A Primer on the Alt-Right

[AUbritt 611]

So, here I'll quickly post a few sources about the so-called alt-right.

I say so-called, since it's pretty clear at this point that the guy who coined the term is a white supremacist with delusions of Nazi grandeur. 

Here's video of parts of the speech he gave after Trump's election. Apparently, the speech was quite long. I apologize I don't know how to insert video on the new site format.

The gist of it is that 'we' are white, 'we' took back the country, and there's citing German phrases and the actual Nazi salute in response to him saying "Hail Trump, Hail victory!" (This is the equivalent of 'Heil Hitler, Seig heil!').

Although Trump explicitly 'disavowed' the alt-right, it was pretty tepid for Trump. He didn't mock them at all, for instance. Here is one story quoting Trump's reaction. Note the mention of Bannon at the end, and his boast to have made Breitbart a platform for the alt-right. Here's more on that.

Here's a recent Brietbart article: "When You Hear a Scientist Talk about 'Peer Review' You Should Reach for Your Browning." Well, what's so fascist about this, you might ask. I mean, we all know science is politicized, right? Well, this particular locution is a paraphrase of a line in a play written by the Nazi Hanns Johst ("When I hear the word 'culture', I unlock my Browning," often misquoted as 'When you hear the word culture, you should reach for your gun!')

In Europe, it's better known as the 'new right'. There's a radio network known as 'Right On' that has a lot to say about stuff we've talked about here, although from an 'alt-right' perspective.

One of the main tenets of the new right seems to be anti-Islam. It seems the Muslims have taken the place of the Jews (although the latter are still bad, of course). Muslim immigrants are taking over Europe, just like they took over Iran (yes, the return of the Aryan race), and we need to protect our white, European identity, blah blah blah. 

That they call themselves 'alt' or 'new' right should not obscure the resemblance to Nazi-style fascism. Just listen to their stuff, if you can.

Now, why am I posting this here?

There are folks here who I don't believe are, in fact, fascist, but who nevertheless are saying things awfully close to what these fascists are saying. I actually think that libertarians are quite far removed from fascism. Libertarianism is much more congenial to a republican form of government than to fascism, which has the view that the State is all (a kind of organic state, in which each member participates whole-heartedly, but which is ultimately embodied by the Leader). Whereas libertarianism holds that we should be free from interference, limited only by the demand that we not harm others, and so would favor limited government, fascism would have each individual commit himself wholly to the state -- it's all about the Fatherland and the Fuhrer.

Only I can make America great again, you might say.

Other aspects of the alt-right are denigrating women and cripples. Sound familiar?

Y'all can do more research on your own, of course. But this is why I feel like all true conservatives should oppose Trump. He's 'alt-right' in a lot of ways that matter. He's not conservative, he's radical. In his eyes, the free market is the dumb market. The market needs to be harnessed to make America great again -- USA, USA über alles! 

I've taken on a playful tone in this post, but I actually think this is deadly serious business. A lot of folks think the only way to combat fascism is with communism. Damned if we didn't fight and win a war to defeat fascism and then another Cold War to defeat communism. Americans need to regain our identity, alright. But it's not that we're white, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-woman, anti-cripple, anti-science, anti-free market, jerkoffs. It's that we're Americans. And that means something different from what the alt-right crowd thinks.

 

[AUDub 11,255]

Careful. You'll trigger poor Raptor. He doesn't like it when I bring up the alt-right. 

[AUbritt 611]

3 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Careful. You'll trigger poor Raptor. He doesn't like it when I bring up the alt-right. 

Actually, he asked me to do this. I took him as sincere, so I did it in good faith. If Raptor really is a libertarian (which I take to be middle-right, rather than far-right fascist), he'll be into this discussion and not at all defensive. 

And to be clear, I'm not making fun of him or anyone else. I'm not trying to goad anyone, either. I'm sincere about wanting a real discussion about politics.

[SaltyTiger 8,006]

https://www.halfhitch.com/stores/half-hitch-tackle-panama-city/fishing-reports 

Fishing report from Panama City if anyone cares for anything worth reading.

Full moon tonight but raining here.

Gumbo is great tonight at The Cajun Place.

[AURaptor 1,129]

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Careful. You'll trigger poor Raptor. He doesn't like it when I bring up the alt-right. 

I'm not overly fond of it being used as a catch all to anyone who didn't vote for Hillary, or those who don't fully buy into the Left's view of how the world should be. And just because I may like peanut butter and some clowns who like to play Hitler Youth also may like peanut butter, doesn't make me a  White Nationalist by default. The tactic of the Left , to lump everyone NOT them into some category of deplorables just because they don't buy into the AGW hysteria or believe it's our duty to have wide open borders, and free govt benefits for all who show up on our doorstep, is nothing but guilt by association. This sort of shaming us into submission and trying to shout down any dissent of such policies is exactly why Trump won. So keep it up. Please. 

[AUUSN 823]

7 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Careful. You'll trigger poor Raptor. He doesn't like it when I bring up the alt-right. 

[AUbritt 611]

6 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

https://www.halfhitch.com/stores/half-hitch-tackle-panama-city/fishing-reports 

Fishing report from Panama City if anyone cares for anything worth reading.

Full moon tonight but raining here.

Gumbo is great tonight at The Cajun Place.

Are you suggesting my thread isn't worth reading? 

Or that some of what I  linked to is disgusting? 

I agree with the latter. 

I  actually think it's vital for us to see clearly the differences between someone like Raptor and the real alt-right. 

On my phone again, or I'd post the link from the Wisconsin recount thread here, since gives something more like a list of characteristics of the alt-right. 

Peanut butter not on the list.

[AUDub 11,255]

9 hours ago, AUbritt said:

Actually, he asked me to do this. I took him as sincere, so I did it in good faith. If Raptor really is a libertarian (which I take to be middle-right, rather than far-right fascist), he'll be into this discussion and not at all defensive. 

And to be clear, I'm not making fun of him or anyone else. I'm not trying to goad anyone, either. I'm sincere about wanting a real discussion about politics.

Well I've tried and it didn't go so well last time.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

Ideologues and ideological idiots will not sincerely, or genuinely, engage is discussion.  They do not question, their ideology allows them to KNOW.  Therefore, their only intent is to indoctrinate you into their absolute beliefs.  You may not question their opinions because, in their alternate ideological world, their opinions represent facts.

I wish you well but,,,,,unless you are a psychologist specializing in deprogramming cult members, you may become frustrated.

 

[AUbritt 611]

I think suggesting that Raptor or others who espouse a right wing point of view (I'm not trying to single him out, especially) should be able to state their view without automatically being labelled 'alt-right', or cult members, for that matter.

At the very least, they should be able to speak for themselves about whether they self-identify as alt-right.

I think that term has a fairly specific meaning, and that we can identify it with Spencer (who coined the term) and his neo-Nazi, white supremacist doctrines. There are others, like the so-called New Right in Europe and parts of Asia, who espouse essentially the same position as Spencer. They are fascists.

Raptor has said he is not a fascist, so I take that to mean he doesn't self-identify as 'alt-right' in Spencer's sense of the term.

I am hoping to have dialogue about the issues we are facing now, and I think the traditional left-right distinction doesn't help that much. It's easily used to dismiss people whose views probably have more in common with each other than they do with either the extreme right or extreme left (who actually share a lot of views).

Some people see communism as the antidote to fascism. I think that's dangerous. I think folks in the middle (including folks who think they are far right or far left) need to get together and fight both right and left extremism. The United States, as a republic founded on ideas, rather than on racial identity, is probably the best place for this sort of resistance to extremism. Unfortunately, the state of the conversation now is so poor, and we spend so much time fighting each other, I believe we have lost sight of the true danger extremism presents.

I am not a psychologist trained in deprogramming cult members. I don't think I need to be that in order to have a real, respectful conversation about the future of America. If I'm wrong and can't get that conversation here, I'll end up somewhere else. But it's a conversation we need to be having.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

19 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

I think suggesting that Raptor or others who espouse a right wing point of view (I'm not trying to single him out, especially) should be able to state their view without automatically being labelled 'alt-right', or cult members, for that matter.

At the very least, they should be able to speak for themselves about whether they self-identify as alt-right.

I think that term has a fairly specific meaning, and that we can identify it with Spencer (who coined the term) and his neo-Nazi, white supremacist doctrines. There are others, like the so-called New Right in Europe and parts of Asia, who espouse essentially the same position as Spencer. They are fascists.

Raptor has said he is not a fascist, so I take that to mean he doesn't self-identify as 'alt-right' in Spencer's sense of the term.

I am hoping to have dialogue about the issues we are facing now, and I think the traditional left-right distinction doesn't help that much. It's easily used to dismiss people whose views probably have more in common with each other than they do with either the extreme right or extreme left (who actually share a lot of views).

Some people see communism as the antidote to fascism. I think that's dangerous. I think folks in the middle (including folks who think they are far right or far left) need to get together and fight both right and left extremism. The United States, as a republic founded on ideas, rather than on racial identity, is probably the best place for this sort of resistance to extremism. Unfortunately, the state of the conversation now is so poor, and we spend so much time fighting each other, I believe we have lost sight of the true danger extremism presents.

I am not a psychologist trained in deprogramming cult members. I don't think I need to be that in order to have a real, respectful conversation about the future of America. If I'm wrong and can't get that conversation here, I'll end up somewhere else. But it's a conversation we need to be having.

I have never considered putting anyone here into a labeled box.  I only consider some here to be so anti left that, they will support anything that calls itself right.  Given the political influences that are a part of this geographic region, that does provide some perspective into a certain "group think", in my opinion.  I also realize that there are those predisposed to the same on the political left but, we are primarily talking about this forum.

Absolute faith or belief in any ideology or "ism" is dangerous.  The danger isn't so much in the stated beliefs.  The danger lies in the level of conformity demanded.  When rhetoric, symbols, fear, demonizing opposing views, creating enemies, excusing uncivilized behavior come into play, the more the goal has less to do with the stated ideology and, the more the goal is about gaining, exercising, consolidating power.  I believe we put too much emphasis on conformity and ideology.  We play into the hands of those who use power for no other reason than to serve their own purposes.  We do not put enough emphasis on character, ethics, leaders with a vision much larger than themselves.

I believe ideology, especially political ideology (because of the very nature of power), is easily co-opted and corrupted.  It is perfect for eliminating critical thinking, requiring conformity, obscuring all principles.  I wonder if a democracy could be co-opted by powerful interests, by way of presenting two seemingly competing interests but, actually with no other intention than preserving the illusion of choice/democracy?  Could enough people become indoctrinated and fooled so that the electorate was systematically divided/leveraged against itself?  Could you even fool those who are part of the "ruling class" to the point that they aren't aware that power is capable of creating policy "failure"?

I absolutely agree.  However, you can only discuss with people willing and able to discuss.  Until some are deprogrammed (and that does require expertise), that may not be possible.  I applaud the attempt.  However, I would prefer you not become disappointed and leave.  There are some here who will value genuine discussion.  There are some here who do not tolerate anything but agreement.

 

[TheBlueVue 177]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I have never considered putting anyone here into a labeled box.  I only consider some here to be so anti left that, they will support anything that calls itself right.  Given the political influences that are a part of this geographic region, that does provide some perspective into a certain "group think", in my opinion.  I also realize that there are those predisposed to the same on the political left but, we are primarily talking about this forum.

Absolute faith or belief in any ideology or "ism" is dangerous.  The danger isn't so much in the stated beliefs.  The danger lies in the level of conformity demanded.  When rhetoric, symbols, fear, demonizing opposing views, creating enemies, excusing uncivilized behavior come into play, the more the goal has less to do with the stated ideology and, the more the goal is about gaining, exercising, consolidating power.  I believe we put too much emphasis on conformity and ideology.  We play into the hands of those who use power for no other reason than to serve their own purposes.  We do not put enough emphasis on character, ethics, leaders with a vision much larger than themselves.

I believe ideology, especially political ideology (because of the very nature of power), is easily co-opted and corrupted.  It is perfect for eliminating critical thinking, requiring conformity, obscuring all principles.  I wonder if a democracy could be co-opted by powerful interests, by way of presenting two seemingly competing interests but, actually with no other intention than preserving the illusion of choice/democracy?  Could enough people become indoctrinated and fooled so that the electorate was systematically divided/leveraged against itself?  Could you even fool those who are part of the "ruling class" to the point that they aren't aware that power is capable of creating policy "failure"?

I absolutely agree.  However, you can only discuss with people willing and able to discuss.  Until some are deprogrammed (and that does require expertise), that may not be possible.  I applaud the attempt.  However, I would prefer you not become disappointed and leave.  There are some here who will value genuine discussion.  There are some here who do not tolerate anything but agreement.

 

So much sophistry here its laughable. OK ichy, since you're evidently agreeing with the premise that Bannon is friendly to the alt-right because "he provides a platform for white supremacists" could you explain to my simple conforming mind how any of that below relates to the thread?  And, while you're at it would point out the specific demands for conformity Bannon or anyone else at Breitbart has ever insisted upon?

. " The danger lies in the level of conformity demanded.  When rhetoric, symbols, fear, demonizing opposing views, creating enemies, excusing uncivilized behavior come into play, the more the goal has less to do with the stated ideology and, the more the goal is about gaining, exercising, consolidating power.  I believe we put too much emphasis on conformity and ideology.  We play into the hands of those who use power for no other reason than to serve their own purposes.  We do not put enough emphasis on character, ethics, leaders with a vision much larger than themselves."

[AUbritt 611]

3 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

So much sophistry here its laughable. OK ichy, since you're evidently agreeing with the premise that Bannon is friendly to the alt-right because "he provides a platform for white supremacists" could you explain to my simple conforming mind how any of that below relates to the thread?  And, while you're at it would point out the specific demands for conformity Bannon or anyone else at Breitbart has ever insisted upon?

. " The danger lies in the level of conformity demanded.  When rhetoric, symbols, fear, demonizing opposing views, creating enemies, excusing uncivilized behavior come into play, the more the goal has less to do with the stated ideology and, the more the goal is about gaining, exercising, consolidating power.  I believe we put too much emphasis on conformity and ideology.  We play into the hands of those who use power for no other reason than to serve their own purposes.  We do not put enough emphasis on character, ethics, leaders with a vision much larger than themselves."

ICHY and I were having a larger conversation, so he was responding to me, not just to the topic of the thread. I'll tell the OP. Maybe he'll censor this conversation.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

9 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

So much sophistry here its laughable. OK ichy, since you're evidently agreeing with the premise that Bannon is friendly to the alt-right because "he provides a platform for white supremacists" could you explain to my simple conforming mind how any of that below relates to the thread?  And, while you're at it would point out the specific demands for conformity Bannon or anyone else at Breitbart has ever insisted upon?

. " The danger lies in the level of conformity demanded.  When rhetoric, symbols, fear, demonizing opposing views, creating enemies, excusing uncivilized behavior come into play, the more the goal has less to do with the stated ideology and, the more the goal is about gaining, exercising, consolidating power.  I believe we put too much emphasis on conformity and ideology.  We play into the hands of those who use power for no other reason than to serve their own purposes.  We do not put enough emphasis on character, ethics, leaders with a vision much larger than themselves."

I think you may be confused.  I did not mention Bannon or Breitbart at all.  I don't mind discussing though.

Do you believe that Bannon and Breitbart are dogmatic, ideological?   Do either/both represent an ideology or, are they supporting the principles of who we are as a country/society?  Do they promote unity or division?

[homersapien 11,630]

9 hours ago, AURaptor said:

I'm not overly fond of it being used as a catch all to anyone who didn't vote for Hillary, or those who don't fully buy into the Left's view of how the world should be. And just because I may like peanut butter and some clowns who like to play Hitler Youth also may like peanut butter, doesn't make me a  White Nationalist by default. The tactic of the Left , to lump everyone NOT them into some category of deplorables just because they don't buy into the AGW hysteria or believe it's our duty to have wide open borders, and free govt benefits for all who show up on our doorstep, is nothing but guilt by association. This sort of shaming us into submission and trying to shout down any dissent of such policies is exactly why Trump won. So keep it up. Please. 

[homersapien 11,630]

8 hours ago, AUbritt said:

Are you suggesting my thread isn't worth reading? 

 

He's demonstrating that it's just beneath him to participate.  

Of course, trying to demonstrate that he's too good for such a discussion has the opposite effect, as he is obviously seeking attention.   Otherwise he wouldn't respond at all.

[homersapien 11,630]

8 hours ago, AUbritt said:

I  actually think it's vital for us to see clearly the differences between someone like Raptor and the real alt-right. 

Differences?  

[AURaptor 1,129]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As I said... keep it up. 

[AUFAN78 3,952]

22 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

https://www.halfhitch.com/stores/half-hitch-tackle-panama-city/fishing-reports 

Fishing report from Panama City if anyone cares for anything worth reading.

Full moon tonight but raining here.

Gumbo is great tonight at The Cajun Place.

Dat Cajun Place?

[AUFAN78 3,952]

15 hours ago, AUbritt said:

Are you suggesting my thread isn't worth reading? 

Or that some of what I  linked to is disgusting? 

I agree with the latter. 

I  actually think it's vital for us to see clearly the differences between someone like Raptor and the real alt-right. 

On my phone again, or I'd post the link from the Wisconsin recount thread here, since gives something more like a list of characteristics of the alt-right. 

Peanut butter not on the list.

Alt- right? Is it possible that it is simply difficult to discuss someone I've never seen, never met and didn't know existed? Is this simply more Fake News? You named a couple alt-righties and I assume you can name more. In fact I hope many more for this to be a topic of importance. Which leads to the obvious question, how many alt-righties are there? Where do they live? Alabama?

[homersapien 11,630]

On 12/14/2016 at 9:32 AM, icanthearyou said:

Ideologues and ideological idiots will not sincerely, or genuinely, engage is discussion.  They do not question, their ideology allows them to KNOW.  Therefore, their only intent is to indoctrinate you into their absolute beliefs.  You may not question their opinions because, in their alternate ideological world, their opinions represent facts.

I wish you well but,,,,,unless you are a psychologist specializing in deprogramming cult members, you may become frustrated.

 

"Fake news"  is not a discussion? 

[homersapien 11,630]

On 12/14/2016 at 11:28 AM, icanthearyou said:

I have never considered putting anyone here into a labeled box.  I only consider some here to be so anti left that, they will support anything that calls itself right.  Given the political influences that are a part of this geographic region, that does provide some perspective into a certain "group think", in my opinion.  I also realize that there are those predisposed to the same on the political left but, we are primarily talking about this forum.

Absolute faith or belief in any ideology or "ism" is dangerous.  The danger isn't so much in the stated beliefs.  The danger lies in the level of conformity demanded.  When rhetoric, symbols, fear, demonizing opposing views, creating enemies, excusing uncivilized behavior come into play, the more the goal has less to do with the stated ideology and, the more the goal is about gaining, exercising, consolidating power.  I believe we put too much emphasis on conformity and ideology.  We play into the hands of those who use power for no other reason than to serve their own purposes.  We do not put enough emphasis on character, ethics, leaders with a vision much larger than themselves.

I believe ideology, especially political ideology (because of the very nature of power), is easily co-opted and corrupted.  It is perfect for eliminating critical thinking, requiring conformity, obscuring all principles.  I wonder if a democracy could be co-opted by powerful interests, by way of presenting two seemingly competing interests but, actually with no other intention than preserving the illusion of choice/democracy?  Could enough people become indoctrinated and fooled so that the electorate was systematically divided/leveraged against itself?  Could you even fool those who are part of the "ruling class" to the point that they aren't aware that power is capable of creating policy "failure"?

I absolutely agree.  However, you can only discuss with people willing and able to discuss.  Until some are deprogrammed (and that does require expertise), that may not be possible.  I applaud the attempt.  However, I would prefer you not become disappointed and leave.  There are some here who will value genuine discussion.  There are some here who do not tolerate anything but agreement.

 

Good post.

The highlighted sentence reminded me of Shirer's  "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".  If you haven't red it I highly recommend it as well as ("Berlin Diary")

Ironically, Shirer wrote it 'Rise' while he was out of work due to being on the McCarthy blacklist.