|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 21, 2018 15:40:47 GMT
That isn't the same though. The problem with the Russian trolls was that they were sockpuppet accounts designed to astroturf viewpoints favourable to Russia. It was more about ad hominem attacks and suggestions of deliberate bad faith than actual dehumanisation. Don't forget by the way that it is a well known fact that Moscow, almond with many other countries including some NATO ones have been engaging in cyber-warfare tactics like this, so it's not obviously intellectual laziness at play here. What makes the NPC meme more sinister is the underlying philosophy behind it is ultimately based on Hinduism, that some people are non-entities like the character's you mention. That is straight out of the thinking of Julius Evola, whom many on the alt-right admire BTW. Fair enough, though I think you might be looking into it too much by calling it "sinister". It's not just the Alt-Right using this meme, and I would hazard a guess the vast majority partaking haven't a clue about Evola. But even in the off chance that they do, I'm not sure what the possible end goal could be that would lead you to consider it "sinister". I get you're saying it's dehumanising, but to what end? The meme originated on 4chan's pol forum, which is alt-right though. As for those using the meme, that is the whole point, to desensitise people to such thinking without realising where it came from. Indeed, many alt-rightists have specifically stated that they want to mainstream Evolian thinking. Given that the alt-right have proven themselves to be capable of violence (look at Charlottesville and Chemnitz if you don't believe me), we can't really afford to be laid back about this.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 21, 2018 19:19:14 GMT
I agree the meme is problematic, whatever its origins. That said (1) I have seen something similar used by TFP on one of their book covers (a reprint of one of their founder's manifestos) - egalitarianism is symbolised by a group of faceless chess pawns overthrowing a king, who is shown as a chesspiece but with a face. I don't care for TFP's knightly fantasies, but I don't think they are Evolists. (2) NPC images are quite widely available from sites offering stock images -Rod Dreher recently got called out for using one on a blogpost, and replied that he had no idea of its overtones and simply got it from the Shutterstock site. Dreher is quite clearly not an Evolist or an alt-rightist. I don't think that using the meme is necessarily racist, though it has a tendency to dehumanise the opposition which can have dangerous consequences. I think Young Ireland is overdoing it a bit here, and perhaps an apology to Antaine might clear the air.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 21, 2018 19:30:03 GMT
Similarly, Russian bots and trolls do exist, but there are also people who independently take a problematic pro-Russian stance for a variety of reasons (e.g. idealisation of Russia coupled with dislike of America - this American Orthodox convert is clearly not a bot and comes across as a genuinely clever man, but at the same time though not under compulsion - since he is based in the US - he tends to take the Russian side almost uncritically and can see no good in Eastern-Rite or Latin Catholicism at all). heavyangloorthodox.blogspot.com/Similarly, while my sympathies are generally with the Ukrainian nationalist side in the current conflict, I think there are serious problems over the current push towards an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Given that the Orthodox generally only allow one bishop in any area, what happens to those Ukrainians who wish to remain affiliated to the Moscow Patriarchate (which is, after all, the church in possession)? I also think the sight of the President of Ukraine as president (rather than as an individual) taking a high-profile role in lobbying for autocephaly is very prominent indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 21, 2018 19:38:03 GMT
I agree the meme is problematic, whatever its origins. That said (1) I have seen something similar used by TFP on one of their book covers (a reprint of one of their founder's manifestos) - egalitarianism is symbolised by a group of faceless chess pawns overthrowing a king, who is shown as a chesspiece but with a face. I don't care for TFP's knightly fantasies, but I don't think they are Evolists. (2) NPC images are quite widely available from sites offering stock images -Rod Dreher recently got called out for using one on a blogpost, and replied that he had no idea of its overtones and simply got it from the Shutterstock site. Dreher is quite clearly not an Evolist or an alt-rightist. I don't think that using the meme is necessarily racist, though it has a tendency to dehumanise the opposition which can have dangerous consequences. I think Young Ireland is overdoing it a bit here, and perhaps an apology to Antaine might clear the air. Hibernicus, I never said that everyone who used the NPC meme was an Evolist, or indeed a racist (in fact that term never entered the discussion at all). My point is that the meme originated on an alt-right site and that one of the meme's defenders there used Hindu language to claim that NPC were essentially unconscious beings was what got me thinking of Evola. With that in mind, I'm a bit puzzled with your suggestion of an apology, as the debate has been relatively civil thus far compared to previous debates.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 21, 2018 19:58:27 GMT
OK, I should have said a clarification rather than an apology. I thought you were implying that the meme was necessarily Evolist, and Evolism is inherently racist. (It's even worse than the Indian caste system - which is saying a good deal given how tyrannical that is - as caste theoretically holds out the possibility of reincarnation in a higher grade, whereas Evolists believe most people are simply reabsorbed into the mud.) Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 21, 2018 20:06:26 GMT
OK, I should have said a clarification rather than an apology. I thought you were implying that the meme was necessarily Evolist, and Evolism is inherently racist. (It's even worse than the Indian caste system - which is saying a good deal given how tyrannical that is - as caste theoretically holds out the possibility of reincarnation in a higher grade, whereas Evolists believe most people are simply reabsorbed into the mud.) Sorry for the misunderstanding. Apology accepted. Here is the quote from 4chan I had in mind, from the person who actually originated the meme (emphasis mine). I'll let people judge for themselves: “I have a theory that there are only a fixed quantity of souls on planet Earth that cycle continuously through reincarnation, However, since the human growth rate is so severe, the soulless extra walking flesh piles around us are NPC’s, or ultimate normalf**s, who autonomously follow group think and social trends in order to appear convingly human. I call these people NPCs because when you talk to them they just say the same s*** every time. “TRUMP IS HITLER,” “JUST BE YOURSELF,” “SPORTSBALL,” “THE NEW ADELE SONG XD OMG.” If you get in a discussion with them it’s always the same buzzwords and hackneyed arguments. They’re the kind of people who make a show of discomfort when you break the status quo like breaking the normie barrier to invoke a real discussion. It’s like in a vidya when you accidentally talk to somebody twice and they give you the exact same lines word for word once more."
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 7, 2019 12:30:20 GMT
I'm no longer much interested in the Alt Right, indeed I have barely paid any attention to them in many months, but having looked at a few of their videos today I realize another source of my previous interest in them. Long descriptions of a "red pill journey" are a commonplace in the Alt Right, not only in videos featuring one individual but in "hangouts" where two or more vloggers have a discussion.
I don't really know of any equivalent, unless it's "The Journey Home" on EWTN. I'm intensely interested in the intellectual and ideological journeys people take, in the process of belief formation, and so forth. You'd think there would be a lot of this about, but there really isn't. I've gone looking for it. If you type "my intellectual journey" into YouTube, you'll see how little there is. And outside of YouTube is no different.
(My favourite books are Surprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis and Autobiography by G.K. Chesterton, two brilliant accounts of spiritual and intellectual journeys. I'm aware that the Confessions of St. Augustine is the ur-example, in all likelihood, but though I've read it twice it's really too distant in time for me to take the same interest in it. Other examples: Apologia Pro Vita Sua by Newman, A Spiritual Aeneid by Ronald Knox, And Now I See by Arnold Lunn.)
One thing I think Catholics can learn from the Alt Right (and similar movements) is a greater honesty and vulnerability. Admittedly, we have orthodoxy and dogma, but that doesn't have to make us glassy-eyed salesmen with cardboard smiles. But it all too often does. I'm also frustrated at how glossy and over-produced a lot of Catholic material is, especially that produced by religious orders and lay associations. Twenty minutes of soft music over a series of ten-second interviews with grinning talking heads. Perhaps that is attractive to some people; to me it seems like something from the QVC channel.
** Standard disclaimer that I am not Alt Right or an Alt Right sympathizer, especially when it comes to race. I am simply interested in currents of thought, especially on the right. **
I find myself once again wishing Catholics had something like the Alt Right-- some space for serious and open-minded community building between the banality of the Catholic left and the insanity of the radical Traditionalist right. The common feature of both these camps being the tendency to mindlessly parrot slogans, and to eschew nuance of any kind.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 15, 2019 11:12:23 GMT
The various mainstream critiques of the Alt Right that I've seen are laughable in their lack of understanding of the movement (for instance, the idea that Jordan Peterson is somehow Alt Right, which is like calling Ian Paisley a Catholic), but there are some real and very interesting contradictions to be found within it.
The most interesting, I think, is its ambivalence towards "Western values". The Alt Right tends to salute the white race as the bearer of Western values-- the race that built the skyscrapers and put a man on the moon and created the wealth of the world today-- but at the same time, it has a deeply critical attitude towards those same Western values. It's generally trying to reclaim the importance of tradition, community, belonging, heritage, etc. and it lambasts individualism as nihilism. But surely the kind of individualism it lambasts is the VERY THING that builds skyscrapers and business empires and technological breakthroughs and "progress" in the colloquial sense.
Some Alt Rightists seem aware of this contradiction, but not many.
The unabashed Western chauvinism of the Alt Right, and allied movements, seems inconsistent to me. Surely a movement that tries to re-assert the importance of tradition and heritage and culture, and to escape the alienation and atomisation of the modern world (and especially of neoconservatism and neoliberalism), should AFFIRM the importance of other cultures, with all their failings. I agree with them as far as the critique of individualism and atomisation goes, but I don't agree with their Western chauvinism.
I also disagree that race is the fundamental basis of culture-- I think tradition is the fundamental basis of culture.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jan 16, 2019 19:27:28 GMT
It's generally trying to reclaim the importance of tradition, community, belonging, heritage, etc. and it lambasts individualism as nihilism. But surely the kind of individualism it lambasts is the VERY THING that builds skyscrapers and business empires and technological breakthroughs and "progress" in the colloquial sense. Some Alt Rightists seem aware of this contradiction, but not many. I'm a little puzzled at the snippet above. I would have thought that the Alt Right would have been a champion of individuality in the sense that it leads people to take responsibility for themselves and for the consequences of their decisions. And this would neatly nestle the individual in their heritage, community context. The left's idea of individuality appears to be less active and a more passive entity. It seems to be a consequence of consumerism and the decline of traditional communities, the pursuit of individual pleasure and now a trend to create one's own identity. The movement is inward looking, towards isolation. Also, the left's individuality tends to like blaming others for any failure rather than oneself.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 16, 2019 21:41:04 GMT
It's generally trying to reclaim the importance of tradition, community, belonging, heritage, etc. and it lambasts individualism as nihilism. But surely the kind of individualism it lambasts is the VERY THING that builds skyscrapers and business empires and technological breakthroughs and "progress" in the colloquial sense. Some Alt Rightists seem aware of this contradiction, but not many. I'm a little puzzled at the snippet above. I would have thought that the Alt Right would have been a champion of individuality in the sense that it leads people to take responsibility for themselves and for the consequences of their decisions. And this would neatly nestle the individual in their heritage, community context. The left's idea of individuality appears to be less active and a more passive entity. It seems to be a consequence of consumerism and the decline of traditional communities, the pursuit of individual pleasure and now a trend to create one's own identity. The movement is inward looking, towards isolation. Also, the left's individuality tends to like blaming others for any failure rather than oneself. No, the Alt Right are very anti-individualistic. For instance, they would tend to be opposed to racially mixed marriage, and usually to divorce, and to the defiance of gender roles.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 11:48:27 GMT
I'm not sure if many people here are familiar with the Burkean, which ostensisbly exists to provide a platform to conservatives in Ireland. Now in itself this is a salutary goal, but the problem is that their definition of "conservative" seems to embrace the alt-right, up to and including eugenics. An example of this can be found here, where Eric McMahon compares advocacy of scientific racism with heliocentrism, with the obvious implication that to oppose it is backward and antidiluvian, while its proponents are treated as heralds of the future. The problem with Mr. McMahon's argument is this: 1) Mr. Watson's wretched views go far beyond even scientific racism. He has advocated for abortion for any reason or none, even if the grounds for doing so is absurd. He has even claimed that he would have aborted his own son (who has epilepsy) had he known of his condition before he was born. 2) Moreover, the claim that Mr. Watson's opponents are in a similar position to the Catholic Church during the Galileo case strongly suggests that any opposition to scientific racism (which is what is being advocated here) is deserving of contempt and is a symptom of backwardness. The problem with this is that truth does not depend on how new (or not) one's perspective is, and a conservative website of all really ought to grasp that. It is monstrous that a website which claims to be pro-life like the Burkean does would defend the views of someone who thinks that homosexual genes, dyslexia or epilepsy are not only sufficient grounds for abortion, but that those who choose life are actually inflicting cruelty on their children. I really fear for the future of social conservatism in this country if the philosophy espoused in this article is treated as unproblematic. Needless to say, I provide all these links for information only and do not endorse the wicked sentiments therein.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 18:53:48 GMT
I'm not sure if many people here are familiar with the Burkean, which ostensisbly exists to provide a platform to conservatives in Ireland. Now in itself this is a salutary goal, but the problem is that their definition of "conservative" seems to embrace the alt-right, up to and including eugenics. An example of this can be found here, where Eric McMahon compares advocacy of scientific racism with heliocentrism, with the obvious implication that to oppose it is backward and antidiluvian, while its proponents are treated as heralds of the future. The problem with Mr. McMahon's argument is this: 1) Mr. Watson's wretched views go far beyond even scientific racism. He has advocated for abortion for any reason or none, even if the grounds for doing so is absurd. He has even claimed that he would have aborted his own son (who has epilepsy) had he known of his condition before he was born. 2) Moreover, the claim that Mr. Watson's opponents are in a similar position to the Catholic Church during the Galileo case strongly suggests that any opposition to scientific racism (which is what is being advocated here) is deserving of contempt and is a symptom of backwardness. The problem with this is that truth does not depend on how new (or not) one's perspective is, and a conservative website of all really ought to grasp that. It is monstrous that a website which claims to be pro-life like the Burkean does would defend the views of someone who thinks that homosexual genes, dyslexia or epilepsy are not only sufficient grounds for abortion, but that those who choose life are actually inflicting cruelty on their children. I really fear for the future of social conservatism in this country if the philosophy espoused in this article is treated as unproblematic. Needless to say, I provide all these links for information only and do not endorse the wicked sentiments therein. I am familiar with the Burkean. Indeed, I have written two articles for it. burkeanjournal.com/reviving-the-irish-revival/www.theburkean.ie/articles/2018/03/02/book-review-borstal-boyPersonally I don't care about the race and IQ debate in itself. But I absolutely care about free speech and open discussion. The essence of the story is this line: "Even with the most cursory of internet searches, one can determine that the nature-nurture debate on this topic is far from settled." Even if different races have different average IQs, and this is innate, the fact does not seem terribly significant to me, nor do I see why it should be suppressed. We are living in a world where artificial intelligence is rapidly overtaking human intelligence in so many ways-- I think IQ is going to become less and less relevant. Of course, as Christians we believe the truth will set us free. I don't see what relevance Dr. Watson's other views have.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 19:02:16 GMT
By the way, here is another of the APA's pronouncements, that gay parenting is just as good as mother-father parenting. Like all social science associations, it is deeply infected by cultural Marxism, political correctness, liberal-secularism, whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't adopt these sort of organisations as authorities if I were you. www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 19:14:30 GMT
I'm not sure if many people here are familiar with the Burkean, which ostensisbly exists to provide a platform to conservatives in Ireland. Now in itself this is a salutary goal, but the problem is that their definition of "conservative" seems to embrace the alt-right, up to and including eugenics. An example of this can be found here, where Eric McMahon compares advocacy of scientific racism with heliocentrism, with the obvious implication that to oppose it is backward and antidiluvian, while its proponents are treated as heralds of the future. The problem with Mr. McMahon's argument is this: 1) Mr. Watson's wretched views go far beyond even scientific racism. He has advocated for abortion for any reason or none, even if the grounds for doing so is absurd. He has even claimed that he would have aborted his own son (who has epilepsy) had he known of his condition before he was born. 2) Moreover, the claim that Mr. Watson's opponents are in a similar position to the Catholic Church during the Galileo case strongly suggests that any opposition to scientific racism (which is what is being advocated here) is deserving of contempt and is a symptom of backwardness. The problem with this is that truth does not depend on how new (or not) one's perspective is, and a conservative website of all really ought to grasp that. It is monstrous that a website which claims to be pro-life like the Burkean does would defend the views of someone who thinks that homosexual genes, dyslexia or epilepsy are not only sufficient grounds for abortion, but that those who choose life are actually inflicting cruelty on their children. I really fear for the future of social conservatism in this country if the philosophy espoused in this article is treated as unproblematic. Needless to say, I provide all these links for information only and do not endorse the wicked sentiments therein. I am familiar with the Burkean. Indeed, I have written two articles for it. burkeanjournal.com/reviving-the-irish-revival/www.theburkean.ie/articles/2018/03/02/book-review-borstal-boyPersonally I don't care about the race and IQ debate in itself. But I absolutely care about free speech and open discussion. The essence of the story is this line: "Even with the most cursory of internet searches, one can determine that the nature-nurture debate on this topic is far from settled." Even if different races have different average IQs, and this is innate, the fact does not seem terribly significant to me, nor do I see why it should be suppressed. I don't see what relevance Dr. Watson's other views have. This isn't a matter of free speech, private institutions have no obligation to provide legitimacy to what is essentially eugenics. As for open discussion, that assumes that the opposing points are equally morally valid, a situation that does not apply here. I highlighted Dr. Watson's views on abortion as they are part and parcel of his eugenic mindset (he is not merely passively "pro-choice", he actively supports abortion in the case of disability and has implied that those who keep their babies with such conditions are sadists), just as much as his scientific racism is. Highlighting his views on abortion is meant to hammer home the full implications of his views to those who wouldn't otherwise listen had I focused solely on his scientific racism. Mr. McMahon clearly endorses Dr. Watson's views, since he describes him as a modern-day Galileo, and speaks dismissively of "the endless aid given to countries with unsustainable population growth", so he is not merely giving him a platform in the name of free speech, he's actively promoting Dr. Watson's theories.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 19:18:09 GMT
By the way, here is another of the APA's pronouncements, that gay parenting is just as good as mother-father parenting. Like all social science associations, it is deeply infected by cultural Marxism, political correctness, liberal-secularism, whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't adopt these sort of organisations as authorities if I were you. www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspxWith all due respect Maolsheachlann, that's not very relevant to the discussion. I never mentioned anything about the APA and though Mr. McMahon did, the mere fact that both myself and the APA oppose it proves only that we are both opposed to it, no more. In any case, the fact that the APA are wrong on a great many things in no way proves that Dr. Watson's views are correct.
|
|