Tucker did a segment yesterday, here's the facts: https://mobile.twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1364024711592738817 So I am waiting for the deep state to remove biden via the 25th amendment for the US military to move in (if they're waiting for this), but was thinking that if liberals are that thick in believing 1,000s of blacks die every year, THAT IS THE FAULT OF POLITICIANS AND THE MEDIA LYING EVERYDAY 24/7 TO DESTROY AMERICA. Liberals are dumb for sure but where's the line?? Brains mature at around ages of 25 so how are we supoose to protect from this deliberate horrible agenda of subvertion if not the military?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
Well yeah, "far right" these days essentially means "anything that isn't far-left/progressive", which almost always makes the so-called present-day "far right" more desirable than the "far left".
The diagram here gives a nice visualization for how this has happened:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12hRj7n56b/the-ever-retreating-far-right-fr/c/
As for "alt-right", you've reminded me, the person not only called me "far-right", they said, "far-right, or, alt-right", suggesting they didn't even have the definition clear in their minds.
After that, I decided to look into these definitions further. From what I can gather, "alt-right" has been branded as "white nationalists", "white supremacists", and by extension, "neo-nazi".
I'm unsure whether those descriptions of the "alt-right" reflect reality, but, given the way the MSM & social media works, it's certainly possible that this was a typical smear campaign, because untrue claims about right-leaning people and movements are made all the time (i.e., without any or very little basis in reality).
It seems the people who started the "alt-right" movement were quickly exiled/cancelled, and it has consequently made it more difficult to check/verify the claims that they are "white nationalists".
I found the names of some of these people, but, searching for their books/source literature, to see what they were actually about, has become tricky. Found the names of some books, but, couldn't find any copies (digital or physical).
white nationalist/supremacists etc isnt that what far right is? How is that different to alt right??
That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.
I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.
So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".
The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.
By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.
As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.
In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day Right-leaning person wants "radical change", aside from a few keys areas (see below), and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".
The only reasonable "radical changes" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, Right-leaning people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.
These "radical changes" are about restoring society to be more functional, moral, & stable (i.e., having a net effect that is the opposite of "radical"), like it would have been prior to the "woke"/Marxist subversion of The West, and, prior to the wide-spread corruption by the elites. In other words, the average Right-leaning person wants to preserve/conserve our way of life.
The "far-left", aka, the "radical left", clearly want very radical changes to Western society. They are for revolution. If their agenda comes to fruition, America and The West will effectively cease to be America and The West as we know it to be. Society as a whole would radically change. We can go through many examples of that.
They openly state this as their goal, see for instance, Obama's speech prior to entering office, where he said something to the effect of "we are going to fundamentally change America".
As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.
lol wow. Well i dont care what they want to label me as. I'd rather be far right than far left.
That's one way to go about it.
Personally, I like to really dig in, learn a bunch about whatever the topic is, during which process, my opinion may change or become more nuanced. After that, I feel way more confident in my position, rather than relying on my gut or what I vaguely remember from someone else.
At a gut level, I knew being labelled "far right" wasn't accurate, but at that time, I wasn't that deep into politics yet, and so, wasn't able to rebuttal well.