The Alt-right Playbook

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by tanabear

They are indoctrination centers for the modern Left. Knowledge and understanding are good, indoctrination is not.

assuming you can't have one without the other - don't you think that having Higher Education available is worth the risk of making some people more centrist/leftist?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by tanabear

No, it is primarily the dissident Right that adheres to facts and seeks to understand and learn lessons from history. The dissident Right has largely been correct on every major domestic and foreign policy issue going back to the 1950s. .

Starting at ~1990, anything the “The Right” has been correct about has been absorbed by the Democratic Party. “Conservatives” have responded by trying to differentiate themselves and establishing a clear us vs them distinction they can sell to their base in order to keep them from defecting.

The inevitable consequence of trying to differentiate yourself from someone who is simply relaying well supported facts is that you will end up spouting unsupportable gibberish, and this is largely where “Conservatives” find themselves today. There are few if any fact based fields that do not lean towards Democratic policy within their own specialty.

Originally Posted by tanabear

They are indoctrination centers for the modern Left. Knowledge and understanding are good, indoctrination is not.

Teaching facts only looks like indoctrination to people already indoctrinated in fiction. Republicans have spent the last 30 years indoctrinating its base in fictional economics, fictional accounting, fictional history, fictional current affairs and fictional “science” that they can no longer distinguish between facts and their own propaganda.

[carlitos]

Predictions and claims of the "dissident Right" include:

• Bill Clinton will declare martial law and cede our government to the UN invaders
• Conservatives and gun owners will be rounded up into FEMA camps (30 years running)
• Obama will declare martial law and sit for a 3rd term
• False flag attacks like Sandy Hook and Las Vegas will be used to repeal the 2nd Amendment
• USD, CDN and MXP will merge into single North American currency "The Amero"
• Airplanes literally falling from the sky during Y2K crisis
• Secret pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza place that had no basement
• Thousands of child sex slaves imprisoned under the Getty Museum

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by carlitos

But yes, I think that I am suggesting that governments make these things illegal. I would have guessed that it was either Nixon or Ford that allowed these ridiculous things to be sold as long as they had an FDA disclaimer that they weren't making claims.

Ok, so you believe supermarket should be prohibited form selling non-GMO products, even if there is a segment of the market that wants this type of product.

Would you also say that kosher and vegetarian products be illegal simply because you don’t agree with the premise they are sold under? If so where does it stop and when do people actually get to decide what products they do and do not want? Keep in mind that if the Government is making all these decisions, you now have a Soviet style command economy not a market economy.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Ok, so you believe supermarket should be prohibited form selling non-GMO products, even if there is a segment of the market that wants this type of product.

Would you also say that kosher and vegetarian products be illegal simply because you don’t agree with the premise they are sold under? If so where does it stop and when do people actually get to decide what products they do and do not want? Keep in mind that if the Government is making all these decisions, you now have a Soviet style command economy not a market economy.

I would prohibit the federal government from certifying "non-GMO" status, just as today they do not certify "kosher" status for a food.

I would prohibit the sale of homeopathy or any other fake medicine that isn't tested by the FDA.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Ok, so you believe supermarket should be prohibited form selling non-GMO products, even if there is a segment of the market that wants this type of product.

Would you also say that kosher and vegetarian products be illegal simply because you don’t agree with the premise they are sold under? If so where does it stop and when do people actually get to decide what products they do and do not want? Keep in mind that if the Government is making all these decisions, you now have a Soviet style command economy not a market economy.

I'm confused here: "prohibited form selling non-GMO products," Did you mean prohibited from selling GMO products?

If so, which Democratic legislator(s) are pushing bills to ban the sell of GMO products?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I would prohibit the federal government from certifying "non-GMO" status, just as today they do not certify "kosher" status for a food.
.

The Department of Agriculture is responsible for setting grades on agricultural products. Prohibiting them from doing so because you don’t think other people should care is just a back handed way of restricting the choices others are allowed to make and is still inconsistent with market economy principles.


What matters in a market economy is whether people have access to the information they need to make the choice they what to make. It doesn’t matter if those choices are “good” or not because value is subjective. As long as the information is accurate, (it really is a non-GMO product) and the product itself is safe, it’s really none of your business what other people choose to buy.

Originally Posted by carlitos

I would prohibit the sale of homeopathy or any other fake medicine that isn't tested by the FDA.

Again though, as long it’s not marketed as medicinal why would you care how other people spend their money? Yes people think it’s medicinal, yes they are wrong in believing this, but that doesn’t justify the though police enforcing “the right way of thinking”.

The right way to address homeopath is to explain to people why it’s useless, not to try and find ways to force your views on them.

[carlitos]

I disagree strongly, and this is a derail so I won't say more.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm confused here: "prohibited form selling non-GMO products," Did you mean prohibited from selling GMO products?

If so, which Democratic legislator(s) are pushing bills to ban the sell of GMO products?

No. I’m addressing a suggestion that selling [b]non[b] GMO products should be prohibited or effectively prohibited by not allowing the USDA to track and report non-GMO status.

Furthermore, it was suggested that NOT prohibiting non-GMO products was an example of “left wing nonsense”. Giving people the information they want to make a decision is a basic market principle, even when it’s for a silly reason like thinking “GMO is scary”. If it’s forcing companies to report GMO status that’s a little different. But if people want to pay extra for non-GMO products why should I care?

Is subverting market principles and forcing people to make correct choices a "right wing" or "left wing" idea? IMO it's more of an authoritarian idea that can be found at both ends of the spectrum but is more common on the right even though that goes against their self-perceived notions of personal freedom and market based economics.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

assuming you can't have one without the other - don't you think that having Higher Education available is worth the risk of making some people more centrist/leftist?

"Indoctrination" to the right has the complete opposite meaning of the dictionary. To them, teaching people critical thought processes and to question authority is the equivalent of indoctrination. The Right wants people to have knowledge of job processes only but to obey and give deference to the hierarchy.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

"Indoctrination" to the right has the complete opposite meaning of the dictionary. To them, teaching people critical thought processes and to question authority is the equivalent of indoctrination. The Right wants people to have knowledge of job processes only but to obey and give deference to the hierarchy.

There is a lot of that in right wing ideology. Eg:
When the right talks about Freedom, they usually mean “the freedom to impose our beliefs on everyone else”
When the right talks about Liberty, they usually mean “forbid the democratically elected government from stopping us when we seek to oppress others.”
When the right talks about market economies, they usually mean “forbid the democratically elected government from addressing the market failures that make wealthy individuals rich at the cost of overall market efficiency and overall wealth creation“
When the right talks about equality they usually mean “forbid the democratically elected government from doing things to give similar opportunity to everyone.”



TBH we may not need a “Right Wing Playbook, much of it’s contents would be lifted directly from “Nineteen Eighty-Four”


“The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron — they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be.”

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary.”

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by lomiller

There is a lot of that in right wing ideology. Eg:
When the right talks about Freedom, they usually mean “the freedom to impose our beliefs on everyone else”
When the right talks about Liberty, they usually mean “forbid the democratically elected government from stopping us when we seek to oppress others.”
When the right talks about market economies, they usually mean “forbid the democratically elected government from addressing the market failures that make wealthy individuals rich at the cost of overall market efficiency and overall wealth creation“
When the right talks about equality they usually mean “forbid the democratically elected government from doing things to give similar opportunity to everyone.”



TBH we may not need a “Right Wing Playbook, much of it’s contents would be lifted directly from “Nineteen Eighty-Four”


“The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron — they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be.”

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary.”

That's a mighty broad brush you've got there; I wonder how you can weild it so easily . . .

[Donal]

Yes, but that isn't a nifty YouTube video, now is it?

But seriously, 1984 wasn't even the first time Orwell warned us about this. And Orwell wasn't the first one. Voltaire liked to go on about this sort of thing too.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by xjx388

That's a mighty broad brush you've got there; I wonder how you can weild it so easily . . .

How often do you see prominent American right wing figure reference freedom of religion as something that protects peoples right to Atheists of Muslims? How often do you see prominent American right wing figures support measures to address market failures and/or make markets more efficient? How often do you see prominent American right wing figure fight to protect people from discriminate based of sexual preference vs how frequently they fight to protect the peoples right to discriminate based on sexual preference?

I never said there are no exceptions out there, but these things are all commonplace in policy promoted by mainstream Republicans.

[Juniversal]

Originally Posted by lomiller

There is a lot of that in right wing ideology. Eg:
When the right talks about Freedom, they usually mean “the freedom to impose our beliefs on everyone else”
When the right talks about Liberty, they usually mean “forbid the democratically elected government from stopping us when we seek to oppress others.”
When the right talks about market economies, they usually mean “forbid the democratically elected government from addressing the market failures that make wealthy individuals rich at the cost of overall market efficiency and overall wealth creation“
When the right talks about equality they usually mean “forbid the democratically elected government from doing things to give similar opportunity to everyone.”

Bingo. The right speaks in platitudes more than any other group but their actions run in direct opposition to their rhetoric. They claim to be "pro-life" but are the most blood thirsty, pro-war, pro-violence constituency when discussing anything that's not abortion. They couldn't care less about human life.

They love "freedom, liberty and the constitution" while being the first to crusade to curtail rights and deprive freedoms. The separation of church and state? What's that? Trans/gay/LGBT people exist? They'd be thrown in the gulags if the right had their way.

No doubt conservatism appeals to the primal part of our brain that thrives on pure emotion and not reason and that's why they so frequently win the culture war when their argument boils down to "bad people bad, good people good" and their opponents ("the left") amounts to TL;DR and has nuance.

[Juniversal]

Also don't get me started on the hypocrisy of the evangelicals. The right is just a bubbling, disingenuous heap of platitudes, xenophobia and contradictions posing as an upstanding citizen.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

"Indoctrination" to the right has the complete opposite meaning of the dictionary. To them, teaching people critical thought processes and to question authority is the equivalent of indoctrination. The Right wants people to have knowledge of job processes only but to obey and give deference to the hierarchy.

For example, when the GOP in Texas put opposition to teaching critical thinking in their platform in 2012.

Quote:

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

[Donal]

I like how "critical thinking skills" are "challenging parental authority".

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by Donal

I like how "critical thinking skills" are "challenging parental authority".

I read a webcomic in which a homeschooled woman from a devoutly religious family attends a secular college and experiences the outside world for the first time. At one point, she mentioned that she had never been allowed to see "Frozen" because it contained the unacceptable message that parents can be wrong about the choices they make for their children.

[SuburbanTurkey]

A big part of the playbook is how the right treats their own as disposable. A sad note from the family of a young conservative in Australia that killed himself

https://www.9news.com.au/national/wi...9-9229fa4f7e10

Quote:

To young, politically motivated people of all persuasions – we implore you to seek kind and wise mentors who will guide you, and not use you or wash their hands of you when you no longer serve their purposes.

The right, especially the alt-right extremists, are absolutely abhorrent to each other. It's a vicious ideology.

[tanabear]

Back on topic.

Since the discussion here is the playbook and debating tactics of the Alt-Right, you can watch Alex Jones debate Richard Spencer; the two supposed founders of the Alt-Right.

https://banned.video/watch?id=5e1cf753d3d266001d920fc1

Originally Posted by carlitos

Predictions and claims of the "dissident Right" include:

• Bill Clinton will declare martial law and cede our government to the UN invaders
• Conservatives and gun owners will be rounded up into FEMA camps (30 years running)
• Obama will declare martial law and sit for a 3rd term
• False flag attacks like Sandy Hook and Las Vegas will be used to repeal the 2nd Amendment
• USD, CDN and MXP will merge into single North American currency "The Amero"
• Airplanes literally falling from the sky during Y2K crisis
• Secret pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza place that had no basement
• Thousands of child sex slaves imprisoned under the Getty Museum

You can always find a lot of non-conformists beliefs on the internet. Whether these were the actual beliefs of the dissident Right is another matter. These deal with specific events more than the effects of policy. But how does the mainstream media stack up in comparison? Let's run through a short retrospective of fake news:

- The Iraq War – A false narrative suggesting that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden were conspiring together to attack America with WMDs and nuclear weapons(Uranium Niger forged documents, mushroom clouds over American cities etc)
- Hands-up Don’t Shoot – A false narrative suggesting that police officers were gunning down random helpless black people for no reason. “Cops and Klan go hand and hand.”
- Trump-Russia Collusion: A fake news story and investigation suggesting that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election from Hillary.
- The Covington Catholic calumny: A fake story about white MAGA wearing high school students mobbing a peaceful Native elder and then tease and taunt him. In reality they are waiting on a bus to pick them up and were verbally accosted by Black Hebrew Israelites.
- Jussie Smollett hate hoax: A fake news story about MAGA hat wearing white dudes beating up a gay black dude while shouting, "This is MAGA country."

So herein lies the crucial distinction; we don't base public policy or have national discussions around ideas from the dissident Right. People can debate how many people attended Trump's inauguration but public policy is not being built around this discussion. The falsehoods we base national and public policy on all come from the modern Left. It is these policies that we should be most concerned about, not random internet trolls. The dissident Right is almost always proved to be correct in the end, if only people would listen in the beginning.

Originally Posted by Juniversal

Bingo. The right speaks in platitudes more than any other group but their actions run in direct opposition to their rhetoric. They claim to be "pro-life" but are the most blood thirsty, pro-war, pro-violence constituency when discussing anything that's not abortion. They couldn't care less about human life.

Really?? A parrot has a larger vocabulary than most SJW liberals. I think they know how to use maybe 10 or so words in a debate. "That racist." "You're a Nazi." "F--- Trump."

p.s. The Alt-Right has been opposed to every war this century. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "bloodthirsty".

Originally Posted by Donal

I like how "critical thinking skills" are "challenging parental authority".

Critical thinking is just a bunch of BS. I have never heard anyone give a clear definition of what it means or how it can be used in practice. Is it somehow different from deductive or inductive reasoning, logic, methodic doubt, empiricism etc? It seems to be just another fancy buzzword put out by the educational establishment to cover for more Leftist indoctrination.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by lomiller

How often do you see prominent American right wing figure reference freedom of religion as something that protects peoples right to Atheists of Muslims? How often do you see prominent American right wing figures support measures to address market failures and/or make markets more efficient? How often do you see prominent American right wing figure fight to protect people from discriminate based of sexual preference vs how frequently they fight to protect the peoples right to discriminate based on sexual preference?

I never said there are no exceptions out there, but these things are all commonplace in policy promoted by mainstream Republicans.

I'll second..or third...that. The only religious freedoms they give a damn about are those of Christians. It makes me nauseated every time I hear a Republican claim to be the 'Party of Lincoln'.

[The Great Zaganza]

tb is demonstrating some more bits of the Alt-Right Playbook:

if they tell nonsense, they didn't really mean it or are just on the fringe.

But if anyone else says anything, it's Gospel.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Back on topic.

Since the discussion here is the playbook and debating tactics of the Alt-Right, you can watch Alex Jones debate Richard Spencer; the two supposed founders of the Alt-Right.

If by "debate," you mean "barely challenge and then agree with most of everything Spencer says" yeah. Alex Jones does no preparation for his show, and is not capable of "debating" anyone who can speak in cogent sentences. Spencer ate Jones for lunch, and the effect was that Alex Jones laundered Spencer's nazi views for his low-information, gullible audience. Given the general devolution of Infowars into outright white nationalism since the social media exile, I would expect Spencer to be a recurring guest after hearing that interview.

[Donal]

Edited by kmortis:

Removed to comply with Rule 11

So, lets not make this thread about each individual line of BS the alt-reich uses.

we should be discussing how to address.

[Juniversal]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Really?? A parrot has a larger vocabulary than most SJW liberals. I think they know how to use maybe 10 or so words in a debate. "That racist." "You're a Nazi." "F--- Trump."

p.s. The Alt-Right has been opposed to every war this century. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "bloodthirsty".

What's your point? I see no refutation of my post. The right loves to extol those virtues while doing the exact opposite in reality. They run a campaign of bigotry and proto-fascist/racist propaganda while presenting themselves as wholesome and morally upstanding. The left on the other hand is at least morally consistent and honest.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Juniversal

What's your point? I see no refutation of my post. The right loves to extol those virtues while doing the exact opposite in reality. They run a campaign of bigotry and proto-fascist/racist propaganda while presenting themselves as wholesome and morally upstanding. The left on the other hand is at least morally consistent and honest.

The trap here that you appear to have fallen for is that the alt-right is positioned against "the left", as if they are two equal sides.

It's another example from the playbook.

Best way to avoid such traps is to not engage with alt-righters.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Back on topic.

Since the discussion here is the playbook and debating tactics of the Alt-Right, you can watch Alex Jones debate Richard Spencer; the two supposed founders of the Alt-Right.

https://banned.video/watch?id=5e1cf753d3d266001d920fc1




You can always find a lot of non-conformists beliefs on the internet. Whether these were the actual beliefs of the dissident Right is another matter. These deal with specific events more than the effects of policy. But how does the mainstream media stack up in comparison? Let's run through a short retrospective of fake news:

- The Iraq War – A false narrative suggesting that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden were conspiring together to attack America with WMDs and nuclear weapons(Uranium Niger forged documents, mushroom clouds over American cities etc)
- Hands-up Don’t Shoot – A false narrative suggesting that police officers were gunning down random helpless black people for no reason. “Cops and Klan go hand and hand.”
- Trump-Russia Collusion: A fake news story and investigation suggesting that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election from Hillary.
- The Covington Catholic calumny: A fake story about white MAGA wearing high school students mobbing a peaceful Native elder and then tease and taunt him. In reality they are waiting on a bus to pick them up and were verbally accosted by Black Hebrew Israelites.
- Jussie Smollett hate hoax: A fake news story about MAGA hat wearing white dudes beating up a gay black dude while shouting, "This is MAGA country."

So herein lies the crucial distinction; we don't base public policy or have national discussions around ideas from the dissident Right. People can debate how many people attended Trump's inauguration but public policy is not being built around this discussion. The falsehoods we base national and public policy on all come from the modern Left. It is these policies that we should be most concerned about, not random internet trolls. The dissident Right is almost always proved to be correct in the end, if only people would listen in the beginning.



Really?? A parrot has a larger vocabulary than most SJW liberals. I think they know how to use maybe 10 or so words in a debate. "That racist." "You're a Nazi." "F--- Trump."

p.s. The Alt-Right has been opposed to every war this century. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "bloodthirsty".



Critical thinking is just a bunch of BS. I have never heard anyone give a clear definition of what it means or how it can be used in practice. Is it somehow different from deductive or inductive reasoning, logic, methodic doubt, empiricism etc? It seems to be just another fancy buzzword put out by the educational establishment to cover for more Leftist indoctrination.

Yada, yada, yada ...Dude, You're not even an American.

[Juniversal]

Originally Posted by uke2se

The trap here that you appear to have fallen for is that the alt-right is positioned against "the left", as if they are two equal sides.

It's another example from the playbook.

Best way to avoid such traps is to not engage with alt-righters.

You may be correct in terms of the merits of engaging the alt-right but the content of my post encompassed the right in general (the mainstream right and the alt-right) and I think the popularity and persistence of these ideas within the mainstream needs to be addressed because they're dangerous.

Also can't say I completely agree that it's not worth engaging alt-righters. Many alt-righters can be saved from the brink when they become properly educated. Probably won't happen through an internet forum but there's some worth in doing so.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Juniversal

You may be correct in terms of the merits of engaging the alt-right but the content of my post encompassed the right in general (the mainstream right and the alt-right) and I think the popularity and persistence of these ideas within the mainstream needs to be addressed because they're dangerous.

Also can't say I completely agree that it's not worth engaging alt-righters. Many alt-righters can be saved from the brink when they become properly educated. Probably won't happen through an internet forum but there's some worth in doing so.

I'm not saying it's not worth it. I'm saying it is more likely to have the complete opposite effect of the one you are intending. It's pretty much what this thread is all about.

Alt-righters thrive on people engaging their filth. It lends an aire of credibility and normalizes having the kind of discussions they want in the open. Unless you are having a private discussion with a close one who have fallen prey to the alt-right, a good rule of thumb is to simply not engage. Talk about the person's vacuous and dangerous ideas, but never to the person.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Juniversal

You may be correct in terms of the merits of engaging the alt-right but the content of my post encompassed the right in general (the mainstream right and the alt-right) and I think the popularity and persistence of these ideas within the mainstream needs to be addressed because they're dangerous.

The problem is, that needs to be addressed by the people within the media themselves.

Quote:

Also can't say I completely agree that it's not worth engaging alt-righters. Many alt-righters can be saved from the brink when they become properly educated. Probably won't happen through an internet forum but there's some worth in doing so.

Ya, but you can't go and get them. Its like alcoholism, an abusive relationship, or an MLM. They need to figure it out themselves and reach out for help. The best you can do is let them know you'll be there when they have their "road to Damascus" moment.

[Juniversal]

All good points. No argument here..

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

tb is demonstrating some more bits of the Alt-Right Playbook:

if they tell nonsense, they didn't really mean it or are just on the fringe.

But if anyone else says anything, it's Gospel.

The point I was making is that we don't have national discussions or base public policy on internet trolls. We do base public policy on lies that come from media and the modern Left. You aren't concerned about these falsehoods because if more weak-minded fools believe Leftist lies the more powerful the Left becomes.

Originally Posted by Juniversal

What's your point? I see no refutation of my post. The right loves to extol those virtues while doing the exact opposite in reality. They run a campaign of bigotry and proto-fascist/racist propaganda while presenting themselves as wholesome and morally upstanding. The left on the other hand is at least morally consistent and honest.

You define bigotry and proto-fascist/racist propaganda as Truths that you cannot refute intellectually so have to castigate those viewpoints morally.

And no, the Left is not consistent. The Left has its protected groups that one is not allowed to criticize without serious repercussions. Yet, you can say all the negative things about white people, conservatives, Trump supporters, and Christians; ultimately anyone the Left does not view as on their side.

Here are some recent quotes by American liberals regarding a foreign ethnic group, Russians. Tell me if you think these expressions constitute racism and bigotry?

James Clapper: "The Russians are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique."

Lisa Page: "I do always hate the Russians,..."

Peter Strozk: "**** the cheating ************* Russians ... Bastards. I hate them ... I think they’re probably the worst. ******* conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it. I’m glad I’m on Team USA[/i]."

Now these comments did not come from some internet trolls, but from the former Director of National Intelligence, the legal counsel to former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and the former Chief of the Counterespionage Section at the FBI respectively. Despite making such hateful comments they have never been asked to apologize and neither has the Left organized an outrage mob against them.

If someone had stated, "The Jews are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour..." What would the response have been?

If someone stated, "I do always hate the Mexicans,..." What would the response have been?

If someone stated about blacks, "******* conniving cheating savages..." What would the response have been?

We know the answer. They would be completely ostracized from polite society at best. This is why no one should ever take anything the Left says about racism or bigotry seriously. The supposed ideals of the modern Left are a complete moral and intellectual sham.

So no, the Left is not morally consistent or honest.

Being a progressive is knowing who to hate.

Originally Posted by Juniversal

You may be correct in terms of the merits of engaging the alt-right but the content of my post encompassed the right in general (the mainstream right and the alt-right) and I think the popularity and persistence of these ideas within the mainstream needs to be addressed because they're dangerous.

Also can't say I completely agree that it's not worth engaging alt-righters. Many alt-righters can be saved from the brink when they become properly educated. Probably won't happen through an internet forum but there's some worth in doing so.

The Alt-Right is educated or more to the point, red-pilled. They see the world for the way it is, not the wool that has been pulled over our eyes. This is why they don't buy the snake-oil being sold by the Left. The Alt-Right is a threat because they are the ones exposing all the snake-oil that the Left is selling to the masses.

In the sections Rule 10 applies to profanity must be completely masked, see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...44#post4156344

Posted By:Darat

[Donal]

He has a new one up if anyone is interested. He's focusing less o addressing the alt reichers and more on how to deal with the perception of them.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Donal]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Starting at ~1990, anything the “The Right” has been correct about has been absorbed by the Democratic Party. “Conservatives” have responded by trying to differentiate themselves and establishing a clear us vs them distinction they can sell to their base in order to keep them from defecting.

The inevitable consequence of trying to differentiate yourself from someone who is simply relaying well supported facts is that you will end up spouting unsupportable gibberish, and this is largely where “Conservatives” find themselves today. There are few if any fact based fields that do not lean towards Democratic policy within their own specialty.

There was a Republican strategist who sent a memo through the GOP after Watergate talking about how Republicans will never win voters by arguing based on facts and must appeal to their emotions. Namely fear of changing times. This also was around the time the GOP got in bed with the super Christians. I wish I could remember the name of that strategist, but every time I search the relevant keywords, I get a bunch of posts of the usual BS about the GOP spouting "facts don't care about your feelings".

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by Donal

There was a Republican strategist who sent a memo through the GOP after Watergate talking about how Republicans will never win voters by arguing based on facts and must appeal to their emotions. Namely fear of changing times. This also was around the time the GOP got in bed with the super Christians. I wish I could remember the name of that strategist, but every time I search the relevant keywords, I get a bunch of posts of the usual BS about the GOP spouting "facts don't care about your feelings".

You may be thinking about the Powell Memo.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Donal

He has a new one up if anyone is interested. He's focusing less o addressing the alt reichers and more on how to deal with the perception of them.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Good video. In my experience, the more conservative someone is, the more black and white their views are. They see very little in shades of gray.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Donal

There was a Republican strategist who sent a memo through the GOP after Watergate talking about how Republicans will never win voters by arguing based on facts and must appeal to their emotions. Namely fear of changing times. This also was around the time the GOP got in bed with the super Christians. I wish I could remember the name of that strategist, but every time I search the relevant keywords, I get a bunch of posts of the usual BS about the GOP spouting "facts don't care about your feelings".

Yep. "Fear" is the foundation of conservatism.
They should have the motto of "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

[Donal]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

You may be thinking about the Powell Memo.

That is terrifying, but the Powell Memo was about economic and corporate interests. The one I am thinking of includes political and social interests as well. Granted, there is plenty of overlap.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by Donal

That is terrifying, but the Powell Memo was about economic and corporate interests. The one I am thinking of includes political and social interests as well. Granted, there is plenty of overlap.

It's all part and parcel of the same GOP strategy and plot.