"Alt-Right": A Movement? An Ideology? An Ethnicity? WHAT is it?

a reply to: Navieko

Of course it is.

ETA: Although it is hard to understand how anyone can ignore or simply not see Trumps blatant appeal to racists and white supremacists.

a reply to: Kali74
Phew... okay that's good to know because for a minute there I was a bit scared I'd been lumped into a room full of racists, bigots and uneducated rednecks.

So then my next question:

What percentage of the populace (your best guess) that would rather see Trump elected over Hillary, are NOT in the "Alt-Right" category?

a reply to: Kali74

Well, here's the long and the short of it - I see you have read the thread, and presume you have read the alt-right's self description as posted in various links in the thread, which you have referred me to. Given those two criteria, I'm not entirely sure what needs further explaining. The posts you requested do not align with the self-description of the alt-right, and are rather demeaning and disparaging in their characterizations, trying to change and re-invent the alt-right self description into something more "attackable". It's nothing new in political dialogue.

While I believe we DO speak the same language, I think the semantics or jargon that we are used to is probably very different, which may be lending entirely different shades of color to the same exact words in that language.

The charge of "racism" has been so thoroughly abused and misapplied that it no longer carries any meaning to me. It has been "watered down" to the point that I no longer care, and tend to just filter it out, which is a shame. it once had meaning to me, but is now just thrown around when there is nothing else to tar an individual with. It no longer sticks the way it once did.

Given that, I'll tell you instead that I am thoroughly pro-nationalist, and just as thoroughly anti-globalist. Maybe folks could tar their opposition with that instead? The problem is that my nation is composed of multiple races, so that the charge of "racism" just doesn't have the same "oomph" as it would have otherwise. I'm also fiercely individualistic, which these days puts me in direct opposition to liberals, which is also a sad thing - "liberal" once had connotations of "liberty", which it has since lost in the mad dash to promote conformity to "political correctness" and totalitarian government principles. Someone else, a stranger, deciding how big my drink can be is nothing short of totalitarian, and that's just one minor example of the totalitarian tilt of the modern liberals.

What's wrong with letting folks just be themselves, and define who they are? It seems to be wrong these days because it might offend or upset someone else. Piss on that. If one wants to promote "diversity", it would seem logical that they allow folks to be as diverse as they want - but instead, they promote conformity under the heading of "political correctness" and call it, paradoxically, diversity.

I'm a man, not an ant to live in a boring hive of sameness. I don't need some jackass who fancies himself to be at the top of the heap to dictate what i have to buy from a private corporation, or indeed dictate that I even have to buy it at all (think "Obamacare" here). When folks start dictating to other folks, you know what they call them?

Dictators.


We've had enough of it, "alt-right" or not.

a reply to: Navieko

I guess those that are loyal to the Republican Party or those that refuse/can't to see that Trump himself is racist and cannot treat all Americans fairly.

Alt-Right is blatant and willful.

a reply to: Kali74
My fault for not phrasing the question better, but I'd actually meant to ask what is the percentage (best guess of course) of supporters that can't be considered "Alt-Right" but still would rather see Trump get elected over Hillary.

But I'm still glad you answered the way you did because it brings up another good question:

Can you think of any other reasons why someone who can't be categorized as "Alt-Right", but also is not someone "loyal to the Republican Party", AND ALSO someone who isn't necessarily oblivious to the possibility of Trump pandering/being an appealing choice to those that ARE categorized as part of the "Alt-Right' -- might still prefer to see Trump elected over Hillary?

a reply to: nenothtu

Well, the liberals and the neocons are the same thing

No. Nope! False. I totally disagree.

It's so mind-boggling to see PC Overkill (SJW) types, people whom clearly subscribe to CRT/PS, which is an entirely racist / bigoted ideological doctrine (rivaled in the US only by NN/KKK)... it's mind boggling to see them make their main bulk of their anti-Trump platform all about painting Trump as a RACIST. I suppose categorically they ARE the experts, which is kind of funny as it can be argued they should be voting for him if he truly is what they claim, but the sheer hypocrisy of it is like nothing I've ever observed before.



Carry on!

a reply to: nenothtu

The first post you linked, I see no issue with what-so-ever. That is exactly how Alt-Right identifies.

The second post is humor.

The third, also some descriptors alt-right uses for themselves... this thread is also in the Mud-Pit, some of us find a little mud slinging fun.

The charge of "racism" has been so thoroughly abused and misapplied

That's highly debatable. Some people can't stand to talk about actual instances of racism or when they get called out on their own and never realized before that they were being racist... they can't handle it. But yes there are those who use the term too easily. To me though I guess I see it as one the absolute worst offenses a human can make so I never become apathetic to it. Apathy to me is consent.

I've seen and heard more than my fair share of casual racism amongst my own because racists always think their group thinks the same as them. It is repulsive to me and it is still a huge problem. I can't take anyone seriously if they deny Trump is a racist or that a large number of his supporters are, especially if the most vocal among them are openly white supremacists. While Alt-Right existed before this election season (2008 is when they popped up IIRC, odd that huh?) they have forcefully stepped into the mainstream now and that's why this is becoming an increasingly discussed topic.

I'm also fiercely individualistic, which these days puts me in direct opposition to liberals, which is also a sad thing - "liberal" once had connotations of "liberty"

This is absolutely my most snarly issue with so many right wingers of every degree. You complain and complain about how liberals label, condemn yadda, yadda and then turn right around and do the same damn thing. FFS, why? Get your paint brush off my liberal friends, thanks.

What's wrong with letting folks just be themselves, and define who they are?

Nothing, why do you think there is? Because people have opinions? Don't you? You might offend me if our paths crossed, you might not. Either way, so what? So what if you offend me or I offend you? Is there an attack going to happen because of it? Are the cops going to come and arrest the most offensive?

If one wants to promote "diversity", it would seem logical that they allow folks to be as diverse as they want - but instead, they promote conformity under the heading of "political correctness" and call it, paradoxically, diversity.

It's also not diversity if some are grossed out by or offensive toward "icky others" now is it?

a reply to: Navieko

Not in any kind of way that makes sense to me. I don't want either of them as President so I'm not voting for either of them.

a reply to: Kali74

Right. So if I was to say my reason for preferring to see Trump elected over Hillary was because:

The biggest factor for me when choosing the candidate is corruption. Who is least likely to be swayed/manipulated/bought into doing something other than that best for it's citizens? I believe corruption in politics to be at the root cause for whatever it is gone wrong with the Country -- whatever that may be.

Now while I agree that neither Trump or Hillary are by any stretch of the imagination the best choices - the fact is it'll in all likelihood be one of those two to become the next President. And the fact is -- depending on your priorities -- one of them will be a better choice to lead the nation over the next 4-8 years than the other.

With the eradication of corruption from politics being my number one priority (which you'll agree isn't the worst of priorities?) -- surely you can see the sense/reason for me (and others like me) preferring to see Trump elected over Hillary? After all no one can honestly deny the extent to Hillary's corruption over the last few decades. Each passing day it becomes harder and harder for even her most hardcore of supporters to defend. And yet still, we have so many like yourself perplexed as to how there could be people that would rather see Trump elected over Hillary - and not be racist/bigoted/uneducated or simply loyal to the Republican Party.

You say you're against Hillary as well, but pretty certain you aren't putting in anywhere near as much effort attacking her and her supporters. So I do question your priorities and whether you've really put much thought/research into your decisions -- and whether perhaps you've been too easily swayed by the media onslaught and mass hysteria generated by those unwilling to try an option that may actually mean real change.

In any case - you've now been given a legitimate reason for why someone who cannot be so easily categorized/labeled would prefer to see Trump elected over Hillary. You don't have to agree with the reason -- but please don't be so quick to lump people into a category that would only serve the purpose of those who seek to divide and conquer, simply because you can't think of anything else. Rather than jump to conclusions and start slinging mud -- maybe try and seek some answers and actually have constructive dialogue so that perhaps both sides may become better informed and the divide can be lessened.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: nenothtu

Well, the liberals and the neocons are the same thing

No. Nope! False. I totally disagree.

I'm on my way out the door going to work now, and am willing to discuss it further when I get back home, but for now I'll just leave the thought that in that same post I predicted that reaction from some. It's not an "I told you so" so much as it is food for thought over the day, trying to imagine why i would say that, given the reasons I gave for making the prediction against the reality on the ground of what is actually happening.

See ya in around 8 hours or so!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
It's so mind-boggling to see PC Overkill (SJW) types, people whom clearly subscribe to CRT/PS, which is an entirely racist / bigoted ideological doctrine (rivaled in the US only by NN/KKK)... it's mind boggling to see them make their main bulk of their anti-Trump platform all about painting Trump as a RACIST. I suppose categorically they ARE the experts, which is kind of funny as it can be argued they should be voting for him if he truly is what they claim, but the sheer hypocrisy of it is like nothing I've ever observed before.

Carry on!

Do you ever express yourself without using judgmental far right buzzwords? It is hilarious to see you condemning people for racism in racist language. For example, what does SJW mean? CRT/PS? NN/KKK? You seem to be so accustomed to alt-right lingo that you can no longer communicate with people outside the movement!

a reply to: Navieko

I guess you could say that while I am anti-Hillary, I'm an avid anti-Trumpist. I don't find Trump less corrupt than Hillary at all and am under no obligation to give an equal amount of negative postings to both, echo chambers bore me... I like to argue.

originally posted by: DJW001
Do you ever express yourself without using judgmental far right buzzwords? It is hilarious to see you condemning people for racism in racist language. For example, what does SJW mean? CRT/PS? NN/KKK? You seem to be so accustomed to alt-right lingo that you can no longer communicate with people outside the movement!

Haven't you been following along? You seem so accustomed to my materials and yet you act like you don't know what those acronyms stand for, or how and why I wield them??

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How I Define SJW:

Social Justice Warriors are Social Justice Activists turned into hate fueled extremists due to adopting Critical Race Theory / Progressive Stack (CRT/PS) concepts of Political Correctness + Victim Mentality deeply into their worldview / ideology. These types tend to obsess over CRT/PS. Their notions of reality tend to be very warped due to CRT/PS, such as how they think that if they're on the side of CRT/PS that they are therefore incapable of being a racist / sexist / etc bigot. They tend to be offended by / defend any and all sorts of criticisms of PC / SJW / BLM and such related major talking points, even when mass murder is involved. They tend to "troll" threads (derail them, ad hominem attack their opponents, etc). Not all SJW's are proper "Special Snowflakes" I doubt, but this new "Special Snowflake Generation" we're seeing unfold has them erupting out into the social scene en masse, as they often tend to identify with the "Oppression Scale" type concepts that CRT/PS is all about. Instead of debate policy issues, they tend to try to keep everything centered on Identity Politics, which is interesting as most of them are white people driven by White Guilt. In this way they tend to be walking cliches of "misery loves company", as projecting their guilt and bigotry and self-loathing onto others is like their daily bread & butter.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the Progressive Stack (PS) are the core doctrine of PC Extremism (where evangelists of such are "SJW's"). If somehow you didn't know this being a well known ATS practitioner of such PC zealotry, I talk about it all the time:

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
In short, it's this Political Correctness (PC) Culture taken to extremes, where a lot of this new SJW brand found it's roots in radical Feminist theories.

In short, the basic tenets of it derive from "Critical Race Theory" and its gender & sexuality based extension called the "Progessive Stack". Those 2 concepts (which I will refer to as "CRT/PS"), along with the profoundly obtuse sort of reasonings behind them, and the whole ordeal underpinning how all of this SJW extremism came about lately, are well beyond the scope of this presentation. But it should be fair to say it's all about this intense sort of reasoning where everybody besides straight white males (SWM) are deeply oppressed by... straight white males (SWM).

Even if a SWM isn't racist, prejudiced or bigoted, the logic follows that we still are so anyways merely for being SWM, is basically the narrative you'll often find when observing the arguments of these folks. This is based on what they call the "Patriarchy" (which you are a part of inherently if you are SWM no matter what).
The Hypocrites Iron Fist - The PC Movement in light of the War on Drugs

And then the buzzwords used by folks running wild throwing this 'new' "Alt-Right" are "white supremacists", which traditionally are known by all as the message of NeoNazi's (NN) and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). NN/KKK also being favorite buzzword's for SJW's to use, especially by the BLM branch of this whole SJW trend. Of course anybody can see that by invoking "white supremacists" Hillary and her droves of subversive drones are calling association to Trump etc they are labeling such with NN/KKK.

What's funny about your accusation of me being an alt-right jingoist is this summer when first getting back into the debate game after years absence, and encountering this whole wild world of PC/SJW mania for the first time, I pieced together my framework for what all this stuff was just, for how to understand this whole 'SJW Personality Type' by observing SJW's in practice, and various media's critiquing the stuff, while reflecting what I was taking in with all my previous knowledge & wisdom. It didn't take me but a week at poking around at it to become clear this is some new weird form of leftist's authoritarianism. Of course a proper lesson in authoritarianism would be dripping with tales of the original Nazi's, which apparently either SJW's have never studied, or that was their guidebook for their movement.

As such, it wasn't too long before I pieced together the 'Iron Fist' piece linked above (that EPIC piece the ATS SJW's keep avoid addressing), and in that process on my own accord I came up with the "Nu-Nazi" term, as SJW extremism is the spiritual polar opposite to Neo-Nazism (which I covered in depth in the piece I keep mentioning).

The core foundational example of my whole Nu-Nazi's argument was all the many methods and rationalizations PC people run wild with in their obsession with their manipulations of the English language and the directly related practices of restricting peoples free speech & censorship pf their critics.

To you and Hillary, Alex Jones is an "alt-right" "racist" because he's made it his business to expose the nefarious SJW idea's & practices, and Hillary's corruption etc. Me, about as much an outsider as could even be possible, my mostly academic approach to breaking down the whole PC Extremisim Framework, and numerous harshcriticisms that has me being labeled around here by the usual SJW suspects as being "racist" in general, and now all the sudden an 'Alt-Right Jingoist' (paraphrasing) in particular.

In regards to what happened in here with you, why I pulled the 'Nazi'Esque' card was several fold, starting with how your Is it time to make Infowars non grata? thread has the most stunning example of anti-free speech rationalizations I can recall ever seeing. Then of course the tedious nature of the content, which then you couldn't help yourself but spill over into here (badgering me about it like a pest no less), in an entirely self-deluded display of 'I wasn't trying to censor them' mentality while trying to continue your push to END people's freedom to link infowars materials into here (which is CENSORSHIP). Oddly enough, you persisted as if somehow convincing me that censoring them = good would somehow get you results. Perhaps the funniest part is you keep acting like you're doing the owners of ATS a favor to save them their bandwidth, as if links and video embeds are the costliest bane to the forums servers (which would actually be the routine hacker attacks on the forum server this summer, which have to be the all time record high for this site, which surely is from pro-Hillary/SJW forces.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The only time I have ever seen the abbreviation SJW is in the personals when a Straight Jewish Woman is looking for companionship. I'm sorry if you consider me to be a well known practitioner of Political Correctness; like Trump, I just say what I think. As for racial theory, which you seem to be fascinated with, I have little interest.

Concerning the rest of your rant, I think you need to learn several lessons:

1. Censorship is practiced by governments. Private media can pick and choose who and what may use their soapbox.

2. People who use social media to drive web traffic to their sites can fairly be asked to pay advertising rates.

3. The First Corollary to Godwin's Law is: "Once a comparison to Hitler or Nazism is made in an online forum, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."

en.wikipedia.org...

4. It is better to say too little and be thought a fool, than to say too much and be proven one.

Edit To Add: I just checked out Alex Jones' site. I don't see any columns written by members of Black Lives Matters. Is that censorship? Or is he exercising his right to control content on his privately owned and operated site?

a reply to: DJW001

Aw snap! You just blew me and me pages and pages of data and arguments right out of the water with pure deflective hyperbole. It's going to take 6 weeks for my ego to recover. I suspect you'll be poppin' champagne bottles all night over there in that office now...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I saw pages and pages of opinions, unsupported by data. Remember, you were the one who dragged my infowars thread into this one. Bottom line: There is an alt-right, and they are proud of their identity. Alex Jones speaks for many of them.

Freedom of speech means that you are free to say racist things if you want, and others can call you a racist in response.

ETA:

As such, it wasn't too long before I pieced together the 'Iron Fist' piece linked above (that EPIC piece the ATS SJW's keep avoid addressing), and in that process on my own accord I came up with the "Nu-Nazi" term, as SJW extremism is the spiritual polar opposite to Neo-Nazism (which I covered in depth in the piece I keep mentioning).

Isn't this just like starting a thread titled: "White folks are all angry young black men" and expecting anyone to participate?

a reply to: DJW001

What planet are you living on?? My WOD piece most likely is the most heavily data enriched piece EVER in ATS. Photos, graphs, citations out the wazoo, screen caps of SJW's hate speeches, articles, statistics, historical examples, videos, etc, etc.

I only even mentioned your stupid thread because somebody insinuated something like 'next they'll try to ban them'. I only meant to mention it in passing and you badgered the thread for how many pages now?

Thanks for all the bumps yo!

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: nenothtu

The first post you linked, I see no issue with what-so-ever. That is exactly how Alt-Right identifies.

Really? They self-identify as "a movement of people that share certain ideologies. Those ideologies being, white supremacy, white nationalism, anti-feminist, anti-minorities, and trolling."? I entirely missed the white supremacist, white nationalism, and anti-minority self-descriptors. Perhaps you could point out to me where they make those identifications themselves, rather than simply being tarred with those brushes by others.

The second post is humor.

That was humor? If so, it was poorly constructed and poorly executed. What was the punch line?

The third, also some descriptors alt-right uses for themselves... this thread is also in the Mud-Pit, some of us find a little mud slinging fun.

Oh, I understand that there are some who enjoy a bit of mud-slinging. That's not a problem. the problem arises when folks start trying to convince others that the mud in question is the way a particular group identifies itself. It's not - it's mud applied by the opposition in an attempt to MASK how the group identifies itself. With that in mind, I invite you to point out where the alt-right identifies ITSELF with such descriptors as "racist", "misogynist", "Poor listening skills", "Limited education and/or personality disorder ", and "a subspecie of American males".

That's highly debatable. Some people can't stand to talk about actual instances of racism or when they get called out on their own and never realized before that they were being racist... they can't handle it. But yes there are those who use the term too easily. To me though I guess I see it as one the absolute worst offenses a human can make so I never become apathetic to it. Apathy to me is consent.

I can't argue with that, as it's a subjective explanation of how you see things, which goes back to my stance that you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone. I can think of a lot worse offenses than merely having an opinion about "the other", whatever the other might be.

People can be pretty tribal, and see the world as "us" and "not us". It's certain the KKK does that, but folks hate to realize that nearly every human in-group does the same thing. Republicans do it, Democrats do it, Libertarians do it, Methodists do it, Catholics do it, Atheists do it - everyone does it to some extent. This very thread is a prime example, where there are at least two in-groups of "us", gleefully slinging mud at the "not us" in-group in opposition to it.

For me, the problem comes to the fore when one group employs non-sequiturs in place of productive thought in an effort to a) shut down their opposition via shaming and 2) mask the fact that they really have no logical response, and therefore must resort to an illogical retort.

Charges of "racism" - a social concern - in political debate, simply for the sake of shutting down that debate and "winning" by default, falls squarely under that heading for me. It's been so overused and abused as to no longer have any real meaning to me.

Perhaps you are familiar with the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

I've seen and heard more than my fair share of casual racism amongst my own because racists always think their group thinks the same as them. It is repulsive to me and it is still a huge problem. I can't take anyone seriously if they deny Trump is a racist or that a large number of his supporters are, especially if the most vocal among them are openly white supremacists. While Alt-Right existed before this election season (2008 is when they popped up IIRC, odd that huh?) they have forcefully stepped into the mainstream now and that's why this is becoming an increasingly discussed topic.

I cannot deny that Trump is a racist, because I do not know the man personally - therefore I'm not privy to his private thoughts. What I can say is that I've not yet encountered any racist remarks he has made that would lead me to believe he is. Perhaps you can point some of those remarks out to me, ones that lead you to believe he is a racist, so that I can be better informed in the matter. Who knows - it's possible you could make me a convert.

This is absolutely my most snarly issue with so many right wingers of every degree. You complain and complain about how liberals label, condemn yadda, yadda and then turn right around and do the same damn thing. FFS, why? Get your paint brush off my liberal friends, thanks.

What paint brush? I said "I'm also fiercely individualistic, which these days puts me in direct opposition to liberals, which is also a sad thing - "liberal" once had connotations of "liberty" " - I don't see a label there. I'm curious where you DO see one.

I CAN apply a label if you'd like. After all, I have an "us" and "not us' " too - I'm only human, as everyone else is. The only label I have for them is "authoritarian". I've already made the argument to support that label in this thread, but I can make it again if you missed it.

"What's wrong with letting folks just be themselves, and define who they are?"

Nothing, why do you think there is? Because people have opinions? Don't you? You might offend me if our paths crossed, you might not. Either way, so what? So what if you offend me or I offend you? Is there an attack going to happen because of it? Are the cops going to come and arrest the most offensive?

I DON'T think there is. that was my whole point. I'd prefer if other folks thought along the same lines, though, and left people alone to be themselves rather than passing inane laws in an attempt to micromanage their every move in an attempt to force them to be someone else. That, to me, is the very essence of "authoritarianism". "Don't murder folks", "don't steal from folks" - those are necessary laws. "Don't buy a 20 ounce soft drink" - that's just dumbass authoritarian micromanagement. The same goes for "you'll peddle your wares to whom I decree you'll peddle your wares" and "you'll buy wares that you neither want nor need because I've decreed it". There are, I believe, roughly 600,000 "laws" on the books right now, the majority of which were not even made by bona fide lawmakers, and the most of them are such trivial micromanagement.

It's also not diversity if some are grossed out by or offensive toward "icky others" now is it?

I guess that depends on what you think "diversity" is. How would you prevent one from being grossed out by what they view as an "icky other"? How do you propose to control their reactions on a gut level? Pass another law?

Would you also pass a law to prevent one offending the other? How would that work out? Which direction would you jail the offender? the subjective "icky other" for offending, or the subjective grossed out retch response for offending the "icky other"?

Which would you decree to be "the icky other"? Wouldn't they BOTH be offensive "icky others" to one another?

Would you voluntarily serve jail time for being an "icky other" and offending Trump?

If there is no "other", no "not us", how is that diversity?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

What planet are you living on?? My WOD piece most likely is the most heavily data enriched piece EVER in ATS. Photos, graphs, citations out the wazoo, screen caps of SJW's hate speeches, articles, statistics, historical examples, videos, etc, etc.

Your thread is an incoherent jumble of disconnected memes. Sometimes you are in complete agreement with the Black Lives Matter movement when you condemn the prison industry, then you fall apart and try to defend sexual violence. No-one is responding to that thread because they cannot wade through it and figure out the sense. You would have been better off creating a series of threads focusing on one issue at a time. As it is, it looks like you spent an evening posting random thoughts while intoxicated. You seem passionate about something, but you are not communicating it clearly. All that is coming across is hate and fear.