It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We Are The Alt-Right

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Conservatives just need to walk away from 'right wing' designations altogether, no matter what the prefix or suffix.


Absolutely agree. The real question is where do you stand on the spectrum of authoritarianism vs. liberalism/libertarianism.




posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Conservatives just need to walk away from 'right wing' designations altogether, no matter what the prefix or suffix.


Absolutely agree. The real question is where do you stand on the spectrum of authoritarianism vs. liberalism/libertarianism.



That's real tricky with the idea of limited/decentralized government, and personal freedom. Might need a scientific calculator.

Alternate answer: it's on the conservative end.
edit on 26-8-2017 by Teikiatsu because: added a comma so snarky people don't think conservatives want to limit personal freedom



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Conservatives just need to walk away from 'right wing' designations altogether, no matter what the prefix or suffix.


Absolutely agree. The real question is where do you stand on the spectrum of authoritarianism vs. liberalism/libertarianism.



That's real tricky with the idea of limited/decentralized government, and personal freedom. Might need a scientific calculator.

Alternate answer: it's on the conservative end.


I don't think it's "tricky' at all. Any reasonably intelligent and honest person can look at any action and determine if it serves the power of the government and the legal hierarchy, or whether it benefits the people as individuals, and increases personal freedoms.

I don't think it's difficult at all, really. Just requires that we abandon all the "left right" BS.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: kelbtalfenek


Hardly. It was coined by Gottfried and Spencer.

It cannot be coined by two people, someone said it first. Also if you want to latch onto a definition based on how the second person to use the term defined it then that's your prerogative, but I will not be going along with such nonsense I'm afraid.


Read my source...They are fighting over who first used the term. Spencer says he used it to title Gottfried's speech. Gottfried says he created it.

So you are saying, that even though the "Alternative Right" movement's leaders define themselves and their movement as such, you're just going to adopt the label and define it however you want?

That's brilliant. I'm sure in no time you will usurp their true cause. /sarcasm



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: growler
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




I've noticed this term "alt-right" really become widely used since Trump got elected and it got me wondering exactly where it came from and what it means.


neo-nazi sites like stormfront and daily stormer wanted new members and realized the term neo-nazi was putting people off so they rebranded alt-right.
they also renamed anti fascists the antifa.
hence the neo-nazi types on this site dont like anti fascists, neo-nazis told them too.


Which is quite ironic because Spencer is quoted as saying that US needs "a little of the fascist spirit" in our government.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: XAnarchistXThey're manipulating history and the English language to push an agenda which is failing miserably, they think all their tricky psyops crap will work but what they don't seem to realize is a very large fraction of people are waking up to it and seeing right through it.


Or falling right into it...depends on how you look at it.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

My point is that they use the term loosely and often use it to describe controversial or conspiratorial conservatives rather than as a term just for racists, so even their usage of the word admits that the definition I've given in this thread is a valid one, and the term doesn't just strictly apply to people who like to shout "white power". It's really a very narrow minded way of thinking to believe that just because one racist guy uses the term a certain way that is the true definition of the term, it's a very weak argument.


What you're saying here is that the re-branding of white nationalism has been successful, and that in this age of consumerism, even you have bought it.


By your logic I can call myself a rabbit, and then the true meaning of rabbit will disappear.
edit on 26-8-2017 by kelbtalfenek because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

How did I know you would bring up "Muh Hitler was a socialist"



National Socialism is NOT Libertarian Socialism



The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism"



Nazism was inspired by social Darwinism, nationalism, and Aryan supremacy



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

How did I know you would bring up "Muh Hitler was a socialist"



National Socialism is NOT Libertarian Socialism



The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism"



Nazism was inspired by social Darwinism, nationalism, and Aryan supremacy


And the term Aryan was stolen from Sanskrit as well.
source

All in all, it's a very interesting rabbit hole, once one starts digging deep into the roots of it all.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
If we're going to "reclassify" history ... it makes far more sense to move Stalinist Russia and Maoist China into the "right-wing" category ... as they were autocratic and nationalistic and they denied the common People their rights.

As someone said above, though, "right and left" are meaningless.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

And, is it written somewhere that there is only one alternative right? Could not a dozen different alt right positions lean from left of right to right of right?



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

And, is it written somewhere that there is only one alternative right? Could not a dozen different alt right positions lean from left of right to right of right?


Well, I can show you what is written ...

www.altright.com

Not to mention, from earlier in the thread ...



The term's modern usage, however, is most commonly attributed to white nationalist and self-described "identitarian" Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right.


So sure ... semantic arguments can be made ... "what is alternative?" "what is right"? "what is is" ... that reminds me of Bill Clinton, LOL.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
"Alternative high school education" Same curriculum different atmosphere.
"You put your left foot in and you shake it all about"

Left and right also means wrong or right.
Turn your back and remain true to self.

What's right for me may not be right for you...
I can manage my own affairs if I'm not being interrupted.

Live and let live is right anything else is wrong.
But if you steal from my pantry I may have to shoot you...?

Putting the shoe on the other foot is not always done willingly.
Retrospect; It's when you realize you don't want to study that "course" again because you failed the first time around and discovered you should follow the path leading to less resistance.

If the hand I normally use to write with is injured is it wrong for me to try using the other?


edit on (8/26/1717 by loveguy because: wrong word replaced with right word



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Conservatives just need to walk away from 'right wing' designations altogether, no matter what the prefix or suffix.


Absolutely agree. The real question is where do you stand on the spectrum of authoritarianism vs. liberalism/libertarianism.



That's real tricky with the idea of limited/decentralized government, and personal freedom. Might need a scientific calculator.

Alternate answer: it's on the conservative end.


I don't think it's "tricky' at all. Any reasonably intelligent and honest person can look at any action and determine if it serves the power of the government and the legal hierarchy, or whether it benefits the people as individuals, and increases personal freedoms.

I don't think it's difficult at all, really. Just requires that we abandon all the "left right" BS.


It needs to be more than linear, because nothing in life is that simple. Even two axis isn't really enough.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

And, is it written somewhere that there is only one alternative right? Could not a dozen different alt right positions lean from left of right to right of right?


Well, I can show you what is written ...

www.altright.com

Not to mention, from earlier in the thread ...



The term's modern usage, however, is most commonly attributed to white nationalist and self-described "identitarian" Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right.


So sure ... semantic arguments can be made ... "what is alternative?" "what is right"? "what is is" ... that reminds me of Bill Clinton, LOL.


Devil's Advocate: So there is only one 'alternative', eh? Sounds kind of limiting.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

How did I know you would bring up "Muh Hitler was a socialist"



National Socialism is NOT Libertarian Socialism



The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism"



Nazism was inspired by social Darwinism, nationalism, and Aryan supremacy


National Socialism can't exist unless the nation is very small and culturally homogenous, something the Nazis wanted to do to Germany then expand outwards.

Libertarian Socialism is straight up impossible. It's an oxymoron like pointy sphere or efficient bureaucracy. It's just the latest attempt by statists and marxists to white-wash the abject failure that is socialism/communism.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX

I didn't say Hitler was a socialist... I said he made use of some socialist methodology to achieve his goals. Did you even try watching the lecture from a women who lived through the Hitler regime and describes all the socialist policies he put into place? The Wikipedia page on National Socialism is f'ing hilarious the way they try to disassociate socialism from national socialism... let's take a look shall we:


The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good" and accept political interests as the main priority of economic organization.[3]

So it's totally not socialism or communism bro... but you must subordinate your personal interests to the "common good", you must accept wealth redistribution, etc.


The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics.
--- one paragraph later ---
When asked whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", Hitler claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and he also indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".

The experts agree bro, nothing leftist here, just a tad of good old "creative socialism" inspired by Marxist dogma... far, far, right stuff...


The radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels hated capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core, and he stressed the need for the party to emphasize both a proletarian and a national character. Those views were shared by Otto Strasser, who later left the Nazi Party in the belief that Hitler had betrayed the party's socialist goals by allegedly endorsing capitalism.[25] Large segments of the Nazi Party staunchly supported its official socialist, revolutionary, and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and an economic revolution when the party gained power in 1933.

It's totally right wing bro, get a load of this one guy leaving because Hitler didn't crap on capitalism enough... never mind that Hitler would go onto develop a strong hatred for capitalism and claimed it was created by the Jews.


Hitler took a pragmatic position between the conservative and radical factions of the Nazi Party, accepting private property and allowing capitalist private enterprises to exist so long as they adhered to the goals of the Nazi state. However, if a capitalist private enterprise resisted Nazi goals, he sought to destroy it.

It's totally a free market where private business can exist bro... but should they not be absolutely subservient to the wishes of the state they will be destroyed without hesitation, it's for the "common good" of course.


Although he opposed communist ideology, Hitler publicly praised the Soviet Union's leader Joseph Stalin and Stalinism on numerous occasions.[34] Hitler commended Stalin for seeking to purify the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of Jewish influences, noting Stalin's purging of Jewish communists such as Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, and Karl Radek.

Yep see he totally opposed communist ideology, totally not his thing at all, just a bit of friendly ass kissing going on here.

Lmao I think I have to stop at this point... I'm not even a quarter of the way through this article. That particular article really is a great example of how Wikipedia carefully words things to portray a certain perspective. Honestly I don't know how anyone in their right mind can just ignore all the socialist aspects of the Hitler regime as if they never existed, it's like you refuse to face reality because the facts aren't what you want them to be.
edit on 26/8/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
Read my source...They are fighting over who first used the term. Spencer says he used it to title Gottfried's speech. Gottfried says he created it.

Well the all-knowing Wikipedia says Gottfried used is a couple of years before Spencer, and clearly Wikipedia is infallible...


So you are saying, that even though the "Alternative Right" movement's leaders define themselves and their movement as such, you're just going to adopt the label and define it however you want?

That's brilliant. I'm sure in no time you will usurp their true cause. /sarcasm

If Spencer were to call himself a Libertarian, which there's a good chance he does, that doesn't mean I will distance myself from the word libertarian or assign some racist property to the word, especially if it wasn't defined that way to begin with. I see alt-right as a label they use to describe parts of their political beliefs and the fact they stand outside the mainstream, which white supremacists do. I took a brief look at the alt-right website and didn't see anything immediately racist, seems to be mostly Trump stuff and making fun of liberals. Of course I didn't spend very long on that dumb website and there may very well be some racist stuff on there, but my point is the alt-right is a breed of politics and not just an interchangeable term for white supremacist. The expression "alt-right == racist" is clearly a gross oversimplification of reality and a false logical statement.
edit on 26/8/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

My point is that they use the term loosely and often use it to describe controversial or conspiratorial conservatives rather than as a term just for racists, so even their usage of the word admits that the definition I've given in this thread is a valid one, and the term doesn't just strictly apply to people who like to shout "white power". It's really a very narrow minded way of thinking to believe that just because one racist guy uses the term a certain way that is the true definition of the term, it's a very weak argument.


What you're saying here is that the re-branding of white nationalism has been successful, and that in this age of consumerism, even you have bought it.


By your logic I can call myself a rabbit, and then the true meaning of rabbit will disappear.



"...a rose by any other name..."




posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

How did I know you would bring up "Muh Hitler was a socialist"



National Socialism is NOT Libertarian Socialism



The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism"



Nazism was inspired by social Darwinism, nationalism, and Aryan supremacy




And a vegetarian.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join