The Alt Right

Originating at first as an obscure group in American Politics, they are now global and more popular than ever, so, what are your thoughts?

Every extremist has something bad in his brain, don't ask me what, I have no idea.

The Alt-right are the ones that blame Jews for everything and anything that happens that is bad for them is a Jewish conspiracy to kill the good white americans, the Alt Right are a bunch of extremists and any extremists is awful. The Alt-Light are a bit better because they aren't fighting for the white race but instead of Western culture in general, you wont see a black person in the Alt-right but you will see some in the Alt-Light. Still they are extremists and xenophobes so I dislike them as well.

The alt-right and alt-left just seem to have popped out of nowhere and become fairly major forces in politics and society overnight.

I don't know which one to be more afraid of at this point, since it's hard to tell which one is bigger and more influential.

So I just split the difference and fear everything and everyone!

by Alt left you mean Antifa and those people? They are violent and I am more scared of those people then the Alt Right. The Alt right like to hide behind the veil that they like free speech for now so we are safe from them. . . Just have to deal with jewish conspiracies

eggcrate09 wrote:by Alt left you mean Antifa and those people? They are violent and I am more scared of those people then the Alt Right. The Alt right like to hide behind the veil that they like free speech for now so we are safe from them. . . Just have to deal with jewish conspiracies

Fair point, I haven't heard of any alt-right mobs going around and committing assault and arson like their left equivalents.

eggcrate09 wrote:by Alt left you mean Antifa and those people? They are violent and I am more scared of those people then the Alt Right. The Alt right like to hide behind the veil that they like free speech for now so we are safe from them. . . Just have to deal with jewish conspiracies

Yeah they are violent, especially to Trash cans.

National Socialism, when taken it its logical conclusion will always end in Zionism. If the purpose of National Socialism is to create a humanity with the highest average IQ then the Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ.

However, NatSoc also want a right wing government and 70% of Jews vote for Democrats. Therefore, it would appear that a Jewish run country would not forward the "principles" of NatSoc. What they fail to account for is that 73% of Orthodox Jews vote for Republicans, oppose mass immigration, support assimilation, and stand far to the right on most issues. Ben Shapiro comes to mind. Orthodox Judaism is not the enemy of National Socialism.

Furthermore, the abundance of Jewish Nobel Prize winners and bankers is not an international conspiracy but a evidence of the high average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews and business savvy talents, like stingy saving. According to National Socialism, organizing something as complex and powerful as an "International Jewish Conspiracy" should be an accomplishment and not a vice. If there really is an "International Jewish Conspiracy" then white people should work as hard as possible to create one of our own.

When taken as a race, the Jews have many faults (like being SJWs and Leftists) but also have significant military accomplishments. They fought 3 successful wars (1948, 1967, and 1973) to expand their territory and acquire more land for their race from an "inferior race". Isn't that a major goal of National Socialism? To free their historic homeland of "inferior races"? Why is it wrong when the Jews do it but justified when Hitler did it to create lebensraum? Or when Europeans "Manifest Destined" their way to the west coast? This is a question that I really want answered by a National Socialist.

The accomplishments of the Orthodox and Zionist Jew are the same as the goals of National Socialism. Yes, there are Jewish leftists but the Jews that practice their religion, have the exact same goals as National Socialism.

1. Extra-proportional domination at the highest levels of the economy.
2. Creation and expansion of a homeland for their race. (In the Jews' case, Israel).
3. Conservation of their historic culture and the defeat of multiculturalism.

[/quote]
Yeah they are violent, especially to Trash cans.
[/quote]

In the battle of berkely (I was the guy with the Kekistan shield and helmet btw) I saw the horrors that they did to those poor trashcan and the . . . and the dumpster. . .

I don't believe there is such a thing as the "alt right". If there is, it goes back down the hallowed halls of human history to its inception, and has never been limited to the "left" or the "right".

Cold War Communist wrote:I don't believe there is such a thing as the "alt right". If there is, it goes back down the hallowed halls of human history to its inception, and has never been limited to the "left" or the "right".

I believe when he says "Alt-right" he refers to this group: https://alternative-right.blogspot.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

Lord Yavimaya wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:I don't believe there is such a thing as the "alt right". If there is, it goes back down the hallowed halls of human history to its inception, and has never been limited to the "left" or the "right".

I believe when he says "Alt-right" he refers to this group: https://alternative-right.blogspot.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

I know who he is referring to, and I am saying there isn't such a thing. The Nazis are a good example of the "alt-right", but they're not considered such. The KKK is "alt-right", but existed long before the idea. My point is, this has always existed and was never considered "alt-right". It was considered taboo and totally left-field of all ideology.

The supposed phenomena today is not only overblown, but a political tool to delegitimatize counter-mainstream conservative groups by branding them under an umbrella term that includes radical conservative groups. That way anyone who isn't a "traditional" rank-and-file conservative is immediately moved to the further right, more despicable group and loses credibility before the discussion starts.

See also: Red Scare.

Cold War Communist wrote:

Lord Yavimaya wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:I don't believe there is such a thing as the "alt right". If there is, it goes back down the hallowed halls of human history to its inception, and has never been limited to the "left" or the "right".

I believe when he says "Alt-right" he refers to this group: https://alternative-right.blogspot.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

I know who he is referring to, and I am saying there isn't such a thing. The Nazis are a good example of the "alt-right", but they're not considered such. The KKK is "alt-right", but existed long before the idea. My point is, this has always existed and was never considered "alt-right". It was considered taboo and totally left-field of all ideology.

The supposed phenomena today is not only overblown, but a political tool to delegitimatize counter-mainstream conservative groups by branding them under an umbrella term that includes radical conservative groups. That way anyone who isn't a "traditional" rank-and-file conservative is immediately moved to the further right, more despicable group and loses credibility before the discussion starts.

See also: Red Scare.

I wouldn't consider the Nazis or the KKK "Alt-Right." Also, Why would they lose all credibility just because of their name? If they can provide sufficient evidence for their claims then why should they be silenced?

Out of curiosity CptCrape, are you from the U.S.?

I am going to edit in an example and break it down so you can see exacrly how this idea of an "alt-right" is used to capture every fish in one net. Start with this article, which is the first article that came up when I searched "alt-right and kkk".

The first thing the author does is make a tenuous connection between the KKK and the "alt-right" movement (they're having a rally in the same place). He talks a bit about how the "alt-right" rejects "old" bigotry and distances itself from "the brand", calling it "the thinking mans bigotry" and saying it guises itself as "a different perspective". First few paragraphs, the author spells it out for you: he's saying the alt-right doesn't want to come packaged as one wih the KKK, but they are and you shouldn't be fooled.

Then he hits on who the alt-right is. Three key groups make an appearance on stage: Trump voters, Millennials, and white men. He also tries to outline their beliefs and/or talking points, such as: bigotry, sexism, homophobia, transphobia. He also notes that the Millennial component may bring in individuals who are disenfranchised and victims of a poor economy.

Now if you live in the U.S., or are familiar with U.S. political and ideological talking points, choosing not to date a trans person is "transphobic", merit-based college admissions without affirmative action is racist (and so is rejecting racism, see: Evergreen University), and a host of other regular beliefs or ideas that harbor no ill intent come with a label that you generally don't want.

Branding someone "alt-right" is just a way to label anybody who doesn't fit a paradigm as "too far". It disqualifies them from credibility before they can reason themselves to others. That is one reason why I don't believe such a thing exists. It's all the same old white nationalism that was promoted for centuries, just that now it's being used for character assassinations and to form a "boggy man" out of socially liberal fiscal conservatives and "true" progressives (see: Bernie bros).

Alt-Right is a group, they call themselves that. The KKK are not Alt-Right because they are far right extremists.

Cold War Communist wrote:Out of curiosity CptCrape, are you from the U.S.?

I am going to edit in an example and break it down so you can see exacrly how this idea of an "alt-right" is used to capture every fish in one net. Start with this article, which is the first article that came up when I searched "alt-right and kkk".

The first thing the author does is make a tenuous connection between the KKK and the "alt-right" movement (they're having a rally in the same place). He talks a bit about how the "alt-right" rejects "old" bigotry and distances itself from "the brand", calling it "the thinking mans bigotry" and saying it guises itself as "a different perspective". First few paragraphs, the author spells it out for you: he's saying the alt-right doesn't want to come packaged as one wih the KKK, but they are and you shouldn't be fooled.

Then he hits on who the alt-right is. Three key groups make an appearance on stage: Trump voters, Millennials, and white men. He also tries to outline their beliefs and/or talking points, such as: bigotry, sexism, homophobia, transphobia. He also notes that the Millennial component may bring in individuals who are disenfranchised and victims of a poor economy.

Now if you live in the U.S., or are familiar with U.S. political and ideological talking points, choosing not to date a trans person is "transphobic", merit-based college admissions without affirmative action is racist (and so is rejecting racism, see: Evergreen University), and a host of other regular beliefs or ideas that harbor no ill intent come with a label that you generally don't want.

Branding someone "alt-right" is just a way to label anybody who doesn't fit a paradigm as "too far". It disqualifies them from credibility before they can reason themselves to others. That is one reason why I don't believe such a thing exists. It's all the same old white nationalism that was promoted for centuries, just that now it's being used for character assassinations and to form a "boggy man" out of socially liberal fiscal conservatives and "true" progressives (see: Bernie bros).

Yes, I am from the USA, and yes I am aware of the Politics here.

It is still not the KKK. The KKK had different ideas, and execution. The Alt-Right on the other hand is a large blanket term for various right wingers that distance themselves from traditional Conservative Politics. Some Alt-Righters are economically Socialist-leaning, some are ardent believers in Capitalism. Many Alt-Righters even go as far as hating Trump, seeing him as a buffoon, and no better than the left. Either way, they are brought together with similar goals and that generally means reverse the demographic change of White Nations, resist Social Justice and Far Leftism, and keep their nations homogeneous. While some are white supremacists, others are completely fine with interacting with other races, as long as it's behind a border.

Also, just to be clear, I do not consider myself an Alt-Righter, but i've been around the block a few times.

DavidlVofGeorgia wrote:If the purpose of National Socialism is to create a humanity with the highest average IQ

This really isn't the purpose of National Socialism. The purpose of National Socialism is to create a nation for a specific race and culture and to enact collectivist policies where they may benefit such race and culture. Obviously eugenics is a part of this aim, in that it is intended to improve/benefit a race, but it is certainly not the main or only point, and IQ is only one small factor in a eugenic policy.

National Socialism is consistent with the form of Zionism which advocates return of all Jews to a homeland. I'm fine with Israel existing (although I oppose many of their subversive activities in the Middle East). In fact, the Third Reich helped peaceably facilitate Jews moving from Germany to Palestine (now Israel) prior to WWII (Once the war began, this became impossible). The reason for counter-semitism in National Socialism is because Jews have traditionally been, and remain, a diaspora which consistently has had instrumental roles in movements which harm the native, dominant population. This can be boiled down to a few reasons:

• Jews are very ethnocentric. They tend to benefit each other where possible. This is one reason why five of the six media companies owning 95% of the US media are headed by Jews, and all are staffed with extremely disproportionate numbers of Jews compared to their two percent of the population (as well of this trend being present in finance, academia, and increasingly politics). Jewish ethnocentrism is routinely referenced in even Jewish publications.
  
  
• Jews are more likely to be comfortable in diverse populations. Historically, Jews fared best when they live in diverse populations, and do not stand out. A significant majority of Jews in the US are left-wing, and most left-wing movements in the US were started or significantly influenced by Jews. Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and the vast majority of early Soviet officials were Jewish. In the USSR, for high level officials, ethnic Russians were actually a tiny minority, and the revolution was quite ironically funded in part by a Jewish Wall Street banker. Feminism has, through its history, has been largely led by Jewish intellectuals. Same thing with the civil rights movement, and the 'sexual revolution', as well as similar movements.
  
  
• Judaism as a religion is supremacist in nature, and advocates taking advantage of Goyim (non-Jews) all the time. It refers to Goyim as "cattle" and explicitly says in all major translations "you are allowed to cheat Goyim", and "if a Goy asks what is in the Talmud (Jewish book), you should lie to him", and "Goyim only exist to serve Jews", as well as many other Jewish supremacist statements. Obviously plenty of Jews are honorable and friendly people, but the structure of their religion and culture strongly emphasizes ethnocentrism, and Jewish supremacy. A lot of Jews support the idea of Israel, a country specifically intended for Jews, but in the same breath would immediately condemn the very idea of an explicitly white country.
  

Note that Jews/Judaism is an ethnicity, religion, and culture. A Jew can be one or more of these (for example, most Marxists were historically religiously atheist, but culturally and ethnically Jewish. Karl Marx's grandfather was a Rabbi, but KM himself was atheistic).

(If you need sources for anything in particular let me know, I'll be happy to provide them, but anything I've said is easily cross-referenced.)

Sorry that this was a bit of a rant, but I wanted to clarify things. If anyone has any alt-right or national socialist questions I can probably help provide the perspective.

Adolf Francolini wrote:

DavidlVofGeorgia wrote:If the purpose of National Socialism is to create a humanity with the highest average IQ

This really isn't the purpose of National Socialism. The purpose of National Socialism is to create a nation for a specific race and culture and to enact collectivist policies where they may benefit such race and culture. Obviously eugenics is a part of this aim, in that it is intended to improve/benefit a race, but it is certainly not the main or only point, and IQ is only one small factor in a eugenic policy.

National Socialism is consistent with the form of Zionism which advocates return of all Jews to a homeland. I'm fine with Israel existing (although I oppose many of their subversive activities in the Middle East). In fact, the Third Reich helped peaceably facilitate Jews moving from Germany to Palestine (now Israel) prior to WWII (Once the war began, this became impossible). The reason for counter-semitism in National Socialism is because Jews have traditionally been, and remain, a diaspora which consistently has had instrumental roles in movements which harm the native, dominant population. This can be boiled down to a few reasons:

• Jews are very ethnocentric. They tend to benefit each other where possible. This is one reason why five of the six media companies owning 95% of the US media are headed by Jews, and all are staffed with extremely disproportionate numbers of Jews compared to their two percent of the population (as well of this trend being present in finance, academia, and increasingly politics). Jewish ethnocentrism is routinely referenced in even Jewish publications.
  
  
• Jews are more likely to be comfortable in diverse populations. Historically, Jews fared best when they live in diverse populations, and do not stand out. A significant majority of Jews in the US are left-wing, and most left-wing movements in the US were started or significantly influenced by Jews. Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and the vast majority of early Soviet officials were Jewish. In the USSR, for high level officials, ethnic Russians were actually a tiny minority, and the revolution was quite ironically funded in part by a Jewish Wall Street banker. Feminism has, through its history, has been largely led by Jewish intellectuals. Same thing with the civil rights movement, and the 'sexual revolution', as well as similar movements.
  
  
• Judaism as a religion is supremacist in nature, and advocates taking advantage of Goyim (non-Jews) all the time. It refers to Goyim as "cattle" and explicitly says in all major translations "you are allowed to cheat Goyim", and "if a Goy asks what is in the Talmud (Jewish book), you should lie to him", and "Goyim only exist to serve Jews", as well as many other Jewish supremacist statements. Obviously plenty of Jews are honorable and friendly people, but the structure of their religion and culture strongly emphasizes ethnocentrism, and Jewish supremacy. A lot of Jews support the idea of Israel, a country specifically intended for Jews, but in the same breath would immediately condemn the very idea of an explicitly white country.
  

Note that Jews/Judaism is an ethnicity, religion, and culture. A Jew can be one or more of these (for example, most Marxists were historically religiously atheist, but culturally and ethnically Jewish. Karl Marx's grandfather was a Rabbi, but KM himself was atheistic).

(If you need sources for anything in particular let me know, I'll be happy to provide them, but anything I've said is easily cross-referenced.)

Sorry that this was a bit of a rant, but I wanted to clarify things. If anyone has any alt-right or national socialist questions I can probably help provide the perspective.

"Jews are more likely to be comfortable in diverse populations." No, the reason they live throughout Europe is because of the diaspora. If they WANTED to be inside of other cultures, then why does Israel exist?
"Vladimir Lenin" Source for him being a Jew?
"Karl Marx" His grandfather was a Rabbi, yes, but his Father was a Lutheran. His mother was a Jew. Marx was secular.
"A lot of Jews support the idea of Israel, a country specifically intended for Jews, but in the same breath would immediately condemn the very idea of an explicitly white country." Maybe because Judaism isn't a race, its a culture. If the Germans have a German state and the Poles have a Polish state, then the Jewish get a Jewish state.
"Judaism as a religion is supremacist in nature, and advocates taking advantage of Goyim (non-Jews) all the time." Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have been somewhat supremacist. Secularism can also be supremacist. Many Jews are great capitalists, and like all good capitalists, they take advantage over others for their own sake.
I don't agree with states being racially segregated. I see cultural segregation as logical in order to preserve the culture, but racial segregation does nothing to preserve the culture and has no real benefit.

Lord Yavimaya wrote:

Adolf Francolini wrote:

DavidlVofGeorgia wrote:If the purpose of National Socialism is to create a humanity with the highest average IQ

This really isn't the purpose of National Socialism. The purpose of National Socialism is to create a nation for a specific race and culture and to enact collectivist policies where they may benefit such race and culture. Obviously eugenics is a part of this aim, in that it is intended to improve/benefit a race, but it is certainly not the main or only point, and IQ is only one small factor in a eugenic policy.

National Socialism is consistent with the form of Zionism which advocates return of all Jews to a homeland. I'm fine with Israel existing (although I oppose many of their subversive activities in the Middle East). In fact, the Third Reich helped peaceably facilitate Jews moving from Germany to Palestine (now Israel) prior to WWII (Once the war began, this became impossible). The reason for counter-semitism in National Socialism is because Jews have traditionally been, and remain, a diaspora which consistently has had instrumental roles in movements which harm the native, dominant population. This can be boiled down to a few reasons:

• Jews are very ethnocentric. They tend to benefit each other where possible. This is one reason why five of the six media companies owning 95% of the US media are headed by Jews, and all are staffed with extremely disproportionate numbers of Jews compared to their two percent of the population (as well of this trend being present in finance, academia, and increasingly politics). Jewish ethnocentrism is routinely referenced in even Jewish publications.
  
  
• Jews are more likely to be comfortable in diverse populations. Historically, Jews fared best when they live in diverse populations, and do not stand out. A significant majority of Jews in the US are left-wing, and most left-wing movements in the US were started or significantly influenced by Jews. Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and the vast majority of early Soviet officials were Jewish. In the USSR, for high level officials, ethnic Russians were actually a tiny minority, and the revolution was quite ironically funded in part by a Jewish Wall Street banker. Feminism has, through its history, has been largely led by Jewish intellectuals. Same thing with the civil rights movement, and the 'sexual revolution', as well as similar movements.
  
  
• Judaism as a religion is supremacist in nature, and advocates taking advantage of Goyim (non-Jews) all the time. It refers to Goyim as "cattle" and explicitly says in all major translations "you are allowed to cheat Goyim", and "if a Goy asks what is in the Talmud (Jewish book), you should lie to him", and "Goyim only exist to serve Jews", as well as many other Jewish supremacist statements. Obviously plenty of Jews are honorable and friendly people, but the structure of their religion and culture strongly emphasizes ethnocentrism, and Jewish supremacy. A lot of Jews support the idea of Israel, a country specifically intended for Jews, but in the same breath would immediately condemn the very idea of an explicitly white country.
  

Note that Jews/Judaism is an ethnicity, religion, and culture. A Jew can be one or more of these (for example, most Marxists were historically religiously atheist, but culturally and ethnically Jewish. Karl Marx's grandfather was a Rabbi, but KM himself was atheistic).

(If you need sources for anything in particular let me know, I'll be happy to provide them, but anything I've said is easily cross-referenced.)

Sorry that this was a bit of a rant, but I wanted to clarify things. If anyone has any alt-right or national socialist questions I can probably help provide the perspective.

"Jews are more likely to be comfortable in diverse populations." No, the reason they live throughout Europe is because of the diaspora. If they WANTED to be inside of other cultures, then why does Israel exist?
"Vladimir Lenin" Source for him being a Jew?
"Karl Marx" His grandfather was a Rabbi, yes, but his Father was a Lutheran. His mother was a Jew. Marx was secular.
"A lot of Jews support the idea of Israel, a country specifically intended for Jews, but in the same breath would immediately condemn the very idea of an explicitly white country." Maybe because Judaism isn't a race, its a culture. If the Germans have a German state and the Poles have a Polish state, then the Jewish get a Jewish state.
"Judaism as a religion is supremacist in nature, and advocates taking advantage of Goyim (non-Jews) all the time." Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have been somewhat supremacist. Secularism can also be supremacist. Many Jews are great capitalists, and like all good capitalists, they take advantage over others for their own sake.
I don't agree with states being racially segregated. I see cultural segregation as logical in order to preserve the culture, but racial segregation does nothing to preserve the culture and has no real benefit.

I don't think you understood what I meant. They were already in the diaspora, but they tend to feel better in multicultural (large percent non-white) countries because they have been persecuted when they stood out in mostly-white societies in the past. Many want to live in Israel, some are cosmopolitan. But when living in majority-white countries, most Jews support multiculturalism.

"his mother's Jewish ancestry" just straight from Wikipedia's biography section on him. He isn't a full-blooded Jew, but according to Jewish law, being ethnically/culturally Jewish is passed matrilineally.

I literally said Marx was atheist (/secular) himself. That's why I made sure to note the difference between being Jewish purely religiously, and ethnically and culturally. Marx was not religiously Jewish, but he was influenced by Talmudic attitudes, culture, and community.

Christianity and Islam definitely have some supremacist aspects, but they generally focus on their treatment of other religions differently than Judaism does. Christianity generally focuses (and I'm speaking in general terms) on conversion, while Islam is more about either taxing or sometimes conquering or converting other religions. Judaism is the religion which tends to declare the supremacy of ethnic Jews, as a racial tribe, over non-Jews. So Judaism does not focus on conversion, because the 'chosen people' are generally static, barring intermarriage (and in modern times conversion is more often then not accepted, but it is still a vastly ethnic religion, whereas Christianity and Islam are clearly not). It's not simply a belief that their religion is the best, but rather an ideology including racial/ethnic supremacy.

I can see what you mean with segregation; however, my point of contention would be that I see culture and race as fundamentally connected to each other, since they evolved alongside each other over the course of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, and as such I don't believe culture and race can be easily divorced fully from each other. And besides that, I value biological diversity (which over the long-term would be inevitably eliminated by multiculturalism in favor of mixed races) in the same way I value diversity between animals like African and Asian elephants, or dog breeds, or other animals.

CptCrape wrote:Yes, I am from the USA, and yes I am aware of the Politics here.

Good to know. It saves a lot of explaining. Sorry for taking a neutral stance. I guessed the audience from the channel would be diverse and international, so I don't assume anyone is from the U.S. out of hand.

It is still not the KKK. The KKK had different ideas, and execution. The Alt-Right on the other hand is a large blanket term for various right wingers that distance themselves from traditional Conservative Politics.

See, that is the problem I have with it. It's one big blanket "term" for an ideologically diverse group. It doesn't make any sense and (frankly) can't exist in the way that it's presented (as a united front of white *ultra-conservative nationalists). *Refers to social and economic conservationism as defined in the United States.

To date, I have never heard of an "alt-right" socialist/fiscally *liberal individual, or someone who is "alt-right" and socially *liberal. *Refers to liberalism as defined in the United States. This could just be because I haven't seen it, so if you have, drop me a line and I'll check it out for myself.

Also, just to be clear, I do not consider myself an Alt-Righter, but i've been around the block a few times.

Me neither, but it's not about how we define ourselves. It's about how we are defined, and because of the "united" goals of this so-called "alt-right", it is perceived that anyone labelled "alt-right" shares these common goals regardless of individual distinctions. It's a way to collect opposition to left-leaning ideologies and brand them quickly, efficiently, and to stifle their opportunity to have parity in dialogue. That's how I personally see the term.

In my opinion the alt right is not conservative. The current right wing populist movement that is spreading in the U.S. and Europe is in many ways anti conservative. Trade protectionism, identity politics based on race, isolationism- these are a far cry from Reagan conservatism, who most would point out exemplifies true American conservatism more then any other president in history. The alt right is bad for conservatism, but the far left is still no better. Much of the reason the alt right has grown and spread is reactionary to how insane the left has gotten with their race baiting, micro aggression bull crap, free speech policing, abortion glorifying, etc... policies. Both the alt right and far left use racial rhetoric to achieve their political and social goals, for that reason and several others I'm against both.

Adolf Francolini wrote:

Lord Yavimaya wrote:

Adolf Francolini wrote:

DavidlVofGeorgia wrote:If the purpose of National Socialism is to create a humanity with the highest average IQ

This really isn't the purpose of National Socialism. The purpose of National Socialism is to create a nation for a specific race and culture and to enact collectivist policies where they may benefit such race and culture. Obviously eugenics is a part of this aim, in that it is intended to improve/benefit a race, but it is certainly not the main or only point, and IQ is only one small factor in a eugenic policy.

National Socialism is consistent with the form of Zionism which advocates return of all Jews to a homeland. I'm fine with Israel existing (although I oppose many of their subversive activities in the Middle East). In fact, the Third Reich helped peaceably facilitate Jews moving from Germany to Palestine (now Israel) prior to WWII (Once the war began, this became impossible). The reason for counter-semitism in National Socialism is because Jews have traditionally been, and remain, a diaspora which consistently has had instrumental roles in movements which harm the native, dominant population. This can be boiled down to a few reasons:

• Jews are very ethnocentric. They tend to benefit each other where possible. This is one reason why five of the six media companies owning 95% of the US media are headed by Jews, and all are staffed with extremely disproportionate numbers of Jews compared to their two percent of the population (as well of this trend being present in finance, academia, and increasingly politics). Jewish ethnocentrism is routinely referenced in even Jewish publications.
  
  
• Jews are more likely to be comfortable in diverse populations. Historically, Jews fared best when they live in diverse populations, and do not stand out. A significant majority of Jews in the US are left-wing, and most left-wing movements in the US were started or significantly influenced by Jews. Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and the vast majority of early Soviet officials were Jewish. In the USSR, for high level officials, ethnic Russians were actually a tiny minority, and the revolution was quite ironically funded in part by a Jewish Wall Street banker. Feminism has, through its history, has been largely led by Jewish intellectuals. Same thing with the civil rights movement, and the 'sexual revolution', as well as similar movements.
  
  
• Judaism as a religion is supremacist in nature, and advocates taking advantage of Goyim (non-Jews) all the time. It refers to Goyim as "cattle" and explicitly says in all major translations "you are allowed to cheat Goyim", and "if a Goy asks what is in the Talmud (Jewish book), you should lie to him", and "Goyim only exist to serve Jews", as well as many other Jewish supremacist statements. Obviously plenty of Jews are honorable and friendly people, but the structure of their religion and culture strongly emphasizes ethnocentrism, and Jewish supremacy. A lot of Jews support the idea of Israel, a country specifically intended for Jews, but in the same breath would immediately condemn the very idea of an explicitly white country.
  

Note that Jews/Judaism is an ethnicity, religion, and culture. A Jew can be one or more of these (for example, most Marxists were historically religiously atheist, but culturally and ethnically Jewish. Karl Marx's grandfather was a Rabbi, but KM himself was atheistic).

(If you need sources for anything in particular let me know, I'll be happy to provide them, but anything I've said is easily cross-referenced.)

Sorry that this was a bit of a rant, but I wanted to clarify things. If anyone has any alt-right or national socialist questions I can probably help provide the perspective.

"Jews are more likely to be comfortable in diverse populations." No, the reason they live throughout Europe is because of the diaspora. If they WANTED to be inside of other cultures, then why does Israel exist?
"Vladimir Lenin" Source for him being a Jew?
"Karl Marx" His grandfather was a Rabbi, yes, but his Father was a Lutheran. His mother was a Jew. Marx was secular.
"A lot of Jews support the idea of Israel, a country specifically intended for Jews, but in the same breath would immediately condemn the very idea of an explicitly white country." Maybe because Judaism isn't a race, its a culture. If the Germans have a German state and the Poles have a Polish state, then the Jewish get a Jewish state.
"Judaism as a religion is supremacist in nature, and advocates taking advantage of Goyim (non-Jews) all the time." Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have been somewhat supremacist. Secularism can also be supremacist. Many Jews are great capitalists, and like all good capitalists, they take advantage over others for their own sake.
I don't agree with states being racially segregated. I see cultural segregation as logical in order to preserve the culture, but racial segregation does nothing to preserve the culture and has no real benefit.

I don't think you understood what I meant. They were already in the diaspora, but they tend to feel better in multicultural (large percent non-white) countries because they have been persecuted when they stood out in mostly-white societies in the past. Many want to live in Israel, some are cosmopolitan. But when living in majority-white countries, most Jews support multiculturalism.

"his mother's Jewish ancestry" just straight from Wikipedia's biography section on him. He isn't a full-blooded Jew, but according to Jewish law, being ethnically/culturally Jewish is passed matrilineally.

I literally said Marx was atheist (/secular) himself. That's why I made sure to note the difference between being Jewish purely religiously, and ethnically and culturally. Marx was not religiously Jewish, but he was influenced by Talmudic attitudes, culture, and community.

Christianity and Islam definitely have some supremacist aspects, but they generally focus on their treatment of other religions differently than Judaism does. Christianity generally focuses (and I'm speaking in general terms) on conversion, while Islam is more about either taxing or sometimes conquering or converting other religions. Judaism is the religion which tends to declare the supremacy of ethnic Jews, as a racial tribe, over non-Jews. So Judaism does not focus on conversion, because the 'chosen people' are generally static, barring intermarriage (and in modern times conversion is more often then not accepted, but it is still a vastly ethnic religion, whereas Christianity and Islam are clearly not). It's not simply a belief that their religion is the best, but rather an ideology including racial/ethnic supremacy.

I can see what you mean with segregation; however, my point of contention would be that I see culture and race as fundamentally connected to each other, since they evolved alongside each other over the course of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, and as such I don't believe culture and race can be easily divorced fully from each other. And besides that, I value biological diversity (which over the long-term would be inevitably eliminated by multiculturalism in favor of mixed races) in the same way I value diversity between animals like African and Asian elephants, or dog breeds, or other animals.

Out of curiosity, what nationality are you?

Cold War Communist wrote:

CptCrape wrote:Yes, I am from the USA, and yes I am aware of the Politics here.

Good to know. It saves a lot of explaining. Sorry for taking a neutral stance. I guessed the audience from the channel would be diverse and international, so I don't assume anyone is from the U.S. out of hand.

It is still not the KKK. The KKK had different ideas, and execution. The Alt-Right on the other hand is a large blanket term for various right wingers that distance themselves from traditional Conservative Politics.

See, that is the problem I have with it. It's one big blanket "term" for an ideologically diverse group. It doesn't make any sense and (frankly) can't exist in the way that it's presented (as a united front of white *ultra-conservative nationalists). *Refers to social and economic conservationism as defined in the United States.

To date, I have never heard of an "alt-right" socialist/fiscally *liberal individual, or someone who is "alt-right" and socially *liberal. *Refers to liberalism as defined in the United States. This could just be because I haven't seen it, so if you have, drop me a line and I'll check it out for myself.

Also, just to be clear, I do not consider myself an Alt-Righter, but i've been around the block a few times.

Me neither, but it's not about how we define ourselves. It's about how we are defined, and because of the "united" goals of this so-called "alt-right", it is perceived that anyone labelled "alt-right" shares these common goals regardless of individual distinctions. It's a way to collect opposition to left-leaning ideologies and brand them quickly, efficiently, and to stifle their opportunity to have parity in dialogue. That's how I personally see the term.

Alt-Right mostly just translates to "modern white/European nationalists who use the internet". At least, that's a good criterion for looking at individuals who you're unsure about being a part of the movement.

I do know a number of Strasserists who would put themselves in the alt-right camp; they would be solidly "economically liberal" at least in terms of collectivist (healthcare, welfare, etc.). And then plain-old National Socialists tend to be economically moderate. But these people more often refer to themselves with the labels I mentioned rather than 'alt-right', or maybe they're just out of the public eye a bit, so you don't notice them as much.

Andrew Anglin for example runs an alt-right website solidly in the alt-right sphere, and professes to be such, but he is also definitely National Socialist, and supports some instances of economic collectivisation- I'd call him an economic moderate.

But you will never, ever find an alt-right social liberal. They're just totally opposed. Milo Yiannapolous for example is alt-lite, not alt-right. He opposes many distinctly alt-right principles- he is a homosexual miscegenating polyamorous weed-smoking Jew. So I must stress there is a difference from the modern libertarian/conservative internet sorts, and the alt-right, who include an umbrella of white nationalists, monarchists, national socialists, etc etc.

ceaserkhan22 wrote:In my opinion the alt right is not conservative. The current right wing populist movement that is spreading in the U.S. and Europe is in many ways anti conservative. Trade protectionism, identity politics based on race, isolationism- these are a far cry from Reagan conservatism, who most would point out exemplifies true American conservatism more then any other president in history. The alt right is bad for conservatism, but the far left is still no better. Much of the reason the alt right has grown and spread is reactionary to how insane the left has gotten with their race baiting, micro aggression bull crap, free speech policing, abortion glorifying, etc... policies. Both the alt right and far left use racial rhetoric to achieve their political and social goals, for that reason and several others I'm against both.

I don't think conservatism has a real future. It has failed to advance hardly any of its principles, and instead shifts the goalposts towards liberalism.

In the 20's, conservatives believed women shouldn't have the right to vote, and supported segregation, and totally opposed homosexuality.
In the 60's, conservatives supported women's suffrage but didn't want women working some jobs, they mostly supported state's rights in terms of segregation and race, and generally opposed homosexuality and drugs.
In the 90's, conservatives believed many jobs should be more open to women, they mostly viewed races as biologically equal, and many began accepting gays.
Today, tons of conservatives support gay marriage and marijuana legalization.

Conservatism only functions to defend the liberal revolution of thirty years ago. So I don't think it is worth holding onto as an ideology. When liberals say "we are on the right side of history" I think they're half right. The culture has moved in their direction more or less since the French revolution.

That's kinda my point, liberalism and the alt right are over taking conservatism. I would say true conservativism fundamentally believes in constitutional priciples, traditionally follows Judeo-Christian values, and typically has a love of country. Racial and gender equality are by no means anti-conservative as the bias media would have the masses believe. The leftist motto of being on the "right side of history" is only meant to ostrocize people that disagree with them. It's similar to how everyone who votes Republican is now all of a sudden labled a racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, bigoted, Nazi. It's this insane culture of the left that seeks to end dialogue and creates an us vs them paradigm. I didn't vote Republican or Democrat in the 2016 presidential election because both sides have gone off the rails.