The alt-right

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Rock and I have both mentioned the alt-right in recent threads, and lo and behold, it is now in the news. A few posters here seem eager to latch on to this movement. Before you do, you need to understand exactly what it is. From my favorite racist, Vox Day, the man Milo Yannapolous tagged as an "alt-right figurehead," here is what the alt-right stands for (emphases mine):

In the interest of developing a core Alt Right philosophy upon which others can build.​

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.​

You might immediately recognize that it is no coincidence that #14 on the list is a direct quotation of the Fourteen Words, a white nationalist slogan.

Put simply, the alt-right is just a slightly more polite version of neo-Nazism. That's it. Whether you are borrowing their ideas (e.g., the inherent inequality of the races) or their buzzwords (e.g., "SJW," "cuckservative"), you are aligning yourself with a movement that is not conservative or "right" in any sense of the terms. It is purely white supremacy. Nothing more.

Before you get into bed with someone, know who they are.

EDIT: One added quote from the link, to really send the message home:

The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.
​

(Also edited for formatting.)

 

[Rockfish1]

Rock and I have both mentioned the alt-right in recent threads, and lo and behold, it is now in the news. A few posters here seem eager to latch on to this movement. Before you do, you need to understand exactly what it is. From my favorite racist, Vox Day, the man Milo Yannapolous tagged as an "alt-right figurehead," here is what the alt-right stands for (emphasis mine):

In the interest of developing a core Alt Right philosophy upon which others can build.​

1. 1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
   2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
   3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
   4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
   5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
   6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
   7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
   8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
   9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
   10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
   11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
   12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
   13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
   14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
   15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
   16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.​

You might immediately recognize that it is no coincidence that #14 on the list is a direct quotation of the Fourteen Words, a white nationalist slogan.

Put simply, the alt-right is just a slightly more polite version of neo-Nazism. That's it. Whether you are borrowing their ideas (e.g., the inherent inequality of the races) or their buzzwords (e.g., "SJW," "cuckservative"), you are aligning yourself with a movement that is not conservative or "right" in any sense of the terms. It is purely white supremacy. Nothing more.

Before you get into bed with someone, know who they are.

In an earlier thread, one of our colleagues posted that he'd approved of a piece on race written by someone he apparently didn't know is an open and notorious old-timey alt-right racist. I guess it's possible that one of those assholes could write something on race that wasn't obviously racist, but it seems unlikely. And if you're nodding your head while reading an overt racist, then maybe you need some aggressive self-reflection -- unless (maybe) you're reading a chocolate chip cookie recipe.

Meanwhile, the Trump campaign is mainstreaming this . . . economic insecurity.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

unless (maybe) you're reading a chocolate chip cookie recipe.

Chocolate chip cookies seem like the ultimate miscegenation food.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Chocolate chip cookies seem like the ultimate miscegenation food.

Is it wrong that I was thinking of white chocolate chip cookies?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Rock and I have both mentioned the alt-right in recent threads, and lo and behold, it is now in the news. A few posters here seem eager to latch on to this movement. Before you do, you need to understand exactly what it is. From my favorite racist, Vox Day, the man Milo Yannapolous tagged as an "alt-right figurehead," here is what the alt-right stands for (emphases mine):

In the interest of developing a core Alt Right philosophy upon which others can build.​

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.​

You might immediately recognize that it is no coincidence that #14 on the list is a direct quotation of the Fourteen Words, a white nationalist slogan.

Put simply, the alt-right is just a slightly more polite version of neo-Nazism. That's it. Whether you are borrowing their ideas (e.g., the inherent inequality of the races) or their buzzwords (e.g., "SJW," "cuckservative"), you are aligning yourself with a movement that is not conservative or "right" in any sense of the terms. It is purely white supremacy. Nothing more.

Before you get into bed with someone, know who they are.

EDIT: One added quote from the link, to really send the message home:

The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.
​

(Also edited for formatting.)

Part of the growth of this movement stems from people not really paying attention. They see that they are fighting against "social justice warriors" and decide that sounds cool. They don't realize the alt right views anyone who believes in equality as a "social justice warrior". This has gotten the alt right's foot in the door to a lot of white America, by opposing "SJW". Then the alt right slowly drips in the more inflammatory stuff.

And it is really bizarre the battlegrounds they choose. They went hard after The Force Awakens because it had a black male and a woman as the heroes. They are angry at the new Ghostbusters and in particularly Leslie Jones. They really are fighting for the belief only white males can be heroes in popular culture. By the way, even though Force Awakens did terrific at the box office, they claimed victory with some bizarre idea that not as many people saw it as would have. Yes, one of the top grossing films of all time was defeated by a handful of people choosing not to see it.

Part of this stems from the tone of the disagreements we have had over the years, the very idea of a cultural war. Look at the manifesto above, it looks like something written by Hitler or Mussolini to describe their cultural wars. Most of us aren't at war with one another (for the vast majority of the time/issues). We just disagree. But we have a group here that have decided they are at war with those of us who accept the idea that we are all equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. I think most conservatives, liberals, and libertarians disagree with them on this point, so we have the ability to make sure they don't win. Just as the majority had the power to make sure Hitler and Mussolini did not win. But part of that is going to be making sure we don't get sucked on by their crusade against "SJW". Yes, there are people who take crusading too far. I get that, but they aren't the real enemy. They are the "hey, look over there" distraction used by the real enemy to build common ground. When there are people who take their crusades too far, let's deal with them on an individual and specific basis. But let's also shine the light on people who despise all social equality. They are the real problem.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Part of the growth of this movement stems from people not really paying attention. They see that they are fighting against "social justice warriors" and decide that sounds cool. They don't realize the alt right views anyone who believes in equality as a "social justice warrior". This has gotten the alt right's foot in the door to a lot of white America, by opposing "SJW". Then the alt right slowly drips in the more inflammatory stuff.

And it is really bizarre the battlegrounds they choose. They went hard after The Force Awakens because it had a black male and a woman as the heroes. They are angry at the new Ghostbusters and in particularly Leslie Jones. They really are fighting for the belief only white males can be heroes in popular culture. By the way, even though Force Awakens did terrific at the box office, they claimed victory with some bizarre idea that not as many people saw it as would have. Yes, one of the top grossing films of all time was defeated by a handful of people choosing not to see it.

Part of this stems from the tone of the disagreements we have had over the years, the very idea of a cultural war. Look at the manifesto above, it looks like something written by Hitler or Mussolini to describe their cultural wars. Most of us aren't at war with one another (for the vast majority of the time/issues). We just disagree. But we have a group here that have decided they are at war with those of us who accept the idea that we are all equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. I think most conservatives, liberals, and libertarians disagree with them on this point, so we have the ability to make sure they don't win. Just as the majority had the power to make sure Hitler and Mussolini did not win. But part of that is going to be making sure we don't get sucked on by their crusade against "SJW". Yes, there are people who take crusading too far. I get that, but they aren't the real enemy. They are the "hey, look over there" distraction used by the real enemy to build common ground. When there are people who take their crusades too far, let's deal with them on an individual and specific basis. But let's also shine the light on people who despise all social equality. They are the real problem.

I have seen SJW used on almost every conservative leaning blog that I read and none of them fall within the context of what you guys are saying. Sometimes a term gets thrown out and people think, hey, that is a pretty good descriptor of "x" and they roll with that term under their meaning.

These guys may be talking about one thing but every use of SJW that I have ever seen usually involves groups like radical feminists who want to bar things like the word "man" (see Princeton) or complain about being triggered by those they disagree with or need "safe spaces" they can run to on campus to escape any ideas that would conflict with their worldview. The University of Chicago has put out a statement about this very thing.

I do not think that the SJW phraseology is mainstreaming these guys. I would further place the argument that decades of dividing people up by grievances and catering to them specifically by their grievances leads to this type of thing. La Raza? Cool with us. Black Panther Party? Fight the good fight against whitey my brothers. White Nationalists? Now hold on there fellas, it is not right to claim superiority or specialness because of race, not in my America.

And that last sentiment is the correct sentiment. But when you spend the rest of the time saying Latinos need to do this to protect their piece of the pie and blacks need to do that to protect theirs you make the sales job of these alt right guys that much easier. The Democrats have been practicing balkanization for years. I do not agree with any of it but why is it acceptable for everyone but white people to be looking out for theirs? It all seems stupid to me because we should all be on the same team. We should not accept that any race looks out for theirs, we should demand that we all look out for ours. No matter the race.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

And that last sentiment is the correct sentiment. But when you spend the rest of the time saying Latinos need to do this to protect their piece of the pie and blacks need to do that to protect theirs you make the sales job of these alt right guys that much easier. The Democrats have been practicing balkanization for years. I do not agree with any of it but why is it acceptable for everyone but white people to be looking out for theirs? It all seems stupid to me because we should all be on the same team. We should not accept that any race looks out for theirs, we should demand that we all look out for ours. No matter the race.

Doesn't everyone deserve a piece of the pie? We've known that for a long time certain groups were pushed away from the table, or told to crowd in at the far side of the table. We know that racism has improved, but we also know racism still exists. Is it in the purview of the government to try and balance out the impacts of systemic racism? I'll admit I think it is. So of course white people have a right to look at for their own interests, but largely speaking white people control the wealth in America.

This is a classic conundrum. Months ago when I compared Mussolini to Trump I pointed out that Mussolini thought he was pro-aristocracy. What he discovered was the aristocracy didn't care too much for him, but the middle class loved him. In the middle class eyes, he was the great bulwark between them and the peasants. He was elected by a middle class afraid of slipping into the lower class (how the socialists were viewed).

I'll admit that same idea is a problem today. But how do try to make sure our peasants have a way up without scaring the middle class into a fear they are going to be turned into peasants? People are not concerned so much with how much they make, they are concerned about how much they make relative to everyone else. It's actually been experimented with, people were happier when they made less but more than their peers than when they made more but less than their peers.

I understand your point, that people are afraid and are banding out of that fear. But how do we create a system that allows people to rise up out of the peasantry without stroking fears of the middle class? It almost seems axiomatic that middle class fears will rise the more a society allows people to drift up and down?

And yes, I know that peasants isn't something we use in America on Americans, but its use is done to equate class in 2010's America with 1920's Italy.

 

[Sope Creek]

People are not concerned so much with how much they make, they are concerned about how much they make relative to everyone else.

I think you're spot-on, Marv, particularly with the above quote. This is what underpins the arguments about income/wealth distribution, and the "system is rigged" thinking. I would go further and suggest that it's also what causes people to drop out of participation in the public discourse about governmental policies and instead attack government as the governmental policy objective.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Doesn't everyone deserve a piece of the pie? We've known that for a long time certain groups were pushed away from the table, or told to crowd in at the far side of the table. We know that racism has improved, but we also know racism still exists. Is it in the purview of the government to try and balance out the impacts of systemic racism? I'll admit I think it is. So of course white people have a right to look at for their own interests, but largely speaking white people control the wealth in America.

This is a classic conundrum. Months ago when I compared Mussolini to Trump I pointed out that Mussolini thought he was pro-aristocracy. What he discovered was the aristocracy didn't care too much for him, but the middle class loved him. In the middle class eyes, he was the great bulwark between them and the peasants. He was elected by a middle class afraid of slipping into the lower class (how the socialists were viewed).

I'll admit that same idea is a problem today. But how do try to make sure our peasants have a way up without scaring the middle class into a fear they are going to be turned into peasants? People are not concerned so much with how much they make, they are concerned about how much they make relative to everyone else. It's actually been experimented with, people were happier when they made less but more than their peers than when they made more but less than their peers.

I understand your point, that people are afraid and are banding out of that fear. But how do we create a system that allows people to rise up out of the peasantry without stroking fears of the middle class? It almost seems axiomatic that middle class fears will rise the more a society allows people to drift up and down?

And yes, I know that peasants isn't something we use in America on Americans, but its use is done to equate class in 2010's America with 1920's Italy.

You jumped from a racial discussion to an economic one. I somewhat agree with you on the economic level but probably have some different ideas on how to rectify that.

My point would be that our current approach to race encourages people of similar skin color to band together in an us vs. them manner. It is encouraged in the minority community which almost begs a response from poor to lower middle class whites who share similar economic struggles without the same set asides that their similarly situated minority neighbors do.

It is like with children. When my oldest feels like I am treating him in a different and unfair manner than his siblings, he does not only lash out at me. He also lashes out at them. Our approach to racial issues causes contempt because our approach likes to pretend that only one side of the discussion has valid grievances. If we continue down this path, we drive on a path that has led to some of the most horrific things in my lifetime.

To your economic point, who has an easier road in life, Billy Bob Jr. from the hills of West Virginia or Malia Obama? Chelsea Clinton's and Jenna Bush's children or John Brown Jr. from Watts? White people did have a leg up in the past because our system of power was and is based off connections. I would argue that the racial disparity on who is connected is diminishing and will continue to diminish over time as long as we push equality of opportunity based on equality of humankind. If we continue our current path it will lead to complete racial division. (It would also be nice if there was a fair way to reduce the need for connections but we would probably disagree on what is fair.)

I just do not see how you ever hope to become a colorblind society through pushing issues and treating others differently based on color.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You jumped from a racial discussion to an economic one. I somewhat agree with you on the economic level but probably have some different ideas on how to rectify that.

My point would be that our current approach to race encourages people of similar akin color to band together in an us vs. them manner. Ithe is encouraged in the minority community which almost begs a response from poor to lower middle class whites who share similar economic struggles without the same set asides that their similarly situated minority neighbors do.

Ithe is like with children. When my oldest feels like I am treating him in a different and unfair manner than his siblings, he does. otherwise only lash out at me. He also lashes out at them. Our approach to racial issues causes contempt because our approach likes to pretend that only one side of the discussion has valid grievances. If we continue down this path, we drive on a path that has led to some of the most horrific things in my lifetime.

To your economic point, who has anot easier road in life, Billy Bob Jr. from the hills of West Virginia or Malia Obama? Chelsea Clinton's and Jenna Bush's children or John Brown Jr. from Watts? White people did have a leg up in the past because of connections. I would argue that is diminishing and will continue to diminish over time as long as we push equality of opportunity based on equality of humankind. If we continue our current path it will lead to complete division.

I just do not see how you ever hope to become a colorblind society through pushing issues and treating others differently based on color.

Tying back to the original points, we can have this debate because we accept a theory of equality. It is impossible to have this discussion with people who flat out reject equality as a goal/reality. You and I may not agree on what gets us there, but Vox believes the white race is superior. It is like Stuart said in Big Bang Theory, it is wrong to suggest that a tomato is a vegetable, it is more wrong to suggest a tomato is a suspension bridge. You and I are having the fruit/vegetable discussion. Vox is having the suspension bridge debate. I'm not sure how pushing the tomato is a fruit or vegetable forces people into the suspension bridge camp, but it does seem to. Whatever the answer is, it is not to declare the tomato a suspension bridge. That is right out.

Edited to change Stewart to Stuart.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Tying back to the original points, we can have this debate because we accept a theory of equality. It is impossible to have this discussion with people who flat out reject equality as a goal/reality. You and I may not agree on what gets us there, but Vox believes the white race is superior. It is like Stuart said in Big Bang Theory, it is wrong to suggest that a tomato is a vegetable, it is more wrong to suggest a tomato is a suspension bridge. You and I are having the fruit/vegetable discussion. Vox is having the suspension bridge debate. I'm not sure how pushing the tomato is a fruit or vegetable forces people into the suspension bridge camp, but it does seem to. Whatever the answer is, it is not to declare the tomato a suspension bridge. That is right out.

Edited to change Stewart to Stuart.

I think the alternative right guy is a nut job. I think we could more effectively make the case he is a nut job and therfore marginalize him if we stick to trying to fix the common problems we face (like the economic issues you raised) instead of arguing over who or what race is more unfairly impacted by them.

I do not want my piece of the pie at the expense of my neighbor. I want us both to have a fair opportunity at a bigger piece. We need to make that argument as opposed to saying that I got my piece unjustly or he only got his piece because I had to be held down. Both of those lines of thought divide. Those lines of thought empower the alternative right guys because you can start to make a logical argument that every race is out to get theirs at my expense so why should not I. I say remove that argument completely and idiots like that guy remain in the loser fringe where they belong.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

On the "eve" of the new WC crack down, would this not seem abrasive?

From my favorite racist, Vox Day,

Or this

I guess it's possible that one of those assholes

And there may be a few more in here somewhere. Couldn't these inflame a riot or offend?

 

[RBB89]

On the "eve" of the new WC crack down, would this not seem abrasive?



Or this



And there may be a few more in here somewhere. Couldn't these inflame a riot or offend?

Are you seriously defending those alt right morons?

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Are you seriously defending those alt right morons?

No, not at all. Questioning the new policy.

 

[IUCrazy2]

No, not at all. Questioning the new policy.

I think we are allowed to call Hitler a dick...cause, you know, he was a dick. I think the rules are more meant to keep our interactions between each other more civil.

 

[wiede]

I have seen SJW used on almost every conservative leaning blog that I read and none of them fall within the context of what you guys are saying. Sometimes a term gets thrown out and people think, hey, that is a pretty good descriptor of "x" and they roll with that term under their meaning.

These guys may be talking about one thing but every use of SJW that I have ever seen usually involves groups like radical feminists who want to bar things like the word "man" (see Princeton) or complain about being triggered by those they disagree with or need "safe spaces" they can run to on campus to escape any ideas that would conflict with their worldview. The University of Chicago has put out a statement about this very thing.

I do not think that the SJW phraseology is mainstreaming these guys. I would further place the argument that decades of dividing people up by grievances and catering to them specifically by their grievances leads to this type of thing. La Raza? Cool with us. Black Panther Party? Fight the good fight against whitey my brothers. White Nationalists? Now hold on there fellas, it is not right to claim superiority or specialness because of race, not in my America.

And that last sentiment is the correct sentiment. But when you spend the rest of the time saying Latinos need to do this to protect their piece of the pie and blacks need to do that to protect theirs you make the sales job of these alt right guys that much easier. The Democrats have been practicing balkanization for years. I do not agree with any of it but why is it acceptable for everyone but white people to be looking out for theirs? It all seems stupid to me because we should all be on the same team. We should not accept that any race looks out for theirs, we should demand that we all look out for ours. No matter the race.

Curious, because I've seen many on the right claim that the Balkanization of Amerca has been undertaken by the Democratic Party.

Can you flesh that out a little for me? I see it perhaps somewhat differently. When the pubs adopted the southern strategy and turned the south from blue to red, it obviously led to most minorities moving to the Democratic Party. When you throw in the pubs actively being against gay marriage, equal rights for gays (up until recently anyway) and rounding up folks for deportation en mass, I see it more as a reaction of those groups to those policies rather than the democrats actively trying to Balkanize them.

In other words, I see the minorities (racial, LBGTQ) as fleeing from the pubs, not as those same groups being divided and separated from the pubs.

Throw in massive tax breaks pushed by the pubs that never, ever trickled down, all while real wages have either stagnated and gone backwards, and I think it's even more of a reaction against policies/positions pushed by the pubs.

If I were a minority, the standard democratic positions would appeal to me much more than the traditional pub policies. And, don't say it's because the dems give out a bunch of free stuff either. Because the vast majority of folks that receive social program help are white- and many of them work. Hell, wal mart used to actively counsel their low wage employees in how to get this government assistance. They may still do it for all I know.

What am I missing?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

On the "eve" of the new WC crack down, would this not seem abrasive?



Or this



And there may be a few more in here somewhere. Couldn't these inflame a riot or offend?

Vox Day is both an avowed racist and an asshole. They are perfectly accurate descriptions, and they are not aimed at other posters.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Curious, because I've seen many on the right claim that the Balkanization of Amerca has been undertaken by the Democratic Party.

Can you flesh that out a little for me? I see it perhaps somewhat differently. When the pubs adopted the southern strategy and turned the south from blue to red, it obviously led to most minorities moving to the Democratic Party. When you throw in the pubs actively being against gay marriage, equal rights for gays (up until recently anyway) and rounding up folks for deportation en mass, I see it more as a reaction of those groups to those policies rather than the democrats actively trying to Balkanize them.

In other words, I see the minorities (racial, LBGTQ) as fleeing from the pubs, not as those same groups being divided and separated from the pubs.

Throw in massive tax breaks pushed by the pubs that never, ever trickled down, all while real wages have either stagnated and gone backwards, and I think it's even more of a reaction against policies/positions pushed by the pubs.

If I were a minority, the standard democratic positions would appeal to me much more than the traditional pub policies. And, don't say it's because the dems give out a bunch of free stuff either. Because the vast majority of folks that receive social program help are white- and many of them work. Hell, wal mart used to actively counsel their low wage employees in how to get this government assistance. They may still do it for all I know.

What am I missing?

I think both parties are guilty of it. I probably lay more blame on the Democrats because they are the party that I tend to not agree with and so moves and tactics they use are probadly going to stand out more to me because of my own biases.

The rest of what you argue is my point. There are a lot of whites on welfare. They are left behind. Perhaps the inefficiencies in our economy are not so much race based as the accepted narrative would suggest. Instead of focusing on white privelege or welfare queens, we should look to resolve the underlying issues. On the LGBT community and social conservatives, we can divide and hate or we can find a way to try and accommodate both sides. You cannot force acceptance but you can set up an environment where we tolerate each other and live and let live despite our differences. Pushing huge social changes in a short time invariably invites pushback. Some of the demonization of both sides creates even more hostility. Yet we have a system where pushing this narrative helps you gain and retain power.

I am saying that I think we spend too much time trying to compartmentalize and divide ourselves into interest blocks that should be hit up for votes with a specific group centric message instead of on focusing on the big issues that impact us all. Get the economy figured out and we help all people. Sit down and figure out how to let you be you and me be me instead of you must distrust and dislike me and I you because of the identity to which we belong.

I am saying that we need to figure out that Simone Biles is nothing more than a young American girl all of the time, not just in the Olympics or that we are all on the same team outside of just tragedies. Like a family we are good at circling the wagons when our competitive juices are up and when we are facing tragedies. We need to learn how to do that all the time. I do not believe that can happen as long as we continue to put ourselves into little competing groups and have a system that seeks to exploit those groups fears against each other. We all lose when that happens.

 

[MrBing]

Rock and I have both mentioned the alt-right in recent threads, and lo and behold, it is now in the news. A few posters here seem eager to latch on to this movement. Before you do, you need to understand exactly what it is. From my favorite racist, Vox Day, the man Milo Yannapolous tagged as an "alt-right figurehead," here is what the alt-right stands for (emphases mine):

In the interest of developing a core Alt Right philosophy upon which others can build.​

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.​

You might immediately recognize that it is no coincidence that #14 on the list is a direct quotation of the Fourteen Words, a white nationalist slogan.

Put simply, the alt-right is just a slightly more polite version of neo-Nazism. That's it. Whether you are borrowing their ideas (e.g., the inherent inequality of the races) or their buzzwords (e.g., "SJW," "cuckservative"), you are aligning yourself with a movement that is not conservative or "right" in any sense of the terms. It is purely white supremacy. Nothing more.

Before you get into bed with someone, know who they are.

EDIT: One added quote from the link, to really send the message home:

The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.
​

(Also edited for formatting.)

Sound racist to me!

I do have something to say about the words social justice warrior. I didn't know until I read it here that I should consider that offensive or racist or anything like that. I've heard it from conservative and liberal friends several times and I've used it a few times myself usually as a joke thing. Based on my experience I don't think many people using this have any racist or sexist motives behind it. Maybe people that started using it had racist or sexist attitudes but I think it's been mainstreamed now. I don't think I'm going to add it to the things I get offended about.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sound racist to me!

I do have something to say about the words social justice warrior. I didn't know until I read it here that I should consider that offensive or racist or anything like that. I've heard it from conservative and liberal friends several times and I've used it a few times myself usually as a joke thing. Based on my experience I don't think many people using this have any racist or sexist motives behind it. Maybe people that started using it had racist or sexist attitudes but I think it's been mainstreamed now. I don't think I'm going to add it to the things I get offended about.

It has been mainstreamed, but it's important to understand who mainstreamed it. It's still a dog whistle phrase for these people.

The main reason you should be offended by its use, however, is that it's a lazy weasel word that allows people to dismiss others without putting in the effort to describe what is wrong with their opinions. Someone who is making a valid argument simply doesn't need the phrase SJW.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It has been mainstreamed, but it's important to understand who mainstreamed it. It's still a dog whistle phrase for these people.

The main reason you should be offended by its use, however, is that it's a lazy weasel word that allows people to dismiss others without putting in the effort to describe what is wrong with their opinions. Someone who is making a valid argument simply doesn't need the phrase SJW.

The debate on the term reminds of my complaint about "PC". I am sure there are "PC" things I agree with conservatives on. But not every complaint is PC. I am sure people in the 1960s took the stoppage of the N word as PC, but today I don't think we think of that as an example. Heck, I recall someone using the phrase "short bus" on this board and being taken to task by liberals and conservatives. Not everything offensive deserves protection. But at the same point, I am as frustrated as anyone that some won't allow Mockingbird or Huck Finn to be read because of the N word. We have to be able to differentiate and make these case-by-case decisions.

So this also holds true for "SJW". Don't broadly characterize such behavior. If someone is making a point one finds wrong on social justice, specifically tell us what the point is and why. Maybe others of us agree. But just blindly calling people "SJW" doesn't allow for us to come to any consensus on what specific actions are reasonable and what are not.

And it goes to many other issues. We've often heard conservatives complain about being called racist. I get that, and they have a point. Rather the argument should be is there a specific action or wording that is consistent with racism. Then we can get to the real root of the problem. Like the 8th Air Force in WWII, bombing runs from 20,000 feet are seldom accurate and less helpful than one might think.

 

[MrBing]

It has been mainstreamed, but it's important to understand who mainstreamed it. It's still a dog whistle phrase for these people.

The main reason you should be offended by its use, however, is that it's a lazy weasel word that allows people to dismiss others without putting in the effort to describe what is wrong with their opinions. Someone who is making a valid argument simply doesn't need the phrase SJW.

Who can keep up on all the things that are supposed to offend us? I honestly can't and I had no idea that SJW was supposed to offend me. I know that when my friends use it that they have no intention of offending me. I'm listen to what they say and if they include SJW but nothing else they say is offensive than I'm not going to be offended. Really I doubt very many people that use SJW have any clue about the origins of the phrase so why should I take offense at them when they use it?

 

[Rockfish1]

Who can keep up on all the things that are supposed to offend us? I honestly can't and I had no idea that SJW was supposed to offend me. I know that when my friends use it that they have no intention of offending me. I'm listen to what they say and if they include SJW but nothing else they say is offensive than I'm not going to be offended. Really I doubt very many people that use SJW have any clue about the origins of the phrase so why should I take offense at them when they use it?

Goat can obviously speak for himself, but I think he's trying to raise awareness about where the SJW stuff is coming from, and not to drive outrage against those who don't know any better. The alt-right people are genuinely repellent, and that's where SJW comes from.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Who can keep up on all the things that are supposed to offend us? I honestly can't and I had no idea that SJW was supposed to offend me. I know that when my friends use it that they have no intention of offending me. I'm listen to what they say and if they include SJW but nothing else they say is offensive than I'm not going to be offended. Really I doubt very many people that use SJW have any clue about the origins of the phrase so why should I take offense at them when they use it?

See what Marv said. He said it better than me. Any pejorative label that dismisses people broadly instead of engaging them on the issues should e avoided.

This thread wasn't even suppose to be about this. It's about understanding who the alt-right really is. It's not about mainstreaming coded terms like "SJW." It's about the potential to mainstream white supremacy.

 

[iuwclurker1]

The term Social Justice Warrior uses a belligerent, war metaphor: a warrior. Hillary and other politicians are continually saying they will "fight" for this and that. Again, a violence-based metaphor. Personally, I'm sick of hearing violence used as a metaphor. If there's anything that has seeped into our consciousness, drip by drip, it's such metaphors. When was the last time you heard a politician say he'd fight for something and you imagined him putting up his dukes? Maybe never. It sneaks right past you.

To me that's the real issue. Why did the alt right adopt (or create?) social justice warrior? Because the alt right wants to associate such people with violence. Any time you use such metaphors, you're advocating violence, at least on some level. (Cue pushback on that one.)

 

[Ladoga]

Doesn't everyone deserve a piece of the pie? We've known that for a long time certain groups were pushed away from the table, or told to crowd in at the far side of the table. We know that racism has improved, but we also know racism still exists. Is it in the purview of the government to try and balance out the impacts of systemic racism? I'll admit I think it is. So of course white people have a right to look at for their own interests, but largely speaking white people control the wealth in America.

This is a classic conundrum. Months ago when I compared Mussolini to Trump I pointed out that Mussolini thought he was pro-aristocracy. What he discovered was the aristocracy didn't care too much for him, but the middle class loved him. In the middle class eyes, he was the great bulwark between them and the peasants. He was elected by a middle class afraid of slipping into the lower class (how the socialists were viewed).

I'll admit that same idea is a problem today. But how do try to make sure our peasants have a way up without scaring the middle class into a fear they are going to be turned into peasants? People are not concerned so much with how much they make, they are concerned about how much they make relative to everyone else. It's actually been experimented with, people were happier when they made less but more than their peers than when they made more but less than their peers.

I understand your point, that people are afraid and are banding out of that fear. But how do we create a system that allows people to rise up out of the peasantry without stroking fears of the middle class? It almost seems axiomatic that middle class fears will rise the more a society allows people to drift up and down?

And yes, I know that peasants isn't something we use in America on Americans, but its use is done to equate class in 2010's America with 1920's Italy.

Doesn't everyone deserve a piece of the pie? No, my continuing respect for you not withstanding, no one "deserves" any outcome - nor a piece of the pie. They have a right to the God given, Constitutionally protected liberty that they can use to earn a piece of the pie.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Doesn't everyone deserve a piece of the pie? No, my continuing respect for you not withstanding, no one "deserves" any outcome - nor a piece of the pie. They have a right to the God given, Constitutionally protected liberty that they can use to earn a piece of the pie.

It doesn't matter how you phrase it. The point is, the movement that calls itself alt-right is dedicated to the concept that the American pie should be generally reserved for white Christians, and any other groups here should be happy with whatever crumbs the white Christians allow them to have. It's a white supremacist movement, pure and simple, and many genuine conservatives are enabling their nonsense because they are supporting Trump and opposing liberals. It's an unholy alliance that you should want no part of.

 

[Rockfish1]

Trump's apologists have long denied that white racial resentment has anything to do with Trump's appeal. Instead, they've insisted, it's all about economic insecurity. That has never made sense, because Trump's core support is overwhelmingly white and not peculiarly distressed economically. Numerous studies show that the best predictor for Trump's support is white racial resentment.

Any doubt should have vanished when Trump named Breitbart's Steve Bannon as his campaign's chief executive. Under Bannon's leadership, Breitbart has proudly mainstreamed racist alt-right themes while enthusiastically supporting Trump. Alt-right racists couldn't be happier.

Yeah, Trump is trying to persuade overwhelmingly white audiences that he isn't really a racist -- in appeals that deeply offend nonwhite people -- but absolutely nothing has changed, notwithstanding his comical efforts to walk back his own repellent statements about the undocumented. Trump is a white identity candidate. This is what white identity politics looks like.

Trump is mainstreaming repellent racial attitudes.

 

[hoot1]

Is keeping illegals from crossing our borders, racist? Is asking Black Americans whether Democratic politicians have delivered on promises to make life better for them, racist?

I don't think these remarks are racist, but I can fully understand why Hispanics and Black Americans will not vote for this new style GOP candidate.

Hispanics don't like their brothers being called illegals, rapists, and criminals. Blacks don't like to be called dumb because of the people they elect.

I can also understand why Trump may think Black and Hispanic votes are an uphill battle, so why not take stands which appeal to a segment of the White voters. A segment which may turn out to be surprisingly large.

Bottom line is, none of this tells us what a Donald Trump would do if elected.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Is keeping illegals from crossing our borders, racist? Is asking Black Americans whether Democratic politicians have delivered on promises to make life better for them, racist?

I don't think these remarks are racist, but I can fully understand why Hispanics and Black Americans will not vote for this new style GOP candidate.

Hispanics don't like their brothers being called illegals, rapists, and criminals. Blacks don't like to be called dumb because of the people they elect.

I can also understand why Trump may think Black and Hispanic votes are an uphill battle, so why not take stands which appeal to a segment of the White voters. A segment which may turn out to be surprisingly large.

Bottom line is, none of this tells us what a Donald Trump would do if elected.

That's because this thread isn't about what Donald Trump would do if elected. It's about who the alt-right really is. The only reason Trump even comes up in the discussion is that Trump and his supporters seem perfectly willing to ally themselves with the alt-right movement, which, again, is basically a neo-Nazi movement. They are even starting to absorb some of the alt-right's language and ideas. This is extremely scary. True conservatives should be appalled that the white nationalism infection is spreading so far and so easily.

 

[Rockfish1]

Is keeping illegals from crossing our borders, racist? Is asking Black Americans whether Democratic politicians have delivered on promises to make life better for them, racist?

I don't think these remarks are racist, but I can fully understand why Hispanics and Black Americans will not vote for this new style GOP candidate.

Hispanics don't like their brothers being called illegals, rapists, and criminals. Blacks don't like to be called dumb because of the people they elect.

I can also understand why Trump may think Black and Hispanic votes are an uphill battle, so why not take stands which appeal to a segment of the White voters. A segment which may turn out to be surprisingly large.

Bottom line is, none of this tells us what a Donald Trump would do if elected.

Bottom line is, your post has nothing to do with the subject of this thread -- except to the extent that it papers over the open and notorious racism of the alt-right, which Trump is mainstreaming. There is no centristy-centrist middle ground in a discussion about the alt-right movement.

 

[Ladoga]

It doesn't matter how you phrase it. The point is, the movement that calls itself alt-right is dedicated to the concept that the American pie should be generally reserved for white Christians, and any other groups here should be happy with whatever crumbs the white Christians allow them to have. It's a white supremacist movement, pure and simple, and many genuine conservatives are enabling their nonsense because they are supporting Trump and opposing liberals. It's an unholy alliance that you should want no part of.

Until alt right was mentioned here, I had never heard the phrase. Help me out here. What does that mean and who are its principoe spokespersons?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Until alt right was mentioned here, I had never heard the phrase. Help me out here. What does that mean and who are its principoe spokespersons?

I find it hard to believe that someone so heavily involved in conservative politics would to this point be unaware with the alt-right, since it represents such an existential threat to the traditional conservative movement.

They are white Christian nationalists who are mostly young, mostly male, and extremely tech-savvy. They hate conservatives, but they hate liberals even more, because they associate liberals with multiculturalism, and they believe a true conservatism would, by its very nature, be white nationalistic. Hence the name: they are offering themselves as an alternative to the modern right.

They have gradually taken over much of the right-wing blogosphere, including Breitbart. They think of everything in racial terms. They don't oppose immigration because of jobs. They oppose immigration because they don't want their daughters sleeping with Mexicans. Their primary concern is a revival of Euro-centric, white, Christian culture in America, and the dominance of those people and that culture over every other, and they are almost exclusively rabid supporters of Trump, because they believe he is one of them, that the minute he gets elected, he'll stop with the nice guy act and grow a little Charlie Chaplin mustache, and get American back to being white again.

 

[Rockfish1]

I find it hard to believe that someone so heavily involved in conservative politics would to this point be unaware with the alt-right, since it represents such an existential threat to the traditional conservative movement.

They are white Christian nationalists who are mostly young, mostly male, and extremely tech-savvy. They hate conservatives, but they hate liberals even more, because they associate liberals with multiculturalism, and they believe a true conservatism would, by its very nature, be white nationalistic. Hence the name: they are offering themselves as an alternative to the modern right.

They have gradually taken over much of the right-wing blogosphere, including Breitbart. They think of everything in racial terms. They don't oppose immigration because of jobs. They oppose immigration because they don't want their daughters sleeping with Mexicans. Their primary concern is a revival of Euro-centric, white, Christian culture in America, and the dominance of those people and that culture over every other, and they are almost exclusively rabid supporters of Trump, because they believe he is one of them, that the minute he gets elected, he'll stop with the nice guy act and grow a little Charlie Chaplin mustache, and get American back to being white again.

Lots of people may learn more about the alt-right themes at the heart of Trump's reprehensible campaign, because Hillary Clinton made that her central theme today. I hope the media takes note:

Why did she do this? The most popular explanation is that she was giving "permission" for moderate Republicans to stay home in November. Donald Trump, she said, isn't a traditional Republican. He's a hate-monger who's hijacked the party as a vehicle for his loathsome brand of racism and xenophobia. Even if you're a loyal Republican, you don't have to support that.

But I'll propose a different explanation: she was giving the press permission to talk about Donald Trump's racism. So far, they've tiptoed around it. But once the candidate herself calls it out, it invites a thousand think pieces about Breitbart, the alt-right, the GOP's history of tolerating bigotry, Trump's troubling background, and dozens of other related topics. Surrogates can blather all they want about this, but it doesn't truly become a mainstream subject until the actual candidate for president makes it one.

This is part of the agenda-setting power that presidential candidates have. Donald Trump has used it endlessly, and now Hillary Clinton is using it too. Trump has made his bed, and Hillary is making sure he has to lie in it.
​

With any luck, those who've remained ignorant of all this may find themselves drinking from a fire hose.

 

[twenty02]

Until alt right was mentioned here, I had never heard the phrase. Help me out here. What does that mean and who are its principoe spokespersons?

Here you go.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-beginners-guide-000000002.html

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here you go.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-beginners-guide-000000002.html

I thought this bit was interesting:

Asked by a reporter at the Republican National Convention about the possibility that some of Trump’s policy proposals, such as banning Muslims from entering the country or abolishing birthright citizenship, might be unconstitutional, Spencer replied, “Who cares? The whole point is that we’ve got to survive.”


“Whether something is constitutionally legal I could give a s*** to be honest. Survival is more important than law,” he continued, adding, “power is what matters.”​

 

[twenty02]

I thought this bit was interesting:

Asked by a reporter at the Republican National Convention about the possibility that some of Trump’s policy proposals, such as banning Muslims from entering the country or abolishing birthright citizenship, might be unconstitutional, Spencer replied, “Who cares? The whole point is that we’ve got to survive.”


“Whether something is constitutionally legal I could give a s*** to be honest. Survival is more important than law,” he continued, adding, “power is what matters.”​

Interesting, but not the least bit surprising.

Trump himself has absolutely no use or even a generic understating of the constitution. I'm sure most of these people don't either.

 

[MrBing]

Goat can obviously speak for himself, but I think he's trying to raise awareness about where the SJW stuff is coming from, and not to drive outrage against those who don't know any better. The alt-right people are genuinely repellent, and that's where SJW comes from.

Thanks. I never heard of alt-right before I read it here either. I learn a lot from this place.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Thanks. I never heard of alt-right before I read it here either. I learn a lot from this place.

I've just been reading it since Trump appointed his new campaign manager.

 

[cosmickid]

Until alt right was mentioned here, I had never heard the phrase. Help me out here. What does that mean and who are its principoe spokespersons?

Here's a bit of a primer. https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/...ovement-now-leading-conservative-media/212643

We've had threads on here before analyzing some of the terminology,such as "cuckservative" and "white genocide" so it's a little strange that you've missed it up till now.The most infamous examples are probably Timothy Mcveigh and
Anders Breivik (the Norwegian mass murderer) both of whom drew inspiration from novels like "The Turner Diaries" and Victoria.The theme of both novels is essentially
"race war"...

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/medi...diaries-how-a-2011-norwegian-massacre-echoes/