Alt-Right

[Wuzzums]

Hey guys, remember that time when we were discussing the alt-right and I dismissed it as another idiotic fringe movement that would eventually degenerate into socialism/communism and got criticized for it?

 

Who's laughing now??

 

I am.

 

I am laughing now.

[twinklingwinter]

I guess he actually was a National Socialist

[aviet]

I guess we should ask all single-payer advocates if they disavow Richard Spencer now.

 

[RotYeti]

Very petty. I think the alt-right can be learned from in their dealings with the left. I want ancaps to have their effectiveness.

[Wuzzums]

Very petty. I think the alt-right can be learned from in their dealings with the left. I want ancaps to have their effectiveness.

Like how to run away after getting punched by a literal crap-eating cuck?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Strictly speaking we're largely AltRight on FDR insofar as we're right wing and alternative to mainstream Republicanism. 

I can't say I like Richard Spencer given his platform is basically Socialism with Nationalism, but I can't say I appreciate insulting him for getting attacked in broad daylight nor expecting him to be some sort of titan of masculinity. He's just a somewhat r-selected guy with a k-selected desire to help out his race. 

He's wrong on certain aspects but on the whole I think it's safe to say we're in the same Nationalist (or at least anti-Statist) camp he is. We cross over often enough that I think we shouldn't be punching Right until we've overcome the Left.

Of course don't get me wrong although I'm also an ethnostate guy I don't support his National Socialist alternative to International Socialism, which is over time basically the difference between paper white and egg white. 

I just think we shouldn't be punching to the right when they're at least slightly better than what currently exists.

[Wuzzums]

4 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Strictly speaking we're largely AltRight on FDR insofar as we're right wing and alternative to mainstream Republicanism. 

That's an interesting statement. How long have you been listening to FDR and in your view what makes FDR right-wing?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

10 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

That's an interesting statement. How long have you been listening to FDR and in your view what makes FDR right-wing?

I think I've been on FDR for about half a year and listening/watching Stef for a year.

FDR is Rightist because its founder Stefan Molynuex is an Anarcho-Capitalist, about as right-wing as you can get.

Assuming you are following this definiton, that is:

I define Leftism to be the advocacy of State control and Rightism the advocacy of private (non-governmental) control (or individualism, wherein everyone owns the affects of their actions), and apply that to various aspects.

Economically we're definitely as Far-Right as we can conceive of because "Orthodox Stefanists" like myself want the State totally abolished and the Free Market to be totally freed, allowing all people and goods to flow freely while letting Individualism take hold insofar as people will have to be responsible for their own behavior rather than shifting responsibility via governmental programs (which I mean vaguely to include welfare, war, etc.).

 

Hitler is often called Far Right but based on the definition for Rightism I gave this couldn't be further from the truth. Practically speaking he's as Far Left as Stalin but with "Nationalist" instead "Internationalist" or "Globalist", and all Fascistic regimes met the same fate as Communist regimes, often through shortages, military coups, etc. Both are authoritarian ideologies hellbent on State control of society and generally pro-r-selection in policy.

 

In general the AltRight wants libertarianism and at least a moderation of authoritarianism as compared to status-quo Republicans or pushing-left Democrats. 

 

Capitalism is by its nature Right Wing (i.e. no State control, freedom) and Anarchism is governmental equivalent to a completely Free Market. 

AnCap is the epitome of Right Wing, and while I may be socially conservative and belligerently against r-selection I still believe AnCap is the most effective way to help the largest amount of people, in particular those K-selected individuals who deserve it. 

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim
Rewrote some parts for clarification.

[DeaconFrost]

47 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

That's an interesting statement. How long have you been listening to FDR and in your view what makes FDR right-wing?

Well Stef seems to be against the leftist globalist agenda. I would then presume they are not the majority of the listeners. They tend to like to remain in the echo chamber.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

4 minutes ago, DeaconFrost said:

Well Stef seems to be against the leftist globalist agenda. I would then presume they are not the majority of the listeners. They tend to like to remain in the echo chamber.

Sadly I think that's true of most people of most ideologies. I have a bigger response awaiting approval to that question.

[DeaconFrost]

1 minute ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Sadly I think that's true of most people of most ideologies. I have a bigger response awaiting approval to that question.

It is pretty impossible to get away from the leftist narrative so we are subject to it no matter what. I do however try to listen to some lefty commentators just to see what they are thinking... If at all.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Just now, DeaconFrost said:

It is pretty impossible to get away from the leftist narrative so we are subject to it no matter what. I do however try to listen to some lefty commentators just to see what they are thinking... If at all.

Which I'd say is admirable, for me it's a waste of time. I used to be a Leftist (both International and National varieties) and therefore know Leftism from the inside. Of course if Leftism were to significantly change I'd be alien to it and therefore would have to study it to get it.

I have a weakness towards echo chambers and therefore try not to assume I am completely right in an argument, therefore if I come into a significant argument I've made it a habit to try to study what actually happened--maybe one of us misunderstood, maybe definitions weren't properly established; maybe I was completely wrong about X or Y and therefore made a huge logical error.

I used to be a very rabid Leftist back when I was in early high school but by the time I graduated I essentially made a 180* turn, for better and worse, and therefore want to be more careful about things I consider completely and totally true.

 

[DeaconFrost]

3 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Which I'd say is admirable, for me it's a waste of time. I used to be a Leftist (both International and National varieties) and therefore know Leftism from the inside. Of course if Leftism were to significantly change I'd be alien to it and therefore would have to study it to get it.

I have a weakness towards echo chambers and therefore try not to assume I am completely right in an argument, therefore if I come into a significant argument I've made it a habit to try to study what actually happened--maybe one of us misunderstood, maybe definitions weren't properly established; maybe I was completely wrong about X or Y and therefore made a huge logical error.

I used to be a very rabid Leftist back when I was in early high school but by the time I graduated I essentially made a 180* turn, for better and worse, and therefore want to be more careful about things I consider completely and totally true.

 

It happens to the best of us. They had me going for a bit when I used reddit for like 3 years. I started to lean a little left myself but then I snapped out of it and haven't used reddit since lol.

[Wuzzums]

2 hours ago, DeaconFrost said:

Well Stef seems to be against the leftist globalist agenda. I would then presume they are not the majority of the listeners. They tend to like to remain in the echo chamber.

Stefan's an ancap/libertarian/voluntarist, he's neither left nor right. The end goal is a stateless society, this is what most FDR listeners aim for. It's a long term goal. He went into the politics sphere in the last 2 years not to support some political agenda but to buy us more time in order to raise more and more peaceful generations. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

45 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Stefan's an ancap/libertarian/voluntarist, he's neither left nor right. The end goal is a stateless society, this is what most FDR listeners aim for. It's a long term goal. He went into the politics sphere in the last 2 years not to support some political agenda but to buy us more time in order to raise more and more peaceful generations. 

About Stef being the epitome of Far Right, my big response appears to have been approved. I'd appreciate a read and comment over it...

[Wuzzums]

12 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think I've been on FDR for about half a year and listening/watching Stef for a year.

FDR is Rightist because its founder Stefan Molynuex is an Anarcho-Capitalist, about as right-wing as you can get.

Assuming you are following this definiton, that is:

I define Leftism to be the advocacy of State control and Rightism the advocacy of private (non-governmental) control (or individualism, wherein everyone owns the affects of their actions), and apply that to various aspects.

Economically we're definitely as Far-Right as we can conceive of because "Orthodox Stefanists" like myself want the State totally abolished and the Free Market to be totally freed, allowing all people and goods to flow freely while letting Individualism take hold insofar as people will have to be responsible for their own behavior rather than shifting responsibility via governmental programs (which I mean vaguely to include welfare, war, etc.).

 

Hitler is often called Far Right but based on the definition for Rightism I gave this couldn't be further from the truth. Practically speaking he's as Far Left as Stalin but with "Nationalist" instead "Internationalist" or "Globalist", and all Fascistic regimes met the same fate as Communist regimes, often through shortages, military coups, etc. Both are authoritarian ideologies hellbent on State control of society and generally pro-r-selection in policy.

 

In general the AltRight wants libertarianism and at least a moderation of authoritarianism as compared to status-quo Republicans or pushing-left Democrats. 

 

Capitalism is by its nature Right Wing (i.e. no State control, freedom) and Anarchism is governmental equivalent to a completely Free Market. 

AnCap is the epitome of Right Wing, and while I may be socially conservative and belligerently against r-selection I still believe AnCap is the most effective way to help the largest amount of people, in particular those K-selected individuals who deserve it. 

 

I see. However that's only true on an economic spectrum, the far-right dichotomy you're referring to. I've had several arguments with people that don't really know what they're talking about and think the left is about free speech and protecting the weak and the right is about protecting conservative values. Let's not forget anarchists refer to one another as "comrades". Communism is a disease that seems to seep into every ideology whether right or left.

[Tyler H]

On 5/6/2017 at 3:34 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Assuming you are following this definiton, that is:

I define Leftism to be the advocacy of State control and Rightism the advocacy of private (non-governmental) control (or individualism, wherein everyone owns the affects of their actions), and apply that to various aspects.

Take it with a grain of salt, but I would caution you when using this definition. The accepted definition of the political spectrum is not about government control but about egalitarianism and social justice - that's why they stick fascism over on the right (which always perplexed me until I learned this).  If you use a different definition without explicitly clarifying it at the start then you'll have a hard time convincing someone that a philosophy right of nazism is a good thing. 

In my opinion it's best to steer clear of the left/right paradigm when arguing for a stateless society. It's a metric that displays under what circumstances we should point guns at people to realize our agenda.  It goes worse government-bad government-worse government and I don't think voluntarists should touch it with a ten foot pole. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Just now, Tyler H said:

Take it with a grain of salt, but I would caution you when using this definition. The accepted definition of the political spectrum is not about government control but about egalitarianism and social justice - that's why they stick fascism over on the right (which always perplexed me until I learned this).  If you use a different definition without explicitly clarifying it at the start then you'll have a hard time convincing someone that a philosophy right of nazism is a good thing. 

True. However the Left./Right spectrum is also used to define things like social policy (i.e. whether to live conservatively or loosely), religious policy, etc. Altogether both wings have a whole lot of associated baggage, Right would still be what Stefanism would be categorized in most cases as he promotes strong family values (based on voluntarism and peaceful parenting) and although an atheist he does promote morality via UPB, which could be called the perfect secular bible as it gives reasons to be good without a stick.

Because much of what I believe (which is pretty much everything Stef says, as I can't help but treat what he says as gospel at times) can be called "Rightist" and since Fascists are very Leftist in nature even though their dogma is slightly different, I feel comfortable being called a "Rightist" at least in contrast to the Leftists.

Of course when speaking philosophically I don't use the spectrum at all since it is highly interpretive. I believe what I believe, and some of my political thoughts (like AnCap) aren't easily defined on the Left-Right spectrum unless Left represents Statism and the Right Devolution. 

 

 

Just now, Tyler H said:

In my opinion it's best to steer clear of the left/right paradigm when arguing for a stateless society. It's a metric that displays under what circumstances we should point guns at people to realize our agenda.  It goes worse government-bad government-worse government and I don't think voluntarists should touch it with a ten foot pole. 

I agree for the most part we're picking our poison when voting for one thing or another, however in some cases (like Trump and Le Pen) the better of two evils is MUCH better than the alternative, as it allows us to follow our beliefs in spite of the State than be forced to obey it even within the privacy of our homes.

 

[Donnadogsoth]

On 3/1/2017 at 10:23 PM, aviet said:

I guess we should ask all single-payer advocates if they disavow Richard Spencer now.

 

 

That's stupid, he took a critical hit to the ear.  Everyone knows that incapacitates you for 10 minutes.  Put him and the chick in a cage match together and see what happens.

[Erwin]

On 3/1/2017 at 10:38 AM, Wuzzums said:

Who's laughing now?? I am. I am laughing now.

I'm laughing even harder. You took this completely out of context. To be exact, he said that he believes the free market would allocate resources most effectively, but that since that is feasible, compared to Obamacare socialist healthcare is the next best thing.

Source:

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said:

That's stupid, he took a critical hit to the ear.  Everyone knows that incapacitates you for 10 minutes.  Put him and the chick in a cage match together and see what happens.

Yeah, kinda what I was thinking. Plus it just seems like bullying to shame a victim for getting jumped. Imagine if it was Ann Coulter who got punched in the side of the head, and try laughing about it...

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 5/7/2017 at 3:58 AM, Wuzzums said:

I see. However that's only true on an economic spectrum, the far-right dichotomy you're referring to. I've had several arguments with people that don't really know what they're talking about and think the left is about free speech and protecting the weak and the right is about protecting conservative values. Let's not forget anarchists refer to one another as "comrades". Communism is a disease that seems to seep into every ideology whether right or left.

Which is why definitions are especially important when trying to argue anything with the Left/Right spectrum. 

Though "comrade" wasn't always a Leftist word, and I think we should revive the word since it is meant to refer to a good and trustworthy friend, not a political ally.

And while in terms of governance we may not fit on the spectrum (because we're anarchists) we do fit easily economically (State-controlled economy versus an organic economy).

And the people that call themselves AltRight may be varied in terms of how they interpret "AltRight" and what that means in terms of beliefs sets, Libertarians and AnCaps still have more in common with the AltRight (given we also reject the mainstream Republican party and their equivalents) than not, especially as anti-Leftists.

Of course that being said as to how the AltRight can be defined is a question in and of itself. I'd define it as any economically or socially right-wing ideology that deviates from the mainstream, and by that definition we are AltRight by default.

[Wuzzums]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

To be exact, he said that he believes the free market would allocate resources most effectively, but that since that is feasible, compared to Obamacare socialist healthcare is the next best thing.

I don't understand the phrase at all. It comes off as if you're saying free-market-care is feasible therefore we need socialist healthcare and socialist healthcare is different than obamacare (which is socialist healthcare). This makes absolutely no sense.

[Erwin]

22 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

I don't understand the phrase at all. It comes off as if you're saying free-market-care is feasible therefore we need socialist healthcare and socialist healthcare is different than obamacare (which is socialist healthcare). This makes absolutely no sense.

I'm sorry, typo. What I meant to say:

"To be exact, he said that he believes the free market would allocate resources most effectively, but that since that is NOT feasible POLITICALLY,  socialist healthcare is the next best thing compared to Obamacare."

In other words: Free Market Medicine > Socialist Medicine > Obamacare

Edited May 9, 2017 by Erwin

[Wuzzums]

7 hours ago, Erwin said:

I'm sorry, typo. What I meant to say:

"To be exact, he said that he believes the free market would allocate resources most effectively, but that since that is NOT feasible POLITICALLY,  socialist healthcare is the next best thing compared to Obamacare."

In other words: Free Market Medicine > Socialist Medicine > Obamacare

What the difference between obamacare and socialist healthcare?

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

What the difference between obamacare and socialist healthcare?

Wait you don't know the difference, and yet you make a post mocking Richard Spencer's stance on it?

I'd hate to assume your motive, but it looks like you're more concerned with smearing the Alt Right... Is that the case?

[Tyler H]

 

5 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

What the difference between obamacare and socialist healthcare?

Free diva cups. 

[DaVinci]

On 5/6/2017 at 3:18 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Strictly speaking we're largely AltRight on FDR insofar as we're right wing and alternative to mainstream Republicanism. 

Interesting. That's not what drew me here. There was no such thing as "alt right" five years ago. I guess all the Trump support really did draw in a brand new audience. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

5 minutes ago, DaVinci said:

Interesting. That's not what drew me here. There was no such thing as "alt right" five years ago. I guess all the Trump support really did draw in a brand new audience. 

Well what drew me in at first was the Race and Evolution stuff back when I was a Socialist of the National variety. Over time I matured out of that and into "National Capitalism" and from there AnCap. 

The first videos I saw at length were the biographies in the Truth About series, particularly the ones about famous Presidents and world leaders. 

Then I started following the Trump stuff (give or take around late 2015) and then I slowly spread out into Peaceful Parenting and listening regularly to podcast interviews. Overall this is definitely my favorite show because of the sheer mass of depth accompanying the mass of size. 

[Erwin]

5 minutes ago, DaVinci said:

I guess all the Trump support really did draw in a brand new audience. 

Perhaps, but I don't think that audience came in as Alt Righters either. We all came here to apply philosophical thinking, the scientific method and Socratic reasoning.

In my case, all it took was Stefan's video with Jared Taylor... and I got sucked into the black hole of race realism. As for racial identity, I don't think Stefan has ever spoken of this to any significant extent. It is the philosophical methods I've learned here that led me to identitarian, i.e. Alt Right conclusions.

The irony is that, I think Stefan has been a far better "Alt Right evangelist" than anyone who actually is in the Alt Right.

[DaVinci]

But you guys are describing this site as being alt-right, and have giant "alt-right" banners. You aren't really talking about anarchy. No one really is anymore. It's all Trump, and challenging the mainstream narrative, and foreign elections. Politics. Politics isn't anarchy. Or have I missed something? 

[Erwin]

2 minutes ago, DaVinci said:

But you guys are describing this site as being alt-right, and have giant "alt-right" banners. You aren't really talking about anarchy. No one really is anymore. It's all Trump, and challenging the mainstream narrative, and foreign elections. Politics. Politics isn't anarchy. Or have I missed something? 

We aren't all anarchists. We follow the NAP to its logical conclusions. You can be Alt Right and NAP compliant. More on that below:

 

[ofd]

Quote

Or have I missed something? 

Yes. Once Non Asian / Non White people are the majority of a country the country is doomed. The best that Trump can do is to slow down the immigration of Non Whites to give the US a bit more time to deal with problems related to immigration.

[DaVinci]

@ErwinIf you aren't an anarchist then what are you? 

16 minutes ago, ofd said:

Yes. Once Non Asian / Non White people are the majority of a country the country is doomed. The best that Trump can do is to slow down the immigration of Non Whites to give the US a bit more time to deal with problems related to immigration.

The self defense argument, huh? You do understand that the left viewed voting for Hillary as self defense, right? How do you keep out foreigners forever if you can't even defeat the left? They'll be back next election. What's her face losing France is a sign that the globalists are pushing back hard. 

[Erwin]

10 minutes ago, DaVinci said:

@ErwinIf you aren't an anarchist then what are you?

Oh, I am. I meant to say that not all those who accept the NAP are anarchists.