Milo's "How to destroy the Alt-Right" Speech

[martybegan]

See?

Classic denial. What a useful idiot you are.

The only idiocy here is in your insipid posting.

 

[martybegan]

God forbid a conservative should admit we have a Nazi problem in our ranks and start kicking them in the fucking nuts.

No, let's laugh at how stupid the liberals are instead while the stormtroopers have free reign in our midst. Brilliant!

ZOMG NAZI'S!!!!

So if a Nazi likes firefighters to fight fires, and I like firefighters to fight fires, THAT MAKES ME A NAZI SUPPORTER!!!!

What a fucking moron you are.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Milo should kiss his boyfriend in front of some alt-righties and see what happens.

he showed a gay porn clip during he speech jackass, again read the fucking link, tard.

Wow I guess the GOP's come a really long way. Now you all are cheering gay porn being shown at your speeches? Isn't that something

It was fucking hilarious, he was pointing out why he really isn't part of the "alt-right"

I said GOP, not alt-right.

 

[martybegan]

Milo should kiss his boyfriend in front of some alt-righties and see what happens.

he showed a gay porn clip during he speech jackass, again read the fucking link, tard.

Wow I guess the GOP's come a really long way. Now you all are cheering gay porn being shown at your speeches? Isn't that something

It was fucking hilarious, he was pointing out why he really isn't part of the "alt-right"

I said GOP, not alt-right.

Considering you idiots are trying to lump the two together, my point stands.

 

[g5000]

Nazis don't like to be called "racist". They want to be called "racialists". They laugh oh so smugly among themselves every time some libtard mistakenly calls them "racist" instead of a "racialist".

As if there's a difference.

What's funny is that Hitler had nothing but scorn for the racialist movement in Germany. He felt they didn't have the balls to do what, in his opinion, needed to be done. He saw them as whiners, not doers.

That's the thing about extremism. When the extremists take over, they become ever MORE extreme, eventually eating their own. The little maniac who was the tiniest part of the extremist minority ends up eating the flesh of the guys who gave the movement its momentum. See: French Revolution. See: Hitler's rise to power.

When the time comes, it won't be enough to be a "racialist", you better grab a Jew or a homo or a darkie and toss him in the gas chamber if you want to keep your flag pin.

Goodbye, Milo, you fag degenerate Jew.

The Nazis which have infected the Right have blinded the useful idiots to their true nature. They have the rubes focused on the "Socialism" in "National Socialism", to convince them that Nazis must be left wing. "Duhhhhh...because Socialism".

Quite possibly the most hilarious con job perpetrated on rubes ever. Well, it would be funny if it wasn't so goddam dangerous.

In this way, the racist/racialist/white supremacist/nationalist part of being a Nazi, which is by FAR the biggest part of being a Nazi, is slipped into the Right's rhetoric, little by little, completely unnoticed.

"We can't be turning into Nazis, because Nazis are left wing!"


The pseudocons don't even realize all their bitching and moaning about "multiculturalism" is straight out of Mein Kampf.

Like I said. Idiots.

 

[g5000]

God forbid a conservative should admit we have a Nazi problem in our ranks and start kicking them in the fucking nuts.

No, let's laugh at how stupid the liberals are instead while the stormtroopers have free reign in our midst. Brilliant!

ZOMG NAZI'S!!!!

So if a Nazi likes firefighters to fight fires, and I like firefighters to fight fires, THAT MAKES ME A NAZI SUPPORTER!!!!

What a fucking moron you are.

Says the guy who just used a false analogy.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Milo should kiss his boyfriend in front of some alt-righties and see what happens.

he showed a gay porn clip during he speech jackass, again read the fucking link, tard.

Wow I guess the GOP's come a really long way. Now you all are cheering gay porn being shown at your speeches? Isn't that something

It was fucking hilarious, he was pointing out why he really isn't part of the "alt-right"

I said GOP, not alt-right.

Considering you idiots are trying to lump the two together, my point stands.

The alt-right is currently in charge of the GOP. Why wouldn't we lump them together?

 

[320 Years of History]

"The media desperately wants to define the alt-right by the worst 5 percent of its members. They take the genuinely anti-semitic racists — the stormfronters or Stormfags, the 1488ers, the Andrew Auernheimers — and use them to define the whole movement."
-- Milo Yiannopoulos


Be that as it may, the remaining 95% aren't particularly denouncing that section of the movement. Consider Trump having been endorsed by racists. Did the man denounce them? No, he disavowed them. The two actions are not equivalent for even though they are denotatively similar, they are connotatively quite different. The former both repudiates and declares something/someone as evil, deplorable, worthy of scorn. The latter merely says "I won't allow myself to be held responsible for what 'so and so' says or does." The difference is one of degree. As goes the Alt Right movement, what its leadership have failed to realize in its lack of admonishment of the "foul 5%" is that approbation by acquiescence is assent.

As an aside, whether the deplorable segment of the movement is indeed just 5% of its membership is open to question. It seems to me that were the Alt Right's fulsome membership merely 5%, the resounding fulmination of their existence in the Alt Right by the remaining 95% would be stentorian as to give no plausible basis for defining the Alt Right by the "foul 5%."

Now it may be that the majority of the Alt Right mete meaningless the five percent's role and presence. So be it if be so, but that's not how the group is seen from others looking at it, and what those others see incenses them. If or when the majority of the movement make a point of discarding all mien of misanthropy among their ranks, the Alt Right can move past being define by the minority of the movement.

 

[HenryBHough]

When there is no longer freedom of speech nobody will complain about it.

 

[2aguy]

In it he gives progressives the way to get rid of the alt-right for good, and along the way he rightly states that alt-right is a title given by progressives to try to lump a conservative movement with white nationalism.


FULL TEXT: 'How To Destroy The Alt Right' By MILO - Breitbart

Some excerpts.

The media desperately wants to define the alt-right by the worst 5 percent of its members. They take the genuinely anti-semitic racists — the stormfronters or Stormfags, the 1488ers, the Andrew Auernheimers — and use them to define the whole movement. The left is obsessed by white supremacy, which in reality makes up an infinitesimally small number of people.

I’d prefer we had no identity politics at all and that we judged people, as someone once said, not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. But if you’re going to have identity politics, you have to have them for everybody.

You might not like the result.

The younger, millennial members of the alt-right are, for the most part, not white nationalists. But they’re being pushed toward racial humor by the progressive left.

Edward Rooney is the Dean of students in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. He’s a ****. It doesn’t matter that he’s probably in the right that Bueller shouldn’t be dicking around town on a schoolday, but the audience doesn’t care. They want him to lose, and Ferris to win, because Ferris is likeable and Rooney is a ****.

For some unknown reason, the establishment has decided that the best way to fight the alt-right is to adopt the a rhetoric that sounds exactly like that over-controlling teacher that everyone hates. They are the shouting dad in Twisted Sister’s “We’re Not Gonna Take It.” They are Edward Rooney. The alt-right, on the other hand, are the Ferris Buellers of the internet, the merry, likeable pranksters that everyone roots for.

“If you spend 75 years building a pseudo-religion around anything – an ethnic group, a plaster saint, sexual chastity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster – don’t be surprised when clever 19-year-olds discover that insulting it is now the funniest fucking thing in the world. Because it is”

The establishment has done exactly that. They’ve built a religion around left-wing identity politics, complete with blasphemous words and excommunication. And, surprise surprise, shattering those quasi-religious taboos has become hilarious for a huge section of the youth.

The thing I most hate about the Left is that they want to stop us laughing – to prescribe which jokes are okay and which are not okay to make in public and to draw artificial lines around certain subjects. I find all sorts of inappropriate things funny. Islam, trannies, AIDS.

Milo is great....

 

[2aguy]

"The media desperately wants to define the alt-right by the worst 5 percent of its members. They take the genuinely anti-semitic racists — the stormfronters or Stormfags, the 1488ers, the Andrew Auernheimers — and use them to define the whole movement."
-- Milo Yiannopoulos


Be that as it may, the remaining 95% aren't particularly denouncing that section of the movement. Consider Trump having been endorsed by racists. Did the man denounce them? No, he disavowed them. The two actions are not equivalent for even though they are denotatively similar, they are connotatively quite different. The former both repudiates and declares something/someone as evil, deplorable, worthy of scorn. The latter merely says "I won't allow myself to be held responsible for what 'so and so' says or does." The difference is one of degree. As goes the Alt Right movement, what its leadership have failed to realize in its lack of admonishment of the "foul 5%" is that approbation by acquiescence is assent.

As an aside, whether the deplorable segment of the movement is indeed just 5% of its membership is open to question. It seems to me that were the Alt Right's fulsome membership merely 5%, the resounding fulmination of their existence in the Alt Right by the remaining 95% would be stentorian as to give no plausible basis for defining the Alt Right by the "foul 5%."

Now it may be that the majority of the Alt Right mete meaningless the five percent's role and presence. So be it if be so, but that's not how the group is seen from others looking at it, and what those others see incenses them. If or when the majority of the movement make a point of discarding all mien of misanthropy among their ranks, the Alt Right can move past being define by the minority of the movement.

Hilary was endorsed by communists....the movement responsible for murdering 100 million innocent men, women and children around the world....and she had the father of the Orlando shooter , who murdered 49 people and injured 50 others...in a prominent position during one of her rallies.....

So spare us the fake Trump is a racist...crap...

The Alt-right is an actual Free Speech movement....unlike the left's movement in the 1960s that was really only "Free Speech for Lefties, everyone else shut up..."

 

[2aguy]

...and along the way he rightly states that alt-right is a title given by progressives...

Wrong, retard.

Alt-Right is a name they gave themselves. It was coined by Richard Spencer in 2008.

Alternative Right. Alt-Right. They want to be seen as an alternative to the conservative movement. They are white supremacists. Nazis.

Wake the fuck up, idiot. They have been infecting the Right for years. Their poison has been bleeding into the rhetoric of pseudocons for quite some time now. I've been pointing it out for a long time.

As long as you are fooled into bleeving a lie, you will be drinking their piss.

It's time to kick you tards and the Nazis to the curb.

First, go fuck yourself you gutless keyboard warrior.

Second, Its progressives that have tried to lump anyone right of center and not dog and pony conservative into the label of "alt-right". Even if the more actual racist part of the "alt-right" coined the term, its progressives that have expanded it to the current definition.

Third, again, go fuck yourself, bitch tits.

Fourth, Really, go fuck yourself.

It can't be helped you are too stupid to know the difference between the truth and the piss in your cup.

They call themselves the Alt Right. It is not a label made up by the Left, moron.

In the photo below is Richard Spencer, holding an Alt Right press conference. Notice the sign. Notice they even have a logo!

It is what they coined, and what they proudly call themselves.

At the press conference, the Alt Right spokesman talked about the inferiority of blacks, the virtues of white supremacy, and what a great leader Donald Trump is.

Retard.

Yes....as Richard Spencer mentioned in an interview...if you want to know if he is a racist...ask his Persian wife...... you lefties are such morons.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and along the way he rightly states that alt-right is a title given by progressives...

Wrong. That is a lie.

Alt-Right is a name they call themselves. It was coined by Richard Spencer in 2008.

Alternative Right. Alt-Right. They want to be seen as an alternative to the conservative movement. They are white supremacists. Nazis.

Wake the fuck up, idiot. They have been infecting the Right for years. Their poison has been bleeding into the rhetoric of pseudocons for quite some time now. I've been pointing it out for a long time.

As long as you are fooled into bleeving a lie, you will be drinking their piss.

It's far past time to kick the Nazis and their useful idiots to the curb.

^ Never made a single Alt Right post until St Hillary ordered him on 8/25/16

 

[320 Years of History]

"Hilary was endorsed by communists....the movement responsible for murdering 100 million innocent men, women and children around the world....and she had the father of the Orlando shooter , who murdered 49 people and injured 50 others...in a prominent position during one of her rallies.....

So spare us the fake Trump is a racist...crap..."

I don't care that "so and so" endorsed someone. I know that one can't do a damn thing about who finds favor with one. I care about how the person endorsed handled it once it happened. One thing a politician can do is refrain from espousing policies of which haters approve because those policies will advance their hateful ends. Another thing a candidate/politician can do is make sure his/her party/policies/proposals do not provide the haters with a reason to endorse them.

And how does one do that? One does it by considering the full spectrum of impacts a given policy can reasonably be expected to have. One does it by openly giving credence to the downsides of one's policy/proposals and showing in spite of those downsides, the upsides outweigh the cons, most especially in consideration of the dimensions that gain approbation among the haters.

Take an economic policy position: the preference for free trade or protected trade, both being positions for which there are upsides for racial haters. If a candidate is of a mind to show the benefits of their stance, no matter which a candidate aims to implement, they must directly identify the provisions they'd implement as part of their trade strategy/position to mitigate the racial, sex/gender, religious, etc. impacts of their policy. The candidate needs to openly say something akin to:

I know why the haters support me. It's because I espouse 'such and such' policy. I understand that the approach I propose carries the risk that 'such and such' individuals/groups will be adversely affected and 'here's' my plan for mitigating those negative effects and making sure that risk does not materialize into a reality.​

By doing that, the candidate lets voters know they've fully considered the topic and they understand it. They build trust by doing that. You see, everyone knows (or at least they should) that no strategy is singularly perfect for everyone. Similarly, most folks know multiple effective strategies exist. With either strategy, folks can easily see the upsides and everyone likes the upsides. What folks want to know is the downsides, how they will be affected by them, and what approach will the leader in question use to mollify them.

Getting back to the matter of being endorsed by opprobrious individuals, anyone who deems those individuals and what they stand for reprehensible will rightly ask, "Well, what is it about the candidate's policies that makes the candidate appealing to those individuals?" The candidate can either address that head-on, and by doing so assuage folks' concerns, or they cannot. Trump has not.

Now as for the specific endorsements that Trump and Mrs. Clinton have received from despicable individuals and groups, there is a huge distinction in the significance of the deplorably sourced endorsements they've received. Mrs. Clinton has received endorsement from lone individuals who do not and have never been accorded or seen as leaders of and speakers for anything, most especially thousands of individuals who've aligned themselves with socially odious organizations. In contrast, Trump has several endorsements from those organizations, and that by association means that thousands, maybe millions, of folks who cotton to those groups' ideals see Trump as the candidate who'll advance their values and objectives' coming to fruition.

Given the scope of meaning and relevance of the two types of endorsements, Mrs. Clinton is right to merely ignore, say, the "Pulse" shooter's father's endorsement. It's meaningless beyond being an indication that man will likely vote for her; it says little to nothing that's credible about how anyone other than that man will vote and why Mrs. Clinton appeals to them. The same simply cannot be said of the endorsements from David Duke, who is a former KKK leader, the current KKK organization, and the other race-based hate groups that find favor with Trump and find indulgence by him and his party.


So in closing, it may well be that the Alt Right and Trump are thoroughly disgusted by the haters in the GOP/Alt Right. If that is so, they'd do well to make that clear to folks who have doubts about that being so. Thus far, neither Trump, the Alt Right nor the GOP have made a concerted effort to make their unwillingness to suffer bigots' contumelious participation in and affiliation with their party/wing of the party.

 

[martybegan]

God forbid a conservative should admit we have a Nazi problem in our ranks and start kicking them in the fucking nuts.

No, let's laugh at how stupid the liberals are instead while the stormtroopers have free reign in our midst. Brilliant!

ZOMG NAZI'S!!!!

So if a Nazi likes firefighters to fight fires, and I like firefighters to fight fires, THAT MAKES ME A NAZI SUPPORTER!!!!

What a fucking moron you are.

Says the guy who just used a false analogy.

it's actually 100% correct. just because some of us want controlled borders doesn't mean we hate mexicans, we just don't want them coming here uninvited.

 

[martybegan]

he showed a gay porn clip during he speech jackass, again read the fucking link, tard.

Wow I guess the GOP's come a really long way. Now you all are cheering gay porn being shown at your speeches? Isn't that something

It was fucking hilarious, he was pointing out why he really isn't part of the "alt-right"

I said GOP, not alt-right.

Considering you idiots are trying to lump the two together, my point stands.

The alt-right is currently in charge of the GOP. Why wouldn't we lump them together?

No, it isn't.