Post: #26

Self-improvement is emphasized on RvF because it's what you can influence the most.

Society? Shoot, even the schism on this thread shows the limits of influence. You still try, but not everyone will come around.

Edit: On a funny aside, anyone else see Comte like Samseau's post twice? /thread-59469...pid1450280

Post: #27

(11-23-2016 04:04 PM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  "Just improve yourself bro!" must be the most tired catch-all argument on RVF and manosphere forums.

Can you link to recent examples where this line was used on the forum? Or do you just mean "self-improvement" in general?

Post: #28

(11-23-2016 02:48 PM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  What the alt-light can't quite grasp is that demography is destiny.

It's not that they don't get it.

Everyone understands for instance that the current immigration regime is unsustainable. Everyone understands the game that the global liberal ideology wants to play in making nations into shopping malls. Everyone doesn't like that.

It's that they know that shouting bullshit like "hail Trump" and trying to bring up Hitler and all this other shit is bad persuasion and not even desirable. It's that they know that these purity politics based solely on ancestry is the quickest way to become retarded and ineffective.

Make no mistake, this basic bitch white nationalism isn't going to get anywhere. Richard Spencer killed his brand. It's over for him. How very convenient that the media got just the confirmation bias it wanted just when Bannon, who is the biggest voice for THE MOVEMENT in Trump's ear and will do the most to keep him honest, is being furiously attacked. Bannon was almost through, but then this happened. Will this derail him? No, but it just made the job more difficult and even Trump had to surrender frame a little bit.

Spencer had to be a suppliant to the media. He did the job that Hillary Clinton tried to do but failed miserably at. Great job, "alt-right!"

What originally attracted me to the idea of an "alt-right" was that, like ramzpaul said on a video a while ago, it was a right wing movement that recognized the failures of traditional conservatism, wanted to move past the dogmas and orthodoxies of Reaganism, but wasn't Stormfront faggotry either. It was, as the name implied "alternative."

I suppose my original attraction was based on a lie, kind of like a bint that wears 15 pounds of makeup in a poorly-lit bar.

The moment I knew the "alt-right" was over was back in February when the clowns came out of the woodwork to side with the media and the feminists against Roosh during the meetup outrage. That's when I recognized them for what they were, the SJW's of the right.

The differences could be papered over somewhat when there was common cause, that being getting Trump elected, but now we're past that.

In my mind there was a political and a cultural alt-right. The political alt-right are what Vox Day calls the "alt-retards." The cultural wing of the amorphous movement were the memesters and such. That's kind of what Paul Joseph Watson was talking about. Perhaps I should write about it. I hope the cultural wing can be preserved.

We're of course remaking right wing politics toward a sort of 21st century Jacksonian party, and that's all for the good. That's why we don't want to be idiots.

Post: #29

The argument about America belonging to Red Indians is stupid and boring when discussed as an argument against keeping a high white demographic in the US. The (then) European whites captured and defeated the Red Indians. I am not saying this was necessarily a good or bad thing- but it was inevitable as the world was less civilized and the Europeans had far superior weaponry.

The point is that now that the whites 'own' America, it is up to them to ensure their demographic's survival. The Red Indians are gone- they are not coming back any time soon, and likely ever. Which is sad, but true. So the past in that sense should be forgotten- America became a white country, and if whites want to keep it like that, it's up to them.


Also, for clarification, I assume Mike is on the side of what is called the alt-light? I know a lot of guys here care deeply about stuff like demographics and the over representation of Jews in power, but it is important to distance yourself from the genuine Neo-Nazis and KKK members who sadly still exist.

Also fully agree with Libertas on the political and cultural alt-right. I suspect almost 100% of guys here would align themselves with the cultural part (anti-feminist, anti-SJW, fat is healthy, etc) but less so with the political stuff. Paul Joseph Watson is someone I agree with almost everything on.

I also suspect much of the political alt-right is dominated by men who are frankly 'losers', and I try to say that without sounding like a man-berating feminist. I get the feeling many are autistic or have problems with socially interacting and many are unemployed.

Post: #30

(11-23-2016 04:47 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(11-23-2016 04:04 PM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  "Just improve yourself bro!" must be the most tired catch-all argument on RVF and manosphere forums.

Can you link to recent examples where this line was used on the forum? Or do you just mean "self-improvement" in general?

Couldn't link to specific cases, they happen sporadically now and then so one happens to notice them but I'm not suggesting that it's a rampant occurance. It usually happens in the form of:

User A: [some kind of complaint about life/society/culture/world/situation/job or whatever]
User B: Stop blaming X and better work on your self-improvement!


@Libertas
I agree that it was a dumb move of Richard Spencer to provoke a roman salute. The media were furiously looking for that perfect shot of Trump fans confirming their Nazi bias and they got it, in a way.

Legit suggestion in a way, but sometimes an off-topic comment or a simplification

Post: #31

(11-23-2016 03:19 PM)Il Bersagliere Wrote:  I hope they realize that Trump is basically a Jew. Are they trolling?

What is interesting about the Alt Right (of which 50% is openly racist and anti Semitic, possibly more) adores Trump.... but...they forget that Trump has Jewish advisors (Miller, Kuchner...), whose daughter converted to Judaism (never seen her name in parentheses) and is a Zionist.


Even some members on this forum, sadly, think the same.


Because of things like that, nobody will take them seriously. Too bad...they had potential to become something great.

Post: #32

It would be interesting to know how many people on the fringes of the alt-right actually voted to begin with. I bet the numbers would sync up pretty well with #BLM types because both are made up of a lot of angry pent up shitty people with lots to complain about but who will ultimately do nothing productive. #BLM is a Soros concoction harnessing useful idiots. The fringe elements of the alt-right also seem to be harnessed by the elite as controlled opposition (as Mike said) or maybe even classic agent provocateurs.

Like I said before a few will openly troll and harass other people on the right for ideological purity reasons but most are just cowards. They are content to sit and post memes for keks and go after the lowest hanging fruit.

Meanwhile the establishment media will latch onto them because they want an evil villain brown shirts narrative to associate with Trump. All too convenient. Retards like Spencer deliver that in spades.

It's a political soap opera for the brain dead.

Post: #33

Quote:The moment I knew the "alt-right" was over was back in February when the clowns came out of the woodwork to side with the media and the feminists against Roosh during the meetup outrage. That's when I recognized them for what they were, the SJW's of the right.

Greg Johnson (alt right) and Rollo both piled on. I haven't forgotten.

Post: #34

Ramzpaul has some great videos about the 1488 types from last year. I'll leave them here without further comment.

On the 1488 Infiltration from September 2015:





On LARPING and infiltration, from December 2015:

Post: #35

So much confusion over terminology.

Not sure if everyone else thinks the same way but I always thought the Right was made up of:
1) Traditional conservatives (most of the Right),
2) Neoconservatives (cuckservatives)
3) The Alt-Right (which is basically all the high energy, controversy creating memesters and thought leaders)

Within the Alt-Right however is a smaller faction of ethnonationalists which are focused on creating states of racial purity.

Highly unrealistic but I can see the motivations why as there are night-and-day differences in the preferred behaviours of different "races" and of course diversity+proximity=war.

Looks like PJW and Cernovich want to fork the Alt-Right to make the New Right and say that the ethnonationalists can't be part of this club.

Can't say whether the New Right or the ethnonationalist Alt-Right is more correct in this argument, but this schism had to happen eventually to allow both movements to grow unimpeded from each other.

Post: #36

Ramzpaul is not too fussed that the Alt-Right brand is damaged now. He has certainly upset many 1488'ers in the comments.

Post: #37

I've been out of the blogging loop for a while, but I'm not sure when guys like us started getting grouped into the 'alt-right' anyway. Back in the day Roosh and the 'manosphere' were a loose group of blogs mainly preaching self-improvement for men in all forms.

Somehow over the past few years we've been linked to white nationalism, Neo-Nazi's, and conspiracy theories. Personally and I believe many others never entered our subculture for those topics whatsoever. They are on the ideological fringe and represent a very small minority of the population. If I remember correctly Roosh was persecuted by Stormfront at one point.

With that said a schism was inevitable.

Libertas is spot on with his cultural vs. political description.

Post: #38

If we look at Vox Day's breakdown of what it means to be alt-right, many of us would agree with several of the listed points.

Spencer may have somewhat had a hand in coining the term, but he doesn't dictate what's alt-right anymore than Clinton defined what it mean to be a progressive liberal.

The movement is far too big with many under the tent, regardless of any purity tests the 1488ers might want to administer to make sure you aren't juden. (An obsession btw that is misplaced - if anything their paranoia of the Jews is a sign that they aren't just jealous, but unable to recognize the worldview needed to replicate the success that the Jews have had for the last 1000 years.)

Yes, there is a schism to some point, but to what degree?

While I don't buy into the HBD argument, identity and racial politics will trump the ideological appeals. This doesn't necessarily mean that the 1488ers perspective is the dominant one.

It does mean that nationalism - the modern definition of it - is probably one of the main planks.

It also means most of us understand that not only has Christendom done a lot to advance civilization, but the understanding that there's a reason that Britain ruled the world and China, Uganda, Bolivia, and Pakistan didn't.

Ideas have consequences, and those of the "white" cultures of Europe had some very beneficial ones for the world.

Now perhaps Donovan is right that western culture isn't worth bothering to preserve because by its nature and logical conclusion it was destined to eat itself - from the French Revolution to the multicultural/diversity nonsense that now is bringing about its doom.

I'd still consider myself Alt-Right, and while I'm not willing to denounce Spencer because of my disagreements, I think he's strategically mistaken.

Concerning "denouncing" or purging, ect, I suggest we refrain from bothering to do that with anyone under our side of the tent because the radical left sure as hell doesn't denounce the anarcho communists trying to burn down Portland, the anti-white anti-fas threatening to kill people, etc.

The 1488ers and even some of NPI might despise me for being mixed, as well as marrying a white woman, but I don't have time to:

(1) worry about their nonsense, (2) bother to tell them about their misplaced focus and lack of multigenerational worldview a.k.a. outbreeding their enemies (3) their need to stop being cucked by "pure" white feminist women, (4) rant about the jews, (5) point out how Hitler was a failure on every level and how the socialism of the Nazis is a terrible idea, (6) how while being aware that there is an anti-white campaign that needs to be fought off, self improvement is the prime means we will "overcome."

That said, I will have no problem associating with them. My current site host is a semi 1488er and I will back him regardless. Never denounce your friends - unless they decide they aren't friends - and always back those who back you.

While I don't agree with guys like RamzPaul, Millenial Woes, Taylor, or Spencer on everything, I'm not throwing them under the bus.

We need all the soldiers we can get and if the 1488ers and the other miscreants can do their part in the culture war, tossing memes, moving the overton window, etc then I have no time to have any qualms with them.

However, those of them who denounce us - particularly Roosh, Aurini, Quintus, etc will be dead to me when it comes to any kind of support.

Post: #39

(11-23-2016 05:02 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  What is interesting about the Alt Right (of which 50% is openly racist and anti Semitic, possibly more) adores Trump.... but...they forget that Trump has Jewish advisors (Miller, Kuchner...), whose daughter converted to Judaism (never seen her name in parentheses) and is a Zionist.


Even some members on this forum, sadly, think the same.


Because of things like that, nobody will take them seriously. Too bad...they had potential to become something great.

Come on, man. That's disingenuous. Everyone knows Trump has many Jewish connections. The alt-right looks past that and sees a guy who (so far at least) hasn't bowed down before the Israeli lobby and takes many positions which are at odds with the views of Jewish-Americans (who are extremely liberal).

About the Jewish question, I wonder how it's possible to distinguish between genuine anti-semitism and being able to discuss Jewish influence in an intellectually honest way? I really don't know. Take Bannon, for instance. The media has already labelled him an "anti-semite". His crime? He made some crude comment about his daughter attending school with Jews 20 years ago. That's what passes for "anti-semitism" these days. So excuse us for not buying into that pile of horseshit.

But I will add that because there are so many Jews within the ranks of leftists, feminists, and other subversives, it is IMPOSSIBLE to ignore them. It would be like talking about WWII and not mentioning Hitler.

Post: #40

delete, double post

Post: #41

Spencer supported Roosh publicly during the Montreal outrage, even Andrew Anglin did a half-assed show of support.

If anyone doubts why the over the top rethoric is being used by these people, go read the comments on Breitbart and Cernovich it's laughably cucked with comment and comment about "our greatest ally Israel", "jews are the smartest and highest IQ", and lots of other shaming language like Libertas likes to use. Without it, in a couple of months we will back to ground zero where we can't talk about the fact Trump was viciously attacked by American jewry.

The heiling was just trolling obviously and very effective. Basically a way to push the issue to people like Paul Watson, Milo, Cernovich, to call themselves something else than Alt-Right, which Spencer believes belongs to his part of the internet-

Post: #42

TigerMandingo Wrote:Come on, man. That's disingenuous. Everyone knows Trump has many Jewish connections. The alt-right looks past that and sees a guy who (so far at least) hasn't bowed down before the Israeli lobby and takes many positions which are at odds with the views of Jewish-Americans (who are extremely liberal).

Trump indeed has connections with Jews, both formal and informal. We may like it or not, but that is a fact. I wrote that in my last post, in which I criticized the Alt Right for lack of coherence.

And keep in mind that Trump is pro Israel regardless of AIPAC influence - whether due to religious or more personal reasons. He respects Israel, but he will not bow down before her, and I do not see anything wrong with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong putting the interest(s) of you nation first.

Quote:About the Jewish question, I wonder how it's possible to distinguish between genuine anti-semitism and being able to discuss Jewish influence in an intellectually honest way? I really don't know.

Easily, by simply not putting all Jews in the same camp.


Saying that all Jews are subversives is like saying that all Germans are Nazis or all Swedes faggots. Yes, there are certainly Jews that are subversives, but also there are those that who are not. Was Andrew Breitbart a subversive, for example? Is Judith Reisman a subversive? Is Milo a subversive? Or Ezra Levant?

It ain't that simple, like all things in life!



Now, I am not saying that Jews should not be criticized. They absolutely should like any other nation or religion. For example, I did here:

Quote:So, unfortunately, Communism is a German invention (not Jewish as some here claim, but Jews indeed helped spread it, due to reasons Roosh in his article mentioned).

/thread-56394...pid1323865


I did also in real life and was called an anti Semite by some Jewish professor in Uni. Let's say that...it did not end well for her.




I hope I answered your question.

Post: #43

^

You can be against Mexican immigration and not immigration from Germany or Poland.

It's simple. Due to both geographic an economic differences between these countries, one has a far greater negative than the other.

Failing to recognize this is amateur.

Post: #44

(11-23-2016 06:37 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  shaming language like Libertas likes to use.

Shaming language?

I don't see any shaming language in there. That was a product of your imagination.

Calling retarded shit retarded doesn't mean anyone should be ashamed or you're necessarily a bad person for being part of it. We should always defend their right to say and do what they want.

It just means it's being dumb and won't win and I don't want to be part of it.

Quote:The heiling was just trolling obviously and very effective. Basically a way to push the issue to people like Paul Watson, Milo, Cernovich, to call themselves something else than Alt-Right, which Spencer believes belongs to his part of the internet-

Very effective at doing the job Hillary Clinton and the media couldn't do before and alienating everyone in the emerging right wing sphere that actually had influence. Looks like ramzpaul's just the latest to join that group.

Congratulations to him. I hope Richard Spencer enjoys his coming irrelevance now that his task on the chessboard has been completed.

Post: #45

(11-23-2016 07:17 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(11-23-2016 06:37 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  shaming language like Libertas likes to use.

Shaming language?

I don't see any shaming language in there. That was a product of your imagination.

Calling retarded shit retarded doesn't mean you should be ashamed for being part of it.

Quote:The heiling was just trolling obviously and very effective. Basically a way to push the issue to people like Paul Watson, Milo, Cernovich, to call themselves something else than Alt-Right, which Spencer believes belongs to his part of the internet-

Very effective at doing the job Hillary Clinton and the media couldn't do before and alienating everyone in the emerging right wing sphere that actually had influence.

Congratulations to him. I hope Richard Spencer enjoys his coming irrelevance now that his task on the chessboard has been completed.

You frequently refer to the white nationalist part of the Alt-Right as LARPing and here you call it "basic bitch white nationalism", clear shaming language because you won't be honest and straight up say you don't like white nationalism.

The media threw everything they had at Trump. Absolutely everything. David Duke, nameless nazis, white supremacy, anti-semmitism, racism. They gave it their all. They even called Bannon an anti-semitte and fascist and Breitbart basically only employs jews. Your indignation that Spencer 'gave the left a bullet' is wrong, Spencer and NPI is not affiliated to Trump any more than former KKK Grandwizard David Duke (a far more known and toxic name). He is barely known even on the right, no more relevant in the big picture than the New Black Panthers and Obama.

Why are you so bothered, Trump is president, who cares what they think, what does it hurt exactly?

I think you are beating around the bush, you don't like the focus on jewish nepotism and that's the main issue isn't it?

Post: #46

(11-23-2016 06:00 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  About the Jewish question, I wonder how it's possible to distinguish between genuine anti-semitism and being able to discuss Jewish influence in an intellectually honest way?

But I will add that because there are so many Jews within the ranks of leftists, feminists, and other subversives, it is IMPOSSIBLE to ignore them. It would be like talking about WWII and not mentioning Hitler.

This is actually an extremely valid point, thanks for posting that. We should be able to discuss these topics, if we want to remain objective. In my opinion it does seem that Jews have had a hand in things that negatively permeate our culture. We have to look at the facts here, like we do with Islam. Just like saying 'Islam has nothing to do with terrorism' is completely ridiculous, so is saying that 'All Jews are completely innocent and not actively acting as a subversive force.'

So there is a middle ground here for discussion between outright antipathy/anti-semitism and a genuine discussion of the factors at play. While not many Jews I've met are pushing an agenda (some I've known quite well for years and are pretty decent people), there's definitely something going on that merits more investigation.

Post: #47

(11-23-2016 02:17 PM)Roosh Wrote:  So it looks like the alt right and "alt light" are divorcing for good.

Alt right leader Richard Spencer had some controversy at his latest conference:

snipped

The fallout from this seems to be a new "alt light" because the new conservatism and then the alt right focusing on the white ethnostate.

It don't matter.

The alt-right was alright for a while.

It did its job.

Then, like 'punk' when it became a characture of what 'other' people thought it was, then it was time to ditch it.

Trying to explain to your little siss: NO, no that alt-right, THAT alt-right.

We will just mutate, and they will just play catch up. It's time to let things die when you get sour-pussed old hags in the totalitarian Guardian writing about you.

Job done. Next.

Not like any of us got a tattoo about it, did we? Not like 'them'. Fuck them.

I'm not part of any movement. I'm probably not even a part of this forum. But I'll fit in for a while. See where we can all go. And while it's good, we'll ride.

And if it makes sense, maybe we can create something greater. Something (they) can not crush. Who knows? Maybe we will win.

Till then, I'll keep using 'alt-right' just to test out normies and see how edgy they are.

Like, I'm totally in a bar, and I'm like, looking around for other sentient beings, and I see this dude. OMG, he has LENNY written on his forearm (pretty big forearm, so wouldn't want to fuck with him), so I say, "Hey, LENNY, you 'alt-right' dude?" - LENNY just looks at me, that unmistakable look, and says: "'alt-right' to the end, good buddy". It's a beautiful coca-cola moment. Maybe you needed to be there... like...

They always do that. They take the words you have, the way you represent yourself, then they rubbish and ridicule it. And that's ok, coz then it's time to move on.

Not like anyone really used it anyway. Or even knew what it meant, when someone said it.

Btw, I have never ever heard of Richard Spencer before. I don't mean that in any other way than as a fact. I honestly have never heard of him. I'm sure he's a great guy. I may look him up some time, when I'm not shitposting on RVF.

:-)

Post: #48

(11-23-2016 07:23 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  You frequently refer to the white nationalist part of the Alt-Right as LARPing and here you call it "basic bitch white nationalism", clear shaming language because you won't be honest and straight up say you don't like white nationalism.

The media threw everything they had at Trump. Absolutely everything. David Duke, nameless nazis, white supremacy, anti-semmitism, racism. They gave it their all. They even called Bannon an anti-semitte and fascist and Breitbart basically only employs jews. Your indignation that Spencer 'gave the left a bullet' is wrong, Spencer and NPI is not affiliated to Trump any more than former KKK Grandwizard David Duke (a far more known and toxic name). He is barely known even on the right, no more relevant in the big picture than the New Black Panthers and Obama.

Why are you so bothered, Trump is president, who cares what they think, what does it hurt exactly?

I think you are beating around the bush, you don't like the focus on jewish nepotism and that's the main issue isn't it?

You're still inventing things that aren't there.

I don't particularly care about white nationalism. If people want to go on their own and do that, that's fine with me.

I just don't want to be part of it. Nor do I think it's persuasive (hence the term, "basic bitch" - devoid of nuance or something that makes it distinct), and thus don't want it near shit that I care about, such as Trump's presidency and the legitimate good it can do. I find its prospects dismal and not even desirable. This, and not "Jewish nepotism," is the main issue I have with it.

As for "Jewish nepotism," I've discussed it many times. Including seeing it first hand in certain elite circles.

It's real, and its disproportionate influence is worth discussing, as we have, many times.

But I also don't stretch it to the point of absurdity that the hardcore WN crowd do.

Like Neo just said, there is a middle ground between discussing the role of Jewish influence in the world and thinking that all Jews are some uniform, homogenous force that's out to get you.

Post: #49

(11-23-2016 07:11 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  Easily, by simply not putting all Jews in the same camp.


Saying that all Jews are subversives is like saying that all Germans are Nazis or all Swedes faggots. Yes, there are certainly Jews that are subversives, but also there are those that who are not. Was Andrew Breitbart a subversive, for example? Is Judith Reisman a subversive? Is Milo a subversive? Or Ezra Levant?

It ain't that simple, like all things in life!

I wonder how you did on the reading comprehension portion of the SATs, because a lot of things seem to fly right over you. No one put them in the same camp (not since the 1940s anyway).

The funny part is you bring up Jews who pose a counterbalance to the leftist Jews and yet that's part of the problem: they dominate both sides of the debate. So what's essentially happening right now in the US is Jews on one side debating Jews on the other side with the rest of the country looking on and thinking what the fuck is going on.

Post: #50

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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