The Alt Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios.

[gremcint]

So there's a really solid youtube series called the Alt Right Playbook that studies, analyzes and dissects the Alt Right, their mindset, tactics and goals. Ian the person making it has said he's still not sure what the best tactic for fighting them is but he helps to show why a lot of tactics don't work and in fact help them.

Despite the title this series is not Pro Alt Right, it's very much the opposite, just mentioning because a lot of people see the title and get apprehensive. He put up two new videos today one of the origin of conservativism and the other on what conservatives actually want and why fascists so easily attract them.

I've actually referenced the video series before in some of my replies but I figured with the new videos I'd give it it's own thread.

Previously this same person did a series that analyzed Gamergate called Why are You So Angry.

Anyways his videos are very digestible and well researched and pretty accurate so of course he gets shit from conservatives. This most recent video explains the assumptions that liberals have about cons and why they're wrong because they believe the hierarchy is the natural state and that people belong where they are.

here is the full playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGa...ANnTnzkA_HMFtQ

here is the examination of conservative beliefs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzN...HMFtQ&index=12

here is the origin of conservativism https://youtu.be/E4CI2vk3ugk?list=PL...ANnTnzkA_HMFtQ

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The problem with fighting the Alt-Right is it really requires liberals to do something they don't do well - check their infighting.

If you look at messages between people like Milo and Steve Bannon for example, you'll see a very concerted, concentrated effort to enact change or societal shifts. The left's habit of "we can guilt x into doing Y" only works quite often with people who are otherwise susceptible to that which is often other liberals and it's also not coming as an action "from" some source - it's a collective response of particular groups within liberalism.

So when we talk here about the differences between how a conservative might view a hierarchal system like capitalism vs. democracy, it's very easy to get them to fall in line.

With liberals, you sort of ... really have to keep in mind who your "enemy" is and act accordingly. It's largely the left's inability to do that so they bitch about Bill Maher (not the problem), Sam Harris (not the problem), Joe Rogan (not the problem), The Atlantic (which I found out today I'm supposed to have a problem with), University Professors you disagree with (not the problem), etc...

In that context its insanely easy for Bannon and Co. to pick up white blue-collar because that decentralized behavior on the left leaves two really ugly threads predominant - one ethnocentric and non-white which believes what it believes, and another more mainline but that sort of treats white blue-collar as a "problem to be solved" rather than, you know, just a portion of the population with their own needs while leaving that first group to pretty much do their thing. It's a political calculus that has specific results.

If I could get "all liberals" to behave in lockstep like conservatives though, I'd probably focus on 3 things.

1. Build out a rural radio network similar to conservative radio. Focus on centrist issues, not liberal ones (you can get there eventually but that conversation is hard right vs. nothing right now)
2. Do what you need to do to get the Berns and AOC's of the world to STOP ATTACKING CENTRISTS. Run liberal candidates where they can win. Run centrists where they can win.
3. Quit allowing liberal groups to inform press narratives of specific flashpoints. For example, when I listen to NPR and I hear the term Latinx when there isn't even cultural agreement amongst that demographic that that term is OK.

A lot of the reason you get "reactionary" behavior is when the reaction is to something where the benefit isn't really shown and the pain is. Like the Latinx example - it's easy to pick on because it originates in college where students have ephemeral skin in the game. It's not a terrible idea but it has some drawbacks - it is an English adoption of Spanish, it's clunky, but it does remove unnecessary gendering from the term.

But then it goes to the wild. All of a sudden, a large group of people are using the wrong word - one they may have used for 30-50 years and wasn't a slur. They have to change; they were not consulted (indeed a majority of the people who would fall into the latinx descriptor were not), and people are talking about their continuing use of the "wrong words" in racial or insulting ways. It's catnip for Brietbart and absolute poison for the left.

All of a sudden cogent defenses for "an idea" have to be mounted. People on the left have to "fall in line" on it lest they be labeled racist or centrist and thus beneath being heard at that point. And in "middle america" you essentially have working families that at some point in going to work and coming home 4 years in a row discovering they're being insensitive for using a word their hispanic coworkers don't even use nor ask them to use."

So a lot of what the left does to build the Alt Right is self-inflicted. It's stoppable, but on some level you have to get the buy off "maybe we focus on these 2-3 issues for the next decade and move the line, THEN we attack this other one".

Instead, the left really seems to have recently been on a "lets revisit anything and everything now and if we haven't examined THAT yet lets do that too" without any plan for "how do we get people who aren't used to this idea and their support" outside of we'll just change everything and they'll obviously see the benefit.