Saidit users who aren't "alt-right," why aren't you?

submitted by MarkimusNational Justice Party from saidit.net

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alphix 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

That's a pretty reductive interpretation of the alt-right though. Sure, it's the caricature of it that gets pushed as being THE definition ("Alt-right = white supremacist") but it is in fact much more nuanced than that: Ethno-nationalism isn't a RACIAL position, it is simply that the racial aspect of ethno-nationalism is easily taken up by mass-media to try and paint this part of the political spectrum as extremely radical and potentially violent.

If these media were to state something like "The Alt-Right are people who adhere to the notion that the more homogeneous a society, the better it would work out" then it would be easy to stustantiate this position with data, and all the hoopla about "racist thugs" vanishes the moment this becomes the accepted definition. But it is a much more valid one: Values, traditions and religion also play a MAJOR role in the homogeneity proposed by the alt-right mentality.

There are white muslims, probably some who have multiple wives. They would not fit into a North American Alt-Right society even though they might have the "right" racial profile. Such a society would likely be all WASP, for these reasons, and not just "all white".

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's a pretty reductive interpretation of the alt-right though.

Perhaps, but this is an interpretation that OP has attested to in previous discussions I've had with him, which is why I focused on it. I am aware that alt-right can encompass anything from anarcho-fascism to white-christian nationalism depending on who is doing the defining.

"The Alt-Right are people who adhere to the notion that the more homogeneous a society, the better it would work out"

Well I do generally agree with this. I would also add the stipulation that large societies generally cannot accomplish this without significant oppression, and I very much question whether this is a good idea in that case (bigger is generally harder to ensure homogeneity). This seems to work in Japan with much less...coercion than in say China. If you have a large or diverse population, this kind of ideologically doesn't seem ideal

[–]Alphix 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well given that in ethno-nationalism it is the character of the people that defines the nation, the idea of having vast huge nations falls apart on its own. For example you could have multiple regions as ethno-states in the USA: New England, the MidWest, West Coast, etc. and you could have good homogeneity in each, provided the "correct" distribution of ethnic groups.

[–]la_cues 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Isn't this the benefit to the compromise of having a union of States under a Fed? People have the ability to self organize within the union. The State's ability of self governance should have a stronger importance.

the idea of having vast huge nations falls apart on its own.

But what if each state was actually ok with working along side of, but also kinda separate from, other "ethno" states within the same union?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We see ideological migration with New Hampshire and The Free State Project. Alas, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and religion.