In the survey of Americans 18 to 34 years old, 58% say they have a favorable opinion about Black Lives Matter, an activist movement that grew from protests over the shooting deaths of unarmed African Americans. Among blacks, an overwhelming 81% have a favorable view, including 50% who are “very favorable.” Just 14% of blacks have an unfavorable opinion.
The alt-right movement, which includes groups on the far right, has gained attention recently because of the support for Donald Trump by some white supremacists and anti-Semites. But it is much less well-known among Millennials. Nearly half of those surveyed, 45%, say they don’t know enough about the alt-right to have an opinion of it, compared with just 8% who say that of Black Lives Matter.
Among those who express an opinion, 34% say they have a favorable opinion of the alt-right, 21% an unfavorable one.
Well, that is certainly not a biased report! Classing all police shootings of “unarmed” black males and associating racism and bigotry with the alt-right movement. For this reason, I reject the media. It first creates, then perpetuates incorrect stereotypes.
“Alt Right” is as fictional as a zombie apocalypse. It’s a way for the Clinton syndicate to tar all conservatives with a negative label without resorting to their old shopworn epithet “fascist”. It’s no wonder so many don’t know what it is. It’s meant to be vague and uncertainly applied to anyone.
The alt-right is real. It is a phenomenon where anti-Semitics, white supremecists, and neo nazis are currently supporting a specific candidate and harassing those who don’t. To claim it isn’t real would be ignoring actual harassment that people have received. It would be ignoring those who claim to be alt-right. Alt Right is a fringe movement, but loud and active.
And so I wrote in our group blog on National Review called The Corner that Ann Coulter was deliberately appealing to these people. And I - and basically and politely said this is something that’s inexcusable and it has no place in the conservative movement. And then I had no idea what was about to happen next. My Twitter feed basically exploded. I have - did not have that many followers - in the thousands, certainly not like the more prominent folks in politics, but it was unbelievable. I began to see images, for example, of my youngest daughter, who we adopted from Ethiopia many years ago, who at the time was 7 years old - images of her in a gas chamber with a - Donald Trump in an SS uniform about to push the button to kill her. I saw images of her Photoshopped or, you know, artist’s rendering of her face in slave fields.
The Alt-Right is real. I joined after I realized that any disagreement with a modern Leftist means that you are deemed a greedy, misogynistic, racist bigot.
Modern Leftism draws heavily from Marxist class warfare and needs a villain, in this case, straight white males. The only way not to be considered a bigot is to shut up, accept your inherited guilt, and atone for the “sins” of people who resembled you by working for the agendas of other people to the detriment of your own interests.
They want straight, white, male villains, and so they shall have them.
It depends what you mean by alt-right. My idea (perhaps wrong) is that the alt-right are tech savvy people who use media to criticise the progressive left. Very often they have come from the left themselves and can’t stomach the ideological doublespeak anymore.
There is not much continuity between the Democrats and Republicans of the 19th century and the Democrats and Republicans of today. There is more continuity between the geographical and ideological factors of the KKK. The KKK was supported by the “Dixiecrats” from the South who had a strong “states’ rights” ideology. Those same people abandoned the Democratic party over the civil rights movement, and became Republicans, who dominate the South to this day. So it is quite disingenuous to blame today’s Democrats for the KKK.
BLM is a creation of George Soros … and funded by Soros.
It is quite extraordinary to imagine that any one person could surreptitiously create a grass-roots movement like BLM. It is just not possible to motivate so many people unless they had that motivation to begin with. I do not doubt that Soros might have donated to the cause, but crediting him with the creation of the movement is something no reasonable person could believe.
That’s not wrong at all though. Many of those involved in the Alt-Right movement are self-identified fascists and are openly racist. The movement practically stems from neo-Nazi internet culture, websites like Stormfront and the Daily Stormer. It is very much a real thing, and with just a few seconds of googling you will find tons of self-identified alt-rightists on the internet. There is one in this very thread, in fact.
I agree that it’s disgusting that the Clinton campaign is trying to present itself as some kind of left-wing opposition to the Alt-Right, but the Alt-Right is a real movement (well, at least on the internet) and one that is mainly composed of fascists and their sympathisers.
He didn’t create the movement. It’s a grassroots movement, it isn’t clearly centralized enough for him to have orchestrated the whole thing. He may have donated to it, but if anything that will just placate the movement and make it less radical. Look at how radical the early LGBT movement was compared to today - a big part of it becoming less radical was it being co-opted by the establishment. Nowadays you’ll find Pride festivals being sponsored by Walmart.
I wish. The kind of liberal identity politics you are describing is not Marxist, in that it does not recognise class oppression as the foremost form of oppression. Oppression based on race, gender, sexuality and so on are real forms of oppression, but they are subsets of class. If these movements were really Marxist they would attack class society and capitalism before anything else, and recognise that the oppression they face is rooted in capitalism. For example, BLM would attack the high rates of poverty that black people face, recognise that this is the source of over policing and high crime rates, and acknowledge that this poverty cannot be ended within the confines of capitalism. Similarly, the LGBT movement would acknowledge the family as it currently exists as a product of capitalism, as an economic unit, and realise that the destruction of heteronormative family structures can only come with the destruction of capitalism. One of the most important parts of Marxist analysis is recognising class society as historically necessary, arising from actually existing material conditions, not as social constructs as things like gender and race are, and this isn’t something the liberal movements you described do. It is wrong to call them Marxist when they are staunchly anti-Marxist in their analysis of society.