A far-right intellectual tries to diagnose the fault of liberalism, fails. He is obsessed with the harmful effects of openness, "weakening", and disenA far-right intellectual tries to diagnose the fault of liberalism, fails. He is obsessed with the harmful effects of openness, "weakening", and disenchantment that liberal consensus allegedly brought after WW2.
His language betrays fascist fears straight out of Littell (and Theleweit) - "weakenings" and openness are his horror but fascinate him endlessly.
My favorite bits are when he complains about disenchantment - like, what's the alternative, R.R.? Believing fake shit? Strong gods indeed.
Abandoned 50% in, but I might have to come back in the future, this shit has serious intellectual pretensions (he spends 75% of the text paraphrasing liberal theorists with pearl-clutching disbelief of what horrors their theories imply and what were the consequences) that are likely to impress intellectually malnourished conservatives. ...more
This is a very good overview of some of the themes and origins of the alt-right phenomenon in the US. It's a must-read for anyone who wants to learn mThis is a very good overview of some of the themes and origins of the alt-right phenomenon in the US. It's a must-read for anyone who wants to learn more about the alt-right and what they mean not just in the context of US politics, but larger debates about far-right extremism - both online and offline.
At the same time, I should note, that despite being really recent, the book does already feel a bit dated and could really use a second edition (for example, the alt-right has already moved toward inspiring political violence [cf. Charlottesville] and many personas [e.g., McInnes] discussed have moved further on the spectrum towards clear extremism).
More importantly, I could not shake a feeling that the distinctions being raised between alt-right and 'alt-lite' are a bit like the proverbial "champagne" vs "sparkling wine" memes. If the alt-right phenomenon could be reduced to the single-core principle of explicit "racism and striving for a white-ethnostate" then you could just continue to call them neo-nazis. What unites the hard-core alt-right and the alt-lite and all their fellow travelers is not just a rejection of mainstream conservative movement, but the rejection of equality as a core principle of democratic politics.
This brings me, finally, directly to my main complaint - the surprising absence of tying the whole phenomenon to fascist ideology. What unites the alt-right and the alt-lite is that they are all more or less explicit members of the family of fascist ideologues. Alt-right is obviously a fascist movement, yet the word fascism appears maybe twice in the entire book, once in scare-quotes, and never as an analytical category applied to the studied phenomenon.
The author consciously chose the strategy of erring on the side of caution, too often taking the alt-right at face value, quoting them at length without much analysis (for example, his description of Gamergate could have come directly from alt-right PR), but the result, unfortunately, leads to situations where his attempts at nuance often read more like bending over backward so as not to call a spade a spade.
This is a cool, if an uneven collection of 14 essays: some are great, and some are merely so-so.
Especially the essays on the far-right politics and rThis is a cool, if an uneven collection of 14 essays: some are great, and some are merely so-so.
Especially the essays on the far-right politics and resistance to it were great and I would recommend the following 5 to be read by everyone: "We, Anti-Fascists", "Riots for Black Life", "Homegrown", "Beyond Free Speech", & "Looking at Corpses".
And then there were also a couple of head-scratchers ("Ghost Stories", "Policing Desire") that honestly, I don't really understand wtf they were about....more
Dobré je to veď, tak akosi ale nesústredené, nevie, či chce byť viac poctivou analytickou žurnalistikou, na ktorú je tu ale málo in-depth analýzy, aleDobré je to veď, tak akosi ale nesústredené, nevie, či chce byť viac poctivou analytickou žurnalistikou, na ktorú je tu ale málo in-depth analýzy, alebou osobnou skúsenosťou a svedectvom, na ktoré je tu zase trochu málo toho gonzo aspektu (veľa čítala nenávistných vecí, bolo to desivé a vyčerpávajúce, ale pomohla aj jedného nácka doxxnúť). Takto je to akosi medzi, ak niekto hľadá viac ako základný prehľad, alebo hľadá viac toho osobného, bude možno sklamaný....more
Názov hovorí sám za seba – ide v podstate o krátku knižnú esej (ledva 100 strán), ktorá veľmi hutne vysvetľuje rolu lži vo fašistickom svetonáhľade. JNázov hovorí sám za seba – ide v podstate o krátku knižnú esej (ledva 100 strán), ktorá veľmi hutne vysvetľuje rolu lži vo fašistickom svetonáhľade. Je to výborná knižka, ideálna pre všetkých sociálnych vedcov venujúcich sa krajnej pravici. Plusom knihy je, že svoje tézy rozoberá a podopiera na menej známych fašistických spisovateľoch – najmä z Latinskej Ameriky, poukazujúc na jednotnú ideologickú logiku fašizmu....more
Veľmi dobrý prehľad, prístupný a poučný. Ak o krajnej pravici neviete veľa, toto je skvelý úvod ako sa dozvedieť to najpodstatnejšie. Mohlo by sa zdaťVeľmi dobrý prehľad, prístupný a poučný. Ak o krajnej pravici neviete veľa, toto je skvelý úvod ako sa dozvedieť to najpodstatnejšie. Mohlo by sa zdať, že kniha z 2019 je dnes už zastaralá, lebo veď sa okolo krajnej pravice toľko vecí mení - ale hlavné pozorovania a definície platia, všetko je presne v súlade s opísaným v knihe, a väčšina príkladov je tu stále s nami, len majú väčšiu moc. --- A very good overview, it might seem that being written in 2019 it might already be dated, but the principle observations and definitions hold and most of the examples are still with us, only more powerful.
This book is a hot mess, it's weird, self-indulgent, glib, sharp and wonderful.
The book is self-published and, unfortunately, it shows. It's basicallThis book is a hot mess, it's weird, self-indulgent, glib, sharp and wonderful.
The book is self-published and, unfortunately, it shows. It's basically a series of very long blog-posts that often seem to have gazed too long into the abyss of the alt-right blogosphere and mimic its ponderous style. It could really use a steady hand of an editor, someone to rein the author in. Someone to cut the extraneous material down, question some of her decisions or avenues of thought.
But there is much that is fun & very perceptive about the alt-right and alt-right-adjacent phenomena to make it worth your effort to power through some of the weaker parts.
The titular essay is the longest (basically, half the book) and also paradoxically the weakest: it links Mencius Moldbug, Nick Land, and with a surprising twist, Eliezer Yudkowsky, as the three thinkers important for the development of the diffuse movement of "neoreaction". The link, always an ambitious stretch, never quite coheres, but it does rhyme. But you will learn more than you ever cared to know about the alt-right intellectual influences, which Sandifer manages to expose in all their hilarious & horrible stupidity.
There are further essays on Gamergate, the Austrian School, Trump which are probably the strongest, shrewdest, and most acerbic & coherent. There is also an enjoyable short piece on David Icke and an essay on TERFs, which while probably very personal to the author, is also mostly a lost opportunity.
Overall, if you are interested in the unfortunate phenomenon of the alt-right (or 'neo-reaction'), then this book, despite its flaws, is indispensable. And I added a star just for how much fun I had reading it....more
Loading...
