Alt-right vs. Tea Party

[MarcoW]

tea party is better because they are so inept that I have no worry that they will ever actually achieve anything.
Alt-right is worse because not only do they believe they are doing the right thing by doing things like leaking nudes of a fat actress just because she was in a movie they have the means to do so.

 

[Greoric]

Our scientific studies on genetics prove that different populations, even ones within close proximity from another, can have major differences in their genetic make-up.

The Finns are a good example to study due to their relative isolation from the rest of humanity except in the more recent times:

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...unique-genes-vary-significantly-europeans.htm

Unique genes that cause "violence" have been found in Finns, which might partially explain the higher rates of violence in Finland compared to its neighbours despite following a similar model of society:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212

The people who ignore genetics, and the part that they play, despite our increasing level of understanding about the subject, to me are simply idealistic buffoons who prefer to ignore the realities of nature in favour of a more comfortable world-view.

Very interesting example. Like you mentioned even intra-race differences are significant. The example I'm most aware of are Western v. Eastern African phenotypes. The sprinter type frame with the smaller lungs and higher type II fiber type from Western Africans is in stark contrast even with the Eastern Africans with their larger lungs and more type I fiber type.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It's real fucking similar, but the alt right is generally younger and more computer savvy. They're more likely to knowingly spread misinformation, while Tea Partier do it unwittingly.

The Tea Party is mostly composed of middle aged or senior citizen white people who graduated high school and cite the "School of Common Sense" or "School of Hard Knocks" as their education, while the alt right is more so composed of white kids who often went to college, got a degree in political science or communications and now constantly use it as a point of authority when attempting to defend Gary Johnson against the facts asserting his being a dolt.

The Tea Party (once commandeered by the far right) is based on cultural insecurity and a false romanticism of past decades that is completely revisionist to the point that it denies that its adherents are blatantly prioritizes (further) white domination over important social metrics like poverty rate, literacy rate, life expectancy, food and drug quality, etc. The alt right is built on an ignorant sense of social indignation whereby sassy rightist ignorami bitch about feminists and anyone who is not a white male.

The Tea Party is more likely to hold racist beliefs; the alt right is more likely to make and embellish racist expressions.

The alt right is more likely to harass Leslie Jones on Twitter and post her nude photos; the Tea Party is more likely to watch hairy porno on VHS and then bitch about public morality.

The alt right is more likely to post cartoon memes that end up seeming ironic; the Tea Party is more likely to harass and yell at Barack Obama through a Barack Obama Facebook account that was made 5 weeks ago and only has 30 followers.

The alt right is more likely to complain about SJW's; the Tea Party is more likely to get on the mailing list of the KKK.

Both are stupid and accordingly don't realize that they're merely being used by economic rightists to take away their labor rights and their ability to earn a living.



Libertarianism (at least right libertarianism in America) is predicated on exploitation.

You're confusing the Tea Party with the Alt-right that infiltrated it. The tea party started as a bunch of whacky libertarians that were merely against taxes.

The Alt-right; which came into the tea party when the right co-opted it; are full blown racist - in fact most are unabashed fascist.

Don't get me wrong, as there is certainly some overlap between the 2 when it comes to racist views, but for the most part I see the Alt-Right as the kkk and neo-nazi that the left tried to paint the tea-party with.

 

[Trotsky]

You're confusing the Tea Party with the Alt-right that infiltrated it. The tea party started as a bunch of whacky libertarians that were merely against taxes.

The Alt-right; which came into the tea party when the right co-opted it; are full blown racist - in fact most are unabashed fascist.

Don't get me wrong, as there is certainly some overlap between the 2 when it comes to racist views, but for the most part I see the Alt-Right as the kkk and neo-nazi that the left tried to paint the tea-party with.

The Tea Party was libertarian for about 2 weeks. It was commandeered by far-right morons (because the original folks weren't far off) almost immediately.

The alt-right is a fairly new phenomenon: the Tea Party is comprised of the same old racists as before. They just happen to have been hopped up on the steroids of misinformation and extremist Congressional rhetoric.

 

[7437]

You triggered ? lol

devastating reply. no wonder your political position is so well respected.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

The Tea Party was libertarian for about 2 weeks. It was commandeered by far-right morons (because the original folks weren't far off) almost immediately.

The alt-right is a fairly new phenomenon: the Tea Party is comprised of the same old racists as before. They just happen to have been hopped up on the steroids of misinformation and extremist Congressional rhetoric.

contrary to popular belief, the tea-party was around for a couple years before Obama was elected.

On December 16, 2007, supporters of Ron Paul staged a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party as a fundraiser event, and to promote Paul's bid for the presidency.[3][4] Paul's GOP campaign received a "moneybomb", which broke the record for 24 hour fundraising.[5][6] This event coincided with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.[7] This was seen as a major upset to the Republican GOP establishment.[8] Paul's youthful, libertarian minded, supporters created a divide within the Republican Party.[9][10] Juan Williams, a commentator at Fox News, commented that the Tea party emerged "from the ashes" of Paul's 2007-2008 presidential campaign.[11] David Weigel at slate.com said, "The first modern Tea Party events occurred in December 2007, long before Barack Obama took office, and they were organized by supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas..."

 

[Sakuraba808]

devastating reply. no wonder your political position is so well respected.

Yeah cause I care what a bunch of losers on a fighting website think about my political opinions. Are people on here actually serious. You must be a real loser to think the cacophony going on in here actually matters.

 

[Plissken]

The tea party was infiltrated and taken over by establishment conservatives after a libertarian beginning. The "alt-right" blanket movement hasn't been hit so far, and many of the establishment conservatives seem to specifically distance themselves from the movement due to their trolling. The movement started out as trying to inject logic into the discourse with the rise of the politically correct social justice and pro big government far left movement, but then to counteract that movement started to troll them and the trolling aspect has hurt them, even though it's kept infiltrators away.

 

[Trotsky]

contrary to popular belief, the tea-party was around for a couple years before Obama was elected.

On December 16, 2007, supporters of Ron Paul staged a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party as a fundraiser event, and to promote Paul's bid for the presidency.[3][4] Paul's GOP campaign received a "moneybomb", which broke the record for 24 hour fundraising.[5][6] This event coincided with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.[7] This was seen as a major upset to the Republican GOP establishment.[8] Paul's youthful, libertarian minded, supporters created a divide within the Republican Party.[9][10] Juan Williams, a commentator at Fox News, commented that the Tea party emerged "from the ashes" of Paul's 2007-2008 presidential campaign.[11] David Weigel at slate.com said, "The first modern Tea Party events occurred in December 2007, long before Barack Obama took office, and they were organized by supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas..."

I stand corrected. Apparently their tenure as a libertarian organization endured for longer than I thought. They still have spent the vast majority of their organizational life as a far-right loony bin.

 

[Jack V Savage]

contrary to popular belief, the tea-party was around for a couple years before Obama was elected.

On December 16, 2007, supporters of Ron Paul staged a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party as a fundraiser event, and to promote Paul's bid for the presidency.[3][4] Paul's GOP campaign received a "moneybomb", which broke the record for 24 hour fundraising.[5][6] This event coincided with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.[7] This was seen as a major upset to the Republican GOP establishment.[8] Paul's youthful, libertarian minded, supporters created a divide within the Republican Party.[9][10] Juan Williams, a commentator at Fox News, commented that the Tea party emerged "from the ashes" of Paul's 2007-2008 presidential campaign.[11] David Weigel at slate.com said, "The first modern Tea Party events occurred in December 2007, long before Barack Obama took office, and they were organized by supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas..."

There have been groups using the name for decades, but the movement started with Santelli's rant about a plan to help homeowners avoid foreclosure by refinancing mortgages.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I stand corrected. Apparently their tenure as a libertarian organization endured for longer than I thought. They still have spent the vast majority of their organizational life as a far-right loony bin.

Agreed, but I'd say that the libertarian time was a loony bin also

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Those NRx guys are crazy. Shit is a hop, skip and a jump away from outright fascism but I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that its anything more than a very, very small segment of the alt-right movement. I didn't know about it until the vox article and even the vox article uses only 1 guy's blog as a source for their existence and their belief system. The NRx subreddit only has like 400 subscribers.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11434098/alt-right-explained

They also had an episode on Elementary(that sherlock show where watson is an asian woman) where there is a NRx guy/villain.
I agree they are batshit insane, but that vox article confabulates things in typical sjw leftist fashion. NRx is not at the core of alt right thinking ffs

Yeah moldbug is probably the founder of that movement but there are a few other blogs about it too.

Meanwhile the alt right is based mostly on the ideas of american renaissance, aka Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer



A good resume of the alt right, no tax cuts, no migration, no israel

 

[Thurisaz]

Tea Party never amounted to anything. Literally no one even knows what they wanted to achieve. Everyone knows the Alt-right's goal is the 14 words, even if the means for achieving that varies.

The Alt-right is actually fighting the cultural war. And, as it happens to those who accept reality, they will absolutely trounce any and all opposition eventually.

 

[Max Power]

The alt right to me seems to be just some folks online either posting unfunny memes or outright harassing people they don't like. There is without doubt a significant racist element to it. I have seen people make excuses for that which is disappointing. One should always call out the bad on their side. The alt right seem even more disorganised than a group like BLM - at least they hold rallies and have stated some goals. What have the alt right done?

The Tea Party was seemingly mostly a bunch of authoritarian moralists masquerading as libertarians to me. Ted Cruz was a part of it - nuff said.

Dave Rubin just put out this on the alt right.

The same Southern Strategy The NYT and CNN debunked a decade ago?

Same people who think this probably think LBJ didn't say "I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years" and it had nothing to do with Roosevelt and Truman support as well.

I have heard that quote repeated by conservatives again and again, though when I ask for a source they have nothing. Pity, cause that would surely be the smoking gun needed to drive home their "Democrats/liberals don't care about black folks, they just wanna buy their vote" story.

 

[Zankou]

Now some trolling by them AR

Honestly that's hilarious. The alt-right, as a contemporary cultural movement, is practically the polar opposite of the tea party. For the most part it isn't a coherent political ideology as much as a sort of trolling rejection of most of the central planks of the modern American political consensus .... with little interest in seizing political power and mostly focused on fighting cultural wars, particularly wars revolving around identity politics.

If you could identify two clear elements in the alt-right, it's an intense racism matched with disdain for most major institutions that conservatives traditionally support, i.e. the alt-right is heavily atheist, isolationist, and elitist.

This is partly why it shares little with more traditional conservative movements. People want to see it as x movement v. 2.0, but the alt-right has many distinctive aspects (for example, it's arguably the only part of the contemporary American right wing that has any sense of humor) that differentiate it from historical right-wing groups.

 

[TheGreatA]

I have heard that quote repeated by conservatives again and again, though when I ask for a source they have nothing. Pity, cause that would surely be the smoking gun needed to drive home their "Democrats/liberals don't care about black folks, they just wanna buy their vote" story.

The source is Ronald R. MacMillan in Ronald Kessler's book "Inside the White House". Whether you choose to believe his account or not, that's another thing.

But he did say a bunch of other stuff that sounds similar, such as this:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

“Son, when I appoint a to the bench, I want everybody to know he’s a ."

He's pretty well-known for tossing around the dreaded N-word quite "liberally":



But he was an old school guy from the South with a rather cynical sense of humour, which explains most of these seemingly outrageous statements. Safe to say he didn't do anything from the kindness of his heart though, but merely because it served his agenda, like most politicians. Hillary is the same way, let's face it, she will flip-flop on any humanitarian issues as long as it serves her political career.

 

[Greoric]

So it cannot be exploitation if you are paying the bare minimun the law will allow... even if an employer is making fraudulent deductions, pocketing training pay, not paying overtime, not paying full hours worked, refusing to give enough hours for the worker to get benefits, instructing their employees to supplement their insufficient income with food stamps... because worker protections have been stripped away?

Yeah so one of these, the first, is an instance of exploitation. My argument for more individual liberty isn't that individuals won't attempt to act fraudulently. Of course they will. The argument is that the free market will be a better check on that fraudulent behavior than the government.

Just consider a private vs. public regulatory firm. What happens when banks commit fraudulent lending practices? Do we also blame the government regulatory firm for not noticing the exploitation or do we give them extra funding? Looks to me like we pay them in so far as they fail. Not in so far as they succeed. Wouldn't you agree?

The other two you're confusing exploitation for a freedom of association. Why should an employer be forced to pay for a service more than he receives in value? Are you obligated to pay the car wash attendant the equivalent of a tip to allow him to make a livable wage if the car wash employer is not?

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Yeah so one of these, the first, is an instance of exploitation. My argument for more individual liberty isn't that individuals won't attempt to act fraudulently. Of course they will. The argument is that the free market will be a better check on that fraudulent behavior

Has this ever happened in the history of business? Not a sarcastic question. Because I can do a quick search and deliver hundreds and hundreds of instances of companies abusing their employees so badly that laws had to be passed.

Just consider a private vs. public regulatory firm. What happens when banks commit fraudulent lending practices? Do we also blame the government regulatory firm for not noticing the exploitation or do we give them extra funding? Looks to me like we pay them in so far as they fail. Not in so far as they succeed. Wouldn't you agree?

You mean the regulatory firm that was probably defunded by previous administrations so that the banking industry would have less oversight? This is basically an example of corporate interests writing the law at the expense of consumers' interests. Yes, give them more money. Then give them more power to weed out wrongdoing and prosecute the shit out of violators.

The other two you're confusing exploitation for a freedom of association. Why should an employer be forced to pay for a service more than he receives in value? Are you obligated to pay the car wash attendant the equivalent of a tip to allow him to make a livable wage if the car wash employer is not?

I was specifically referring to Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart is going to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies from the government, is it unfair to expect them to pay livable wages so that their employees can contribute economically to the growth and stability of the country instead of pocketing the government money and explaining to their staff why they need to apply for government money themselves?

No, no it is not. If you're going to accept the privilege of a corporate subsidy from the government you have to accept a responsibility to the well-being of the citizens of that nation.

 

[Greoric]

Has this ever happened in the history of business? Not a sarcastic question. Because I can do a quick search and deliver hundreds and hundreds of instances of companies abusing their employees so badly that laws had to be passed.

You mean the regulatory firm that was probably defunded by previous administrations so that the banking industry would have less oversight? This is basically an example of corporate interests writing the law at the expense of consumers' interests. Yes, give them more money. Then give them more power to weed out wrongdoing and prosecute the shit out of violators.

I was specifically referring to Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart is going to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies from the government, is it unfair to expect them to pay livable wages so that their employees can contribute economically to the growth and stability of the country instead of pocketing the government money and explaining to their staff why they need to apply for government money themselves?

No, no it is not. If you're going to accept the privilege of a corporate subsidy from the government you have to accept a responsibility to the well-being of the citizens of that nation.

So first, you're highlighting the inferiority of the government (through democratic rule fyi) to properly allocate services. It's just another example of how government can't properly provide for services that are in demand.

Secondly, you need to observe the incentive structure you create with that kind of system. You're pushing them to fail in their oversight if their excuse for a lack of funding is always admitted as the reason for failure. They have little reason to actually succeed!

What do you consider a corporate subsidy? If its the food stamps then let's eliminate the food stamps. Is the next argument going to be one of conflating government hand outs with any and all eleemosynary activity?

In any event, though you didn't answer my question. Why is paying someone according to the value of the service you gain from their employment exploitation? It reads like you're OK with only one side of the transaction having the freedom of association.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

So first, you're highlighting the inferiority of the government (through democratic rule fyi) to properly allocate services. Secondly, you need to observe the incentive structure you create with that kind of system. You're pushing them to fail in their oversight if their excuse for a lack of funding is always admitted as the reason for failure. They have little reason to actually succeed!

They have a reason to succeed: because they're trying to help people and they're necessary. There are other motives beside profit motives. Someone trying to help people usually doesn't damage or rob nearly as many people as someone trying to make a profit.

What do you consider a corporate subsidy? If its the food stamps then let's eliminate the food stamps. Is the next argument going to be one of conflating government hand outs with any and all eleemosynary activity?

Why would food stamps be considered a corporate subsidy? When corporations, especially profitable ones, receive money from the government.

In any event, though you didn't answer my question. Why is paying someone according to the value of the service you gain from their employment exploitation? It reads like you're OK with only one side of the transaction having the freedom of association.

If you're withholding payment from someone in violation of laws set to protect citizens, which every first world nation has passed because 5000 years of business have proved they're necessary, then you're exploiting them.