alt is reactionary

its to mean you nonestablisment verson of a political spectrum

because multiple consiterations put people on the same point of a political compass

the establishment is irrelevant to the spectrum

its not irrelevant to how people collectivize outside the spectrum

if the "alt-right" just mean they want an ethno-state.... then theyre white nationalists... which is on the authoritarian scale

thats not what the alt-right "just mean"s though which is why they arnt that

also ethnonationalism isint the same thing as white nationalism

they still fit on the spectrum.. theres no need for "alt"

you could have a "party" called the alt-right ... but the spectrum is the spectrum

alt doesent define a position on the spectrum it defines a position of people who are on the same spectrum as other people but disagree fundomentally

its simply a reactionist group against establishment

which are no better defined as a whole than "alt"

thing is ... right has nothing to do with anything about ethnicity... its merely an economical scale

basically what they are... if they are capitalist ... they are auth-right...

the broader political scale takes into consiteration more than economics, whether or not it should is a matter of debate but anyone who has taken a political compass test can assert that more than economical questions are asked

yes, thats for auth and libertarian scales too

which is the social scale

watch the political compass' intro video... it actually explains it all there

most of the time alt righters tend to simply consiter themselves conservitives who arnt neo-cons

the only thing I would say polComp got wrong in my opinion.. is when it said "100% left" means the government would control all services etc .. when really that would be "100% auth, 100% left" .. whereas you could have 100% lib, 100% left where there may not be a government

but although we've had many instances of 100% auth left and right civilisations which went badly... Im not sure there are any examples of "100% lib left or right"

ancaps or ancons?

there wouldn't be because then it wouldn't be a civilization

we havent had many anarchys

it could still be a civ

can't have a civilization without borders really, because how would you define where it starts and ends?

you'd also need to define a scale

inb4 gypsies, thats a stretch of the definition of nation

I suppose the native americans could be seen as 100% lib

native americans had territorys

but, they had their own tribes, a form of government

how big or small can something be

you could have a household or town that is 100% lib, does it count?

the idea that native americans didint beleive in the ownership of land is a myth in many cases and in others its because they had just recently gone through a territorial war

how could they not believe in ownership of land and want their land back?

what the native americas had more issue with was changing the land from what it was into something that it wasent and messing with the ecology they had grown dependent on

like with the railroad or overhunting

perhaps even building settlements seemed strange to them, but they KNEW who's land was the land of different tribes

thats why you found markers made by them

maybe in 30 years muslims will let you have your own bit of land with a casino