

Despite this, the website does have a lot in common with the anti-war libertarians. “The right is still in love with war, and talk of spreading democracy…. I think there are people who basically have conservative values and want nothing to do with [this concept],” says Spencer.

That said, Alternative Right is not a libertarian site. “The state is necessary [to stop] immigration – people are not interchangeable… America is not going to be America if it is Hispanicized,” says Spencer.

Are they paleo-conservatives? No. “Sadly, a lot of paleo[-conservatives] now… have actually denounced human biological diversity. Paleo-conservatism is now irrelevant,” declares Spencer.

The website’s prevailing ideology doesn’t even fit within the category of white nationalism, or so Spencer claims. However, he stalled when asked to point out a few differences between his site and a white nationalist site.

“We’re going to talk about literary things, about culture,” said Spencer after some hesitation.

In other words – they’re going to be white nationalists, but, by God, they’re going to be a little fancy about it.

19 comments:

jeppo said...

Well, in the interests of fair and balanced reportage, here is Richard Spencer's reply to Tim Mak.

Damien said...

Pastorius,

So they're both racists and sexist pigs? These guys give conservatives a bad name. There's certainly nothing wrong with standing up for our culture and our values, but culture and race are not the same thing. Even gender, which is inherently more meaningful than race, is still not something that can be used to accurately judge an individual. Yes, when it comes to behavior, men and women may have different behavioral tendencies due to hormones, but you can't say that all women will between nurturing or all men will be aggressive for example.

mah29001 said...

Sometimes I really do see no difference between what the media labels the fringe Right and those on the overt fringe Left.

They're both the same animal of totalitarianism.

Anonymous said...

Frum is doing the lefts work again. Claiming the the right is intolerant and not inclusive enough then when you discover they actually are, smear the whole right based on a fringe groups self assertions. Frum is a perfect example of a tolerant absolutist hypocrite. Does he say a word when the Obama administration proudly supports Marxist appointees, tactics, and states? But a self identified racist pretending to be a conservative ideologue is a an outrage and a denunciation of conservatism? This is the sort of anti thinking that pervades the entire left and those who pretend to be moderates. This is worst sort of intolerance and absolutism pretending to be tolerance and openness. It always has been and always will be in America, the solution to bad speech is more speech. People see Spencer for what he is. Frum is more difficult. He is the worst sort of moderate. Always criticizing when you don't meet his shifting absolutist definitions. According to Frum Conservatives should be open to everyone...but not to the wrong people or wrong ideas. If ideas, even wrong ideas are not open to the moderating force of the forum then where?

Damien said...

Anonymous,

I can't say much about Frum, good or bad, since I don't think I heard about him before. However, this group is calling itself the "Alternative Right." That's the name they gave them selves, not one he gave them, in all fairness. Weather they or actually right wing or not, maybe another story, but that is what they are calling the organization, not him.

Damien said...

Jeppo,

I don't worry about race. Its not something I care about, and neither should you. What we need to worry about is culture. Racism is not the answer to our problems.

jeppo said...

Damien,

Canada and Jamaica are seemingly very close culturally. Both are former British colonies, now members of the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of State of both.

Both are mainly English-speaking nations and overwhelmingly Christian, largely Protestant.

Both have a similar political system based on the Westminster parliamentary tradition. They both have Prime Ministers and Cabinets made up of elected MPs, and both have Governors-General representing the Monarch.

Their legal systems are virtually identical, based on English Common Law, with roots stretching back to the signing of the Magna Carta and beyond.

Yet Canadians have an average IQ 25-30 points higher than Jamaicans do. Canadians have a per capita GDP 10 times higher than Jamaicans. Jamaicans have a murder rate 40 times higher than Canadians.

Virtually identical comparisons could also be made between New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, or Australia and South Africa, or any number of superficially similar nations.

So how can we explain these huge discrepancies between countries that share so many historical, political, legal, linguistic, religious and cultural similarities? Could it possibly be r.....nah, it couldn't be. In fact, what a bastard I am for even thinking it could be *that*.

Reality is what it is. Don't be afraid to think outside of the politically correct box when trying to figure out WHY it is what it is.

jeppo said...

The numbers are from IQ and Global Inequality.

According to Lynn and Vanhanen's data, Canada averages 99 and Jamaica averages 71, a difference of 28 points.

Epaminondas said...

That study is SO good, that the Nork's should be ruling the world.

It COULD NOT pass academic review.


I am feeling the beginnings of concern around here.

Sorry but homogeneous ANCIENT cultures in developed nations WITH AGE OLD REVERENCE FOR EDUCATION post higher scores than places like Guinea and Sierra Leone?

OR SO CALLED WHITE NATIONS?

Anyone who thinks race is the reason for that is OUT OF THEIR GOURDS
PULLEEEEEZE

It's more likely a FIGMENT of the way the study was done.

I suggest this study be redone on the basis of which culture can dunk most proficiently.

Anyone else wonder what questions are asked of tribes people performing gathering in Sierra Leone to measure IQ? ANd how that translated to what a child of two educators in China is asked?

IT'S ABSURD

Damien said...

Jeppo,

Two things about intelligence tests. One, they never test every aspect of Intelligence, and second its impossible to create a non culturally biased test. So, how does the average score on an IQ test of a Jamaican vs Canadian, prove anything? Also, there are no significant cultural differences between Jamaica and Canada that might explain the differences? You really expect me to believe that?

jeppo said...

Epa,

It's not absurd, it's true.

Does anyone really believe--and I mean REALLY believe--that average intelligence is evenly distributed around the world? That completely flies in the face of more than 100 years of IQ testing and millions and millions of tests. It also flies in the face of basic common sense and ordinary human experience.

Liberal sensibilities be damned, the truth is that intelligence-wise, we're not all created equal.

jeppo said...

Damien,

I'd love to hear your theory about why Canada and Jamaica turned out so differently, despite having so many historic and cultural similarities. Because you sure won't like my theory, lol.

jeppo said...

Here are the PDFs of the most recent data from two of the largest international testing organizations:

TIMSS
PISA

The data all point to roughly the same hierarchy of national intelligence.

Pastorius said...

Damien wrote: Also, there are no significant cultural differences between Jamaica and Canada that might explain the differences? You really expect me to believe that?


Jeppo wrote: I'd love to hear your theory about why Canada and Jamaica turned out so differently, despite having so many historic and cultural similarities.


I say: Ganja is one major difference.

LOL

Pastorius said...

But seriously, Muslims smoke marijuana and chew khat. They abhor alcohol.

If you look at nations who choose marijuana and do not drink much, you will also find that, according to your test results, people who drink are more intelligent than people who smoke pot.

But, I don't really buy any of this, because, in my opinion, there are many factors that go together to create the results we see in IQ tests.

In my opinion, cultures, societies, nutrition, families, etc. are almost as complex as the atmospere of the Earth. And, you know how I feel about the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, so you can imagine how I feel about IQ, race, and culture theory.

Hint; it smells really bad here.

Epaminondas said...

Jeppo

A
B
S
U
R
D

You can create any construct an INNER COMPULSION DEMANDS.

That does not make it science.
As a SCIENTIST my own conclusions about these KINDS of studies are IDENTICAL to GLOBAL WARMING

Just try to think of what question YOU might ask a teenager from Ouagoudougou which measures what my son or daughter might be asked about x ray diffraction.

A
B
S
U
R
D

jeppo said...

Pasto, trust me on this one, Canadians smoke A LOT of weed.

Epa, would you not even concede the possibility that ethnicity and average IQ *might* be correlated? I've provided some links here showing that they almost certainly are, and I'm sure that anyone who delves deeply enough into this subject will come to the same conclusion.

Damien said...

Jeppo,

Your attempts at rebuttal are hardly convincing, nor are they funny.

Epaminondas said...

Jeppo the idea that "ethnicity and average IQ" are related means that each race is its own Galapagos Islands.

It also supposes someone can make a normalized equivalent of 'acheivement' to make a test a measure of.

It also means that an IQ test in the Pantanal measures PRECISELY and in the SAME PRECISE CULTURAL WAY, information of equivalent 'value' there as the test given on the upper east side in Manhattan.

What two question perform this task?

Who decides what those questions are, or measure?

Think success in the world largest swamp is success in Manhattan? What value would intelligence be put to there as opposed to a Marketing Manager at Proctor and Gamble?

Here is some heartfelt advice ..unlooked for I am sure... reject that which leads you to believe this as fact in essentially a Dan Rather way.

It's VOODOO by people who NEED to prove something.

When you find the David Dukes on your side, there ALWAYS a problem with the underlying facts.

Just think about it for while.