How to Pull Someone Out of the Alt-Right

Post Reply New Topic

Oi! I’m British: I’ll spell words whatever damn inconsistent confusing way I chuffing well want!

As a Canadian we use most of the same spellings; we're not Yanks who think they can drop us just because there's an o there too.

Speaking of, of course tyre has a y because it's said tie-yer not tie-err. Why don't other Canadians spell it properly?

(Just me rushing a witticism because the buzzer to tell me dinners cooked had gone)

I know: if one truncates ou down then how does one tell the difference between loanwords from Old French and loanwords from Classical Greek?
The pluralisations, will no-one think of the pluralisations!

First, Socialism + NAZI + White Supremicist is a common combination ..,,

National Socialist Movement
"The Party claimed to be the "largest and most active" National Socialist organization in the United States"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Movement_(United_States)

They preach confiscation and nationalization.

Take from people and give to other people, most likely themselves.

They are different varieties of Socialism.

Alt-right is the one paired with nationalism.

Socialists Chavez, Fidel Castro they preached confiscation and nationalization.

That's why people join these organization, because these groups promise to elevate their members by taking from others.

This is the ALT RIGHT .. a bunch of socialists.

Show them the commercials about The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. That will motivate a Nazi to change in a heartbeat.

So, which alt-right group openly discusses confiscation of property? They mostly express violently fantasies towards the left, both liberals and socialists. Just like earlier nationalist reactionaries who came before them they're quite open about their intentions towards 'the left'. They're socialists like I Can't Believe It's Not Butter is dairy.

Isn't BitChute infamous for hosting far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists that can't follow the rules of YouTube?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitChute

Correct me if I am wrong, but could it this video you have linked that is against Vaush might actually be made by someone who is themselves possibly alt-right? Like that could explain why they may want to attach Nazis to socialism.

What is meant in you saying it has racial science & genetics topics? Are you saying that it talks about things like skull shapes and that black people are naturally less intelligent or more aggressive? Because that is not race science, I think that would just be plain racism.

Sorry, but you have yet again failed to prove that those part of the alt-right are socialist in anything but name. None of that Wikipedia article talks about what their politics are in regards to something like actual socialism rather than just copying the name from the German Nazi party which I already have proven was actually anti-socialism and argued for privatisation over state control. If you want to not look foolish please actually provide evidence that backs up your claim that the alt-right is socialist beyond a name that is easily provable to not be indicative of actual socialist politics.

This is starting to look really sad that you cannot provide evidence other than your own definition. Especially since Socialism argue for the evening out of power rather than individuals boosting themselves higher by taking from power to give to themselves. I will be waiting for you to prove that you are not just someone who buys into propaganda that some possibly far-right person told you to just to attach Nazism to Socialism.

Of course there are nationalist socialists. They don't believe in redistribution because they hate inequality, they believe in redistribution bc they want to make things more unequal. Equality before the law, healthcare, education, social security, community care and cooperation....but only if you're white/Aryan/whatever. Everyone else is subordinate. National socialism can be thought of more as redistributionist nationalism (or just as an oxymoron). The NSDAP was socialist in name only. You did not want to be a self-identified socialist under their rule. Those National-Sozialisten who put more emphasis on the Sozialist than on the Nationalist, the Straßerites, were killed en masse during the Night of the Long Knives for this reason. Hitler wanted to make it extremely clear that advocating even socialist-flavored nationalism was not going to be tolerated.

Socialism for the vast, vast majority of socialists is not about taking everything from non-socialists for the exclusive benefit of socialists. If I see someone who is being exploited at work, unable to afford healthcare, homeless, etc, I don't care if they're capitalist. I care more that their basic needs are not being met. I would rather feed starving capitalists than live in a system that lets them starve.

Socialism does not have an ideological monopoly on nationalization of industry/business. Capitalist countries all over the world have nationalized sectors to varying degrees, and obviously not with redistributive socialism in mind. Socialists in Latin America were especially keen on nationalizing eg: the oil sector, bc before they did they were controlled by exploitative foreign firms who would use their wealth to (often violently) undermine democracy and organized labor when it benefited their pocketbooks. Not to mention that the US and countries in Europe are no strangers to nationalizing businesses for their own reasons.


I've noticed how much conversations about the alt-right devolve into bickering over labels and semantics. It doesn't help that "alt-right" does not seem to be used much as a self-descriptor by those right-wingers usually associated with the term. Its very hard to make ideological generalizations about the alt right in general bc it's a catch-all for members of (ironically) rather diverse right-wing ideologies. You have Christian extremists, neo-nazis, neo-confederates, futurists, Constitutional extremists, accelerationists, authoritarian transhumanists, (some) anarcho-capitalists, white separatists, anti-Masonics, monarchists, ecofascists, etc. Obviously there is a lot of overlap, and a lot of bitter disagreement among these groups. Not all of the people who hold those above beliefs are alt-right, and might not be considered alt-right by others. The common threads for groups labeled alt-right seem to mostly just be a tendency to congregate online, and reactionary right-wing ideology.

ha ha, slowly and with patience. IDK I at least think I have made a little progress with my dad. He is not full on alt right, but well he doesn't get why Trump could be such bad news at the very least he can acknowledge that Trump sucks when it comes to the environment though so that's a start.

Yep, looks like his videos were deleted recently in the latest wave of social media bannings alongside Molyneux et al so I dug up a mirror. Of course annoying youtube is not necessarily the same as being untruthful.



It's been a while since I listened to it but as I recall he didn't say "Nazis R socialists", he said something along the lines that they are both "victimhood ideologies" of a sort that always leads to atrocities, a reasonable analysis and not a new one. Even old socialists of the time recognised the parallels in Nazism. Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools....
The Nazi part (in response to Vaush calling the creator a Nazi) was mainly about correcting a common misunderstanding that Nazis liked and heavily utilised intelligence testing - a common refrain from the left and of course, it's not true.



Again, my memory is not perfect, but it was mainly about trashing Vaush (if you couldn't tell from the title) who clearly knows next to nothing about the topic, yet enters these debates and is admired by an equally ignorant crowd. I don't recall skull shapes or aggression coming up, but intelligence was featured. Vaush was saying things like "race is only skin deep" or "entirely environmental" or bringing up Lewontin's fallacy (more variation within races than between them). Vaush also repeatedly appeals to authority and consensus - which is itself unscientific - but he's even wrong about what consensus and "authority" think most of the time. Vaush is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person is like.

ALT-RIGHT is a Socialist movement for the white collective.

So the goal is to take from non-white people and give to white people.

-kick non-white people out of the country (give their assets to white collective)
-boot non-white people from jobs (give job to white collective)
-socialize wealth from non-whites to whites

These people model themselves on Hitler who did the same to Jewish people.


Sure, hilariously, they're gonna find liberals and common Socialists very disgusting, because liberals and common Socialists want to socialize wealth to non-white people.

It's like they're archenemies.

Mikah, I am not going to police what you watch, but Stefan Molyneux is litereally considered a leading figure. I really hope that you are not mentioning him as similar to the other things you watch. If you are, that is fine, I will talk about any of the subjects you want to discuss, but I really do not think any creators who are in company with Molyneux are a good sign.




A phrase stating that antisemitism (Nazi idealogy) is the socialism of fools is not a criticism of socialism, it is saying that the person who adopts antisemitism while thinking that it is socialist is a fool. The idea is in thinking that one blaming a group like Jewish people as the source of their economic inequality, something that socialism tries to fix, they are actually being foolish by, whether simply not understanding or they are being tricked into thinking it is socialism. It is actually incredibly relevant to people accusing the Nazis of being socialist, since the inbuilt antisemitism would say that the people believing it is socialist are fools. The Wikipedia article even partially Karl Marx with saying it, who many consider one of the largest figures of socialism.

Vaush has been a bit liberal with his use of calling people a Nazi, and I honestly think that it has been a part of his edgy style. He has used along the lines against people who may claim things like racial superiority, such as saying that people of different races are less intelligent, which is what Nazis were with their whole Aryan race thing.




Well, I think this comes down to the fact that there is no credible evidence that people of different races naturally have different intelligence levels. A lot of the studies that those that argue for it point to really outdated or misleading studies, such as ones where people were given tests not in their native language, and were very poor people with little formal education compared against institutes that had people were already highly educated. Most are now considered very much discredited by the academic community. You are welcome to present ones that have been peer reviewed and accepted, but many who think that they have studies that prove it either refuse to accept criticisms that they are considered unreliable due to bad data, or take things out of context.

I see nothing wrong with Lewontin's Fallacy, the Wikipedia article on it mentions that a 2007 study, Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations, supports the scientific theory that more genetic diversity exists within racial groups than between them, which goes to say that race really is skin deep, that some might even call a social construct based on very limited genetic similarities that are visible. Do you perhaps have something that disproves this?

And, I am only going to make a guess without seeing this discussion between them, making appeals to authority is more of a fallacy if an authority might not be an expert on the subject, and can be thought as more valuable when the authority is considered an expert by everyone involved. If you are citing experts on this subject matter, which I am going to assume Vaush was, I will say that it is actually valid, especially if you are also citing what might be the consensus of the experts. As an example citing a celebrity scientist like Dr Oz on a technical dentist topic would be committing an Appeal to Authority fallacy, while citing an expert who's focus has been on teeth and has a very proven credentials in the field would not necessarily be a fallacy on dentistry. I am going to guess that this video creator just throw these terms like fallacy out while lightly gesturing that Vaush could have done one, without actually providing credible evidence.

That's true.

However, it's seems like "Neo-Nazi"/"white supremacy" are the largest component? or at least get the most media coverage?

Last edited by TheRobotLives on 03 Jul 2020, 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Don't think I have heard the term 'alt left' before.

What is the definition?