Back in January, right after the election of Trump, the Alt Right “movement” under the direction of Richard Spencer, planned and hosted the “Deploraball”, a celebration in honor of the president elect, and named for Hillary Clinton calling them “deplorables”. The main event (which you can read about here) created something of a schism between the newly coalesced alt right, and what came to be called the “Alt Light”. A further schism is apparently in the works.
About a month ago, Alt Light YouTuber “Kraut and Tea” “doxxed” Alt Right YouTuber “Rage After Storm”–by informing a website she had written for in the past, that they might want to inquire into RAS’s political views. K&T subsequently deleted the offending tweet, delivering something of a not-pology to the young woman, however, not before inciting a low intensity Twitter campaign against himself. His response, of course, was to announce a four video series “debunking” the Alt Right–after having given Youtuber Edgy Sphinx (now “Braving Ruin”), a platform from which to spout racist rhetoric.
Of course, the Youtube “Skeptic” community does not consider itself to be Alt Right, and to their credit, there is one difference between them and the Alt Right: the skepticologists are ironic racists, as you can see here, and not “real” racists, which you can perhaps see here, here, or here.
The crux of the present issue (and K&T’s “debunking” efforts) relates to r/K selection theory. Which, for those of us with intelligence, requires less than a minute or so to understand (it takes K&T, by his own admission, about 2 months of consultation with two “friends” of his who are scientists-yeah, I don’t believe that either). NAZIs, race realists, and other stupid people take the theory, which, in its own parlance applies to entire species of animals, including ourselves, and classifies us by reproductive strategies–in extremis, ‘r’ selected species reproduce large amounts of offspring, in the hopes that some will survive and ‘K’ selected species have fewer offspring, and longer periods of nurturing (like humans).
This is a major selling point to the pseudointellectually inclined skepticologist, since a justification for their racism is required before they can proceed to make what they know to be racist, antisemitic, and other egregious comments, because clearly, it’s OK to take a morally untenable stance on the fictitious issue of “race” or the “Jewish Question”, or the viability of rape as an evolutionary strategy, when science can serve to deflect criticism from yourself.
The overreliance on r/K selection theory, however, is important in more than just the pseudo-scientific sense. It is important, since some race realists have made the claim that the use of r/K selection theory rhetoric is metaphorical–in the same way that skepticologists are “ironic” racists. The use of r/K selection theory metaphor, however, is not used in a comparative way, since it is clearly the case that race realists are attempting to apply the outdated theory to variant reproductive strategies within the human species. It is apparently a great point of pride for white supremacists and skepticologists to misuse the term “metaphor” in service of applying a deprecated scientific theory to modern humans. I can’t fathom why.
Of course, like all things retrograde, the theory has fallen out of favor among biologists because it has been itself, modified and incorporated into much more recent research, though of course, it should come as no surprise that NAZIs and other race realists (like the skepticologists themselves), love to misapply it to whatever differences can be found in child rearing practices between groups of humans (like blacks vs. whites, for instance–see why they like it? That predilection plays a role, so bear it in mind), pace the ease with which other, simpler theories can explain the phenomena (b/c who cares about Occam’s Razor, AMIRITE?!), such as economic, cultural, social, and historical factors (b/c really, those aren’t sciences. AMIRITE?).
Nonetheless, r/K selection theory, like race realism generally, continues to hold sway over the stupid, primarily because it enables white supremacists like Richard Spencer and Millennial Woes to pretend they understand science, and more importantly, that science is “on their side”–again, pace the fact that scientists have already incorporated the relevant and useful bits of r/K theory into Life History Theory and chucked the rest of it. Not being a scientist, I’m content to cede to scientists the authority here. So, the important questions for us are as follows:
- Is there a substantive distinction between the Alt Right and the Alt Light?
- Is there a substantive distinction between the Alt Light and Skepticology?
I had a tonne of other questions, but try as I might, they all end up being too snarky. Imagine that. Me. Too snarky. I didn’t even think it was possible. In any event, the two questions above should provide sufficient cannon fodder for quite some time. Especially since I answer a quite straightforward, and ultimately, correct ‘no’ to both of them. However, since I’m here, let me provide some appeasement to the “centrists” among you with one final question: Is there an pedantic difference between the three systems of belief mentioned above? The answer to that one is yes. Yes, there is a pedantic difference between the Alt Right, the Alt Light, and YouTube Skepticologists. It’s a distinction without a difference–the truth is that some advocate genocide, some support those who advocate genocide.
Perhaps I’m being too harsh. Perhaps there is a substantive difference between the three groups, as there surely must have been between the Vichy French and the NAZIs. Yeah, I don’t think so, either. Perhaps what’s going on is simply this: The Alt Right are proud to be
racists “identitarians”, and the Alt Light are closeted racists. Skepticologists are ironic racists. The first group tells the truth about what they believe. The second lies about the truth regarding their beliefs. The third tells the truth, then lies about it. Doesn’t sound like a substantive distinction, but then, we aren’t talking about substantive people, are we?
EDITOR’S NOTE: please note the conspicuous lack of links to the material referenced herein. Talking about someone doesn’t actually require talking to them.Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Akkadian Times