1,267
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + +
→Distinction from National Socialism (Nazism)
* Accuse Conservapedia of being pro-Communist for even ''using'' the word "racist" and "Nazi"
* Accuse Conservapedia of being pro-Communist for even ''using'' the word "racist" and "Nazi"
* Attack the Bible for suggesting that all humans of all colors are descendants of Noah, and falsely claims that Noah was only the father of the white man [http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Conservapedia][http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia]
* Attack the Bible for suggesting that all humans of all colors are descendants of Noah, and falsely claims that Noah was only the father of the white man [http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Conservapedia][http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia]
In addition, Metapedia has attacked President Donald Trump for having Jewish allies, acquaintances, friends, and family members, whom the wiki lists under the title, "Donald Trump's Jewish Friends and Associates." This list is under the "See Also" section in their article about the President, who is listed under the category, "Zionists." Note that Metapedia is fervently anti-Zionist. These are attempts to demonize Trump by linking him with a malicious, destructive Jewish plot which doesn't exist.
In light of such ideological differences, it is important to debate how often the term "alt-right" should be used by those who claim to follow the mainstream version of it. On one hand, the term is an accurate description (the mainstream "alt-right" are an ''alternative'' to RINOs). But on the other hand, since the term is most commonly attributed to neo-Nazi Richard B. Spencer, it might not be smart to proclaim to belong to a term associated with him unless you actually agree with his core positions, and doing so could be considered as ideologically dishonest as the left's hijacking of the term "liberal."
In light of such ideological differences, it is important to debate how often the term "alt-right" should be used by those who claim to follow the mainstream version of it. On one hand, the term is an accurate description (the mainstream "alt-right" are an ''alternative'' to RINOs). But on the other hand, since the term is most commonly attributed to neo-Nazi Richard B. Spencer, it might not be smart to proclaim to belong to a term associated with him unless you actually agree with his core positions, and doing so could be considered as ideologically dishonest as the left's hijacking of the term "liberal."