Talk:Alt-right/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 14 December 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

So, am I an alt-righter?

My own political philosophy has always been built around a humanistic conservatism that takes evolution very seriously. Using the tools we're given to build livable societies. Acknowledging the utopian unworkability of abstract egalitarian schemes. Learning to live with indelible human weaknesses like xenophobia, clannishness, and sexism. I have little patience with racial superiority theories, but something like racism will always be with us, and it's a fool's errand to imagine it can be made to go away forever. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's see. Do you say "cuck" a lot and are you a neo-Nazi without saying so? No? I expect not - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"Racism won't go away" — more like; soon enough, we'll all be about the same shade of caramel and speak the same language. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Aye, and then something else will be invented to take the place of race and define a class of lazy, unhealthy, immoral undesirables. (The vicious and depraved health and fitness, food purity, and wellness horseshit seems a prime candidate. It's got its own form of scientific racism. It allows the well to do to blame social problems on the filthy, lazy, undisciplined habits of the poor.) More to the point, the description in the article itself seems to encompass any number of forms of evolution-friendly conservatism. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Though, you would agree that there are quite a few steps in magnitude to get from "evolution-friendly conservative to "far right and sometimes straight-up neo-Nazi"? Unless by "evolution-friendly conservative" you mean the same thing as TERFs do when they call themselves "gender critical" or white supremacists do when they call themselves "race realists"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There are other points of contact. I am fiercely supportive of abortion, though I think the real problem is a tyrant economy that commands the sexually mature not to breed. The idea of eugenics does not horrify me, and I don't generally recognize a right to breed. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm really asking — by that, do you mean that said restriction be intended for the more "degenerate members" of the human gene pool? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't miss David's question above. How rusty is your manospherian? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I could be persuaded to support a program that, say, gave early release to violent convicts who got vasectomies &c. Likewise with people who carry genes for horrible ways to die like Huntingdon's; if they want children they should adopt. I'm rather sympathetic to some MRA goals and positions, though not the pickup artist nonsense. There are indelible behavioral differences between men and women. Pretending otherwise is daft. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course there are differences between men and women — you point that out as if being a feminist means that you somehow have to deny the lessons of evolutionary psychology. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that's just it: I had always understood that to be a feminist in good standing, you did have to deny the lessons of evolutionary psychology. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 23:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's actually quite compatible to synergize a truthful account of the natural sciences with participation in the ethical and political struggle for equality of the sexes. That's one of several unproblematic joint positions I personally adhere to; one I highly recommend at that. The myth, perpetuated in concert by misogynist anti-feminists and radical lesbian separatists alike, is that somehow, the future of life and society is about picking one side against the other — good versus evil, right versus wrong in a steel cage deathmatch with the future of civilization at stake. As opposing radicals tend to think alike, they both love the idea that — outside of either of their opposite camps (broadly speaking) — there's just the meager activity of fencesitting left. When, in fact, the "fence" by that analogy is actually as wide as a continent. It's a "fence" wide enough to live a life on; wider by orders of magnitude than both of their patchy, brown lawns combined. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I've always thought you half-shared their contempt for politics while not recognizing their own views as political. But other than that, no. I don't think so. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It sounds pretentious, but if pressed I would honestly describe you as "post-reactionary". Here me out: by any reasonable definition, you're a reactionary, in that you think much of societal development past a certain point was a mistake. (As I recall. It's been a while since I read your essays.) But you've also clearly rejected the neoreactionary movement, and have essentially constructed what you consider a smart, workable, humane version version of reactionism. Thus, post-reactionary. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to think that Pat Buchanan is mostly right on foreign policy, mostly right on trade and economic policy, but that all the culture war nonsense is beyond the legit business of government. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing with a guy who called Hitler courageous is pretty damn far right, man. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hitler's post in WWI indeed required considerable courage, even if I didn't say that I agreed with him on Hitler. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 23:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hitler in WWI was a message-runner, a position often derided by other soldiers because it kept you behind the front lines most of the time. His later claims about all the great sacrifices he made for the glorious German nation were, like most of his claims, bullshit. --Ymir (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I just think your view of how the world is supposed to work is stuck 30-40 years in the past. You remind me of aging hippy types I know, all of whom grouse about how they marched in the Civil Rights movement and how can they not be considered "progressive" today. Never mind that their concerns, thinking, and general problem-solving solutions requires conditions that haven't existed since the Reagan era and don't take into account modern technology. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Like any good caricature, there's a lot of truth there. I make no secret of the fact that the anti-war and free speech movements are core parts of me value system. I broke ranks with 'progressives' when feminists started attacking porn, and when it dawned on me that 'liberals' did not really believe in universal equality because every tribe requires ab Other. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

And you reference exactly what I'm talking about. Feminists attacking porn; that was Dworkin and MacKinnon and the rest of the 2nd Wavers. That happened before I entered grade school; by the time I reached high school all that crap was dismissed with the advent of sex-positive 3rd Wave. The only remaining 2nd Wavers are the TERFs. And 3rd Wave got started over 30 years ago. It's about ready to retire and be replaced with a new doctrine of feminism.

So when you talk about your concerns about feminism, for instance, your concerns apply to feminism as if it had not changed one iota since 1981. And so your concerns are meaningless, because that state of feminism just doesn't exist anymore, and fixing old problems that have already been fixed by newer upgrades is nonsensical. It's the equivalent of ignoring Vatican II in the Catholic Church or insisting that COBOL is still the best programming language EVAR.

I know you're experiencing Toffler's future shock, but I'd like to think you're smart enough to keep up. Can't you just upgrade and be done with it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't apologize for being informed by, and changing with, my life experiences; nor for apparently having more of them. Numbered BASIC is all the programming language anybody needs. And 'upgrade'? To what? Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Castaigne is perfectly right, you know. Please believe me when I say a completely Carl Sagan-y love of the natural sciences, biology and evolutionary psychology included, is fully compatible with modern feminism. The whole MRA idea that the 2nd waves were enough is a joke; the 2nd wave was riddled with problems the third got past (a fact of nuance never reported on by the anti-feminists; they want to narrate all of feminism as one long experimental mistake). And further, the idea that all of the prospect components of feminism which — in terms of time period — was explored in the third wave were ultimately in the pocket of some kind of ultra gender critical lesbian separatist mode of thought is complete nutpicking and a strawman of any mainstream feminist movement. You mention sex and the third wave in terms of incompability — but what about sex-positive feminism? In my case, having academically studied a lot of philosophy of science, history of ideas and learning and epistemology, I've yet to run into anything remotely anti-feministic in there (though misogyny is ripe in theology, which I've also studied). Having further studied non-nutpicked feminism and women's history as well, I've yet to find anything anti-science in there, either, except when I went out of my way to look for it. This manufactroversy, that the many non-crank schools of feminism somehow contain more than the struggle for literally equal rights (in the sense of deceptive "baggage") has about as much veracity as the insistence that Atheism is "in fact" not just a doubt of God but a faith-position or competing religious system of its own... The term "feminism" is as wide as the term "politics". Saying you're overtly "for" or "against" politics is about the least precise thing one could ever say, and it hardly conveys an understanding of the rich tapestry of feminist thought (with room for both good and bad). And like in politics, there's infighting; there's even opposites of thought. Without that fact, it would be dogma. But it's not - the positions actually change, progressing to something better via numerous iterations constantly. And like in politics, the loudest and most notorious examples are NOT the mainstream ones. So I wish you'd atleast concede to the fact that I'm imploring you to understand that: as far as there's a "choice" between a scientific worldview and feminism, there's really not. Unless you nutpick, of course. And that's per definition not a fair evaluation of anything. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as actual politics is involved, I am 95% on board with what the (broadly defined) streams of the feminisms propose. (Exceptions tend to cluster around domestic law, the 'sexual objectification' censorship hangover from the 1980s, and due process for the accused of sex crimes.) But actual politics is important: real politics involves laws, policies, and things that are actually both feasible and desirable for a government to do. All else is just whining to annoy your neighbors. And too much identity politics and 'progressivism' generally is not about actual politics. No law could fix their typical grievances. This is why BLM was sich a breath of fresh air: hey, it's about policing, courts, and other things a political movement can do. And all of this is further reason why our evolutionary psychology article is a travesty. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 12:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Phony nationalists again

This is another Southern Poverty Law Center/far left-wing/"anti-racist" run movement. Like this article says the alt right are "internet" based only. That's what the SPLC want, they don't want right wing nationalists to have any real political power or influence in the real world. Let's all just sit behind our keyboards instead... the "alt" right is a club for internet hobbyists set up to turn nationalists away from politics. once they are on the internet they then post lunacy to demonise nationalists and make them look like nutjobs. What is the current craze in the "alt right" movement? the earth is flat. Yes no joke. google it: [1] Schizophrenic (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what a cuckservative would say! Don't you see how the Jewish media has been pushing these round Earth lies for centuries? Relativity was invented by Albert Einstein, a well-known Jew. --Ymir (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't whitewash the alt-right's bigotry

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/14/you-cant-whitewash-the-alt-rights-bigotry/

"It has legitimized overt race- and gender-based hate speech; if it’s okay to say hateful things about white men, the claim that it’s not okay to say them about other groups becomes tenuous. It has lent credibility to claims that whites, especially straight white men, are under attack. It has subverted the moral authority of anti-racism—and of liberalism (in the classic sense), dismissed in current progressive discourse as “a philosophy of white male domination.” And it has so trivialized the concepts of bigotry and racism that they have lost much of their stigma. When wearing a sombrero for Halloween can get you labeled a racist, the label becomes meaningless."^{— Unsigned, by: KrytenKoro / talk / contribs}

IMO, yes. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read the full article, but as far as the above quote is concerned, I agree. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that this problem stems from lefties too often accusing someone's intentions of being racist when their policies are racist. For an example, a white supremacist is clearly racist and will act racistly while someone who wants to "clean up the streets" would be likely advocating for a policy that would be racist by its function.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not so much raising this as a topic for debate, but more trying to highlight something that would be relevant to add to the articles -- for Prejudice Plus Power, that people like this author see it as being frequently abused to excuse rhetoric that provokes racial disharmony and hinders, rather than helps, its reputed goals.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

By and large, that doesn't sound too implausible. P+P isn't exactly an unproblematic concept. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The point there being that, when you're on the sharp end, it's the actions that matter, and the people most strongly pleading to look at their inner conceptual intent do so in the process of making excuses for blatantly systematically discriminatory actions. It's a species of obvious bullshit - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear on what you mean: what is (a species of obvious bullshit)? I must admit I had a little trouble following your above statement... My bad. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"X isn't really racist for doing [blatantly racist action] lots because [argument from intent]" - it's a transparent bullshit excuse that fails to address the systemic problematic behaviours, and it's a really common one. For example, Eric S. Raymond's startlingly creative redefinitions of "racist" to mean he couldn't possibly be one while espousing race realism, but it's quite common in milder usage. But basically, nobody on the sharp end reacts any way other than "yeah, bullshit" - it's something racists say to each other to convince themselves everything is just fine - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That is indeed a species of obvious bullshit. Thanks for the clarification. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Citing DEVILMAN's "alt-right constitution"?

What are your thoughts on listing Theodore Beale's stupid alt-right bill of rights thingy in our alt-right article, akin to how this vaguely related list is presented in its respective article? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Beale is no more an authority figure in the alt-right than any of the other chancers trying that particular grift. That manifesto is his attempt to position himself as that sort of authority. If that works, it's worth including the green ink manifesto here. If it enjoys the same success as most of his effluvia, better as a one-sentence on his article. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Authoratitive or not, I feel it's absolutely relevant to include somewhere. Either at his article or this one, granted, but doing a side-by-side rebuttal of it is Dog's work, and we should do it with Dog speed! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

He churns out so many grandiose self-aggrandising jokes like this that it would be a bit like painting the Forth bridge to keep up with them. Good luck if you try tackling this one, but I wouldn't touch it unless it ends up with greater longevity than most of his drivel. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Top quote

Who said it? There's no attribution. Bicycle^wheel 08:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ross Douthat, according to Google. [2] Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 23:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Bicycle^wheel 22:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Globalization, neoliberalism and the Alt-Right

I'm editing this page someone reverses my edits? Kashifv (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've provided edit summaries as to why this happens. You need to source your claim that the Alt-Right is against neo-liberalism. TOW doesn't mention it AFAIK, and many Alt-Righers are indeed neoliberal. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

While we're at it, "They are somewhere between the neoreactionary movement and straight-up neo-Nazis" suggests a spectrum of some sort. Is there one? I'd like to see it. Jagulard (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not an improper description, per se. As TOW puts it, "The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources have said that it is associated with white nationalism,[1][2][6] white supremacism,[3][7][8] antisemitism,[1][2][9] right-wing populism,[6] nativism,[10] and the neoreactionary movement.[7][11]". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's poorly worded, implying, as I wrote above, that there's a spectrum of far-right nonsense. TOW puts them all in the same metaphorical basket, and that seems to me more accurate. 23:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

they are NOT neoliberal they are an anarcho-capitalistic with the inner core being anarcho-fascistKashifv (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"Anarcho-fascist"? Fascism being one of the most statist ideologies? The alt-right are straight up fascist. Left on economics (corporate intervention, race national welfare) and socially right (traditional family, race preservation, hierarchy). They are White and have negative views of Jewish influences on their nations. The whole "spectrum of far right" thing is a waste of time, "far right" is just a meaningless smear applied to any nationalists. Anyone (White) opposed to mass immigration is "far right" according to the Jewish media. Richard Chepstow (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever they may be, it's not "Anarcho-Fascist". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

A Sartre quote

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/sartre.htm

Worth addition? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be if it wasn't waaaaaaay too long. But everyone should read "Anti-Semite and Jew", Sartre nailed these fucking bozos in 1946. Turns out he was an incisive and astute writer, hey - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Added it to anti-semitism instead, where I'd wager it fits better. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

One recent source

Ought to cite from this at some point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Good old Richard "Alt White" Spencer. NPR interviewed him yesterday--they prefaced the interview with numerous disclaimers, but that's still first time that I've heard naked racism displayed so openly on a national broadcast.

Let's throw in more fun: the LA times did a glossary-type article on them earlier in the week, leading to more than a hundred of those guys polluting the comment section. My favorite new appellation in that abortion of a discussion is "Alt Left"; what in the blue hell is that supposed to be?

Are these guys really who the GOP wants to associate themselves with? --50.1.143.182 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki is mentioned on /r/AltRight. Response?

You need to go into the oven. (And then a Gish Gallop stream of consciousness.) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump needs the FBI to investigate Alt - right and Richard Spencer

Great new video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8m05IHDbTs Creationistsareloons (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Good article

http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/11/23/the-rise-of-the-alt-right-and-religious-right-are-chillingly-similar/ The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Branding

Ugh. FuzzyCatPotato of the Wobbly Centrifuges (talk/stalk) 07:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems to overlap quite well with Theodore Beale's "Alt-right constitution". We should add both to the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No such thing as an "alt right" political party

The "alt right" is a internet troll movement. No political party is "alt right". Right wing nationalist and populist parties want nothing to do with the "alt right" movement since they view it as toxic. Its just an internet based troll movement. Creationistsareloons (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 02:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you still call a thing "alt" when it's in the fucking White House? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Male supremacy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/25/the-alt-right-isnt-just-about-white-supremacy-its-about-white-male-supremacy/ FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So they're cool with gays? And what about non-Christians? Worzelpete (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What more needs be said?

http://archive.is/i5Ayg αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 06:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos isn't Alt-Right

I just want to point out that Milo Yiannopoulos said the following in his article called "How to destroy the Alt-Right":
- "Just to be clear, I don’t consider myself a member of the alt-right."
- "And the movement certainly isn’t led by me — although the media seems determined to crown me its queen."
- "I can tell which members of the audience are alt-right, because their eyes are starting to twitch at me, the degenerate’s degenerate being called alt-right."

Furthermore, most people in the Alt-Right consider Milo a disgusting degenerate because he is a Jewish gay man whose favorite sex partners are black man.

You say that, but at his latest little circle jerk at a university he displayed the photo and named of a trans woman that's a student there in front of an audience of bigots, coming within a hair's breadth of actually inciting violence on her. If that's not acting like a fucking Nazi what is? 173.175.43.44 (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Reddit: I am Lawrence Murray, Alt-Right blogger, TRS columnist. AMA

Top question:

New to the altright and have some questions on how you guys believe. Do you think that Hitler's "Final Solution" was a good idea? Not judging just genuinely curious. Also, do you personally believe that we should continue to fund Israel as much as we are?

Answer:

I think (((they))) should have been deported, and it is an awful tragedy that the conditions of the two-front war made such schemes impossible.

The only reason to ever send Israel money would be as part of a Jewish resettlement program, but even then if you had the power to enact such a program you probably wouldn't need to bribe.

Ah, good old blatant antisemitism. A friend not missed. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 12:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitism" = any criticism of Jews, valid or otherwise. 195.191.67.226 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The (((Echo))) was a red flag and the indirect Holocaust denial in "should have been deported, and it is an awful tragedy that the conditions of the two-front war made such schemes impossible" implies(very indirectly i admit) that that was the extend of Nazi plans rgarding the Jewish Question.--Benaresh (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Bash the fash, man. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump disavows Alt-Right supporters

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469

Oh yeah, that milquetoast little apology totally makes up for imitating the Nazi salute, dogwhistling about globalists taking America's money away, inciting hatred against anyone who isn't white, and hiring Steve "basically a Nazi" Bannon has his chief strategist. Riiiight. 173.175.43.44 (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Salt-right inanity

This section is terrible thirdly because it's inane, secondly because it's stupid and not funny, but primarily because alt-righters absolutely don't give a shit about logic, coherence or words. They're fucking Internet trolls, not creationists. They are not even pretending to be coherent. Even if you think "I wanna be funny here", this shit literally doesn't work, they don't care and never did. Reread Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew to get the idea: literally all alt-right engagement with others is argument in bad faith, and their goal is the art of amusement with elaborate bad faith argument.

If you really want a section on arguing with alt-righters, read Anti-Semite and Jew and explain the argument style cribbing heavily from Sartre. (Turns out Jean-Paul Sartre was intelligent, perspicacious and a good writer!) - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that trying to discuss things with them isn't worth the time but it is a way to at least bait them to attack each other instead of derailing a proper discussion( It is like asking on Stormfront if Jews or black are worse or if east europeans are white.Flamewar ensues) In addition i personaly love the blazing saddle reference and it alone is worth the inclusion.--Benaresh (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Also what does BFANJS stand for?--Benaresh (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

BFANJS. "We are snarky" does not mean filling articles with "lol so random" shite - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not much tickles your funny bone does it, Dave? Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A history of the Alt-right

Worth a watch! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Also worth a read is the Wiki article which is accurate and well written. These people are nothing to make jokes about. I recommend eliminating all but the link until someone does better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right Bagatello (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed this

There is a deep gulf between the alt-right and mainstream religious conservatives in the USA. The latter either reject evolution entirely, or else acknowledge it but insist that evolutionary science cannot be used a source for moral and ethical values; only religion can (i.e., the nonoverlapping magisteria thesis). Either way, they also affirm some type of "human exceptionalism": that man is not simply just another animal.

In contrast, the alt-right not only universally accept Darwinian evolution, but also biological determinism, social Darwinism, and sometimes eugenics as well, which they see as logically following from it. As all the "human biodiversity" talk implies, they aren't always human exceptionalists and many do see man (or at least certain races of man) as just another animal. Much like Lord Tennyson, they see nature as "red in tooth and claw" and human nature as no different. Steve Sailer, a precursor to the alt-right, used the term "evolutionary conservative" to describe himself and how his views differed from those of other conservatives.

This schism has led to those on both sides of the divide taking very different positions on issues such as abortion (religious conservatives are strongly opposed, while the alt-right is not: John Tanton, another precursor of the movement, even founded a Planned Parenthood chapter!), bioethics, immigration, economics, and of course the teaching of evolution. Other differences include the attitude toward history. Mainstream conservatives these days have no beef with the civil rights movement of the 1960s (although today's LGBT rights movement is quite another story), but among alt-rightists, neo-segregationist rhetoric is commonplace. Creationists also dislike the alt-right's social Darwinism.

This seems to suggest that alt-righters are almost completely not religious conservatives. I have not personally found this to be true. They may dress their arguments in science, but they are often creationists or anti-evolution themselves. Moreover, I think this fails to recognize that modern conservatism has had raciallist and sexist undertones for a long time.

Moreover, why do we spend so much time talking about what the alt-right is not as opposed to what the alt-right is? FuzzyCatPotato of the Uncivilized Beaks (talk/stalk) 01:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

yeah, I was never fond of that section. Even if it were true, it's trivia at best and not important to why the alt-right rate an article - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Comic

Thoughts? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

lol. But if you mean "should we use it", not unless it's freely licensed - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ThatHappened

High School reunion

In high school me and my mate were virulently anti-Semitic, not because we were racially conscious just because it was hilarious, we would accuse people of acting Jewish, claim jews stole our home work and kinds of shit, everyone thought I was a nazi (I wasn't) but I didn't really mind I thought it was funny and to hell with everyone else.

I don't hold my tongue on facebook either, I don't go full fash but I shit post, mock leftists and praise kek.

Anyway at my reunion on Sunday everyone (thinking I'm a nazi) was so keen to come and tell me how funny they think my facebook arguments are and how I'm right about most things, especially the more alpha sorta guys.

I was absolutely shocked by how many of them were checking my wall every day to see my shit posting and talking about immigration and nationalism.

I directed a lot of them to TRS and stormer and genuinely they were receptive to it, one of the guys was going around doing roman Salutes, and no one was going to stop him.

These guys weren't political, they didn't know what the alt-right is but they see so much stupid shit at college, all this anti white garbage that they are looking for an outlet, looking for a way the can absolutely reject it.

Which made me think, a few months ago I saw at a milo event there were people handing out dailystormer leaflets, I thought it was a waste of time, but it really isn't.

There are so many men who want to reject cultural Marxism in the most aggressive way possible and not in alt-lite terms they wont to be stronger and more assertive than that. We have an opportunity right now to get these people on board because of how fucking stupid universities are. Normally these people wouldn't have the impetus to unlearn everything they know about ww2 or to watch the greatest story never told, but right now they do. Lets harness it, put up a flyer at college do these subtle things that can convince these men to view our sites.

FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 14:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

and then Marine Hitler stood up and applauded - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The link is dead.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 If a link is dead, the first thing you should do is see if there is an archive. CowHouse (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for Content

While this article is informative enough on its own, I feel that it lacks mention of something significant. Reading the beliefs of the alt-right, I was reminded of the 1990s Usenet essay The Long March, which was infamous not only for its extreme bigotry and illogic, but also for being in damn near every inbox in America. For those unfamiliar with the essay, I'll give you an abridged summary: after attacking Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for not being conservative enough, the author launches into a long, painful diatribe in which he fusses about IQ scores, religiously cites The Bell Curve, and uses all other manner of circumstantial evidence to "prove" that African-Americans are developmentally inferior to Caucasians, and the only reason anyone thinks differently is because of a sinister plot to overthrow western civilization by Jewish communists who have infiltrated every facet of American culture, starting with - of course - the Cultural Anthropology departments of major universities. Yeah. So, considering everything we know about the alt-right, I figured that it would be worthwhile to bring up the essay in the article and suggest a possible connection. Let me know. 24.61.154.51 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting! Absolutely sounds relevant. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's simply a fact that Marxist Jews starting with Boas monopolised American anthropology and pushed fake science. "Hey let's all fight racism!...except among me and my Jewish buddies here..." Calling people mean names doesn't change that. 84.252.254.184 (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Death of the brand 'Alt-right'?

An interesting read, if nothing else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The term "alt-right" is perfectly useful as applied to the modern recrudescence of various supremacist/separatist movements grouped into one semi-coherent set. This article tends to lose the plot where it stoops to labeling other groups not known to be proponents of white-dominated ideologies. For example, why is Gamergate even mentioned? It is a an ephemeral artifact of digital entertainment media. Or, what about associating those opposed to social-Marxism with white supremacists? I myself am a serious critic of Marxist theories. Do I have to be white now?Ariel31459 (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What's "social" Marxism? Is it in any way related to Cultural Marxism? Evil Zionist (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

On reconsideration I think it is better not to conflate modern social issues with the "...-Marxism" label as some have done in reaction to certain developments in social justice movements. Reactionaries have done so. The term is too loaded to get a fair hearing.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The term is only loaded among those who don't know what Marxism actually is. You, yourself, don't seem to fully understand what Marxism is. You sound like a typical Jordan Peterson or Steven Pinker true-believer. Stop getting your worldview from simple-minded pop academics on youtube and you might start to be taken seriously. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Much of gamergate eventually coalesced into a form of fascist entryism into gaming culture and is a movement that very blatantly overlaps with alt right thought. Anyone familiar with these movements can attest to this. Whether or not it's an "ephemeral artifact of digital entertainment media" (lol), it remains alt right--or do you seriously believe that the alt right is incapable of influencing thought outside of more traditional political fora? Moreover, by claiming "Social Marxism" is a thing, and whining about "SJWs" you've essentially outed yourself as someone whose worldview is shaped by alt lite propaganda. Congratulations, you're a political illiterate. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment inserted into article in chief

Among various edits to the article, User:37.193.1.184 inserted the following text:

[strong disagreement between the idea that neo-fascists need media attention and the media needs neo-fascists. It's most likely that neo-fascists, like any other group of assholes, really only need each other, and once enough of them have gathered together, the media cannot ignore them, especially as the media could not even ignore "planking" {remember, it's all been corrupted by the blacks...everything except the idea of white-supremacy, of course}.]

This seems to be more of a comment, so I've preserved it on the talk page. I have no strong opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A matter of definition

The introduction to this article does not contain a single reference. I have understood the term to primarily designate any recently formed group calling for, or supporting white supremacy. There is a variety of opinion: The Southern Poverty Law Center defines it as,

"The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization. Characterized by heavy use of social media and online memes, Alt-Righters eschew “establishment” conservatism, skew young, and embrace white ethno-nationalism as a fundamental value."

By this definition I take it that the modern academic formulations of social justice concepts led to a series of reactions known as the alt-right, even as the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s led to the reformation of the Republican Party into a virtually all-white party.

More succinctly Wikipedia defines alt-right as: "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism."

This introduction needs more references. This definition appears a little too customized.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

We really don't need to cite stuff that's already cited elsewhere in the article - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. How about the fact that "Alt-right" is actually a buzz-word for a bunch of actual events and media artifacts that are only connected by varieties of white-nationalism?Ariel31459 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Individuals and groups claim to be alt-right, regardless of the media's general incapability, you politically illiterate ignoramus. It is an actual thing. Jesus Christ, are you serious with this shit? 72.181.99.6 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The question is: are you serious? Evidently not.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Trying to Add Content But It Won't Let Me

I've been trying to edit the section "Men are Under Attack" by adding a quote from a book that I think summarizes the alt-rights views on women and feminism quite well. However, every time I try to add it, the website won't let me, saying that it's "harmful" and "spam", even though it really isn't. I'm just inserting a quite from a book that just sums up the alt-right's beliefs but does not condone or endorse them in any way. Could someone please tell me how to add the content? NotYourAverageBoN (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Avalon (and car)

The article states that the name Avalon was taken from the name of the Toyota Avalon. This is almost certainly false - Avalon is a location of Arthurian mythology. Somebody else happening to use the name for something else is irrelevant. ^{— Unsigned, by: 216.56.24.131 / talk}

I think it's supposed to be a joke. --Gospatric (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

i thought so but then i looked and its really not. the whole section is a nonsensical mess. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

ive removed the suggestion as joke or not it was painfully unfunny. i also removed what followed as it was similarly made of shite. please people, do not try to shoehorn crap jokes in everywhere at the expense of a cogent argument - we look like fucking idiots. 'snarky point of view' (i cringe everytime i see that mentioned) does not mean shitty jokes. The stuff i removed was in the white nation section which now looks a little light, if anybody who knows about this stuff wants add anything useful. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)