Far-Right Radicalisation of the Internet

How To Spot If Someone Is Being Groomed By The Far Right
"There’s no stereotype, it can be anyone."

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/far-right-grooming_uk_5ca60d8be4b0409b0ec4ced7

Insidious creeping cunts, they are doing it through animal rights activism, gaming communities and targetting people with depression or other mental health issues.

For me the best, genuinely substantial dissection of the fundamental pitfalls of the alt-right out there is by The Distributist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_7c_zPn8VE&list=PLRbcQXWEJAJrVHweXrgGb5ifN93ftE5Jp&index=2

The further down this bigoted, puritanical, authoritarian identity politics rabbit hole the left falls, the more attractive the most extreme alternative possible will become to the native working class they’ve so completely abandoned. Every violent protest, every act of censorship, every smear campaign, every attempt to forcibly redefine the English language, every innocent person thrown in prison over a Twitter joke… it all adds to the catalogue of abject insanity the far-right can use to make themselves look reasonable by comparison. It couldn’t be more obvious to anyone and everyone outside the postmodernist bubble. One would think that brexit and Trump might at least have given them cause for reflection, but they just keep digging themselves deeper.

It won't occur to most of them on the identitarian left because they're so deep in a paranoid, unquestionable cult, and they're unwilling to face the social repercussions of renouncing or leaving it. A part of me thinks they unconsciously *want* there to be a mass reactionary backlash against them to justify their paranoia about 'fascists'.

This guy in the Atlantic elaborates on that very point about the obnoxious antics of the left repelling ordinary moderate people further toward the right, but he also details the kind of smug snark he's received from leftists for pointing that effect out.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/05/can-rhetoric-on-the-left-fuel-bigotry-on-the-right/560285/

The Left are insane. Anyone questions any of their lunacy, they're "far right extremists". Never once does it occur to them that they're the extremists, and that normal people are fed up to the back teeth of it and them.

I don't think that left-right distinctions are that useful any more.

The economic right (the neoliberals) have fervently embraced identity politics because they know how pernicious and divisive it is. It's class unity kryptonite. They're quite happy to play the game so long as the fractured identities keep on attacking each other.

Identity politics isn't the whole sum of the left, even if it did emerge out of the postmodern/neomarxist movements of 60s and 70s. Many traditional left-wingers detest the current obsession with identity politics for the same reason neoliberals nefariously endorse it. They consider it to be the ultimate form of self-abuse; a betrayal of class unity, and an undermining of the structural analysis that forms the basis of class-based arguments. After all it's much easier to take the piss out of the people you're exploiting if they spend most of their time directing their bile at each other.

Boofer wrote:
Identity politics isn't the whole sum of the left, even if it did emerge out of the postmodern/neomarxist movements of 60s and 70s.

Racism is identity politics and was about before then. The term comes from the PoMos of that era. C'mon, are you going to tell me the KKK aren't identity politics?

Left and Right aren't in absolute terms but relative concepts that vary over time. Hence, the left-right axis could be applied to any time period. Perhaps you would prefer Tony Blair's alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_political_spectrum

Rawkuss wrote:Racism is identity politics and was about before then. The term comes from the PoMos of that era. C'mon, are you going to tell me the KKK aren't identity politics?

Nope. But there is a nuanced distinction here.

I'm clearly talking about the IP movement which emerged from the left-wing/postmodern thought of the second half of the 20th century i.e. ideas predicated on oppression hierarchies, as opposed to ideas rooted in biological/scientific racism which preceded postmodernism by 400 years or so.

Rawkuss wrote:Left and Right aren't in absolute terms but relative concepts that vary over time. Hence, the left-right axis could be applied to any time period. Perhaps you would prefer Tony Blair's alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_political_spectrum

Even that's useless to an extent. Supposedly open people embrace difference and pluralism, but there's an increasing number of people who are seduced into employing it as a means of social control. There's a totalitarian instinct to control language and thought that's founded upon an ivory-towered liberal arrogance.

Maybe it's just an expression of the complexity of people's political instincts that they can be both open and closed simultaneously. Shroedinger's activist: loves diversity, but hates diversity of thought, opinion, humour, or goes into denial about anything deleterious relating to their own ideology.

ClockworkOcean wrote:The further down this bigoted, puritanical, authoritarian identity politics rabbit hole the left falls, the more attractive the most extreme alternative possible will become to the native working class they’ve so completely abandoned. Every violent protest, every act of censorship, every smear campaign, every attempt to forcibly redefine the English language, every innocent person thrown in prison over a Twitter joke… it all adds to the catalogue of abject insanity the far-right can use to make themselves look reasonable by comparison. It couldn’t be more obvious to anyone and everyone outside the postmodernist bubble. One would think that brexit and Trump might at least have given them cause for reflection, but they just keep digging themselves deeper.

100 percent agreed. Only thing I will say is that the right kind of created the modern left too.

IMO they feed on each other.

You have these right wing lunatics like Milo and Stefan who go on about women not who are not married over the age of 30 are used meat, are "whores who want to ride the chad cock and avoid all responsibility", and who can only be happy if they get married and have kids.

Then we have right wingers who are opposed to gay marriage like Ben Shapiro and Dave Cullen and who do refuse to acknowledge gay couples as legit, (like Ben Shapiro assuming that Dave Reubin was inviting him to a gay orgy because he asked him to come to a barbecue to celebrate his anniversary with his husband Can you imagine Reubin of all people having an orgy. Its like Ned Flanders having an orgy "LETS ALL BE CLASSICAL LIBERALS EHHHHHHHH."

Then we have right wing censors like McCarthy, and Mary Whitehouse and the Comics Code authority who did all the shit that the left do now, sending people to prison for the crime of having opinions, censoring entertainment.

Its no surprise that say a young single woman in her 30s who is made to feel like a freak and a using bitch by these people, will be drawn in by third wave feminism. At the same time its no surprise that a young man in his 20s working in a Dickensian call centre for 10 hours a day being told that he has white male privilege by a posh upper, middle class woman like Anita Sarkeesian will be drawn to the right.

Both the left and the right are made up of conmen who race bait, gender bait and pit groups against each other to make a profit and get power, like Soros, Hillary Clinton, Stefan Molyneaux and Anita Sarkeesian; as well as old, dinosaur fanatics who lack the salemanship of Molyneaux and Sarkeesian, but who crawl back out of the woodwork to cash in on it. Finally both are made up of young, unhappy people who are preyed on by these losers and whipped up into seeing another group like men, women, white people, black people etc as the enemy.

They are both exactly the same and will always use frustration with the other side to their advantage. The left gained institutional power because of the frustration with the right, and now the right are doing the same, and in 20 years time the left will be doing the same.

The only way to break the cycle is to expose both regularly regardless of which one is in power IMO. Not saying you support the right BTW, just a general observation.

Sadly people view hating both sides as being weak. Those arse's Richard H Cucker and Kevin Logan act as though Centrists just want to be liked by both sides.

Now I wouldn't call myself a centrist (as that leads to another tribe and unlike these people I want to be an individual.) Still its hilarious that they think that people want either side to like them. Maybe most centrists find both the left and the right absolutely repulsive and want rid of you both?

What does "far-right" mean? Is it like when someone writes with their right hand or something? I'm on the left myself. Sadly I tend to accidentally smudge my writing a lot.

burrunjor wrote:Its no surprise that say a young single woman in her 30s who is made to feel like a freak and a using bitch by these people, will be drawn in by third wave feminism. At the same time its no surprise that a young man in his 20s working in a Dickensian call centre for 10 hours a day being told that he has white male privilege by a posh upper, middle class woman like Anita Sarkeesian will be drawn to the right.

..... Finally both are made up of young, unhappy people who are preyed on by these losers and whipped up into seeing another group like men, women, white people, black people etc as the enemy.

I feel like on paper the ideology and philosophy of the Men's Right's Movement is the rightest fit for me. That men have always suffered to oppressive, conformist gender roles and disposable treatment long before feminism, and in modern times are the biggest victims of suicide.

In practice however I just can't abide the petty arseholery many MRA's engage in on a massive scale.

More men kill themselves than women (2:1), however, more women attempt suicide than men (4:1). This is commonly thought to be because women are more likely to seek help for depression and other mental health problems.

It might be that women tend to prefer to do it via pills because it doesn't leave a mark on their body. That maybe even in the face of death some are afraid of ruining their looks or failing the beauty standard.

But that doesn't really account for those who cut their wrists, but many say it's because women's attempts are often a cry for help and as such are often done in a way that is remedial if someone's quick enough to save them.

Whereas I guess with men, many fear that crying for help isn't a good look for them. So they tend to do it in a quick way to ensure they're no longer going to be the burden they think they are.

It's strange because logically it shouldn't really matter in the face of death. But then having been in that state, suicidal thinking can do that to you. Have you thinking in such a backwards way that fear of shame somehow trumps fear of dying.

Yeah apparently women rely on overdosing and men opt for more immediately lethal methods.

But you might interpret it in two interesting ways:

1 - A less lethal method of suicide may involve less intention to actually die. Psychologically it might be closer to self-harm than suicide.

2 - Women might be less successful because women tend to have a closer and more active social circle. Friends, family, lovers that will check on them frequently. The men that do it may be disproportionately isolated.

Both conjecture of course.

Tanmann wrote:

burrunjor wrote:Its no surprise that say a young single woman in her 30s who is made to feel like a freak and a using bitch by these people, will be drawn in by third wave feminism. At the same time its no surprise that a young man in his 20s working in a Dickensian call centre for 10 hours a day being told that he has white male privilege by a posh upper, middle class woman like Anita Sarkeesian will be drawn to the right.

..... Finally both are made up of young, unhappy people who are preyed on by these losers and whipped up into seeing another group like men, women, white people, black people etc as the enemy.

I feel like on paper the ideology and philosophy of the Men's Right's Movement is the rightest fit for me. That men have always suffered to oppressive, conformist gender roles and disposable treatment long before feminism, and in modern times are the biggest victims of suicide.

In practice however I just can't abide the petty arseholery many MRA's engage in on a massive scale.

I don't think any political group that focuses on one section of society's rights above the others is any good TBH.

They may start off with the best intentions, but over time they lead to tribalism, and inevitably get taken over by bigots who want to vent against the perceived oppressors. We have seen this with feminists towards men, MRA's towards women, Black Lives Matter towards white people, and now an unwelcome revival of race realism towards black people from lunatics like that Simon Harris cunt.

People will say that you need these groups which tackle specific issues to acheive equality, as a humanist group might forget one section of society, but I don't think that's true.

Look at gay rights. The biggest hurdle for gay rights was legalising it in the 60s. Was there a gay rights group that accomplished that? No, it was just a humanist approach of this old, barbaric law needs to go.

Since then however all of these gay rights groups that have emerged have pushed LGBT people into stupid little tribes, isolated from the rest of society.

The best people throughout history have always stood for everyone's rights. Like look at Sylvia Pankhurts. She fought just as hard for the rights of the working class, and to end WW1 as she did for the vote for women. As a result she was kicked out of the Suffragettes party. IMO more people should follow Sylvia Pankhurst's lead, but sadly young feminists like Claudia Boleyn are more likely to look up to Caitlin Moron than Sylvia Pankhurst.

burrunjor wrote:I don't think any political group that focuses on one section of society's rights above the others is any good TBH.

They may start off with the best intentions, but over time they lead to tribalism, and inevitably get taken over by bigots who want to vent against the perceived oppressors. We have seen this with feminists towards men, MRA's towards women, Black Lives Matter towards white people, and now an unwelcome revival of race realism towards black people from lunatics like that Simon Harris cunt.

The point where I got the really ugliest sense that the MRA's could be just as bad as the feminists was that, well at one time I'd been bullied at work by a narcissist who continued to harass me outside work, and so I had joined a narcissist abuse support group, which was largely populated by women who'd suffered emotionally abusive relationships with a narcissist. But there were some men there too.

And I found that it was helpful for me to give others there support and a bit of tough love to help them break away.

However, I'm pretty sure a few of the men on there who'd suffered an abusive female partner had also consequently turned to the solace of Men's Rights Movement and sounded like they'd been self-radicalized by their exposure to their 'red pill' view of the world in which men are victims of demonization and
'toxic' women are always using emotion to try and browbeat them. And it made them act like fucking arseholes.

Because some of them would just be really insensitive and obnoxious and turn any thread that mentioned specifically narcissistic men (in a group that inevitably does skew female victims of male abusers in general) into a political diatribe about "you shouldn't have said 'he', because there are abusive women too", and acted as though the poster was automatically guilty of misandry and the demonization of men by her little mistake, to the point where some women were driven to leave by their appalling behaviour.

It was sickening to watch because you knew this is the same kind of unforgiving criticism these women had suffered to their partners, and yet these arseholes thought it was somehow worth doing to make some political point whilst riding roughshod over others, and not care that there's a time and place for it.

I tend to lean to the right if I'm sitting down and need to pass wind...