The Queen of the Alt-Right Dethroned.

a reply to: TonyS

Horse crap.

People do not decide where they are going to live as if they were ordering from a take out menu. They go where they can afford to be, or where there is accommodation provided by the state in some cases. It is not a persons fault that their earnings prevent them escaping certain geographical stereotypes.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Who are these idiots?

First they declare Milo the leader then the first clip they show is Milo clearly explaining he is not an alt- right leader or even a member.

Then they whine about the interview with Milo and criticize it for not having a real alt-right leader include, further contradicting their claim Milo is an actual alt-righ leader.

Then they continue their parroting of the msm version of alt-right WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM AN ACTUAL ALT-RIGHT LEADER.

A tiny bit more seriously ... so the folks in the video, who define themselves as alt right ... aren't alt right enough for you? They need the blessing of one of the Grand Wizards or something?

Might want to take a gander at their website ... they seem to be pretty serious ...

What's your point exactly? If they alt right is a "MSM construct" how is that every one from Milo onward acknowledges it's reality?

Followup: So are you an expert on what the alt right REALLY believes? If so, how so?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No it isn't. i'm suggesting that if America wanted a Northern European Protestant Nation it would have been a good idea to set that down in writing thus avoiding future unpleasantness but that there were factions against that, i've no interest in intolerant rhetoric and freedom isn't something that is in my power to share or otherwise, one can only establish the rules of one's society according to levels of tolerance and i tend toward libertarianism, again i'm not any sort of puppet that you can write out in quotations what i am supposedly saying or thinking, can't you help yourself...?

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

There isn't any actual Alt-Right leader...

a reply to: Gryphon66

They are swedes.

Being a democrat in america is not the same as being a democrat in european countries and parties who happen to have democrat in their party name do not represent or speak for american Democrats.

The alt-right in America as it applies to the election is a different entity.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt

What the presenters make clear is that whilst those such as Donald Trump and Alex Jones are exploiting the issues and grievances raised by the Alt-Right and Milo is happy enough to assume the role of spokes person for the movement none of them are actually of the Alt-Right and indeed look to marginalize and discredit their core beliefs.

Sort of, but not quite.

There are two "Alt-Rights". The actual "Alt-Right" that has been around for a while, and the new "Alt-Right", which is basically anyone that Clinton decides to slap with the label in order to denigrate them.

Trump, Milo, etc, do not represent the original true Alt-Right. I don't think they even pretend to represent them. What they have done is take the label forced on them by Clinton and run with it in their own way. There are certainly going to be some commonality of issues, grievances, and beliefs, because both fall on the right side of the spectrum, but there is still going to be some divergence because they're not at the same point in that spectrum. That's a fiction created by the Clinton campaign to lump them together with some of the worst of the right (and conveniently ignoring the best of the right).

Milo's "Alt-Right" is, from what he has said himself, simply those on the right who are using the same tactics as the left have used historically. They are the "right", using "alternative tactics".

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Gryphon66

They are swedes.

Being a democrat in america is not the same as being a democrat in european countries and parties who happen to have democrat in their party name do not represent or speak for american Democrats.

The alt-right in America as it applies to the election is a different entity.

Okay.

What's the alt-right in America then?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Kantzveldt

The terminally ill educated claim that the UK has no constitution, but that is because we have several documents which found our law in this country, which, regardless of the witless arguments to the contrary, amount to the same thing.

The extremely well-educated also claim that. Those documents that are considered "constitutional in nature" are only protected from implied repeal. They can all be repealed directly by Parliament at any time. The closest thing we truly have to a constitution is the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy.

a reply to: EvillerBob

a reply to: Deny Arrogance


www.alternativeright.com

I beg to differ. There is an alt right faction in the United States that acceeds to the same white nationalist ideas as the Europeans do, etc. This is simply not a European/US difference. Same ideas, same symbols, same writers, etc.

This is not really a question. Steve Bannon stated clearly that he wanted Breitbart to be the "go to voice of the alt right."

a reply to: Gryphon66

A miniscule portion of the US population with no formal membership, platform or leader who has been made into a boogyman by left wing loony conspiracy theorists.

Mostly young contrarions who don't affiliate with any political parties who are anti-globalist, anti-authoritarian, classicly liberal or liberterian.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes. The ALTERNATIVE right, a few hundred innefective powerless individuals finally given a platform by left wing conspiracy kooks.

I did not see any pepe or harambe memes being used by the ALTERNATIVE right website you frequent.

a reply to: boncho

Well that's kind of the point. The alt-right are not anything other than a predictable outcome of the excesses of the mainstream right, the obvious end result of years of wrong think on the part of people, which has been produced and endorsed by those who control the propaganda machinery of the right wing. These idiot fools in the video think that they can be supremacists and live under a system of western values. No matter how their raw intelligence rates on a scale (probably relatively highly) they have been duped into believing that there are exceptions to the freedom and equality that make the constitution worth reading. The excessive incarceration rate, the treatment of citizens privacy and Liberty, the power of government relative to the individual... That would not have happened in a nation where the constitution was respected, where the government was weak, and the people strong. These people are living in a lie so clever, that they cannot even see it's real edge, so thoroughly have they been distracted. They have become part of the lie, rather than anything else.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

But America DIDN'T want a Northern European Protestant nation. That's why the founders explicitly DIDN'T write that into the Constitution. Instead opting to leave it open ended. So I still fail to see how your logic makes sense.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

Thanks for your opinion.

You offer zero proof, evidence, facts etc. for your assertions and try one of the most bluntly ridiculous deflections I've ever seen.

When you'd like to offer some facts for your wild blathering ... Let me know.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is why we have such issues with the alt-right. Y'all look at culture as a zero-sum game. It isn't. Another culture contributing their culture doesn't take away from your culture.

The California GenocideCalifornia Genocide is a term used to describe the decrease in the indigenous population of California due to violence, diseases, relocation and starvation as a result of the U.S occupation of California. Although the indigenous population of California under Spanish rule dropped from 300,000 prior to 1769, to 250,000 in 1834, this was primarily due to contact with Old World diseases and assimilation. After the independence from Spain in 1821 and the secularization of the coastal missions by the Mexican government in 1834, the indigenous population suffered a much more drastic decrease in population. Indeed, the period immediately following the U.S. conquest of California has been characterized by numerous sources as a genocide. Under US sovereignty, after 1848, the Indian population plunged from perhaps 150,000 to 30,000 in 1870 and reached its nadir of 16,000 in 1900.

I was born in a part of Southern California which had been completely depopulated. 50 + miles to the nearest small reservation. I am a white descendent of Anglo-Saxon-Welsh-Dane mix, which through Christian proxy had available only the lore of a foreign god, ie god of Israel. Due to the elimination of the people of the land, it was not possible to learn the lore of the gods of the land I was born in.

I do not know the gods of my barbarian forefathers, nor the local gods, in a country firmly under the thumb of a foreign god that I no longer recognize as worthy of any service from me. So, yes, I am a victim of a zero sum setup. As is my country.

a reply to: pthena
Native American genocide is certainly a dark spot in our history, that is undeniable, but the past is the past. The point is to learn from the past so you don't repeat it. Though, keep in mind, the Native Americans weren't part of the US. They lived on reservations. So kicking the Natives off their land is more akin to a foreign entity conquering a land to settle its people instead of an example of civil misconduct on the part of the government. Both situations are awful, but that caveat should be known and understood as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Northern European Protestant's themselves sort of did and still do, the concept of the Nation was however drawn up according to Masonic ideals which were rooted in the Protestant-Judaic alliance of the Reformation, and while some may have been naive enough to believe the Doctrine of Universal Rights was something to be taken seriously it's main purpose was to guarantee the place of the Jews within that society, the same as for the French Revolution, nobody took seriously the rights of the native Americans or the imported slaves and they certainly didn't imagine any sort of open border policy, the waves of immigration were necessity based on increasing the rate of exploitation of the natural resources of the continent and the accumulation of great wealth.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Not true, the mainstream right was forced to adopt the grievances of the Alt-Right to retain any credibility, levitating a dinosaur is hardly ineffectual...

a reply to: Kantzveldt

So what? The point of leaving the Constitution open ended was so that in the future, our society COULD include those people. Even our fore fathers recognized civil wrongs within our country's social structures, but they knew that there was no changing these social norms at the time. So they just figured it could be done by a later generation. Again. That's why the document is called a "living document" so that we can change its meaning with the times.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

As they sort of invented the practice of anybody speaking against your political ideology is therefore inherently a RACIST "Anti-Semite" (to be destroyed).

Somehow or other, the United States Department of State has an office dedicated to monitoring Worldwide incidents of Anti-Semitism. Here are some of their working definitions:

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
...
What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?
...
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.
Defining Anti-Semitism: Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism: Washington, DC: June 8, 2010

It's rather ludicrous to anyone familiar with the Bible or Talmud. I guess those two books are anti-Semitic since they both see the age to come as a Jewish dominated global economy, empire.

There used to be further definitions also, such as failure to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, while at the same time accusing Zionism of being an ethnic based project. I guess the irony was too much to miss on those two.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That would depend on whether your fore-father was Masonic who looked to the future illumination of all the peoples of the world, though even then they didn't expect them to all literally be within America, rather the global initiative to acquaint all of humanity with their supposed marvellous reason of the living document and the great work, the building of Solomon's Temple, which is just about complete.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kantzveldt

So what? The point of leaving the Constitution open ended was so that in the future, our society COULD include those people. Even our fore fathers recognized civil wrongs within our country's social structures, but they knew that there was no changing these social norms at the time. So they just figured it could be done by a later generation. Again. That's why the document is called a "living document" so that we can change its meaning with the times.

There is a defined process to change the constitution, though, Right?