Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends." - Alfredo Rocco, Mussolini's Minister of Justice, speaking at Perugia, August 30, 1925
"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole...must set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." -Hitler, speaking at Bueckeburg, October 7, 1933
Both are describing socialism, which is left-wing. Both are advocating subjucating the individual to benefit the collective society. That is NOT right-wing ideology.
The word "fascism" includes fascis as its root. The meaning is "bundle" and it is used to represent collective power.
Look, you are using terms that have a set meaning, like "political spectrum" and "socialism", and redefining them based on your feeling of what they mean. (And just to be clear, I can see that it isn't just you personally doing this - that this is apparently being done on a larger scale by people who identify with this Alt-Right.) For example, socialism is not simply mean that the rights of the individual are trumped by the rights of society - it also means common ownership (which the fascists and Nazis were not proponents of), democratic rule by all people in the country (which does not work if you are disenfranchising people that you don't consider true citizens), free access to goods and services (again, not compatible with defining groups that are more worthy than others). You can't suddenly declare Mussolini or Hitler socialists based on a couple of quotes when the actions of their governments do not fit the definition of socialism.
Ok so there have been a few responses and I will attempt to answer them.
"Racial Superiority." This has been the conclusion for many when learning of the alt-right. To begin, I get it. I do. Anytime we discuss race, particularly in this country it is difficult. But no, alt right does not believe in white supremecy. Admittedly, you will find many on the fringe of the movement that do - but outliers do not define a movement.
For race, the alt right believes:
-there are distinct races in this world (whites, asians, blacks, etc.).
-these races formed over several thousands of years. whites-europe, asia-japan, china, etc.. with little or no interaction between them. There is also a split at neanderthal interbreeding. (I will discuss more if needed)
-that as a result the races are distinct due to geographic factors. Meaning some are more tribal based, others agrarian, others hunter gatherer. This has a direct result on their current cultures and society.
-As a result of tens of thousands of years of isolation the races are today as still distinct.
-for an example of this look at statistics in any field (education, iq, crime, etc.) and without exception the statistics will fall along racial lines.
-The alt right (and science) acknowledge this and wish to due away with the idea that color is only skin deep. Instead, the alt-right believes that we should celebrate the racial differences and learn from each other.
So no, there is no white superiority. But to say that asians do not excel at computer science, nor do blacks excel at sprinting is absurd. But this does not mean that we anyone is less important or anyone is "better" than any other race. The alt right just acknowledges the differences that is all.
For example, say a Somolian gentleman wishes to immigrate to the US. He learns English, believes in the US border, and wishes to encourage the freedoms of others and his own. He even cooks hot dogs on the Fourth and starts to follow baseball. This man is welcome in my country anyday.
Good explanation, but you'll never sway the leftist sycophants. Their ideology is the one separating people into groups (hyphen-American) but they'd prefer to think of them as voting blocks than actual human beings.
I have a hard time seeing how the alt right aren't collectivist. I mean everything is about being white and in the interest of the white race. Isn't that itself a colllectivist position?
"Speak Englishas primary language; show respect for nation-first agenda and respect flag and military at all times; assimilate to american cultural norms; abide by US legal system (no sharia law or any religious based law); allow traditional American freedoms at all times (speech, guns, etc.)."
What does this have to do with being white? Anyone can hold the above beliefs. As a matter of fact my white immigrant ancestors could have done a better job of assimilating. I believe they should have had greater respect for the country that took them in.
"Speak Englishas primary language; show respect for nation-first agenda and respect flag and military at all times; assimilate to american cultural norms; abide by US legal system (no sharia law or any religious based law); allow traditional American freedoms at all times (speech, guns, etc.)."
What does this have to do with being white? Anyone can hold the above beliefs. As a matter of fact my white immigrant ancestors could have done a better job of assimilating. I believe they should have had greater respect for the country that took them in.
Tamajane, I think it was the next paragraph in the OP that people are referring to. The part where the OP starts getting into eugenics.
Look, you are using terms that have a set meaning, like "political spectrum" and "socialism", and redefining them based on your feeling of what they mean.
No, I am not. Socialism is very clearly collective and seeks to subjugate the individual to benefit the collective society.
Tamajane, I think it was the next paragraph in the OP that people are referring to. The part where the OP starts getting into eugenics.
Eugenics is a Lefty progressive thing. Margaret Sanger, the founder of what is now known as Planned Parenthood, was a proponent of eugenics. More specifically, to keep the poor from over-reproducing.
During tonight's debate and after there may be more talk about a group that many in this country have not heard of- the Alt-Right.
I just wanted to put out a simple description of this group to try and dispel some misconceptions that my be out there. Put simply, the Alt-Right is a group dedicated to preserving Western Civilization, be it democracy, culture, or freedoms.
What this means, in specifics, is that the Alt-Right believes that US citizens should:
Speak English as primary language; show respect for nation-first agenda and respect flag and military at all times; assimilate to american cultural norms; abide by US legal system (no sharia law or any religious based law); allow traditional American freedoms at all times (speech, guns, etc.).
Its simple but that's it. Other points of interest are the "Race Realist" concept of genetics and evolution (there are distinct races with distinct capabilities); rejection of Global Capitalism; and strict adherence to national borders - for the US and all other countries.
If anyone wants to go further into the "practice" and implementation of this I will be happy to answer your questions. As a disclaimer, I am far from a leading authority on the group and I encourage all to do their own research.
If you look at what actually constitutes Western civilization--the texts we study, the philosophy, the literature, etc... you will clearly see that there is a pronounced progressive tendency. Of course, conservatives do get Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and a few others here and there but on the whole the work of Western civilization as far as we know it has been to challenge and question the notions of purity/nation/autonomy, etc... that your "alt-right" group seems so supportive of.
Tamajane, I think it was the next paragraph in the OP that people are referring to. The part where the OP starts getting into eugenics.
"Its simple butthat's it. Other points of interest are the "Race Realist" concept of genetics and evolution (there are distinct races with distinct capabilities); rejection of Global Capitalism; and strict adherence to national borders - for the US and all other countries."
There are distinct races, so what? Capabilities? Not sure about that, just some evolutionary differences much like eye or skin color based on environment and geography but people can be pretty adaptable. The rest of it makes sense, nothing racist there.
"Its simple butthat's it. Other points of interest are the "Race Realist" concept of genetics and evolution (there are distinct races with distinct capabilities); rejection of Global Capitalism; and strict adherence to national borders - for the US and all other countries."
There are distinct races, so what? Capabilities? Not sure about that, just some evolutionary differences much like eye or skin color based on environment and geography but people can be pretty adaptable. The rest of it makes sense, nothing racist there.
Except that there is no scientific genetic justification for grouping people into races as we historically have. This is an example of using junk science to justify a social construct, and it is wrong.
Except that there is no scientific genetic justification for grouping people into races as we historically have. This is an example of using junk science to justify a social construct, and it is wrong.
If that's so, what's up with BlackLivesMatter?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
