And how does the left want to treat them?
I support the Alt-Right
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
:rotfl:
WizardofOz
New member
And Milo is a self-loathing homosexual. You two would likely hit it off, Tom
He wishes he wasn't gay.
WizardofOz
New member
Other than the racist elements, what are the cons?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet the Alt Right's most famous and sought after speaker was openly homosexual/defender of pedophilia Milo Yiannopoulos (don't believe everything that you read on Wiki Aaron).
Try not to take this conversation personnel Aaron.
The racist-Jew hating-Christian doctrine hating Alt Right has no problem with an openly homosexual speaker. So much for your wiki copy and paste saying that they're homophobic.
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/milo-gays-for-trump-640x480.jpg
Yet the Alt Right's most famous and sought after speaker was openly homosexual/defender of pedophilia Milo Yiannopoulos (don't believe everything that you read on Wiki Aaron).
Try not to take this conversation personnel Aaron.
The racist-Jew hating-Christian doctrine hating Alt Right has no problem with an openly homosexual speaker. So much for your wiki copy and paste saying that they're homophobic.
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/milo-gays-for-trump-640x480.jpg
WizardofOz
New member
You're not a fan of reading, are you? Literally the first sentence from the WIKI is as follows: "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies"
Some are more accepting of gays than others. Milo is a useful idiot as he otherwise champions their (some of the individuals who define themselves as 'alt-right') 'cause'.
| The anger and animus toward LGBT people from these Trump supporters – many of them young – belies the idiotic and dangerous media narrative that posits Trump as “more accepting on gay issues” than other Republicans. (To these Trump supporters, any mention Trump makes of “LGBTQ people” is acceptable, laughable pandering to win the election, as he wink-winks and nudge-nudges to them, as he has on other issues, from deportation to birtherism.) Some of the alt-right anti-LGBT haters’ imagery is bizarre, grotesque and fascinating at once. “Animal Cracker,” whose timeline includes tweets mocking gender neutral bathrooms and inclusiveness of LGBT people, has as his Twitter background (depicted at the top of this post) a swatstika in the colors of the rainbow flag, emblazoned within a circle of Jewish stars, all resting in the middle of a rainbow confederate flag. Link |
or
| Question: I'm a bisexual man, and alt-right. I didn't see a problem with this until I started hanging around alt-right circles, both in real life and on the internet. More and more, I hear that homosexuality is just another degenerate behavior of a wayward culture, endorsed by Marxists and Jews, and in general a scourge that should be actively combated. Is this necessary? If so, why? Answer: Partly the reaction is how much we have had it used against us as part and parcel of the leftist ideology. Anything they stand for and beat us over the head we oppose. The other part is that you can't have children if you're gay. Milo actually had an interesting point which is that gays tend to be higher IQ and before when they lived in the closet they passed on their genes and now they don't anymore, which is a loss. The other would be that the gay movement is dyscivil and untraditional in its modern incarnation. Rampant promiscuity, total leftism, disease, hedonism, etc. And it has been used to pry open the door for things like trannies and other nontraditional seemingly social degradation. So the altright doesn't care that much about gays in of itself. These days not caring about gays will make the gay people madder than anything. You have to have a stance on gays and pay attention to them blah blah despite them being like 1% of the population. I'd be happy if we just stop talking about it for the most part and am not gonna really yell at someone if they behave like a more or less upstanding person in public. Also please stop using the word homophobia. No one is scared of gays. It is a leftist misnomer used as a rhetorical device to make anyone not with their agenda seem irrational or secretly closeted. |
Here. From on alt-righter to another.
If we're going to discuss what the alt-right is, wikipedia is as good of a place to start as anywhere else. Do you have an alternative source to offer or are you going to chase your tail all day?
WizardofOz
New member
Devolve? The OP was as simple-minded as an opening post can be. There's nothing to devolve to.
Just saying.
A few points:
1. I don't actually consider myself alt-right. Obvious troll thread is obvious.
2. The alt-right is defined primarily by the belief that there should be a white ethnostate (in passing, I wish to note that, although the idea is reviled, I fail to see how it's qualitatively any different from the zionist belief that there should be a Jewish ethnostate). Aside from that, the alt-right generally hold positions that could be described as paleoconservative.
The alt-right is ultimately what you get when identity politics is taken to its logical conclusion. It is the "natural" reaction to the demonization of white people that we've been seeing from the identitarian left. It is qualitatively no different from organizations like Black Lives Matter. At its core, the alt-right essentially is the belief that white people need a "safe space." And why shouldn't they? Everyone else apparently wants one.
3. Milo is not part of the alt-right. He has repeatedly and explicitly said this. This is easy to verify.
4. The alt-right are not Nazis. Which is probably unfortunate for the alt-right. If they were more like the Nazis, they would probably garner more political support in the US (much like Marine Le Pen in France and the Golden Dawn in Greece). It's important to remember that Nazism isn't just racism and authoritarianism. The Nazis were economic populists. Hitler's economic policies were very much comparable to FDR's.
And it really is interesting to me: if you bring up Sweden to a right-winger, the gut reaction is to complain about mass immigration (especially mass muslim immigration), not their economic policies.
The simple fact is that the world is in an economically populist mood, and that's what we saw play out in the 2016 election. The reason Trump (who pretended to be populist right) won is because the populist left candidate lost.
1. I don't actually consider myself alt-right. Obvious troll thread is obvious.
2. The alt-right is defined primarily by the belief that there should be a white ethnostate (in passing, I wish to note that, although the idea is reviled, I fail to see how it's qualitatively any different from the zionist belief that there should be a Jewish ethnostate). Aside from that, the alt-right generally hold positions that could be described as paleoconservative.
The alt-right is ultimately what you get when identity politics is taken to its logical conclusion. It is the "natural" reaction to the demonization of white people that we've been seeing from the identitarian left. It is qualitatively no different from organizations like Black Lives Matter. At its core, the alt-right essentially is the belief that white people need a "safe space." And why shouldn't they? Everyone else apparently wants one.
3. Milo is not part of the alt-right. He has repeatedly and explicitly said this. This is easy to verify.
4. The alt-right are not Nazis. Which is probably unfortunate for the alt-right. If they were more like the Nazis, they would probably garner more political support in the US (much like Marine Le Pen in France and the Golden Dawn in Greece). It's important to remember that Nazism isn't just racism and authoritarianism. The Nazis were economic populists. Hitler's economic policies were very much comparable to FDR's.
And it really is interesting to me: if you bring up Sweden to a right-winger, the gut reaction is to complain about mass immigration (especially mass muslim immigration), not their economic policies.
The simple fact is that the world is in an economically populist mood, and that's what we saw play out in the 2016 election. The reason Trump (who pretended to be populist right) won is because the populist left candidate lost.
What happened to your flag avatar?
It was pretty.
That's Stripe's line - do you ever say anything original? I know it's the pits being a leftist, but please, Wiz
Shut them up and shut them down
They weren't his.
Hjalmar Schacht
While he never joined the NSDAP, he became a supporter of Adolf Hitler, and served in Hitler's government as President of the Reichsbank (1933–1939) and Minister of Economics (August 1934 – November 1937). As such, Schacht played a key role in implementing the policies attributed to Hitler.[2]
While Schacht was for a time feted for his role in the German "economic miracle," he opposed Hitler's policy of German re-armament insofar as it violated the Treaty of Versailles and (in his view) disrupted the German economy. His views in this regard led Schacht to clash with Hitler and most notably with Goering. He was dismissed as President of the Reichsbank in January 1939. He remained as a minister without portfolio, and received the same salary, until he was fully dismissed from the government in January 1943. [3]After the war, he was tried at Nuremberg but acquitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
What, if Stripe says it, no one else can?
The language police:
1. You can't use the term snowflake unless you're a rightist, because that word is only allowed for use by rightists. :nono:
2. You can't use words that Stripe uses. :sibbie:
3.
1. This is a Nazi propaganda pamphlet that was circulating in 1932.
There's a reason the party was called "The National Socialist German Workers' Party."
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/sofortprogramm.htm#g
2. Even if various of the economic policies weren't Hitler's ideas or the ideas of the Nazis, they apparently didn't object to them. Can you imagine those policies being enacted under Ronald Reagan?
3. The left-wing economic policies continued even after Schahct left.
From the wikipedia article you cited:
"Joseph Goebbels remarked about the merits of Hitler’s welfare state in a 1944 editorial 'Our Socialism,' where he professed: 'We and we alone [the Nazis] have the best social welfare measures. Everything is done for the nation.'"
That was in 1944. Well after Schacht left.
No. It's Wikipedia article. And it is the consensus of economic historians. Schacht enacted economic policies that pulled Gemany out of the depression.
Because no one would have supported it otherwise. However, soon after Hitler controlled the party, he made an alliance with German industrialists, promised not to nationalize industry, and then in the "Night of the Long Knives" purged the Nazi party of socialists.
When he gained power, after the Reichstag fire, he used that as an excuse to kill or imprison socialist leaders outside the party.
In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler's enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005686
Hitler was an economic ignoramus. But Schacht was not. His economic ideas, similar to those of Keynes, pulled Germany out of a deep depression.
No. Reagan recognized the importance of what he called the "social safety net", something Hitler did not allow. However, Reagan was a great admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and so the Keynesian aspects of Schacht's policies would likely have agreed with him. Those were the same aspects that ultimately led to Schacht being fired by Hitler.
No. Labor leaders were sent to concentration camps and labor unions were controlled by the state. Strikes were forbidden. And against Schacht's advice, Hitler went on a rearmament spree that made Germany the strongest military force in Europe, but adversely affected the economy as Schacht predicted.
Germany had a socialized medicine system dating back from the days of Bismark. Hitler never removed it, but certainly didn't enlarge it. It was just part of the culture by that time.
If you think the National Socialist Party was socialist, you no doubt think that the People's Republic of China is run by the people of China.