Does the alt-right even exist? When the left speaks of it, it usually means people who post cartoon frogs and are barely even right sometimes. I know some actual fascists, and the only people who call themselves "alt-right" are universally hated edgelords like Richard Spencer. So what does it mean? I've heard some people say it used to be something close to libertarianism. Personally I think that whatever it meant before, it has become meaningless now. Same as calling someone "literally Hitler." Hence the thread title.

Views: 1487

Replies to This Discussion

The dreaded "alt-right" announced a rally. They got permission. National Guard was put on standby in case trouble starts. Antifa/BLM responds. Sure enough, trouble starts. They initiated it, not the white nationalists. So why are the white nationalists getting the blame?

Maybe, if instead of dressing up in all American boy costumes and walking around with tiki torches they stole from their mom's patio, they'd burned their town and rioted like in Ferguson, they'd get the support they deserve.

You conservatives baffle me. This is just like the Milo and Coulter thing. Someone who has a career of pissing off the other side, gets flustered and plays innocent when the other side calls them on their shit. Whiny cunts that hate everyone not them are triggered when the voters approve removing a statue of someone who led open rebellion against our nation and lost. They march at night through a campus they don't attend, talking about how shit is fucked up because of every race but them. And people show up to call them in their idiot shit.

Any party, showing up, does not get to play innocent to anything.

People who don't follow along and only believe headlines baffle me.

And people show up to call them in their idiot shit.

If by that you mean literally spray them with piss, then yes. You liberals baffle me.

Do you believe in the white power movement?

You know how people say there are no dumb questions? This is a dumb question.

Always hated that saying. Of course there are stupid questions.

Yet here we are. Your posts defend them, excuse their actions and who they are, and you can't simply state that you do not support them.

Who cares? By your own admission you support the people who cause the violence. Why do you care what anyone else does? Why do you think anyone is your monkey to dance at your commands?

Of course I don't support them. It's just that the media bias is so obvious, someone who isn't WN can see it. It was a lawful assembly until the antifa animals came in and literally started pissing on everything. Yet even Fox refers to Unite the Right as WN, which is fair because they are, but refers to Soros's people merely as "activists." The reaction to what was a non-violent rally is more disgusting than the people holding the rally. As is the media's biased coverage.

A lawful assembly which was unlawfully dispersed, police evicting the LARPers, National Guard called in, state of emergency declared, then authorities put on stand down while AntiFa and BLM ran amok.

Stop giving them what they want. They don't actually care. They only want you to deny something they insist is part of you.

RSS

Latest Activity

Shane replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"All I do know, is that the motivations of government are often very different then the motivations of the common man. And very different from the what the propagandists would have you believe."
40 minutes ago
derick bean posted a status
1 hour ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"I don't want this to descend into a debate about the civil war. All I'm saying is I don't know what the common soldier was fighting for/thought they were fighting for, or what their family thought they were fighting for. In an age…"
1 hour ago
Shane replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"His history is extremely one sided. He completely ignores the fact that 4.5 slave states remained in the Union, 4.5 left the Union only after the attack on Fort Sumter, the same economic warfare England had used on the American colonies the North…"
1 hour ago
Dominic replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"I think the thing about when neo-confederates pull out the "ordinary soldier didn't fight for slavery" argument is that few, if any, ever cite actual soldiers' words in support of this argument. Surely there are CSA soldier…"
2 hours ago
Paul H replied to Peter O'Reilly's discussion Fasting and Intermittant Fasting
"Worth checking out Dr Rhonda Patricks episodes on The Joe Rogan Experience too. She talks about this on some of them."
2 hours ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"You could be right. We just don't know what these folks were told when they were being recruited. Some may have been told, yes, this war is about slavery, but it's also about...Personally I think all this, is good for our country.…"
2 hours ago
Dominic replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"Even if a monument "commemorates those that gave their lives", it is commemorating those that gave their lives in the service of a political regime whose primary goal was enslavement of blacks, regardless of how those individual soldiers…"
2 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service