Current Events > Is neo nazism now the face of the alt-right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I think anyone with half a brain knew this was coming, but now that they've gone "main stream" so to speak, is the movement officially tied with that imagery forever? They used swastika flags. They used blood and soil chants. They chanted "FUCK YOU F******!" and "GO BACK TO AFRICA!" to protesters. They had literal (tiki) torches on their march. They rose their arm in a Nazi salute. And, of course, one of the Vanguarders ended up killing someone, injuring 19 more, and the murderer was all about the same shit posting tactics that the alt right used.

And I don't buy for a second that they all are literal nazi's, I know damn well it's the next step of the whole "JUST A JOKE BRO, STOP BEING TRIGGERED!" shit that's been going on for years. But thanks to guys like Spencer, who runs altright.com, embracing such imagery, they're forever going to be tied to it. Currently on the site they are already calling for action and calling yesterday a turning point in the movement. Not to mention places like The_Donald having pinned topic with information about the event.

It doesn't matter how many are using it as a joke, to be edgy, to piss others off and incite violence, when you go down that path your group is now associated with that. And I really can't see the "movement" as a whole ever able to shed that label after getting into bed with it
---

wasn't Richard Spencer, a neo-nazi, the first one to coin the term?
---

Further than that really, they're the face of the right in general. :u Considering our republican president won't denounce them.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

t doesn't matter how many are using it as a joke, to be edgy, to piss others off and incite violence, when you go down that path your group is now associated with that

Yeah this describes a lot of people on CE. When you bring it up all they can do is deflect. It's annoying.
---

Hail Satan boys
---

What does anyone think "alt-right" is?

Why does the right need an "alt" in the first place? Because actual conservatism isn't about trafficking in racism.

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Further than that really, they're the face of the right in general. :u Considering our republican president won't denounce them.

Other than the dozen times he has, you mean.
---

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Further than that really, they're the face of the right in general. :u Considering our republican president won't denounce them.

Other than the dozen times he has, you mean.

At a crucial time like this, you'd think he'd be willing to say it again. Someone literally died after all. :u These groups literally responded and bragged about Trump's reluctance to call them out. What does that tell you?
---

The Admiral posted...

Other than the dozen times he has, you mean.

"Ok I disavow ok" is hardly a denouncement
---

Alt-right has always just been another name for neo-Nazi.
---

Doom_Art posted...

The Admiral posted...

Other than the dozen times he has, you mean.

"Ok I disavow ok" is hardly a denouncement

It's literally a denouncement. Not sure why he needs to use Doom Art approved language for you to understand a simple statement.
---

The Admiral posted...

It's literally a denouncement.

Reminds me of The Office

"Dwight has prepared a statement of regret for all of you."

*Dwight unfolds note*

"I state my regret."

"You couldn't have done more?"

"I could not because I did not feel it."
---

TheDarkCircle posted...

Why does the right need an "alt" in the first place? Because actual conservatism isn't about trafficking in racism.

Ahahaha!*Cough*Hahaha. You're funny.
---

it's getting harder and harder to look at trump and not think neonazi. He was the figurehead of the racist birther movement, he's retweeted neonazi garbage on twitter, and after yesterday...I just wonder where it'll stop
---

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Further than that really, they're the face of the right in general. :u Considering our republican president won't denounce them.

Other than the dozen times he has, you mean.

Before being elected. Trump has no problem repeating himself, loves to even but he is silent now that he is in office and knows who brought him there.
---

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Further than that really, they're the face of the right in general. :u Considering our republican president won't denounce them.

Other than the dozen times he has, you mean.

At a crucial time like this, you'd think he'd be willing to say it again. Someone literally died after all. :u These groups literally responded and bragged about Trump's reluctance to call them out. What does that tell you?

That they're as stupid as the liberals who keep claiming he never said it.

Here's 10 minutes of clips of him disavowing the KKK and white supremacists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgtxrCD9iCk

yes, I know he's denounced them in the past. what I want to know is why he refused to name them now after they literally killed someone. what is his reasoning behind the vague wording? I just don't get it.

republicans made such a big deal about always referring to things by their proper name when Obama was president. why are you defending Trump's loose terminology here? :u
---

I don't give a fuck if Trump denounced them or not, that's not the point of this thread and stop trying to make that the discussion.

And yes, I know that they've always been associated with that, but I meant more to the general masses. Certainly this is the most publicity they've ever gotten and I can't imagine that the association of neo nazism is ever going to go away
---

Gee, why is Addy going to bat for neo-nazis? Not like he's done that before or always.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

republicans made such a big deal about always referring to things by their proper name when Obama was president.

And let's be clear, actual Republicans are still doing just that with Trump.
---

Is Trump going to add white supremacist groups back to terrorist watch lists again or nah?
---

Yes in response to the topic title, not Darmik's post.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

republicans made such a big deal about always referring to things by their proper name when Obama was president. why are you defending Trump's loose terminology here? :u

Because the first thing Obama did after Islamic terrorist attacks was say "don't be mean to Muslims." Even after 50 people were killed at the Pulse Club, and the motives were clearly related to radical Islam, he refused to acknowledge a connection.

Meanwhile, Trump has denounced this group numerous times, and the criticism from you guys is that he won't say it yet again using the specific wording you'd like.

Your argument doesn't quite hold water.
---

The Admiral posted...

Doom_Art posted...

The Admiral posted...

Other than the dozen times he has, you mean.

"Ok I disavow ok" is hardly a denouncement

It's literally a denouncement. Not sure why he needs to use Doom Art approved language for you to understand a simple statement.

The Nazis should have insulted him on television or Twitter. Maybe then he would have found his balls and mustered more than a wimpy "everyone needs to get along".

He can call everyone out and repeat himself on shit until he is blue in the face, but now it's "How many times does he need to repeat himself. He said everyone needs to stop."
---

hockeybub89 posted...

The Nazis should have insulted him on television or Twitter. Maybe then he would have found his balls and mustered more than a wimpy "everyone needs to get along".

The Nazis should've failed at passing healthcare or refused to nuke the legislative filibuster.

Seriously he's been harder on McConnell than the fascists who killed and injured his citizens yesterday.
---

The Admiral posted...

Because the first thing Obama did after Islamic terrorist attacks was say "don't be mean to Muslims." Even after 50 people were killed at the Pulse Club, and the motives were clearly related to radical Islam, he refused to acknowledge a connection.

Meanwhile, Trump has denounced this group numerous times, and the criticism from you guys is that he won't say it yet again using the specific wording you'd like.

Your argument doesn't quite hold water.

I'm not even asking for specific wording. I'm just asking that he call it what it is. The "both sides" comment makes no sense when it was only one side who committed the violent crime.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

Because the first thing Obama did after Islamic terrorist attacks was say "don't be mean to Muslims." Even after 50 people were killed at the Pulse Club, and the motives were clearly related to radical Islam, he refused to acknowledge a connection.

Meanwhile, Trump has denounced this group numerous times, and the criticism from you guys is that he won't say it yet again using the specific wording you'd like.

Your argument doesn't quite hold water.

I'm not even asking for specific wording. I'm just asking that he call it what it is. The "both sides" comment makes no sense when it was only one side who committed the violent crime.

The counter-protesters were starting fights the entire time. It doesn't matter what your ideology is, once you engage in violence, you're on the wrong side. Trump was right to frame is that way.
---

The Admiral posted...

The counter-protesters were starting fights the entire time. It doesn't matter what your ideology is, once you engage in violence, you're on the wrong side. Trump was right to frame is that way.

The counter protesters didn't kill anyone.
---

The Admiral posted...

The counter-protesters were starting fights the entire time.

I wasn't aware the counter protesters harassed journalists, beat people up, and killed several people in a terror attack yesterday.
---

The Admiral posted...

The counter-protesters were starting fights the entire time. It doesn't matter what your ideology is, once you engage in violence, you're on the wrong side. Trump was right to frame is that way.

Explain this in detail. How were the counter-protestors responsible for all of the violence?
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

The counter-protesters were starting fights the entire time. It doesn't matter what your ideology is, once you engage in violence, you're on the wrong side. Trump was right to frame is that way.

The counter protesters didn't kill anyone.

Try reading a little better.
---

White nationalism was already their face before but now yeah the average joe is going to consider the alt right another name for neo nazis

If only trolling were still classified as posting false information as fact, Admiral would actually be getting modded in this topic.
---

This may be an unpopular statement, but I think tacit approval of racism and white nationalism has been a part of the Republican Party for a long time now. At least since Barack Obama was elected. But you can make an argument going back to the election of 1968 and Nixon's southern strategy.

I think for a long time it was a fringe element. Like someone who shows up uninvited at a party, so the party thrower tells them to go huddle in a corner, and everyone tries not to look at them.

Republican presidents like George H.W. Bush and nominees of high character like John McCain boldly and loudly disclaimed the Klan and any place for racism in the Republican Party. But others have winked at it for a long time now. They've courted it for votes and for popular support.

Racist undertones were widespread in the Tea Party.

As Barack Obama enjoyed a successful presidency and was re-elected, the racism became more and more pronounced, more and more mainstream. As the fringe devoured a larger and larger share of the GOP, it became necessary for them to silence outside dissenters, to make it seem like they were the same Grand Old Party they always had been. To that end, they invented a fancy new term for people on the left who opposed them -- social justice warriors -- and they created the mythical narrative that it was the left who was extremist; it was the left who was embracing intolerant views; even as they pushed further and further to the fringe right.

Anyone who protested or voiced disapproval about Milo showing up to demagogue at a college campus became an "enemy of free speech," and therefore, a leftist radical. This allowed the flame of bigotry to shine even brighter, and to reach farther than ever before. The world got darker as a result.

The GOP turned their backs on everything George W. Bush had counseled about showing kindness and understanding towards Muslims and not holding them all culpable for the actions of the most radical among them. BLM wasn't African Americans asking for political change and an end to police violence, it was a violent terrorist organization that was in favor of white oppression. When one gas station in Ferguson, MO was destroyed by arson, the narrative was pushed that Ferguson was being destroyed from the inside-out by hoodlums in a deranged riot, when it wasn't.

Perhaps most telling of all, birtherism became a widely-held conspiracy theory. Almost three-quarters of Republicans would not proclaim that Barack Obama was born in the United States when polled. It isn't a coincidence that Donald Trump, birtherism's patron founder, became the Republican nominee and president of the United States by capitalizing on that racial suspicion.

I think what we're seeing now is the mask being pulled off. Like it or not, white supremacy does unfortunately enjoy a place within the Republican Party. It has been undercover for a while now, but after yesterday, it's more clear than ever.

My advice is this: reject the narratives they've spent the last four or five years pushing on you. Stand up for African Americans who are victims of disproportionate police violence. Stand up for Muslims who've done no wrong to anyone, but who are generalized and persecuted on account of their faith... Stand up for gays, and transgenders. Stand up for everyone. And do not be afraid to call evil by its name. Because KKK, Neo Nazis, and the alt-right -- they are evil. Make no mistake.

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

The counter-protesters were starting fights the entire time. It doesn't matter what your ideology is, once you engage in violence, you're on the wrong side. Trump was right to frame is that way.

The counter protesters didn't kill anyone.

Try reading a little better.

It doesn't matter if they were starting fights, they still didn't kill anyone. Which do you think is worse? Starting fights or killing somebody?

Come on Admiral, I know you'll do anything to defend Trump, but this is just pathetic. You know very well that if Obama had made such a wishy washy declaration you'd be complaining about it, especially if it was conservative protesters that had died.
---

It was always the face. The alt-right is a group of fringe crazies no one should respect. They are the actual basket of deplorables on the right.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

It doesn't matter if they were starting fights,

Aaaaand this is why you're wrong.
---

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

It doesn't matter if they were starting fights,

Aaaaand this is why you're wrong.

Could you respond to something without just taking a snippet out of context for once? :u I'm saying that KILLING someone is a greater evil than STARTING A FIGHT. Shouldn't be this complicated Admiral, Jesus.
---

Hasn't the left been painting the alt-right as Neo-Nazis for the past few years anyway?
---

@The_Admiral my memory isn't great, could you please remind me which side was harassing journalists, damaging property, beating people, and killing people in a terror attack yesterday?
---

Admiral is just blocking out everything that disagrees with his narrative at this point. Sad!
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

It doesn't matter if they were starting fights,

Aaaaand this is why you're wrong.

Could you respond to something without just taking a snippet out of context for once? :u I'm saying that KILLING someone is a greater evil than STARTING A FIGHT. Shouldn't be this complicated Admiral, Jesus.

It seems complicated for you, actually. Killing someone doesn't make the lesser acts of violence acceptable, so a message saying "any groups engaging in violence are wrong" is perfectly fine with me.
---

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

Because the first thing Obama did after Islamic terrorist attacks was say "don't be mean to Muslims." Even after 50 people were killed at the Pulse Club, and the motives were clearly related to radical Islam, he refused to acknowledge a connection.

Meanwhile, Trump has denounced this group numerous times, and the criticism from you guys is that he won't say it yet again using the specific wording you'd like.

Your argument doesn't quite hold water.

I'm not even asking for specific wording. I'm just asking that he call it what it is. The "both sides" comment makes no sense when it was only one side who committed the violent crime.

The counter-protesters were starting fights the entire time. It doesn't matter what your ideology is, once you engage in violence, you're on the wrong side. Trump was right to frame is that way.

Neo-Nazis could have not set up a hate rally because they were triggered over the removal of a Confederate statue. They could have not showed up brandishing torches and rifles, screaming slurs at people, beating people, committing terrorism, etc. That would have definitely prevented this. Or are you going to call that victim blaming
---

Kineth posted...

If only trolling were still classified as posting false information as fact, Admiral would actually be getting modded in this topic.

It still is, and no he won't. Mods, former or current, can break the rules as much as they want without consequence.
---

Nomadic View posted...

Hasn't the left been painting the alt-right as Neo-Nazis for the past few years anyway?

Oh the poor, wittle alt righters. Won't somebody think of them?

Could both you and Admiral NOT go out of your way to defend these shitheads?
---

Kineth posted...

Nomadic View posted...

Hasn't the left been painting the alt-right as Neo-Nazis for the past few years anyway?

Oh the poor, wittle alt righters. Won't somebody think of them?

Could both you and Admiral NOT go out of your way to defend these shitheads?

I'd hardly call that a defense.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Neo-Nazis could have not set up a hate rally because they were triggered over the removal of a Confederate statue.

The neo-Nazis have a constitutionally protected right to do this. No one has a right to start violence with other people, however, and it doesn't matter whether you're a Nazi or anti-Nazi if you are the aggressor.
---

The Admiral posted...

It seems complicated for you, actually. Killing someone doesn't make the lesser acts of violence acceptable, so a message saying "any groups engaging in violence are wrong" is perfectly fine with me.

Acceptable to you, maybe. But the fact it glosses over the fact that a nazi just killed somebody is not fine with me. Condemning violence is always good, but completely ignoring a murder by a literal white supremacist is not.

Other republicans actually came out and did so. Even Chris Christie did. Why in the world can't Trump?
---

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

It doesn't matter if they were starting fights,

Aaaaand this is why you're wrong.

Could you respond to something without just taking a snippet out of context for once? :u I'm saying that KILLING someone is a greater evil than STARTING A FIGHT. Shouldn't be this complicated Admiral, Jesus.

It seems complicated for you, actually. Killing someone doesn't make the lesser acts of violence acceptable, so a message saying "any groups engaging in violence are wrong" is perfectly fine with me.

Yes or no. If a Muslim killed people while other people were fighting each other, would you be cool with a President's comments being a milquetoast "all violence is bad"?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

The Admiral posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

The Admiral posted...

Because the first thing Obama did after Islamic terrorist attacks was say "don't be mean to Muslims." Even after 50 people were killed at the Pulse Club, and the motives were clearly related to radical Islam, he refused to acknowledge a connection.

Meanwhile, Trump has denounced this group numerous times, and the criticism from you guys is that he won't say it yet again using the specific wording you'd like.

Your argument doesn't quite hold water.

I'm not even asking for specific wording. I'm just asking that he call it what it is. The "both sides" comment makes no sense when it was only one side who committed the violent crime.

The counter-protesters were starting fights the entire time. It doesn't matter what your ideology is, once you engage in violence, you're on the wrong side. Trump was right to frame is that way.

Neo-Nazis could have not set up a hate rally because they were triggered over the removal of a Confederate statue. They could have not showed up brandishing torches and rifles, screaming slurs at people, beating people, committing terrorism, etc. That would have definitely prevented this. Or are you going to call that victim blaming

"what could have prevented this"

furreal, dude. Someone points out that one act of violence doesn't make another less bad, and your response is to appeal to emotion? Fucking weaksauce
---

Nomadic View posted...

Kineth posted...

Nomadic View posted...

Hasn't the left been painting the alt-right as Neo-Nazis for the past few years anyway?

Oh the poor, wittle alt righters. Won't somebody think of them?

Could both you and Admiral NOT go out of your way to defend these shitheads?

I'd hardly call that a defense.

Of course you wouldn't because it'd make you look worse if you did.
---