So I was just talking to a friend of mine who's somewhat connected in alt-right circles. He gave me this whole theory about the alt-right that I find hard to believe but honestly it has some ring of truth to it.
Basically he said that the alt-right is a bunch of people who were bullied badly as kids, internalized the bully tactics (name calling, cool posturing etc) and never got over them. Seeing the severe effects these tactics had on them as kids, they started using them as adults in a bid to demoralize their political enemies like the school bullies did to them.
He went on to point out how much alt-right tactics resemble high school bully tactics, as they basically consist of insults that insinuate weakness, intended to emasculate. Examples include basedboy, cuck, beta, etc.
He then pointed out to me that most alt-righters, despite posturing as alphas, are actually rather subhuman. He listed examples, including:
* Vox Day (looks like a washed up alcoholic or drug addict)
* Matt forney (lardass)
* Hiter (homeless).
* Andrew Anglin (manlet with mongoloid features).
* Etc.
He then went on to say that this is all based on the same psychology that the far left is based on. Whereas the far left are privileged rich kids larping as poor minorities in order to get minorities to vote for them, the far right are a bunch of loser degenerates larping as chads to get chads to align with them. He said that both philosophies are pretty much built on projection and deserve to be treated as mental illnesses, not authentic ideologies.
I asked him which ideologies are legitimate. He said that in today's society the only credible belief system that is held by mature adults is a bedrock classical liberalism with some social democratic features to alleviate poverty, and he emphasized "there is no real debate among intelligent people, only the classlib-socdem synthesis is remotely credible, all the other ones are temper tantrums at best, mass psychoses at worst."
Is he right pol?