Alt-Right and the Constitution

Conte asked Spencer, “Are we even pro-free speech?”

“No, of course not,” Spencer said. “But we have to use this platform in order—“

“So, we’re being radically honest, here?” Conte asked.

“Yes, radically pragmatic,” Spencer replied.

That exchange came from Alt-Right icon Richard Spencer and his podcast co-host Gregory Conte on an episode of their podcast last month. When I first came across this I brushed it off as Spencer simply being his controversial self. Yet the more I think about it, the more it seems like Spencer was being 100% honest. But it seems like this extends far beyond just free speech and to the Constitution as a whole.

For a while now the Alt-Right have tried to position themselves as staunch Constituionalists and defenders against a power mad government. When one actually looks at their history though it becomes very obvious that they only care about the Constitution when it suits their needs.

Take the recent example of Roseanne. The second it was announced that her show was cancelled there were mass calls on the Right that her free speech was being violated and that she should not be punished for something she said on Twitter. Yet there are numerous instances where the Right has demanded the head of someone over someone they wrote online. I have a friend that was a professor at a public university in New York. He made a controversial tweet in his free time. The Right lost their heads over it so much that the New York Post ran it as their front page story and De Blasio was forced to come out and condemn him.

So why is it a violation of free speech if a private corporation fires their employee over a controversial tweet but it's expected for a person to be fired if they work at a public institution?

Another example of this double standard comes when you compare the reaction to the J20 protesters and the people at the UTR rally. For the past 18 months it was been shown time and time again that the government doesn't really have a case against the J20 protesters. It's also become more and more clear that despite this lack of evidence the government will violate the defendants Sixth Amendment rights in the hunt for a guilty verdict. This all culminated within the last week.

First it was revealed that the prosecution was withholding a clip from a video that was being used as their primary evidence against the protesters. Because this clip could be used to help the defendants the prosecution was slapped with a Brady violation but it looked like it was still going to trial. Fast forward to this work and it reveals that the prosecution was actually withholding 69 pieces of exonerating evidence. This led to the judge dismissing with prejudice felony charges in seven cases and forced the prosecution to state they will no longer be using that video as evidence, which pretty much destroys their remaining cases.

What was the Right Wing reaction to this revelation that the government was violating the Sixth Amendment rights of 200 people in order to justify the violation of their First Amendment rights? Pretty much silence. There were a few people the were abhorred at these actions but most of the people that did respond said that the government was justified in their actions.The reasoning I saw behind these statements was that because the J20 protest was planned as a violent event (even though the evidence the prosecution was withholding showed organizers instructing people how to de-escalate hostile situations and telling them not to resort to violence) that anyone there should be arrested and found guilty.

Compare this to the Alt-Right's reaction to the UTR rally. Even though it has come out that the UTR organizers planned this as a violent event (they even discussed using a car against counter-protesters) it seemed like there was strong opposition to the UTR attendees from being punished. We even saw people trying to justify the terrorist attack as the fault of the counter-protesters.

To this day very few people have actually been arrested despite going to Charlottesville with the intent to commit violence. Meanwhile the government rounded up 200 people at J20, denying them their First Amendment rights, then stripped them of their Sixth Amendment rights in order to get a guilty verdict. And let's not forget that in pursuit of this case the government also stripped thousands of citizens of their privacy when they forced the J20 website to release the IP addresses of everyone that visited the site.

So why is it that the Alt-Right are so quick to jump to defense of Nazis and white supremacists but ignores the fact that the government violated multiple Constitutional rights of 200 citizens? The answer, at least from where I'm standing, is that the Nazis and white supremacists, as horrible as they may be, bolster the numbers of the Alt-Right. Meanwhile the J20 protesters are Leftists that stand opposed to the Alt-Right so they don't care if their rights are violated.

Feel free to prove me wrong ATS. But from what I've seen the past 18 months, at least, the Alt-Right doesn't actually care about the Constitution. They care about what they can get out of it but they'd just as soon wipe their ass with it if those opposed to them try to use it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Trapped in the left right thing, I see.

The truth is free speech seems abhorred by both sides when it suits them.

Sad really.

Who is Richard Spencer and why should I care what his opinion is?

I ask because the name means nothing to me, and some would classify me as alt right.

a reply to: Xcalibur254


Who is the Alt Right? Anyone who disagrees with the Progressive/Globalist agenda? Using Richard Spencer who IMO nothing more than a agent provocateur doesn't help your theory! Also your theory is your opinion. So enlighten me as to who exactly qualifies as the Alt Right to fit into your categorization of people.


If me disagreeing with the Progressive/Globalist doctrine make me the Alt Right? Then you might want to check your BS. Because I have seen many on your side of the political spectrum calling people Alt Right who are actually LIBERTARIANS!

Posts like these I copy/paste and save to show people on the fence before an upcoming election. Yet you wonder why Trump won?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If we're talking about the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, then neither side even comes close to being worth of governance, yet for some reason, we keep the wheel spinning.

a reply to: seeker1963

If you are not alt right then do not worry. Unpucker your butthole.

everyone is hypocritical when it comes to their narrative and ideology. it "violates" the sacred piece of paper when it happens to them, but they can ignore it when they want it applied to someone else etc

one thing people either ignore or can't comprehend is the political "scale/spectrum," is a spook, a phantasm...


the "Alt-Right" is an umbrella term, that can consist of people that are "civic-nationalists" to "Nazi/Fascists" etc, it is not a singular "ideology" but as a way to distance themselves from the "traditional conservative right"

the "constitution" wouldn't exist under Nazism, Fascism, or even ethno-nationalism, but they will utilise it to strengthen their position, as they have done throughout history, the Alt-Right is not a "new concept" or new ideology, it just got branded with a new Name and aesthetic

Right and left weren't enough division, we need 2 more.


In an era of youtube dipshlitz getting more airtime than cable tv and news, you will see the manipulation take place there.

It's info-wars.

I can start up a channel in an hour and claim Heil Hitler, etc... and pretend I'm alt right.

It makes any of these characters useless. You can larp as anyone.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: seeker1963

If you are not alt right then do not worry. Unpucker your butthole.

a reply to: seeker1963

Who is the Alt Right? Anyone who disagrees with the Progressive/Globalist agenda? 

Good question that I'm yet to understand.

Who are the alt-right Mr Bean?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

the alt left, is twice as bad. maybe 3 times.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The 'alt-right'? Try the right, the left and everyone in between.

In the current environment, a post giving examples of the left's similar actions would match and well exceed yours.

In this case, your right...well half right.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

You can ask Richard Spencer.

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of white supremacists, neo-Confederates, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, and other far-right fringe hate groups.

White supremacist Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism and did so, according to the Associated Press, to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazism

en.wikipedia.org...
It's a ultraconservative group that stays away from mainstream conservative group.

That wasn't so hard, is it?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Who is Richard Spencer and why should I care what his opinion is?

I ask because the name means nothing to me, and some would classify me as alt right.

Richard Spencer is a single person no one knows & with no influence, but the OP decided to dangle this Dick Spencer in front of everyone in an attempt to 1) generalize a group of people and 2) get his rant-rocks off.

Pointless, yet typical.

a reply to: network dude

"Alt-Left" is something Trump pulled out of his butt.

a reply to: six67seven

Generalize what group?

a reply to: RowanBean

Typical dick. Thanks for the info. The term alt-right was thrown around no end during Trump's campaign as if all Trump supporters were the so called Alt-Right. What a joke.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
everyone is hypocritical when it comes to their narrative and ideology. it "violates" the sacred piece of paper when it happens to them, but they can ignore it when they want it applied to someone else etc

one thing people either ignore or can't comprehend is the political "scale/spectrum," is a spook, a phantasm...


the "Alt-Right" is an umbrella term, that can consist of people that are "civic-nationalists" to "Nazi/Fascists" etc, it is not a singular "ideology" but as a way to distance themselves from the "traditional conservative right"

Actually it's more of an attempt to distance ourselves from the untraditional neo-cons who took over the GOP over the past 2 decades. Most of us are traditional conservative right on most issues.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: RowanBean

Typical dick. Thanks for the info. The term alt-right was thrown around no end during Trump's campaign as if all Trump supporters were the so called Alt-Right. What a joke.

Anything to outrage people for the revenue. Now you see the game?

a reply to: network dude

The Democrats created the term Alt-Left in relation to Sanders and the Democratic Socialists as a pejorative, Trump and the Rightists picked up on it... so, technically, Trump and the rightists are agreeing with the Left/Liberals

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: network dude

The Democrats created the term Alt-Left in relation to Sanders and the Democratic Socialists as a pejorative, Trump and the Rightists picked up on it... so, technically, Trump and the rightists are agreeing with the Left/Liberals

Where the wackadooddle, fiscally ignorant Bernie Sanders is concerned, while considering that 60+% of left/liberal voters voted directly against him and his pipedreams that involved giving his supporters the moon and not worrying about how said moon is paid for, I'm happy to agree with the majority of the Left on that one. Sanders was, is, and always will be unfit to be POTUS... and mercifully, the majority of Democrats feel the same.