How To Stop The Alt-Right

Eye

Me dodging you? - WOW nice try at misdirection

I’m sure that I’m not the only one that has noticed that you once again refuse to answer the question I’ve asked you numerous times now –

SO AGAIN - I’m still wondering what ‘special perks’ do you think straight white males are missing out of and therefore deserve to receive – again - as a specific group what do you think they specifically need help with?

 

Eye

Actually the US economy has been steadily rising – it’s just not well distributed.

the economic recovery so far has only boosted the incomes of the rich, and it has yielded no improvement for the bottom 99 percent of the distribution. After adjusting for inflation, the average income for the richest 1 percent (excluding capital gains) has risen from $871,100 in 2009 to $968,000 over 2012 and 2013. By contrast, for the remaining 99 percent, average incomes fell by a few dollars from $44,000 to $43,900.

LOL and another huge misdirection –

In a study for which the results were first published in 2009, Wilkinson and Pickett conduct an exhaustive analysis of social mobility in developed countries. In addition to other correlations with negative social outcomes for societies having high inequality, they found a relationship between high social inequality and low social mobility. Of the eight countries studied—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, the UK and the USA, the USA had both the highest economic inequality and lowest economic mobility. In this and other studies, in fact, the USA has very low mobility at the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, with mobility increasing slightly as one goes up the ladder. At the top rung of the ladder, however, mobility again decreases

I agree but been born into advantage or disadvantage is the biggest factor as to someone been able to fulfill their potential.

 

Eye

It’s interesting you concentrate on the UK not the US, it seems again like misdirection because if you look at the US the white demographic are still doing very well in educational attainment compared to other groups.

Asians and non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to hold a bachelor’s degree or higher compared with Blacks and Hispanics.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf

Anyway let’s take the Guardian article as it made you go wow – first I’d ask if you read it, I did when it was first published.
I ask because it confirms what I’ve been saying - the impact of neoliberal ideas over the past 30 odd years has had a huge and detrimental impact on a majority of people’s lives, the whole piece is an attack on that economic model, which did so much to trashed working class jobs and culture.

It’s also about class. Middle and upper class white boys are doing ok but the problem is lower class white children.

If you look at the demographics of the UK you will see that the area’s most adversely effected by the neoliberal hallowing out of industry are the whitest (midlands, the north of England, Wales). The area that is doing the best out of that economic model is the South East with the centre on London and the area with the biggest ethnic diversity.

A study by academics at University College London (UCL) and Kings College London has given statistical backbone to the view that the overwhelming factor in how well children do is not what type of school they attend- but social class. It appears to show what has often been said but never proved: that the current league tables measure not the best, but the most middle-class schools; and that even the government's "value-added" tables fail to take account of the most crucial factor in educational outcomes - a pupil's address.

[SIZE=11pt]In affluent areas, such as Dukes Avenue, Muswell Hill, in north London, and Lammas Park Road, Ealing, west London, the study would expect 67% of 11-year-olds to achieve level 5 in the national English tests and 94% of 15-yearolds to get five or more passes at GCSE at grade C and above.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Meanwhile, of the children growing up in more deprived areas, such as Hillside Road, Dudley, or Laurel Road, Tipton (both in the West Midlands), just 13% are likely to get the top level 5 in the national English tests for 11-year-olds, while only 24% of 15-year-olds will be reckoned to achieve the benchmark five-plus GCSEs at grade C and above.[/SIZE]

To me this is not a race thing it is a class thing.

 

Once again this whole thing seems like a manipulation – people that supported neoliberal economic ideas seem to be doing their best to try and stop others thinking about what utter catastrophe neoliberalism has been for the majority of people but especially the working class my diverting attention onto ‘hot button’ subjects like race, immigration and ‘political correctness’.

The surprise to me is just how easily people seem to be falling for it.

 

Marxists call it "false consciousness", and it works because it appeals to the fundamental irrationality of humans--the ego defense mechanisms against the cesspool of Freud's unconscious and the dark impulses Jung called "the Shadow". Jung said: "The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge, and it therefore, as a rule, meets with considerable resistance." Madison Avenue is expert in using these dark, unconscious motivators to get people to spend big money on things they don't need and that often harm or kill them. And politicians are expert at doing it in the political arena. Think focus groups. Think FOX, Breitbart and the Enquirer. Hillary was politically incorrect in calling Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables', but that label does seem to fit all too well various elements in the movement. Trump and the AltRight gave permission to the Shadow to come out and play--unleashing the worst instincts and insecurities that plague the human species.

 

Be careful what you wish for! If he gets wind of this, he might make your dreams come true, although I understand he has a special liking for black dick--which he mentions to show he's not racist. From all indications, Milo strikes me as a sociopath's sociopath, who has attained fame and fortune by playing on the insecurities of marginal white males in the gamer subculture and more recently the broader AltRight subculture. I'm surprised you've let him seduce you so easily. His stock in trade is using "attack words" against women, Muslims and "cuckservatives" to manipulate his followers like marionettes. The racist tweet attacks he organized against Leslie Jones got him banned from Twitter. But language gives him away. As a product of a broken home, his propensity to call the Donald "Daddy" speaks volumes on his need for a father figure and his misguided notion that a pussy grabbing bully is the prototype of masculinity. "Trump supporters", he said, "don’t care about the man’s policies. They want to burn everything down.” (But don't do it before he and Steve can stash their swag in a Swiss bank account!). I suspect his brand of narcissistic nihilism has no future. I hope I'm right. It's hard to sustain a grievance-based movement when the party you're supporting holds all the cards and has given us over to the gazillionaires.

 

The operative word is "theory". It has long been an aspiration that humanity will reach a point in which "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one ..." Can that ideal possibly be realized? I think it's possible--in theory. But it can't be done by following Breitbart, which is geared toward the politics of resentment--of women, blacks, Muslims, "cuckservatives", etc. Anyone who reads that rag knows that it's purpose is to express and stir up animosity toward those groups. To deny that is simply to be dishonest. The passage I quoted reflects the notion that the only way to get to oneness is to follow a path of universal love of God and neighbor, which requires getting beyond outrage over what some Canadian or Ivy League feminist redhot academic said in a classroom or conference or some liberal commentator said about black lives mattering. I have no problem at all in calling out those people, but it can be done effectively by pointing out the unfairness of it, not with Breitbart headlines like 'The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off', or 'Trannies whine about hilarious Bruce Jenner billboard' or 'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy' or' "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" I agree with Balbus that these issues are relativley trivial distractions from the basic issue of social justice, which I understand is a cuss word in AltRight circles.

The politics of defending only certain groups is rooted in the fact that those groups each have a history of very real oppression by the majority in our society. The Supreme Court recognizes that certain groups are "suspect classes' on the basis of race, religion, national origin, alienage, especially if they: have historically been discriminated against or subject to prejudice, hostility or stigma; and are a "discrete and insular minority".We've made progress in trying to redress these issues, but haven't fully achieved that aim and are encountering plenty of backlash. In my opinion, lower SES males have genuine grievances which need to be addressed--and can be, by using the same tactics those "selective groups" used to get the attention of agenda setters in the political system. Same goes for white males in general when educators, officials or other authority figures use words or actions that unfairly stigmatize them or negatively affect their interests. A good example of effective legal action to challenge an affirmative action policy that discriminated against white applicants is Gratz v. Bollinger. The Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions program that assigned points for just being a minority was unconstitutional because it "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed". In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's admission policy allowing race to be considered as one factor in achieving diversity, while allowing other factors like lower SES or region for white males also to be taken into account. As a practical matter, ignoring the history or conditions making one group disadvantaged in relation to another makes it really impossible to move beyond inequality and injustice.It's only through political and legal action that effective change in public policy is ever achieved.

 

I think I already said that:"As for "toxic masculinity", masculinity can be toxic. So can feminist man-bashing." (Post #354) Women, like men, are people and can have all the negative traits you mention, but many are quite nice. We should, of course, treat them--men and women--as individuals, resist the temptation to judge them in terms of stereotypes, and call them out if they, as individuals, abuse people on the basis of gender. Ruth Bader Ginsburg made her career as an EEOC lawyer representing men in gender discrimination lawsuits.

As for what's wrong with watching football, nothing at all. I watch it all the time. So does my wife. It's certainly not an example of toxic masculinity. But there's nothing wrong with not watching it either, and not conforming to gender stereotypes of masculinity. I think that was the point my friend was trying to make in his New Years day parties. He's known as "Big Mike" for his formidable physique, so he can get away with it without worrying about anybody questioning his masculinity--to his face, at least. Life is too short to spend it doing John Wayne imitations.

I've run into feminists who have difficulty with male identity groups, even if they are only concerned with exploring their masculinity. I politely explain to them that it's a benign and healthy process, but if they continue not to understand, I just pay no further attention to them.

 

I disagree. Let he who is free of defects cast the first stone! Shaming, even a little, is never appropriate. Judging people by their physical appearance is shallow--reminiscent of those Hans and Franz skits on Saturday Night Live--Ve Vant to pump you up! und if you don't comply, ve call you a "girly man". Yah. Of course we want to motivate people to be healthy and in good physical condition, but that can be done positively, without calling attention to their alleged deficiencies. I think all people metaphorically reflect an aspect of the divine, and are therefore inherently beautiful. I also think that they are flawed and imperfect, as I am. Both of these characteristics give us all something in common which can be a basis for empathy, outweighing our superficial differences. Manliness, yes, but not obsessive preoccupation with the physical. Women who are mainly into that are as shallow as their male counterparts. They deserve each other. When the Alt Right encourages these attitudes, it is, in my opinion, pushing a damaging and ultimately unsatisfying value system that will ultimately result in emptiness and unhappiness for perpetrators and victims alike.

 

I never judge people how they look nor do i shame anyone about anything...unless they do it to me or I witness them doing it to someone else...and then I am ok, then.....want some of your own medicine...I have learned from the master....You just taught me.
I agree with much of what you said there, Okie, but I think all life is included...not just humans in any god i would want to believe in , anyway..

 

I feel empathy for all sentient beings and believe in a duty of stewardship toward the environment. To my knowledge, though, the Alt Right hasn't taken a position on this, so I wouldn't want to get off topic. In fact, I'm not sure bringing God into the picture was appropriate here, but it is the basis for my personal views.

 

I stop alt-right by pressing alt-left. Sometimes with a shift in there too. Combination keys.

 

Yeah, sometimes...I just see the last post, and am inspired to reply to it and am not even aware of what thread I am in, until it is too late....oops.

 

o_0

I'm really curious, did you write all that after reading my entire post, or just the first paragraph? Not to be a dick, but I wanna know how your mind works

My answer is there. Right in front of you. With links to support my answer. Anyone with two brain cells would've found my answer after reading the whole post.

Even more interesting is that you clearly finished reading the rest of my post because of all you wrote in post #369.


Yes it is a class issue. Yet liberals like you keep insisting it's a race issue. When you insist it's a race issue, you automatically start judging people's life stories by the color of their skin. You put poor white males at an even harder disadvantage. We can save the economic politics for another thread. We are talking about the hard consequences of left wing social justice politics.

 

Is it social justice you oppose or what you consider some left wing version of that? What would right wing social justice look like? (seems like kinda an oxymoron). Or is it politics--groups acting in political arenas to promote their interests? What would you put in its place? What specifically constitutes "social justice politics" that you want to get rid of? The radical right is trying to do with "social justice" what they did with "liberal"--make it into a cuss word. The AltRight is griping now about the plight of the white working class, but we forget that one of the main sources of political influence supporting workers and resisting neo-liberalism were labor unions, which were effectively decimated in part by systematic efforts including campaigns for "right to work"--which sounds good. Why should people have to pay dues to unions that fight for their interests? You acknowledge that "Yes it is a class issue", but if you say that too loudly, right wingers trained in the Gingrich school of demagoguery will scream "CLASS WARFARE !", and the fight will be on! People are about to see what happens when we give the radical right free rein, and when they do, I think they'll miss social justice politics.

And identity politics? We know what right wing identity politics looks like: Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz tripping over each other for a photo op with Kim Davis, who refused to do her duty to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Or Mike Pence supporting transfer of funds allotted to care for HIV/AIDS victims to organizations that provide bogus "conversion therapy", and requiring ceremonial burials for aborted fetuses. What was that all about? Can you say "the Evangelical vote." Is that identity politics? Does the bear sleep in the woods? So why is it only progressive identity politics that piques your interest?

 

I use the word theory because I don't know whether or not there has ever been a point in the history of civilized society where identity politics existed for everyone equally, or did not exist at all. I truly believe society would be much less divisive by having them for everyone or nobody. And I'm struggling to figure out why you and Balbus think singling out certain groups is acceptable.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, sexist, islamaphobe, xenophobe. The problem is that there is a BUBBLE behind using these buzzwords. And that bubble has burst, and those buzzwords to use on your opposition are no longer effective nor believable. Time to come up with a new battle plan for 2018.

It was sure hilarious hearing the audience's laughter after hearing Hillary recite some of those article headlines. By the way, did you bother to read any of those articles past the headline?

The "Solution to Online 'Harassment' is simple: Women should log off" is taking a jab at all the Anita Sarkesians of the world. Anita spoke to the UN on cyberviolence toward women. Sarkesian is a horrible vindictive troll who spouts off hateful rhetoric and wages war against a gaming culture who never harmed her in any way, and when they fight back she cries and plays the victim, demanding more restrictions on freedom of speech. And yes, I do agree with Milo as he implies that you need to have thicker skin if you wish to participate on a platform where you are bound to run into ideas and beliefs one would find offensive.

How about smoker shaming? The amount of smokers has drastically been reduced in the last 50 years and there's been plenty of bipartisan success pushing that across. No longer do dive bars smell like tobacco. Some new cars don't come with cigarette lighters and ash trays.
The problem is now we have a Fat Lobby, a special interest group that is campaigning for fat rights and fat special privileges. Rather than making life improving goals to better their health, they are demanding protection through identity politics because people say mean words. They are demanding airlines to remove full rows of seats to accommodate their fatness rather than buying 2 plane tickets. They've successfully pressured Mattel to manufacture plus-sized Barbie dolls. They are a social justice warrior movement that is spreading lies, even though obesity is a live shortening problem for many people. Just like smoking. Take a look at the famous TrigglyPuff giving a lecture on fat liberation:

]

 

I don't support a "right wing social justice" movement as an antidote to this cancer. I support identity politics for all, or nobody.

I support identity politics for everybody, or nobody. It is entirely possible to spread awareness to the issues of some groups, without taking away from the issues of others.

Lies and misinformation for the most part. Social justice warriors and liberals seem to prioritize feelings over facts. They are a few short years from banning Halloween all together because they find too many costumes offensive. For example, a Mexican child was forcefully sent home from school for wearing a mariachi costume (even though he was Mexican FFS). Lies about the wage gap. Lies about rape culture. Lies about systemic racism being in places where it isn't anywhere to be found. Killing political correctness would be a great start. And there is a difference between political correctness and etiquette.

It doesn't seem to me like this type of "identity politics" is putting free speech at risk the same way leftist identity politics is.

Nevertheless, the common beliefs shared by Fuckabee, Cruz, and Pence that you listed do not match my beliefs at all. I'm not a republican by the way, and we find common ground regarding the "evangelical vote."

 

He made no racist tweets toward Leslie Jones. The worst thing he did was write a truthful article on how horrible the feminist GhostBusters movie was, and call her a man. I do miss reading his tweets though. My feed is a lot less fabulous without him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA44q8W_Xt0&t=45s

Nevertheless, Twitter banning Milo skyrocketed his fame. Meanwhile, investors want to take no part in a website that falsely prides itself on free speech. And Twitter's stock price continues to plummet as the company can't make any profits anymore. Milo's fame goes up. Twitter's stock price goes down. Twitter is even considering banning Donald Trump forever. I really hope they do. Can you imagine the financial backlash they'll face for banning the president elect? It'll seal the final nail in their well deserved coffin forever!

 

If Twitter banned the Donald, both would wither and die from the withdrawal. He tweets in his sleep, and the world tweets back. Surely there's a twelve step program for this. The decline of Twitter and Facebook seems to be more related to privacy concerns than speech https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/06/05/facebook-and-twitter-experience-year-declining-pop/ Poor misunderstood Milo was banned because of the alleged role he played in a bout of twitter harassment by an Alt Right geek brigade, much of it racist. I think Milo and his misogynist buddies might have been upset at Ghostbusters because it was one of the first action movies ever to sport an all-female and racially diverse headlining cast.