What is Alt-Right?

[JasperL]

The problem with this declaration is that you don't know WHY he hired Bannon. (unless, of course, you have some secret conduit into his thinking)

As a result of Hillary's conspiracy theories...which sucked you in completely along with the media...y'all are wallowing in your spin, lies and hyperbole.

I don't know how you can stand doing that stuff.

Doesn't matter 'why' he hired him. It's not guilt by association if he does hire him as CEO - Bannon's ideology is being embraced by Trump's campaign. Let's say Hillary hires a prominent member of CAIR to lead her campaign. The odds you'd ignore that person's ideology and that of CAIR is 0.0000% and you'd be right because were Hillary to do that she's sending a message to Muslims in particular but also the rest of the country that she's embracing at least much of CAIR's ideology and political aspirations, telling CAIR and those who agree with it that she will have their back.

 

[Mycroft]

Doesn't matter 'why' he hired him. It's not guilt by association if he does hire him as CEO - Bannon's ideology is being embraced by Trump's campaign. Let's say Hillary hires a prominent member of CAIR to lead her campaign. The odds you'd ignore that person's ideology and that of CAIR is 0.0000% and you'd be right because were Hillary to do that she's sending a message to Muslims in particular but also the rest of the country that she's embracing at least much of CAIR's ideology and political aspirations, telling CAIR and those who agree with it that she will have their back.

LOL!!

Now you are ignoring reality with your talk about Hillary.

She hired Huma who has been a part of her mother's anti-American Muslim news rag. Nobody is saying anything about Hillary reflecting Huma's ideology.

So...sorry, but your "logic" is a failure.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you even realize what you posted here?

"Wrong! Trump hired Bannon days before there was any mention of alt-right."

No ****, Sherlock. That's just what I said. Read my post again. "The "alt-right" discussion is because of the hiring of Steve Bannon." In other words, when Trump hired Bannon, it brought about the alt-right discussion. Or in more other words, Trump hired Bannon days before there was any mention of alt-right, and alt-right became a discussion because of the hiring of Bannon.

Please stop embarrassing yourself, okay?

My point was...there was nothing said about alt-right until Hillary spouted off with her conspiracy-laden rant about those guys. Not even by the media. But once she did, THEN...and only then...did the media talk about it and did you useful idiots for Hillary talk about it...and talk about it...and talk about it...

Hell, if Hillary had spouted off about something totally different, there would now be no mention of alt-right. Instead, y'all would be talking and talking and talking about whatever drivel she said.

Admit it. It's true.

 

[cpwill]

My point was...there was nothing said about alt-right until Hillary spouted off with her conspiracy-laden rant about those guys. Not even by the media. But once she did, THEN...and only then...did the media talk about it and did you useful idiots for Hillary talk about it...and talk about it...and talk about it...

Hell, if Hillary had spouted off about something totally different, there would now be no mention of alt-right. Instead, y'all would be talking and talking and talking about whatever drivel she said.

Admit it. It's true.

What? We were talking about the alt-right throughout the primary. Trump just put it in a bigger spotlight when he chose to hire the closest thing it has to a public avatar to manage his campaign.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Well, I suppose you do, but on what basis do you claim, for example, that Jared Taylor of American Renaissance does not understand the alt-right, when he is immersed (I assume) in the culture far more than you are? You can listen here at the 15 minute mark and hear him say that race realism (racism with cites to studies) is, "the central element that does unite the alt-right." Not a side issue but THE issue.

All you're doing here is rejecting description of the movement you don't like with nothing in the way of even persuasion other than "You do not understand!" Well, point me somewhere so I can independently confirm your assertions.

When did he become the de facto leader of this movement?
Does he create applications for admission?

Weird how one person some how holds all control over a diverse set of beliefs.
You do not understand, because you want it to be true.

Again, saying "you do not understand" is not an argument. I can do that too. No, it's YOU who doesn't undertand!! Lol.....

What are you doing differently to come to this superior grasp of this movement? Cites? Why should I trust you and reject what Jared Taylor has to say?

You can't cite it, it's an internet subculture.
Internet subcultures are notoriously un/under represented with citations.
That's why you do not understand, because you have absolute 0 experience in these areas.

IMO, Trump is the one mainlining the idea.

Trump didn't bring it up.
Hillary did, it's nothing but a smear tactic and appeal to emotion.

On more time, baseless assertions aren't going to convince me. I've read their stuff and listened to them in their own words, going back many months.

And if you want to do that route, again: "Is NOT clap trap!" Etc....

Nothing will convince you, because you're already psychologically primed to believe any of this.
You reading any "alt right" for months, is highly doubtful to the point of being dubious.

 

[JasperL]

LOL!!

Now you are ignoring reality with your talk about Hillary.

She hired Huma who has been a part of her mother's anti-American Muslim news rag. Nobody is saying anything about Hillary reflecting Huma's ideology.

So...sorry, but your "logic" is a failure.

Now that is "guilt by association." It's pretty funny you can't see the difference.

And her employing a Muslim at the highest level in her campaign absolutely speaks to what Hillary believes about Muslim and Islam and we can KNOW she'll be tolerant of Muslims in America, and will be far more likely to allow them entry both as immigrants and as refugees.

FWIW, I don't know enough about the magazine to know if it's actually "anti-American" or not but I do know in right wing talk "anti-American" is a low bar and means pretty much anyone who disagrees with our decades of foreign policy meddlings in the ME and acknowledges that those interventions over decades likely contributed, in full or in part, to terrorist attacks against us and 9/11. And in this formulation, Ron Paul and many libertarians are therefore "anti-American."

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I agree with you that this is an attempt to build a mountain from the proverbial molehill.

All I can do is leave you with this.
The internet is full of mostly unknown subcultures, from the tame to the disgusting.
"Alt right" occupies both, at the same time.

There is no documentation, there is no way to show you.
It's something you learn about over time, by interaction.
Kind of like understanding what Anonymous was or what pepe memes are.

 

[cpwill]

LOL!!

Now you are ignoring reality with your talk about Hillary.

She hired Huma who has been a part of her mother's anti-American Muslim news rag. Nobody is saying anything about Hillary reflecting Huma's ideology.

Really? I see lots of conservatives pointing that out.

 

[JasperL]

When did he become the de facto leader of this movement?
Does he create applications for admission?
Weird how one person some how holds all control over a diverse set of beliefs.
You do not understand, because you want it to be true.

I have no idea how you think "You don't understand" with no cites is responsive to anything. I'll do it. "No, YOU don't understand. Trust me I know!"

You can't cite it, it's an internet subculture.
Internet subcultures are notoriously un/under represented with citations.
That's why you do not understand, because you have absolute 0 experience in these areas.

Impressive stuff. Essentially this is your argument, paraphrased obviously, "You don't understand, you're wrong, and I can't show you anything but trust me I'm right, you're wrong!" And yet we have many websites that claim this ideology or related ideologies, with writers, meetings, speakers, etc. You're essentially pretending there is nothing to this movement, but people who claim to be in the movement are with their actions telling you you're full of crap.

So who to believe. Random dude on the internets whose only argument is "you don't understand, you're wrong, I can't cite anything, but trust me" or what I can find and read and listen to in many places online?

Trump didn't bring it up.
Hillary did, it's nothing but a smear tactic and appeal to emotion.

Well, that's sort of true but Trump precipitated this by hiring Bannon who claims to be a leader of this movement.

And do you have ANYTHING but baseless assertions on this topic? How do we know it's nothing - because you say it's nothing, which is proof it is nothing, etc.

Nothing will convince you, because you're already psychologically primed to believe any of this.
You reading any "alt right" for months, is highly doubtful to the point of being dubious.

So, more arguments consisting entirely of "you're wrong." I think I'll move on unless you have ANYTHING to offer that might help someone independently confirm your bare, baseless, evidence free assertions.

 

[Mycroft]

Now that is "guilt by association." It's pretty funny you can't see the difference.

And her employing a Muslim at the highest level in her campaign absolutely speaks to what Hillary believes about Muslim and Islam and we can KNOW she'll be tolerant of Muslims in America, and will be far more likely to allow them entry both as immigrants and as refugees.

FWIW, I don't know enough about the magazine to know if it's actually "anti-American" or not but I do know in right wing talk "anti-American" is a low bar and means pretty much anyone who disagrees with our decades of foreign policy meddlings in the ME and acknowledges that those interventions over decades likely contributed, in full or in part, to terrorist attacks against us and 9/11. And in this formulation, Ron Paul and many libertarians are therefore "anti-American."

Yes...your deliberate ignorance about those that Hillary surrounds herself with is evident.

For example, Huma was on the editorial board for her mother's mag. They published many articles denigrating America, their policies and actions in the ME, including Bill's 'wag the dog" actions and GHW Bush's intervention in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

And yet, nobody spins that to mean that Hillary is influenced by and agrees with Huma's ideology...especially from the left.

But the left jumps...with both feet...into their hypocritical position of doing that sort of thing with Trump. (or anybody else they don't like)

 

[cpwill]

I have no idea how you think "You don't understand" with no cites is responsive to anything. I'll do it. "No, YOU don't understand. Trust me I know!"

Impressive stuff. Essentially this is your argument, paraphrased obviously, "You don't understand, you're wrong, and I can't show you anything but trust me I'm right, you're wrong!" And yet we have many websites that claim this ideology or related ideologies, with writers, meetings, speakers, etc. You're essentially pretending there is nothing to this movement, but people who claim to be in the movement are with their actions telling you you're full of crap.

So who to believe. Random dude on the internets whose only argument is "you don't understand, you're wrong, I can't cite anything, but trust me" or what I can find and read and listen to in many places online?

Well, that's sort of true but Trump precipitated this by hiring Bannon who claims to be a leader of this movement.

And do you have ANYTHING but baseless assertions on this topic? How do we know it's nothing - because you say it's nothing, which is proof it is nothing, etc.

So, more arguments consisting entirely of "you're wrong." I think I'll move on unless you have ANYTHING to offer that might help someone independently confirm your bare, baseless, evidence free assertions.

Enjoy.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I have no idea how you think "You don't understand" with no cites is responsive to anything. I'll do it. "No, YOU don't understand. Trust me I know!"

I can't.
You don't have to trust me, but you shouldn't assume that, some websites = total representation of all who claim "alt right."

Impressive stuff. Essentially this is your argument, paraphrased obviously, "You don't understand, you're wrong, and I can't show you anything but trust me I'm right, you're wrong!" And yet we have many websites that claim this ideology or related ideologies, with writers, meetings, speakers, etc. You're essentially pretending there is nothing to this movement, but people who claim to be in the movement are with their actions telling you you're full of crap.

So who to believe. Random dude on the internets whose only argument is "you don't understand, you're wrong, I can't cite anything, but trust me" or what I can find and read and listen to in many places online?

Those websites and those people are just as random as I am.
You choose who and what you want to believe.
You want to believe the inherently negative information.

I've heard from multiple who claim the tag "alt right" and not all of them are representative of "those websites."
You can continue to believe that negatives, I'll believe that a broad ideology is a broad ideology.

Well, that's sort of true but Trump precipitated this by hiring Bannon who claims to be a leader of this movement.

And do you have ANYTHING but baseless assertions on this topic? How do we know it's nothing - because you say it's nothing, which is proof it is nothing, etc.

Do we know what Bannon believes in terms of what "alt right" is?
Are you assuming that Bannon believes in the White supremacist version?

Because Bannon believes in some version of "alt right" does that automatically mean Trump believes it?
Could Trump have hired him for other reasons besides "alt right?"

So, more arguments consisting entirely of "you're wrong." I think I'll move on unless you have ANYTHING to offer that might help someone independently confirm your bare, baseless, evidence free assertions.

Yep.

 

[Mycroft]

Really? I see lots of conservatives pointing that out.

I haven't...and I haven't seen anything in the media.

Now...I've pointed it out here, but not to imply that Hillary agree's with her employee's positions. Rather, to point out the hypocrisy of Hillary, the media and the left for their "guilt by association" attacks.

 

[Mycroft]

Could Trump have hired him for other reasons besides "alt right?"

He absolutely could have...but nobody from the left or the #NeverTrump crowd will ever admit that.

It just wouldn't fit their agenda.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Enjoy.

I honestly don't think that's a good source for a complete understanding of alt right.
It's one of those, you have to experience them to understand things.

I mean, people are now throwing gamergate, theredpill, etc into alt right.
It's poor media knowledge, research and really just a smear job.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

He absolutely could have...but nobody from the left or the #NeverTrump crowd will ever admit that.

It just wouldn't fit their agenda.

I know right.
I mean Hillary ****ing rigs the Dem primary and people are just hunky dory, with her continuing.
These same people tell me democracy is some sacred thing.

That gets flipped to Trump/Russia conspiracy.
Does that change the truth about the previous situation?

 

[shrubnose]

I honestly don't think that's a good source for a complete understanding of alt right.
It's one of those, you have to experience them to understand things.

I mean, people are now throwing gamergate, theredpill, etc into alt right.
It's poor media knowledge, research and really just a smear job.

The Alt-Right is made up of the racist,bigoted xenophobes on the far right who will get their butts kicked with Trump in November.

This is nothing new,those losers have been around since the South got its butt kicked in the Civil War.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The Alt-Right is made up of the racist,bigoted xenophobes on the far right who will get their butts kicked with Trump in November.

This is nothing new,those losers have been around since the South got its butt kicked in the Civil War.

Sigh, you and others continue to live in your ignorance.
It's all you have to live on.
Continue to judge entire groups by their worst actors, it's easier to be a non thinker.

This isn't about Trump losing or winning.
It's about characterizing an entire group of people, with a diverse ideology, by one part of said group.
I assume you believe all Muslims are terrorists, all Blacks are criminals, all Christians murder Jews, etc.

If you don't then you're not consistent.

 

[jet57]

I don't think any 'white nationalist movement" is statistically relevant (I keep asking about this), and it's personally not in the least interesting to me. I say this as a conservative who is relatively well informed and who does read National Review and serious conservative writers such as Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, George Will, and others.

I can't imagine any decent person of any political stripe paying a lick of attention to idiot white nationalists. I don't know any conservatives who do. Actually, I don't know anybody who does except here at DP.

The part of this that your not getting is that Trump has already been labeled a racist with his rhetoric about Mexican rapists, and building a wall and cutting off immigration for Muslims etc. Then David Duke supports him, and now this alt-right thing is playing his song. By NOT condemning all that, Trump plays right into the hands of those labeling him a racist. The more he ignores it, the more it looks like he's okay with the endorsement of white supremacy: the guy's getting into quick sand.

 

[shrubnose]

Sigh, you and others continue to live in your ignorance.
It's all you have to live on.
Continue to judge entire groups by their worst actors, it's easier to be a non thinker.

This isn't about Trump losing or winning.

It's about characterizing an entire group of people, with a diverse ideology, by one part of said group.
I assume you believe all Muslims are terrorists, all Blacks are criminals, all Christians murder Jews, etc.

If you don't then you're not consistent.

Come back and tell us all about it after Trump gets his butt handed to him in November.

 

[shrubnose]

Sigh, you and others continue to live in your ignorance.
It's all you have to live on.
Continue to judge entire groups by their worst actors, it's easier to be a non thinker.

This isn't about Trump losing or winning.
It's about characterizing an entire group of people, with a diverse ideology, by one part of said group.

I assume

you believe all Muslims are terrorists, all Blacks are criminals, all Christians murder Jews, etc.

If you don't then you're not consistent.

Those who 'assume' make an ass out of themselves.

:lol:

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Come back and tell us all about it after Trump gets his butt handed to him in November.

Completely irrelevant, however you constantly using that as a rebuttal could be considered spam and is against forum rules.

Those who 'assume' make an ass out of themselves.

:lol:

Why don't you?
You believe all of "alt right" are Trump supporting racist xenophobes, why not with the others?
You'd be inconsistent and if not inconsistent, a bigot.

 

[JasperL]

Yes...your deliberate ignorance about those that Hillary surrounds herself with is evident.

For example, Huma was on the editorial board for her mother's mag. They published many articles denigrating America, their policies and actions in the ME, including Bill's 'wag the dog" actions and GHW Bush's intervention in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

And yet, nobody spins that to mean that Hillary is influenced by and agrees with Huma's ideology...especially from the left.

If you want to cite an article so I can see how it denigrates America and isn't merely critical of America, LIKE TRUMP IS CRITICAL OF AMERICA, then be my guest. But, again, as I said, yes, Hillary's hiring of Huma does absolutely send a signal. I say it then you pretend I'm denying it. It's odd.

But the left jumps...with both feet...into their hypocritical position of doing that sort of thing with Trump. (or anybody else they don't like)

I've spent enough time explaining Trump's words, actions, policies. If you want to keep ignoring ALL of that, there's nothing more I can do.

 

[nota bene]

The part of this that your not getting is that Trump has already been labeled a racist with his rhetoric about Mexican rapists, and building a wall and cutting off immigration for Muslims etc. Then David Duke supports him, and now this alt-right thing is playing his song. By NOT condemning all that, Trump plays right into the hands of those labeling him a racist. The more he ignores it, the more it looks like he's okay with the endorsement of white supremacy: the guy's getting into quick sand.

I'm not "getting" that Trump has already been labeled a racist? Sure I am. For me, the label doesn't stick. I don't know that any candidate should be somehow required to condemn or even comment on the likes of a David Duke endorsement. What about "rising above"?

 

[cpwill]

I haven't...and I haven't seen anything in the media.

I know I've brought it up several times here (So have others).

It's definitely been in the media, particularly the conservative media:

April 14: The Federalist: You Can't Whitewash The Alt Right's Bigotry
April 5: National Review: The Racist Moral Rot at the Heart of the Alt-Right

Breitbart even published the Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt Right back on March 29th, in which the Alt Right is pictured as consisting of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals — and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways. :roll:

Posters here have been part of the Alt-Right "Identitarian" movement, and post and celebrate alt-right memes.