Scan barcode
jasperburns's review against another edition
5.0
I have always found Michael Malice a fascinating individual. He is a provocative, yet thoughtful, troll and anarchist. For most, he may be abrasive and unlikable, and I do not agree with much of his personal politics. Yet I respect that he makes novel and interesting arguments. His reading of the audiobook seemed more measured in tone than most of his ad-libbed podcast appearances.
In this book, he differentiates “New Right” from the more controversial “Alt-Right." The New Right are those individuals defined by opposition to leftist hegemony and progressive ideology. The Alt-Right, in contrast, are those like Richard Spencer who trade in race-based identity politics. The lines between these blur at times, but the distinction is a useful one.
It's easy to conflate them, not just because of their names but also because their actions can be similar. The Alt-Right might make racist and anti-Semitic remarks because they are in fact bigots. The New Right might do the same because it triggers outcries from social justice warriors and leftists who they vilify. It’s an interesting nuance of motivation that separates the two of these groups. A member of the Alt-Right might wave a Nazi flag because they believe the Nazi credo. A member of the New Right, even if philosemetic, might wave one to trigger leftists. Rather than stand for something in particular, it seems as if they stand wholly in opposition to the left and political correctness. They stand against what they call the "Cathedral," the superpower formed by the left's dominance in academia, media, and culture. They do not want to be told what to think or how to act.
It’s easy to attempt to write them off as thus being racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. Not because they necessarily are, but because they often act like it. Milo Yiannopoulos was a poster boy for this behavior, slurring many identity groups while himself being a gay man with a black boyfriend. It does beg the question, what makes someone bigoted, what they think or how they act? This is a harder question than it may seem on its face.
But why do this? Why live to trigger people? It is easy to imagine that members of the New Right must be sociopaths, living for the sake of hurting others. This is not an unfair accusation, but an incomplete one. From their perspective, provocative behavior is a political move. Bad behavior is a tactical method in an attempt to achieve strategic goals. If the "Cathedral" yanks society leftward, they think measured rhetoric is not enough yank back. Strong, emotional counterattacks yield more fruit. Enthusiastic vigor won Donald Trump the presidency, as it were.
When you avoid the most extreme members of the movement, it becomes easier to empathize. Many of the New Right have legitimate grievances against the abundances of political correctness. It does seem true that the terms “racist,” “sexist,” “bigot,” “homophobe” have been used so often and so gratuitously as to have lost their meaning. The incoherence around gender theory has proved mind-boggling. More people on the left seem to virtue-signal than ever care to be virtuous. Disgusted by the excesses of the left, New Right trolls seek to expose it to the point of absurdity.
When you journey to the far edges of the New Right, it becomes easy to see the danger of the vitriol. Their forums become breeding grounds for bullies. The most caustic dogma can even beget mass shooters, as seen in the recent El Paso shooter. This is where the fringe bleeds into the racist Alt-Right, and any culture that inspires such vile acts must be condemned. Yet the New Right is not a single organization, but a collection of many individuals. Not all Muslims are Jihadist terrorists, and not all New Right members are dangerous mass shooters.
Throughout the book, Malice traces the evolution of this whole subculture, and he does so from within. As an anarchist, he has been exposed to many ideological facets of the movement. As an author and pundit, he has met and interviewed many of the important characters. I was thoroughly entranced throughout the entire book and felt like I learned a lot. Highly recommend this book to everyone. Liberals can learn how their excesses inspire New Right anger. Conservatives can learn why their party is being usurped, and how its creating excesses of its own.
View my best reviews and a collection of mental models at jasperburns.blog.
In this book, he differentiates “New Right” from the more controversial “Alt-Right." The New Right are those individuals defined by opposition to leftist hegemony and progressive ideology. The Alt-Right, in contrast, are those like Richard Spencer who trade in race-based identity politics. The lines between these blur at times, but the distinction is a useful one.
It's easy to conflate them, not just because of their names but also because their actions can be similar. The Alt-Right might make racist and anti-Semitic remarks because they are in fact bigots. The New Right might do the same because it triggers outcries from social justice warriors and leftists who they vilify. It’s an interesting nuance of motivation that separates the two of these groups. A member of the Alt-Right might wave a Nazi flag because they believe the Nazi credo. A member of the New Right, even if philosemetic, might wave one to trigger leftists. Rather than stand for something in particular, it seems as if they stand wholly in opposition to the left and political correctness. They stand against what they call the "Cathedral," the superpower formed by the left's dominance in academia, media, and culture. They do not want to be told what to think or how to act.
It’s easy to attempt to write them off as thus being racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. Not because they necessarily are, but because they often act like it. Milo Yiannopoulos was a poster boy for this behavior, slurring many identity groups while himself being a gay man with a black boyfriend. It does beg the question, what makes someone bigoted, what they think or how they act? This is a harder question than it may seem on its face.
But why do this? Why live to trigger people? It is easy to imagine that members of the New Right must be sociopaths, living for the sake of hurting others. This is not an unfair accusation, but an incomplete one. From their perspective, provocative behavior is a political move. Bad behavior is a tactical method in an attempt to achieve strategic goals. If the "Cathedral" yanks society leftward, they think measured rhetoric is not enough yank back. Strong, emotional counterattacks yield more fruit. Enthusiastic vigor won Donald Trump the presidency, as it were.
When you avoid the most extreme members of the movement, it becomes easier to empathize. Many of the New Right have legitimate grievances against the abundances of political correctness. It does seem true that the terms “racist,” “sexist,” “bigot,” “homophobe” have been used so often and so gratuitously as to have lost their meaning. The incoherence around gender theory has proved mind-boggling. More people on the left seem to virtue-signal than ever care to be virtuous. Disgusted by the excesses of the left, New Right trolls seek to expose it to the point of absurdity.
When you journey to the far edges of the New Right, it becomes easy to see the danger of the vitriol. Their forums become breeding grounds for bullies. The most caustic dogma can even beget mass shooters, as seen in the recent El Paso shooter. This is where the fringe bleeds into the racist Alt-Right, and any culture that inspires such vile acts must be condemned. Yet the New Right is not a single organization, but a collection of many individuals. Not all Muslims are Jihadist terrorists, and not all New Right members are dangerous mass shooters.
Throughout the book, Malice traces the evolution of this whole subculture, and he does so from within. As an anarchist, he has been exposed to many ideological facets of the movement. As an author and pundit, he has met and interviewed many of the important characters. I was thoroughly entranced throughout the entire book and felt like I learned a lot. Highly recommend this book to everyone. Liberals can learn how their excesses inspire New Right anger. Conservatives can learn why their party is being usurped, and how its creating excesses of its own.
View my best reviews and a collection of mental models at jasperburns.blog.
creechance's review against another edition
5.0
This may actually be the only book in existence that makes an honest attempt to understand American politics in the age of Trump.
miguelf's review against another edition
3.0
Everything you never really wanted to know about the alt-right (or whatever they refer to themselves these days), as told by someone who feels quite comfortable in this milieu. Informative, but quite the odious bunch of characters author included.
jachso's review against another edition
4.0
A superb tracking of the evolution of the right. Funny, interesting, and a bit discomforting at times, like all insightful things are wont to be.
manalive's review against another edition
4.0
Phenomenal. This is the book normies should read for insight into the political landscape. But normies probably won't read it, because they are normies.
I dock one star because the final trajectory of the book ended up leaving me dissatisfied.
I dock one star because the final trajectory of the book ended up leaving me dissatisfied.
deletednullfakeuser's review against another edition
2.0
The beginning going over the roots of the new right was pretty interesting, and hearing some of the authors first hand experiences with it. However basically everywhere the author is expressing his actual views is essentially just getting some random point, making some pretty dopey/uninformed criticism and just moving on (Another reviewer mentioned podcasts and it does remind of the rigor those usually have). It has very little structure and makes no serious attempt to actually look at the ideas and even though I disagree with most of them seeing his arguments against them were far more offensive to me due to their confidence combined with total ignorance.
It was mainly with the issues of morality, for example saying that certain acts are natural/unnatural. He just sort of assumed what that means and just showed himself to be totally ignorant. His criticisms for the more controversial ideas were just as bad. But if anyone who read this is curious no people who say homosexuality is unnatural aren't just making emotional feelings based on that they don't like to do it themselves, there is 2500 years of philosophy particularly that of the Catholic Church and Aristotle behind that expression. You can disagree with it but you to say a long argued philosophical point is just peoples feelings comes across as, as I said above, ignorant and unserious.
It was mainly with the issues of morality, for example saying that certain acts are natural/unnatural. He just sort of assumed what that means and just showed himself to be totally ignorant. His criticisms for the more controversial ideas were just as bad. But if anyone who read this is curious no people who say homosexuality is unnatural aren't just making emotional feelings based on that they don't like to do it themselves, there is 2500 years of philosophy particularly that of the Catholic Church and Aristotle behind that expression. You can disagree with it but you to say a long argued philosophical point is just peoples feelings comes across as, as I said above, ignorant and unserious.
taborszki's review against another edition
5.0
This book is really close to my heart for it describes that buzzing intelletual movement in which I spent countless hours. Reading it always awakens in me forgotten memories of those turbulent years of 2015 and 2016 and I'm really happy that someone documented all those threads and names and memes and events that would otherwise be forgotten. Plus, Malice starts with a Rothbard-quote which in itself elevates the book to one of my favorites.