The Alt-Right

[Aetherous]

 

 

A thread for discussion about what the alt-right is.

[Aetherous]

 

[nohbody]

Seems like a bunch of white nationalists and their useful idiots who are taking advantage of a deep divide between rich and poor, "the gubmint" and "regular folks" using slick propaganda to stoke old regional/ethnic grudges while a distinctly Soviet chuckle wafts across the Bering Strait.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aetherous]

6 minutes ago, Fangshi said:

Not sure what the problem here is, or what's new all of the sudden.

 

The alt-right presented itself during the election simply as an alternative to the Republican party...basically a more youthful and fresh conservativism, which used funny memes to troll liberals, etc...when in truth, it was always a white supremacist movement, which was just using the fooled members for increased coverage.

The problem is that some people are still fooled by the false message, rather than knowing what it actually is...and it leads to things like Trump essentially showing favoritism toward it (asking journalists, "Define alt-right", and then himself calling others "the alt-left". If he can define the alt-left, surely he can define the alt-right). Given what the movement actually is, his statement will potentially prove to be very detrimental to the Right, and his own re-election...so that's the problem.

[Aetherous]

A recent poll does tend to show that your opinion is correct...something like 60% of Trump's base was in favor of his comments.

To be clear, I don't hope for his failure. I voted for him and like him a lot...but it is my opinion that this was a biiiiiiig misstep.

 

edit: Fangshi's post disappeared...so this might seem out of context.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Aetherous

[Marblehead]

Remember that in recent months that "Alt" is just a synonym for "extreme".

 

This applies to both sides of what is going on right now.

 

The media isn't talking about the many who are walking the Middle Path.

 

 

[Chang]

16 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Remember that in recent months that "Alt" is just a synonym for "extreme".

 

This applies to both sides of what is going on right now.

 

The media isn't talking about the many who are walking the Middle Path.

 

 

 

The middle path does not make such good news. Extremes not commen sense make for the best headlines and sound bites.

[Aetherous]

16 hours ago, Marblehead said:

The media isn't talking about the many who are walking the Middle Path.

 

Yes, that's most people.

 

...

 

The alt-right now has an official manifesto, published just prior to Charlottesville. This past week was truly a "coming out" for this group.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Aetherous

[Aetherous]

FBI now associates the Proud Boys (a group which tried to distance themselves after Charlottesville march) with the alt-right and "far right extremism":

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/19/proud-boys-fbi-classification-extremist-group-white-nationalism-report?CMP=twt_a-world_b-gdnworld

[futuredaze]

IMO the "Alt-Right" seems to encompass both people who are white supremacists AND those who simply believe in separation, or the fact that it is okay for white people to have pride in their heritage too.

 

Now, supremacists of all sorts are terrible human beings.  The people who are supremacists tend to be the least competent and intelligent of their "group," which is rather ironic.  They hide from their own insufficiency by attaching to this idea of "superiority" through their genetic heritage.

 

I love Western Civilization.  I love America (at least in terms of the essence it tries to embody, through the Constitution, rather than the flawed human execution of that essence).  I am proud of my European heritage.  However, I am no supremacist.  I hate supremacists.

 

I think that migration, if done in a small amount, gradually, and targeting the best people, is OK.  but forced mass migration of people from vastly different cultures who don't want to integrate is stupid and possibly even suicidal.

 

This is the distinction that needs to be made.  A lot of the extreme left tries to group those two things together.  I am a very tolerant person, and yet I also acknowledge that the globalist powers at be try to exploit people's tolerance/niceness into making them accept a mass-invasion of big government-supporting people.  I can not tolerate such manipulation, stupidity, and evil.

[Aetherous]

15 minutes ago, futuredaze said:

AND those who simply believe in separation, or the fact that it is okay for white people to have pride in their heritage too.

 

Yes, I think there is some nuance possible here.

In my personal view, "separation" is referring to the white ethnostate idea of the Alt-Right. They desire to mimic certain other countries who only accept new citizens of a certain race or color. I think that's the first step they sometimes ask for, and the second step is to isolate races currently living in the US into a certain area of it, and/or kick them out entirely.

I'm very averse to such concepts, and think they're the epitome of racism.

I view the US as a melting pot, and it's already a very multiracial/multicultural place. People living here have the right to live here...so when I hear others suggesting such ideas, I view it as very anti-American.

On the other hand, I'm a strong multiculturalist. I think individual cultures should do their best to maintain themselves as distinct, rather than lose their essence within the melting pot. To use a metaphor - I don't think that when you add cinnamon to the soup, that it should lose its cinnamon-ness...it should simply blend and contribute itself, rather than be lost.

Here's an example - I'd love to go out for authentic Oaxacan Mexican food, instead of Tex-Mex...this is a self-serving perspective on the preservation of distinct cultures, but I think society as a whole benefits from this maintaining of distinctness (academics are more easily able to explore the nearly lost aspects of those cultures, preserving ancient wisdom), and the individuals benefit as well. They're able to know where they come from, who their ancestors are, and can enjoy their traditions. Others can pick up useful things from those cultures, even if they "culturally appropriate" and end up altering those things, such as with yoga.

 

As opposed to: someone moving to the US and completely giving up all former aspects of who they were, watching baseball and eating apple pies while listening to country music. I think there's an American culture, which is good, but it's something all individual people from distinct cultures have the opportunity to participate in, rather than lose themselves in. Like the cinnamon isn't completely lost in the soup. Like Oaxacan food isn't forgotten in favor of Tex Mex.

So, I think this is an example of one of the more nuanced views of "separation" (really, just a respect for the preservation of all individual cultures), which is actually in opposition to the idea of a white ethnostate.

[futuredaze]

6 hours ago, Aetherous said:

 

Yes, I think there is some nuance possible here.

In my personal view, "separation" is referring to the white ethnostate idea of the Alt-Right. They desire to mimic certain other countries who only accept new citizens of a certain race or color. I think that's the first step they sometimes ask for, and the second step is to isolate races currently living in the US into a certain area of it, and/or kick them out entirely.

I'm very averse to such concepts, and think they're the epitome of racism.

I view the US as a melting pot, and it's already a very multiracial/multicultural place. People living here have the right to live here...so when I hear others suggesting such ideas, I view it as very anti-American.

On the other hand, I'm a strong multiculturalist. I think individual cultures should do their best to maintain themselves as distinct, rather than lose their essence within the melting pot. To use a metaphor - I don't think that when you add cinnamon to the soup, that it should lose its cinnamon-ness...it should simply blend and contribute itself, rather than be lost.

Here's an example - I'd love to go out for authentic Oaxacan Mexican food, instead of Tex-Mex...this is a self-serving perspective on the preservation of distinct cultures, but I think society as a whole benefits from this maintaining of distinctness (academics are more easily able to explore the nearly lost aspects of those cultures, preserving ancient wisdom), and the individuals benefit as well. They're able to know where they come from, who their ancestors are, and can enjoy their traditions. Others can pick up useful things from those cultures, even if they "culturally appropriate" and end up altering those things, such as with yoga.

 

As opposed to: someone moving to the US and completely giving up all former aspects of who they were, watching baseball and eating apple pies while listening to country music. I think there's an American culture, which is good, but it's something all individual people from distinct cultures have the opportunity to participate in, rather than lose themselves in. Like the cinnamon isn't completely lost in the soup. Like Oaxacan food isn't forgotten in favor of Tex Mex.

So, I think this is an example of one of the more nuanced views of "separation" (really, just a respect for the preservation of all individual cultures), which is actually in opposition to the idea of a white ethnostate.

Interestingly enough, the term "Melting Pot" to describe the United States was first used by a British Jew who, from what I remember, never even visited America.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Melting_Pot_(play)

 

Also, the earliest immigration law favored European immigrants:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

 

I'm not trying to suggest the U.S. should be a white-only nation.  I merely share this information to disprove the notion that America was founded with the intention to be a melting pot of the world.  It is important to know IMO.

 

I am not a "white nationalist," but I do believe that if a culture gets too multicultural, conflict and war usually follow.  I agree strongly with the "Middle Way," so I think that having few migrants, the most skilled and pro-America, are more than welcome here.  I genuinely believe these people enrich America greatly.  However, this tolerance must have its logical limits.  Call me a bigot, but I think it is safe to say that a person living in Poland, Spain, or Norway, for instance, would have an easier time integrating to America than an African who came from an indigenous tribe.  When Western nations adopt millions of third-world migrants, third-world problems seem to be the inevitable outcome.

 

To sum it up:

 

If your borders are too open, you get all the crap.

 

If your borders are too closed, you miss out on the gems.

 

 

 

btw, I consider America to be  a unique country, as it is one that is founded on a Constitution with Natural Rights endowed by the Creator.  So, I could easily understand if a country, like Poland or Hungary, want to close off their borders to remain ethnically homogenous, but I would apply a different standard to the United States.

Edited November 26, 2018 by futuredaze

[Aetherous]

18 minutes ago, futuredaze said:

Interestingly enough, the term "Melting Pot" to describe the United States was first used by a British Jew who, from what I remember, never even visited America.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Melting_Pot_(play)

 

The notion existed early on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot#Origins_of_the_term

 

I also think that the notion of "all men are created equal" in the Declaration, to some founders meant literally all men.

 

As in all eras, not everyone is in agreement.

[futuredaze]

14 hours ago, Aetherous said:

 

The notion existed early on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot#Origins_of_the_term

 

I also think that the notion of "all men are created equal" in the Declaration, to some founders meant literally all men.

 

As in all eras, not everyone is in agreement.

Created equal in what sense?

 

Spiritually?  I would say yes, in the sense that we all have the potential to realize the truth, experience freedom, and manifest good in the world.  (However, just because we are equal in spiritual potential doesn't mean we are equal in spiritual development)

 

Intellectually? Nope, we aren't equal in this way.

 

Physically? Nope.

 

Psychologically? Nope.

 

Emotionally? Nope.

 

to be treated equal under law:  Yes, I definitely agree with this one.

 

and I also think we should just treat people with a basic sense of goodness.  However, of course we treat people differently.  I will treat my shy co-worked differently than I treat my very sociable co-worker.  Does that mean I think one of them is better a person than the other?  No, it doesn't.

 

And while the term "melting pot" derives from older ideas, the first time those ideas were expressed in the term "melting pot" was that play, as the Wikipedia clearly states:

 

"The exact term "melting pot" came into general usage in the United States after it was used as a metaphor describing a fusion of nationalities, cultures and ethnicities in the 1908 play of the same name, first performed in Washington, D.C., where the immigrant protagonist declared:

 

Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you've come to—these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.^[11]"

[Aetherous]

8 minutes ago, futuredaze said:

Created equal in what sense?

 

Spiritually?  I would say yes, in the sense that we all have the potential to realize the truth, experience freedom, and manifest good in the world.  (However, just because we are equal in spiritual potential doesn't mean we are equal in spiritual development)

 

Intellectually? Nope, we aren't equal in this way.

 

Physically? Nope.

 

Psychologically? Nope.

 

Emotionally? Nope.

 

Yes in all of those senses.

I understand that you have probably gathered statistics showing the differences between races, which you want to share here...I think any noted differences are due to circumstance, and not due to genetics or skin color. We can always find examples of negative aspects of individuals in a race, as well as positive aspects of individuals in a race.

Anyway, I'd rather just agree to disagree on this point...I have zero interest in continuing further, and bringing discussions of different races being better than others onto this forum.

[rideforever]

We are not equal.
In what sense is anyone equal ?  On every measure there are differences, huge differences.
And that includes on the race / biology and even soul level.
All this multi-culturalism is just another face of the nobody-people who have no views except nothing.
Like the "laissez faire" capitalism .... do nothing capitalism.
People are degenerating, they cannot do anything, won't do anything, don't care about anything.
Except some silly fantasies about "equality".
Well ... the birds outside this window, who stand there in their skinny legs through the winter nights at -20C and don't complain, they are not equal>

They are Great.
But the cowards speak loudly.   And the angry loudly.
And few have any real power in any case to change anything.
Master yourself first, then maybe you will be proud of yourself.
Once you build a house yourself, you understand how houses are built.
And you don't drool on about anything-goes, because you know anything-goes makes the house collapse.

Most Western humans are babies who never built anything so don't know how things stay together.

 

Anyway, on the funny side I once saw a black teenager girl in South London being interviewed, saying that Britain should be just for the whites and the blacks and the pakis should get lost.  Which made me laugh.

I am interested to watch this, this alt-right seems to be based on pride and simple facts about homogeneity rather than anger, and also constructive  :
 

 

[rideforever]

There is an interesting strategy that some humans use to gain power of favour .... the guilt trip.  Seems that liberals / JFK and so on ... they are great players of the violin, and this opens a weak place in the human structure, the heart.   And this opening is used to manipulate people into their own destruction.
Quite interesting.   Parasites in nature have all sorts of tricks like this, intestinal microorganisms make you feel hungry for sugary foods which they then eat themselves, no matter the harm it causes to you.
Another way is news that combines factual information and attaches to it a emotional nuclear bombs, "terrorism !!!" and so on.

The heart and feelings should be strongly guarded, and if you inbibe such news information, you should strip away the emotionality and discard it, and receive only the factual information.

[Aetherous]

This thread is only about spreading awareness of what the Alt-Right is, and is not a platform for the propagation of their views (or discussions in favor of those racist views).

As such, I'm not going to engage in any debates on those lines. Moderators can choose what to do here - whether they want justifications for racism on the forum or not.

[Kar3n]

7 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

This thread is only about spreading awareness of what the Alt-Right is, and is not a platform for the propagation of their views (or discussions in favor of those racist views).

As such, I'm not going to engage in any debates on those lines. Moderators can choose what to do here - whether they want justifications for racism on the forum or not.

I just skimmed the posts, I guess now  I need to actually read 'em.

[Marblehead]

I basically agree.  You started the thread in order to define the concept, not to engage the pros and cons of the Alt-Right or to compare Atl-Right against Alt-Left.

 

And while I would agree that racism does exist in the Alt-Right this is not the place to discuss that.

 

[futuredaze]

10 hours ago, Aetherous said:

 

Yes in all of those senses.

I understand that you have probably gathered statistics showing the differences between races, which you want to share here...I think any noted differences are due to circumstance, and not due to genetics or skin color. We can always find examples of negative aspects of individuals in a race, as well as positive aspects of individuals in a race.

Anyway, I'd rather just agree to disagree on this point...I have zero interest in continuing further, and bringing discussions of different races being better than others onto this forum.

Considering I don't believe that, there is no possibility of me bringing that up.

 

The only racist is the straw man in your head.

 

I am just saying people are different.  Not just because of ethnic background, but that is of course one of the factors.  However, I look at people as individuals for their actions, first and foremost.  Ethnicity/race is something I do not focus on when I meet a new person, for instance.  If you can construe that as "racism," then I say you are doing a 1984 of the definition.

[futuredaze]

9 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I basically agree.  You started the thread in order to define the concept, not to engage the pros and cons of the Alt-Right or to compare Atl-Right against Alt-Left.

 

And while I would agree that racism does exist in the Alt-Right this is not the place to discuss that.

 

Yeah, racism does exist on the Alt-Right.  It also exists on the Left too, in probably just as wide abundance as on the Alt-Right.

 

I've looked into the Alt-Right.  Now, I know some simpletons probably think it is because I am of the alt-right, but I would claim that they are projecting their own simple way of looking at reality unto me.  I've looked into the Alt-Right because I want to understand it, first and foremost, before judging it.  It is obvious to me that the media wants to present certain groups a certain way, to fuel blind emotion, and I don't play those idiotic games.

 

To sum it up, what is defined as "Alt-Right" is a pretty big umbrella term.  You will get civic nationalists like Donald Trump in that group, and then you also get more hardcore nationalists, Christian nationalists, white nationalists, legitimate neo-Nazis, etc.  Of course some of these people are racist, but I think it is foolish to believe all of them are.  They all pretty much just want closed borders and a mostly homogenous society.  If that is racist than the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians, and pretty much the whole world is racist because that is just how people are.  Why is it only the Western, Caucasian countries get called "racist" for preferring homogeneity?

 

Keep in mind that after the Roman Empire started allowing the Goths into their empire, within 10 years the Goths killed a Roman Emperor, and within 40 years they sacked Rome.  Look at what happened to the Native Americans.  Look at Tibet.  Mass immigration almost always leads to war, or at the very least tremendous conflict.  I wish it weren't so, but I don't let my emotions influence how I see history and human nature.

 

I used to be a libertarian, but at some point I had to drop all labels.  I just vote on the issues, and in some ways I am very liberal (social matters), and in some ways I am conservative (economics), and in some ways I am an anarchist (I hate all those who try to rule over others).  I think the U.S. immigration laws are suicidal, but I have no problem allowing immigrants from all over the world here, I just think there has to be a very strict filtration system and strong borders (meaning those on the left would call me a Nazi and the Alt-Right would call me a cuck, but I don't care).

Edited November 27, 2018 by futuredaze

[futuredaze]

By the way, in my journey of understanding the Alt-Right I quickly learned that Richard Spencer is something like the fake poster boy of the Alt-Right, who actually has strong socialist leanings.  Quite ironic, and funny.

 

Of course, different people define the Alt-Right in different ways, but this one was the most convincing I saw:

 

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html

[Aetherous]

41 minutes ago, futuredaze said:

Considering I don't believe that, there is no possibility of me bringing that up.

 

The only racist is the straw man in your head.

 

I am just saying people are different.  Not just because of ethnic background, but that is of course one of the factors.  However, I look at people as individuals for their actions, first and foremost.  Ethnicity/race is something I do not focus on when I meet a new person, for instance.  If you can construe that as "racism," then I say you are doing a 1984 of the definition.

 

Well, I must have been mistaken when reading your posts here. It's good to be clear about who you are, and if you're happy with what you clearly know yourself as, that's very good.

[Marblehead]

I will never claim to be a member of the Alt-Right.

 

But yes, I am a Conservative.  Both privately and socially/politically.

 

I had a couple friends who tried to bring me into the Tea Party mentality but there was just too much with them that I did not agree with.

 

I could label myself an Aryan but after looking into the Aryan Nation I decided that it was an arm of conservativism that I did not want to be a part of.  I consider them to be Alt-Right.

 

Racism does exist.  I don't want to be a part of it either.