Post: #101

What's this "Altright" stuff I'm seeing people bitch about now?

Post: #102

(01-12-2016 06:35 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  What's this "Altright" stuff I'm seeing people bitch about now?

Right wingers that ain't conservative cucks.

Post: #103

   

Post: #104

(01-12-2016 06:35 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  What's this "Altright" stuff I'm seeing people bitch about now?

Nothing, it isn't a thing.

Right wing is right wing. You don't need a special label of right wing which means 'as expressed on the internet', or 'right wingers who aren't liars/cowards and walk the walk not just talk the talk'.

Right wing is just the opposite of Leftism -- which I think is just a synonym for 'social degeneration'.

I've actually yet to see any right wingers speak ill of Milo, other than lamenting the fact it that it takes being gay to get your voice heard on these issues. He doesn't have to be one of us to be an ally.

I don't actually see much division in the right. Ideologically, there is the unresolved question of where you draw the line between capitalism and nationalism (many say protectionism is needed, others say that's destructive); and the question of religion (what its role is or should be). Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other divisions, and both of those are just questions of degree or balance.

That said, I think the right really needs to be talking more about the question of constitution. It's not enough to complain about social degeneration. The underlying questions of the root cause need to be considered, and beyond just suggesting 'only X should have the vote'. There should be much more talk of 'should we bring back lords and kings', 'how do we sustain devolved constitutions' etc.

The right is then divided off from the far-right simply by militancy -- the real far-right, not what news outlets call 'far-right', advocates racial supremacism, imperialism, conquest, and extermination of your enemies. That's the real difference. The far-right is aggressive (Ghenghis Khan & Hitler style), but the right is only defensive.

Everything else is just questions of the facts. Taking a few examples, I think the anti-bank crew, the head-in-the-clouds libertarian crew, and the ban drugs by force crew would all change their positions with sufficient consideration of root causes and effects.

There is no such thing as "alternative right".

Post: #105

@ Milo's post....

When in doubt, agree and nuclear amplify. Ultra flaming Phag Game confirmed.

Post: #106

Here's Milo on BBC's 'The Big Questions' earlier today with Kate Smurthwaite, the Feminist 'comedian' who famously lost her shit after he called her 'darling' on a previous show and Connie St Louis, who is the lying bitch who went attempted to ruin Tim Hunt's career and libeled Milo for allegedly calling for the assassination of an unnamed person on Twitter, an allegation for which she has no evidence to support.

Of course Milo is the only one who can actually come up with statistics to back up his argument, which of course are shouted down as being 'lies' because they don't conform with the Feminist narrative. His opponents rely on anecdotal evidence, play the victim and call for the camera to be taken off him because he hurts their feelings.

Post: #107

(01-17-2016 03:42 PM)Patrick Wrote:  Here's Milo on BBC's 'The Big Questions' earlier today with Kate Smurthwaite, the Feminist 'comedian' who famously lost her shit after he called her 'darling' on a previous show and Connie St Louis, who is the lying bitch who went attempted to ruin Tim Hunt's career and libeled Milo for allegedly calling for the assassination of an unnamed person on Twitter, an allegation for which she has no evidence to support.

Of course Milo is the only one who can actually come up with statistics to back up his argument, which of course are shouted down as being 'lies' because they don't conform with the Feminist narrative. His opponents rely on anecdotal evidence, play the victim and call for the camera to be taken off him because he hurts their feelings.

Fuck, that was frustrating to watch. I can't believe I sat through the entire thing. It was like watching a doctor argue the value of salmon and broccoli over ice cream and cake vs an obese woman.

Everything that is wrong with Western society is captured in that <20 minute video: 1. feminist "professionals" making statements of fact based on hearsay, anecdotical evidence, and aberrations of mass behavior. 2. a neutered MSM male host who placates the leftist shouting points. 3. mangina white knight audience members who take every feminist claim of slights as gospel and as our society's primary ill to be cured. 4. and finally, the anti-feminist voice of reason who is not allowed to refute baseless claims against his character and veracity of his evidence, whose freedom is suggested be taken away due to conflicting opinions and presentation of truth.

WOC phony academic: "He called for an assassination on the (way to be in touch with contemporary media) Twitter."
Milo: "Where?"
Host: "Where?"
Professional victim: "In a Tweet."

Milo must color his hair because talking to these people causes premature grayness.

Also, that guy in the striped shirt behind Milo, hilarious portrayal of an English caricature. Spoiler Alert: He's a bitch.

Post: #108

Good video. I hope he sues for defamation.

Post: #109

(01-17-2016 03:42 PM)Patrick Wrote:  

Hard to watch that video, with all the screeching harpies, manginas and professional victims. Surprised by the girl who argued for free speech and "words are just words", didn't expect a reasonable female on the stage.

Anyhow, the problem with shows like that is that they give far too much speaking time and attention to vocal minorities that in no way whatsoever represent the opinions of the majority of the people in a country. It deliberately creates the impression that their opinions are far more popular and accepted than they are.
In real life nobody gives a shit about any of those hysteric weirdos and their bizarre worldview. They would largely be ignored if not for the media offering them a place in the spotlight, which happens with a frequency that has no reasonable relation to their influence or importance. It's just a bubble, a fantasy world, completely detached from the life experience and problems of most people.
And British taxpayers (aren't they by the majority conservatives?) even get to fund their antics on national TV, when really they should be marginalized and ostracized. If nothing else, for their abysmal manners when it comes to conducting a civilized debate.
Preposterous.

Post: #110

That was a decent fight, good performance, but I think he could've used some stronger character attacks and call-outs.

I'd have specifically called-out her constant attempts at drown-outs. "That's all you have, isn't it? Your beliefs are so wrong and so vile, that the only way you can really defend them is constantly drowning out your opponents with your shrill, unpleasant, reality-denying interruptions, isn't it?".

I'd also have called her out on the "someone here should be in jail" remark, called out the host's bias, and made stronger character attacks than just "liars".

I'd also have pinned her down on the specific facts she was denying, by simply demanding she take a bet. "So that is false is it? You're very confident about that? OK, I wager $1000 that it's true. Will you take that bet? Oh really, why not? You're so confident I'm lying, so why won't you take my $1000?".
Then, aimed offhand at the audience, "Interesting, what kind of person is this feminist?".

Post: #111

(01-17-2016 06:58 PM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  Hard to watch that video, with all the screeching harpies, manginas and professional victims. Surprised by the girl who argued for free speech and "words are just words", didn't expect a reasonable female on the stage.

Anyhow, the problem with shows like that is that they give far too much speaking time and attention to vocal minorities that in no way whatsoever represent the opinions of the majority of the people in a country. It deliberately creates the impression that their opinions are far more popular and accepted than they are.
In real life nobody gives a shit about any of those hysteric weirdos and their bizarre worldview. They would largely be ignored if not for the media offering them a place in the spotlight, which happens with a frequency that has no reasonable relation to their influence or importance. It's just a bubble, a fantasy world, completely detached from the life experience and problems of most people.
And British taxpayers (aren't they by the majority conservatives?) even get to fund their antics on national TV, when really they should be marginalized and ostracized. If nothing else, for their abysmal manners when it comes to conducting a civilized debate.
Preposterous.

I'm not sure I agree with you that these abhorrent views are in the minority. The loudest applause was for the feminists who were crying for people who show "misogyny" on the internet to be "held to account" (read: kicked off the internet and jailed by the state).

The beta males of England all appear ready to white knight for these useless and ugly harpies who still won't touch them despite their kind offers of protection and their cucked votes for statist authoritarianism.

I foresee a world in the not to distant future where governments regulate the internet and charge/discipline those who don't espouse the "proper" (read: progressive) views. And all of this will be done to the thunderous cheering of the idiotic masses.

Post: #112

(01-18-2016 11:46 AM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  I foresee a world in the not to distant future where governments regulate the internet and charge/discipline those who don't espouse the "proper" (read: progressive) views. And all of this will be done to the thunderous cheering of the idiotic masses.

Kind of like China's new social credit/good citizen scoring system?

Post: #113

^ Not kind of like it, EXACTLY like it.

Post: #114

(01-18-2016 11:46 AM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 06:58 PM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  Hard to watch that video, with all the screeching harpies, manginas and professional victims. Surprised by the girl who argued for free speech and "words are just words", didn't expect a reasonable female on the stage.

Anyhow, the problem with shows like that is that they give far too much speaking time and attention to vocal minorities that in no way whatsoever represent the opinions of the majority of the people in a country. It deliberately creates the impression that their opinions are far more popular and accepted than they are.
In real life nobody gives a shit about any of those hysteric weirdos and their bizarre worldview. They would largely be ignored if not for the media offering them a place in the spotlight, which happens with a frequency that has no reasonable relation to their influence or importance. It's just a bubble, a fantasy world, completely detached from the life experience and problems of most people.
And British taxpayers (aren't they by the majority conservatives?) even get to fund their antics on national TV, when really they should be marginalized and ostracized. If nothing else, for their abysmal manners when it comes to conducting a civilized debate.
Preposterous.

I'm not sure I agree with you that these abhorrent views are in the minority. The loudest applause was for the feminists who were crying for people who show "misogyny" on the internet to be "held to account" (read: kicked off the internet and jailed by the state).

The beta males of England all appear ready to white knight for these useless and ugly harpies who still won't touch them despite their kind offers of protection and their cucked votes for statist authoritarianism.

I foresee a world in the not to distant future where governments regulate the internet and charge/discipline those who don't espouse the "proper" (read: progressive) views. And all of this will be done to the thunderous cheering of the idiotic masses.

Their programming is working as intended on you. The audiences for most shows are pre-screened for people who can be counted on to mindlessly support the editor and host's agenda.

It isn't reflective of too much.

Post: #115

^ Obviously I hope you are correct.

Post: #116

(01-12-2016 06:35 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  What's this "Altright" stuff I'm seeing people bitch about now?

AltRight definitely is a thing. They're the people who brought you #Cuckservative

Basically white-nationalist right-wingers who completely reject immigration, internationalism, feminism etc. Guys who say stuff "conservatives" would never dare to say.

Richard B. Spencer is the foundational "AltRight" guy associated with the National Policy Institute, here is his site:

http://www.radixjournal.com/

RamzPaul, is another, associated with the National Policy Institute, where Roosh attended a conference:





Some twitter accounts that are "AltRight"

https://twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99
https://twitter.com/wcsoto
https://twitter.com/_AltRight_
https://twitter.com/wrathofgnon

Post: #117

^ Nah, that's just normal right-wing stuff. The problem is just that those claiming to be conservative are actually phony. The words are fine. Its no different to greenies who advocate socialism -- they're simply not greenies, they're socialists.

Post: #118

(01-18-2016 10:46 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  ^ Nah, that's just normal right-wing stuff. The problem is just that those claiming to be conservative are actually phony. The words are fine. Its no different to greenies who advocate socialism -- they're simply not greenies, they're socialists.

Here is Richard B Spencer's "AltRight Archive"

http://www.radixjournal.com/altright-archivehome/

Here's a twitter account named "AltRight"

https://twitter.com/_altright_

Here's the hashtag #AltRight

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23altright&src=typd

Hell, here's Roosh talking about them:

https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/688856520851869696

Do you mean to say that you don't like the phrase, and think it's no different than just being right-wing?

If so, ok, fine.

But the phrase does have meaning and there are many people who use it, identify with it, etc. So if someone asks "what is AltRight?", well, these links lead to the answer. Richard B. Spencer, RamzPaul, etc.

They often get on Roosh's case because they're white nationalists and he's not white. Even though they both hate liberals, feminists, etc.

Post: #119

(01-18-2016 10:33 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:35 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  What's this "Altright" stuff I'm seeing people bitch about now?

AltRight definitely is a thing. They're the people who brought you #Cuckservative

Basically white-nationalist right-wingers who completely reject immigration, internationalism, feminism etc. Guys who say stuff "conservatives" would never dare to say.

AltRight is much more than white nationalist stormfront types and their more mainstream spokespeople.

It encompasses people who reject multiculturalism and liberal ideology in general and feel that the the conservative party is hijacked by corporate elite or foreign interests.

Plenty of people lean right in this way without being white supremacists. It's a perfectly rational point of view and a sign of our times. It's pretty obvious when someone is trying to slip in some of the more extreme stuff under the guise of rational debate though. There will always be people who fall into another dogmatic agenda while avoiding one.

Post: #120

Things have happened in the past few weeks that mean the alt right and myself/neomasculinity are going separate ways.

Post: #121

(01-18-2016 11:55 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 10:33 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 06:35 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  What's this "Altright" stuff I'm seeing people bitch about now?

AltRight definitely is a thing. They're the people who brought you #Cuckservative

Basically white-nationalist right-wingers who completely reject immigration, internationalism, feminism etc. Guys who say stuff "conservatives" would never dare to say.

AltRight is much more than white nationalist stormfront types and their more mainstream spokespeople.

It encompasses people who reject multiculturalism and liberal ideology in general and feel that the the conservative party is hijacked by corporate elite or foreign interests.

Plenty of people lean right in this way without being white supremacists. It's a perfectly rational point of view and a sign of our times. It's pretty obvious when someone is trying to slip in some of the more extreme stuff under the guise of rational debate though. There will always be people who fall into another dogmatic agenda while avoiding one.

Guess right wing is now called alt-right.

Whatever. I'm an old school right wing, patriarchal prick.

Post: #122

(01-19-2016 12:39 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Guess right wing is now called alt-right.

Whatever. I'm an old school right wing, patriarchal prick.

I'd say the right wing is now called a cuck fest, and the alt right is the right our great grandfathers knew.

I like what the alt right are doing, I was getting involved on twitter but then with the Roosh thing I've seen how some of the extreme ones lump everyone into stereotypes.

It's possible they're trolling but not sure. RamzPaul is supposedly associated with it but I've seen some of them trying to throw him under the bus because "he's a Jew".

Judging someone by race alone is a sure sign of a simple, closed mind.

Post: #123

(01-18-2016 11:11 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Do you mean to say that you don't like the phrase, and think it's no different than just being right-wing?

If so, ok, fine.

But the phrase does have meaning and there are many people who use it, identify with it, etc. So if someone asks "what is AltRight?", well, these links lead to the answer. Richard B. Spencer, RamzPaul, etc.

Is/Ought.

Sure some guys are using this new, vague, meaningless phrase. That doesn't mean they should. "Right wing" or "conservative" versus "leftism" is understood in some form or other internationally. It refers to a fundamental sociological phenomenon. There is no such thing as "alternative gravity", or "alternative US dollars", or even "alternative medicine". It's phony.

Guys who are inventing new phrases like "alt right" are just distracting from this to create their own labels for their group and it's 'brand' or 'particular mixture of talking points', for their own gain and not everyone else's.

The claimed "alt right" brigade appear to be heavy on the white nationalism. White nationalism is not a special ideology. It is simply the universal "take care of ourselves first" instinct that applies to right-wingers everywhere, from Malaysia to Mexico. Those right-wingers just happen to be white. You could just as soon call it "white right" -- and if they're being honest and forthright they probably should. And if they go beyond that into "white supremacy", then that's covered by "far right". All the definitions are already covered.

And guys who knee-jerk hate on other right-wing speakers "because they're Jewish" like Shapiro or "because they're gay" like Milo are not a special type of right-wing, they're just morons. The right-wing has its share of morons too, just not as many. It stands to reason: when you're criticizing what someone says because of who they are, instead of what they're saying, you're by definition not ideologically distinguishing yourself.

Post: #124

(01-18-2016 11:57 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Things have happened in the past few weeks that mean the alt right and myself/neomasculinity are going separate ways.

Sometime in 2015 "altright" became synonymous with White nationalist. That did not seem to be the case before last year.

Post: #125

(01-18-2016 11:57 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Things have happened in the past few weeks that mean the alt right and myself/neomasculinity are going separate ways.

Don't leave us hanging. Give us an idea of who, what, when, etc.