How to Pull Someone Out of the Alt-Right

Post Reply New Topic

The thing is what you call common Socialists is that they don't want to socialise wealth from white to non-white, they want to socialise for everyone, be able to provide everyone the resources to eat well, healthcare and be able to have a say in your work conditions rather than be beholden to those who inherited their way into an owner class of capital.

As I already pointed out, the Nazis may have taken the resources away from people like the Jews, but rather than collective ownership they actually privatised many things that were previous government controlled, and believed that the weak should die, in entire contradiction to what real socialist are for. It is the socialism of fools, an appearance that the needs of all are being met, when really you are just changing hands, usually for those who are in power. Kind of like invading another country to steal their gold to maybe give a small portion to the general population, rather than going to another country to share resources with them so everyone is comfortable.

"Nationalization under Nazi Germany was substantial .. Over 500 major companies were either nationalized or absorbed by state-owned companies"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... ry#Germany

However, Socialists don't want everything nationalized.

Generally, they want to nationalize:
1) natural resource industries, like Chavez oil and gold (the country is being exploited they say)
2) trade worker industries, industries that comprise their members, so they can dole out money to them

Socialism generally is not about helping everyone.

The Socialist has favorites.

The Socialist wants to take money from a non-favorite and give it to a favorite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
"The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[39] But after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[40] The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[41] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it.”"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Social_policies
"The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish.[72] They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection.[73] Nevertheless, faced with the mass unemployment and poverty of the Great Depression, the Nazis found it necessary to set up charitable institutions to help racially-pure Germans in order to maintain popular support, while arguing that this represented "racial self-help" and not indiscriminate charity or universal social welfare."

These facts might seem like they contradict the information you found about the page specifically about nationalizations, but I am pretty sure it is the context you need to look at. What nationalization the Nazis did implement was purely to make things for the war, being able to force all the separate ironworks to make them weapons. But they in principle wanted to privatize anything they could. Both statements could be true, that they nationalized lots of industries to consolidate them, and then put them in the hands of private interests. They especially hated social programs, which is the very heart of socialism. They only did what they had to because they had just came out of the Depression and had to do a bare minimum to not have total anarchy, and I suspect building up their army.

This is a complicated subject, I can see how one could easily fall into pits of confirmation bias from half pieces of information. I hope that this has somewhat shown you that Nazis were not socialist, because they literally hated the core tenants. Saying that they were socialist is like saying that a king who heavily taxes the people is socialist. That difference is Socialism is purely redistributing to help the people's needs, Nazis and kings do it for self interest of making a war or filling castle coffers, and don't give a s**t about the random person.

I’m a big fan of deep canvassing, which is an evidence-based approach to changing people’s minds on social issues. It involves exchanging stories and genuinely listening to what the other person has to say, asking them if e.g. there is ever a time that they have felt unfairly treated or scared to be themselves and then relating that to the experience of eg trans people. I believe traditional methods change about 20% of minds while deep canvassing changes 30%, and they remain changed three months later. That’s potentially major.

I was never much of a Moly fan, we are quite far apart ideologically. He being an atheist, small state, libertarian free market fanboy, but he did cover some topics quite well. He was the most famous face banned from youtube recently though, which is why I mentioned him.



Indeed. It was a warning, often unheeded.



This misunderstanding is covered in that video. The Nazis didn't like IQ and intelligence testing, because it undermined their other ideas.



I'm so glad to hear it. It's a weight off my mind. Mind if you share the link or even better the data? I assume you make this statement because some heroic scientist performed a perfect, unassailable experiment that finally overturned a century of data and study suggesting the opposite is true.



https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... een-races/

AH has a nice article covering it. It not only teaches you the real argument, but what is wrong with it. You don't need to be a trained geneticist or biologist to understand it, the error jumps out at you.

Based on this traditional understanding of subspecies taxonomy, multiple geneticists have pointed out that an Fst value of 6% is just the average increased probability of a single gene being different and that, by combining data from multiple genes at once into our analysis, we can very accurately predict whether or not someone will be a member of a given race (Mitton 1977). To get a conceptual understanding of what this means, imagine that you were told to guess whether a person was a male or a female based on whether they were taller or shorter than average, or hairier or less hairy than average, or whether their voice was higher or lower pitched than average, etc. If only one of these facts were told to you, you could make an educated guess but there would be a decent chance that you would be wrong. But if you combined data on, say, 20 such sex differences, your chances of correctly guessing the person’s sex would become quite high. By the same principle, a singe gene might not be a very good predictor of someone’s race, but that doesn’t mean that the combined data of many genes wont be. It was on this basis that the famed population genetic A. W. F. Edwards dubbed this argument against race “Lewontin’s Fallacy” (Edwards 2002).


And this is especially hilarious:

Further more, an Fst value is not even a good measure of genetic differentiation. Consider the work done in Long and Kittles 2003, which provided a powerful demonstration of just how ridiculous an Fst subspecies criteria really is. Long and Kittles calculated the Fst value of the global human population at 11%, which is pretty typical of modern studies. They then calculated the Fst value of the global human population plus a population of chimpanzees to be 16%. Thus, the inclusion of Chimpanzees into the calculation only raised the Fst value by 5%, and most Fst based subspecies criteria would therefore conclude that a population of humans and chimps has no significantly different sub populations within it!



Appealing to consensus is wrong, but the point was that Vaush was wrong even about what the consensus said. His and apparently your views from what I can discern are the extreme minority in the relevant fields.

So glad sly decided to inject some humour into this thread so it didn’t get too serious!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ ... telligence
"The 2012 review by Nisbett et al. (2012a) concluded that "Almost no genetic polymorphisms have been discovered that are consistently associated with variation in IQ in the normal range." They consider the entire IQ gap to be explained by the environmental factors that have thus far been demonstrated to influence it, and Mackintosh finds this view to be reasonable."

It is incredibly difficult to prove a theory, but at this point there has been no genes identified specifically affecting intelligence particular to one race, so environmental factors are currently considered that most likely reason for variations.




Now using The Alternative Hypothesis as evidence is actually falling into an appeal to authority fallacy. It may have ".org" in its name, but it is actually an alt-right website. Most evidenced by the site's owner.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ryan_Faulk
"Ryan John Faulk, also known as The Alternative Hypothesis or The Alt Hype or FringeElements or Stodles or The People's Veto, is an alt-right blogger and YouTube talker who supports white nationalism and race realism. He writes articles for TheAlternativeHypothesis.org with Sean Last, a Neo-Nazi who also wrote for The Right Stuff.[2] Despite holding far right political views, Faulk describes himself as "homosexual", "mildly autistic", and "1/16th Negro"."

I think that a lot of what is in that article by thealternativehypothesis is him taking bits of information and then twisting it to say something it might not necessarily mean. His name is the give away that he does not take the meaning that the majority of scientists are.




Appealing to the consensus is literally what all scientific theory is. You go over the results of many different results that have controls in to limit influences that might skew the result, and create a theory. You are free to tell me what he is wrong about what the consensus believes, because I will tell you that someone calling themselves The Alternative Hypothesis is telling you in their name that they are not with the majority of experts.

Socialism is disgusting thievery to me.

However, wiki calls NAZI economics, "nationalist productivist socialism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economy

"While fascism denounced the mainstream internationalist and Marxist socialisms, it claimed to economically represent a type of nationalist productivist socialism that while condemning parasitical capitalism, it was willing to accommodate productivist capitalism within it"

"There is no question that both Mussolini and Hitler when they referred to socialism meant this type of nationalist productivist socialism"
https://books.google.com/books?id=zdkdA ... sm&f=false

However, whole point of bringing this up is because modern Nazi groups call for confiscation and nationalization. They call for thievery.

If we teach people about freedom, about capitalism, that thievery is wrong, maybe we can pull people out of these groups.

People who believe in pure ideological capitalism believe socialism is theft.
People who believe in pure ideological socialism believe capitalism is theft.

In both cases two people who both believe they believe in an ideologically pure form of one or the other probably still don't agree with each other.

Neither exist in real-life and society ties our interests together (at least partially) whether we like it or not so discussing solutions that only exist in our imaginations is a foolish distraction from reality.

Regardless of this statement, you do benefit from socialism. What do you think that it is when tax payer money is taken from people and then used to fund the emergency services; police, firefighter and ambulance? That those services are meant to help people regardless of something like their financial situation but on their need equally?

What about taxpayer money taken and used to build roads that can be used by people regardless of how much money they put into building those roads? A system where every child regardless of their parent's wealth are entitled to an education. That systems are in place so that businesses have to pay a minimum wage to their employees and be able to provide benefits like work leave so they don't have to work every single day or risk being fired.

All of these things are socialism, just generally in the West they are right alongside capitalism, just in different amounts. The big problem that those more on the socialist side see is that capitalism holds no empathy, and that given enough time such a system without socialist controls will eventually move all the wealth and power from those who work, and into an owner class that the only thing they contribute to society is owning things. And I think that it is fair to say that many of our Western countries have moved a bit too far towards capitalism at the expense of socialism, which is not giving a fair shot to everyone in society, or meeting their basic needs.

The so called national socialism that the far-right use, does not treat everyone as equal, it very much will treat some people as worthy of being excluded, and it is that trait that makes them evil.

I mean, most of these ideologies are tiny in number. I feel alt-right is typically applied to ppl somewhere between conventional conservatives and outright white supremacists. A good summation I heard was that the alt-right is characterized by an overarching fear that Western/European/white civilization is under direct threat from [whoever]. The usual scapegoats are immigrants, refugees, marxists, jews, muslims, feminists, queers, etc.
This is almost always tied to any number of conspiracy theories. The biggest one with the most variations is Cultural Marxism, which, generally, entails 'Marxists' hijacking American media and academia so they can undermine western civilization with brown immigrants, queers, and feminists. When those 'perfectly decent people' are chanting "Jews will not replace us", it's referring to the conspiracy theory that Marxist Jews are trying to gradually replace the white population with immigrants and muslims and queers (oh my!)

Is that why they're so obsessed with George Soros?

Who is obsessed with George Soros?

the amuuurican hypocritical right wing who applaud when the likes of the koch brothers do many times worse.

Based on what I see on wp. Alt right is anyone not left leaning.

It’s a way to slander and try to silence their opponents since they can’t win with facts and logic. I’ve been called it and if you asked any right leaning person they’d say I’m left leaning. Besides 1-3 polices I support with due time our crap political Custer fall with the republicans, I’m left leaning. Because I support those 3 or so polices and ideas I am deemed alt right by left leaning people
So I’m centrist as I’m exiled and hated by both sides and I dislike both sides.
It’s the old “if you’re not with me then your against me” mindset.

Yes, I’ve seen that too: it also seems to be prevalent in certain corners of YouTube.
Where you also see people attacked as “marxists” or “communists” by similar reductiveness.
In the UK in the 1980s there was a common notion amongst various left wing groups: “crypto-fascism”.
The idea being that one can psychoanalyse another individual or group from a few statements, turns of phrase, or in the moment emotional responses: and diagnose them as being subconsciously fascist without being aware of it.
A subfreudian mirror of the Judeo-bolshevik myth in as much as it uses flimsy and circumstantial evidence to support an enormous assertion about the underlying “truth” (actually a paranoid lie).
It seems to have re-emerged in substance, if not in form, across the last decade or so. (If it ever truly went away)