What is the Alt Right?

[Gardening Grandma]

Aug 15, 2017 14:20:52 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

So, anyhoo, the Alt Right is a term that they themselves came up with, because it sounds better than Ultra Right Racist and Nationalist Scum.  (URRANS)

I refuse to use that term for that reason.  It sounds so much more touchy feely than white supremacists, KKK, neo Nazi (what's with the "neo" anyway?)  or just thugs.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Aug 14, 2017 15:03:29 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

What is the Alt Right?

It's a typo.  It's supposed to be Ain't Right.  

Look it up in the dictionary and I'm pretty sure this guy will show up (courtesy of Tennesseer on another thread).  What a sick, sick person.  




"This is from the neo-Nazi "Daily Stormer" and is their justification of the Charlottesville murder.



"She was Fat and a Drain on Society. Despite feigned outrage by the media, most people are glad she is dead, as she is the definition of uselessness. A 32-year-old woman without children is a burden on society and has no value.

Due to female privilege, and the fact that they do virtually nothing their entire lives, women live an average of 5 years longer than men. The average female lifespan is 81 years. That means for 49 more years, this fat slob would have been leeching off of men’s work.

Childless women are black hole vortexes of public money and energy.

Had she not died yesterday, hundreds of thousands of dollars would have been spent on propping-up this gross creature who had failed to do her most basic duty – her only real duty, in fact – and reproduce.

Having no children at that age, it can be assumed that she had multiple abortions, and was thus herself a child murderer."



Daily Stormer

This is just so vile that I can't wrap my head around it. I just can't fathom that people really believe this.

[Cookies Galore]

Aug 15, 2017 17:39:31 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Aug 15, 2017 14:20:52 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

So, anyhoo, the Alt Right is a term that they themselves came up with, because it sounds better than Ultra Right Racist and Nationalist Scum.  (URRANS)

I refuse to use that term for that reason.  It sounds so much more touchy feely than white supremacists, KKK, neo Nazi (what's with the "neo" anyway?)  or just thugs.

Neo = new. New Nazis.

[Gardening Grandma]

Ah, thanks, CC

[Gardening Grandma]

Aug 15, 2017 19:15:21 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Aug 14, 2017 15:03:29 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

It's a typo.  It's supposed to be Ain't Right.  

Look it up in the dictionary and I'm pretty sure this guy will show up (courtesy of Tennesseer on another thread).  What a sick, sick person.  




"This is from the neo-Nazi "Daily Stormer" and is their justification of the Charlottesville murder.



"She was Fat and a Drain on Society. Despite feigned outrage by the media, most people are glad she is dead, as she is the definition of uselessness. A 32-year-old woman without children is a burden on society and has no value.

Due to female privilege, and the fact that they do virtually nothing their entire lives, women live an average of 5 years longer than men. The average female lifespan is 81 years. That means for 49 more years, this fat slob would have been leeching off of men’s work.

Childless women are black hole vortexes of public money and energy.

Had she not died yesterday, hundreds of thousands of dollars would have been spent on propping-up this gross creature who had failed to do her most basic duty – her only real duty, in fact – and reproduce.

Having no children at that age, it can be assumed that she had multiple abortions, and was thus herself a child murderer."



Daily Stormer

This is just so vile that I can't wrap my head around it. I just can't fathom that people really believe this.

One of the "really fine" folks trump defended and said was being treated so unfairly by the media....

[Phoenix84]

Aug 15, 2017 16:12:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 15, 2017 13:40:04 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Reporting to the authorities that someone is extremist and might commit a crime is meaningless.  We, as a society, don't charge people for crimes they MIGHT commit.  Hell, in theory any of us could commit a violent crime.  Plus there things like due process of law, search and seizure, probable cause, ect. to deal with.

The most alerting authorities to a potentially violent people might do is perform some surveillance to determine if the individual is planning something.  But that takes up law enforcement resources and can't be done indefinitely unless there's cause to continue. 

It's a nice thought to think that things like this could be prevented, but in reality it's pretty hard to find and prevent something like this.

The best thing law enforcement can do it limit the damage by monitoring and controlling access to things like explosives or illegal firearms.  Unfortunately, a car is a pretty ubiquitous item that is hard to restrict access to, but can be used as a deadly weapon.   

Reporting it puts the person on the authority's radar. No need to arrest. Just watch. And that is all I was suggesting with my post.

Understood.  Fair enough, I agree. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 15, 2017 13:02:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 15, 2017 11:29:49 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Alternative facts about the term alt-right:

1. It was created by liberals.
2. It has not been embraced by people who support the Republican party / Trump.
3. It has no meaning.

4. We're losing the globalism policy argument. Let's equate nationalism and patriotism with white supremacy and just for shits and giggles, throw the relatively unknown term "alt-right" in there to scare people.

this is actually precisely the problem.  the alt right is doing that.  and don't blame us for letting this cat out of the bag.  it wasn't our cat, and it wasn't our bag:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

predicted response: wikipedia is a leftist plot and fake news.

we're on to you, bro.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 15, 2017 11:55:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The term alt-right was really coined to make their version of conservatism distinct from religious conservatives like myself. It's no more complicated than that. 

right.  their version involves racism, whereas yours, presumably, does not.  as you say, not complicated.

[mmhmm]

Aug 15, 2017 11:55:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The term alt-right was really coined to make their version of conservatism distinct from religious conservatives like myself. It's no more complicated than that. 

Not according to Richard Spencer, who coined the phrase. He took it from Paul Gottfield who used the phrase alternative right. Not having coined the phrase yourself, you're really not the one to define it, Paul. The best you can do is decide what it might mean TO YOU. To Mr. Spencer it set apart those who support white nationalism and had no outstanding religious underpinnings. Mr. Gottfield's phrase was used to define changes in right wing politics becoming more pronounced around 2008.

[Wisconsin Beth]

GoDaddy.con has apparently dumped hosting/dns serves for Daily Stormer. Who tried Google, who also refused. Now there being hosted somewhere on the dark web. They may or may not have security on the site. There's a rumor that Cloudfare has dumped them as a client so they may be susceptible to DDoS attacks.

[mmhmm]

Aug 16, 2017 14:59:23 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

GoDaddy.con has apparently dumped hosting/dns serves for Daily Stormer. Who tried Google, who also refused. Now there being hosted somewhere on the dark web. They may or may not have security on the site. There's a rumor that Cloudfare has dumped them as a client so they may be susceptible to DDoS attacks.

CloudFlare has, indeed, dropped their protection for the Daily Stormer site. I haven't checked today to see whether the site is up or being attacked along with others like it. There is definitely an ongoing operation against it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 16, 2017 9:57:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 15, 2017 13:02:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

4. We're losing the globalism policy argument. Let's equate nationalism and patriotism with white supremacy and just for shits and giggles, throw the relatively unknown term "alt-right" in there to scare people.

this is actually precisely the problem.  the alt right is doing that.  and don't blame us for letting this cat out of the bag.  it wasn't our cat, and it wasn't our bag:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

predicted response: wikipedia is a leftist plot and fake news.

we're on to you, bro.

So as not to disappoint you: Wikipedia universally isn't considered an authoritative source--a fault that can generally be overlooked except in cases where subject matter is controversial.

Having said this, I don't dispute the specific claim that the term "alt right" originated on the right.

As for the OP, any yahoo can register a domain name and a website on it. That doesn't mean the site is correct or authoritative by any stretch of the imagination.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2017 10:14:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 16, 2017 9:57:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is actually precisely the problem.  the alt right is doing that.  and don't blame us for letting this cat out of the bag.  it wasn't our cat, and it wasn't our bag:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

predicted response: wikipedia is a leftist plot and fake news.

we're on to you, bro.

So as not to disappoint you: Wikipedia universally isn't considered an authoritative source--a fault that can generally be overlooked except in cases where subject matter is controversial.

Having said this, I don't dispute the specific claim that the term "alt right" originated on the right.

As for the OP, any yahoo can register a domain name and a website on it. That doesn't mean the site is correct or authoritative by any stretch of the imagination.

if you think i just willy nilly post Wiki shit, you are wildly mistaken.  in this case, i reviewed over a dozen websites, and i felt Wiki was sufficient.  so did you.

so, why the condescending lecture?  oh, that's right.  because it is your nature.  never mind.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 18, 2017 21:56:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 17, 2017 10:14:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

So as not to disappoint you: Wikipedia universally isn't considered an authoritative source--a fault that can generally be overlooked except in cases where subject matter is controversial.

Having said this, I don't dispute the specific claim that the term "alt right" originated on the right.

As for the OP, any yahoo can register a domain name and a website on it. That doesn't mean the site is correct or authoritative by any stretch of the imagination.

if you think i just willy nilly post Wiki shit, you are wildly mistaken.  in this case, i reviewed over a dozen websites, and i felt Wiki was sufficient.  so did you.

so, why the condescending lecture?  oh, that's right.  because it is your nature.  never mind.

I don't agree with Wiki's assessment of what the alt-right does and doesn't stand for. You were the one who made the legitimacy of the site an issue.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 18, 2017 22:11:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 18, 2017 21:56:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if you think i just willy nilly post Wiki shit, you are wildly mistaken.  in this case, i reviewed over a dozen websites, and i felt Wiki was sufficient.  so did you.

so, why the condescending lecture?  oh, that's right.  because it is your nature.  never mind.

I don't agree with Wiki's assessment of what the alt-right does and doesn't stand for. You were the one who made the legitimacy of the site an issue.

i didn't assert the "legitimacy" of Wikipedia.  i merely inferred that they were not a leftist plot or fake news.  that assertion was far more narrow than the one you claim i made.  for example, 99% of all cable news falls into that category.  it is only when the media latches on to a fake story that they fail to clear this low bar.

but let's get back to the actual assertion:

do you disagree that the alt-right considers itself nationalistic, patriotic, and an advocate for "white rights"?

if you do, what is YOUR understanding of what the alt-right does, and how does it differ substantively from the understanding that assertion?

[Artemis Windsong]

Aug 15, 2017 8:45:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 15, 2017 7:53:14 GMT -5 Shooby said:

"Alt right'.  Just another made up term by liberals.

As usual, you're wrong again.

Etymology

In November 2008, self-described paleoconservative philosopher Paul Gottfried addressed the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called "the alternative right".[41] This was republished in December under the title "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right"[42] in the conservative Taki's Magazine, making this the earliest published usage of the phrase in its current context according to Slate. In 2009, two more posts at Taki's Magazine, by Patrick J. Ford and Jack Hunter, further discussed the alternative right.[43] The term, however, is most commonly attributed toRichard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder ofAlternative Right.[23][44][45]

Alt-right

Thanks for the research.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 20, 2017 15:41:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 18, 2017 22:11:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I don't agree with Wiki's assessment of what the alt-right does and doesn't stand for. You were the one who made the legitimacy of the site an issue.

i didn't assert the "legitimacy" of Wikipedia.  i merely inferred that they were not a leftist plot or fake news.  that assertion was far more narrow than the one you claim i made.  for example, 99% of all cable news falls into that category.  it is only when the media latches on to a fake story that they fail to clear this low bar.

but let's get back to the actual assertion:

do you disagree that the alt-right considers itself nationalistic, patriotic, and an advocate for "white rights"?

if you do, what is YOUR understanding of what the alt-right does, and how does it differ substantively from the understanding that assertion?

To the extent that the alt-right is a single cohesive entity--which is minor almost to the point of nonexistence--these three values appear to be what they stand for.

The main fault with Wiki article is the amount of effort it devotes to tying the movement to neo-Nazism based on dubious or biased sources.

I desire a manifesto or publications by a recognized leadership to judge any political movement. For example, with BLM we have essays by the founders, manifestos put out by official organs (recognized major affiliates) like M4BL, speeches given by legislators and endorsed by the official organs, etc.  Then it becomes reasonable to call any group whose views and aims align with the standard, whose methods don't conflict with it, a "part" of that movement.

The Wiki article makes it obvious that opinions are all over the map as to what the alt-right is, let alone what it officially stands for and what its doctrines are. That's why Paul's assessment, while admittedly incorrect, isn't far off the mark. I've seen a tremendous push by the left to take advantage of the nebulosity and equate the alt-right with neo-Nazism. It's in their best interest, in a sense, to convince the world that "alt-right" is synonymous with unpopular ideologies like white supremacy, antisemitism, etc., and not with more moderate (and significantly more popular) ideologies like patriotism and white nationalism (i.e. white rights). Which is why I wouldn't trust the site in the OP as far as I could throw the server.

Hence when he says the alt-right is a leftist plot and fake news, he's correct in the sense that these are two of the forces seeking to shape the public's perception of the movement.

[tallguy]

It's in their best interest, in a sense, to convince the world that "alt-right" is synonymous with unpopular ideologies like white supremacy, antisemitism, etc., and not with more moderate (and significantly more popular) ideologies like patriotism and white nationalism (i.e. white rights).

First, what definition of "patriotism" are you using that you have to go to the alt-right to find it?  And second, anyone advocating for anything other than equal rights is un-American to start with.   

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 20, 2017 20:40:26 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It's in their best interest, in a sense, to convince the world that "alt-right" is synonymous with unpopular ideologies like white supremacy, antisemitism, etc., and not with more moderate (and significantly more popular) ideologies like patriotism and white nationalism (i.e. white rights).

First, what definition of "patriotism" are you using that you have to go to the alt-right to find it?  

Patriotism is one of the "alt-right values" the Wiki article tosses around speculatively.

And second, anyone advocating for anything other than equal rights is un-American to start with.

So... what then? Affirmative Action and race/gender quotas are un-American?

How about all-black schools teaching "black history"?

How do we resolve the issue of equal rights for illegal immigrants? Equal rights for Syrian refugees displaced by the endless wars in the Middle East?

Equality in ownership of national institutions like banks, newspapers, etc.? Should extreme ethnic or racial imbalances be sorted out there?

What should happen to professors who call for boycotts on research by white researchers? What, if anything, should be done to stem the decline in white male life expectancy, or the precipitous decline in male fertility (especially in whites)? Should these follow their natural progression to ethnic extinction, which will be a reality in European nations in a little over a generation?

Platitudes like "I'm for equal rights" are vague to the point of uselessness. Real life is about immigration, competing ethnocentric movements, social redistribution, war, globalism, the extinction of races and religions. The era of the "melting pot" happy fiction is dead and decomposing in the grave. If there's one thing I can truly appreciate about the alt-right--even their radical elements--it's that they recognize the West is a freight train speeding towards a bottomless chasm. They recognize that cultural and ideological wars are being waged on numerous fronts.

[tallguy]

Aug 20, 2017 21:07:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 20, 2017 20:40:26 GMT -5 tallguy said:

First, what definition of "patriotism" are you using that you have to go to the alt-right to find it?  

Patriotism is one of the "alt-right values" the Wiki article tosses around speculatively.

And second, anyone advocating for anything other than equal rights is un-American to start with.

So... what then? Affirmative Action and race/gender quotas are un-American?

How about all-black schools teaching "black history"?

How do we resolve the issue of equal rights for illegal immigrants? Equal rights for Syrian refugees displaced by the endless wars in the Middle East?

Equality in ownership of national institutions like banks, newspapers, etc.? Should extreme ethnic or racial imbalances be sorted out there?

What should happen to professors who call for boycotts on research by white researchers? What, if anything, should be done to stem the decline in white male life expectancy, or the precipitous decline in male fertility (especially in whites)? Should these follow their natural progression to ethnic extinction, which will be a reality in European nations in a little over a generation?

Platitudes like "I'm for equal rights" are vague to the point of uselessness. Real life is about immigration, competing ethnocentric movements, social redistribution, war, globalism, the extinction of races and religions. The era of the "melting pot" happy fiction is dead and decomposing in the grave. If there's one thing I can truly appreciate about the alt-right--even their radical elements--it's that they recognize the West is a freight train speeding towards a bottomless chasm. They recognize that cultural and ideological wars are being waged on numerous fronts.

I actually did a paper in college arguing against the Bakke decision, so no, I am not a fan of affirmative action programs.  If discrimination was wrong in the past (and it was), how is reverse discrimination now not equally wrong?  And illegal immigrants do not have the same legal rights as citizens, or even immigrants who are in the country legally.  Nor should they.  We can grant them basic human rights with no problem, but their legal rights are less because they are by definition criminals by virtue of even being here.  None of the rest you cited are really relevant to an equal rights debate.      

[chiver78]

Aug 14, 2017 15:20:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

How special (among other as to what it means to be Alt-Right):

Speech

American citizens should enjoy freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution; we endorse this value for all European peoples. We oppose those who seek to suppress the speech of people with whom they disagree, whether through government censorship, corporate policy, digital platform denial, or intimidation.

They would just as likely murder you for thinking and speaking differently.

I didn't realize I lived in Europe. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 20, 2017 21:20:59 GMT -5 tallguy said:

None of the rest you cited are really relevant to an equal rights debate.

I've heard all of them called "equal rights" issues in various times and places.

All of them are putatively of concern to the alt-right.

[tallguy]

Aug 20, 2017 23:19:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 20, 2017 21:20:59 GMT -5 tallguy said:

None of the rest you cited are really relevant to an equal rights debate.

I've heard all of them called "equal rights" issues in various times and places.

All of them are putatively of concern to the alt-right.

Hang out in better places?  

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 20, 2017 23:23:40 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 20, 2017 23:19:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I've heard all of them called "equal rights" issues in various times and places.

All of them are putatively of concern to the alt-right.

Hang out in better places?  

You've never heard "No one is illegal.", "True equality means equality of opportunities.", "Equality leaves no child behind."?

They're all attempts (many of them quite successful) to import new notions of equality into rights debates. They're ubiquitous on any site even moderately left of center. The really nutty ones talk about equal rights for animals, equal rights for children (i.e. any form of parental discipline constitutes abuse), equal rights for trees, ...

I know I shouldn't be hanging out on that side of the tracks, but I get so curious sometimes.

[tallguy]

Aug 20, 2017 23:44:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 20, 2017 23:23:40 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Hang out in better places?  

You've never heard "No one is illegal.", "True equality means equality of opportunities.", "Equality leaves no child behind."?

They're all attempts (many of them quite successful) to import new notions of equality into rights debates. They're ubiquitous on any site even moderately left of center. The really nutty ones talk about equal rights for animals, equal rights for children (i.e. any form of parental discipline constitutes abuse), equal rights for trees, ...

I know I shouldn't be hanging out on that side of the tracks, but I get so curious sometimes.

Not by anyone whose opinion I respect.  But more to the point, did I really need to specify equal rights under the law?

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 20, 2017 23:53:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 20, 2017 23:44:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You've never heard "No one is illegal.", "True equality means equality of opportunities.", "Equality leaves no child behind."?

They're all attempts (many of them quite successful) to import new notions of equality into rights debates. They're ubiquitous on any site even moderately left of center. The really nutty ones talk about equal rights for animals, equal rights for children (i.e. any form of parental discipline constitutes abuse), equal rights for trees, ...

I know I shouldn't be hanging out on that side of the tracks, but I get so curious sometimes.

Not by anyone whose opinion I respect.  But more to the point, did I really need to specify equal rights under the law?

This just gets us onto the law, ethics, morality treadmill. What is law? What should be law? What was law previously but shouldn't have been?

When talking about equal rights, the law is nothing more than a snapshot of one state at one instant in time. I know of no thinking individual who is perfectly satisfied with the laws of their parent state. There's a constant push to abolish rights and to create new ones, and (not surprisingly) "equal rights under the law" are constantly mutating. Hence any time I hear "equal rights", it covers the whole "equality spectrum" up to and including the most radical ideas. When I hear "equal rights under the law", it simply refers to whatever rights--crazy or not, fair or not--have managed to work their way into codified law at this cosmic moment in time or could potentially wind up there.

Hence why "I support equal rights under the law." doesn't mean anything. Unless you're going on record saying that you consider US laws and case law 100% perfect just as they are now, you wouldn't tweak a single thing, the only thing I can conclude is that you fall somewhere on an incredibly broad spectrum.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 20, 2017 20:23:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 20, 2017 15:41:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i didn't assert the "legitimacy" of Wikipedia.  i merely inferred that they were not a leftist plot or fake news.  that assertion was far more narrow than the one you claim i made.  for example, 99% of all cable news falls into that category.  it is only when the media latches on to a fake story that they fail to clear this low bar.

but let's get back to the actual assertion:

do you disagree that the alt-right considers itself nationalistic, patriotic, and an advocate for "white rights"?

if you do, what is YOUR understanding of what the alt-right does, and how does it differ substantively from the understanding that assertion?

To the extent that the alt-right is a single cohesive entity--which is minor almost to the point of nonexistence--these three values appear to be what they stand for.

The main fault with Wiki article is the amount of effort it devotes to tying the movement to neo-Nazism based on dubious or biased sources.

I desire a manifesto or publications by a recognized leadership to judge any political movement. For example, with BLM we have essays by the founders, manifestos put out by official organs (recognized major affiliates) like M4BL, speeches given by legislators and endorsed by the official organs, etc.  Then it becomes reasonable to call any group whose views and aims align with the standard, whose methods don't conflict with it, a "part" of that movement.

The Wiki article makes it obvious that opinions are all over the map as to what the alt-right is, let alone what it officially stands for and what its doctrines are. That's why Paul's assessment, while admittedly incorrect, isn't far off the mark. I've seen a tremendous push by the left to take advantage of the nebulosity and equate the alt-right with neo-Nazism. It's in their best interest, in a sense, to convince the world that "alt-right" is synonymous with unpopular ideologies like white supremacy, antisemitism, etc., and not with more moderate (and significantly more popular) ideologies like patriotism and white nationalism (i.e. white rights). Which is why I wouldn't trust the site in the OP as far as I could throw the server.

Hence when he says the alt-right is a leftist plot and fake news, he's correct in the sense that these are two of the forces seeking to shape the public's perception of the movement.

i was not claiming that 100% of the alt-right thought of themselves that way.  some are just along for the ride.  some probably use the term to describe themselves without even understanding what their titular leaders think and believe.

i don't make absolute statements, Virgil.  when i talk about subjects, i talk about them GENERALLY.  you like to play "exceptions".  you want exceptions?  i am one.  so there.

your last sentence is hilarious.  i was the one who said that.  sarcastically.  so, my sarcasm was correct?

you're a goof.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 22, 2017 9:43:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 20, 2017 20:23:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

To the extent that the alt-right is a single cohesive entity--which is minor almost to the point of nonexistence--these three values appear to be what they stand for.

The main fault with Wiki article is the amount of effort it devotes to tying the movement to neo-Nazism based on dubious or biased sources.

I desire a manifesto or publications by a recognized leadership to judge any political movement. For example, with BLM we have essays by the founders, manifestos put out by official organs (recognized major affiliates) like M4BL, speeches given by legislators and endorsed by the official organs, etc.  Then it becomes reasonable to call any group whose views and aims align with the standard, whose methods don't conflict with it, a "part" of that movement.

The Wiki article makes it obvious that opinions are all over the map as to what the alt-right is, let alone what it officially stands for and what its doctrines are. That's why Paul's assessment, while admittedly incorrect, isn't far off the mark. I've seen a tremendous push by the left to take advantage of the nebulosity and equate the alt-right with neo-Nazism. It's in their best interest, in a sense, to convince the world that "alt-right" is synonymous with unpopular ideologies like white supremacy, antisemitism, etc., and not with more moderate (and significantly more popular) ideologies like patriotism and white nationalism (i.e. white rights). Which is why I wouldn't trust the site in the OP as far as I could throw the server.

Hence when he says the alt-right is a leftist plot and fake news, he's correct in the sense that these are two of the forces seeking to shape the public's perception of the movement.

i was not claiming that 100% of the alt-right thought of themselves that way.  some are just along for the ride.  some probably use the term to describe themselves without even understanding what their titular leaders think and believe.

i don't make absolute statements, Virgil.  when i talk about subjects, i talk about them GENERALLY.  you like to play "exceptions".  you want exceptions?  i am one.  so there.

your last sentence is hilarious.  i was the one who said that.  sarcastically.  so, my sarcasm was correct?

you're a goof.

Upon review, I see it was Shooby and not Paul who claimed the term "alt-right" was fabricated by liberals.

Paul commented on the push to conflate nationalism and patriotism with white supremacy, which is precisely what we've been discussing. Hence my apologies to him.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 22, 2017 10:08:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 22, 2017 9:43:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i was not claiming that 100% of the alt-right thought of themselves that way.  some are just along for the ride.  some probably use the term to describe themselves without even understanding what their titular leaders think and believe.

i don't make absolute statements, Virgil.  when i talk about subjects, i talk about them GENERALLY.  you like to play "exceptions".  you want exceptions?  i am one.  so there.

your last sentence is hilarious.  i was the one who said that.  sarcastically.  so, my sarcasm was correct?

you're a goof.

Upon review, I see it was Shooby and not Paul who claimed the term "alt-right" was fabricated by liberals.

Paul commented on the push to conflate nationalism and patriotism with white supremacy, which is precisely what we've been discussing. Hence my apologies to him.

congratulations for not making this about me.  only 11 steps to go.