A chap called Ricky Vaughn posted this to Gab:
No Reagan or Thatcher. No Paul Joseph Watson or Stefan Molyneux either.
“Ah, it’s a homage to The Beatles’ Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover. How clever.” I thought.
“Let’s see who’s here.”
“Well there’s Nige, Ron Paul, Pepe (of course), Ann Coulter, Milo, Harambe (heh!), Joseph McCarthy, Scott Adams. All good or good-ish stuff. Well maybe not Pepe. Or Harambe.”
“Who’s that skulking in the shadows?”
“Oh shit, it’s that Norwegian mass murderer!”
“And hang about that’s Gaddafi!”
“And that’s…”
By my count it’s 4 tyrants, 1 fascist leader, 2 mass murderers and 1 serial killer. And that’s the ones I recognise.
The disturbing thing is that this image may well be accurate. These people represent the intellectual (stop sniggering. Seriously, stop sniggering) underpinnings of the Trump presidency. Obviously, there are serious differences which will probably lead to serious subsidence.
But there are things that unite them. With the exception of Farage, I cannot think of any who would have been on the right side of history in 1939. Which is remarkable. Even Neville Chamberlain got that one right.
They are also united by a loathing of the establishment. Which I loathe too. The UN, the EU, the welfare state, crony capitalism, fiat money, political correctness, climate alarmism, regulation after regulation after regulation: they’ve all got to go. But in all of that happening all sorts of other things may happen. One can only hope those things are nearer the Farage than Mosley end of the spectrum.
Thomas Mair, the right wing terrorist who murdered the MP Jo Cox, seems to be missing as well.
Meh, this is mostly bullshit. I am on record saying how unenthusiastic I am about Trump, but how does one tie Anders Breivik in with Trump? And a Nazi general?
I think this sums up the alt-right = neo-Nazi crap for me.
Dale from King of the Hill is a +1. 😛
Wondering if there is a hidden meaning behind having Ben Carson and Rudy Giuliani twice (younger and older)?
Stephen Bannon, the power behind Trump’s throne – the man who walks behind the man and whispers in his ear – is an “interesting” character. Here’s what he had to say about capitalism:
Yep, only many of the people who more or less associate themselves with the AltRgiht are not necessarily against welfare state or regulation, as long as in their mind these benefit the right people. And that certainly includes Trump, who may or may not associate himself with them, but they seem to associate him with themselves and their agenda – varied as it may be, whether he likes it or not (to be fair, he doesn’t seem to mind).
Good find Pollo, that does not surprise me. As I have been saying, it has been fun hearing all the lefties squeal but it has been a very expensive cheap thrill. Trump is not a promoter of liberty or prosperity. The fact we share many enemies should not blind us to the fact he is also the enemy.
This is meme war stuff. He isn’t defining alt-right. He’s crushing the leftist amygdala.
Alt-right was meant as right, but not the standard Republican tradition of continually losing to the left.
But as long a trolling continues to work, and leftists riot for this or that delusional reason, there will be folks happily attempting to trigger them. Trolls know, since they were people once, that peoples’ patience wears thin as riots and outbreaks of general stupidity happen.
Perry: The only problem I have with that picture is that it should read “neo-nazi as a slur for the alt-right”, because I don’t think anyone’s calling the Ukrainians “alt-right”. But otherwise, it’s a thing of beauty.
And FWIW, I think a decent number of them would have been on the right side of history in 1939, at least in sentiment(I can’t ask them to declare war, since FDR was the least neutral neutral in history, and he still didn’t dare declare war until Pearl Harbor). Bannon and Trump probably wouldn’t have been, but the boot-lickers mostly would. Insofar as Christie or Giuliani have any principles left after this year’s repeated debasements, I suspect they’d have both been incandescent at Hitler’s invasions, and both of them do angry really well.
Is that the prejudice of mindless blobs I see?
So a collection of certain murderous, undesirables with a posse of current personalities with whom self-selected ‘interlekshuals’ disagree, and they all share a common root which defines them? What?
How exactly do Gadaffi and Anders Loony of Norway go together, for example… what do they have in common that defines them?
No, but they have been calling them neo-Nazi for three years (for having the temerity to overthrow Putin’s proxy in Kyiv) even when the ‘far-right’ polls less in Ukraine than it does in France. That is the point being made and why it is analogous.
I’ll follow up on Alsadius here.
Tell me explicitly what defines the “Alt Right” and the specific unifying characteristics of the group (or subgroups) possess, and I’ll tell you if I agree with the montage.
“Alt-Right” is simply the new term for the people who used to be called “Fascists” now that being called a fascist has ceased to have the capacity to shame its recipient. Expect all your copies of the Newspeak Dictionary to be reissued with a more refined “B Group” lexicon in the near future.
Man, that edit window closes so fast …
The “Alt-Right” *seems* to me to be a loose confederation of cultural (somewhat active) iconoclasts, dissatisfied with the trajectory of present day society, who are attempting to co-opt the political ‘right’, seeing it as an easier host to occupy/infiltrate than the left. Their broad tactics are confrontational rather than accomodative, and they reject being labelled and shamed.
As a loose confederation of interests, they attract their fair share of nutjobs and adherents with somewhat unsavory views, and taking the confrontational approach I note above, they are obviously very easy to be exploited and magnified in their representation by the media.
If you accept my broad definition of the “Alt-Right”, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that whatever the ideological composition of the group is, whatever the proportion of nutjobs is, it’s being overrepresented in media reporting.
Furthermore, if the definition I provided above is a reasonable representation of the “Alt-Right”, then the montage of deplorables presented on that album cover is clearly bunk. As I noted above, what it really represents is a list of people that “nice people” are being told are beyond the pale.
As black propaganda goes, it probably rates a C-.
In other words, Stephen Bannon opposes actual capitalism 🙄 No surprise really.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda,
IMHO, of course:
Alisa,in TODAY’S offering, I’m hard pressed to find more weasel word “might haves”,citing phantoms, cascading farther and farther from a uesful observation.
“Other folks” Title IX “suggestions”, and woman’s rape crisis/ PP ACA economics- statistical data aside of course.
I’ve seen you do better.
“THIS collage means…”
Somebody has way to much free time, and an addled “interpretation” gene, on their hands.
Are we SURE it wasn’t done by Dan Rather?
the whole alt right = nazi thing is based upon the lie that ethnic nationalism and national socialism are synonymous: they are not.
As Ben Shapiro has pointed out the intellectual foundation of the alt-right rests on the notion that culture is inseparable from race, but to claim this is the same thing as Nazism is just a leftist smear.
Alt-right = everybody who is not a progressive. Are we clear now?
Pinochet whom I see in there was solidly against the Argies in 1982 (and 1978), and the Argies then were sweet money/in-bed-with-Peru-and-the-Soviets, so I don’t think that he was on the wrong side of history then or in 1939 as a young Chilean Army officer, nor doubtless would he have been, had he been more senior back then.
I’d never heard of the alt-right until this election cycle. Or more specifically, not until I learned of the magnificent Milo and his alleged connection to it.
From what I can tell, Bod has it quite right when he writes:
Milo himself has written a lengthy Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right over at Breitbart that seems to support Bod’s explanation.
One harks back to Orwell’s comment about the meaning of ‘fascism’.
“How exactly do Gadaffi and Anders Loony of Norway go together, for example… what do they have in common that defines them?”
They both cause some smarmy and dishonest beyotch to giggle with glee when he can put them into a picture with Trump.
This was born of the same intellectual impulse that created the “Podesta is running a child porn ring” meme in the Stormfront crowd.
Well not to worry. The alt-right is fringe.
The alt-left is mainstream.
http://classicalvalues.com/2016/11/well-how-about-the-alt-left/
And the alt-right is not what it used to be.
Medical = Medical Cannabis
North Dakota – Trump 64.1 Hillary 27.8 – Medical 63.7 yes 36.3 no
Florida – Trump 49.1 Hillary 47.8 – Medical 71.3 yes 28.7 no
Arkansas – Trump 60.4 Hillary 33.8 – Medical 53.2 yes 46.8 no
Montana – Trump 56.5 Hillary 36.0 – Medical 57.6 yes 42.4 no
Oh and BTW, this Ricky Vaughn is a total wackjob anti-semitic conspiracy theorist who probably wishes his choice of inspirations was actually true.
Took the same route as Philip Scott Thomas and read the same Briebart article.
Getting very tired now of labels and sticking people in boxes, divisions and sub-divisions. Can’t we go back to being individuals. Judge folk not on who they are or what they say, but on what they actually do.
Someone has entirely too much free time on his hands.
Yes Alisa.
A lot of the people who supported Donald Trump like Big Government – as long as it is Big Government for “our people”.
That was where the hatred for Ted Cruz really came down to – the fear that he actually did want a smaller government.
No President Trump is NOT some sort of Racist or a Fascist dictator – but his first order of business looks like being another “infrastructure” orgy of spending.
Just like Mr Obama in 2009.
I have lived too long – much too long.
Life is a bore.
Quoted for truth.
Are we still putting forward the ridiculous notion that Nazism belongs on the right side of the political aisle?
Only in Weimar Germany, 1933 … where the left side is actual unreconstructed Communists.
Any other place, Nazis are firmly on the left. Socialism, remember.
I should point out there is a fair bit of self deprecating humor and inside jokes in this. Part of the joke is playing up to how lefties and normies see them. That said probably the most active and dedicated part of the alt right are those for whom ‘gas the kikes race war now!’ is less hyperbolic irony aimed at harvesting Politically correct tears and more a mild exaggeration of their position.
It’s the age of the pejorative prefix. A movement or stance is fringe, and hence bad, if it sports NEO or ALT before its name. The leftist strategy to dismiss certain conservatives by labelling them neo-cons has spread to calling a whole different set of conservatives alt-right. In both cases, the intent was/is to convey that these are dangerous loonies… loonies who happen to be coming soon to a White House too near you. As a repetitious strategy it would be just thoroughly boring except when you notice that the targeting system is aiming your way…
Disturbing instance: the definition of neo-liberal seems to be changing. I always took it to mean some offshoot of modern liberalism, but Wikipedia, the Washington Post and others are pushing another definition altogether: US. I.e., classical liberals. We are now neo-liberals. Beware the rubber stamp coming your way…
Didn’t we go through all this before with “Neo-Con” a few years back?
Edit: sorry didn’t read the last comment (above).
Criticism of Trump and of the Alt Right based on a made up picture. Remarkable.
I’m planning to put together a picture of Patrick Crozier with: Stalin, Fred West, the Dalai Lama, Pinochet, Delia Smith, Mao, Tony Blair, Bobby Charlton, Assad pere et fils, Meryl Streep, Princess Diana and Richie McCaw.
A chance for limitless speculation, most of which will be as good as the speculation in this article.
@Myno
For as long as I can remember, ‘neo-liberal’ has meant classical liberal, with an implied pejorative sneer. It’s the only example I can think of where ‘neo-‘ really means paleo-. Weird.
Not the same thing, Myno: the name AltRight originates from the AltRight itself – unlike neo-liberal, which as you say has been invented by the Left.
“That was where the hatred for Ted Cruz really came down to – the fear that he actually did want a smaller government.”
Given a first-rate mind combined with a non-vote-winning personality and a smaller-government mindset, I can’t think of anyone better to fill the Scalia seat. He’d never have to worry about making friends again, but we’d love him anyway. Ginsburg and Breyer would probably quit in disgust, so it would all be good.
“The right” is casually used of both Margaret Thatcher and Adolf Hitler. (Yes I know, National Socialist, but that is where he is routinely placed.)
“The left” is casually used of both James Callaghan and Joseph Stalin. (For anyone who does not know, James Callaghan was the PM that Maggie beat. He was also the guy who dared to tell the Labour party that Keynesianism didn’t work.)
With definitions as expansive as that, you can certainly describe the ALT-RIGHT as containing both Andrew Breitbart and Anders Breivik. Except to assist left-wing propaganda, I doubt the value of doing so.
(Obviously, Joseph McCarthy looks out of place and Gaddafi looks ridiculous. Etc. This inclines me to suspect the picture is to assist left-wing propaganda.)
I completely agree with bobby b*: Cruz would make an ideal SC justice. A worthy successor to Scalia, and just possibly an improvement.
“It’s the age of the pejorative prefix.” Well said.
* Except, it must be noted, for his studied avoidance of capital letters! 🙂
If this picture tells us anything – and that’s a big “if” – then it’s that there is no clear and commonly-accepted definition of what “alt-right” actually means. It can be stretched to include people who have nothing in common beyond their hostility to the left-liberal establishment. Perhaps the defining feature of “alt-right” is that it’s the “impolite right”, who recognise that there is no point in engaging in a civil political discourse with leftists who want to permanently suppress all opposition by any means available.
It’s interesting that you pontificate about who would be on the “right side of history” in the war… While glossing over that McCarthy was a Marine in the war, and not for the Germans.
I know, I know, if you don’t have your comforting lies and quips to sooth yourself, you’ll end up in a safe space with the other snowflakes.
The alt right doesn’t give a fuck about your approval. Call us all of your names, and we will still win.
Joe McCarthy would have been no fan of the “Alt Right”.
Indeed the pro Nazi areas of Wisconsin tended to vote AGAINST Senator McCarthy.
Not a surprise as he started off as a Nazi hunter in politics – to McCarthy the Nazis and the Communists were the twin sides of the same coin.
And he was correct.
By the way the actual inventor of the “Alternative Right” was someone of Jewish background – Murray Rothbard’s friend Paul Gottfried.
It is Gottfried who came up with the “intellectual” stuff for the “Alt Right” – that Winston Churchill (and even Prime Minister Chamberlain) was an evil warmonger pushing an unjust or unnecessary war against Germany – and dragging America into this unjust or unnecessary war.
Even Murray Rothbard (who pushed the sickening propaganda of Harry Elmer Barnes) was from a Jewish “ethnic background”.
I suppose one bit of Alt Right doctrine is actually true – “The Jews” really are “at the bottom of everything”, including the Alt Right itself.