Alt-left v.s. Alt-Right

[purplehearts]

Well, it looks like 20-30 students locked arms around the statue, and then 300-400 Neo-Nazis started coming in with torches chanting and started beating up the students. The police weren't there to protect them, and even if there were, they just stood by and they weren't protecting them. There were even militia Neo-Nazis with assault rifles and they were allowed to be there. The counter-protesters were protecting them, and if it weren't for the counter-protesters, they could have been killed.

Then the Neo-Nazi drove a van into the crowd and injured 19 people and killed 1.

I honestly don't see how they are both "the same". It was clearly a terror attack by the Neo-Nazis.

Just take a look at the words from this casual bystander ANTIFA supporter and tell me this isn't a real problem:

We'll have to funnel all our strength into hunting down and butchering every murdering fascist before they do the same to us."

As you can see, this person is absolutely batshit.

Sidenote, I wish Hillary had won, if only for the fact that it might've resulted in that nuclear war where we could take Russia with us. They probably seeded this whole shitfest with their psyops. Either way, the America that I loved will be gone and millions of people, including me, are going to die within the next 50 years. At least that way our killers would die in atomic fire too. "

He is borderline schizophrenic... All these ANTIFA people are like that. We have a mass psychosis developing in society. It's a very serious problem.
It's actually surprising that there are so many of them, but look - just casually there happens to be one in this thread. They're all over the place now.

At this point, I find the Alt-Right so rampant"
"If we all realized just how rapidly and covertly the Alt-Right is growing "

As you can see, he is literally convinced that what he saw on TV represents a large portion of America, and this is such a danger in his mind that he is ready to kill over it.
This is a mass delusion that is sweeping over this country... we do not need a delusional, batshit populace out for violence fueling one another into a frenzy... we don't need this. You want to make a stand? Try making a stand against the problems that are actually in front of us - try standing against this nutcase.

I'm sure a lot of people, myself included, want nothing more than a return to normalcy."

No, you aren't normal. You can't return to normal.

there are only actual racists now, racists with no sense of common decency or regard for standard political protocols."

This is what all the political propaganda is creating in society - raving ideological nutcases out for blood. Those of you who align yourselves with the propaganda - this is your creation.

Are you going to denounce him? Let's hear it - you people call for me to denounce the KKK and white nationalists constantly. Let's see you denounce this lunatic here and now.

Can you really tell me there aren't problems on both sides, now? No problems? I don't think so.

[Singu]

That's actually completely wrong. A person should only take sides if they completely agree with what the side is, otherwise they should only represent their own side. It sounds good coming from a holocaust survivor, cause of the Nazi's in Germany. When you see such pure evil and horror, it probably isn't difficult to choose sides. When things are far more grey though, choosing sides to back something up that doesn't go completely with your internal parameters though is what sinks societies. Group think is where humanity all goes off the cliff together.

This is what happened to such a person:

[Singu]

Just take a look at the words from this casual bystander ANTIFA supporter and tell me this isn't a real problem:

Damocles is hardly an Antifa supporter.

Can you guys seriously say that, while hundreds of Neo-Nazis are beating up peaceful protesters, "Let's not pick sides! Let us be neutral! Let's resolve things peacefully and not resort to violence!"? Yeah, while people get beaten to death by the Neo-Nazis.

[Hitta]

Do you really think that people didn't speak out against the Nazi regime? There were quite a few of them. The bigger issue is that the nazi regime accumulated the sheep to join their campaign because most of them were poor and suffering. If you have resounding negative feelings toward something then you aren't going to support it. It is when people listen to the grey area that totalitarian regimes form. The poor and starving joined, and soon there was enough people to put fear into those that were against it or just flat out got rid of them. ****** was speaking out. Lenin was speaking out. Sometimes when people speak out, they result in good things. This is not always the case though.

This is essentially what is happening today. You have two sides speaking out, and they are so vicious that they are accumulating their sheep who are afraid of scathing criticism.

[Grendel]

Absolute centralised control is acceptable, provided that the people in power are on your side.

Wow, finally someone here understands politics.


Absolute freedom and anarchy are unattainable without some other ape with a gun immediately filling that power vacuum and returning us to despotism. Every government has a potential for despotism, it's just imperative that we have a crippling system of checks and balances to make sure the governors can do as little as possible with this power. Does that mean you'll end up with pervasive social problems without a strong central government able to solve them? Sure. But at least you don't have a strong centralized authority looming over you ready to gun down whomever they feel like.

This isn't about freedom. If "freedom" entails the freedom to dominate and oppress whomever you want, it's not its own virtue anyway. This is about keeping the rulers in line.The power to kill and cause suffering is the only power that matters - you know the rest.

Just take a look at the words from this casual bystander ANTIFA supporter and tell me this isn't a real problem:

As you can see, this person is absolutely batshit.

He is borderline schizophrenic... All these ANTIFA people are like that. We have a mass psychosis developing in society. It's a very serious problem.
It's actually surprising that there are so many of them, but look - just casually there happens to be one in this thread. They're all over the place now.

As you can see, he is literally convinced that what he saw on TV represents a large portion of America, and this is such a danger in his mind that he is ready to kill over it.
This is a mass delusion that is sweeping over this country... we do not need a delusional, batshit populace out for violence fueling one another into a frenzy... we don't need this. You want to make a stand? Try making a stand against the problems that are actually in front of us - try standing against this nutcase.

No, you aren't normal. You can't return to normal.

The problem here is that we have cunts like you treating our free society like it's a single collective animal and diagnosing it with your own imagined social diseases, no doubt seeded by da jooz or the greys or the reptiles or whatever scapegoat you prefer. You out yourself as a sympathizer for the fascists the minute you address these "problems," because once you try to "treat" society's problems like a disease, you turn its individuals into cells and void their rights as human beings.


I'll let you know right now that I don't give a rat's ass about our social non-issues like black cops matter or slut shaming or any of that crap. My only concern is that the basic negative human rights our republic was founded on aren't wrested from us by 14-year-olds who "accidentally" spread actual fascist ideology by "ironically" posting helicopter memes because SJWs and feminists annoy them.

If you denounce the Fascists and endorse the negative rights we're owed, I'll shut the fuck up right now and go away, but if you don't, you're as good as another fascist collaborator to me.

This is what all the political propaganda is creating in society - raving ideological nutcases out for blood. Those of you who align yourselves with the propaganda - this is your creation.

Are you going to denounce him? Let's hear it - you people call for me to denounce the KKK and white nationalists constantly. Let's see you denounce this lunatic here and now.

Can you really tell me there aren't problems on both sides, now? No problems? I don't think so.

News media does not create this kind of "lunatic." News media creates a handful of people who swallow all the blatant propaganda they constantly spew, and a larger population who utterly ignores it because they can tell on some level it's a sham and totally inconsistent with what reality has shown them about the world.

"Lunatics" like me are created when hordes of rightists hijack every discussion and every issue to be one about race and IQ statistsics, about how retarded every Leftist is for wanting things like the right to live and basic human decency. How everyone that disagrees with their plans for a fascist ethno-state is a morbidly obese triggered ****** autist and not just a human being who won't stand to see the rights of himself and others abolished. When attempting to defend your own right to exist is used to construe that you're part of the social disease, how can you say the problem is on your end?


I'll stop calling for blood when the Right stops calling for blood once and for all. But if anything, I have to commend our president for selling out to muh elites and throwing the extremists who helped him get into office under the bus. Maybe he's said some crazy shit, but he's not done anything nearly as radical as some of the people who identify with him. Trump's leadership may not merit protests of any kind, but what I've seen of the Alt-Right's growth in the underbelly regions certainly demands physical removal.

[Raver]

To be honest, I know I've called myself in the "middle" between the left and the right more often than not, but I ideologically relate to the left generally speaking more. However, there's so much inane political correctness going on in the left that I've chosen to separate myself from the left for that reason specifically. If anything, I'd consider myself a left leaning libertarian so left wing authoritarianism aka PC Liberals/SJWs gets on my nerves just as much as right wing authoritarianism aka neoconservatives.

Is a left leaning libertarian, alt-left? Maybe. Anyways, I don't really have much of a problem with right wing libertarians aka anarcho-capitalists even though we don't agree on everything. Even alt-right people who for the most part I disagree with, I can even found common ground with them on a few things. Anyways, I think this video sums up this situation that is going on right now the best and in very simple and concise terms IMO:

[The Reality Denialist]

I have inclination to refute all kinds of alliances. You can not make me to become part of something. It comes only from need to show new ways and it won't happen in already preformed things.
Yes, it is a problem.

[Raver]

I have inclination to refute all kinds of alliances. You can not make me to become part of something. It comes only from need to show new ways and it won't happen in already preformed things.
Yes, it is a problem.

Maybe our makes us realize that all alliances are good or bad in some form, even though some are better than others.

[purplehearts]

Damocles is hardly an Antifa supporter.

Can you guys seriously say that, while hundreds of Neo-Nazis are beating up peaceful protesters, "Let's not pick sides! Let us be neutral! Let's resolve things peacefully and not resort to violence!"? Yeah, while people get beaten to death by the Neo-Nazis.

So no, you're not going to denounce him then. You can fuck off with your moral pretenses, you're simply a hypocrite and you deliberately frame things to make yourself sound totally justified, but ignore everything that isn't convenient for you.
This is what things actually looked like on the ground there:

As you can see, both sides are involved.

Btw, he keeps repeating: "we have to kill the fascists before they kill us". Do you even know what ANTIFA is? It is 'anti fascist'... that's literally what it is. He is hardly an anti fascist? Are you playing dumb now? Can you not read? He is an anti fascist.
You're just a liar and self defending bullshitter like all the rest of your fellow leftists. Nothing new about it.
And ANTIFA was armed with clubs that day, and it was from both sides, but we've already told you that. Infact there are claims that many of the agitators were Soros payed agitators, but we won't go into that because it's too much.

Do you really think that people didn't speak out against the Nazi regime? There were quite a few of them. The bigger issue is that the nazi regime accumulated the sheep to join their campaign because most of them were poor and suffering. If you have resounding negative feelings toward something then you aren't going to support it. It is when people listen to the grey area that totalitarian regimes form. The poor and starving joined, and soon there was enough people to put fear into those that were against it or just flat out got rid of them. ****** was speaking out. Lenin was speaking out. Sometimes when people speak out, they result in good things. This is not always the case though.

This is essentially what is happening today. You have two sides speaking out, and they are so vicious that they are accumulating their sheep who are afraid of scathing criticism.

This is exactly right - the danger is when the sheep get on board. That's what I'm saying: the sheep are not on board with Nazism, or with white nationalism. The ideology has no power behind it. ANTIFA and these marxist groups, however, the sheep are getting on board with. Those are the movements happening in society. Those are the movements to be concerned about. Not Nazism, not fascism - the sheep are not on board with either of those, they don't happen in a bubble.... the idea that this is happening is just a paranoid delusion that's gone way too far, and that's the problem.

[xerx]

I'm not saying this as someone who has a stake in any likely outcome since I'm not American:

Tolerating speech of every kind is going to solve nothing. American society (not only its politics) is now so polarized that the two mainstream ideologies have become entrenched and incompatible, whereas social institutions need a single ethical protocol to function in any non-trivial capacity.


You can't support giving women control over their bodies and murdering babies at the same time.

You can't support destroying the relics of slavery and upholding your heritage at the same time.

You can't support open immigration and controlled immigration at the same time.


Living with the other side is going to become increasingly intolerable when politics is framed as a life vs. death struggle of absolutes, a polarization that is further fuelled by having no restrictions on speech and behaviour. The differences have piled up to the point where one vision has to decisively win.

[Hitta]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

[purplehearts]

I'll let you know right now that I don't give a rat's ass about our social non-issues like black cops matter or slut shaming or any of that crap. My only concern is that the basic negative human rights our republic was founded on aren't wrested from us by 14-year-olds who "accidentally" spread actual fascist ideology by "ironically" posting helicopter memes because SJWs and feminists annoy them.

If you denounce the Fascists and endorse the negative rights we're owed, I'll shut the fuck up right now and go away, but if you don't, you're as good as another fascist collaborator to me.

You say you don't give a rats ass about various positive rights, and defend your "negative rights" - treating positive moral propositions as inherently fascist... but this purely conceptual justification actually applies to all moral propositions, and reduces them immediately to black and white, positive assertion = bad negative assertion = good.

By your rational, doctors have no moral obligation to help a suffering patient if they could easily be helped but can't pay in full - it's the doctors negative right not to help. The patient has no positive right to treatment. BLM has no obligation to help protect police officers, CEOs have no obligation to hire minorities - they can be racist. Who's to say they shouldn't be? The united states has no moral obligation to take care of syrian refugees or allow immigrants into the country... negative rights trump positive rights in all circumstances.
The patient asking the doctor to easily treat them is simply a fascist. The syrian immigrants asking for asylum are fascist. The minorities asking CEOs not to discriminate against them are fascist. And so on. The rational justifying one proposition applies to the rest.

Your ethical philosophy is just incoherent, confused, mentally deranged nonsense.

[xerx]

What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it…

What is this liberty that must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not the freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check on their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few — as we have learned to our sorrow.

.

[Grendel]

By your rational, doctors have no moral obligation to help a suffering patient if they could easily be helped but can't pay in full - it's the doctors negative right not to help. The patient has no positive right to treatment. BLM has no obligation to help protect police officers, CEOs have no obligation to hire minorities - they can be racist. Who's to say they shouldn't be? The united states has no moral obligation to take care of syrian refugees or allow immigrants into the country... negative rights trump positive rights in all circumstances.
The patient asking the doctor to easily treat them is simply a fascist. The syrian immigrants asking for asylum are fascist. The minorities asking CEOs not to discriminate against them are fascist. And so on. The rational justifying one proposition applies to the rest.

If the Alt-Right can draw such broad, sweeping inductions about the fate of Western society from a few IQ-race correlations in Africa without paying any attention to the nuances of said statistics, I can base my political ideology on "immoral" logical deductions from the principles on which our civilization is based.


****** came to power because he promised to help hordes of impoverished Germans when the establishment could do nothing to help them. The people expected him to address their social ills, they gave him more power than any government should have, and he inevitably betrayed them. I'm saying that if we don't suspend our focus on these social grievances until we can rebuild our national and infrastructural stability, the entire nation will collapse and millions of uninvolved bystanders will die needlessly in the catastrophe.


By your logic, I could say we're all morally obligated to actively help everyone in a state of suffering, regardless of how long we've suffered ourselves, what drain this assistance has had on our resources, and whether or not the intended party really benefits in the end from said efforts. Ergo we should all devote 60% of our crop yields to feeding overpopulated fuckholes like China and India and abandon all the efforts spent on our internal improvements in benefiting the rest of the world. That is, abandon selfish pursuits like technological improvements that have actually led to breakthroughs that unexpectedly benefit humanity as a whole in the end. Which would make you a Communist, though, as I said, I consider them another breed of Fascist. History shows that whenever the population deliberately entrusts the State with enormous amounts of power expecting to benefit in return, the State usually betrays them and starts doing ugly shit the population doesn't smile upon like the situation in the Third Reich.

Realistically speaking the government is never going to resolve our social ills unless we both 1) make it impossible for them to ignore the issue or our actions drawing attention to the issue, and 2) ensure that the only way to get us to shut up is by resolving the issue, not just killing off all the protesters or making them believe the issue is resolved. As I said, Civil Rights only passed because the oppressed parties were inciting riots that destroyed towns and cost the government millions, and it was more economical in the long run to just pass a few symbolic bills than to open machine gun fire on every single participant in each riot. Unless you can mimic this scenario for every social grievance you have, you can never get the government to help you, and even if it works a few times they can adapt - they can lead us in our symbolic rallies, make us believe they are responding to our demands with actions that will solve the issues, when in fact they do not. The only answer is a forcible overthrow and installment of a Caesarean regime, and once this party's rule is established, history shows that they will betray some part of the population - either the party they promised to save or some scapegoat - and the bodies will fall.



No one is going to resolve our social issues. We were damned from the start. The scenario with the best politically feasible outcome for the largest amount of citizens is to preserve the complacent old Negative Rights-based regime. Sure, the right to live might technically be as much a "negative right" as the right to free healthcare if you boil it down to a consensus of the governed - but does a Fascist regime that kills anyone it deems impure or useless seriously feel any obligation to provide free services to its population? Which would you rather: basic rights for everyone, or infinite rights for a few and no rights for anyone else? How is the latter egalitarian?

Fact is, you can choose between a corrupt, stagnant, Federal Democratic Republic, where a relatively large portion of the population has the basic right to live - or a Fascist state that professed to save everyone, then betrayed large populations for the benefit of those it favored - giving a few rights to only an arbitrarily determined "pure" class. Frankly I choose the former, and I believe most of us would agree if they saw the game for what it really is. It will never be perfect, but there's no alternative.

[Skepsis]

Especially if said testicle is already festering with sores.

[Spermatozoa]

.

Liberty and license are not the same.

Conservatives have always understood that a high level of personal freedom comes with certain obligations upon the people - to exercise your rights in a way that does not cause moral degradation and disharmony. To be responsible, in other words. The society your Founders feared was one where people had no sense of civic duty, and thought only of themselves. A Babylon of widespread indulgence and hedonism - not unlike the "I can do whatever I want, my body my rules!" licentiousness of rioting snowflakes today.

I think you have greatly misinterpreted your own quote, because expressing a viewpoint (however hateful) does not objectively harm others, while destroying property does. This is why healthy democracies don't pass laws to restrict what you can say, but how you can act.

[xerx]

Liberty and license are not the same.

Conservatives have always understood that a high level of personal freedom comes with certain obligations upon the people - to exercise your rights in a way that does not cause moral degradation and disharmony. To be responsible, in other words. The society your Founders feared was one where people had no sense of civic duty, and thought only of themselves. A Babylon of widespread indulgence and hedonism - not unlike the "I can do whatever I want, my body my rules!" licentiousness of rioting snowflakes today.

So do liberals; they just have a different sense of civic duty: higher corporate taxes, environmental responsibility, no slut-shaming, etc. Liberals and conservatives each have their own versions of political correctness.

I think you have greatly misinterpreted your own quote, because expressing a viewpoint (however hateful) does not objectively harm others, while destroying property does. This is why healthy democracies don't pass laws to restrict what you can say, but how you can act.

I'm not making any interpretation or taking a formal stance in this debate; I like to present counter-arguments to accepted mainstream wisdom (which is heavily pro-free speech, at least in America --- SJWs are the aberration, not the rule) because I don't like cookie-cutter answers, and because I want to make people think:


Tolerating groups that want to create a less tolerant constitution poses a special (and difficult to answer) problem for freedom of speech (see: the paradox of tolerance).

Imagine for a second that, instead of the Alt-Right, the protesters were from the Muslim Alt-Right (aka. Al-qaeda, ISIS). Imagine if they were demanding to install a radical vision of Sharia law that made burning the Koran a mortal crime; forced women to fully cover their bodies; and dissolved other essential freedoms. Few people, least of all conservatives, would stick out their necks to defend ISIS' right to free speech (however rightly or wrongly) out of fear of strengthening, or out of disgust for, Islamic fundamentalism.

Now, imagine if ISIS had a credible shot at gaining influence by gathering a sympathetic audience from certain groups in society. We don't have to imagine because that exact scenario played out in Weimar Germany, which had fewer laws against Fascist speech than modern Germany. Fascists in Germany were able to rise to power entirely because their hateful viewpoints were tolerated.

If these guys were from the Westboro Baptist Church, which is tiny and universally hated, they would be a cute source of amusement and derision more than anything. But they're not Westboro Baptists; they appear to have grassroots support.

[Spermatozoa]

Tolerating groups that want to create a less tolerant constitution poses a special (and difficult to answer) problem for freedom of speech (see: the paradox of tolerance).

Imagine for a second that, instead of the Alt-Right, the protesters were from the Muslim Alt-Right (aka. Al-qaeda, ISIS). Imagine if they were demanding to install a radical vision of Sharia law that made burning the Koran a mortal crime; forced women to fully cover their bodies; and dissolved other essential freedoms. Few people, least of all conservatives, would stick out their necks to defend ISIS' right to free speech (however rightly or wrongly) out of fear of strengthening, or out of disgust for, Islamic fundamentalism.

Now, imagine if ISIS had a credible shot at gaining influence by gathering a sympathetic audience from certain groups in society. We don't have to imagine because that exact scenario played out in Weimar Germany, which had fewer laws against Fascist speech than modern Germany. Fascists in Germany were able to rise to power entirely because their hateful viewpoints were tolerated.

If these guys were from the Westboro Baptist Church, which is tiny and universally hated, they would be a cute source of amusement and derision more than anything. But they're not Westboro Baptists; they appear to have grassroots support.

You are assuming that I'm a hypocrite when I'm not.

I believe that Muslims have a right to, for example, post pro-ISIS content online, or hold rallies so long as they're peaceful. I don't support what they stand for, but it is still in my own interests to prevent restrictions on free speech. Clamping down on it doesn't stop terrorism. Again, I don't care what you believe, people shitpost all the time. It is how you act on your beliefs which matters, and we already have laws to punish people who advance their cause violently. AntiFa supporters, take note.

These also seems to be a widespread misunderstanding on here about what the alt-right's ambitions are. They are not interested in creating an expansive, multiethnic empire where minorities will be used as slave labour. Quite the opposite, they want to be left alone. The only reason the alt-right has any traction is because more and more white communities are displaced by other racial groups. If immigration levels were cut and illegals deported, the movement would die.

[xerx]

You are assuming that I'm a hypocrite when I'm not.

I didn't make any assumptions about you.

I believe that Muslims have a right to, for example, post pro-ISIS content online, or hold rallies so long as they're peaceful. I don't support what they stand for, but it is still in my own interests to prevent restrictions on free speech. Clamping down on it doesn't stop terrorism. Again, I don't care what you believe, people shitpost all the time. It is how you act on your beliefs which matters, and we already have laws to punish people who advance their cause violently. AntiFa supporters, take note.

Is it in your interests for ISIS to slowly accumulate wealth and influence?

These also seems to be a widespread misunderstanding on here about what the alt-right's ambitions are. They are not interested in creating an expansive, multiethnic empire where minorities will be used as slave labour. Quite the opposite, they want to be left alone. The only reason the alt-right has any traction is because more and more white communities are displaced by other racial groups. If immigration levels were cut and illegals deported, the movement would die.

You have to clarify this. Existing minorities (like Blacks) aren't immigrants; what's their place in "white-only communities"? Does this plan require putting racial restrictions on current citizens to travel to Alt-right territories? -- because that would run counter to freedom of movement.

The protesters were also carrying Nazi flags, which is suggestive of sympathies with a militaristic empire that exterminated its minorities; that is, unless the flags were used out of historical ignorance for what they mean (which makes the protesters look like idiots), or as a trolling tactic (which makes the protesters look like immature idiots).

[Grendel]

If the danger of true fascism via the Alt-Right would really die if we cut immigration from these shitholes, then it is the Left's fault for creating the Alt-Right, but not in the form of Antifa or SJWs. It's because they refuse to take one for the nation in the form of cutting off said immigration, because muh "millions of non-Nationals would die in a war unless we sheltered them" non-argument. It's the same cancerous consequentialism that pushes Rightists to advocate Fascism because realistically, they see it as the only way to preserve their own race, which is an endgame they will abandon every principle of our democracy in order to achieve.


Antifa's only sin is that it's at least partially made of and tolerates the Communists that threaten Liberals with the bullet too. These Commies also happen to be consequentialists so rabid about protecting muh right to be constantly fed at the expense of others' property rights that they're willing to resort to destructive violence and kill the Liberals along with the Fascists.


...Wow, Consequentialism creates rabid violent authoritarians that can't coexist with civilization and need to be physically removed, who knew.

[Spermatozoa]

Is it in your interests for ISIS to slowly accumulate wealth and influence?

There are ways to prevent terrorists from gaining influence that don't require us to curtail free speech. The first and most important weapon is laughter - all tyrants hate being mocked, so I would like to see satirical musicals and plays about ISIS and Islam in general. The second weapon is border control. Just prevent groups of people prone to terrorism from coming into the country at all, and deport those who are not citizens and already here.

I can't help but notice that this is exactly what the left tells us we must not do.

You have to clarify this. Existing minorities (like Blacks) aren't immigrants; what's their place in "white-only communities"? Does this plan require putting racial restrictions on current citizens to travel to Alt-right territories? -- because that would run counter to freedom of movement.

I think the U.S. will break up into multiple countries within our lifetime. Free of movement is a right only within a country, and not between them. It is not at all inconceivable that we could see a European ethnostate form in the states Trump won in 2016, with a Latino ethnostate forming in the West. I suppose the Mid-Atlantic coast and New England would become a SJW welfare dystopia. In such a situation, U.S. citizenship would be null and void, and the new countries would all have their own rules around immigration and naturalization.

I truly do believe that the American left, out of some sense of punitive "justice", is intent on ensuring anxious Whites cannot opt out of demographic replacement. The reason why is obvious: if the U.S. was ever to split up along racial lines, the White ethnostate would retain most of the prior U.S. culture and institutions and become a world power in its own right, while the other two would collapse economically and start to resemble countries more typical of their ethnic makeup (such as Venezuela and Nigeria).

The protesters were also carrying Nazi flags, which is suggestive of sympathies with a militaristic empire that exterminated its minorities; that is, unless the flags were used out of historical ignorance for what they mean (which makes the protesters look like idiots), or as a trolling tactic (which makes the protesters look like immature idiots).

I would say it was a mixture of historical ignorance and trolling. But probably mostly trolling.

[xerx]

There are ways to prevent terrorists from gaining influence that don't require us to curtail free speech. The first and most important weapon is laughter - all tyrants hate being mocked, so I would like to see satirical musicals and plays about ISIS and Islam in general. The second weapon is border control. Just prevent groups of people prone to terrorism from coming into the country at all, and deport those who are not citizens and already here.

Nazis weren't foreigners, they were native born.

In general, I agree that laughter and derision is the best medicine against authoritarian systems and should be the first choice, with suppression of speech being an odious last resort. All the laughter and derision their enemies could throw at them didn't stop the Nazis from coming to power, however.

I think the U.S. will break up into multiple countries within our lifetime. Free of movement is a right only within a country, and not between them. It is not at all inconceivable that we could see a European ethnostate form in the states Trump won in 2016, with a Latino ethnostate forming in the West. I suppose the Mid-Atlantic coast and New England would become a SJW welfare dystopia. In such a situation, U.S. citizenship would be null and void, and the new countries would all have their own rules around immigration and naturalization.

I truly do believe that the American left, out of some sense of punitive "justice", is intent on ensuring anxious Whites cannot opt out of demographic replacement. The reason why is obvious: if the U.S. was ever to split up along racial lines, the White ethnostate would retain most of the prior U.S. culture and institutions and become a world power in its own right, while the other two would collapse economically and start to resemble countries more typical of their ethnic makeup (such as Venezuela and Nigeria).

That scenario would still require major ethnic cleansing of existing minorities, which is a worse of a violation of liberty than the suppression of speech -- worse by orders of magnitude.

[Singu]

There will always be people who are hardcore racist, hardcore anti-immigrant, who can't tolerate if there were even just 1 immigrant in the country. And even if there were zero immigrants and 100% racial homogeneity, they will find some scapegoat, some "inferiors" within their own race, such as the disabled, women, children, old people, people of lower class etc. So I think arguing and blaming who caused what is pretty pointless.

So these are just extremist arguments that really go nowhere: either accept no immigrants or accept unlimited immigrants without restriction. The moderate approach is to discuss the balance between how much the country should help out those in need, and how much the country can tolerate the influx of immigrants. So naturally, the discussion should be about how many immigrants should the country take in, and how strict the screening process should be? Too few and too strict would be ignoring their human rights, and too lax would let genuine criminals in.

[Spermatozoa]

Nazis weren't foreigners, they were native born.

In general, I agree that laughter and derision is the best medicine against authoritarian systems and should be the first choice, with suppression of speech being an odious last resort. All the laughter and derision their enemies could throw at them didn't stop the Nazis from coming to power, however.

Here you are comparing the alt-right to the Nazis again.

That scenario would still require major ethnic cleansing of existing minorities, which is a worse of a violation of liberty than the suppression of speech -- worse by orders of magnitude.

If you want to get rid of the alt-right, all you have to do is reverse the demographic changes currently taking place in America. Contrary to what the media tells you, this is quite possible to achieve, but there isn't the political will.

People turn to extreme alternatives like fascism not because they're full of hate, but because the status quo cannot meet their needs. Basically, "I know this is dangerous, but we have to try something new, or we're screwed anyway" type thinking.

If cucked Republicans want to prevent fascism, they need to start doing what their voters elected them to do.

[Grendel]

So these are just extremist arguments that really go nowhere: either accept no immigrants or accept unlimited immigrants without restriction. The moderate approach is to discuss the balance between how much the country should help out those in need, and how much the country can tolerate the influx of immigrants. So naturally, the discussion should be about how many immigrants should the country take in, and how strict the screening process should be? Too few and too strict would be ignoring their human rights, and too lax would let genuine criminals in.

The problem is that we're talking human rights before the rights of the nation and its own citizen. It's not about culture or even a belief in the different capabilities of different races (a point I don't personally agree with but many other detractors to immigration would), it's the fact that hordes of uneducated immigrants are not assets like they were pre-industrialization. If you were the equivalent of one of these refugees back in the 17 or 1800s you could get a job doing the equivalent of slave labor and gradually hope to improve the quality of life for yourself or at least your descendants, because that kind of labor is where the money was - pre-computer, industrial hard labor. But times have changed and the basic standards have skyrocketed. You need decades of education just to land a suitable job in this country's economy because most of the physical jobs are outsourced, and the money for amenities like education has to come from the state if you're not wealthy enough for private school. That's not even counting all the other regulations, tax-funded infrastructures, and benefits we have these days that simply didn't exist back in the day that drive up the social cost of every uneducated immigrant versus what they could ever hope to give back to the nation.


It seems the Left establishment has totally ignored this quandary, monolithically insisting that because this is a humanitarian crisis (one they argue we directly started), it's our obligation to shelter these people at all social costs, even if it decreases the quality of life for the native population. Not only will they refuse to discuss a suspension of immigration, they won't even let it slow down - it's a crisis after all, so every minute is another life lost to them. The absolute moral value of all that human life outweighs any arguments against keeping this up in their eyes, so they're unwilling to negotiate. It's a frantic disregard for the long-term consequences of what we're doing just to save a few lives that aren't even our own.


There's also the fact that many Leftists equate any discretion towards totally foreign populations (remember, if they're a race other than white, any crime against any one of them is a crime against their race) with abusive attitudes towards populations we forcibly imported as slaves and then "released" into asscracks of the nation deliberately engineered so their inhabitants could never climb back up the social ladder. Somewhere along the line, Race was equated with Nationality, so any abuse - or even denial of privileges we don't even owe - towards non-Nationals now qualifies as racism. If you provided X service to immigrants from Y nation one day and suddenly withdraw them the next day because you can no longer afford it, that withdrawal is racist. This is when you start to see Anticolonialism - a political philosophy of actively "returning" wealth to less-developed nations we colonized or looted in the past as a form of reparations. Our ancestors stole from them, so now our leaders steal from our descendants to give back to their descendants.

Keep this up long enough and the nation no longer has the energy needed to function.




Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with infrastructures. The Alt-Right just takes this a step further and attributes the success of the West to racial phenotypes allegedly tied to things like intelligence, instead of the rare and complex processes that lead to Industrialization. It provides simple solutions to complex problems: remove the other races and your nation will stay strong. The scary part is that this tactic will seem valid in the short term, because it will destroy the Anticolonialist systems that were straining the Nation in the first place, giving the industrial engine time to kick back into full gear and create more resources.




I think it's ironic that the same consequentialist Leftists that cry about all the lives lost due to conservative obstructionism of things like universal healthcare will turn around and be obstructionist themselves about the issue of immigration, all because of the absolute moral value they place in the lives that would be lost. It looks humanitarian at first glance until you see the unsustainable logistics: it's a shortsighted attempt to take the moral high ground by "saving lives" right now, on a loan of the lives we'll lose later.

[xerx]

Here you are comparing the alt-right to the Nazis again.



If you want to get rid of the alt-right, all you have to do is reverse the demographic changes currently taking place in America. Contrary to what the media tells you, this is quite possible to achieve, but there isn't the political will.

People turn to extreme alternatives like fascism not because they're full of hate, but because the status quo cannot meet their needs. Basically, "I know this is dangerous, but we have to try something new, or we're screwed anyway" type thinking.

If cucked Republicans want to prevent fascism, they need to start doing what their voters elected them to do.

Here's a demographic map of the United States in 2010 on a per county basis (by plurality, not majority):

The only way to achieve a European ethnostate in the states that voted for Trump is to [forcibly] ethnically cleanse the Black population from the former Confederacy.