[SamuelBRoberts]

(11-24-2016 03:35 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

A guy I know was there. He, and many others apparently, were disgusted by Spencer's bad judgement in his choice of language, and his appeal to the worst elements of the 'movement'. From what I gather, it was actually a pretty diverse crowd ethnically, though politically the majority would have considered themselves patriotic nationalists. My understanding is that many of those in attendance feel badly let down that their reasonable concerns, with fundamentally decent motivations, were hijacked by a section of the attendance who really are motivated by the rather doughy, soft-boy nastiness that is redolent of the 1488 types. By the sounds of things, Spencer has lost a significant chunk of his active audience.

I know Matt Forney, who I respect immensely, was there. He wrote something to the effect of "I didn't raise my hand, because I'm not an idiot."

[Roadrunner]

r/the_donald is a mainstream alt-right gathering. They were the ones who stored and spread information, garnered publicity and effectively served as a persuasion and rallying tool as well as reference point for the average individual. However due to Reddit's inability to serve as a forum for discussion, the intellectual subgroups for the 'alt-right' movement were formed elsewhere. The two I can readily identify are the Stormfronters and the Manosphere. Association with the Stormfront is a death sentence. Due to public perception of this connection, the alt-right brand is soiled. The intellectual underpinnings for the Manosphere were founded in Chateau Heartiste and the RooshVForum. The forum (unlike Heartiste) rejected the HBD group as well as the Stormfront and the Neo-Nazis when Roosh made the decision to condemn, persecute and disavow such ideology . Interestingly despite all the forum and Roosh have done to propagate and create this movement, the forum cannot be tagged as an alt-right think-tank. This forum is tagged as do-you-even-lift-bro anti-feminists because a great deal of notoriety was established before the Trump campaign took flight. Leaving the alt-right brand to the Stormfront and Richard Spencer-types is the best move going forward. The best way to describe the forum is Masculine Conservatism; as Roosh himself once coined it. That is now what I will refer to it as; for the alt-right has jumped the shark.

[H1N1]

(11-24-2016 03:50 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 03:35 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

A guy I know was there. He, and many others apparently, were disgusted by Spencer's bad judgement in his choice of language, and his appeal to the worst elements of the 'movement'. From what I gather, it was actually a pretty diverse crowd ethnically, though politically the majority would have considered themselves patriotic nationalists. My understanding is that many of those in attendance feel badly let down that their reasonable concerns, with fundamentally decent motivations, were hijacked by a section of the attendance who really are motivated by the rather doughy, soft-boy nastiness that is redolent of the 1488 types. By the sounds of things, Spencer has lost a significant chunk of his active audience.

I know Matt Forney, who I respect immensely, was there. He wrote something to the effect of "I didn't raise my hand, because I'm not an idiot."

See, this really goes to the heart of my concerns about this whole 'alt-right' thing. "I didn't raise my hand, because I'm not an idiot" is *not the same thing* as saying "I didn't raise my hand because I don't share their motivations". I think Forney has the same doughy, slightly camp unpleasantness about him as Spencer - though I've not met the guy and may be wrong.

[rotekz]

Matt Forney has reported on political events for Red Ice previously. Red Ice flew over from Sweden to cover NPI. It would be odd if Matt was not there to see them and cover NPI as well.

[Cyr]

(11-24-2016 04:21 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 03:50 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 03:35 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

A guy I know was there. He, and many others apparently, were disgusted by Spencer's bad judgement in his choice of language, and his appeal to the worst elements of the 'movement'. From what I gather, it was actually a pretty diverse crowd ethnically, though politically the majority would have considered themselves patriotic nationalists. My understanding is that many of those in attendance feel badly let down that their reasonable concerns, with fundamentally decent motivations, were hijacked by a section of the attendance who really are motivated by the rather doughy, soft-boy nastiness that is redolent of the 1488 types. By the sounds of things, Spencer has lost a significant chunk of his active audience.

I know Matt Forney, who I respect immensely, was there. He wrote something to the effect of "I didn't raise my hand, because I'm not an idiot."

See, this really goes to the heart of my concerns about this whole 'alt-right' thing. "I didn't raise my hand, because I'm not an idiot" is *not the same thing* as saying "I didn't raise my hand because I don't share their motivations". I think Forney has the same doughy, slightly camp unpleasantness about him as Spencer - though I've not met the guy and may be wrong.

That was my thought exactly.
It shouldn't just be about being as much of an asshole as you think you can get away with. Also, being an idiot doesn't really come into it. I don't think the media will make any particular distinction between those that saluted or not- it'll just tar them all with the same brush.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I'm glad this thread came up because as a relative newcomer to the forum I didn't have much of a clue about the history of RVF politics.

Knowing the history makes the mods decisions around race based threads a lot more understandable.

[CynicalContrarian]

(11-24-2016 12:34 AM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

I'm not excusing it, I just don't think it's a game changer.

Considering the very rapid (& very vapid) 24 hour news cycle. Would have thought the response should have been to ignore it all & wait for the next hoaxing MSM outrage?

Otherwise. I could have sworn that one benefit of the "Alt-Right" was that it did not have a core manifesto?
There is no core leadership.
No core group.
The only commonality was the joy of "triggering" Useful Idiots as best as one can.
All this noise & furore seems rather pointless & futile.

Oh well, good thing I'm the aloof lonewolf type that doesn't bother with mobs or mob mentality.

[The Beast1]

(11-24-2016 03:16 AM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 02:30 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Am I the only one who doesn't even remotely care?

Seriously this forum and maybe the r/the_donald are the epicenter of the alt right. I say maybe for reddit because of the obvious.

Roosh, thanks for not getting involved in these talking head wars. Nothing good comes from this.

On a side should be the ones broadcasting out Pizzagate to the world. Let's find a way to get those reddit guys to come here and store their findings.

Ok I'm just gonna stop you right there if you think reddit and RVF are the epicenter of the alt-right

And why bloody not? Have you seen the Trump thread? Things mentioned there first i've seen pop up elsewhere around the internet. I'm waiting for the day Eric Trump admits he's registered here.

This forum is very much a collaborative think tank for the alt right. I wouldn't be surprised to see a reddit revolt and several of those users come over to this forum. We're the only place on the net where subversion is easily found and sussed out quickly.

[Kona]

Its a shame Tila Tequila had to get jammed up by all of this. Sad.

Aloha!

[Samseau]

(11-23-2016 03:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm going to pull apart their racial purity premises and watch the whole thing fall apart this year. They had a fun ride but now it's time to unbrainwash them.

Excuse me, made a typo. Meant next year. No way to destroy so much stupidity in just one month. But it's doable by the end of next year. I feel like I'm already in 2017 after this election is over. Fuck time flies.

[MajorStyles]

It’s much more difficult to defend than attack.

When the far-left was in control, they took Richard Spencer as seriously as they do Burmese water puppetry. But now that Trump has won, they are scouring his meetings and looking for ammunition. So maybe Mr. Spencer got a little lazy and let his guard down. Maybe he didn’t realize that now he is defending and not attacking.

I think it’s a warning to all of us—we have to step up our game, because now we are holding the championship belt. Not them. It’s equivalent to sports, in that it’s much more difficult to defend a title than it is to obtain one.

[Samseau]

(11-23-2016 07:57 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

To be that annoying guy who advocates using well-known words, instead of trying to overlap them with such meaningless vague new invented ones that you need to keep adding extra invented words to try and make it make sense:

Right-wing: The politics of order. (With leftism being 'the politics of movement' i.e. disorder).
Subdivisions thereof:
- Conservative. Primarily resists social changes. Focused on maintenance of existing social order. Hence the 'conserve' bit in 'conservative'. Doesn't really want to make significant constitutional changes. Mostly happy with supporting the ideals of family & church and so on.
-- Subset: the Cuckservative. Resists change in either direction. Generally just wants to grumble about 'conservative principles' but hiss and spit whenever a reactionary does anything towards restoring social order.
- Reactionary. Aims to revert the current society to a previous form. Considers existing social order to be dysfunctional, and insufficiently ordered. Wants constitutional change, generally reversion to previous constitutional forms. Favours stronger and more powerful forms of patriarchy and family, such as monarchy and nobility.
- Fascist. Wants society to be transformed into a human cudgel (the fasces was a bundle of rods tightly bound around an axe handle to increase its strength). Views the world as 'fight or die'. Favours a single, strong dictator at the head to wield that human cudgel. I.e. maximum ant-colony-like social order to maximize aggressive strength. Unlike conservative or reactionary, it is inherently aggressive. This could be further divided into two camps:
- Defensive. They claim that fascism is required for survival purposes. White nationalists would fall into this group, as it would fundamentally require a powerful central government (which always tends towards a dictator) to enforce race laws throughout social & business life. By definition, a white nation is a nation that primarily characterizes itself as white, rather than a multitude of traits.
- Offensive. They claim that their group is the strongest and by right should control more of the earth and have more power generally (i.e. whether they are under threat or not is irrelevant). White supremacists would fall into this group.

This forum on average sits between Conservative and Reactionary. Maybe around 40% conservative, 60% reactionary. Most people here want to revert some things but not others. For instance, only a few people here have supported my critique of democracy and my support of monarchy & nobility. At most people have argued for some voting qualifications or disenfranchising women. On the religious side, there are a lot of strong Christians here, but generally they are just holding-the-line against atheists and leftists -- they seldom argue for restoration of religiosity.

There are a few fascists here, but very few, and none argue the offensive form. It's worth noting that 'fascist' isn't a bad word by itself, in the same way 'communist' isn't a bad word by itself. Indeed there are probably hypothetical situations in which fascism is the best system -- i.e. being assailed by a enemy that has intent to exterminate you. Fascism is typically considered bad because of how extreme it is versus the actual perceived problem it seeks to address.

Nationalism doesn't sit in any particular stratum of the right, in and of itself. It depends on its form. For instance, a conservative nationalist might just advocate more flag waving and celebration of his countries culture. A reactionary nationalist might perceive his country to be in a fundamentally degraded state, and seek to revert it to a stronger prior position, such as by building a wall, banning undesirable immigrants, or deporting some part of the population. A fascist nationalist wants to prepare his country for battle and antagonism generally.

A simple example would be US-Mexico relations. A conservative nationalist would argue for teaching American culture to Mexican immigrants, encouraging the use of English, and so on. A reactionary nationalist would argue for kicking them out unless they had become indistinguishably American. A fascist nationalist would consider it an invasion and be threatening Mexico with war.

A "1488er" ( this word is a thing?) is a Nazi. It means Nazi because 88 means "hail Hitler" -- which only Nazis do. A Nazi is a flavour of fascist of the offensive variety, as they argued their group was superior and should conquer the world and exterminate other groups. And before anybody points out that the full term is "National socialist" -- sure, and North Korea is the "democratic people's republic". Actions override words.

Trump supporters and Trump himself are generally reactionaries. You can see that from the hostility the conservatives had to him and the lukewarm response and lack of loyalty from conservatives generally. He's upsetting the slow, controlled decline they're so comfortable with. The reason Trump is popular with fascists is that many of his policies align with theirs. That doesn't make him fascist. For instance, the nuclear family is supported by conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists alike -- so that by itself doesn't distinguish which stratum you're in.


So, to take a wild guess at what these "alt" things are, they're an attempted lossy rendering of the reactionary & fascist strata. My guess is people are using these words to attempt to look "new". Like they have invented some new politics. Whereas really its well worn, well-known, and already well defined.

Or perhaps the intent is just to play the "which club are you and me in" game because it's enjoyable, and the ignorance of existing terminology and use of new more vague terms is deliberate so as to permit that recreation.

Although I like this post, I feel like it doesn't even begin to capture most right-wing people.

The fact is, I don't consider myself part of any movement or care what people label me as.

All I care about is the pursuit of the Truth. What is both good for myself and my Neighbor. This used to be called, "being a Christian," but even the term Christian is polluted with tons of bullshit.

I think it's best to avoid labels as much as possible because no one label can perfectly encapsulate the complexities of the Truth. Reality is far too complex for just one word and all labels can do is make approximations for our complex world.

Anyone ever read their Socrates? They chase definitions over words, trying to find the perfect definition to get at the essence of things and always fail. This is a feature, not a bug, of human language and understanding. It's simply epistemologically and linguistically impossible to create words that can encapsulate perfect meanings.

You can always ask, "What is X?" and think of a counter-example to the question. For example, if someone asks, "What is a swan?" and you point to a big white bird that lives around lakes, and then find the black swan, what good is the old definition?

Words are nothing more than conveniences, and it is important for people to remember that.

(Both Taleb and I come from the exact same epistemological tradition of Kant and Popper. We even have similar DNA, and we're both Orthodox. I came to the same conclusions as Taleb long before I knew of him. The black swan is a concept from Popper that Taleb popularized.)

[Enigma]

(11-23-2016 07:59 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

There's another red pill, which will trigger most people on the forum, that the "Western Principles" aren't actually the best principles - just the best ones we have to work with in America.

This is exactly why we're seeing the divides we are now.

If you don't like Western culture, do not move to a Western country. It's really that simple.

If you think Indian or Eastern or socialist countries are better, then go to one of those countries.

Quote:

The British were extremely mendacious and worse than Hitler in their actions (especially in India). You can look at a Muslim invader and know to stay away and be wary, but Europeans lulled you in with their rosy "civilization", "positive principles" and "Christianity" and then exploited you using internal Divide and Conquer methods. The European tradition is full of hypocrisy.

America was a British colony. We're well aware of British colonialism.

Quote:

However, it is the best one we have right now in the West, and a lot of it's current practitioners don't know it's full ugly history or definitely don't support it. This is why I support it in the West. I have a very complicated relationship with it, but because I am wary, I accept it. With the Muslim philosophy, weather you are wary or not, they will still attack you violently. Knowledge doesn't do much, so you have to keep them out.

Again, this is why there is growing resentment against people from other cultures. If you do not like or support the West, then don't go to the West. It's really simple.

I live in the Philippines. I don't try to change their government or values. If I don't like something, I will go somewhere else.

Quote:

I have beliefs that are triggering to the normal world:

-Whites were no worse than blacks or natives.
-The Nazis were no worse than the British, the British were just on the winning side.

The converse though is also true, that whites were no better than blacks or natives in their actions. Sure western "society" seems better to us (but imagine if Muslims ruled the world now, wouldn't social conditioning mean that we would think their high culture was superior? - such as the Mughal Dawats etc) - but that civilized society was just a mask over the barbaric and monstrous nature of their conquests.

This is all irrelevant. The alt-right (at least as defined by Vox Day) is not a supremacist movement.

It's about white people being the majority in white countries, Indians being the majority in India, Japanese being the majority in Japan, etc.

Quote:

This is why I hate Ann Coulter, who is completely ignorant about the true nature of her British values that she dick rides. This is the same mindset that keeps getting us into endless wars, such as those in Iraq, which she supported.

Just as you should be allowed to have an intellectually honest discussion about Jewish influence without being a Nazi, you should be allowed to have an honest discussion about the true nature of "Western values" without being a SJW. If you claim (like Ann Coulter) that British colonization was better for all the places they colonized, you are utterly wrong and also do not sincerely believe in self determination - making you a hypocrite.

Americans are allowed to have pride in America, just like Indians can have pride about India, Chinese can have pride about China, etc.

Quote:

FYI, the USA was allowed to have it's freedom because the British didn't care about it anymore, they had India (that's why the USA won the revolutionary war).

The US won the Revolutionary War because they fought for 7 years.

I'm sure a lot of Americans would actually find this comment pretty disrespectful, and it makes it pretty obvious that you have no pride in being American.

Quote:

The British left India much worse off, and certainly much worse off than before it was invaded by the Muslims. I don't see most people reading the Vedas anytime soon though, so the "Western Values" is what we'll run with. We don't really follow old school Western principles anyway. Most "western principles" about mathematics, science, democracy/good governance, rejecting slavery etc didn't originate from the Greeks; guess where they came from.

What does Britain and India have to do with modern America? Most Americans would not consider Britain the start nor the pinnacle of "Western" civilization.

Quote:

The reason I make this post is this: if we want to have an argument about objectively superior principles, self determination, and peace then there are some realities that you must accept. SJW's don't know what they are talking about when it comes to Imperialism, but anti-SJWs also conveniently ignore harsh realities.

No one is ignoring anything.

[Sumanguru]

(11-24-2016 02:25 AM)quino_16 Wrote:  

(11-23-2016 03:34 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

The "Alt-White" is flawed when it comes to their vision for the USA, but not necessarily when it comes to Europe.

It is correct to try to keep the USA culturally homogeneous (or at 80/90%) but not ethnically so. In Europe the ethnic philosophy makes more sense because that is the traditional homeland of the "White People".

This doesn't make sense because there is an overlap between culture, ethnicity, and race.

For example, the best way to preserve Japanese culture is for Japan to remain ethnically homogenous.

If there were large waves of Chinese and Korean immigration to Japan, overtime, Japanese culture will inevitably change and cease being completely Japanese.

This is exactly what happened to America. For the most part, the people of early America (1600's -1800's) were composed of two groups, namely WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) who had a strong orientation towards a republican type of government and a sizable African-American minority. This changed with the European immigration from the late 1800's and early 1900's, in which many of the Europeans who immigrated to America were not Protestant and did have not have favorable views or experience with a republican type of government. I think this is why it was easy to subvert the USA and turn it into a leftist shithole.

Regardless, after the European immigration, American culture stopped being sorely WASP culture. The WASP went into the melting pot along with the other cultures of European immigrants to form a new culture.

Quote:

Yes, it is true that the Europeans conquered America - there was a fight and the natives lost. However, even though the USA may have been built by white people, and you can say it was built to be for white people, that's not what the Constitution says.

False.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The preamble of the Constitution clearly states that the US is for white people, specifically for the descendants of the WASP settlers.

Quote:

The problem is that any kind of extreme race based identity politics in the USA comes off as insecure and doesn't maximize your economic utility functions to begin with - it simply isn't logical. Culture/ideology based identity politics doesn't necessarily have this deficiency. Allowing weak minded and insecure individuals to be part of your movement will ensure that your movement fails. Diversity+Proximity = War is more true with culture today than it is with race. A white Islamist, a white Christian, and a white feminist are more likely to fight, and have fewer things in common, than me (brown), a black forum member, and a white forum member.

This isn't true.

Race/ethnicity/culture serve as better unifying forces than culture/ideology. This partially explains the popularity of the BLM and la raza movements, which are examples of extreme race based on identity politics.

I have no issues with acknowledging that America was established by and primarily for land-owning white males.

HOWEVER, later on we had a Civil War where two competing visions of America fought--one based on racial supremacy, the other on a more equal though still not perfect vision of American citizenship. The later version won. Hence we amended the Constitution that you quoted to abolish slavery, grant citizenship rights to all humans born on American soil, and grant black men the right to vote to put them (theoretically) on par with white men.

In other words, no matter how this country started, for the last 150 years America's supreme law of the land has stated that it is a multi-ethnic country. (Note I did not say multicultural). The European model of racial purity does not apply to us. It cannot. And as to the whole Diversity+Proximity=War shit, well, if that's true we better find some American ingenuity and get to work to find a peacful way to coexist together. Cause I have no intention of letting the Union drift apart, I'm not interested in killing fellow Americans, but I have every right to be a citizen of this country and no intention of giving up my citizenship.

So yes, I look forward to the WNs in the Alt-Right forming their own party (say...a Nazi party?) so the rest of us can get to work.

[H1N1]

(11-23-2016 07:59 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

There's another red pill, which will trigger most people on the forum, that the "Western Principles" aren't actually the best principles - just the best ones we have to work with in America.

The British were extremely mendacious and worse than Hitler in their actions (especially in India). You can look at a Muslim invader and know to stay away and be wary, but Europeans lulled you in with their rosy "civilization", "positive principles" and "Christianity" and then exploited you using internal Divide and Conquer methods. The European tradition is full of hypocrisy.

I have beliefs that are triggering to the normal world:

-Whites were no worse than blacks or natives.
-The Nazis were no worse than the British, the British were just on the winning side.


FYI, the USA was allowed to have it's freedom because the British didn't care about it anymore, they had India (that's why the USA won the revolutionary war).

The British left India much worse off, and certainly much worse off than before it was invaded by the Muslims. I don't see most people reading the Vedas anytime soon though, so the "Western Values" is what we'll run with. We don't really follow old school Western principles anyway. Most "western principles" about mathematics, science, democracy/good governance, rejecting slavery etc didn't originate from the Greeks; guess where they came from.

This is absolute nonsense. The current Indian flourishing, which is wonderful to see, owes a serious debt to British influence. Following the decline of the Mughal Empire and the end of the Timurids, India fractured into warring princedoms. The Indians were VERY happy to take the king's shilling, and to pay tribute in exchange for military assistance against their neighbouring warlords. India was quite advanced on the path to self-destruction before the British filled the power vacuum.

It is also worth considering the matter objectively - it was a time of empire, and India was in a state where someone was going to subjugate it. The Indians are EXTREMELY fortunate that they got the Brits, as one only has to look around now and compare former colonies to realise the consequences of being ruled by the French or Portuguese.

At the end of the day, we ran India with a thousand civil servants. India inherited all the mechanisms of imperial efficiency, and on the back of it they have been given a new lease of life. You don't have to love the British, or like them or that part of your history. What you do have to recognise is that India is well on its way to being a great civilization again in large part because of British influence and infrastructure. You should also realise that we were nothing like the Nazis, in practice or belief, and many of the very real horrors conducted under British rule were carried out with the complete complicity of the local prince.

For anyone who is interested, the best, most balanced book written on the history of the British in India is a book called Raj, the making of British India.

[Phoenix]

(11-24-2016 07:59 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think it's best to avoid labels as much as possible because no one label can perfectly encapsulate the complexities of the Truth. Reality is far too complex for just one word and all labels can do is make approximations for our complex world.

It's precisely because of complexity that we need labels. And for those labels to be as accurate as possible. Perhaps it doesn't affect your own personal politics, and you shouldn't change your politics to fit a mold you've selected (rather the other way). But since politics like many other things is a team effort, being able to determine who aligns with your values and who doesn't is important.

My labeling of myself as a right-wing reactionary is an observation, not an assertion. It's certainly not how I primarily identify myself, it's only one part. But it's the narrowest band that describes my many political positions. Indeed this is why I think this stuff is so valid. When you see leftists appearing to support apparently unrelated things like climate-change activism & gay marriage. Why would they support both with such predictability? Why would I be simultaneously against gay marriage, abortion, socialism, multiculturalism, feminism and so on when there is no apparent common thread? Because there is something more fundamental behind our beliefs than whim.

[britchard]

It doesn't fucking matter if the guys doing the 'sieg heil' are trolling, joking or being serious, it is EXTREMELY damaging to have people like that associated with your movement. I personally would never do a sieg heil even as an impression of someone or as a joke, it is very distasteful at best and at worst means you are associating yourself with people like Mengele and Himmler.

'Oh but the guys there were just trolling they're not serious'. Firstly, the sad thing is that some of them are serious. They are so autistic they don't understand the connoatations that doing a sieg heil has, or are so big a loser that they have to associate themselves with scary looking men in shiny uniforms from the 1940s to feel like a man. Secondly, the average voter (quite rightly) baulks at a sieg heil, turning people away from the conservative movement.

Trump and Cernovich are absolutely right to distance themselves from these people and call them out. If you are calling someone a cuck for taking a stand against people doing the sieg heil and saying 'Heil Trump' then you should go out more.

These idiots will do far more damage against Trump than the pussy-grab tape, the slandering in the media and anything else.



Back to British influence in India. As I've already said, I'm conflicted as I want each country to be mainly for its historical inhabitants, which would go against our invasion of India. However you cannot say that the British invasion was worse than what Hitler did.

I genuinely cannot tell if you are being serious or not, as I have never heard anyone else say something like that and it is such a ridiculous statement. Hitler's campaign resulted in many more deaths, many of which were systematic and just out of pure hatred. Our invasion of India has had a long term benefit, and I actually spoke recently to an Indian man who said the majority of people in India don't like what was done to their ancestors, but admit that British rule has had a long term positive effect.

[Rhyme or Reason]

Why would a group of well adjusted, non-virgins give a fuck about what a bunch of autistic faggots are doing? Since when is our wagon hitched to them?

I've mentioned months ago in the DT thread that once the alt right speech happened and forced the concept into the mainstream, the term hit the tipping point.

I referred to it as having the same arc as a music genre, where people start arguing over what's "real" alt right like a bunch of fucking idiots, all because everyone wants to be perceived as having "street cred" for being an OG (fill in the music genre here)

It's incomprehensibly pathetic, puerile, and gets NOBODY ANYWHERE.

Another point - would 2012 RVF give a fuck about a bunch of fags sieg heiling at a conference?

Would we be arguing about their legitimacy or whether or not they represent us?

Would we have entertained the idea that we should be concerned at all with what they're doing that affects us?

I'm pretty sure this thread if presented to the readership back then would have been laughed off as insignificant....because it is.

So ask yourselves, what's changed around here that now in the current year we've worried about a bunch of Seig Heiling morons ruining our image?. Because I guess ideologically, we are similar to these guys?

Heh.

Just what the fuck is that shit anyway?

Guys, stop fretting about this stupid label, it doesn't matter anyway.

No doubt the usual suspects will come at me with their rhetoric. Funny how all the 'altwhite/altpure/altfag' posters on this site are for the most part unvetted, haven't met any members, and avoid the Game forum like the plague.

[262]

(11-24-2016 11:52 AM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

Funny how all the 'altwhite/altpure/altfag' posters on this site are for the most part unvetted, haven't met any members, and avoid the Game forum like the plague.

Edit: Unrelated but mentioned in an earlier post - apparently water puppetry is Vietnamese, not Burmese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_puppetry

[zombiejimmorrison]

The old-media is really pushing this but who's taking the alt-nazis trolls seriously? Everyone's having a laugh at the autism. This Nazi/Hitler propaganda is getting boring and everyone is getting bored of it, except the old-media which no one takes seriously anymore.

To me it seems this will do about as much damage to Conservatives and Trump as David Duke did, which was nothing. It will pass over in a few weeks.

Am I missing something? If they want the Alt-right name take it, I've associated it with Pepe from the moment I read it. Paul Joseph Watson is coining a different term New Right, sounds fresher, there's still 4 more years for the Right to cultivate it's image.

[All or Nothing]

(11-24-2016 11:52 AM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

Guys, stop fretting about this stupid label, it doesn't matter anyway.

This is what I keep saying. I have always considered myself to be a part of conservative counterculture that was all about questioning and making fun of the stupidity of modern liberalism.

Richard Spencer and the white nationalist crowd are riding a wave that was created by r/the_donald, Breitbart, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, et al. Once all of the latter group begins to dissociate itself from the term "alt-right", Richard Spencer and his crew will find out just how few their supporters really are.

If Richard Spencer and co. wants to own the label "alt-right", let them. It is just a phrase.

[SamuelBRoberts]

(11-24-2016 12:12 PM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  

The old-media is really pushing this but who's taking the alt-nazis trolls seriously? Everyone's having a laugh at the autism. This Nazi/Hitler propaganda is getting boring and everyone is getting bored of it, except the old-media which no one takes seriously anymore.
To me it seems this will do about as much damage to Conservatives and Trump as David Duke did, which was nothing. It will pass over in a few weeks.

I agree that it will only last a few weeks, but this is a pretty critical few weeks. At least one fairly reliable source has said that Trump is considering nominating Mitt fucking Romney, of all people, to "show that we're not extremists". That would be very, very bad.

[Libertas]

(11-24-2016 11:52 AM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

Why would a group of well adjusted, non-virgins give a fuck about what a bunch of autistic faggots are doing? Since when is our wagon hitched to them?

I've mentioned months ago in the DT thread that once the alt right speech happened and forced the concept into the mainstream, the term hit the tipping point.

I referred to it as having the same arc as a music genre, where people start arguing over what's "real" alt right like a bunch of fucking idiots, all because everyone wants to be perceived as having "street cred" for being an OG (fill in the music genre here)

It's incomprehensibly pathetic, puerile, and gets NOBODY ANYWHERE.

Another point - would 2012 RVF give a fuck about a bunch of fags sieg heiling at a conference?

Would we be arguing about their legitimacy or whether or not they represent us?

Would we have entertained the idea that we should be concerned at all with what they're doing that affects us?

I'm pretty sure this thread if presented to the readership back then would have been laughed off as insignificant....because it is.

So ask yourselves, what's changed around here that now in the current year we've worried about a bunch of Seig Heiling morons ruining our image?. Because I guess ideologically, we are similar to these guys?

Heh.

Just what the fuck is that shit anyway?

Guys, stop fretting about this stupid label, it doesn't matter anyway.

No doubt the usual suspects will come at me with their rhetoric. Funny how all the 'altwhite/altpure/altfag' posters on this site are for the most part unvetted, haven't met any members, and avoid the Game forum like the plague.

I think the point isn't that we care about the stupid label, but because of the phenomenon of word-thinking (see my latest on ROK), we're at high risk of being caught in the blast zone, potentially blunting our own influence. Collateral damage.

That's why it was good this thread was made, I'd argue.

This will pass over, but it was a clear wakeup call to that broad community of "new rightists" or whatever else you want to call them that we have big league idiots in our midst. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

[Space Cowboy]

(11-24-2016 12:17 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I agree that it will only last a few weeks, but this is a pretty critical few weeks. At least one fairly reliable source has said that Trump is considering nominating Mitt fucking Romney, of all people, to "show that we're not extremists". That would be very, very bad.

The problem is that his other candidate (Giuliani) is a slimy Brooklynite who gets a kick out of putting on makeup and wearing womens' underwear.

[Lunostrelki]

"Alt -right" is basically anyone the establishment left didn't expect to vote for Trump who voted for Trump. This includes minorities and educated young people. The stuff about Nazis and white supremacists is a scary image built into the label by those who popularized it. It's a poorly-defined subset of anti-status quo conservatives, and was never a homogeneous group of people to begin with.

It's kind of like the "White" forces in the Russian civil war—if you weren't for Lenin's regime, you were a White Russian. It had no other real meaning.